Wood Romances

A paper was just recently published in Nature Scientific Reports[1] that classifies the types of climate misinformation promoted by conservative think tanks (CTTs) and contrarian blogs (CBs). The taxonomy includes 5 major “super claims” with “sub-claims” and “sub-sub-claims” within the larger categories. The 5 “super claims” are: 1. Global warming is not happening 2. Human Greenhouse gases are not causing global warming 3. Climate impacts are not bad 4. Climate solutions won’t work 5. Climate science is unreliable The sub- and sub-sub- claims are positions used to justify the larger “super” claims. It’s important to note that some of these may be truthful claims, but they are used inappropriately to justify the false “super claim.” For instance, “we need energy” (4.5) is true, but it serves as a subcategory of claims used to justify the claim that climate solutions won’t work. Likewise, “nuclear is good” (4.5.3) is a position that is held by many people who are otherwise not contrarian...

I value the right of free speech that we have in the United States, and it's a value that I cherish. Yet it is pretty much inarguable that one consequence of free speech is that obvious and deliberate misinformation and disinformation need to be protected along with truthful information. While there are limitations on our free speech (like laws against defamation), our current system even protects people against libel and slander lawsuits if the person making these claims is not credible enough to be taken seriously by rational people (a tactic used by Tim Ball to escape libel damages).  We can have whatever opinions we want, regardless how wrong they are or how insincere they are, and we can publicly advertise those opinions for others to read.  The internet and social media has made it easier for people to advertise and promote those opinions to wider audiences, and technology has progressed to the point where many of these people can produce quality-looking content. So misi...