Where do all these anti-AGW comments come from?
December 5, 2009 3:25 PM Subscribe
Whenever there's a prominent article about climate change published online, without fail, a multititude of global warming sceptics then swarm discussion board and fill it with angry comments. Where does this come from?
I find this phenomenon pretty inexplicable. I have thought about the following possibilities: (a) maybe people are paid to post to these discussions; (b) perhaps I have seriously underestimated the number of AGW sceptics that are actually out there; and (c) perhaps this issue just motivates the hell out of certain people to devote a lot of time to this. Anyone have any answers or ideas?
I find this phenomenon pretty inexplicable. I have thought about the following possibilities: (a) maybe people are paid to post to these discussions; (b) perhaps I have seriously underestimated the number of AGW sceptics that are actually out there; and (c) perhaps this issue just motivates the hell out of certain people to devote a lot of time to this. Anyone have any answers or ideas?
I think it's (a) and (c), for the most part. There are lobbyists who are paid to call into question the scientific consensus on global warming, just as the tobacco industry paid lobbyists to challenge the link between smoking and lung cancer, or the Discovery Institute in Seattle pays lobbyists to question the scientific evidence for evolution. But there are also certain people who seem to spend a lot of time challenging global warming, or evolution, without being paid, because of their investment in their position. Had the Internet been around in the 1950s and 1960s, there probably would have been similar skeptics challenging the link between smoking and lung cancer.
On preview: what the first two posters said, too.
posted by brianogilvie at 3:31 PM on December 5, 2009
On preview: what the first two posters said, too.
posted by brianogilvie at 3:31 PM on December 5, 2009
George Monbiot discussed this recently, in the light of the UEA emails debacle.
Apart from what he says there, I think the problem is that many people who propose solutions to AGW also want to include social measures which offend the politics of many people on the political right, such as this "open doors" policy if things go as badly as predicted.
And I do believe the vested interests are prepared to pay people to sing their song.
posted by BrokenEnglish at 3:37 PM on December 5, 2009
Apart from what he says there, I think the problem is that many people who propose solutions to AGW also want to include social measures which offend the politics of many people on the political right, such as this "open doors" policy if things go as badly as predicted.
And I do believe the vested interests are prepared to pay people to sing their song.
posted by BrokenEnglish at 3:37 PM on December 5, 2009
There are definitely PR firms paid to post fake grassroots comments and steer online discussions. Though it really could be a lot of World Net Daily types who genuinely believe this is the most important thing to get angry about.
posted by johngoren at 3:44 PM on December 5, 2009
posted by johngoren at 3:44 PM on December 5, 2009
I visit POPURLS.COM quite a bit. I wonder the same thing about several specific sites that they monitor, including Breitbart, Yahoo! News, Clipmarks, etc.
There is damn near nothing but venom on the Yahoo! threads, and even though I use Yahoo! Groups and find them useful, I am convinced that it incorporates the best sample of American stupidity to be found in one virtual place.
Looking back, I think the views from the right, which is where most of the AGW stuff comes from IMO, during the Bush years the left was uniformly antagonistic. The difference is that even then, there was a thread of thought. Now, it seems that every fruitcake variety in the country streaks to every potential story and immediately pushes it towards some Obama offense or liberal bashing.
I've pretty much decided if Yahoo! is your portal, your pipes are clogged and you're maybe 2 steps below troll or script kiddie.
That said, the amount of AGW bullshit and wishful thinking out there is truly astounding, and in the hands of a population as ignorant and computer infused as ours, there's a lot of noise. I am at a loss for how to respond, personally. Usually, I snark if I can't help myself.... adding to the cacaphony. Jeez.
posted by FauxScot at 4:04 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
There is damn near nothing but venom on the Yahoo! threads, and even though I use Yahoo! Groups and find them useful, I am convinced that it incorporates the best sample of American stupidity to be found in one virtual place.
Looking back, I think the views from the right, which is where most of the AGW stuff comes from IMO, during the Bush years the left was uniformly antagonistic. The difference is that even then, there was a thread of thought. Now, it seems that every fruitcake variety in the country streaks to every potential story and immediately pushes it towards some Obama offense or liberal bashing.
I've pretty much decided if Yahoo! is your portal, your pipes are clogged and you're maybe 2 steps below troll or script kiddie.
That said, the amount of AGW bullshit and wishful thinking out there is truly astounding, and in the hands of a population as ignorant and computer infused as ours, there's a lot of noise. I am at a loss for how to respond, personally. Usually, I snark if I can't help myself.... adding to the cacaphony. Jeez.
posted by FauxScot at 4:04 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Although in the Bush years there was an amazing amount of comment flooding from 9/11 Truth people, as if someone had programmed a spam bot to ask about WTC7. It was always mysterious how huge the Truther presence was on boards.
posted by johngoren at 4:29 PM on December 5, 2009
posted by johngoren at 4:29 PM on December 5, 2009
People don't like criticism of their surrogate self, i.e. their car.
posted by telstar at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by telstar at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think the mechanism is the snowball effect. One blogger notices something relevant, then three bloggers who read that blog join in, and pretty soon every blog with an interest in the subject has posted a link. The question is why it happens. I think it's probably because you can summarise the debate in a way that lets you condemn traditional scapegoats ("ivory tower scientists", "unelected officials", "distant politicians") while appearing to be somewhat knowledgeable. about world affairs.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:41 PM on December 5, 2009
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:41 PM on December 5, 2009
Fear.
People can see that if global climate change is real, we've all had it. Nobody wants to admit that. And nobody wants to admit that it's our fault and the fault of the civilization we adore. That isn't a world people want to live in so they pretend (loudly) that it's all a lie. By the time they are willing to admit the problem is real the world will have to look like The Stand.
posted by irisclara at 11:06 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
People can see that if global climate change is real, we've all had it. Nobody wants to admit that. And nobody wants to admit that it's our fault and the fault of the civilization we adore. That isn't a world people want to live in so they pretend (loudly) that it's all a lie. By the time they are willing to admit the problem is real the world will have to look like The Stand.
posted by irisclara at 11:06 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
The demographics of the contrarian group might be relevant too - it tends to be older men who are the bulk of the group, and (I'm guessing) they may have more time to post comments all over the news sites and blogs if they're semi- or fully-retired.
posted by harriet vane at 4:47 AM on December 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by harriet vane at 4:47 AM on December 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
WRT (a), Here's a screencap from Craigslist a few months ago, titled 'Hardcore conservative needed.' $10/hr , must be 'familiar with networking. Facebook YouTube Myspace - Marketing experience a plus but not necessary'.
posted by Orb2069 at 7:51 AM on December 6, 2009
posted by Orb2069 at 7:51 AM on December 6, 2009
(b) perhaps I have seriously underestimated the number of AGW sceptics that are actually out there
In the USA it's somewhere around 43% of the population for AGW and even 28% for GW in general.
One of the implications of this data is that jumping to conclusion (a) does not help reduce those numbers. Unless you actually unmask an astroturfer with evidence, it just makes you look bad to dismiss a potential astroturfer with allegations. The wildest conspiracy theories about oil companies wouldn't pay for enough shills to represent a small fraction of the people you might want to accuse, and while ad hominem is still a fallacy even when correct, it looks particularly bad when it's misaimed.
posted by roystgnr at 9:06 AM on December 6, 2009
In the USA it's somewhere around 43% of the population for AGW and even 28% for GW in general.
One of the implications of this data is that jumping to conclusion (a) does not help reduce those numbers. Unless you actually unmask an astroturfer with evidence, it just makes you look bad to dismiss a potential astroturfer with allegations. The wildest conspiracy theories about oil companies wouldn't pay for enough shills to represent a small fraction of the people you might want to accuse, and while ad hominem is still a fallacy even when correct, it looks particularly bad when it's misaimed.
posted by roystgnr at 9:06 AM on December 6, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 3:28 PM on December 5, 2009