Slashdot Mirror
Weather Channel To Breitbart: Stop Citing Us To Spread Climate Skepticism (weather.com)
Breitbart.com published an article last week that erroneously claims global warming is coming to an end, claiming "global land temperatures have plummeted by 1 degree Celsius since the middle of the year -- the biggest and steepest fall on record." The Weather Channel finds this report especially upsetting as it's not only inaccurate but it features a video from weather.com at the top of the article. The Weather Channel reports: Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article -- a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case -- includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet's climate and will keep doing so. Along with its presence on the high-profile Breitbart site, the article drew even more attention after a link to it was retweeted by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Breitbart article heavily references a piece that first appeared on U.K. Daily Mail's site. The Weather Channel went on to refute the Breitbart article's hypothesis: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Nino event. Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet -- about 70 percent -- is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth's lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.
"An eye for an eye" will blind the whole world.
then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.
There are no excuses. Neither candidate or party was that impressive, but one was and clearly is so much worse. No elected representative should ever excuse a single blatant lie just to keep their political capital, let alone the nonsense that is beginning now. We are living in a time when post truth is the word of the year, and not without reason.
Demand honesty from our politicians. Demand it from our news sources and anything that presents itself as legitimate news. If we have any hope of building a more perfect union, then we have to move past and ever be on guard for lies and deception, and never make excuses for them. We may never get a 100% honest candidate. Sadly I don't think one would make it in politics, but we can at least value that highly and penalize those severely who really do continually violate the public trust.
Skepticism is doubt.
Unqualified disbelief is just another kind of orthodoxy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So... you are completely happy with Trump's choices for his cabinet and advisors? No possible corruption there? Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?
Trump took a call based on lobbying work done by Dole on behalf of Taiwan, no corruption there? Imagine Hilary taking the same call?
How can you be so attuned to political corruption if Hillary's name is attached to it, but blind to Trump's?
And do you truly believe billionaires would reform the tax code so that poor people are lifted out of poverty? Not just regular filthy rich people but Goldman Sachs alums? Seriously, are you crazy?
My, cherry picking data to support a pre-existing conclusion? Where did anyone get that idea? Oh, right the mainstream media uses this tactic all the time.
If we were only as skeptic and hostile towards the MSM as we were towards alternative media and citizen journalists. The MSM is frightened as it has never been frightened before. People are reading the news without their hostile filter and it's a scary new world out there. What's the point of being a journalist if you can't bias reality in the guise of "providing context"? They went to J-school to change the world, not to be some kind of impartial fact recorder, like a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes.
-- Dave Rubin
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.
B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....
C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.
Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.
[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]
In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I fail to understand why you think Trump will do anything about climate change.
During the campaign, he said that climate change was a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese, to make American industry less competitive.
He has appointed a climate-change denialist to oversee the power-transition at the EPA.
Recently he has allowed that there may be some connection between climate change and CO2 emissions, and he has met with Al Gore. Encouraging, but weigh that against the above, and his mercurial tendencies when it comes to policy positions.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
if you're not able to tell the difference? Sure, maybe 20 million could and didn't care. But I'd say there's at least 40 million who couldn't...
It's more or less the same thing as anything else computer related. Assume anything you read is a lie until proven otherwise. Check the pedigree of any web site you visit. Is the name really spelled correctly? Are you connecting via https as expected? Do not automatically assume just because it is on or linked from some site you visit that it is correct. Check the little i on your address bar to see what the web site is, look for misspellings, etc.
If you think a story is from a popular web site, but can't tell for sure, then you can always clear your cache and then reload your browser and go directly to the correct site. (Personally, I'd recommend not starting your news search at Facebook and all the rest, but that is another matter.)
Also, if you haven't already point your router to some legit DNS servers. Do not assume your ISP is providing your valid results. I personally use opendns servers, with google's as backup. It is debatable if I should leave google as the fallback, though it should I think only hit them if opendns fails to respond.
In fact, a DNS server that does some basic filtering is the first line of defense against a lot of crap, though I doubt it would help much here. Still, it is something. Adding ublock probably doesn't hurt either. A compromised system is liable to show anything fake as real. I suppose you could also make it a point to say reimage with an updated linux distro and keep it updated at least once a year, and of course occasionally change passwords of personal systems. Yearly wouldn't hurt, though i'm doubting much is really compromised that way.
Beyond all that, people need to double check any suspect or suspicious results. Google will generally tell you pretty quickly if it is a scam. Search for the topic plus scam or fake as a keyword and 24 hours or something like that. Of course you also have to be wary about fake sites saying real news is a scam, so always check the sources. One thing to be especially wary of is well established narratives. A lie is easier to believe if you can link it to a pattern of other similar things, but in today's world it is possible that pattern was made up of a string of false stories, with one lie building on the previous. Oddly enough wikipedia usually seems to be relatively neutral, eventually, though you may see wild edits on some things before an article is locked down. Check the revision history. If the article suddenly changed tone, well I think you can look at the author's other edits.
Look for the reason behind the likely lies. Sometimes it is not entirely obvious. There was probably enough fake news generated this election to shift the election for no other reason that to harvest the click money. Of course much of it had darker reasons, and some of it was brought attention to for darker purposes. As you might have read in a story like Naruto, Learn to look underneath the underneath. If you see a story that politician x is responsible for running a child slaver ring, well, unless you see it on a legit site complete with the police in pursuit, then suspect it is bs. Also, think things through. Is politician X stupid? Is he or she basically competent and intelligent? If so, why exactly would they be doing something so guaranteed to destroy their whole career? Occasionally Anthony Weiner's do happen, but it is certainly the kind of thing you want to double check.
Look for evidence of editing. Is a clip suspiciously short? Can you find the full length version? Was their context missing? Does the source have a reputation for editing things deceptively? Is the source credible at all? What other kinds of stories has the source been responsible in the past? It sholdn't be hard to check.
Actually even if you can't find a way to disprove a current story right away, you can often find reason to doubt
Of these issues, political corruption is the biggest impediment to rational climate change action. Getting rid of that has to come first, and only then can we expect to make progress on the other issues.
Ah yes, getting rid of political corruption. Draining the swamp. I'm glad to see Trump is making great strides there, appointing Goldman Sachs alum left and right.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Hillary lost. Get over it.
Yes, she did. And that means she is irrelevant now. As far as politics are concerned, she's in a rocking chair with a glass of lemonade. And now it's up to you to get over that.
Trump, on the other hand, is fair game for the next four years. Bringing up Hillary in an argument regarding him is just pathetic.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."
Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened? Decades of right-wing radio and Fox News? Trump's magical promises to make literally everything better without ever explaining how? An addiction to #pizzagate-style conspiracy-mongering? Come on.
Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?
Uh, no? Giving people positions of power in exchange for favours, or due to pre-existing relationships (e.g. nepotism) are textbook definitions of corruption. Their qualification or lack their of is irrelevant to whether the appointment is corrupt or not.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem?
I do not defend or support Hillary Clinton in any way!
I really don't get it, to be honest. Your parent is right - Trump is EXACTLY the kind of person you claim he's supposed to deal with. Let me help you understand; we're going to 'trumpify' Hillary Clinton. She:
* puts NYT's head reporter on her cabinet team because he relentlessly supported her throughtout her campaign (which they didn't really btw, they had plenty of critical articles, and when they did it was largely based on facts and policy details, not publishing blatant lies)
* puts a guy convicted of selling state secrets to a hooker in a national security position
* built a luxury estate and then refused to pay the people who built it
* is completely dependent on Russian banks to not revoke her credit, actively serves them, and caves in on policy decisions to wealthy people
* refuses to release any tax returns or details on her finances
Honestly, I'm just getting started. Can you seriously compare Trump and Clinton, and then tell me that he's the model who's going to clear corruption? I'd argue he's faaaaar more corrupt than she is, because unlike her, he is completely dependent on the establishment for power - the instant he crosses the line, they can simply impeach him and replace him with Pence. And if Pence isn't the image of an establishment Republican, I think you're not really anti-establishment, but anti-democrat. Which makes you partisian, and that isn't really a necessarily a bad thing (even though I disagree with that philosophy), but don't even pretend that you want an outsider if that's the case.
And seriously, the whole Hillary thing has got to go. She's gone, you need to get over it, and deal with our current presidential canidate, the one with with blantant ties to the mafia. Do you honestly expect a man dependent on Putin, the mafia, and the existing establishment, to prevent any new form of corruption, let alone actually clear the existing situation out?
The one shining light in all this hell is Mrs. Ivanka, who actually seems to be pretty resonable and agrees with climate change, but we'll see how long that lasts.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Years ago, I came here for insightful and informative exchange of arguments on a topic.Not that long ago, it was for witty and cynical but still topic commentary.
Today, all I come for is to watch the entertaining, ballistic mud slinging of Trump supporters and opponents. Independent of topic. But climate change themes sure add another layer of vitriol to it.
In movie terms, I came for the documentaries, stayed for the mocumentaries and now I'm here for the Michael Bay popcorn flick. I used to care about the story, but today, all I watch are the explosions, whether there is a script anymore or not isn't important, I'm just here to watch the pretty pictures and don't give a shit about the content anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He campaigned against Wall Street bankers running things and then nominates a Wall Street banker to run things. How's that swamp draining going?
Why are you all talking about Clinton constantly whenever discussion of Trump comes up? Why can't you discuss Trump? Hilary is gone. I know that the dude can't just be doing it for the money that comes with the ties made through being in office, and with the massive ego he clearly has he is obviously not going to want people to look back on his presidency and say he was utterly crap at the job. What about discussing the jobs he claims he is going to be making? The improvements to infrastructure? Making the US more self sufficient? Yes there are a lot of potentially/definitely bad things that are going to come out some of his plans, like reopening huge numbers of coal mines, but it's time to discuss him, not the person he won against. If I were arrested for stabbing somebody I wouldn't rest my entire defence on somebody else stabbing 2 people the previous week. Get a fucking grip, America.
The slick salesguy promised? Were the operators standing by? Do you get a free set of steak knives with your order?
You thought there wasn't enough of it or something and voted for obvious scum?
I think compulsory voting would make room for a third party and avoid such obvious mistakes in the future.
True, but Trump does that as well. He gives jobs to friends, people who helped him out and the owner of his favourite media organization.
The guy is incredibly corrupt. His only criteria for assigning jobs seems to be who as bought their way in with favours.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Guess what though... change is inevitable.. all things change both physical and societal. Entropy always increases, and entropy is change.
Silence is a state of mime.
Except, Hillary wasn't the only other alternative. Lots of other people were running, who were not corrupt and believed in climate change. And, don't tell me they weren't an alternative because your 1 vote for them wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. That is the case no matter who you voted for. Picking one of the alternatives and saying he's better than that is not a legitimate argument for him being the best one.
Luckily the scientists have the drop on you and have been working for decades to answer those questions. Their answers exist, and are available to everyone and anyone wishing to read them, but you are having too much fun pretending to want to care to read them.
And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."
That's a human thing, not a conservative thing. Ask almost anybody about the horrible thing that $PERSON_THEY_SUPPORT did, and the answer is almost ALWAYS going to be, "but $OTHER_GUY did the same thing!" Ask them about something they personally did, and they'll complain about something you did. It comes down to education (or lack thereof) and emotion--most people cannot think critically anymore, have no desire to do so, and allow their emotions to rule their arguments.
Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened?
Again, same problem on both sides. The arguments on the conservative side are largely devolving into conspiracy theories, while the arguments on the liberal side these days largely consist of repeating the words "you racist, misogynist, fuck!" over and over.
I'm not being entirely fair--there are quite a few people on both sides that still make really good arguments. But their numbers are relatively small, and their signal is being lost in the sea of noise. The conservative thinkers appear to be letting this go because their side is (currently) "winning." The liberal thinkers appear to be letting this go because if they open their mouths, they'll be ripped apart by the shrieking hordes of SJWs.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
This is a dumb comment. The AC is not threatening to physically harm anyone in any way, or proposing any kind of punishment for climate deniers to be performed by humans. He's only saying that he'll be happy to see them "hoist by their own petard". There's nothing wrong with feeling satisfaction after watching someone suffer due to their own stupidity and bad decisions, especially when their actions are in fact harmful to the rest of society.
Honestly, at this point, there's nothing we can do to stop massive climate change because of the deplorables and their mouthpieces like Breitbart. We're not going to change their minds; people like this fundamentally do not believe in science. So the next best thing is to just wait for the apocalypse to happen, and then take satisfaction in watching these morons suffer due to it.