Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they're remarkably good
Dec 2019, phys.org
Alternative headline:
High stakes test, models perform well, good sign for the future of humanity?
image source: Carl Zeiss
Note:
Zeke Hausfather et al. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections, Geophysical Research Letters (2019).
DOI: 10.1029/2019GL085378
Partially Related Article:
The geoengineering of consent: How conspiracists dominate YouTube climate science content
July 2019, phys.org
In the last paragraph, a message from a passionate scientist says that Science needs to be more transparent, more open to communication with the public, and to use the massive channel to the public that youtube offers.
But the irony is that youtube is not a public entity. Neither is the internet the wild west it once was. It's monetized. That's a key point that seems to evade current discourse on this topic.
Videos that make people click will make more money. Posts that get shared make more money because they put the corresponding ad in front of more eyeballs. That's one half of the equation, the other half is that people love fake news. It's not like the National Enquirer hasn't been around for almost 100 years. so in the end, science can do all it wants try and combat conspiracy theories, but until the revenue scheme is changed, conspiracy theory stuff we always get more views.
(btw, The National Enquirer pays their sources, something other mainstream news organizations don't do as a matter of practice; should sound familiar to the above. They were also indicted but never charged on a count of sedition in 1942)
Joachim Allgaier, Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering, Frontiers in Communication (2019).
DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036
No comments:
Post a Comment