UN officials warned of an “alarming flood” of misinformation on Twitter after the use of hashtags including #climatescam soared during the Cop27 climate conference last year, shortly after Musk’s takeover.

 

Anecdotally, climate scientists have reported a significant increase in climate denial tweets.

 

An analysis revealed that 50 prominent accounts had benefited hugely from the new ownership, gaining 718 followers a week on average since Musk’s takeover. 

 

READ MORE

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/twitter-elon-musk-climate-change-denial-bclrx7nv9

 

 

Archive link

25 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

UN officials warned of an “alarming flood” of misinformation on Twitter after the use of hashtags including #climatescam soared during the Cop27 climate conference last year, shortly after Musk’s takeover.

The UN want to control what we say and what we think.

If I want to believe something that's not true, what right does anyone have to stop me.

The biggest misinformation on the planet would be religion, and people are prepared to kill and die over that, shouldn't they try to stop religion first?

 

If I want to claim climate change isn't real, the earth is flat, the USA never landed on the moon ....... what harm does it do anyone. It's not as if my opinion affects anyone in any way positive or negative.

Twitter is a septic tank since musk bought it.

 

Interesting that "The Twitter Files", initially hyped as "the story of the decade", ended with Mom and Day getting a divorce. About the only productive thing to come out of that hot-mess was reliving Chrissy Tiegen's post about trump, and the GOVERNMENT (aka the trump administration) demanding that her post be removed because it upset trump.

 

Twitter targets its rival Substack, forcing well-known journalists to choose
Matt Taibbi, whom Elon Musk solicited to write the ‘Twitter Files,’ says he’ll start using Substack’s new Twitter clone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/07/twitter-substack-taibbi-musk-split/

 

 

Mayday, mayday:

CO2 in the atmosphere has 

increased by 100ppm

 =    1% of 1%.

OMG.

Overall, H2O has far more

atmospheric 'greenhouse effect'

than. CO2.

5 or 10 x more.

 

(It's all theatre folks.)

 

 

30 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Twitter is a septic tank since musk bought it.

 

Interesting that "The Twitter Files", initially hyped as "the story of the decade", ended with Mom and Day getting a divorce. About the only productive thing to come out of that hot-mess was reliving Chrissy Tiegen's post about trump, and the GOVERNMENT (aka the trump administration) demanding that her post be removed because it upset trump.

 

Twitter targets its rival Substack, forcing well-known journalists to choose
Matt Taibbi, whom Elon Musk solicited to write the ‘Twitter Files,’ says he’ll start using Substack’s new Twitter clone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/07/twitter-substack-taibbi-musk-split/

 

 

Sir:

Love your total ad hominum approach.

Impressive.

1 hour ago, onthedarkside said:

Anecdotally, climate scientists have reported a significant increase in climate denial tweets.

This sentence raises concerns over misinformation.

 

I believe what is increasing is the written/tweeted  idea that "climate change" is man made and can be stopped/reversed by paying more taxes, stopping to go abroad on holidays and eating bugs - while watching the business titans and political leaders(including climate alarmists like Gore) fly around on private jets and buy multiple multi million $ beachfront properties. And it is probably only increasing because Twitter is not involved in political censorship under new leadership.

 

 

39 minutes ago, papa al said:

Mayday, mayday:

CO2 in the atmosphere has 

increased by 100ppm

 =    1% of 1%.

OMG.

The exact calibrated warming effects of CO2 were established at the end of the 19th century. This is 100% settled science. You've got nothing.

I'm guessing anyone who questioned the whole "climate change" Doomsday conspiracy theory (complete with child deity Greta Thunberg) would have been banned from the platform prior to Musk buying Twitter.

 

It's good that people are now being allowed to question the narrative. It is after all, mostly nonsense designed to control and extract taxes from the plebs while the elite continue to take their private jets between multiple huge waterside properties.

 

Yet more benefits from Musk getting Twitter. I'm on there all the time. The lack of censorship compared to many online platforms is most refreshing.

10 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

This sentence raises concerns over misinformation.

 

I believe what is increasing is the written/tweeted  idea that "climate change" is man made and can be stopped/reversed by paying more taxes, stopping to go abroad on holidays and eating bugs - while watching the business titans and political leaders(including climate alarmists like Gore) fly around on private jets and buy multiple multi million $ beachfront properties. And it is probably only increasing because Twitter is not involved in political censorship under new leadership.

 

 

"Twitter is not involved in political censorship under new leadership."

 

Really? This from just a couple of weeks ago.

 

The Indian government issued notices to Twitter

 

Twitter agreed to block more than 120 accounts, including the Canadian politician Jagmeet Singh, the Canadian poet Rupi Kaur, several journalists and an Indian MP. Twitter also blocked the handle of the BBC’s Punjabi bureau.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk

 

25 minutes ago, papa al said:

Overall, H2O has far more

atmospheric 'greenhouse effect'

than. CO2.

5 or 10 x more.

 

(It's all theatre folks.)

 

 

What is so hard to understand about the fact that the atmosphere frequently purges itself of water vapor when a saturation point is reached? This phenomenon is known as precipitation. Have you heard of rain, sleet, snow, and hail? And when the day comes that it starts to precipitate dry ice because the atmosphere is saturated with CO2,  you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

I'm guessing anyone who questioned the whole "climate change" Doomsday conspiracy theory (complete with child deity Greta Thunberg) would have been banned from the platform prior to Musk buying Twitter.

 

It's good that people are now being allowed to question the narrative. It is after all, mostly nonsense designed to control and extract taxes from the plebs while the elite continue to take their private jets between multiple huge waterside properties.

 

Yet more benefits from Musk getting Twitter. I'm on there all the time. The lack of censorship compared to many online platforms is most refreshing.

Apart from the fact that 99.99 percent of climate research on the issue supports Anthropogenic Climate Change, you've made some great points.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

The UN want to control what we say and what we think.

If I want to believe something that's not true, what right does anyone have to stop me.

The biggest misinformation on the planet would be religion, and people are prepared to kill and die over that, shouldn't they try to stop religion first?

 

If I want to claim climate change isn't real, the earth is flat, the USA never landed on the moon ....... what harm does it do anyone. It's not as if my opinion affects anyone in any way positive or negative.

Well you believe the UN want to control what we say and what we think.

 

So you are right, people will believe all sorts of nonsense. 

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'm guessing anyone who questioned the whole "climate change" Doomsday conspiracy theory (complete with child deity Greta Thunberg) would have been banned from the platform prior to Musk buying Twitter.

 

It's good that people are now being allowed to question the narrative. It is after all, mostly nonsense designed to control and extract taxes from the plebs while the elite continue to take their private jets between multiple huge waterside properties.

 

Yet more benefits from Musk getting Twitter. I'm on there all the time. The lack of censorship compared to many online platforms is most refreshing.

How did Greta get into this?

 

Oh, you obsessed again.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

How did Greta get into this?

 

Oh, you obsessed again.

That's because when it comes down to the actual science, JonnyF and fellow travelers have got nothing.

Just now, placeholder said:

That's because when it comes down to the actual science, JonnyF and fellow travelers have got nothing.

There was me thinking it was that special kind of attention some men reserve for intelligent, articulate women who have the temerity to express their opinion.

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What is so hard to understand about the fact that the atmosphere frequently purges itself of water vapor when a saturation point is reached? This phenomenon is known as precipitation. Have you heard of rain, sleet, snow, and hail? And when the day comes that it starts to precipitate dry ice because the atmosphere is saturated with CO2,  you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

Wow.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

1 minute ago, papa al said:

Wow.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

You're welcome. And I am 100% confident that you will no longer be posting such nonsense on aseannow.com. Go and sin no more.

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Apart from the fact that 99.99 percent of climate research on the issue supports Anthropogenic Climate Change, you've made some great points.

Congratulations.

You are great at parroting MSM.

Thumbs up !!

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

You're welcome. And I am 100% confident that you will no longer be posting such nonsense on aseannow.com. Go and sin no more.

Yes sir.

papa be born again.

 

Just now, papa al said:

Congratulations.

You are great at parroting MSM.

Thumbs up !!

So disappointing. I was convinced that you had accepted the value of scientific research and thinking. At the very least I had hoped for a rational response to what I posted instead of nonsense invoking the MSM. I wasn't aware that the MSM consisted in part of scientifically based research. 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How did Greta get into this?

 

Oh, you obsessed again.

Ummm let's see. The topic is about the climate change. She is possibly the most famous environmental activist in the world. It's really not that difficult to see the link, even for pedants.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Ummm let's see. The topic is about the climate change. She is possibly the most famous environmental activist in the world. It's really not that difficult to see the link, even for pedants.

And she is not a scientist. What ultimately counts is the science. And the fact that 99.99% of climatological research supports Anthropogenic Climate Change is what counts.

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Ummm let's see. The topic is about the climate change. She is possibly the most famous environmental activist in the world. It's really not that difficult to see the link, even for pedants.

The topic is “Climate-sceptic accounts surge after Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover”

 

 

About fifteen thousand years ago, most of North American and Europe were covered by a large sheet of ice.

 

I am wondering what the cavemen were doing back then to cause all of that ice to melt. Or maybe it could possibly be part of a natural cycle?

 

Perhaps an informed AN poster could explain.

Just wondering.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The topic is “Climate-sceptic accounts surge after Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover”

 

 

Yes, Twitter accounts that are sceptical of the conspiracy theories about man made climate change that Thunberg has been pivotal in pushing for the past few years. 

 

If you cannot see why she is relevant to the thread then I cannot help you. 

2 minutes ago, Issanman said:

About fifteen thousand years ago, most of North American and Europe were covered by a large sheet of ice.

 

I am wondering what the cavemen were doing back then to cause all of that ice to melt. Or maybe it could possibly be part of a natural cycle?

 

Perhaps an informed AN poster could explain.

Just wondering.

What you don't seem to get is that it's not just about change in climate, but the rate of change. The average global temperature is rising faster than it has been in at least the last 125000 years. So glaciers are melting at an increasingly rapid pace. It's the rate of change that counts.

If one bank offers you interest at 1 percent and another at 10 percent, then on the basis of that alone, would you claim it doesn't matter since both interest rates are positive?

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well you believe the UN want to control what we say and what we think.

 

So you are right, people will believe all sorts of nonsense. 

It's clearly stated in the OP.

Any organisation of person spouting 'misinformation' is talking about censorship and tyranny.

It's like the title 'deniers', when someone calls anyone a denier, they are trying to silence you.

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't seem to get is that it's not just about change in climate, but the rate of change. The average global temperature is rising faster than it has been in at least the last 125000 years. So glaciers are melting at an increasingly rapid pace. It's the rate of change that counts.

If one bank offers you interest at 1 percent and another at 10 percent, then on the basis of that alone, would you claim it doesn't matter since both interest rates are positive?

It depends on the trustworthiness of the bank.

A bank offering 10% but about to go bust, won't get many customers.

I have my money in a UK bank earning 0.5%

But I could have placed in a Viet or Cambodian bank earning 10%

Just like your leaders preaching top fossil fuels while flying around in private jets.

These people can't be trusted.

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It depends on the trustworthiness of the bank.

A bank offering 10% but about to go bust, won't get many customers.

I have my money in a UK bank earning 0.5%

But I could have placed in a Viet or Cambodian bank earning 10%

Just like your leaders preaching top fossil fuels while flying around in private jets.

These people can't be trusted.

Which is why I wrote the phrase that's now in boldface:

 

If one bank offers you interest at 1 percent and another at 10 percent, then on the basis of that alone, would you claim it doesn't matter since both interest rates are positive?

 

Because I figured that someone would attempt a deflection such as the one you just made. And deflection is necessary because the point is so obvious, there isn't a rational rejoinder.

 

And once again, what does the behavior of VIPs taking flights have to do with the science? The fact that 99.99% of climatological research that addresses Anthropogenic Climate Change supports its existence.