[Udik]

If two very reliable scientific studies come out about the same subject, one confirming what everyone already knows about it, and the other one finding some basic flaw in the accepted science that entirely challenges our understanding of it- in that case, which one do you think would have more press?

It seems only natural to me that the more interesting one is the one challenging our knowledge: its (potential) information content is higher, simply because it is less probable.

In other words, in the current world an article pushing for climate change activism might be the classic "dog bites man" while the opposite is "man bites dog".

[gameswithgo]

I agree with your premise, but nobody is finding basic flaws in climate science that challenge our understanding of it.

[skinkestek]

Warning: light hyperbole in this first paragraph: We don't really know because anything that could challenge it sadly get summarily downvoted without an explanation.

I believe in it but it is sad to see that we are so scared of it that we cannot even bother to explain why something is wrong and instead have to opt for

- name calling

- appeal to authority

- strawmen

every time.

Again: I don't work for big oil. I don't fly and haven't for years. I reduce, reuse and recycle and do all the right things.

But there are still a number of questions I have that I cannot get answers for because if I ask them before anyone who knows has a chance to answer someone will summarily downvote and/or flag it and say I am a JAQ-ing shill. (JAQ = Just Asking Questions is a known bad tactic, but it is incredibly frustrating to be accused of that when I just want to know the answer.)

[adrianN]

Something getting downvoted is different from a study presenting solid data not getting published. As far as I know there is no solid data refuting the consensus as described for example in the IPCC reports.

[Udik]

But then maybe we should treat with the same scepticism studies diverging from the IPCC consensus in either direction. Those that downplay the risks of climate change as well as those that announce catastrophic outcomes that are not considered likely by the IPCC.

[adrianN]

If you look at climate policy we treat everything with extreme skepticism that tells us any change is necessary. Announced climate goals fall way short of anything the IPCC reports would support, and implemented policies fall short even of those unambitious goals.

[cameronbrown]

If someone in academia spent serious time and money trying to disprove climate change, they would be laughed out of their job. But this is a horrible culture because we won't learn anything by publishing the same dogma over and over.

Even if you are 100% convinced climate change is happening (as most of us are), funding people who are trying to disprove it is a necessary and useful function of science.

[marcosdumay]

Every one in academia working towards proving that climate change is real is also working towards proving it's not real.

In fact, if you go into it with a pre-conceived bias that disagrees with everything everybody else has seen, you'll be laughed out of it. You should be laughed out of it too if your bias aligned with what everybody else has seen.

[cameronbrown]

Agree in theory, but alas, not in practice. Nobody's going to get funding for disproving/attacking climate theories.

[SpicyLemonZest]

There isn't, but I frankly think that many people would call the IPCC consensus "anti-climate action" if you summarized it without telling them what it was. The IPCC consensus doesn't predict anything tremendously apocalyptic; they just think the required adaptations will be disruptive and costly, enough so that some countries won't be able to afford them.

[Udik]

I am making a general argument. Things that are somehow unexpected tend to get more attention that those which are granted.

The article says:

"While just 10% of the press releases Wetts found featured anti-climate action messaging..."

Which means that 90% of the press releases contain pro climate action statements. Seems only natural that people tend to be more curious towards information that is less expected. According to the numbers given (90% vs 10%, 7% vs 14%) about 80% of all the information the public is exposed to is pro climate action.

[hanniabu]

Correct, and pretending it does just gives the climate deniers legitimacy.

[citizenkeen]

But you don't know that unless you read the article, right?