Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jfz9580m

(15,584 posts)
7. Yup
Thu Sep 26, 2024, 02:29 AM
Sep 26

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2024, 11:07 PM - Edit history (2)

I think you would appreciate the oped by Dr Collins I posted in another thread in a response to you OKIsItJustMe.

The problem of disinfo on complex topics has been on my mind a lot. Contrarianism on climate science is easy to dismiss by now. (Not that Björn Lomborg has shut up).

It is more complicated on topics related to some solutions. Our inaction thus far has made more scientists open to more drastic solutions. It is not that clear what the eventual honest scientific consensus will be on some of that (weather modification being an example). For non-experts, trying to guage the scientific consensus on those specific technologies is complicated by the fact that there probably aren’t very clear ones yet.

Public opinions on such topics cover a whole spectrum of views from genuinely inane panic over technology to brainless techno-optimism (think Elon Musk or similar lesser known, but fairly typical Si Valley fraudsters/creeps/hacks). It is that type which alarms me. Creeps like Musk are brainless, bullish and have far too much money and clout. Idiots like those would aggressively invest in anything that makes money in the short run whether it clears scientific bars re regulation and management or not. Adjacent to them are the RFK jr/Tulsi Gabbard meets Maga Brand of techno skeptic. Odd bedfellows at first glance, but not really when you think about it.

It makes the jobs/lives of honest scientists harder in every way. Look at how hard the pandemic was on poor Dr. Fauci.

The Audubon Society had a good piece a few years ago on the real versus bullshit threats birds face for instance:
https://www.audubon.org/news/no-5g-radio-waves-do-not-kill-birds

A respectable study was misrepresented to hype a bullshit threat to birds while real threats to birds like habitat destruction are ignored.

(Finally complicating matters there are also always important/serious contributions to these topics like these ;-/ :

https://newrepublic.com/article/181241/birds-arent-real-prank-conspiracy-theory-misinformation-spreads
)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»As Weather Extremes Get W...»Reply #7