The real reason our weather is going to the dogs

Feedback is New Scientist’s popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. Submit amusing items to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com.

Raining Cats and Dogs

Kristian Steensen Nielsen—a researcher at the Copenhagen Business School—is known for his rigorous approach to studying behavioral changes to address climate change and biodiversity loss. His aim is to investigate how individuals can become more environmentally conscious and the circumstances under which these choices can collectively drive real change.

Hence, it was surprising for us to see Nielsen’s LinkedIn post stating: “Apparently, we’ve discovered that dog ownership contributes to extreme weather.” This remark followed a story from KXAN in Austin, Texas, titled: “Dog ownership’s role in extreme weather is vastly underestimated, new study finds.”

Our initial thoughts went to the butterfly effect and chaos theory—if a butterfly’s wings in South America can spur a storm in London, what might a wagging dog’s tail in Texas do?

However, this discussion is less about our furry friends causing hurricanes and more about their carbon footprints. A study published in June in PNAS Nexus aimed to elucidate how individuals can recognize the environmental impact of their lifestyle choices. Among 26 examined behaviors, one notable option was “not adopting a dog.”

The researchers pointed out that among the most straightforward actions that can significantly reduce carbon emissions were: “taking one fewer flight, choosing not to adopt a dog, or opting for lower-carbon meats.” Despite this, it seems many individuals struggle to comprehend these impacts.

The situation mirrors a game of telephone, where the original message transforms as it passes through channels from researchers to media outlets. The paper’s focus isn’t solely on dogs; its title—“Climate action literacy interventions increase commitments to more effective mitigation behaviors”—clearly indicates its broader intent.

While a convoluted connection can be drawn between dog-related carbon emissions (primarily from dog food production) and extreme weather, we sense this linkage might be barking up the wrong tree.

The Other Game

Once again, Feedback finds itself losing The Game. As discussed before, every human is continuously engaged in The Game, a mental exercise where the goal is to forget that one is playing. Each time you think about it, you lose.

For those who find this prospect unappealing, Robin Stevens offers a comedic remedy, citing a panel from xkcd’s 391st comic, titled “Anti-Mindvirus” which reads: “YOU JUST WON THE GAME. IT’S OK! YOU’RE FREE!” The alt-text adds: “I’m as surprised as you! I didn’t think it was possible.”

Problem solved—unless, of course, someone follows up with “NO, YOU HAVEN’T!”

Deeper and Deeper

The prevalence of manipulated images and videos, often generated through artificial intelligence, has become a common theme in our discussions about misinformation. We’re all aware of how viral fakes can mislead countless viewers. Yet, perhaps less familiar is the emergence of fake journalists powered by AI technology.

Meet “Margaux Blanchard,” a name frequently appearing in articles that cover diverse topics—from weddings in Minecraft (Wired) to Disneyland superfans (SFGate) and even the challenges for Guatemalan journalists (Index on Censorship).

Curiously, Margaux Blanchard appears to be a creation of AI, as none of her stories have origins in reality; they have been retracted, citing that they contained fictional characters and fabricated organizations.

This issue has resurfaced recently. According to a report from The Washington Post on September 6, a series of articles have been pulled due to an #AI-related scheme attempting to pass off AI-written stories as journalism. Thankfully, we’re living in a time devoid of critical events requiring reliable reporting.

The plot thickens. In July, we previously examined The Velvet Sundown, a seemingly AI-driven music band that utilized AI-generated songs and promotional images. The creator, Andrew Frelon, at first admitted to orchestrating the entire facade, only to backtrack from his claims, and then oddly, reverse his retraction once again.

Frelon detailed in a Medium post his involvement in a project funded by a “major media client” investigating whether an AI could produce credible news that could be sold to reputable outlets. Judging by his assertions, the answer seems to be “yes.” However, his credibility is limited, given he solely operates a Medium account with just three entries and a self-portrait. There’s speculation—what if he isn’t real either?

As Dominic Ponsford from Press Gazette articulately stated in his newsletter, “Every time you receive an email from someone you do not know, the assumption now has to be that they are not real.”

The takeaway seems clear: even known journalists cannot always be trusted—unless they are using peculiar pseudonyms, of course.

Do you have a story for Feedback?

You can send your stories via email to feedback@newscientist.com. Be sure to include your home address. Previous and current editions of Feedback can be found on our website.