A Critical Look at Climate Change “Communication”: Deconstructing Artful Propaganda:

[rangerrebew]

A Critical Look at Climate Change “Communication”: Deconstructing Artful Propaganda:
19 hours ago Charles Rotter 53 Comments

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

The latest paper from Communications Earth & Environment, entitled “Artistic representations of data can help bridge the US political divide over climate change,” takes another swipe at a propaganda approach to environmental communication. Nan Li and colleagues examine the role of artistic visualization in climate change communication, arguing that such visualizations elicit stronger emotional responses than conventional data graphs. They maintain that this could

“mitigate the political division in viewers’ perceived relevance of climate change that could otherwise be exacerbated by exposure to data graphs.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00856-9

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/09/deconstructing-artful-propaganda-a-critical-look-at-climate-change-communication/

[Kamaji]

The paper’s central thesis rests on the argument that “artistic representations of climate data” will prove more effective in “bridging the political divide on climate change.” However, this contention seems to prioritize emotion and perception over fact and critical reasoning. We continue to drift away from an era of science driven by empirical evidence, focusing instead on emotionally charged interpretation of data to encourage consensus.

So, the paper is interested in fomenting more false propaganda, not less.

[massadvj]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCFAzPl1QmE

[rangerrebew]

So, the paper is interested in fomenting more false propaganda, not less.

 

[andy58-in-nh]

So: what I am hearing is that the scientific process, once driven by empirical data and a search for truth has now given way to the low arts of influence and manipulation, in the service of a desired political outcome.

If a hypothesis is true, it can be verified through observation, testing, measurement and evaluation. If it is not true, it should be discarded or modified, and not subject to data manipulation, selection bias, or visual trickery.

Or is that just my "White privilege" talking?

[Kamaji]

So: what I am hearing is that the scientific process, once driven by empirical data and a search for truth has now given way to the low arts of influence and manipulation, in the service of a desired political outcome.

If a hypothesis is true, it can be verified through observation, testing, measurement and evaluation. If it is not true, it should be discarded or modified, and not subject to data manipulation, selection bias, or visual trickery.

Or is that just my "White privilege" talking?