As social media has become more popular over the years, it has greatly impacted climate change denial groups and how they spread their information. Emma Frances Bloom and Denise Tillery explore how Facebook has affected two climate change denial groups in particular. The first group, Watts Up with That (WUWT), is a Facebook group out of the United States that has 11,864 likes and 11,323 followers. The group is known for being the central node is the climate change denial blogosphere. Their goal is to share the unknown stories of climate change from the skeptic side. The second group, Global Warming Policy Forum (GPFW), is another Facebook group out of the United Kingdom that has 7,425 likes and 7,609 followers. This group had formed through an email controversy between Lord Nigel Lawson and Climate Gate. Their goal is to expose the misinformation and share how climate science is not settled.
The authors chose to focus on two common themes between the two Facebook groups that entail the networked strategies and use of rhetoric. The data set includes twenty-five of the top official posts from each group. These twenty-five posts have the highest-level engagement which means they had the most likes, comments, and interactions. Both groups participate in using hyperlinks as their networked strategies. The use of hyperlinks allows their Facebook users to be brought to their main webpage or to another denial groups site. These repeated hyperlinks and citations allow for readers to believe they are receiving unbiased, up to date information. Both sites lack credibility with external references which creates an ignorant community. The use of hyperlinks enables visitors to no longer think of the work since most viewers do not actively follow and verify if the information is accurate. Hyperlinks create a virtual space between the group’s Facebook page and the original source.
Each of the groups also use rhetorical strategies to help boost the number of people that are engaging with their sites. Climate change denial groups collectively function together through their presence online. Both groups use strategies such as belittling the opposing side. Bloom explains how they use words such as libtards (liberals added with dumb), communism, and Nazis to describe the opposing side. WUWT in specific, aims to threat and mock climate change enthusiasts. They are known for ganging up on specific environmentalists and state death threats or the involvement of guns. Both websites try to mislead their readers using their headlines. For example, WUWT uses the headline, “CO2 levels have been higher in the past” to make it seem as though CO2 is not a factor to global warming. Bloom responds to this headline by stating, “Isolated lines of argument, including the claim that “CO2 has been higher in the past,” is severed from its context (that “past” was 3.6 million years ago, well before humans evolved) and is used as a response to an argument about global warming in a way that allows the speaker to seem educated” (pg. 31). Although the statement is true, WUWT had stretched the truth to make it seem as though the “past” was recent.
Overall, it seems as though the average environmentalist in our community cares more about their appearance of being aware of science information rather than if it is false information. We are so quick to believe information that is seen on the internet without taking the time to inspect the source. Bloom suggests, “If the solution to climate change relies on our communicative potential to tackle it, then these sites are roadblocks towards that progress” (pg. 32). Facebook groups like WUWT and GWPF block real scientific evidence from being shared. In order to stop the spread of false global warming information, we must inform others about these sites and their lack of credibility. Sites like Facebook are unable to filter every post to see if it shares accurate information. We must be mindful of the information that floats around the internet.
This post is very intriguing. What made it that way is the information being in-depth and easy to comprehend. I concur that people believe in information swiftly without checking to see if the source is credible. I almost fell into that trap when I saw a post that was science-related on Instagram. I nearly took it as truth before I found out that a credible source declared the information as false.
ReplyDeleteI learned a lot in this post. One of the details that stood out to me is the climate change denial groups utilizing words to attack their opponents. It is appalling that these groups utilize this rhetorical tactic to ensure that they can influence others to believe in the misinformation. This post reminded me how impactful social media can be. Very insightful!