Science Scienceand andTechnology Technology because these efforts go some way in undermining confidence in the political system and its institutions. A worrying example of this returns to Russian disinformation campaigns; some accounts have been exposed as trolls posing to be African Americans on Instagram with the purpose of discouraging minorities from voting at all in the 2016 election. Social media, populists with twitter accounts, and armies of bots are not the sole causes of the rise of fake news, with some factors being a lot closer to home. Corporate journalism frequently is driven by traffic, ratings and views – sensationalist media is a key factor laying down the framework for this development which must be acknowledged and considered. This brand of media is less concerned about accuracy, policy analysis and debate, and more about presenting news through a lens of ‘politics as entertainment’ covering gossip, scandal and personal conflict. The Presidential Campaign of 2016 seems like a telling of example of tit-for-tat, who-said-what coverage between Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders
and Trump. Therefore, we must not take things at face value and instead be critical of what we see on our feeds shared by our former primary school classmates, co-workers and distant relatives. The feelings we get when we see a headline are a deliberate intention from the author to rile up a response – once we acknowledge that, we may proceed with caution. As a society, we must not throw up our hands in defeat, helpless and defenceless against these tides of the modern age. The internet, while partially creating this problem, also has within it the solution; fact checking has never been easier and is often just one Google search away. Despite the efforts of the Russian Government and various far-right groups to create divisive, inflammatory content, the target of such content is normally the same alt-right, far right minority. The majority of people do not interact with or consume this content as their primary source of information and therefore its effects, while worrying, are still somewhat limited. Wider society should not be considered as passive, uncritical and unthinking in its consumption of
information. We’re all better than that. The encouraging thing is that this is increasingly acknowledged by campaigners, journalists, universities, and governments. Now there is a growing emphasis on web-literacy and awareness on how to spot these manifestations of fake news. The UK government has opened an enquiry regarding fake news, specifically into how to spot it, how it spreads and its effects on the public. News organisations such as the BBC have run features about how to identify hoaxes, fake news and bots. Our own library here at Warwick runs a webliteracy class on spotting fake news as well. So yes, bots, trolls and fake news do threaten democracy and have concerning motivations to incite fear, intolerance and disillusionment within our societies. Yet we are not defenceless, and it is in our own hands to remain critical, openminded and willing to participate in open dialogue rather than be misinformed and divided. The threat fake news poses to our democracy is only as big as we let it become. Juste Rekstyte is a second year History and Politics student
Earth’s Endgame – Can we salvage spaceship earth?
image Pexels
Tom Harrison reviews the recent IPCC report and what we need to do to in response. The ideal temperature for the human body is 37°C, at 38°C hyperthermia sets in and above 40°C you will usually die. For life on earth it’s not much different. Global average temperatures have already risen 1°C and hyperthermia is beginning to set in, in the form of more frequent floods, deepening droughts and worsening weather events. Simply put, the climate has changed. The supposed solution, the Paris Agreement commits us to keeping average global temperature rises below 2°C, and aims to keep warming to 1.5°C. These numbers have been used for some time as a short hand for the
levels at which we avoid total climate catastrophe but their implications aren’t well understood in policy circles. To try and bring some clarity the UN commissioned a report from the IPCC to explain just that. Before we start to delve into the content of the report we need to understand what we’re reading. Firstly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is just that; intergovernmental. While scientists compile the report, every line is subject to the approval of each participating government. The reports are just massive literature reviews compiled on the basis of some fairly arbitrary rules; it looks at
each impact discreetly and only considers limited forcing effects. Governments can pick the science that suits their motives. Consequently, the reports are known in the scientific community as somewhere between overconfident and misleading; their most recent Assessment Report is only four years old but already looks like a folly in optimism. That the IPCC report is this stark is truly chilling when you consider what was left on the cutting room floor, but it shouldn’t be surprising. In the last decades reports from organisations as radical as the European Energy Agency, the World Energy Council and even
28 | Autumn 2018 | Warwick Globalist Democracy on the Brink.indd 28
09/11/2018 11:14:19