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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.