I, and many of my pals, have been named a sort of scofflaw by three people named Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron.
Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron wrote the peer-reviewed article “Online misinformation about climate change” in Climate Change, a major journal. Where by “major” I mean well funded by our leaders.
Neither Kathie, Hywel, or Saffron appear to be climatologists themselves, and it’s doubtful any of them could define, say, convective available potential energy. Well, so even if they are ignorant about physics, they are all experts in talking about how to talk about climate change. Even if they are not experts in talking about climate change. If you follow me.
At any rate, I can be proud Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron called me out by name as somebody who talked about how to talk about climate change in way that is unapproved.
I don’t really want to make this about myself, because Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron named many other better men than I as not talking about how to talk about climate change in an approved way. But I can’t hide that I’m a little proud.
What is the right and wrong way to talk about talking about climate change? I’m not sure. I’m not an expert in this fine subject, so I’ll have to let Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron talk for me.
Before beginning a detailed discussion of online misinformation about climate change, it is necessary to examine what is meant by “misinformation.” The academic literature on misinformation often offers no definition of misinformation, or simply refers to a specific dictionary definition (Karlova & Fisher, 2012), however, there are numerous, and sometimes contradictory, definitions of misinformation in dictionaries, and reference materials.
That clears it up substantially. But what does this have to do with climate? Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron continue:
Looking more specifically at climate change misinformation, there is very little research which explicitly uses the term “misinformation.”
All right then. Well, if we can’t know just what “misinformation” actually is, even though Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron wrote a whole paper purporting to be experts on this important subject, we can identify climate scofflaws who have been identified as scofflaws by other people. And I, I blush to admit, am one of these bad boys.
Maybe a picture will help. Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron thought so. Here is that picture:
Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron make excellent use of colors. Everybody knows green is good and red is bad. And I’m pretty sure these designations aren’t racist or homophobic or anything, but you can ever been too sure.
Now that we have a graph, the work of Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron becomes science. We have scientific colorized categories into which we can classify people, even though Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron admit they don’t know how precisely to do this with regard to climate. But they do know others have complained about people like Yours Truly, which is good enough.
This is a serious journal written by serious people for other serious people. We all know how important global cooling is—I mean global warming—I mean climate change—is, and after racism, there is no more important and serious topic.
This is Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron included a picture of a cute robot in their paper:
Isn’t he adorable? Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron must have thought so. They also included a picture of fluffy sheep, but since one of the sheep might a wolf, I don’t dare show you since the image might be too frightening.
Another way we know this is science, and serious science at that, in a serious journal about a most serious subject, is that the paper is 20 pages. This is a lot of pages. Anything into double digits is generally considered science, but Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron outdid the usual marker by producing 20.
Good job, Climate Change! You did well by publishing this fine paper by Kathie, Hywel, and Saffron.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here