this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
1211 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
7 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1211
Climate scientists flee Twitter [to Mastodon] as hostility surges (www.france24.com)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
  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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"[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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months 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.