Analysis: Tactics Of Social Media Climate Deniers Have Shifted

There's still a TON of climate denial videos on
YouTube a recent studies says, but the tactics of
this crowd have changed. 

 YouTube can be a real cesspool at times, and so it is with climate change denial. 

As CNN reports, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has their hands full studying climate denial on YouTube.   

Although, in what could be a tiny victory of sorts, at least the fact that climate change is actually real is acknowledged by these deniers, but it doesn't really help much.

Says CNN:

"Where once climate deniers would outright reject climate change as a hoax or scam, or claim that humans  were not responsible for it, many are now shifting to a different approach one which attempts to undermine climate science, cast doubt on climate solutions and even claim global warming will be beneficial at best, harmless at worst"

 That's not to say outright climate deniers have entirely gone away from social media. .When I"m on X, formerly Twitter, and want to do hashtag #ClimateChange or #ClimateCrisis, the algorithms on X always try to prompt me to write #ClimateHoax or #ClimateScam.

Sigh. 

An example of what CCDH is talking is cited in their report.  Glenn Beck always used to say the climate change is nonexistent. Now there's been a subtle change. Disasters widely believed to be worsened by climate change in Beck's mind have nothing to do with a warming world.  Beck said climate change did not cause "Maui's wildfires or ANY wildfires."

See the sleight of hand there?  It's actually true that climate change did not strike the match that set off these wildfires. So climate change did not "cause" the fires. But the reality is the wildfires would not have been anywhere near as disastrous without climate change. 

The slight shift in tactics on YouTube is probably less about acknowledging climate change and more about YouTube video creators trying to get around the social media company's ban on monetizing climate denial. It's all about fooling the algorithms. 

Here are the receipts from CCDH, as reported by CNN: 

"'New denial content - attacks on solutions, the science and the climate movement - now makes up 70 percent of all climate denial claims posted on YouTube, according to the report, up from 35 percent in 2018.

Assertions that 'global warming is not happening' one the main 'old denial' claims the analysis focused on, declined from 48 percent of all denial claims in 2018 to 14 percent in 2023, the report found. Claims that climate solutions won't work, however, soared from 9 percent to 30 percent over the same period."

The bottom line, says CCDH, YouTube is making up to $13.4 million a year from ads  on videos that have this new brand of climate denial.   

Glenn Beck and his Blaze TV on YouTube is one of the
leading purveyors of "new climate denial" on 
YouTube, which seeks to cast doubt on climate solutions.

The new climate denial is all about clicks, too.  The more "engagement" you get on social media, the more money you make. 

Climate denialists - and much of the right wing in general - LOVE conspiracy theories. Oh, and you get those with the new climate denial!   Here's Glenn Beck again, courtesy of a YouTube video by Beck highlighted in CCDH's report:

"In this video Glenn Beck, the founder of BlazeTV, claims that President Biden's government is using climate change as a cover to push for a great reset and government control. He states: 'They don't care about saving the planet. They know climate change is not going to kill millions around the world, this is all about gaining power and control over you......they are using this so-called emergency to justify a reset.'"

 The irony is climate change could conceivably and eventually have more control over your life than any current government attempts to blunt the effects of that climate change. 

In a statement to CNN, YouTube officials said they allow debate and discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy and research.

Sure, all that is fine. We should be debating public policy on climate change. But where do you draw the line?

I think it's easy to draw the distinction between public policy debate and gaslighting. For instance, during a January Arctic cold snap, there was a lot of social media and news discussion about how EV technology isn't good enough yet to make them efficient in cold weather. 

That to me is a valid enough topic. That's a far cry from the opposite extreme, which would be something ridiculous like stating we should ban research on any technology that would combat climate change. Or worse, just forget about doing anything about the problem. 

Yes, I suppose people in the United States do have the First Amendment right to lie. But is it ethical given the dangers posed by climate change?