New report shows that 10 Facebook pages are responsible for 69% of climate denial posts

Originally published at: New report shows that 10 Facebook pages are responsible for 69% of climate denial posts | Boing Boing



Fox didn’t rate?


FaCeBoOk Is SiLeNcInG cOnSeRvAtIvE vOiCeS.


  • Breitbart
  • Western Journal
  • Newsmax
  • Townhall Media (which, the report notes, was founded by the Exxon-funded Heritage Foundation)
  • Media Research Center (another Exxon-backed “think tank”)
  • The Washington Times
  • The Federalist Papers
  • Daily Wire
  • and Sputnik News
  • Patriot Post

All of these are familiar sources “do your own research” links on the Facebook page from my home county in PA.

After last night, I’m sorry to say the mentality has followed me to VA. :cry:


“Facebook is silencing psychopaths”
There, fixed it for you.


Wonder how many degrees the world will be warmed by Mercers and Kochs.

And yet it’s completely impossible for Facebook to moderate this information.


typing email GIF


Well, if facebook/meta(stasis) starts to remove toxic content, well… there goes their whole business plan eh?


What this means is that those entities learned the lessons Freuds cousin launched here very well.

Gawd! I hate medium, but if you can deal with the nagging they sometimes have good articles


Climate change is a self correcting problem. For earth, less so humans.


Climate denial is a whole different level from climate change denial, now you have to convince people that climate is real.


While these creatures are certainly loathsome, they do not actually cause the climate change that is gradually murdering human civilization. A similarly small number of very wealthy corporations are responsible, and respond only to a very focused profit motive. No amount of bad press or boycotting will be enough to stop them (though it seems unlikely that we could organize enough people to accomplish a useful energy boycott; we’re all just too dependent on it for our daily survival).

No, the only thing that will dissuade these genocidal monstrosities is the very violence that I am sworn never to commit or recommend. I have resigned myself to the relatively peaceful extinction of my species. And although I do not deserve your forgiveness for refusing to take the only possible steps that might have an effect, I ask for your forgiveness anyway.

Medium isn’t responsible for those articles, it’s just the place where people who sometimes know what they’re talking about have a platform to publish those articles. If you’re lucky, you’ll trip over an insightful article which you are able to read. If you’re unlucky you’ll get sucked into buying the Medium Membership it keeps screaming at you to take, and you’ll discover that you paid a hell of a lot for an occasional insightful article, a whole bunch of turgid nonsense by people who think they’re insightful, and, as you say, the endless, relentless nagging.

i don’t think we really know.

it seems within the realm of possibility that layering the world with plastic, destroying coral and fish hatcheries, and our greenhouse gases could kick out enough rungs to permanently decrease biodiversity or ( though less likely ) extinguish it.

we only know of one planet that’s ever had life on it. it’s pretty resilient - but how much so is a guess

our only real way to protect life for sure is to curtail the harm we are presently causing

1 Like

I didn’t say life. The earth will be fine. Bacteria likely too.


I think that’s what I said.

Is it really meaningful to talk about whether something is fine without considering life or utility for living things, though? Like, suppose the Earth was hit by a rogue planet and blown into a molten spray that eventually condensed into cosmic fragments. It’s not like it would mind its new physical form. Calling something a self-correcting problem supposes it could have a problem in the first place, but inanimate objects are indifferent.

As for bacteria, well, they’re not actually one monolithic entity. Some types will for sure be fine, but it’s not like they couldn’t lose biodiversity too, and in fact they definitely will…every macroscopic species that goes extinct is expected to carry some microscopic ones into oblivion along with it.

I get the idea that we need to stop this for the sake of humanity, but nature will keep going all the same. That works if you consider everything from a rainforest to a barren rock equivalent. I’m not sure why that’s a good perspective to take though.