EDIT: I didn’t notice in the original post, the article is from 2023

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19707239

Researchers have documented an explosion of hate and misinformation on Twitter since the Tesla billionaire took over in October 2022 – and now experts say communicating about climate science on the social network on which many of them rely is getting harder.

Policies aimed at curbing the deadly effects of climate change are accelerating, prompting a rise in what experts identify as organised resistance by opponents of climate reform.

Peter Gleick, a climate and water specialist with nearly 99,000 followers, announced on May 21 he would no longer post on the platform because it was amplifying racism and sexism.

While he is accustomed to “offensive, personal, ad hominem attacks, up to and including direct physical threats”, he told AFP, “in the past few months, since the takeover and changes at Twitter, the amount, vituperativeness, and intensity of abuse has skyrocketed”.

  • @EximiusEnglish
    1•17 days ago
    1. You completely disregarded the paper.
    2. Completely disregarded peer review as a thing without any grounding.
    3. Went ad hominem as a hail marry.

    Bye.

    • @AlexanderTheDeadEnglish
      1•17 days ago

      Tell me more about how antivax scientists didn’t successfully publish a paper with tons of biases and nonsensical findings.

      • @EximiusEnglish
        0•16 days ago

        You’ll have to actually reference a published paper for that claim.

          • @EximiusEnglish
            1•13 days ago

            “[The paper] admitted that the research did not “prove” an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.”

            “He was reportedly asked to leave the Royal Free Hospital [around 2001] after refusing a request [presumably around 1999] to validate his 1998 Lancet paper with a controlled study.”

            You could say it took to long to retract the paper, which was essentially full of data-fudged “maybes”. But it supposedly was “science” until it was uncovered as just fraud.

            Apart from the data fudging, and intense bullshit and hype-train pushing by the now deregistered “professional” [fraudster].

            Sorry, this just shows the resillience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption.

            No lmao.

            • @AlexanderTheDeadEnglish
              0•12 days ago

              The paper wasn’t retracted until 2010 lol. The point is that fraudulent papers can be published.

              Still lmao.

              This just shows the resilience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption

              Uh… sure it does, buddy.

              • @EximiusEnglish
                1•11 days ago

                In just the same way you can get away from taxes by lying vehemently… he lost his job and reputation in less than three years.

                Since the paper itself was okay, but the data was falsified, obviously it was hard to prove the data was false until other studies not only showed it, but also his reputation was discredited and (presumably) investigations finished.

                Incorrect data can happen even to a good paper in good faith due to instrument error.

                The paper in question, again, was lots of “maybes” and no direct conclusions. The earth shattering conclusions were reached in press conferences where the guy lied vehemently, and the journalists ate it up like coke.