Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[danstanford]

Most of my working life has had me cast in the role of senior decision maker which has put me squarely in the search for good tools to discern the truth. Contrarian thinking has been very useful by looking for possibilities and then testing them in pursuit of the truth.
5 or 6 years ago Lake Ontario was at record low water levels and the prevailing wisdom was that climate change had dealt an irreversible blow to the water levels of the Great Lakes. One year later we had record high water levels on Lake Ontario which was explained as climate change driven.
Using the skills of a lifetime to drive into the nuance of information looking for underlying causes makes one struggle to see clear truths in the face of facts like these. In my view there are those in the environmental lobby who do a great disservice to the pursuit of support when they leap to explain facts such as these in easy ways.

Facts need to be held up without obfuscation or exaggeration while we look for the underlying reasons for their existence. Both sides lose credibility quickly when they throw out false and inflated evidence in support of a conclusion.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Most of my working life has had me cast in the role of senior decision maker which has put me squarely in the search for good tools to discern the truth. Contrarian thinking has been very useful by looking for possibilities and then testing them in pursuit of the truth.
5 or 6 years ago Lake Ontario was at record low water levels and the prevailing wisdom was that climate change had dealt an irreversible blow to the water levels of the Great Lakes. One year later we had record high water levels on Lake Ontario which was explained as climate change driven.
Using the skills of a lifetime to drive into the nuance of information looking for underlying causes makes one struggle to see clear truths in the face of facts like these. In my view there are those in the environmental lobby who do a great disservice to the pursuit of support when they leap to explain facts such as these in easy ways.

Facts need to be held up without obfuscation or exaggeration while we look for the underlying reasons for their existence. Both sides lose credibility quickly when they throw out false and inflated evidence in support of a conclusion.

In other words Climate change is a religion which doesnt use facts. Climate Changers are even using the record freeze in Texas as being due to fossil fuel burning.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

Definitely polarized, the 'debate' on climate change, in line with many other public discussions. But over time the facts will bear out and either the climate will not change, or it will change a bit but won't threaten the human race in a material way, or it will turn out to be so bad that mankind will indeed face an existential threat.

Based on what I observe, hear and read, I am very much in the 'existential threat' camp and would like mankind to take action. If later I turn out to be incorrect in my view I will apologise profusely but we would end up in a world in which we took siginificant steps to move away from CO2 emissions, dumped no more plastic at will, halted soil erosion and restored a degree of bio diversity.

If however I was in the 'it will be alright' camp I would feel rather uncomfortable with the small doubt that I might be wrong in my view. Sorry at a later stage would no longer cut it as we come to the undeniable conclusion that indeed the existential threat has become reality. So I would still want to see action being taken, I might after all be wrong.

Regardless, if indeed I was in the 'it will be alright' camp, I certainly would not get too angry about what others are doing to fight climate change as in effect almost nothing is being done. Politicians are mainly making promises but doing nothing. I sometimes wish I was in this camp myself, it would make my life easier.

I don't think anyone is getting angry about others wanting to do something themselves with their resources. If you choose to live in a one room studio apartment, never turn on the heat or air/con and walk everywhere while eating a locally grown plant based diet while wearing repurposed dumpster diving clothes...you go for it.

The problem with your line of thought is you have the Al Gores of the world living in mansions, flying in personal jets, getting driven around in huge SUVs...all while promoting I pay for "doing something" through govt taxes and mandates.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.....
Population is definitely a huge problem, but it is one that is rapidly heading to a solution. The rate of population increase has been declining for decades. We will hit peak population somewhere between 2050 and 2100. After that, population will rapidly decline.

What shows no decline is the intensity of resource use for those of us in the developed world. THIS is the real driver of most global environmental problems. We need to, as the saying goes, reduce our environmental footprint, but to do so means using less, and that is something few want to consider (on all sides of the political spectrum).

Actually, the west has shown large declines in resource use. They have simply been countered by poor countries moving up the economic ladder and consuming more and to make it worse, they often do so without the pollution controls the west uses.

Really, almost all of the problems go back to population. Back when the world held say 2billion people, the environmental problems were all but non-existent. At 8 billion, even if everyone is mandated to live a modest existence requires massive resources.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... no, it's perceived hypocrisy. It might bug you, but it's not misinformation. There's no winning the "who's personally the most holy" when discussing a broad systemic problem that is not solvable by voluntary action.

Discounting someone's advocacy because you think they're not holy enough is probably closer to misinformation, wouldn't you say?

That's a real twisting to try and justify.

If they only were consuming at 2-3 times the average, you might call it hypocrisy and "who's personally most holy"...These are people consuming at 50-100 times but chastising those living a relatively modest lifestyle.

Real leaders...lead by example.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The Fallacy Fallacy

Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong.
There are few things rnore frustrating than watching someone poorly argue a position one holds Much of time a debate is won not because the Victor is right but because he is better at debating than their opponent
Recognising that Amanda committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because It was popular.. Alyse resolved to eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day,

Looping back to the thread title, this is a common tactic in the media to spread misinformation...in an indirect manner.

They will put someone eloquent who supports the organizations preferred propaganda and put them up against someone who is not eloquent...often they will search out a total wack job for the opposition.

The result is it creates the false impression that you would be crazy to go against the chosen propaganda, while having nothing to do with the actual factual subject matter.

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I don't think anyone is getting angry about others wanting to do something themselves with their resources. If you choose to live in a one room studio apartment, never turn on the heat or air/con and walk everywhere while eating a locally grown plant based diet while wearing repurposed dumpster diving clothes...you go for it.

The problem with your line of thought is you have the Al Gores of the world living in mansions, flying in personal jets, getting driven around in huge SUVs...all while promoting I pay for "doing something" through govt taxes and mandates.

Yeap, that's an issue. As it is an issue for the various world leaders + their I don't know how many 1000's of entourage each to fly into Paris to make a few bold statements, and sign something. Promises and pledges to improve the situation knowing full well they will do exactly nothing.

So along this line, if I did not feel the changing climate was a problem (along with plastic pollution, declining bio diversity, etc), then I would be very satisfied with the current state of affairs since my way of life + values are not under threat at all. Maybe indeed a bit angry by the true hypocricy of it all, but who cares.

As it is I do feel there is a problem which makes me in fact quite sad to look at my plastic boat floating in the Med being potentially part of the problem, which was and still is my life's dream. Hence I try and minimise everything else but I am pretty damn angry by the false promises and BAU attitude. Largely driven by misinformation and lies.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Most of my working life has had me cast in the role of senior decision maker which has put me squarely in the search for good tools to discern the truth. Contrarian thinking has been very useful by looking for possibilities and then testing them in pursuit of the truth.
5 or 6 years ago Lake Ontario was at record low water levels and the prevailing wisdom was that climate change had dealt an irreversible blow to the water levels of the Great Lakes. One year later we had record high water levels on Lake Ontario which was explained as climate change driven.
Using the skills of a lifetime to drive into the nuance of information looking for underlying causes makes one struggle to see clear truths in the face of facts like these. In my view there are those in the environmental lobby who do a great disservice to the pursuit of support when they leap to explain facts such as these in easy ways.

Facts need to be held up without obfuscation or exaggeration while we look for the underlying reasons for their existence. Both sides lose credibility quickly when they throw out false and inflated evidence in support of a conclusion.

We kind of had a similar thing down here after Katrina. While national publications were attributing hurricane Katrina's strength to global warming and touting the scientific "fact" that hurricanes were getting stronger, as evidenced by Katrina, our local paper, just out of a local interest story, had tracked down a history book, published before Katrina, that detailed from meticulous Spanish record keeping, a hurricane, that appeared to be more powerful than Katrina, that hit the same area, in the 1600's (I can't remember the exact year), and another one, almost as powerful, that hit the year after.

They published Spanish reports of galleons found 15 miles ashore the next year by the visiting Spanish inspector (who was sent to see why no ships were arriving from that area). Tree rings in those areas, showing salt water immersion bear this out.

And, you still hear from people that hurricanes are getting worse, when the historical records show there have been a lot of equally strong ones in the distant pre-industrial past.

But, anyone trying to separate the facts from the hysteria, is automatically a "Denier", whatever the hell that is.

Sometimes, I think humans just need conflict, and since most physical conflict has been eliminated from our lives, we argue a lot to compensate for that.

[GordMay]

“Does ‘deplatforming’ work to curb hate speech and calls for violence?”
In the wake of the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump’s personal account, and Google, Apple and Amazon shunned Parler, which at least temporarily shut down the social media platform favored by the far right.
Dubbed “deplatforming,” these actions restrict the ability of individuals and communities to communicate with each other and the public. Deplatforming raises ethical and legal questions, but foremost is the question of whether it’s an effective strategy to reduce hate speech and calls for violence on social media.
The Conversation U.S. asked three experts* in online communications whether deplatforming works and what happens when technology companies attempt it.
➥ https://theconversation.com/does-dep...eigh-in-153177

* Jeremy Blackburn, assistant professor of computer science, Binghamton University.
Ugochukwu Etudo, assistant professor of operations and information management, University of Connecticut.
Robert Gehl, associate professor of communication and media studies, Louisiana Tech University.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Does ‘deplatforming’ work to curb hate speech and calls for violence?”
In the wake of the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump’s personal account, and Google, Apple and Amazon shunned Parler, which at least temporarily shut down the social media platform favored by the far right.
Dubbed “deplatforming,” these actions restrict the ability of individuals and communities to communicate with each other and the public. Deplatforming raises ethical and legal questions, but foremost is the question of whether it’s an effective strategy to reduce hate speech and calls for violence on social media.
The Conversation U.S. asked three experts* in online communications whether deplatforming works and what happens when technology companies attempt it.
➥ https://theconversation.com/does-dep...eigh-in-153177

* Jeremy Blackburn, assistant professor of computer science, Binghamton University.
Ugochukwu Etudo, assistant professor of operations and information management, University of Connecticut.
Robert Gehl, associate professor of communication and media studies, Louisiana Tech University.

Has telling someone to "shut up" ever changed their mind? I doubt it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

5 or 6 years ago Lake Ontario was at record low water levels and the prevailing wisdom was that climate change had dealt an irreversible blow to the water levels of the Great Lakes. One year later we had record high water levels on Lake Ontario which was explained as climate change driven.

A lovely little anecdote, but not true. First, when your lake level is controlled manually by dams, as L Ontario's is, there's no directly blaming nature or climate change. Somebody made a choice.

Now, I've heard this directly from an acquaintance who is a scientist at NOAA; they find it hard to predict rainfall and evaporation on the Great Lakes, and some of that is likely due to increasing variability.

L. Ontario's water level is decided by considering the following:

• rainfall and evaporation
• water flowing from L. Erie and other rivers into L Ontario
• Great Lakes shipping
• not flooding out towns along the St Laurence
• L. Ont wetlands

It's a juggling act performed by the IJC.

[Sand crab]

Group9, Katrina was a Cat 5 in the Gulf but had weakened to a Cat 3 at landfall. There have been many other more powerful storms in the Atlantic and Gulf but especially in the Pacific. Also keep in mind that Louisiana was a total swamp back then without all the flood control infrastructures in place. It wouldn't have been that difficult for even a modest storm to push the ships inland with a storm surge.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

That's a real twisting to try and justify.

If they only were consuming at 2-3 times the average, you might call it hypocrisy and "who's personally most holy"...These are people consuming at 50-100 times but chastising those living a relatively modest lifestyle.

Real leaders...lead by example.

Your argument falls down before the first hurdle;

• it's not individuals being "chastised", it's the system
• our present CO2 and pollution problems CANNOT be solved by individual actions alone.

AlGoraphobia is just an excuse. Be honest; there's no amount of his bicycle-riding or cave-dwelling that would ever compel you to take him seriously. That tribal thing.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A lovely little anecdote, but not true. First, when your lake level is controlled manually by dams, as L Ontario's is, there's no directly blaming nature or climate change. Somebody made a choice.

Now, I've heard this directly from an acquaintance who is a scientist at NOAA; they find it hard to predict rainfall and evaporation on the Great Lakes, and some of that is likely due to increasing variability.

L. Ontario's water level is decided by considering the following:

• rainfall and evaporation
• water flowing from L. Erie and other rivers into L Ontario
• Great Lakes shipping
• not flooding out towns along the St Laurence
• L. Ont wetlands

It's a juggling act performed by the IJC.

This explanation is called "drinking your own bathwater." Totally uniformed and clueless post. Hint: does not explain record and near record levels in the upper Great Lakes!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

This explanation is called "drinking your own bathwater." Totally uniformed and clueless post. Hint: does not explain record and near record levels in the upper Great Lakes!

Red herring. We were talking about L Ontario, not the others. Obviously fuller lakes upstream means more water overall in the Great Lakes system. I did mention Erie...

btw, you're preaching to the choir here about changing climate patterns.