Drop Some Climate Reality Into the Web of Denial Myths

picture-7019-1570723309.jpg
on

If you spend any time at all reading online articles or blogs about climate change (and of course you do, youโ€™re here), and you like to punish yourself by scrolling down to the comments, you know how quickly the anti-science shysters and merchants of doubt pounce.

Having posted hundreds upon hundreds of climate-related items over the past decade or so, I can practically predict the canned comments before theyโ€™re posted. Pay any attention to them, and youโ€™ll pretty quickly come to realize that the same talking points surface again and again and again.

Thereโ€™s a good reason for this โ€“ the climate denial communications machine is very well funded, and has plenty of shadowy channels to help funnel this disinformation into comments sections and Facebook feeds and Twitter and everythingย else.

Well now thereโ€™s a great new weapon that the pro-science crowd can use to help fight the good battle against climate disinformation. Itโ€™s called Reality Drop, and it dropped this week from the good truth-tellers at the Climate Reality Project.

Basically, Reality Drop uses competitive gaming techniques to combat climate denial online. It combines the best of science-based written arguments, with this new gaming mechanism to really encourage users to spread climateย truth.

There already exist a handful of great resources for combatting the boilerplate โ€œhot airโ€ arguments of the denial crowd. Skeptical Science has long been a must-use tool, with science-based arguments tailor made to rebut the most common climate denial myths. (And, in fact, Reality Drop was developed in collaboration with Skeptical Science, whose creator John Cook long ago made all of his websiteโ€™s rebuttals โ€œopen sourceโ€ for anyone to use.) Along similar lines, our friends at Grist have been publishing the very-useful โ€œHow to Talk to a Climate Skepticโ€ series for yearsย now.

Reality Drop serves not only to deliver the science-based content, but provides really clever and effective web-based tools for any adherent of climate science to better engage in online โ€œdiscussionsโ€ (Iโ€™m trying to be civil here) and make sure that the truth shines through the โ€“ how should we say? โ€“ PR pollution thatโ€™s clouding climate science. Check out the videoย explanation:

ย 

Introducing Reality Drop from Climate Reality on Vimeo.

So, in essence, users can find posts online where disinformation is being spread, and โ€œdropโ€ some scientific reality into the conversation. The science-based rebuttals are tailor-made for all of the most common โ€œcopy-and-pasteโ€ denier talkingย points.

So, say you find a comment by โ€œearthisflat365โ€ on a National Geographic article about Greenlandโ€™s ice sheets that says, โ€œโ€ฆbut Antarctica is gaining ice.โ€ Click over to Reality Drop and find the relevant rebuttal โ€“ here it is โ€“ and drop someย reality.

You donโ€™t even need to stumble upon the myths and lies yourself. Reality Drop gathers a bunch of links daily to posts that could use a dose of truth. Hereโ€™s how Maggie Fox, President and CEO of the Climate Reality Project, describes the tool inย action:

Each day, we feature a roundup of climate news from around the world that demands a response. Some articles may contain misleading quotes from a climate denier. And in other cases, distortions of the truth are polluting the comment section. Reality Drop matches each article with the appropriate climate fact. To respond, you simply go to the article, take the response from Reality Drop, and put it into your own words. In only a minute, youโ€™ve helped change theย conversation.

So far, there are 106 myths cataloged on Reality Drop, each one complemented by a thorough, science-backed rebuttal with an abundance of links to actual research and primary source material.

It’s more than a one-stop shop for combatting disinformation โ€“ it’s a game in which just by playing, we all come outย winners.ย 

picture-7019-1570723309.jpg
Ben Jervey is a Senior Fellow for DeSmog and directs the KochvsClean.com project. He is a freelance writer, editor, and researcher, specializing in climate change and energy systems and policy. Ben is also a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. He was the original Environment Editor for GOOD Magazine, and wrote a longstanding weekly column titled โ€œThe New Ideal: Building the clean energy economy of the 21st Century and avoiding the worst fates of climate change.โ€ He has also contributed regularly to National Geographic News, Grist, and OnEarth Magazine. He has published three booksโ€”on eco-friendly living in New York City, an Energy 101 primer, and, most recently, โ€œThe Electric Battery: Charging Forward to a Low Carbon Future.โ€ He graduated with a BA in Environmental Studies from Middlebury College, and earned a Masterโ€™s in Energy Regulation and Law at Vermont Law School. A bicycle enthusiast, Ben has ridden across the United States and through much ofย Europe.

Related Posts

on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.
on

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.
on

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.
on

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.