kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

This one nails it: anti-vaxx is good at PR, interactive, welcoming. Health education at the same time... does not exist apart from direct doctor-to-patient contacts and static NHS pages which announce their message from the position of authority.

"Understanding Conspiracy Theories" has a noticeable contribution from Polish scientists based on research done in Poland. "Collective narcissism" is one of the most frequently mentioned population characteristics in this context 😂

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12568

"Conspiracy theories appear to appeal to individuals who seek accuracy and/or meaning, but perhaps lack the cognitive tools or experience problems that prevent them from being able to find accuracy and meaning via other more rational means"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12568

Ross Anderson "Security Engineering" Third Edition is available all for free as draft here https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/book.html

After spending a few hours in sci-hub archives, I'm once again extremely grateful to Alexandra Elbakyan https://sci-hub.tw/alexandra who helps millions of people globally get free access to scientific publications that were paid for from public money and then privatised & paywalled

"The Mount Vernon Police Tapes: In Secretly Recorded Phone Calls, Officers Say Innocent People Were Framed"

https://gothamist.com/news/mount-vernon-police-tapes-innocent-people-were-framed

@ffeth

I don't there's any that does not involve using more advanced technologies. Note that 100 years ago we were burning coal in every home, towns were full of smog, many towns even had no sewage and people lived for 30 years on average.

@ffeth

The problem with environmental organisations is that many of them like Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth were openly funded by fossil fuel industry - see here https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28/the-dirty-secret-of-renewables-advocates-is-that-they-protect-fossil-fuel-interests-not-the-climate/

The problem with Greenpeace is that they do not reveal their sponsors and what they did in Europe for the last two decades very much coincides with interests of Gazprom.

@ffeth

Everyone developed nuclear reactors back in 50's to have nuclear weapons. The main reason to use uranium rather than thorium was driven by the weapons program.

But none of the modern reactors used in France or Germany, not to mention new ones built in Bangladesh, can be used to make nuclear weapons.

What France did however was the 70's civilian nuclear power which allowed it to decarbonize its energy sector at unprecedented scale.

@ffeth

Nuclear weapons proliferation is a completely separate topic from nuclear power.

There are countries that have nuclear weapons (e.g. Israel) but no nuclear power, and dozens of countries with nuclear power but no nuclear weapons (e.g. Czech).

@feld

I'm a constant supporter of crystal energy, not distracted by more and more temptations you're adding all the time

@ffeth

That's precisely the point. Any modern technology requires globally supplied resources - just have a look at this crazy diagram. And global resources require spying, diplomacy, military to protect etc.

@ffeth

Also, the picture was not about "industrial-military complex".

It was straightforward comparison of energy sources CO2 emissions made by IPCC that included nuclear power too.

Greenpeace manipulated the picture and removed one energy source they don't like. They don't like brown coal either but it has large CO2 emissions so fits their message.

This is precisely why Greenpeace must not be trusted. They do PR, not science.

@ffeth

100% of what you wrote applies in 100% to renewable energy and any other energy source.

Greenpeace posts a comparison of CO2 emissions between gas, coal, wind and solar based... but they could not resists manipulating the IPCC data they used and remove nuclear power from the picture.

Let's bring it back: nuclear power should be next to Windkraft with 12 gCO2eq/kWh.

The conventional wisdom that "facts don't matter" in public understanding of science-related controversies is too cynical. Even with polarized respondents on climate, clear scientific explanations can transform attitudes.

Precisely why we desperately need public science-based education campaigns on medicine, climate, energy and telecommunications. Today these have been left to biased industry on one side, and anti-scientific activists on the other.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12187#.XtezlXanM1o.twitter

Traits having the largest impact on income in the US - a *very* interesting article

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/06/02/what-trait-affects-income-the-most/

@rysiek

State religion. Precisely what Orthodox church does in Russia for Putin.