In the early 2000’s, when the Internet was truly opening up, Skeptics were able to post the reality of what was called anthropogenic global warming at the time. Then the Fascist cultists worked hard, especially through tech companies, to minimize the outreach of Skeptics. They continued to work to do this with outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. They can’t do that with Twitter anymore, and it makes them mad
Twitter has always been a hotspot for climate change misinformation.
Under new owner Elon Musk, falsehoods about the warming planet are whipping around the social media platform at a sizzling pace, according to a study of climate-related conversations shared exclusively with USA TODAY.
The new report echoes recent research showing a surge in climate misinformation since Musk bought the company in October.
Tweets using terms associated with climate denial such as “climate fraud,” “climate hoax” and “climate scam” more than tripled in 2022, up 300% from 2021, according to Advance Democracy, a research organization that studies misinformation.
The cultists cannot prove they are “falsehoods”, nor do they even try.
“Musk has openly encouraged attacks on mainstream science with his own posts, has brought back previously banned anti-science-promoting accounts and has altered the site algorithm in a way that greatly limits the reach of leading climate communicators,” Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, told USA TODAY.
Is it science if it cannot be questioned? If people cannot take it on?
Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy, says his research group also found increases on TikTok and YouTube.
“Last year, social media companies announced additional steps to combat the proliferation of climate change misinformation on their platforms. Despite these steps, Advance Democracy found that in almost all cases that the proliferation of climate change denialist content increased in the past year, and in many cases, dramatically so,” Jones told USA TODAY.
Warmists really do not like being questioned, nor will they abide anyone questioning their cult.
Twitter has always been a hotspot for climate change misinformation.
Yes is has. Mostly from groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and other similar panic puppies.
Funny how leftists get to call anything they disagree with misinformation yet nothing they promote has proven correct.
I just cannot take science seriously when the persons promoting said science are afraid to define a woman while claiming a male can menstruate. Their ignorance and denial of truth permeates everything. For example this:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxAeblshVi_QU7DEqciJWkk_8UbRB15RWHbxVpK7–oBFAL3PEy2b-bd5QcKI3Xi7-wp4jPZK-GhWJJVe4LAiTrQlNVlMED2vLUyUBppqO7ek98YX7g5tNXkrT8Gnve-fIHQllcHfwBuUQi5jRNs8Mr_qOwvqykMlBF_T2XibeAIlurvl4bn5tZewHEA/w502-h640/90mimb_4fc45ba638f6945253eb2cd09eb7de46_ff5d1954_540.jpg
That’s how science progresses. Of course the quote is from Mikey “Hockey-Stick” Mann, so his misunderstanding of how science works is understandable.
Censorship has always been a useful tool for the authoritarians, whether from the right or the left. We’ve seen enough, from the Nazis to the Soviets to the Chinese, to not be surprised anymore. What is surprising is when we see it from Americans, with our First Amendment and traditions of freedom of speech, because we just don’t expect that here. We expect Americans to support freedom and individual liberty.
Of course, not all Americans do support freedom and liberty, some are authoritarian at heart, and they reveal themselves when they do try to censor others. That’s why you see the same people trying to both shut down dissent and regulate individuals’ lives. Of course, they claim that it’s not oppression, but just actions For Our Own Good.
Easiest way to determine if a scientific article is crap is statics. Most medical article are full of stats, which have zero meaning. I thought this was my own ignorance until I have an astrophysicist assist me in evaluation. He had massive experience with stats but could not understand any of the articles presented. Also, just because it is peer reviewed means very little.