World's Plant Life Far Less Diverse Than Thought

Meshach writes "A report out of FOX News (I know, I know) says that there are far fewer unique species of plants than previously thought. The report states that only about a third of named species are actually unique. The rest have been 'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists."

Comments

nothing new here

[Beer is good]

Sounds like the posts on Slashdot. Only about 1/3 are original.

Re:nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding, I'd say say something like 2/3 of all posts on Slashdot are totally unoriginal.

Re:nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that like 3/3 of all posts on Slashdot are totally unoriginal.

Re:nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

Woooosh...

Re:nothing new here

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point and broke the chain! You were supposed to say something redundant to prove the OP right (in terms of the 1/3 to 2/3 proportion).

o rly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News reporting on something not positive about the environment? Never saw that coming.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I have a great distaste for faux news, having multiple names for one thing sounds extremely likely, it's even done in most modern languages.

Re:Meh

[icebike]

'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists."

One would certainly HOPE it was from separate scientists, now wouldn't one.....

Having the same guy name the same snail again and again and nobody catching it wouldn't say much about the rest of the guy's peers.

Re:Meh

[causality]

'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists."

One would certainly HOPE it was from separate scientists, now wouldn't one.....

Having the same guy name the same snail again and again and nobody catching it wouldn't say much about the rest of the guy's peers.

The following are the biggest myths about science:

• It works exactly as advertised
• It is completely untainted from any and all political motivation, direct or indirect, including political correctness
• Groupthink never, ever interferes with recognition of the facts
• The need to secure funding/grants never, ever stops researchers from challenging mainstream ideas
• It is somehow completely free of the bureaucracy and strict orthodoxy that plague all other major institutions of society
• Prestige, fame, and entrenched authority never work to favor certain theories when multiple theories fit the facts
• Old theories are always immediately discarded in favor of new theories with different premises that better predict observations

As far as institutions go, mainstream science is pretty damned amazing. It's still an endeavor of human beings, not robots that process pure information. It's still subject to human foibles, though it tries hard to divorce itself from them. The most bothersome thing about it, to me, is that too many good ideas were ridiculed for far too long before eventually being seriously considered and finally found to be true and revolutionary. This has happened more than enough times that a certain willingness to entertain what appears to be absurd should have been adopted by now, at least long enough to see if there is enough merit for further examination. What I am talking about has little to do with collecting data/evidence and more to do with how to interpret it within the framework of a given theory. I speak of what has now become cliche -- the paradigm shift.

Re:Meh

[Homr Zodyssey]

So, are you recommending that we get robots to do our science for us? And then we should divorce them?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The most bothersome thing about it, to me, is that too many good ideas were ridiculed for far too long before eventually being seriously considered and finally found to be true and revolutionary.

I was with you, right up until you started lying. We've had several centuries of science now - let's see you name just one such incident per year.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

According to scientists and physicist, its extremely common practice. A well known example is cold fusion, but that's just the tip of the ice berg. There are various other reactors worth investigating but established science insist the bottom money holes are the best approach and most others are to be ridiculed.

Seriously, get out of your basement one in a while and actually bother to either communicate with a wider audience or at least watch scientific documentaries where its extremely clear a majority are very bitter about the subject and the rampant abuses of the system we call, "science."

Re:Meh

[Alex Belits]

No, he recommends believing in his imaginary friend.

Re:Meh

[Sique]

If someone had actually managed to get cold fusion working, we would know by now. It's a too good idea to let it pass by. And no, in general there is no established theory that forbids cold fusion.
Of course watching Sisyphos carrying the same rock again and again up the hill is fun to watch, and it's easy to make a joke about it. And of course arguing that grants should not go to Sisyphos for better rock carrying equipment, but for some other causes is easy. Both does not mean that people think Sisyphos will never manage to get the rock on top. It just means that people think there are more low hanging fruit to get where one should go first.

Re:Meh

[overlordofmu]

What if instead of linking to news source third party slashdot linked to THIS: http://www.theplantlist.org/

Would 50% of the post be discussing the third party news source instead of the real news. I don't even think the news is the spin of the third party (which was, "Look! Scientists have goofed an estimate!" (One that will alway be a moving target, in this case the plant count)). I think the real news is this: There is a group working to create an open, coordinated effort to prevent the very thing that the triple-faced thirdy party is spinning negatively.

In other news, post is now both the plurar and singular form of the word "post".

Re:Meh

[narcc]

The most bothersome thing about it, to me, is that too many good ideas were ridiculed for far too long before eventually being seriously considered and finally found to be true and revolutionary.

I was with you, right up until you started lying. We've had several centuries of science now - let's see you name just one such incident per year.

Are you seriously asking for hundreds of examples, in chronological order, of scientific ideas that were "ridiculed for far too long" before being both generally accepted and which were also revolutionary?

I don't think the GP meant, in any way, to imply that we had one of those a year, say, since Newton. (I'd say science was a failed enterprise if every year someone managed to turn it on its head!)

If you really want examples, one that springs immediately to mind is light quanta. If I remember correctly, that took some doing -- due in no small part to the fact that it was trivially easy at the time to show light to be a wave.

It's just one example, but it was a pretty revolutionary one. :)

More importantly, why do you think he's lying? The history of science is full of such stories.

While I'll admit that only a few could be considered 'revolutionary' there are certainly enough 'especially good' ideas, ridiculed for a reasonable amount of time before becoming generally accepted, that the GP could hardly be considered lying.

Re:Meh

[operagost]

Although I have a great distaste for faux news

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Re:Meh

[operagost]

I recommend not crapping all over a discussion with your useless trolling.

Re:Meh

[Pstrobus]

A few others (finally accepted in the 20th century):

Big Bang-derided as "the loud pop" among physicists
the Missoula Floods-a "wild idea" first advanced in the 1920's
Germ Theory of Disease-ignored in textbooks as late as 1940's
Plate Techtonics-ignored until incontestable evidence was advanced in the 1960's

Often by separate LIBERAL scientists

[Nimey]

right?

Re:Often by separate LIBERAL scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

No, by Palin who forgot and washed all her notes off her hands.

Re:Often by separate LIBERAL scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, the world's thought is probably less diverse than its plant life.

Re:Often by separate LIBERAL scientists

[Arancaytar]

Also, it is Obama's fault.

Than Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that has changed is our current state of knowledge.

This study does not look at what this level of diversity says about the environment good or bad.

It merely helps quantify our former ignorance.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see why this would be a political issue. I mean, if FOX news came out saying P=NP, would people assume that this was part of some secret hidden political agenda?

"You know, if P=NP, it translates into a lot of seats for the GOP, and a catastrophe for the environment. Obama strongly feels that P != NP"

As opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest have been 'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists.

As opposed to being discovered multiple times by the same scientist?

Re:As opposed to?

[icebike]

I wouldn't rule that out either. Some animals can be so different in different phases of their life that even professionals can get them mixed up, especially when they have not been watched for their entire life span.

We're not so diverse either

[countertrolling]

There's only one human race.

Re:We're not so diverse either

[siride]

And I think we're losing it.

Re:We're not so diverse either

[damn_registrars]

There's only one human race.

I suspect some at Fox News might disagree with that.

Re:We're not so diverse either

[windcask]

I suspect some at Fox News might disagree with that.

As opposed to MSNBC, who would be afraid of using the word "race" lest they offend somebody. They'll refer to it as a 'species unit.'

strange brew that's also good for you

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be home made Kombucha. As unique as it gets.

Re:ah faux news

[DesScorp]

I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

Or, you can simply evaluate stories as they are, and quit whining about "faux news". A news org can have a viewpoint and still be a news org. This is the model, in fact, in much of the world, especially Europe. America's one of the few places where big sources pretend not to have a viewpoint.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite my severe dislike of Fox News' television programs and editorializing, I find the idea of dismissing them out of hand simply because of who they are to be disturbing.

Unless they're talking about politics. Then....perhaps.

Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Jane Q. Public]

The fact that existing discovered and named flora is redundant should not be too surprising. But the number that we have discovered has no bearing whatsoever on the amount or variety of undiscovered flora, at all. So a statement like "World's Plant Live Far Less Diverse Than Thought" is simply irresponsible. The former situation is simply not evidence of the latter. It has long been acknowledged that we have only formally "discovered" and categorized a small fraction of the Earth's actual diversity.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[dbIII]

I've got a marine example about the extent of undiscovered species but it still applies. At the moment there is a large ongoing survey of marine life in part of Australia's great barrier reef (emphasis added):
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3095035.htm#transcript

Dr John Hooper (Queensland Museum):"Things like the Echinoderms which we thought were relatively well known, the whole Holothurians alone, we had a visiting French researcher who looked at the collection of about 130 species we've got and he said you've probably got about 30 new species here, but this big one over here, he was referring to something the size of a house brick, is possibly a new genus as well. This is something you'd trip over if it was on a beach."

The podcast is at: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/12/ssw_20101218_1213.mp3

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[FrootLoops]

Are botanists surprised? The article doesn't justify that with any of its quotes, either. It seems reasonable professional botanists were aware of the problem's approximate magnitude and would see this as entirely reasonable. It's just a massive amount of work to test on the order of 1,000,000 items for uniqueness.

So, the title "World's Plant Life Far Less Diverse Than Thought" seems bogus and is probably just there to grab your attention.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[retchdog]

yes, it is evidence (of some value) of the latter. see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/German_tank_problem or more to the point http://en.wikipedia.org/Good-Turing_frequency_estimation

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Jane Q. Public]

On the contrary: neither of those examples is even roughly parallel to this situation.

The "German Tank Problem" assumes a discrete uniform distribution. Life on Earth does not meet either criterion. Not even close. If anything the actual distribution is the opposite of discrete or uniform.

A similar problem holds for the Good-Turing algorithm: it makes some assumptions about the homogeneity of the population from which you are sampling. The problem there is that when speaking of the diversity of life, sampling in different regions gives you completely different populations from which to sample; your frequencies are going to be different in Europe than from, say, South America, for the simple reason that the populations you are sampling from are different. Therefore, sampling in Europe, with or without the Good-Turing estimation, is almost completely useless for predicting species in South America, and vice versa. That is precisely the problem with trying to estimate "undiscovered species" in the real world: most of the undiscovered species exist in regions that are little-explored, and about which relatively little data is available. So as a practical matter, the Good-Turing estimation might be useful for cryptology but is pretty much useless as a real-world tool in this particular context.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[retchdog]

yes, i am quite aware of the limitations. however i still believe that they are (at the very least) ``roughly parallel''. your only concrete objection, that of geographic diversity, is easily patched by a number of methods (the simplest of which is to just conduct parallel estimates, since we presumably know where the species were discovered...).

at any rate, whatever criticisms there are, it would be even more silly to say that there is "no evidence".

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[frank_adrian314159]

But the number that we have discovered has no bearing whatsoever on the amount or variety of undiscovered flora, at all.

Not necessarily true. One can build a probabilistic model based on discovery percentage in well-charted areas, agreement between discovery percentages in well-charted areas to see how closely the discovery effort correlates with an "actual number", and then adjust for less-well-charted areas. If one wishes to get fancier, one could adjust for biome "quality" and species density. One could cross-check with a model of "discoveries/active biologist-year" assuming that the density of unknown species was decreasing much faster than new species were evolving. The bottom line is that one can probably get a pretty good estimate of the number of unknown species. Computational biology and statistics have gotten pretty accurate.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Jane Q. Public]

But conducting "parallel estimates" is exactly the thing that is most impractical to do. If it were easy, those regions would already have been thoroughly explored and we'd already have good samples. But we don't. That was precisely my point. Theoretically that might be a good way to make an estimate but in the real world it comes straight up against the same brick wall that has kept so much of the world's flora and fauna from having already been classified.

The fact remains that the German Tank estimate does not fit at all, because it assumes a uniform distribution which we know is not even close to the actual situation. And if it were practical to take adequate samples from all the various geographic regions, as you advocate, in order to use the Good-Turing method, then we would already have a pretty decent idea of the real diversity anyway. Either way, it is not a practical method of estimation for use in this scenario. At least at the present time.

And I disagree that saying "no evidence" is silly. The fact that currently classified flora has been "discovered" more than once -- Good-Turing notwithstanding -- has no statistical relationship that we can, in practice, show to actual diversity. In fact it is arguable that it is much more of a sociological or anthropological issue, i.e., what areas have been explored most by "civilized" scientists, when, and how, than one of statistics.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition we don't know the amount and variety of undiscovered flora, so any conclusion on that is nonsense.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

Botanists aren't surprised -- at least, not my colleagues at RBG Kew. (I'm not a botanist.)

"Uniqueness" is complicated in taxonomy. Take Coffea arabica , a name published in 1753. There are 5 "proper" synonyms (at the bottom of the list, the ones without a 'var.'). This means a botanist named the same plant later, and another botanist later said "actually, Coffea arabica and Coffea moka are the same". That's what this is a database of, and I understand it's the first time someone's tried to do this on a global scale.

It's important to know what's what if you're going to try and conserve plants, or write their names into laws, etc.

The original press release is here.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. You're reacting with religious thought, not rational.

If we've discovered a million species and estimate that we've only found 20% of the existant species... then find out that we've only really discovered 300,000 species, of course that will reduce the estimate of total species diversity. Do you think the estimated number will magically stay high? That we'll just revise our estimate of how much we've found from 20% to 6%? That's simply wish-fulfillment.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Jane Q. Public]

See my arguments to the other poster above. Further, which each of those variables you add, your uncertainty goes up. But my main argument still remains: you need a sampling of a certain size relative to the population, in order for it to have any significance. The problem that we face is that in the less "well-charted" regions, we simply do not have such samplings. If we did, we would already have a good idea of the diversity there anyway. So you face the same problems using this technique as you do if you are simply sampling without using such techniques: it is the sampling itself that is problematic.

Re:Even if true, the conclusion is not justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that existing discovered and named flora is redundant should not be too surprising. But the number that we have discovered has no bearing whatsoever on the amount or variety of undiscovered flora, at all. So a statement like "World's Plant Live Far Less Diverse Than Thought" is simply irresponsible. The former situation is simply not evidence of the latter. It has long been acknowledged that we have only formally "discovered" and categorized a small fraction of the Earth's actual diversity.

Do the math . . . if past discoveries are incorrect based on duplicate findings, the practices of future findings will be based on similar duplication, so Fox news is more right than wrong.

Re:ah faux news

[0123456]

No, because the people that watch Fox news think that every other news network is part of some secret hidden political agenda and therefor it's real.

True. Most news networks don't even try to hide their political agenda.

Whats the big deal?

[mrwolf007]

As far as i can tell as a non-american is that Fox News is a pretty lowly news outlet.

However that doesnt automaticly mean the story cant be true.

Just start assuming the opposite. "There are no duplicates within the millions of plants discovered." In a database of that size, with manually made entries for well over a 100 years, highly unlikely.

So, without further knowledge, one can only speculate about the percentage of duplicate entries.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[black3d]

The big deal is strong democratic bias in the geek community, who equate "liberalism" with "freedom" and "freedom" with.. well, just about everything most Slashdot submitters stand for; Whom fail to realize that both political parties want exactly the same thing - and the only reason different parties exist is because different people have different psychological triggers. The end result in regards to social position, wealth, and rights of the individual, will always end up virtually the same in both cases. It just so happens that the triggers used by the Democrats - largely suggestions regarding intelligence and freedom, have a huge pull with geeks, who jealously guard both perceived attributes.

And how this relates to Fox News, is that it's a large right-wing, Republican TV network. Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie and you're actually an idiot if you believe. Conformity at its finest, all round.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[outsider007]

Yes but 66% duplicates? That's almost as bad as slashdot. *ducks*

Re:Whats the big deal?

[houghi]

Almost anywhere in the world Fox News would not be called a news outlet. And sure it could be true, but that does not mean that it is news. It is then just something that fits their purpose.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Attila Dimedici]

It is real simple. Fox News broadcasts as many negative articles as positive about Democrats and as many positive articles as negative about Republicans (this according to the Pew Foundation). Since most people just know that Republicans are evil and Democrats are good, Fox News must be very biased.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[FrootLoops]

Is that meant to be trolling? The first paragraph seems crafted to insult most people here with hard-to-refute generalities. Also,

Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie

is just patently silly (even assuming you meant "spout" instead of "sprout").

Re:Whats the big deal?

[windcask]

Thus, if you're an "intelligent", "free thinker", you go along with the popular media opinion that anything they sprout must be a lie and you're actually an idiot if you believe. Conformity at its finest, all round.

Let's see...if I agree with Fox News, I'm a mindless tool and a lemming. But if I get on the bandwagon and trash them, I'm also a mindless tool and a lemming. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

Or, you could have an opinion of your own...of course, 'round these parts, that's known as trolling and flamebait.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is biased BECAUSE THEY ARE OWNED BY REPUBLICANS. Is this really so hard for people to understand?

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

A broken clock is correct twice a day, but you don't consult it when you need to know the time.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really hysterical that Slashdorks think they can bash Fox News. The post should be:

On slashdot (I know I know) by timothy (I know I know) blah blah blah...

timothy's the Jesuz Diaz of slashdork.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Bigjeff5]

I dunno, "sprout" kinda works, especially in a plant story.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that in Hitler's time, Fox would have been standard. We can choose any time in recent history where major propaganda was used and Fox would have been loved. Pol Pot for example would have loved Fox.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Alex Belits]

The big deal is strong democratic bias in the geek community, who equate "liberalism" with "freedom" and "freedom" with.. well, just about everything most Slashdot submitters stand for;

I literally hate freedom. Why would I want anything that my enemies can use better against me than I can use for any purpose at all?

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Charliemopps]

Fox news plays to their audience... conservative Americans. Which, for the most part is not represented on slashdot... or even the internet for that matter. So you're hearing the opinion of people who have apposing viewpoints to fox. If you're a Liberal, fox is a terrible, awful company that should be force off the air. If you're conservative, they are spot on and have the best ratings of any cable news out there. If you think our entire political system is garbage and the Liberals and just and gullible as the conservatives then you look at the outrage against fox news and laugh as those same people turn on the Daily Show for their infotainment and reaffirmation of their own ideology.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a rose colored view of the rest of the world.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is as bad as kdawson's article posts.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that studies show watching Fox News can actually make the viewer stupid, seriously, see
http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

You can be that study wasn't reported on Fox News!

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would correct your statement to be, "Almost anywhere in the liberal world..." All news outlets are biased. The only issue at hand is which news outlet's bias matches your own.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Fox News would not be considered a news outlet anywhere else in the world than neither would CNN and MSNBC which both lean significantly to the left. The same would also be true about major US newspapers such as NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times.

Re:Typical of Fox

[timeOday]

Well, the finding is by the Royal Botanic Gardens in London, and other reputable sources. And it seems plausible; before DNA sequencing and the Internet, it would be incredibly hard to prove nobody else had named the species previously.

As for Fox... I think it is worth following, in addition to a number of other sources. They definitely give a different selection of stories than less biased sources , but what they report is rarely flat-out false.

As for the Reader Comments on their story pages, and even the Opinion section, yeah, they're pretty out there.

Re:ah faux news

[h4rr4r]

Which one of those others fought a lawsuit to preserve their right to lie?

I have no problems with any news of any political leaning, but outright lying seems a bit much if you want to call it news.

Glenn Beck's follow up?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see how Glenn Beck will blame this on Obama and somehow claim this has damaged America.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

I am utterly dazzled by the cleverness of your post. You should immediately go brag to your friends about your work here. Seriously.

But wait...

[uvajed_ekil]

A report by The Real News, which followed a similar report by Smart People, says that any report by FOX News should be completely ignored until corroborated by a genuine news agency.

Re:But wait...

[John Hasler]

> ...a genuine news agency.

Which can be reliably identified by a superficial examination of the political slant of their columnists.

Re:Typical of Fox

[ColdWetDog]

Interesting. According to your thesis, TFA should have at least a closing line suggesting that saving the whales / polar bears / sea kittens isn't all that important because there aren't that many of 'them' to begin with, that biodiversity is just a buzz word for the lefties.

Actually, the TFA mentions nothing of the sort - just that somebody finally got around to cataloging "all" plant species and found a bunch of duplicates and a bunch more variations that probably aren't species. Given that plant taxonomy has been ongoing since the 1700's (in the Western world, I have no idea if Asian science is so hung up on cataloging) and that thousands of people in hundreds of different places and times have done the work, it's rather unsurprising to find duplicates.

I have no idea why Fox picked this up but they've not apparently done anything ridiculous with it. Give it to Glen Beck and maybe he can make it Obama's fault - that might be next week but for now it seems to be just straight up reporting.

+1 tin foil hat stars for you

Re:Typical of Fox

[John Hasler]

Here is a more politically-correct source for the same story: Huffington Post . It says essentially the same thing but will not induce those painful knee-jerks.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

That's almost by design. The Fox News bias is from the original founding idea: studies showed most vocal conservatives (as opposed to real conservatives) didn't want facts and didn't want to learn. They wanted to hear only what re-enforced their already limited and slanted viewpoints. It was consciously created with that in mind. Some of the "talent" involved have even made comments, off camera, at social events, like, "Oh, that's just the act, get over it," or, "It's what I do for a job, who believes that crap?"

Interestingly enough, surveys also show that those very same people, when presented with facts that disrupt or disprove what they want to believe will ignore those facts and will become even more emotionally entrenched and committed to what they want to believe is true - even after seeing proof it is false.

Re:Typical of Fox

[clarkkent09]

If politically correct means way more to the left than even Fox is to the right then sure.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

Considering how they ignore science when it's inconvenient to their agenda, like the recent memos on global warming, for example, they've shown they can intentionally distort science as much as they distort politics.

how can this be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin and his successors, acting within a few years of his death assembled a list of 400,000 plant species back in the 1880's, about the same time that the telephone and radio were just being invented. There were no computers, Internet, electronic devices, television, cars, airplanes, or even air conditioning (crucial for those summer scientific conferences held in resort locations). Even the ballpoint pen came later. So today, with the advantage of the last 130 years of continuous scientific discovery and refinement, as well as machines and technology of all kinds to aid investigation, collaboration, and record-keeping, the updated list is rolled out with... 300,000 species?

Either someone is slacking in academia-land, or some of our leafy friends have been calling it quits.

Department of the obvious

[damn_registrars]

This really shouldn't come as much surprise. There are plenty of plants that look dramatically different at different stages of their life; if they were being "discovered" for the first time they could well be called different species. Add to that the differing languages spoken by different botanists when attempting to classify species and the problem grows very quickly.

And for that matter, with molecular biology our notion of "species" is changing as well. Now a species is defined more along the lines of a unique genome (or at least uniquely organized genome) than simply on where and how it grows. Now we realize that - especially in the plant kingdom - there are many pairings of different species of plants that can hybridize and produce viable offspring.

So indeed, the number was due to be corrected at some point. This happens in other sciences, too; a while ago a few species of dinosaurs were recently re-classified as likely being juvenile specimens of other species.

Re:Department of the obvious

[Nutria]

And for that matter, with molecular biology our notion of "species" is changing as well. Now a species is defined more along the lines of a unique genome (or at least uniquely organized genome) than simply on where and how it grows.

I've often wondered about that... If "space aliens" used pre-DNA descriptive methods of defining species, they'd certainly categorize tall, blonde Swedes and African Pygmies as two difference species.

Re:Department of the obvious

[EdIII]

This happens in other sciences, too; a while ago a few species of dinosaurs were recently re-classified as likely being juvenile specimens of other species.

Considering this is Fox News, I also expect the dinosaurs to be re-classified into those that were ridden by cavemen, and those that were not.

Re:Department of the obvious

[TapeCutter]

"If "space aliens" used pre-DNA descriptive methods of defining species, they'd certainly categorize tall, blonde Swedes and African Pygmies as two difference species."

Well at least until the alien zoologists discovered pygmy porn.

Re:Department of the obvious

[xaxa]

People have given names to different human races, I don't remember an example, but something like Homo sapiens ethiopia.

Referring to them isn't very fashionable, I think it reminds people too much of eugenics. I don't know if they're zoologically or taxonomically correct.

Horticulturalists give different names to different plants that look different (red flowers, blue flowers, etc), but are the same species. I think it's called the variety, and it's often the English (or non-Latin, anyway) bit of a plant name when you buy something cultivated. Botanists don't care about these names.

Re:Department of the obvious

[damn_registrars]

This happens in other sciences, too; a while ago a few species of dinosaurs were recently re-classified as likely being juvenile specimens of other species.

Considering this is Fox News, I also expect the dinosaurs to be re-classified into those that were ridden by cavemen, and those that were not.

Actually, I would have expected

• Those that were ridden by cavemen
• Those that ate cavemen

With the former also having the subset

• Those that were ridden by Jesus

Everything else would be under

• Those that were planted by Satan to deceive us

Re:Department of the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

All this species stuff is too complicated. Let's just group living organisms in two two groups: things I eat, and its food.

Re:Department of the obvious

[Randle_Revar]

For about 2 minutes, until they saw the massive anatomical and chemical similarities, and realized that they could freely interbreed

Re:Department of the obvious

[Nutria]

anatomical ... similarities

Really?

For a Long Time, scientists thought that Savanna and Forest elephants were sub-species of the same Loxodonta africana, and only 10 years ago did people start thinking that they *might* be separate species. Only now has DNA evidence proven it.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-african-elephants-two-species-new-science/

chemical ... similarities

Note that I wrote pre-DNA methods.

Re:Department of the obvious

[Randle_Revar]

Lumping (incorrectly or, in this case, correctly) is generally easier than splitting when not using DNA.

Chemical analysis of various sorts is possible even when DNA analysis is not possible.

Re:Department of the obvious

[Nutria]

Chemical analysis of various sorts is possible even when DNA analysis is not possible.

What kind? (IOW, what key words do I Google?)

Re:Department of the obvious

[Randle_Revar]

Sorry, I thought I replied earlier.

I don't know too much about it other than it existed. The wiki has this to say:

Early attempts at molecular systematics were also termed as chemotaxonomy and made use of proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates and other molecules which were separated and characterized using techniques such as chromatography.

Re:ah faux news

[oldspewey]

I find it baffling that the submitter chose to link to the Fox News source when this news item has literally been plastered all over the internet all day long. It's being covered by dozens and dozens of news outlets, almost all of which are less politically toxic that Fox News.

Undiscovered Species

[tirefire]

Well I think it's just a tragedy how many poor undiscovered species face extinction every year.

Consider logging, a practice which harms the spotted owl. Now consider how many undiscovered species (it's in the thousands, just fyi) face an equal threat from logging. And consider how many of those undiscovered species are actually harmed by logging, not just in the minds of alarmists like me, but *really harmed*, as in dying! We have all fallen from grace, and must return to the Eden where humans and animals alike soaked in the love of Gaia, the Earth Mother. If we all partake in the Eucharist of Sustainability, we will attain Salvation.

Fox News does not have a monopoly on stupidity. On the environment, it enjoys a duopoly with career environmentalists.

Re:Undiscovered Species

[Anonymous Coward]

just out of interest

how do you know that the number of undiscovered species is in the thousands?

Re:Undiscovered Species

[dubstar]

I was almost willing to donate up until the last part, you sandbagging son of a bitch!

Seriously though, where do I sign up for your newsletter??

Re:Undiscovered Species

[Anonymous Coward]

fruitcake!

Re:ah faux news

[blackraven14250]

The real issue is that the organization itself has a view that skews towards a certain ideology. There's not an issue with individuals within said organization having a point of view of their own (it's almost always seen in its most obvious form with selections of stories done near the end of a given anchor's newscast for filler), but it's the overarching "we'll only recruit people with X ideology" that's an issue at some of the cable networks in the US.

Okay, ignore Fox

[Amorymeltzer]

But http://www.theplantlist.org/ quotes their data right on the front page:

Accepted 298,900 28.7%
Synonym 477,601 45.9%
Unresolved 263,925 25.4%

Note that a full 25% could go either way. Fox is putting the predictable spin on the story that ALL news media will probably put on this to generate readership, but the takeaway is that now we know more. This is generally considered a good a thing, especially when you want to do this sort of thing repeatedly. They have a method, and are looking to expand and perfect it. Mission accomplished.

Which news network has the most viewers?

[BenJCarter]

More people watch Fox than any other news source. Fox haters, would you trust them more if they published fake air national guard memos like CBS did?

Re:Which news network has the most viewers?

[cforciea]

Popularity never has and never will be a redeeming quality in and of itself. Your average person is a mouth-breathing buffoon and it surprises me on a daily basis that they manage to tie their shoes in the morning much less go to work and do anything productive for society. Why would their view on what is a quality news source influence my opinion in the least?

Re:Which news network has the most viewers?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It'd be nice if you fucktards would talk about the story instead of arguing about politics. Back in my day this was a nerd site.

Re:Which news network has the most viewers?

[phantomfive]

YMBNAH. Slashdot readers don't trust CBS, either. We get all our news from Jon Stewart. That's why we're so smart. He's funny, and he's kind of liberal, therefore those two things combine to make him RIGHT. As in correct. He's not right.

Re:Which news network has the most viewers?

[TubeSteak]

It'd be nice if you fucktards would talk about the story instead of arguing about politics. Back in my day this was a nerd site.

Political junkies are nerds of the highest order.
They have a slavish devotion to statistics and visualizing data into graphs/charts.
Hell, they still argue about events that happened back when vi and emacs were just a twinkle in their grandparents' eye.

Ever see two political nerdlings argue about the in/exclusions of a comma in the constitution?
How is that not nerdism of the most pedantic caliber?

Re:Which news network has the most viewers?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Because they're babbling about the news source and not data collection.

Not really one third ...

[Evardsson]

If you take the time to actually read the article you find that out of ~1,040,000 species previously named, 300,000 are definitely distinct species. ~480,000 are pseudonyms for those, and another ~260,000 are as of yet undetermined as to their status as distinct species. Since those others are undetermined, it cannot be said with any certainty that they are not distinct species. It would be just as (un)truthful and (in)correct to lump those in with the 300,000 known species and call it more than half.

Shoddy work on the part of the reporter.

Re:Not really one third ...

[FrootLoops]

I often wish in science stories reporters were barred from doing anything but quoting experts. It wouldn't sell nearly as well, but it'd be a lot more accurate. (Yes, you can misquote people.)

Re:Typical of Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

You almost got it. It's the "dumb scientists" subtext, which an anti-intellectual audience seems to appreciate and reinforces their group identity. It's just in the choice of which wire article gets published.

No wait, the Wild Nature section is in fact the Onion in disguise. Headlines:

- Ancient 8-Foot Sea Scorpions Probably Were Pussycats
- World's Plant Life Far Less Diverse Than Previously Thought
- Man Shoots, Kills 'Chupacabra' in Ky
- World's Smartest Dog Knows More Than 1,000 Words
- Invasive Species Lie In Wait, Strike After Decades
- Japanese Fish Thought Extinct Found, 70 Years Later
- Egyptian Resort Limits Swimming After Shark Attacks
- Scientists Dress Up as Giant Pandas

Re:ah faux news

[quenda]

You mean Fox News is real?! I thought it was just a parody invented by the Daily Show. We get the "International Edition" of that here, and they show clips of Fox.
C'mon ... it is just a joke, right?

Re:ah faux news

[icebraining]

Citation needed.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you accusing Fox News of lying in this article? (On a side note, the story was sourced by NewsCore, which is essentially Rupert Murdoch's answer to the AP or Reuters.)

Re:ah faux news

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Or they think that given the choice between watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that paints them as assholes for not agreeing with their agenda and watching shitty, sensationalist, biased as hell news that doesn't, they'll take the latter.

I know it may come as a shock to some but most people in the US aren't liberals.

Personally, I'm waiting for a news channel that caters to fascist libertarians* like me.

* Characterized by an absolute ruler who: A) Takes great pleasure in ordering public torture and execution of any group (governmental, commercial, or grass roots) or individual violating the individual liberty of any citizen. B) Enjoys finding creative ways of humiliating parliamentary members who try to pass bad, unnecessary, repressive, or otherwise retarded laws. C) Is otherwise content to get paid huge sums of money to sit around and do fuck all.

Re:ah faux news

[rlp]

I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

I'll second that if we can add Huffington Post and Daily Kos to the list.

Re:Typical of Fox

[Dachannien]

Your URL is tiny. (points and laughs)

It's also broken. Maybe just try posting the real link next time.

Evolution of knowledge

[gmuslera]

In the past, when a Fox News reporter was given the task of count different plant species, usually went like "1...2... too many". But things are improved, probably after seeing really big numbers related to US debt or bank bailouts, now when faced with the same task this time realized that the amount of plants weren't that many.

Re:ah faux news

[FrootLoops]

No, it's real. It's got far and away the largest viewer base of any of the new channels. Glenn Beck is real too.

This is kind of like the inverse of Santa Claus.

Re:ah faux news

[Attila Dimedici]

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization.

So, you are saying that there are no news organizations, and never have been any.

The Actual Source

[eldavojohn]

Well, there's a lot of details from the actual source of the study that are left out of the Fox News report. Like the fact that they used a taxonomic knowledge in a rulebase to reduce the set of unique plants. While fascinating, one must wonder how well an automated system could perform such a feat. Note: The part about putting "discovered" in double quotes is not found in the original source article but arises in the Fox News article. You might want to be careful as you could be insinuating gross incompetence in the field of botany across its entire history. It's also possible that this algorithm for reducing the list needs to be worked on.

Re:The Actual Source

[Nimey]

Anything they can do to make scientists look bad, right?

Re:The Actual Source

[Sprouticus]

wish I had mod points for this. This is EXACTLY the reason it showed up on Fox.

Re:ah faux news

[Comodoslam]

I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

No deal.

Join us tomorrow for part 2

[countertrolling]

When we show the universe is not as old as we thought...

Re:Join us tomorrow for part 2

[Nutria]

Why not?

On one day, the Milky Way became 2x as thick as previously thought.

On another day, the estimated number of stars tripled.

And on a 3rd day, there's 30x as much entropy as previously thought.

So, why shouldn't astrophysicists come out next week and say that the Universe is actually younger (or older) than we once thought?

Re:ah faux news

[flimflammer]

As much as I dislike Fox News for their political stories, their other stories aren't actually that bad.

Because when you think about it

[outsider007]

That was really too many for God to have made in 7 days.

Tar 'em with the same brush!

[Jimbookis]

They've lumped half the plant species into a group they say are un-American communist sympathisers (and so should be exterminated)!

Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

Everyone is biased in one way or another. One can be totally biased and be totally fair at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Fox is certainly an organization run and staffed primarily by conservatives. This doesn't inherently discredit them as a news organization. They, as everyone chooses whether to allow their bias to influence the truth.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[compro01]

This doesn't inherently discredit them as a news organization

No, the fact they filed and won a lawsuit arguing that they are allowed to deliberately lie about the news does.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

Let's be fair. That case dealt with whether on not Jane Akre and her husband Steven Wilson were terminated wrongfully for threatening to go to the FCC with claims they were being pressured to distort the news, not with whether or not they were actually asked to distort the news. Fox represents they never asked them to distort anything, and Fox felt that the report submitted was biased on behalf of Jane Akre and her husband. Court documents support this. I hope you can be fair: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth Just one example I've come across. Even if I were to concede that these producers were actually trying to coerce these reporters into distorting the news,(No hard evidence I've seen points there. Circumstantial evidence might say that their claim hint of it), a few producers actions could hardly constitute policy of a major corporation. You would have to go alot further to establish a culture of this. Although I am defending Fox news in this instance, my initial post was not to defend Fox News but to say that bias and fairness are two different metrics. While related. 100% Bias does not equal 100% unfairness or vice versa. I saw alot of comments asserting that Fox is right wing therefore can't be subjective. I can love the Giants and hate Eagles and still officiate that game fairly.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC shows how it's possible to be biased and have a point of view, but be fair.

FOX News is the counter-point... it's not only heavily biased, but it is also grossly unfair. It's purpose is not to inform, but to inflame. It's purpose is to distort and misinform... to serve the agenda of its corporate masters.

So yes, FOX News is iherently discredited as a news organization. It's a political propganda operation. It has no interest in the truth.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[Skidborg]

Which gives all the other news organizations the legal precedent to do the same.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

A precedent that doesn't exist. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

You will find far more democratic viewpoints on Fox than you will find Republican viewpoints on MSBNC, CNN, ABC. I can watch Fox and see Dems debating Republicans. Left debating the right. Other news orgs its the left talking to the left about the right. The pot and the kettle can't debate over their color, right ?

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

Darkness said to the light, I can exists in spite of you. Light turned around and said to darkness, where did you go?

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an odd question, but do truth-in-advertising laws apply to Fox "News" at all? And even if they did, how could you tell?

If what they tell you is a lie (not really an "if", they admit to it!), and then they openly tell you that they are lying, how do you call that one?

Off switch on the t.v. is looking better all the time......

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[Sprouticus]

the fact that Fox is right wing is NOT the reason people feel it is a bad news source. It is HW they present the news, how they filter their stories, and slant their stories constantly to effect a change in voter attitude an to forward a specific ideology.

An while I agree with you about benifit of the doubt from a legal standpoint, as a consumer and voter and citizen I have every right to use logic and connect the dots. Fox has a justified reputation. Some Fox reporters claimed they were being coerced. I see it as very likely that there is a culture at Fox which engenders that behavior in their producers if not overtly, then through other means.

And if you think that a company cannot control itsemployees through othr more subtle means, you need to work at a complany. ANY company.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[Sprouticus]

citation please. I cant think of one single liberal Fox news online anlyst. I see both conservative and liberal op ed pieces on cnn.com all the time. Most of them are terrible but at least they are diverse in nature.

Sounds to me like you are just apeing something you read somewhere, or are not taking to time to really look and going with your personal bias.

Here is a thought. Try not watching EITHER. Read some storis on both sites, then google those stories to get better sources. I think you will be shocked at how badly BOTH are at repoting all the facts. Fox does it intentionally in my opinion, CNN out of incompetence (When the summary from a slashdot post has more info than a CNN artcle, that is BAD). That is my opinion based upon the simple fact that if CNN were really trying to be biased like Fox they would not do such a piss poor job reporting the stories that supported their ideology. In a way the fact that Fox news is so good at what they do makes their intent really obvious.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

I initially posted to this story because people were claiming that Fox's right wing leanings were precisely what made them a bad news org. So yes, people obviously do feel that way. I didn't make that up. Bias can affect objectivity but being bias is not the proof. I am willing to accept evidence that Fox IS criminally or morally speaking distorting facts to suit their bias. I am willing to accept evidence that FOX is totally open and honest about its will and its right to lie to people about news. People using this case as concrete proof of these allegations, is not only wrong, they are doing exactly what they are accusing Fox of doing. Distorting a story to fit their beliefs. The article I link to not only makes claims, it points to court documents and rulings to substantiate them. Evidence. If Fox in fact stated on the record that it used its 1st amendment right to distort facts to coerce these reporters, her wrongful termination would have never been overturned. You claim I lied. I admit I lied. Judge throws out your claim that hinged upon whether or not I lied. Doesn't make any sense. I would be interested to know if Fox was in fact distorting facts, and I will keep my eyes open as I always do, but can you link to an example of bias for me. Outright lie.

Re:Bias does not exclude fairness

[RL78]

tbc...Happy New Year.

Oh no's

[Evil_Ether]

This is going to be really bad for biodiversity.

Re:ah faux news

[h4rr4r]

Not at all. I am only claiming that these other groups are not on the same level as they have yet to fight for that right.

So you are against Darwin?

[SuperKendall]

The whole thing came about because of an idea Darwin had and put in motion.

By disclaiming this story are you really saying you disagree with Darwin? And I thought Creationists were mad! At least they read source material before they decide something is true or not.

Re:So you are against Darwin?

[MightyMartian]

I've talked with a lot of Creationists, and I've rarely encountered one that has read anything on evolution or biology beyond what they may have briefly seen in a high school textbook.

Re:So you are against Darwin?

[sglewis100]

I've talked with a lot of Creationists, and I've rarely encountered one that has read anything on evolution or biology beyond what they may have briefly seen in a high school textbook.

This goes for a lot of Evolutionists too. You are really just describing most people.

Re:ah faux news

[enormouspenis]

Despite my severe dislike of Fox News' television programs and editorializing, I find the idea of dismissing them out of hand simply because of who they are to be disturbing.

Unless they're talking about politics. Then....perhaps.

Wait just a minute!!!! I KNEW, just KNEW that somewhere on this board there was someone I disagree with politically that actually is intelligent with critical cognitive skills. Someone who'll stand up and doesn't just follow the adolescent POP wave here. Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. I'm going to add you to my...wait a minute....I already follow several "anonymous cowards". Which one are you?

Re:ah faux news

[Brett Buck]

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization. Well, not quite, a news organization can't set out to have one and still be a news organization.

      So NBC, CBS, ABC,CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc, are pure as the driven snow? And their tendency to spew every nonsensical DNC talking point is just good journalism? Got it.

        Brett

Re:ah faux news

[rainmouse]

No, because the people that watch Fox news think that every other news network is part of some secret hidden political agenda and therefor it's real.

True. Most news networks don't even try to hide their political agenda.

Amusingly enough if I want a more honest opinion of any international matter I actually turn to Chinese news. Their translators maybe aren't good enough at English to sensationalise or ad lib the facts but I rather like the Xinhua's dry delivery of facts. I've seen too many politically motived fairytales in BBC, NBC and FOX to really trust them for anything more than gossip or entertainment. Not saying that I trust Xinhua much either but it's nice to read strangely phrased news that isn't dowsed in patriotism (their own non-international news of course drips with National pride and should not be avoided)

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, surveys also show that those very same people, when presented with facts that disrupt or disprove what they want to believe will ignore those facts and will become even more emotionally entrenched and committed to what they want to believe is true - even after seeing proof it is false.

That is the most concise and precise definition of the far left I have ever read. Thanks!

Evil scientist

[Tsiangkun]

First they give everything more names to confuse things. How many things can there really be ? There was one ark. Everything fit on the ark. That things appear different is just a miracle from God. I'm waiting for the story to break that there are actually far fewer gods than the average fox viewer thought there was.

Re:Evil scientist

[dubstar]

Trust me, you don't really want Fox viewers to become self aware... haven't you seen the Terminator series?!?

Re:ah faux news

[Blue Stone]

>I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.

None of those media news outlets have gone to court, though, to argue that their right to deliberately lie to and consciously mislead their readership is protected by the First Amendment.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

That, to me, says cease using Fox News as a source (and burn it with fire).

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh.

Another sophist without all the facts.

You must be a Fox News fanboy!

(When you started your rant with typical Fox attacks that have nothing to do with facts, you gave yourself away!)

Re:ah faux news

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, but if you add up the total viewership of the sane news channels and compare it to the number of mouth-breathing nose-picking illiterates who watch Fox News some hope is restored.

Re:ah faux news

[MightyMartian]

Interesting. You claim that hundreds of scientists are in fact willfully falsifying data? An amazing claim. One which, of course, you'll actually have to provide evidence for, of course.

Re:ah faux news

[ModernGeek]

All I know is that I'm so glad to see that people are WAKING up to see how WRONG SCIENCE is and that we can rely on ONE THING the ALMIGHTY GOD that created us.

Re:ah faux news

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I can't see why this would be a political issue.

It isn't. But we have a moderation system where the average dumbshit can add the word 'Insightful' to any post he finds interesting. Since nobody considers the consequences of modding up comments that you happen to agree with, we end up with a thread like this where there's an interesting story about the problems with data collection but everybody's babbling about the source it came from.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't see it applies to extremists at both ends, then you're pretty stuck at one end yourself and too blind to see it, so I guess it describes you, too.

Re:Typical of Fox

[clarkkent09]

I presume he was trying to link to a study which is completely bogus yet widely reported in liberal media and slashdot that "showed" that Fox News viewers are misinformed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ

Re:ah faux news

[Shadow of Eternity]

Politics can best be mapped to a conical pyramid with the center being on it's flat face. The further away from the center you get in ANY direction the closer you come to meeting at the end point in "Batshit Insane Land".

Fox's target audience doesn't have political beliefs, they have a Faith.

Re:Typical of Fox

[Zenin]

This is the organization that won a lawsuit on the grounds that under the 1st amendment they had the right to knowingly and deliberately lie.

Fox News is the reporting equivalent of fictional movie dramas that are "based on a true story". They selectively include, exclude, and/or outright manufacture whatever they need to in order to craft the story they wish to tell. Even The Daily Show, a satirical comedic spoof show, is wildly more factually accurate and far less biased then Fox News. That's how bad Fox News really is.

The point is not if Fox is "flat-out" false or not. The point is that for any given story the odds that Fox got it anywhere near correct is in the single digits. Why waste time evaluating a story when you know before you even start that there's a 95% chance it's bunk? Especially on Slashdot...before you waste everyones' time, go find a real news agency that has actually reported on the story.

Because in all seriousness The Onion has more journalistic credibility then Fox News.

Re:ah faux news

[reboot246]

That pretty much describes everybody on slashdot - a few far right, a shitload far left, and almost none in the middle.

Re:ah faux news

[medcalf]

Actually, I think you would find that the position of the skeptics tends to be that a few dozen scientists are pretending to far more certainty than they really have, manipulating or ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived hypotheses, and using shaming and groupthink among academics to inflate their resultant crap into the presumed truth.

Frankly, I just have one (math) question for CAGW proponents: since when can you predict a chaotic, tightly-coupled, nonlinear system more than one iteration into the future within one sigma of reality?

The origin of specious

[Anonymous Coward]

Resubmit as new story tomorrow.

Re:ah faux news

[jdpars]

Not quite. There are some who are thoroughly entrenched in what they claim is the middle, but is really just some off-the-wall angle no one cares about.

Re:ah faux news

[jdpars]

I'd vote for that.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's real. It's got far and away the largest viewer base of any of the new channels. Glenn Beck is real too. This is kind of like the inverse of Santa Claus.

Just curious, why is it fashionable to slam Glenn Beck? I'm not asking how you feel about his personal life, because that's just childish crap that belongs in Entertainment Tonight or some other gossip tabloid. I'm asking, what political view does he have or what position does he advocate that bothers you? Serious question. Lots of people say Glenn Beck is terrible or batshit insane etc. as though there was no need to say why. Those of us who don't know a lot about the man would benefit from understanding why.

Re:ah faux news

[jdpars]

Unless that was the simplest way for them to handle that legal issue. I'm reserving judgement until someone shows the whole story there, instead of biased folk on /.

Re:ah faux news

[causality]

I find it baffling that the submitter chose to link to the Fox News source when this news item has literally been plastered all over the internet all day long. It's being covered by dozens and dozens of news outlets, almost all of which are less politically toxic that Fox News.

I think I know who did that. It's probably the same guy or group of guys who keep favoring paywall sites for stories that are available freely from other sources.

The first myth about Slashdot "editors" is that they are editors. Ah, well. Who needs quality and accessibility as long as the traffic keeps pouring in?

Re:ah faux news

[Mitchell314]

Well, I cannot see how you can't be pro DNC. Who in the hell likes telemarketers?

Re:Typical of Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly off-topic, but I would like to note that the commentary on news websites posted by readers is generally very poor. Even the NY Times (which, to my mind, is the only news source for 'grown ups' in the US) has a mixture of both insightful and wilfully ignorant comments, the latter of which is not exclusively due to trolling.

The LA Times has perhaps the most disappointing comments section. Although I have never considered Los Angeles to be a paragon of intellectual excellence, the nonsense that is consistently posted by readers most certainly should be a source of embarrassment for an organization publishing a large broadsheet newspaper.

Bullshit!

[damaged_sectors]

Teh make it simple for those just focused on the faux news angle:-

• Yes - there are more synonyms for plants than their are plants (duh!)
• In no way does this mean that "scientists" thought there was more plants than there actually is.

I'll leave it up to others to speculate on why this "story" is spun like that - though personally, blaming it on festivities implies that the Murdock press (and others) have a "silly season" that's shorter than a year.

To those who see this sort of story as "proof" that all scientists are wrong (I'm looking at you creationists) - just because your dick fits your hand - it's no more proof of "Intelligent Design" than it's acceptable to flop it out in public.

Re:ah faux news

[pitchpipe]

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization.

So, you are saying that there are no news organizations, and never have been any.

Original quote in context: No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization. Well, not quite, a news organization can't set out to have one and still be a news organization.

I see FOXNEWS has taught you well, young Dimedici.

Re:ah faux news

[pz]

No, a news organization can't have a view point and still be a news organization. Well, not quite, a news organization can't set out to have one and still be a news organization.

So, let me guess; you're kind of young, and an American who's never been outside the country, except perhaps on vacation to Mexico?

Although less and less true these days, in every major European city, there are a multiplicity of newspapers, each with an explicit political bent. A less broad-minded reader will just stick to his honeypot, but many people will read more than just one newspaper each day. The newspapers, in turn, tend to be much thinner than you see in the US, so it is not unreasonable to do so.

The least biased news source of our time used to be the International Herald Tribune (back when it was more-or-less independent, and the editorial seat was in Paris); it would source articles from many other newspapers, translate as appropriate, and publish a worldly and even-handed daily. I remember reading articles with bylines even from Pravda (the Soviet mouthpiece). The only bias I could find was that the IHT tended to report more on tomatoes than one would expect. These days, when it's explicitly the international version of the New York Times, that global perspective is gone. Perhaps the BBC is the only remaining thing that's close to unbiased, but I'm having my doubts these days. I have heard good things about Al Jazeera, surprisingly enough, but it seems like the only way to be properly informed is still to pay attention to many news outlets.

Re:ah faux news

[Myopic]

The point isn't that Fox has "a viewpoint"; it's that their viewpoint is dumb.

Plant diveristy vs. Pest Plant Councils

[Ned in California]

Here's a rather contrarian viewpoint about plant diversity and natives vs. exotics. In a nutshell, Hudson argues that the decline in biodiversity is so severe ( due, essentially to humans paving the planet ) that most sources of plant diversity should be encouraged. Additionally he points out difficulties in defining "exotic" and "native" due to the way seeds spread naturally. This from a fellow who for many many years has been a source of seeds of rare and unique plants. He argues that feel-good councils that make rules about invasive and exotic species may do more harm than good. An interesting view from someone that I have a lot of respect for.

If there is even less diversity in the plant world than we thought, then I guess his argument may be even stronger. Anyway, possibly something more interesting to read ( ha! yes I know this is /. ) than the OP.

Related, excellent read, for those interested Plants, Man, and Life

Re:Plant diveristy vs. Pest Plant Councils

[vtcodger]

***Here's a rather contrarian viewpoint about plant diversity***

For most exotics, the argument is probably more or less correct. But there are things like kudzu or Eurasian millfoil that really are a monumental PITA due, we're told, to a lack of predators to control their expansion.

Re:Plant diveristy vs. Pest Plant Councils

[Psychotria]

Here's a rather contrarian viewpoint about plant diversity and natives vs. exotics. In a nutshell, Hudson argues that the decline in biodiversity is so severe ( due, essentially to humans paving the planet ) that most sources of plant diversity should be encouraged. Additionally he points out difficulties in defining "exotic" and "native" due to the way seeds spread naturally. This from a fellow who for many many years has been a source of seeds of rare and unique plants. He argues that feel-good councils that make rules about invasive and exotic species may do more harm than good. An interesting view from someone that I have a lot of respect for.

If there is even less diversity in the plant world than we thought, then I guess his argument may be even stronger. Anyway, possibly something more interesting to read ( ha! yes I know this is /. ) than the OP.

Related, excellent read, for those interested Plants, Man, and Life

Are you serious? Point 1: in the domain name Hudson states clearly his position -- he sells seeds of exotic plants. This should immediately set alarm bells ringing.

His argument in the linked-to "article" is utter nonsense. There is no doubt in the scientific community that non-indigenous plants cause incredible damage. They [the exotic plants] can displace native counterparts, change soil conditions (abiotic AND biotic), retard germination of native species, out-compete native species, and so on. Partly (but only partly) this can sometimes be because the introduced species have no competition (e.g. predators) in the environment into which they are introduced; they can grow and multiply with nothing in their way (i.e. they have an advantage over the native species). Introduced (exotic) plants can and do result in immeasurable damage to local ecosystems. Let me take your username as an indication of where you live and suggest you look up Kudzu. Now, tell me the benefits it provides in its introduced environments. Hudson is a fool.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people in the US aren't douchebag Libertarians either.

Re:ah faux news

[dachshund]

Not only does every news organization have some point of view --- even if that 'point of view' is just slavish devotion to factual truth --- but people should keep in mind that "objective news reporting" has nothing to do with objectivity. It's a business strategy.

Basically once we had a small number of news organizations reaching large audiences, those papers had to work hard not to piss off 50% of their readership. Hence "objectivity", which isn't some noble goal, but rather a way to keep everyone happy. Unfortunately as we've seen, sometimes being objective actually means taking ridiculous arguments seriously, lest you be accused of having "bias".

I don't much have a problem with Fox News being a conservative/Republican Party news organ (which it is, take a look at the ties between Fox's management and the Republican party). I do have a big problem with the fact that they claim to be fair and balanced, and that 'serious' people are willing to accept this figleaf and overlook the slant, even while they would obviously dismiss a self-professed activist network.

Also, the lying, I don't much like that.

Re:ah faux news

[zach_the_lizard]

He's into conspiracy theories, including very bizarre ones. Example: He's a Mormon, and now he has some sort of idea that "they" don't want you to know about the "real archaeological evidence" for Jews crossing the Atlantic and fathering the Native Americans.

Re:ah faux news

[Mitchell314]

(ignoring strawman and other fallacies) You had me up to here:

unless you follow the Scientific Method and can PROVE your theories to be correct,

You don't prove theories, you just test them repeatedly without them being disproved (if they are disproved, then back to the drawing board for a modified/new theory. if they can't be tested practically, they're not a good theory). And if it's evident you are beating a dead horse testing it and it still hasn't failed (in informal terms) the theory itself may be regarded as fact. ie the theory of evolution is a theory, yet it is regarded as fact, since the sun is as likely to turn into swiss cheese as the ToE is to be disproved.

BTW and OT, String theory is not a good theory. I'm not saying the idea itself isn't bad - imo it's pretty neat - but it doesn't make a good theory for certain reasons. Like being very hard to test the theory itself, it doesn't predict a whole lot, and that there's five damn versions of it.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

I know it may come as a shock to some but most people in the US aren't liberals.

"Liberal" is just the word the extreme right has made up to describe anyone they disagree with. It's a label, almost a pejorative they've created so they can just say, "He's a liberal," instead of dealing with something a person has said that has any validity. It's a way to call names instead of dealing with the facts.

It's been so distorted by people that think there is their way and the wrong way that it really doesn't have any meaning any longer.

Re:ah faux news

[Attila Dimedici]

It still holds true. News organizations have always had a bias. That is why someone starts a news organization, to reflect/promote their bias.

Re:ah faux news

[Mitchell314]

You can't. But nobody's claiming to predict the state of an arbitrary iteration. What you can do is predict an average trend. Like Moore's law predicts that transistor density approximately doubles every two years. If you look at the actual data, the numbers plotted are a bit erratic, but over time, it averages really well to that trend. Now, part of that is due to self-fulfilling prophesy, but the same idea holds. Or, the economy (in terms of GDP). You can predict a rate of growth over a couple decades, but you can't say what its state will be in any specific year. I think the US is somewhere in the ballpark of 3% growth per year in terms of decades, but I haven't checked. But of course, I can't say if 2024 will have a recession or not.

So in terms of GW, nobody can tell you what the temperature will be August 4, 2024. But what some people are saying is that the trend right now, and according to models, is saying that the temperature will approximately rise x degrees per century for some indefinite time period.

Re:Typical of Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

"but what they report is rarely flat-out false"

So there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Let's not forget their constant denial of global warming, yes I know we're all not supposed to believe the evidence, and the "fact" John Kerry was a coward where as Bush was a war hero. The thing with Fox is they beat on subjects that promote the right wing agenda but then forget to retract them once they are disproven. They also like to hide behind a lot of stories by saying they are "opinion pieces" by commentators. If they happen to be false they say hey it was just an opinion piece. I'm sure the story was run to show how science was wrong and we aren't loosing as many species as claimed but look at it this way, if there are two thirds fewer species then every time we loose one then it has several times the impact.

Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called synonomy, and it's not new. Kew has been working on this for ages, in an attempt to be a world leader in what's called Index Kewensis.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

Ah! At last I understand what you've been working on for all these years, Hari Seldon.

Re:ah faux news

[vtcodger]

***Not saying that I trust Xinhua much either but it's nice to read strangely phrased news that isn't dowsed in patriotism (their own non-international news of course drips with National pride and should not be avoided)***

Try China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/. Their international news seems reasonable, and much of their domestic news is much more critical of things in China than I would have expected. I'm sure that there are subjects they avoid and others they distort, but overall, they read much like a reasonably good western news source. Compared to Fox News or Ria Novisti they seem sort of reputable.

Re:ah faux news

[TapeCutter]

The US has a different definition of "middle" than the rest of the western world.

Re:Typical of Fox

[Protoslo]

Well, the Fox story was truly awfully written, beginning with this gem,

How many different types of plants do you think there are on Earth? A few million? Ten million? Guess again.

Based on the statistics in the article itself, even if two thirds of species are redundant, we will still have a few million left. And then there was this sentence,

Despite the surprising lack of diversity among plant life, the botanists and scientists associated with the project all hailed it as a milestone achievement for many different reasons.

Despite the...WHAT? Now, science reporting is normally awful from any "mainstream" journalist, and even "science reporters," but botany is a lot harder to mess up than particle physics, and the Fox article was full of ridiculous misleading innuendo like the quotes I included. I wouldn't normally expect any better from the HuffPo (or the NYT, or Reuters, etc.), but in this case their article is simply more correct (though still not terribly informative), since it doesn't contain the extraneous uninformed bloviation--starting with the title.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not defending Fox News, they are right wing, but choosing to report from the center of whatever the political spectrum looks like in your country is still choosing a view point. I also don't see how being in the center is inherently anymore moral than choosing a side. In fact, throw out left/right/whatever. I don't think its possible to report without some sort of ideology, even if its the basic stuff that most people in the country agree with. However, that doesn't necessarily mean anything in a global context. It's also not inherently more moral/better than a news organization with a more specific ideology.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

In what possible way is a wholely political propaganda channel like FOX News (which funds Republican political campaigns and pushes GOP talking points) in any way similar to MSNBC (which doesn't do any of the above, and which criticizes Democrats as much as Republicans), or any of the other sources you listed?

Talk about a false equivalency.

Stop being an idiot, and stop drinking the FOX News (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc) Kool-aid. They are paid a LOT of money to disinform, distract, and inflame. They are not even remotely a legitimate source of news. Lies and fake-outrage are not a "legitimate viewpoint". They are NOT a news organization. Not by any measure.

Re:ah faux news

[Homr Zodyssey]

Well said!

Just another attempt to discredit science

[Anonymous Coward]

Murdoch, Ailes, and lots of those in power seem to bend over backwards to try and to discredit science at every possible opportunity. So this story isn't surprising. It's part of their propaganda. You know, to discredit things like evolution (which their idiot viewers don't believe in) and scientific facts like global warming (which they and their corporate cronies don't want anyone to do anything about, since it might hurt their bottom line).

They'll spin any news, whether a valid story or just a trumped up piece of fake-outrage, so that only their side is supported, and any other side is discredited. It's grossly one-sided, biased, and misleading when taken as a whole. There's a definite, obvious agenda here.

There have now been three studies that show that viewers of FOX News are more misinformed and ignorant than those of any other news source. Not just by a little, but by a LOT.

Just stop watching FOX News. Just turn it off. Same goes for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They're paid a lot of money to distract and inflame people's passions away from real issues that really affect them.... and to scream and campaign against their own interests and FOR the interests of the top 1%, the wealthy CEOs, the rich and powerful entrenched interests. It's all bullshit propaganda. NOBODY with a brain should be watching or listening, let alone citing. Ever.

If it's an actual, valid story, it'll have other, more legitimate sources.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

He's an ignorant tin-hat conspiracy theorist. He shit-stirs. He unnecessarily inflames with fake, made-up outrage. He out-right lies. He fleeces his viewers (with pushing that gold crap). He's a con-artist. He is not a news man. He's not even a good commentator. I suppose you could say he's an immitator... but only if you assume he's a commedian.

He is batshit insane, and there really isn't much need to say why because all you have to do is watch him. Or listen to him. He's so completely full of shit. The fake crying thing sells it as well.

He tries to point to a piece of art or architecture to claim it's "proof" that communists are taking over. It's really just batshit insane. Virtually every other sentence out of his mouth, on average, is verifiably false. Not just an "opionin", but something that is factually, provably incorrect.

I don't understand why anyone gives this asshole any air time. Or why anyone with even a rudimentary brain gives him any credit or pays this clown any attention. He should be in a rubber room getting daily doses of lithium and thorizine, like every other completely insane asshat in an insane asylum. Instead he's making millions off the gullible and the ignorant, and serving as a lap-dog for the entrenched and powerful business interests... and you don't even need a black board to follow the money trail there.

Re:ah faux news

[Homr Zodyssey]

That is exactly why it's important to note the source of this article. Its a news-piece that portrays modern approaches to scientific discovery in a bad light -- from an organization that caters to people who distrust science.

Similarly, if the Huffington Post were to report on a study that concluded that all Republicans literally had poop instead of brains, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the facts due to their source.

Re:ah faux news

[Bigjeff5]

To be fair to Fox, generally when they are legitimately compared to their cable "news" competitors, Fox almost always comes out the most balanced of the group.

Case in point: the 2008 election coverage.

Fox gave Obama slightly more coverage than McCaine (it was a 3% difference), whereas CNN gave Obama 2/3 more coverage and MSNBC both gave Obama about twice as much coverage as McCain.

Fox had roughly equal amounts of positive, negative, and neutral stories about McCaine than Obama, giving McCaine a slightly higher percentage of positive stories. CNN and MSNBC both had significantly more (2-3 times as many) negative stories about McCaine than positive, and about equal portions of positve, negative, and neutral stories about Obama.

Network news coverage was much more balanced, basically the inverse of Fox news - slightly higher percentage of positive stories for Obama than for McCaine.

If that doesn't illustrate the point, I don't know what does. Pew has several studies in this vein, you can look through all of them, they tell the same story.

Frankly, I'd cut out CNN and MSNBC before Fox, and if you don't want to listen to so many blowhards (which are all that seem to exist on cable news) just stick to the broadcast news networks.

Re:ah faux news

[Bigjeff5]

Is there a DNC for my mailbox? I frickin hate all the shit I get in the mail!

Re:Typical of Fox

[Bigjeff5]

Your whole post applies equally well (often better) to CNN and MSNBC.

Cable "news" is entertainment news.

If you actually want real news, watch broadcast news.

Re:ah faux news

[TapeCutter]

Climate is not chaotic in the mathematical sense until you get into geologic time scales that are long enough to negate the regulating influence of the Milankovich cycles (ie: millions of years). Weather is chaotic on timescales of days.

You can see the same mathematical concept in a pan of water on the stove, you can make a usefully accurate model to predict how long it will take to boil but there is no way to predict when or where the first bubble will start to form.

Climate model forecasts of climate trend (particularly golbal average temps) have matched observations within their defined error margin for over 30yrs now.

Since this stuff is so easy to google I can only assume you haven't tried answering your own question.

Re:ah faux news

[TapeCutter]

"it doesn't predict a whole lot"

To be fair, it predicts what the standard model does, the problem is it doesn't add any novel and testable predictions that would allow science to determine if it's any better or worse than the standard model. It's worth pursuing until such a time when either model can come up with a "smoking gun" test. After all it took the best part of a century before the heliocentric model could make better predictons than the geocentric one.

Re:ah faux news

[DougF]

From the citation:

"What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”

And so you would stop using Belo, Cox, Gannett, Media General, and Post-Newsweek and burn them with fire as well?

Re:ah faux news

[RL78]

I hear prominent democrats refer to themselves and their colleagues as liberal and progressives all of the time. We get meaning from the context.

Re:Typical of Fox

[TapeCutter]

The only thing you have demonstrated by linking to HowTheWorldWorks is that you don't understand irony.

Re:ah faux news

[Attila Dimedici]

As Bigjeff5 pointed out, Pew Research did several studies of election coverage. In those studies they found that Fox News had about the same balance of positive to negative stories for both Republican and Democratic candidates (with the Republican stories being slightly more positive and the Democratic stores slightly more negative, but both right around 50%). While those same studies found that the other networks had mostly positive stories about Democrats (70-80%) and mostly negative stories about Republicans (70-80%). So, the evidence suggests that despite the ties between Fox News management and the Republican Party, they do a better job of being fair and balanced than the other networks.

Re:ah faux news

[DJRumpy]

A minor point, but simply looking at the amount of time spent on a subject doesn't define bias. That coverage could have been good or bad (or McCain could just be boring and of little interest to the public). It does not indicate bias.

There are also interesting studies showing that when polled, most fox viewers held the least amount of true facts.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

Interesting enough, MSNBC viewers actually scored best on facts.

(Apologies for the URL. It is not intended as a flame, but rather what was published)

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I just have one (math) question for CAGW proponents: since when can you predict a chaotic, tightly-coupled, nonlinear system more than one iteration into the future within one sigma of reality?

We can't model the chaotic, tightly coupled, nonlinear system of human interaction, therefore we have to conclude that you will never get laid.

Re:ah faux news

[Skidborg]

Wasn't there already an article on Slashdot about a large percentage of medical researchers wilfully falsifying data? Do you really expect it to be so very different in the other fields? Students who cheat their way through school will continue cheating in the real world.

Re:ah faux news

[Artifakt]

When he was explicitly supporting the 'Birther' movement, he made a bunch of false claims about what the constitution said about natural born Americans, first claiming that it required both parents to be US Citizens and then claiming that there was specific language required on State birth certificates and that the phrase "Certification of Live Birth", as was specifically used as in the Hawaii document's header, was specifically spelled out as wrong in the Constitution, as there was a supposed requirement to say "Certificate of Live Birth" instead. He repeatedly passed on claims the document was photoshopped and the seal was faked, uncritically.

During a spate of California wild fires, Mr. Beck said:
''I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.''
The Glenn Beck Program,' Oct. 22, 2007

 

Re:Typical of Fox

[Skidborg]

Whoosh.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[Skidborg]

Double whoosh.

Also, grow up. You're not going to convert anyone with that attitude.

Re:ah faux news

[RL78]

The case never questions whether Fox News attempted to coerce Jane Akre to report false information. The case deals with whether or not she and her husband were wrongfully terminating for threatening to file suit and alert the FCC that they had been coerced to lie, and falsify facts by Fox producers. The article I link to states the 1st amendment right to lie argument was never used because it was not needed. It's a defense to a complaint that wasn't made. (like Net Neutrality policy?) and the actual court papers support these claims. I'm not saying Fox News employees are guilty or innocent, but the fact this case was brought does not make Fox guilty of anything, secondly, the plaintiff's award being overturned on appeal doesn't substantiate the plaintiffs initial claims to begin with. The Spin stops here! Hehehe http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

To reply to your question in the second paragraph, I can certainly tell you all kinds of things about the state of a river a year or ten from now. The actual state of all the turbulence, whirlpools and eddies in the river, I can't tell you about, but the broader system I can tell you a heck of a lot about. I can also tell you that if you increase the amount of dissolved CO2 as well as the rate at which you're adding it every year, that eventually all the fish will die. I can't tell you exactly when the last fish will drop dead, but I can provide reasonable estimates. If I'm too specific with my estimates, then you can call me wrong, and be right. What "global warming skeptics" don't seem to grasp is that exercising basic caution is not a bad idea. Levels of all kinds of crap are constantly increasing in the environment, and the rate we're adding them is increasing, not decreasing. Even if the climatologists are dead wrong about global climate change (which just doesn't seem likely, even if they aren't right about exactly how it will change, any change is bad for anyone whose farming practices, shelter, transportation system, water supply, etc. are geared towards their local environment and climate. ie. everybody), it doesn't matter because we're not even close to some sort of homeostasis on all of these pollutants. The idea that nature will just absorb all of it and we'll be fine is naive to the point of outright idiocy.

Consider this. Do you remember the article on the problem with radioactive boar meat in Germany from a while back? That's because, since Chernobyl, wild mushrooms haven't been safe in most of Europe, and they won't be for a long time to come and the boars and other wild game eat the mushrooms. From _one_ industrial accident several entire classes of food are unavailable. So what? There are plenty of other food sources, and the unsafe ones will eventually be safe again. Sure, there are. But it's a question of rates. If the rate of loss and damage is greater than the rate of recovery, then you run out. Right now, the rates of loss and damage for just about everything humans do are greater than the recovery rates, and we're not even managing to keep the loss and damage rates constant. Therefore, we'll eventually run out of usable nature. That doesn't actually mean we'll destroy the earth, just that most of us will die

Re:ah faux news

[dakohli]

That's funny. I have seen news on both sides of the fence, and for once, this tidbit was presented with apparently no bias. I was expecting some analysis to go with the facts but there was none.

This my friends, is what I actually look for in news. Usually I have to read several biased stories about a particular event to figure out what is actually happening.

Re:ah faux news

[dakohli]

There is a difference between presenting the news and an editorial.

Re:ah faux news

[The_mad_linguist]

Look, let's just ban timothy and kdawson, and call it a day.

Re:ah faux news

[popeyethesailorman]

Paleobotanists have long know this to be truce. One ancient plant accounts for many species, know only by their bark, seeds, leaves, or roots. Similarly, Brontosaurus is no longer recognized since earlier Apatosaurus fossils identified as the same animal.

Mod Parent Up

[Rinnon]

just out of interest

how do you know that the number of undiscovered species is in the thousands?

Indeed, how DO we know even approximately how many undiscovered species there are? That seems like a pretty wild shot in the dark.

Fox News, never listen

[Khyber]

They couldn't get the simplest article on growing lights correct: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2010/12/23/build-high-tech-indoor-garden-winter/?test=faces

It was so bad I had to actually create a FoxNews account to correct the nonsense. Looks like my comment is still the top one, at that.

I won't trust this Fox News article any further than I could trust the one I linked. They seem to enjoy using outdated stuff AND they love to not cite any deep sources.

Re:Fox News, never listen

[east coast]

They seem to enjoy using outdated stuff AND they love to not cite any deep sources.

This is truely ironic to read on Slashdot.

Re:ah faux news

[AK Marc]

What gets picked to be passed on is based on bias. This can be picked up and used as, say, an argument against global warming. So it's a good story, and they'll just put it out and let someone else make the link, which they'll then report on again with more editorializing. Not that it will always be done, or that it will even be done this time, but this is just an illustration of how news without bias can still be biased.

Re:ah faux news

[maitai]

You're talking about the "Liberal" label where anyone who disagrees with a "Liberal" is evil?

Since labeling has suddenly became uncool (it's only been in the last week) "Liberals" are the worst about labeling anything (hatist, raceist, homophobe, sexist, rich, madeupthinghere) than anyone.

As far as I can tell "Liberals" are all about labeling everything (that's of course not them).

Re:ah faux news

[advocate_one]

fucking twat... thanks for derailing the entire discussion...

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

It's actually a fairly accurate description of anyone who uses the terms 'left' or 'right' to refer to people or their viewpoints.

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

I'm not left, right, or middle. I actually consider the facts and logic and if I've determined there is some need to form an opinion on a matter (if your opinion has no impact then why pick a side?) I rarely consider rights, lefts, and middles... There are exceptions. For instance, sometimes I find myself at an intersection and need to form an opinion on the most likely route to get me home.

Re:ah faux news

[AK Marc]

"What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation,

To start, amici curiae is friend of the court, not friend of Fox or any specific participant. These are common and done when a far-reaching decision may be made and the court might not be aware of all the technical issues involved.

Further, as for Belo, fuck yeah. I grew up in Dallas. The ultra-conservative Belo corporation has been perverting news since before I was born, and I could tell in 2 minutes whether I was watching channel 8 or one of the others because of the slant in the news. Of course, they got big enough and bought out the other daily paper and shut them down. As someone that used to buy both, I was sad to see a place as large as Dallas drop to a one-paper town. But then, that was happening all over. But yes, I'll gladly stop using Belo. News from them isn't any better than Fox and they were defending their right to lie for profit. Everyone else calls that fraud, but corporations call that good business.

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

In otherwords you are pro hater, racist, gay basher, sexist, elitist, anything else that is obviously and blatantly bad that could be given a label?

Did you intentionally pick a bunch of labeled groups that pretty much everyone (amusingly, including most people described by them) agrees the world would be better off without? I doubt Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh would support any of those (aside from the rich, all politicians support the rich... being rich themselves)

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... that makes the assumption that Republicans and Democrats are equal.

They are not.

The other news organizations are reporting reality... Democrats are more positive, and Republcians ARE more negative. This is obvious to anyone with eyes and more than three functioning brain-cells.

So, given that same data, it's clear FOX News was HEAVILY biased for republicans, in that they managed to spin the evil they do, the corruption, the lies, the fear-mongering, the racism, the homophobia, the xenophobia, the war-mongering, the fear-mongering ... such that it appeared that they were no different than the Democrats.

When 70-80% of the stories ARE more positive for one group, and more negative for the other, then it IS bias to try and show them as roughly 50/50.

The claim that FOX News is the "most balanced" is just blatently false. Laughably so. Especially given it was contributing heavily to Republican candidates, and not at all to Democratic ones, and providing free air time to Republican candidates to get their messages and talking points out, with no reciprocation for Democrats at all.... never mind the soft-ball questions that might as well have served as campaign commercials rather than anything approaching journalism.

Reality has a liberal bias

Re:ah faux news

[NeutronCowboy]

Or, it could just be that 70% of democratic candidates are generally positive characters, and 70% of republican candidates are negative. Sadly, the statistics you mention do not allow us to distinguish the two.

Re:ah faux news

[JustOK]

i'm in teh basement, you insensitive clod.

Re:ah faux news

[NeutronCowboy]

Frankly, I just have one (math) question for CAGW proponents: since when can you predict a chaotic, tightly-coupled, nonlinear system more than one iteration into the future within one sigma of reality?

You understand neither statistics nor chaos theory.

Ask me whether the coin I'm flipping will be heads or tails. My prediction rate will be pretty lousy. Ask me whether the coin I'm going to flip 1000 times is going to be 800 times heads, 800 times tails or something in between, and my prediction will be pretty accurate.

A chaotic system is one that doesn't exhibit a linear pattern over long iterations and where starting conditions strongly influence end states. This means that it is entirely possible to model (and therefore predict) chaotic systems far into the future. You just can't do it without going through all the intermediary steps.

Re:ah faux news

[maitai]

Nope, I just picked the ones I read about on thinkprogress.

And did you just accuse me of being all the above? You a liberal?

And I more than agree with you on the rich. But with that 200k a year thing, I'm kinda close to being one by that definition.

Re:ah faux news

[Chardansearavitriol]

Okay but heres the thing--this is NOT a fight over political convictions. That would be one thing. No, this is a fight being started by religious people who dont like established science getting in the way of whatever new interpretation of their religion they come up with next. Its not a matter of policy, its not a matter of social constructs. It is a matter of SCIENCE. They deny science (even while actively using the internet to do so...) and they deny its fundamental principles, and they deny any connection between human-scale events and geological scale events. When people start claiming that light was created in transit 6000 years ago to APPEAR as if it were billions of lightyears away...Well, its no longer about ideology. Its about intelligence and wisdom versus anti-intellectualism and fear. And while those forces are violent and ugly, they tend to burn out very fast. Just like the stars they claim dont exist -- Being told the earth would need a gigantic furnace near it in order to overtake local entropy, even as the sun shines in their eyes -- is very painful to hear. Even worse is when my co-worker asked me "How can the sun keep burning if there isnt air in space?" Aside from wanting to make an "Air in space museum" joke, this wrenched my chest a bit, and evoked a level of helpless pity ive never since encounterd.

Re:ah faux news

[maitai]

Out of curiosity, have you seen a positive label yet?

argumentum ad hominem

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever there's an article from Fox News, >90% of the posts will be attacks on the network without actually reading the article and supporting or disputing those facts.

It's a sad day when nerds can't even follow the scientific method and instead revert to ideology.

(Posting anonymously so I don't get burned for being a witch.)

"Often by separate scientists"?

[JonLovesJesus]

Quote: The rest have been 'discovered' multiple times, often by separate scientists." So, oftentimes the duplicates were even logged by independent scientists? Does that mean there are a lot of duplicate submissions by the same scientist?

Re:Typical of Fox

[jgrahn]

Well, the finding is by the Royal Botanic Gardens in London, and other reputable sources. And it seems plausible; before DNA sequencing and the Internet, it would be incredibly hard to prove nobody else had named the species previously.

Yes. If the "news" was really that a list of plant names will mostly be synonyms, it was already a well-known fact. Both because of the reasons you cite, and because reclassification creates synonyms. Say you have 100 species of Cereus, and you claim they are really two different genera: ten Cereus and 90 Foocereus. You publish your results. You just created 90 synonyms. Repeat this over the centuries, starting with Linnaeus in the 1700s ...

I can see no rational reason for TFA calling this a "surprising lack of diversity".

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

In what possible way are "conservatives" (used in the same way you use "liberals") any different? When are conservatives super open-minded and willing to believe liberal sources, etc, etc?

Talk about being a hypocrite. Take a look in a mirror, dude. Every single thing you just ranted about applies equally well to conservatives. In exactly the same way. With exactly the same attitude. And accuracy.

It's interesting to me how so many conservatives are so guilty of what they accuse others of. I first noticed when I read Ann Coulter's book "Slander"... which was allegedly about how liberals slander conservatives, but was nothing but slander against liberals. The hypocrisy was stunning. And once I noticed it, I see it nearly everywhere. Including in your very post. So clearly. It's pathetic. Who are you trying to fool?

Besides, we're talking about FOX News. It's not a "conservative" source. It's a radical fringe right-wing extremist source. A propaganda source. With a clear agenda, that is known to cherry-pick stories and facts to serve that agenda. It's not "conservative sources" that are causing the controversy. It's this particular source.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[Alex Belits]

In what possible way are "conservatives" (used in the same way you use "liberals") any different? When are conservatives super open-minded and willing to believe liberal sources, etc, etc?

They are Social Conservatives. The guys that want to bring feudalism back, as that was last time when they were "conserving" their favorite social order.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

I'm quite well off, I've been retired since I was 45 and spending all my time writing and ballroom dancing. I'm ecstatic, right now, because the tax law change lets me move, literally, millions, into irrevocable trusts so nobody can get at it by suing me or through other ways. Yes, this time, the votes did help me and the wealthy.

But even though I worked my ass off to get where I am (running a software based service company that ran on my custom software), you'd be surprised at how often Congress and the President, even Bush, has screwed me over along the way.

I've worked hard, but because I don't make as little as you, I'm limited in what I can keep or do with it in ways that, unless you've gotten into estate management and similar topics, wouldn't know about.

Re:ah faux news

[Yvanhoe]

Funny, when I want military details, or just details, on some events, I go to http://en.rian.ru/ (Russian news agency) knowing very well what their bias is, but nonetheless, I find their articles more detailed than what you can find in "the free world"

Re:ah faux news

[Elektroschock]

I don't think that Fox represents right wing politics. That is only a detraction. Fox is as rightwing as Stalin was a lefty. I just does not match. That a channel like Fox is allowed to set the national agenda in the Us just demonstrates the brokeness of their political system. Fox is a Saudi agitprop channel.

Wait for Assange to attack US banks like Bank of America, JP.Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs and they are done.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you mean like "neocon," "Big Oil," (or "Big *Anything*" really), "faux news," and any number of other examples where the left has done the same in order to immediately discredit their ideological opponent without further analysis?

As far as "faux news" is concerned, it really comes down to the fact that yes, biased reporting is evil, but there's nothing on cable news that begins to be otherwise. CNN used to pretend, but now they don't even bother trying to hide their leftist biases. MSNBC is the "faux news" of the left, and isn't even worth discussing. ABC, NBC, and CBS all have leftist biases themselves, but aren't interesting enough to bother watching anyway.

So, is Fox a neocon mouthpiece? Sure. Why not. But as a neocon mouthpiece they're a lone voice in the wilderness. As a biased news source, they're in good company.

Oh, look at the international reporting, you say! Because the BBC doesn't have self-admitted leftist biases? Because a news source (Xinhua) from a strictly controlled Communist regime that's antithetical to the values of most US citizens stands a chance of being unbiased?

What it comes down to is that, if you can name a single unbiased news source, your bullshit detector is in dire need of calibration.

Re:Typical of Fox

[Khenke]

but what they report is rarely flat-out false..

What is rarely? One out of 10? 100? 1000? 10000? times. In my experience it's more like 10-100 then 10000.

I see that we think completely different, but then I don't live in the US but Sweden and for me if a news media is lying at least once I will PERMANENTLY ignore it. Sure we have our share of bad "newspapers" like Aftonbladet and Expressen, but in my eyes they just not newspapers but sensationalist tabloids so I completely ignores them. Sure if they report anything interesting I investigate it, just like if a stranger on the street would have told me. But I will never tell someone "A stranger/Aftonbladet/Expressen/FOX told me X and Y" but "A stranger/Aftonbladet/Expressen/FOX told me X and Y and I looked it up here Z and it was actually true".

If you don't ignore a biased media you tell the it is OK to lie and twist news to fit them. Do your self and the humanity some good:
"Stop COMPLETELY to take so called news from biased media"

Re:ah faux news

[Sique]

Actually, Brontosaurus is no longer recognized, because some Camarasaurus fossils were lying at the same place as the Apatosaurus ones, so Brontosaurus actually was a misreconstruction made up from two different species.

Re:ah faux news

[Sique]

No. Some people actually set up a news organisation because they want to sell news they get easily by to other news outlets, which don't have such an easy access to the same news. And then there are people who saw a market for a certain type of journal, and to get new stuff to publish, they have to look for news that fit the profile for the journal, and finally end up in gathering those news themselves.

It also depends on the species concept

[G3ckoG33k]

It very much depends on the species concept, and method used.

If you apply a strict monophyletic perspective and use only a few mitochondrial genes, then this may well be correct.

However... And that is a big HOWEVER, a strict monophyletic perspective would miss out on innumerable species, e.g. the polar pear vs brown bear, where the polar bear would not be an admissible species under a strict monophyletic species concept, but only a variety of the brown bear. There are of course many examples of this phenomenon.

The second perspective relates to which genes were analyzed, as they tend to give different results.

Truth with modification, at best...

Re:ah faux news

[narcc]

I actually consider the facts and logic and if I've determined there is some need to form an opinion on a matter

If true, this means that you are well-educated and have well-developed critical thinking skills.

Consequently, this makes you an elitist and part of the radical left out to destroy America.

Re:ah faux news

[realityimpaired]

As another poster pointed out, the US does have a very strange definition of "middle"... by European standards, Obama would be considered right-wing.... Even by Canadian standards, he's centrist at best, if not somewhat right-wing (though Harper and his lackies are doing a good job of rewriting what's considered extreme right-wing in this country).

But as for describing people on Slashdot, I think it's hardly surprising... there's a definite correlation between higher education levels and more liberal values. In short: the more time you've spent looking at the world, and coming to understand how things *actually* work, the more likely you are to want to do something about changing it. That doesn't mean that there aren't highly educated conservatives, just that the overwhelming majority of people in the world with post-graduate education are liberals. Considering the type of reporting that goes on here, and the target audience, is it at all surprising that it tends to attract a higher average IQ than something like Fox News?

Re:ah faux news

[narcc]

To some people, it is more important who says something than what they say, truth be damned.

You'll find that 'who says it' is an important first consideration when evaluating a claim. For example, if Kent Hovind told me something about geology I would feel confident that I could ignore whatever he presented without further investigation because he has a long history of making false geological claims.

In cases like this article, Fox News suffers the same problem that the boy who cried wolf (the protagonist of the popular cautionary tale of the same name) suffered. They've told so many lies over the years that when they do say something true, no one believes them.

Re:ah faux news

[narcc]

Actually, Brontosaurus is no longer recognized, because some Camarasaurus fossils were lying at the same place as the Apatosaurus ones, so Brontosaurus actually was a misreconstruction made up from two different species.

This makes me sad. As a child, Brontosaurus was my favorite dinosaur.

Re:ah faux news

[narcc]

choosing to report from the center of whatever the political spectrum looks like in your country is still choosing a view point.

The GP didn't say anything about reporting from the center.

You can eliminate a good bit of bias by reporting only the straight facts and deciding what is important to report by the number of people likely to be affected.

You can't get rid of bias completely -- but a good journalist should make every effort to eliminate it from their reporting.

Fox, on the other hand, is actively bias as evidenced by the recently leaked Fox News memo.

Yet, at the same time, they claim to be without bias in their 'straight' news segments.

I'd call that a lie. Bias is one thing, but flat-out lying is another.

Re:ah faux news

[realityimpaired]

Dunno about the states, but it exists in Canada...

http://www.reddotcampaign.ca/

Put the red dot in your mailbox, and Canada Post stops delivering junk mail. :) And unlike te DNC list, this one actually works, because the letter carriers support it.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

Do a google asshole. Find any post I made using a conservitive web site. I have always tried to find credible web sites with no political ties for any link that I provided.

The only posts I have ever seen here blasting people for their sources were from liberals. And now you hypocrit liberals have the balls to do the same thing you complain about.

Again, the only good liberal is a fucking dead one.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

Federalisim, as practiced by Alexandar Hamiloton? If that is the case, then yes. I do want federalisim back.

But then, that would be as a founding father wanted the country to be run. No liberal would ever agree with that.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

Besides, we're talking about FOX News. It's not a "conservative" source. It's a radical fringe right-wing extremist source.

And the fucking huffington post is better how?

Oh, I forgot. It's liberal. Of course its acceptable

Re:ah faux news

[realityimpaired]

I wish I could find the exact quote, but there was a visiting Russian author in the 1980's, who, when asked why he was laughing, said, essentially, that Russians were better informed than Americans, because Russians knew the news was lying to them, so they got their news from multiple sources to make sure they had the full story.

I tend to read news aggregator sites, rather than specific newspapers and reporting agencies. I also tend to go straight to the source, rather than reading the reprinted (and analyzed) version. You may find you have better luck visiting Reuters directly, rather than reading the version of a Reuters story that gets printed in NYT... most of my *news* reading comes from Reuters ( http://www.reuters.com/ ) and Agence France Presse ( http://www.afp.com/ ) directly, rather than other sites.

Also, you could try the CBC. They're pretty good at remaining neutral in their reporting. :) http://www.cbc.ca/news/

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

You cant convert the stupid and the criminal. Both definations of liberals.

So, why should I try

Re:ah faux news

[realityimpaired]

Put on your tinfoil hat, and spend a few minutes watching Mr. Beck on TV. Then you'll see why it's so popular to point out that he's batshit insane....

A quick search on youtube for his name, the first hit is this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J_QLtYqlk

Does that tell you why he's viewed as a nutjob?

Check that. that's insulting to people with mental illness. He's his own special breed of special.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Lie = bad. Fox News lying = bad.

In regards to just reporting straight facts, you have to decide what the facts are. Then you have to decide what facts to include in the story. You also have to choose which stories to write, and which stories to ignore. It's rare to read a story, even a fact heavy one, that doesn't have a hint of SOME sort of world view. It might be hard to see, just because its stuff that underpins the society that the story came from that everyone assumes is true. But it's there and it does reinforce that world view. I'm not saying its bad or anything, just that it's there.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. There is no such thing as unbiased news. Not NPR, not CNN, not Fox. Maybe your local newspaper. I prefer Fox, but I understand no one is perfect. You have to understand that bad things can be said and proven about any network or source. It's easy to count the negatives.

Re:ah faux news

[MacDork]

Climate model forecasts of climate trend (particularly golbal average temps) have matched observations within their defined error margin for over 30yrs now.

They really haven't. Mann was predicting runaway global warming back in 2000 with his hockey stick graph, but it didn't happen. Temperatures peaked in 1998 with the el nino, and the following decade was cooler. It was later discovered that entering random data into Mann's model also produced hockey stick graphs.

The climate "scientists" then predicted increases in hurricanes after Katrina because of global warming. The worlds most trusted name in hurricane prediction, Dr. William Grey, told the media that was BS. They branded him a 'denier' and smeared him at every opportunity. Again, it didn't happen.

Then, following the "mostest evar!!" melting of arctic ice in 2007, climate "scientists" once again used that failed correlation==causation argument to predict more ice melt and warmer winters to come. But in 2008 , the ice melt did not exceed the record in 2007. A year later, Copenhagen was buried under a blizzard during the conference on "climate change" and this year snow has been dumping further south in the US that has been seen since the civil war. 60 people have frozen to death across Europe so far this winter because of the abominable "warming" trend.

There are plenty more of these examples. The "global warming" controversy is more the result of a belief system than science driven by results. The predictions are hit and miss at best, and the misses are always reclassified as hits by true believers. It's a self flagellating religion, where man is always to blame. Fire, brimstone, REPENT!

It's funny that they chose warming as the big scary ManBearPig, since warming has been so beneficial to man. In the past ~12000 years, warming has transformed this planet from a rock covered in uninhabitable tundra and deserts into a lush green place with tropical forests and grasslands. Just 70,000 years ago, the species of man almost became extinct due to glaciation. I'll take warm over frozen to death any day :-)

Re:ah faux news

[narcc]

What "global warming skeptics" don't seem to grasp is that exercising basic caution is not a bad idea.

Neat, "Pascals Wager" for AGW.

More seriously, I've seen a lot of stuff from a lot of "global warming skeptics" but not once have I seen one who thinks we should just keep on polluting more and more.

If AGW was shown to be a complete fiction tomorrow, would you change your position on renewable energy or emissions standards? Would you head to the back yard, burn some tires, and dump used motor-oil down a storm drain on your way to trade in your hybrid for an SUV?

Of course not.

How do you get a plant added to the list?

[runbadscott]

How do you get a plant added to the list? I just discovered a new species in my sox drawer.

Re:ah faux news

[Attila Dimedici]

I would grant you that except for the fact that most news organizations only find it necessary to mention the party affiliation of corrupt politicians when they are Republican, which implies that, unless specified, it can be assumed that a corrupt politician is Democratic.

Re:ah faux news

[Attila Dimedici]

Really, name one.

Re:ah faux news

[Nimey]

A FoaF was described as "he's of the Republican religion".

Re:ah faux news

[Nimey]

Yes. Back in '08 NPR went around interviewing people about the presidential race. Sometime late in the year they interviewed these Texas Baptists and asked what they thought about McCain and Obama:

One of their females said that that she'd hold her nose and vote for McCain, because even though he's a "liberal", Obama's an "ultra liberal".

One suspects she hasn't changed her mind in the past two years, or rather that she's still being spoon-fed the same pap by Fox &c.

know

[AlleyTrotte]

(What do you know?, What do you know)

Re:ah faux news

[operagost]

Which one of those others fought a lawsuit to preserve their right to lie?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Re:ah faux news

[operagost]

That's not enough. You need to add the mom's-basement-dwelling elitists on slashdot to fully balance it out.

Re:ah faux news

[operagost]

Please... I've heard far worse trolls here on Slashdot. California leans left, therefore it's likely that some leftists lost their homes. It's just schadenfreude to make a joke of it. But then again, Olbermann does this to his enemies EVERY SINGLE DAY.

headline is way off

[Anonymous Coward]

What the List does is collect ~all the already-published taxonomic accounts, and listed "all published names", specifically including those that were already known to be synonyms.

"The decision to assign a Status of Synonym to a name record is based upon a taxonomic opinion recorded in the cited data source"

If you want to see what they actually did, read this: http://www.theplantlist.org/about/#created

Even the most casual botanist already knows that plant taxonomy is full of synonyms. It's actually rather hard to decide whether you're looking at a "species" of anything, and plants are particularly messy since their phenotypes are pretty variable and they hybridize like crazy.

Re:ah faux news

[operagost]

Look at the friggin' web site you used for a citation, and tell me that's not proving that Slashdotters really have no idea what an unbiased news source would look like. Some headlines:

Chaga!
The Coffee Substitute that is
Super Good for You!

See How a Caffeined Spider Spins a Web!

Never, Ever Fly a 737 - It can fall apart in the sky

ASTOUNDING! A cure for Morgellon's. Fantastic video!!! (Warning: Colloidal Silver should never be taken regularly. It's not food. It can turn skin blue).

Actually, I take it back. Those articles are uniformly BONKERS.

Re:ah faux news

[readin]

As another poster pointed out, the US does have a very strange definition of "middle"... by European standards, Obama would be considered right-wing.... Even by Canadian standards, he's centrist at best, if not somewhat right-wing (though Harper and his lackies are doing a good job of rewriting what's considered extreme right-wing in this country).

And by Chinese and Russian standards our conservatives devotion to a written constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, rule of law etc. is is even more extremists than the Canadians think it is. With the Russians, Chinese, and Saudis on the far left, and the Canadians and Europeans in the middle, I'm hope the U.S. stays on the far right for a very long time.

(note that in the U.S. politics "right" is the polar opposite of what "right" usually refers to in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia)

Re:Typical of Fox

[Sprouticus]

he GP said to 'find a real news agency'. Not a real TVnews agency. Not a real cable new agency. The fact is that anyone who relies on the big 3 cable news for anythin other than a pointer to other sources is stupid. And if they rely upon ONLY the cable news agencies as pointers they are also stupid.

BBC
Rueters
ABC
NYT
Chicago Tribune
Wash Post
WSJ
Newsweek.

All good sources for content or at leastpointers to real content.

Re:ah faux news

[readin]

"Liberal" is just the word the extreme right has made up to describe anyone they disagree with. It's a label, almost a pejorative they've created so they can just say, "He's a liberal," instead of dealing with something a person has said that has any validity. It's a way to call names instead of dealing with the facts.

It's been so distorted by people that think there is their way and the wrong way that it really doesn't have any meaning any longer.

At this point in time, Liberal is just the recent word to describe Marxism, all the previous words having developed a bad reputation because of their results. Marxist, socialist, communist - they've all fallen into disrepute. Liberal is going the same way, so now you hear liberals trying to revive the word "progressive" because they think it sounds better and has less baggage. The problem is the ideas haven't changed. If "progressive" becomes the new word for "liberal", then "progressive" will get a bad rep too, and they'll come up with a new word.

As for the contention that conservatives "made up" the word liberal - in fact what American conservatives advocate is what used to be called "liberal" - small government, few regulations. In fact if you read conservative rags you'll see they're actually trying to reclaim the word by using the term "classical liberal" to describe themselves.

Re:ah faux news

[MightyMartian]

So, you don't have evidence, except for a questionable article posted here a few months ago.

OK - I'm an Anonymous Coward but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing.
It's very easy to succumb to the Fox technique.

The real point is never the issue that you are invited to debate endlessly - and only within the framework of their special brand of "reality".

So here's what this really means:

For BOTH plant and animal species, the argument has to be put forth that there are far fewer than "thought".

Why? Because they all have to fit on the Ark.

(still waiting for my user account to be approved)
(wwaldo)

Re:OK - I'm an Anonymous Coward but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real point is never the issue that you are invited to debate endlessly...

And you're offsetting their claims how exactly?

False equivalency! Cable news is not all the same

[bussdriver]

False equivalency it often used to minimize severity while bringing down others to their level; its two birds with 1 stone.

USA Cable news channels are not all the same and if you can not see how much worse Fox "News" is than the rest then sadly, its not likely a logical person is going to educate you because you are just too pathetic and likely will just more strongly BELIEVE the fallacy when presented with fact and logic.

We need a false advertising lawsuit against Fox "news" - propaganda is just too dangerous a weapon to let it get used unregulated. It only gets more sophisticated over time and I expect it to kill democracy and liberty someday - its already begun and most don't have a clue.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[Alex Belits]

Learn to read.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[bussdriver]

The stupid maybe can't be educated; however, the criminal can and have been reformed and that is a known fact.

Turn on your brain and stop with the primitive beliefs go to politicalcompass.org and THINK.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[Skidborg]

Your spelling betrays you. You must be an under cover liberal.

Re:ah faux news

[Skidborg]

An article made by a researcher who might have been falsifying data you mean?

Re:False equivalency! Cable news is not all the sa

[CapOblivious2010]

We need a false advertising lawsuit against Fox "news" - propaganda is just too dangerous a weapon to let it get used unregulated. It only gets more sophisticated over time and I expect it to kill democracy and liberty someday - its already begun and most don't have a clue.

Yeah, because there's no way letting the government "regulate" the news would kill democracy or liberty. Sure, people and news organizations shouldn't lie... but who's in charge of the "ministry of truth" that determines who's lying and who's telling the truth? Ask yourself this: would you have seriously proposed letting the government regulate the news a few years ago, when the government was solidly in the hands of Republicans?

The disease is bad, no question about it - but your cure is far worse.

Something must be done

[thethibs]

So global warming, which is all our fault, is responsible for the disappearance of 2/3 of the world's plant species. We have to do something. Now. Everybody has to stop everything they're doing!

Re:ah faux news

[dryeo]

Don't forget the theory of gravity, another unproven theory.

Re:ah faux news

[Sique]

Reuters, founded by Paul Julius Reuter in 1850 in the german town of Aachen to send stock market news via messenger pigeons.

Re:ah faux news

[Simon80]

It's not entirely relevant to ask whether Fox News is lying in this article, the point is that when it's important enough to them, they will lie in an article, even if that contradicts their fundamental mandate as a news organization. Unless you trust yourself to be able to spot any possible conflict of interest that could have influenced their reporting, the safest and easiest thing to do is just not trust them. This is the same reason why I don't trust Microsoft, or Monsanto. If you know that an organization's ethics don't preclude them from deliberately misleading others, then it makes sense to just not trust what they say. Even something as innocuous as this article could have a political motivation to it.

Disregarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of whether or not the story is true, I am disregarding it completely; for the source has been previously determined to be untrustworthy and isn't actually a news source at all.

Re:Typical of Fox

[RightwingNutjob]

That's why you don't read just one news source. I regularly read Fox, NYT, CNN, BBC, and whatever random crap comes up on Google News and RealClearPolitics just to guard against any segment of these guys deliberately ignoring something embarrassing about a left-wing pol, a right-wing pol, or something apolitical like this.

Re:ah faux news

[Attila Dimedici]

Wow, and now it is a mouthpiece for statists everywhere. He must be rolling over in his grave.

Re:ah faux news

[NeutronCowboy]

Wrong. I'd ask you for a citation that supports your statement, but it's pointless, because there isn't a source for it. You made it up out of thin air. And failed to mention that the only "news" organization that actively lies about party affiliation is Fox news.

Re:Typical of Fox

[WorBlux]

I can see no rational reason for TFA calling this a "surprising lack of diversity".

Niether can I. And the other question is previously thought by whom? I was a plant science major, and all of my professors and TA's said over 250,000 known species. That this study demonstrated over 300,000 unique species, which would show that there is more actual diversity than previously thought by experts in the feild. There may be a million different scientific names in use, but as you pointed out nobody in the know actually believed there were a million different species known.

Mass Extinctions!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this is a case of mass extinctions!
Blame the Tea Partiers!
Or the Americans!
It is always their fault!

Re:Typical of Fox

[mhollis]

Zenin's reply is perfect, but I will add this false news story that was heavily reported on faux news as yet another example of how they do no fact checking at all, preferring to sensationalize anything that fits their political aims.

As I said before, if faux news is the only "news" you take in, you will not understand the world around you. You will be regularly and routinely lied to and you will not comprehend correctly what is truly happening in the world.

The Royal Botanic Gardens is discovering a small minority of species are "discovered" more than once and genetic sequencing is helping to clear that up. Faux news is reporting that biodiversity is not important because most of the diversity is really false.

The difference here is spin. The Royal Botanic Garden will tend to prefer that we not destroy species. Murdoch and company would prefer that we pay no attention whatsoever to people who are saying that killing off massive quantities of our species from this planet could, in the long term, be very detrimental to life on earth.

I wholly disagree with your statement that what they report is rarely flat-out false and would refer you to any story originated by Breitbart as well as the above link to the Los Angeles Police jet pack purchase.

Re:ah faux news

[DesScorp]

Fox didn't go to "protect their right to lie". Your source link is an intentional distortion of the facts of the court case, and if you'd actually looked to a non-biased source, you'd know that already.

The Wikipedia article for Jane Akre lays out of the fact of the case pretty clearly (along with her history of being a self-proclaimed "whistleblower" that was fired from multiple news orgs before coming to Fox).

It's not that Fox ordered her to "lie". Fox wouldn't run her anti-Monstanto story because they though it was biased against the company without reasonable proof. Her editors ordered her to re-write the story... numerous times... and she wouldn't change the essential charges against Monsanto in the story. When Fox decided not to run the story she sued her employer, and they then terminated her.

Please note that the lower court found against her on all assertions save one... the "whistleblower" charge, and that was the one that was overturned by a higher court. So she was found to be not credible by both a jury of her peers and an appeals court judge.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

We neocons wouldn't know anything about that.

Re:Typical of Fox

[mhollis]

People are busy these days and do not always have enough time to take in enough news and current events to be properly educated about the facts around them. Those who chose faux news as their sole source of information will find themselves missing out entirely from facts that ought to inform the decisions they make in their lives.

My credentials? I worked for two of the three major news networks in the United States. For over ten years. And nobody at MSNBC or CNN limit their news intake to just faux news. This would be tantamount to never looking into any report about anything at all happening in the world. One would have come away from September 11, 2001 thinking that Saddam Hussein personally flew three planes into three buildings and followed that act up with ditching a plane in Pennsylvania -- and then lived to protest that he had no WMD, as he juggled three nuclear warheads while talking to the press.

CNN regularly and routinely aired the footage that the NBC Network produced from "Ground Zero" in New York (NBC's Rehema Ellis was the only reporter actually on the scene from any news agency and, to their shame, CNN used that footage to promote themselves as a news channel.

All of the news organizations' executives agreed to pool all footage from everywhere on that day and, for NBC, that was a very bad decision.

While working in news, I read three different news wires pretty much all of the time during the day, listened to NPR on my way in to work, read the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Daily Tribune. It wasn't enough. One newspaper I found important post-Clinton was the Cairo Journal, though the English version doesn't have the same "spin" as the Arabic and I would usually consult a translator at least two times a day.

I'm going to guess that the people who work at faux news read the Wall Street Journal as if that Murdoch-owned paper is a "newspaper of record." It is not. Prior to Murdoch's purchase, it was a newspaper that was full of corporate PR, hastily rewriting press releases churned out by the big corporations whose executives read it.

If you don't work in news, you should regularly read a "newspaper of record" (and none of the Murdoch-owned ones are) and you should alternate these sources. So if on Mondays, you read the New York Times, you should read the Chicago Tribune on Tuesdays, switch to the Washington Post on Wednesdays, read the Los Angeles Tribune on Thursdays and hit the BBC on Fridays. All of these outlets will be available on the Internet and all are pretty comprehensive. If you really like crosswords, you should pick the New York Times on the day you find it hardest -- but still possible, understanding that the easiest is published on Mondays, with the hardest on Fridays.

I don't think anyone is actually home any more for the 6:30 PM news on television.

What Fox News Will Never Say

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why "science" works. There is no "preferred conclusion." People investigate and catalog data. People share their data and peers review it. Incorrect data is eventually weeded out. When's the last time a group of Biblical scholars got together to catalog the contradictions in the Bible and iron them out?

Re:Typical of Fox

[mhollis]

Fox is not apolitical and that is the problem with your statement. If you see that NYT, CNN, BBC and Fox are "random crap" you are completely deluded about what Google is doing.

The stories Google posts on their news site are the top hits for the particular stories listed. Choosing Fox over any other source gives them legitimacy in the eyes of Google—false legitimacy, because of Fox's rather nasty political agenda.

And I'm not saying that their right-wing sloganeering is nasty. The "nasty" issue with Fox is that they simply do not read, nor do they fact-check, nor do they error-correct for the purpose of informing viewership and readership. There isn't anyone sweating bullets about accuracy, double-checking name misspellings, making sure the geography is correct and trying—mightily—to not lie with statistics.

Having actually worked news gigs, these are things I did and did regularly, trying to do more than my job to make sure that what we reported was accurate—even to the point of risking my job by asking an anchorperson right before the news aired about the correctness of a tease he wrote to promote the show. Everyone in the real news media knows that, once you take a job with Fox, you're never going to be considered legitimate and you have blown any hint you may have had of integrity in reporting. And that's sad, because reporters seek for all of their working lives for that stamp of integrity and know that if they lose that, they have lost everything.

There is nothing random about the selection of Fox by Google. It is entirely based on the fact that people, not knowing that Fox does not check facts or even care about facts, click on the link because the source is topmost. And it's topmost because they sensationalize everything, rather than take the time to verify accuracy.

Re:Typical of Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Except FOX is the company who was sued by an ex employee (Jane Aker) for wrongful termination... because she didn't want to report something she knew wasn't true. She won...FOX appealed on the grounds that it is their First Amendment right to lie and distort the news. They won the appeal.

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

"But even though I worked my ass off to get where I am (running a software based service company that ran on my custom software), you'd be surprised at how often Congress and the President, even Bush, has screwed me over along the way."

No doubt you did. But your work isn't anymore valuable to society than the guy who pounds rocks 60hrs a week. You certainly didn't work harder than him. Maybe you are brighter, maybe not. I've done a fair bit of programming and if you can handle high school algebra you won't find anything more difficult in the coding world and low paid mechanics encounter that level of difficulty in their jobs.

No doubt your success is built upon the collective work of society in the form of public and private infrastructure.

In other words, you only have 24hrs in your day like everyone else. Yet despite not deserving more than any other hardworking adult (less since you stopped being productive at 45) you enjoy an a greater and out of proportion share of societies wealth/output. There is certainly no justification for a claim that you should be able to avoid paying a proportionate share back in the form of taxes.

"I've worked hard, but because I don't make as little as you, I'm limited in what I can keep or do with it in ways that, unless you've gotten into estate management and similar topics, wouldn't know about."

As it happens I have and you aren't limited in ways that someone with less wealth is not. The limits are the same. You simply have an inordinately large share of the wealth that belongs to our society.

The injustice is not that those who have more than their share of our wealth are expected to pay higher taxes or that there are limits on what they can stash in trusts and dodge estate taxes on. Or how the money put in trusts has to managed to dodge those taxes.

The injustice is that ANYTHING can be stashed in trusts to avoid taxes. You are allowed to incorporate and dodge liability while conducting your business and funnel all your expenses through your business so that the vast majority of the money you spend is before tax. If the less wealthy individuals could or knew how to do this then anyone making less than 50k/yr wouldn't have taxable income. But there are barriers to prevent the common man from 'cheating' by using the same tricks not the least of which are the various fees and minimums involved that don't scale to the sums.

The wealthy want to do away with the 'death tax' but you won't find sympathy here. The 'death tax' should be 100%. Your children already got enough of an unfair advantage from your wealth when growing up. Society should reclaim everything upon your death (or the death of your spouse, whichever comes last).

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

"you'd be surprised at how often Congress and the President, even Bush, has screwed me over along the way"

Another small point on this. Just because everything the politicians do is benefiting SOMEONE who is wealthy (generally themselves either through the layers of abstraction on their own wealth or through the wealthy people who are paying them to serve their specific interests), doesn't mean that it will benefit EVERYONE who is wealthy.

The net result is still a benefit of all the wealthy. The wealthy do not pay an equal proportion of tax relative to their income or their wealth. While they pay a greater portion of the tax than the middle class and the poor their income and wealth are far far more out of proportion. The wealth in our society is distributed in a way that causes the vast majority of our society to have nothing to pass on at all while the wealthy complain that they can't dodge all the taxes on the wealth they pass to their children (who have contributed nothing to society), never mind that the sums left are generally vastly more than the retirement funds of upper management in the working world.

The wealthy pay lower interest on loans, they pay less for almost everything they buy, they don't pay taxes on all their gross gains, and they hold 60% of all societies wealth while only constituting 10% of society (85% if you include the top 20%) with the top 1% having as much as the rest of the top 10% combined.

Tired Argument

[SageMusings]

Now substitute the word "Liberal" with "Conservative" and "extreme right" with "extreme left". Your argument still holds.

The entire system is broken, both the left and the right. I fervently hope you are not of the opinion one side is better than the other.

Re:ah faux news

[benhattman]

At this point in time, Liberal is just the recent word to describe Marxism, all the previous words having developed a bad reputation because of their results. Marxist, socialist, communist - they've all fallen into disrepute. Liberal is going the same way, so now you hear liberals trying to revive the word "progressive" because they think it sounds better and has less baggage.

Wait, I'm confused now. If everybody knows that a liberal, Marxist, socialist, communist, and progressive are all synonyms, then why do conservative commentators even resort to calling the president a Marxist or a socialist?

Either you're trolling, or you're just too confused to realize that these terms are in fact semantically different even if conservative yaks use them interchangeably.

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

I'm sorry but your post rings of the reverse ideology they claim exists.

An intelligence manipulating things to prevent us from detecting the true origins of the universe is improbable so it isn't my view but just because I choose to act according to probability doesn't mean everyone else must. I play consistently with the probability in every game of chance but there are others who don't do so and you know what. Some of them even seem to win more often than I do.

Sometimes the probability is very very high in favor science. But I often wonder if it is as high as those who are deep into a subject believe it to be. If your measurement consistent with your prediction because your prediction is correct, or is it correct because you've built your instrumentation using the same foundational assumptions your prediction is based on?

As to whether plant species have been identified multiple times.. I don't know. I haven't even RTFA. But it is certainly possible, they are being identified by humans and even when the distinguishing criteria are pointed out to me they often seem arbitrary or aren't unique.

Frankly, the implications of the revelation have no bearing on whether it is true IMHO and I don't give a damn.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

The only good liberal is a dead one. Thank god liberals are mostly criminals. They kill each other off.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

When liberals learn not to be hypocrites, I'll listen to what then have to say. . Till then. fuck off and die.

Again, thank god you cunts are nothing but criminals. Your so busy killing each other off, this nation doesn't need another civil war.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

however, the criminal can and have been reformed and that is a known fact.

Studies I have looked at say that rehabilitation works, if done outside of prison. Ok bussdriver, I'm all for rehabilitation. As long as its done in your neighborhood. You know. Where your family and children live.

Put up or shut up. Get out there and push for a rehab of first time offenders. Armed robbers, drug busts(crack, heroin, coke, pot, prescription drugs), gang busts, spousal abuse. You bring them to your neighborhood. Show us how much you stand by your convictions.

Otherwise, your just another liberal hypocrit.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

While you leap to assumptions and base beliefs on probability (I'm glad I don't, the probability was that I'd never accomplish what I did in life), I just love your wording of "An intelligence manipulating things to prevent us from detecting the true origins of the universe."

Excellent point. If Creationism were true, then a consequence of it is a God who intentionally misleads or allows us to be misled and who hides the truth.

Re:ah faux news

[TheWanderingHermit]

I'm glad to see that in all the variety of Slashdot, we do have someone here to represent the communist or socialist viewpoint.

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know it may come as a shock to some but most people in the US aren't liberals."

This has become a very blurry line. Is it one-third of the population that is shouting from the rooftops that anyone with a large salary should be taxed heavily out of "fairness"? Like Rush Limbaugh may say, these average people may lead a hard-working, ethical personal life, tenets of conservatism, but they are voting for socialist politicians. Their one huge sin of "jealousy" is weighing far heavier than their conservatism as far as how they are driving the direction of the country. We now have few people who truly believe the government spends to much, those who believe it enough to actually want to reduce their own social payments.

Hermit you are right that "liberal" has no meaning. However todays "liberal" ideals are at the extreme end, and that is why the term is meaningless; not because of how a conservative may use the term.

Demonstrating how far the political climate has moved in a few years: President Clinton did everything within his power to distance himself from the word "liberal". When he saw himself tanking in the polls, he came right over to the center, even sounded conservative on some issues, even if he had zero intent of pursuing that direction. Fast forward to President Obama. He made it clear that he wanted to "fundamentally transform the United states of America." His goal has been stated repeatedly and is quite clear: Use tax policy to redistribute wealth. This is a purely socialist dogma, that a huge number of citizens are subscribing to.

So those of you who call yourselves liberal, do you subscribe to the Marxism that Obama promotes? That the democratic congress has been promoting heavily? Do you read at all? In the Wall Street journal there are letters to the editor weekly now, with citizens agreeing with this philosophy, that "tax policy is for the redistribution of wealth." We have always had many Marxists here, and now they tout their philosophy freely. At the same time some people gasp when some conservative uses the word "liberal" in a negative sense. Google "doublespeak George Orwell." Today's leftists in America have a thought process defined by doublespeak ingrained in their every thought. I am not saying you as a "liberal" do, I don't know you. I am however defining the people that I read about every single day, which seems to be a great number of people.

So I ask you, what is a liberal now? It is meaningless not because conservatives use it as a label. It is meaningless because the country has gone completely to the left side. Republicans have become social spenders, and the democrats want to spend ten times as much, and punish any form of individual financial success they can identify. Despite hearing from liberals about "right-wing conspiracy", that republicans have gone "way too far right", there are almost no conservatives left in power because oligarchical power means taking individual rights, a conservative ideal, away from the people. Our hawkish military policy is very conservative, and we should not be involved in the middle east in all of these volunteer wars. But the bottom line is that leftist financial dogma is eviscerating the original America, and thus, that is what is most important.

"It's been so distorted by people that think there is their way and the wrong way that it really doesn't have any meaning any longer."

Is bankrupting the United States of America, aka overly taxing any individual profit made and redistributing it to others for the goal of "equality" the right thing to do? There are no "consider this" answers here. There is no "how about the inequality." Our great wealth has been flushed down the toilet. Gone. This in no way can be construed as the right thing to do.

Oh yes, if you think that this is Bill O'reilly writing here, I do not even watch Fox News. I find little to no new information on any television news show. I do find it comical that there is one predominantly conservative news show and a large group o

Re:ah faux news

[toddestan]

And I suppose like how most people rate themselves as a better than average driver, you think you're one of the few in middle? Think again.

Re:ah faux news

[Sique]

Now it is just a trademark of the Canadian Thompson group.

Re:ah faux news

[lonecrow]

I am a Liberal and I take my meaning of the word from "Liberty" and from the Liberal Revolutions in Europe around 1848. These revolutions were in a large part inspired by the "Liberation" of the American Colonies.

The revolutions of based in a philosophy of "Liberalism" which in round terms meant screw the kings and the popes and let the people will rule themselves!. Sound familiar to Americans? It should your country is founded on the principals of Liberalism. The fact that this word has been turned into a pejorative by the same group that harkens back to founded principals is hilarious in a sad way.

In the English parliament of the Whigs and the Tories (or liberals and conservatives) the Whigs were the country industrialists who wanted freedom for their capital (the new money), and the Tories (Conservatives) drew their support from the old landed aristocracy. (eg. the old landed money). So I would expect those that called for freedom from government for their business to be Liberals but mostly they call themselves Conservatives. Weird.

Still later one of the defining differences between a liberal and a conservative was between those that supported fiscal policy for managing the economy (Liberals) and those that supported monetary policy (Conservatives). (Which is why I find it funny today that whenever I hear people talk badly about the FED, or central bank monetary system in general, those people are mostly self-described "Conservatives" which again seems backwards to me).

I do see a huge contradiction in the current conservative movement. On the one hand they talk big about the importance about personal liberty but on the other hand they tend to be very authoritarian. They shout about liberty and freedom but then want to jail homosexuals. They yell for the government to get off their backs but if you question anything about national defense they jump on you for being unpatriotic.

Conservatives complain about the nanny state but are far more likely to adopt a "A father knows best so shout up and do what your told" attitude. I think the single best definition of a 'liberal' is one who truly believes in the sovereignty of the individual.

One of my biggest fears for the US is that this misguided and confused conservative movement accidentally gets what it is wishing for by bringing down "Liberal Democracy", and end up getting a form of dictatorship instead to the sound of a collective Whoops! across the red states.

I would highly recommend the book "On Liberty" (1859) is a philosophical work by British philosopher John Stuart Mill. It was a radical work to the Victorian readers of the time because it supported moral and economic freedom of individuals from the state. Wikipedia summary.

On Liberty was an enormously influential work; the ideas presented in the book have remained the basis of much liberal political thought ever since

I think democrats in the US should be proud to call themselves liberals and should stop hiding from a word that is truly to be admired and should stop letting it be re-defined by the forces of evil.

And the final word from Mr. Mill that is as true today as it was then.

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. -- John Stuart Mill

Re:ah faux news

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not synonyms.

But neocons who don't want to learn more because then they'd find out how little they DO know already and how ignorant they are like to say they are synonyms.

Seriously, it really doesn't take much to get a reaction out of neocons like you who take yourselves too seriously.

And it's just so damned fun trolling for stuck-up twats like you.

Re:ah faux news

[readin]

Of course they're not precisely the same, but they're all the same side of the left-right spectrum and are different manifestations of the same core values.

Political labels aren't simple, and I won't attempt or even claim to be able to explain the history of each one. But it does seem that while the basic idea of heavy government control of industry and commerce in order to more evenly distribute the wealth has been around at least since Marx and has evolved. With that evolution has come new names.

American conservatism also evolved at the same time but without the frequent renaming. I believe at least part of the reason for this is that conservatism hasn't discredited itself to the extent that the various forms of Marxism/communism/liberalism did.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[Alex Belits]

Hint: the word I used is not "federalism".

Re:ah faux news

[FrootLoops]

I couldn't point to specific political ideologies I disagree with without rewatching some of his show. That's not to say I didn't have reasons to strongly dislike him when I originally formed that opinion; I've just labeled him mentally as unimportant and "garbage collected" most of my thoughts towards him. I'm sure his shows are online--try watching one and you might see what we mean.

woosh

[pgmrdlm]

I ignored your attempt at sarcasim and gave you a history lesson in founding fathers and types of goverments.

By the way cunt. Read some history. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton couldn't get along. They hated each other. So if you think this type of division in goverment is something new because of the republicans, your just proving my point of how fucking stupid liberals really are.

Again, thank god you fucking liberals are nothing but criminals and enjoy killing each other off. You save this nation a civil war.

Watch your back,. There is a fellow liberal voting gang member waiting to have a bad trip and go off on you pussies at one of your Black Panther protected voting districts.

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[bussdriver]

You are a fanatic, probably to the point of being nutty; not that you'd ever see it. Hopefully, you realize you are at least a fanatic.

I suppose to you liberal is one of the biggest insults and socialist is second.

Actually, I don't fit into your tiny simplistic world view not saying you have one much smaller than most the intellectually stunted Americans... I'm sure I'd be even better off if I had been raised in a better society than the midwest.

FYI the USA isn't the greatest nation and if at any point it ever was it can not retain that position indefinitely, especially when its too arrogant to realize when and what is falling behind.

I have ex-convict friends, some of which I met after their prison time. As for advocating policies, I have little luck in the land of the left / right false dialemma represented by buzz phrases and 1 dimensional labels such as liberal.

I will say that somebody who calls themselves a conservative in recent times is a fool at best, liberals just less so (but must have some courage given the decades of negative propaganda on that label or maybe they are bigger fools?)

Ruin a word and then anybody who is labeled with it. Its like social scientists formulated racism so that others can apply that level of irrational hate to groups which can be CREATED while previously it was limited to race or external nations/cultures. Its not like such things do not have plenty of research and documentation. I in fact know two military propagandists who retired to work as highly paid political consultants for a certain man I shall not name. It comes as no surprise the nation has never been more divided with more angry people like yourself; its largely 1 sided - good thing - because if the liberals started doing the same thing it would heighten the whole problem and you'd have people like yourself but saying you should die.

--

"Criminal" is not that bad. In the USA, just about everybody is in violation of something - if you are the wrong person you can get shafted. Being a criminal doesn't make you immoral, in fact, many great holy people were criminals... Christians and Muslims should know of at least 1... that is a big figure in their book...

Some criminals are mentally sick; repeat rapists are sick in the head, they shouldn't get out until cured but we instead give them less time in jail than an "eco-terrorist" who burns some SUVs (which doesn't pay for the destroyed property BTW but makes us spend tax money punishing them for stupid shit like stealing $11...)

Anyhow, a legitimate nutcase isn't a criminal that can be reformed; maybe cured but that isn't what the criminal system does. I say this because you simplified "criminal" almost as badly as you simplified liberal.

If any of this goes over your head, I suggest you read it again before getting all indignant about me talking down to you, which I can not help because you are just so mentally blocked by your emotions right now. Emotions cloud judgment; its a law of human nature.

Re:ah faux news

[shaitand]

"While you leap to assumptions and base beliefs on probability"

I know. Such a crime choosing the action most likely to give a successful outcome. I mean playing the odds doesn't work, just ask the casinos. ;)

Re:Another hypocrit liberal

[pgmrdlm]

What an asshole.

If you can't stand by your statements, which I took the time to look up to verify. Then shut the fuck up.

I never said the USA was the greatest nation. You assumed that was my position. Again, shut the fuck up. you have no idea what my feelings are on that subject. Especially sense you can't provide a link anywhere from ME stating my position on that subject.

Liberals are fucking pussies. Every time MY nation has fallen into shit, it has been because of liberal cunts. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now President Obama. All though, I don't find President Obama as much as a problem as I do the representatives in congress.

Fucking cunt Europeans should stay the fuck out my nations business. I don't give a fuck what you do with your nation other than you feel you have a right to tell us what the United States should do. Send money, just like we do to your nations. Or move here and vote. otherwise, shut the fuck up. Fucking cunt.