Triplecheck: "To insure or not to insure"
Over the past week (7/5 to 7/12) at least 8 million people were exposed to climate misinformation on Twitter.
Content provided via Triplecheck:
Over the past week (7/5 to 7/12) at least 8 million people were exposed to climate misinformation on Twitter. The usual climate denial content got a significant boost this week when a number of accounts (many of them with bot-like characteristics) resurfaced an insane interview that John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, did with CNN in 2014 stating that climate change was not real. The interview was circulated without noting that it was seven years old, that Coleman is dead, or that the Weather Channel disavowed his statements at the time. At least 2 million human users were exposed to that content this week.
Steve Milloy of Junk Science tweeted out a picture of the private jets in Sun Valley for an annual conference hosted by the investment bank Allen & Company, stating that it was hypocritical for attendees to fly in private planes to discuss climate change solutions. About 3.8 million users saw that content on Twitter, and a Breitbart article with the same content was shared more than 1,400 times on Facebook.
Although there was a lot of other insane anti-climate content on Twitter this week – such as content hitting John Kerry for not wearing a mask at the airport (FWIW, TSA issued guidance last year noting that travelers would be asked to momentarily remove their masks during the security process) and the statement by former President Trump that randomly attacked the Green New Deal (yawn) – I want to stop on private planes for a minute, because we hear this argument all the time and it’s ridiculous.
A few weeks ago we wrote about ad hominem attacks, where the attacker brings in negative information about an argument’s proponents to undermine their position, even if the negative information is unrelated to the actual issue. This is a perfect example. It’s not a policy critique – it’s a personal attack. It’s a way for climate deniers to shut down their opposition instead of engaging on the issue.
Because when you stop to think about it, it’s dumb to say that because you have a carbon footprint you can’t raise concerns about climate change. That’s like saying if you object to the way health insurance companies decide which treatments they’re going to cover then you shouldn’t buy health insurance.
Our society is structured around fossil fuels. Almost everything we do requires us to use them. But as Brooks DeCillia of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation noted, “People who want to change society also live in it.” Maybe we should consider the fact that people have to use fossil fuels even when they don’t want to as a starting point for a meaningful discussion on policy instead of an opportunity to shut down the conversation entirely.