I see a lot of handwaving there, without much meat.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
your usual limp and boring response. to your theme, plenty of virtue signaling on your end. Your idea of personal climate stewardship is cute.
"I see a lot of handwaving there, without much meat" ----pretty gross or some crude joke dating back to the 50s...
Still nothing material from you.
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
and you likely typed this with a straight face. I do applaud you for the sacrifice you've endured to help out with climate change. Especially taking trains - the government is most appreciative I'm sure.
anytime you want to put forth something with substance beyond a linky to nowhere and a silly meme would make me happy. We can certainly get back on topic and discuss recent covid vaccine history...
If the rest of us had a nickel for every post you ran from, because you lacked material, you'd be here alone.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
All good things for a person to do. The beauty is you need government interference to do this.
Interesting, considering many of the same politicians who are so big on the climate crisis in CA are also overseeing the homeless crisis and the figurative and literal shittification of one of the wealthiest cities on earth - San Francisco. LA isn't looking so hot either. I mean, here they are - real live crises that no one questions. How are they doing? They are spending money on it (see below). It looks like a pretty bad investment, and maybe they aren't the right leaders to improve things. Let's assume for a minute that there is a climate crisis. Why on earth would I think these clowns could actually accomplish anything?
That says nothing of the legacy media cherry-picking studies that use outdated models with ridiculous assumptions. I believe we are warming - less than what we hear. And? Am I supposed to believe their projections of the future problems we are going to have? Based on what, their ability to solve the crises that are in front of them? They spent billions on the homeless problem - and it got worse. Keep in mind they are not just predicting that temperatures will rise; they are also predicting that it will cause many problems. I'll pass on their models. The high-level screeching we are hearing is to distract us from the pisspoor job they are doing currently. They HAVE to hang on to the climate crisis. If they don't keep people fearful, they'll never be able to consolidate power to a central authority further, and people might pay too much attention to their current failures.
----
Climate Journalism is Broken
A new paper reveals troubling biases
Robert Pielke Jr
June 26
n 2020, scholars published more than 50,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate change in almost 6,000 journals. A new study by Marie-Elodie Perga and colleagues looks at how these papers were covered by news media and reveals some profound biases in coverage of climate. There are still some excellent journalists providing good coverage of climate, of course, but the overall patterns are troubling.
Let’s take a look at the numbers.
Of the 51,230 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published in 2020, Perga and colleagues found that only about 9% of them saw any media coverage, defined as a single mention in the paper’s Altimetric score. About 2%, or ~1,000 papers, saw more than 20 mentions in the media. These “mediatized” papers are the focus of Perga’s paper.
The 2% of papers most covered by the media are disproportionately focused:
- at the global and continental scales;
- on the end of the 21st century;
- on the natural sciences and health;
- and come primarily from just 6 journals (3 from Science journals, 2 from Nature and PNAS).
The biases are large. The paper reports that:
Reporting disproportionately deemphasized studies in the social and political sciences, economics, technology, engineering, energy and agriculture — these are all topics related to what might be done on climate change.
The authors conclude that as a result of these biases, news coverage is biased and the public is misinformed:
Thereby, a few articles get a lot of news mentions, limiting the diversity of information to which readers are exposed (Ortega, 2021). The selective sourcing of news media for high-profile journals and strong degree of co-mention in news outlets thereby come with a loss of disciplinary diversity of the research brought to public’s attention, with over-emphasis on natural science and health, while research findings produced on the social, economic, technological and energy-related aspects of climate change are curtailed back through the mediatization process. The selectivity is even found within the dominant natural science. Mediatized scientific publications are selectively concentrated on the worldwide magnitude of the current consequences of climate change, and projected risks by the end of the century for natural Earth components.
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<part 2>
The authors hold a position that I do not — that the main purpose of media coverage of climate is to motivate people to act on climate, whatever that means. In my discussions of climate journalism with reporters (those that will speak to me) I often hear a similar view, that the purpose of climate journalism is advocacy for climate as a cause.
Indeed, the authors of the paper view themselves, alongside journalists, as collaborators in using communication to motivate “action”. Here is how they describe their work:
This definition of “climate communication” is evocative of what almost a century ago political scientist Harold Lasswell called, “the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols” — or political propaganda. If the idea that climate journalism is engaged in political propaganda seems uncomfortable, then try instead advocacy journalism.
Climate journalism wasn’t always dominated by an advocacy agenda. More than a decade ago, I along with colleagues Ursula Rick and Max Boykoff evaluated 20 years of media coverage of sea level rise. We found overall media reporting on sea level rise to be highly consistent with the scientific literature and the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarized in the figures below.
 |
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<part 3><part 2>
The authors hold a position that I do not — that the main purpose of media coverage of climate is to motivate people to act on climate, whatever that means. In my discussions of climate journalism with reporters (those that will speak to me) I often hear a similar view, that the purpose of climate journalism is advocacy for climate as a cause.
Indeed, the authors of the paper view themselves, alongside journalists, as collaborators in using communication to motivate “action”. Here is how they describe their work:
This definition of “climate communication” is evocative of what almost a century ago political scientist Harold Lasswell called, “the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols” — or political propaganda. If the idea that climate journalism is engaged in political propaganda seems uncomfortable, then try instead advocacy journalism.
Climate journalism wasn’t always dominated by an advocacy agenda. More than a decade ago, I along with colleagues Ursula Rick and Max Boykoff evaluated 20 years of media coverage of sea level rise. We found overall media reporting on sea level rise to be highly consistent with the scientific literature and the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarized in the figures below.
Source: Rick et al. 2011
<cont>
We concluded, “accurate reporting on projections for sea level rise by 2100 demonstrates a bright spot at the interface of climate science and mass media.”
What has changed? I can think of a number of things:
- Journalism itself has changed dramatically, with resources for reporting shrinking;
- Reporting has shifted emphasis from news to opinion;
- Niche reporting tailored to reader interests has increased;
- Climate advocacy has increasingly focused on promoting extreme weather as climate change.
A further complication, perhaps specific to climate, has been the influence of what has been called “balance as bias.” This idea holds that there is a single “correct” view of climate science, and divergences from this view are biased.
Academics have evaluated media reporting based on whether it reflects the “correct” view (good reporting) or challenges it (flawed reporting). The notion arose out of a perception several decades ago that climate skeptics received too much media attention, and gradually expanded to encompass any views outside a shared, preferred narrative of a group of academics, journalists and fellow travelers promoting climate advocacy.
Of course, science doesn’t work like this and it is entirely appropriate for experts to hold divergent views — in fact, that is how science gets done. The consequence however is that climate reporting typically includes no differences of opinion, rather, only voices friendly to the preferred narrative.
The “balance as bias” thesis has been wildly successful at eliminating certain voices from the legacy media. Ironically, the success of “balance as bias” thesis has itself contributed to profound biases in media reporting, and arguably allowed advocacy journalism on climate to proliferate unchecked.
Since 2020, the year explored in the data above, news media biases have gotten worse. Perga and colleagues report that in 2021 a non-peer reviewed pre-print asserting the “virtual impossibility” of the Pacific Northwest heatwave received 8 times the media coverage of the most-covered peer-reviewed paper of 2020. Climate science reporting apparently doesn’t even need science.
Make no mistake, there are excellent reporters out there doing good journalism on climate. For the average reader, however, telling the difference between biased or advocacy journalism to promote a narrative and reporting that accurately reflects the state of climate science and policy is almost impossible.
I welcome your comments. I’m blocked on Twitter by a number of reporters on the climate beat, so please share. Please click on that little heart at the top of this post and ReStack. I’d especially welcome the views of journalists on the climate beat on this post, which I am happy to publish. At THB, balance is not bias.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
20% is a bit higher than the US’ share of global energy consumption and GHG emissions but not much. US is also among the highest emitters on both an absolute and per capita basis. Other nations in that club are also taking steps to decarbonize.
Desert Hound
DA
Nobody is decarbonizing.
Over the past 10 years total consumption of fossil fuels has grown substantially. Renewables have gone up during that same period, but that growth in usage has been dwarfed by the growth in actual usage of fossil fuels.
We will be heavily reliant on fossil fuels for many many decades to come.
This sounds reminiscent of some prior discussions on this topic:
www.nytimes.com
Coronavirus Probably Spread Widely in Deer and Perhaps Back to People, U.S.D.A. Says (Published 2023)
From late 2021 to early 2022, humans transmitted the coronavirus to white-tailed deer more than 100 times, research suggests.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Behind a paywall - Does it start, A whitetail deer walks into a bar during the lockdown? I'm genuinely curious how humans and whitetail deer pass the virus back and forth. Or, maybe I don't want to know.This sounds reminiscent of some prior discussions on this topic:
Coronavirus Probably Spread Widely in Deer and Perhaps Back to People, U.S.D.A. Says (Published 2023)
From late 2021 to early 2022, humans transmitted the coronavirus to white-tailed deer more than 100 times, research suggests.
Maybe this version is not behind a paywall
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Is there any reason I might not want to know how it was transmitted?
Is there any reason I might not want to know how it was transmitted?
Were you THIS hard on monkeys when AIDS came around?
(Editor's note: I'll ask forgiveness now for using 'hard on' and 'came' in the same sentence.)
Desert Hound
DA
You mean the disease which the gov and activists told us anyone can get? So everyone had/has to be careful...
When in reality there are only certain groups where HIV/AIDS really is an issue.
Time and time again our gov lies to us about actual risk.
And climate change? Bank on the overhyping of actual harm.
Multi Sport
DA
So much truth in that post...
I wonder if Bronny got the jab. Hope he's okay... even though his dad is a douchebag.
www.latimes.com
Bronny James suffers cardiac arrest at USC workout and is in stable condition
The 18-year-old son of Lakers star LeBron James suffers cardiac arrest during a USC workout Monday. His family says he is in stable condition.
www.latimes.com
Multi Sport
DA
Heard about that.. you know he did though.I wonder if Bronny got the jab. Hope he's okay... even though his dad is a douchebag.
Bronny James suffers cardiac arrest at USC workout and is in stable condition
The 18-year-old son of Lakers star LeBron James suffers cardiac arrest during a USC workout Monday. His family says he is in stable condition.