Read on Twitter
If you try to follow smart climate ppl like I do, your feed is currently full of folks bashing a bad (like actually terrible) paper on permafrost/runaway climate chg.
Alas, unsubstantiated doom gets viral likes, upvotes + RTs.
Said paper made it to Reddit's front page, ugh. (1)
Alas, unsubstantiated doom gets viral likes, upvotes + RTs.
Said paper made it to Reddit's front page, ugh. (1)
This showcases the worst aspects of public climate discourse. Journalism failing to properly vet + contextualize a new study, coupled with unquestioning mob consumption. A pipeline bypassing the larger science community and making "listen to the scientists" into a bad joke. (2)
Some choice links and debunkings: (3) https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/1327176896224911360?s=20
A great piece by @daisydunnesci: (4) https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1326936530699444224?s=20
An important thread from @hausfath explaining what the consensus scientific view is on how climate change slows and stops once human greenhouse gas emissions reach net zero: (5) https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1327121668851060738?s=20
Useful thoughts from @queenofpeat on how the flawed study's authors made problematic assumptions about carbon release from permafrost thaw: (6) https://twitter.com/queenofpeat/status/1327282837318471680?s=20
A number of choice quotes as well in this article: (7) https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1327339781286744064?s=20
And finally some of my own thoughts shared with a reporter via email: (8)
All of this just really emphasizes that earth + climate scientists can only do so much when it comes to wider climate science communication. Social media + internet can completely run wild before more measured analysis can weigh in, and frequently drowns it out anyways. (9 - END)
PS - to be fair about apportioning blame, the peer review process quite clearly was insufficiently robust, allowing this highly flawed study to make it to publication. I hope @SciReports does a very serious debrief on what happened.
