Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

Only within the imaginary world of CNN, MSNBC and antifa websites would Breitbart's likely bias be worse then those of legacy lamestream media.

^Ladies and gentlemen, and whatever else you chose to be known as, this is what's known as a home run.

+rep

[Genava]

For Common Soldier:



https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...used-townhall/

[Coughdrop addict]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Whenever someone on the right uses the words "lamestream media", "legacy media" or "fake news", what they really mean is "These tell me things I don't want to hear." To them what is fact and what is fiction is completely determined by tribal loyalty. Therefor climate science is "fake" and "lies" solely because of who is giving the data. This begs the question, is there a limit to their blind denial of reality? If Trump or American Thinking told them that their children were really listening devices Soros had placed in their homes what would they do?

[Cope]

Whenever someone on the right uses the words "lamestream media", "legacy media" or "fake news", what they really mean is "These tell me things I don't want to hear." To them what is fact and what is fiction is completely determined by tribal loyalty. Therefor climate science is "fake" and "lies" solely because of who is giving the data. This begs the question, is there a limit to their blind denial of reality? If Trump or American Thinking told them that their children were really listening devices Soros had placed in their homes what would they do?

The term fake news was popularized by CNN after Clinton lost the election. These relentless attempts to associate common behavioral traits with people who disagree with you politically are themselves evidence of your own biases. Virtually everything you post in these forums is a half-baked conspiracy about the way other people think.

[The spartan]

The term fake news was popularized by CNN after Clinton lost the election. These relentless attempts to associate common behavioral traits with people who disagree with you politically are themselves evidence of your own biases. Virtually everything you post in these forums is a half-baked conspiracy about the way other people think.

The term "fake news" predates that, I assure you. And, at the time you are mentioning, it refereed to literally fabricated stories, not ones that were controversial in nature. Pizzagate would be a "fake news" story, for example.

Or do you want to side with HH and BW that Breitbart is interchangeable with with CNN or MSNBC? Please, do overplay your hand.

[The spartan]

EDIT: double post.

[Cope]

The term "fake news" predates that, I assure you. And, at the time you are mentioning, it refereed to literally fabricated stories, not ones that were controversial in nature. Pizzagate would be a "fake news" story, for example.

Or do you want to side with HH and BW that Breitbart is interchangeable with with CNN or MSNBC? Please, do overplay your hand.

I didn't say that CNN invented the term, I said that they popularized it. If you want to have an argument about how much more accurate Buzzfeed or Salon are than Breitbart, you should open a new thread.

[The spartan]

I didn't say that CNN invented the term, I said that they popularized it.

I never claimed you said "CNN invented the term".

If you want to have an argument about how much more accurate Buzzfeed or Salon are than Breitbart, you should open a new thread.

I don't think myself, BW, HH, or Irontaino mentioned Buzzfeed or Salon here. HH and BW were clearly comparing CNN and MSNBC to Breitbart; do you agree?

[Cope]

I never claimed you said "CNN invented the term".

Then why are you trying to "assure" me that the term fake news predates CNN's popularization of it?

I don't think myself, BW, HH, or Irontaino mentioned Buzzfeed or Salon here. HH and BW were clearly comparing CNN and MSNBC to Breitbart; do you agree?

That has got nothing to do with my comment. I was rebuking Coughdrop addict's insinuation that people on the political right were uniquely susceptible to misleading or false information or that they were more partisan in their choice of sources. There is no convincing evidence of this being the case. I don't care about a dick measuring contest between garbage outlets like CNN, MSNBC and Breitbart.

[Coughdrop addict]

Coughdrop addict's insinuation that people on the political right were uniquely susceptible to misleading or false information or that they were more partisan in their choice of sources.

I'm not insinuating it. I completely and openly admit I believe that people on the political right are uniquely susceptible to misleading or false information and that they are more partisan in their choice of sources. This belief came from many sources; including watching people I knew on the right that I considered rather smart degenerate into Qanon cultists who think everyone who doesn't agree with them on any issue is by definition a pedophile, knowing someone before that who came to believe Obama was a Kenyan Muslim who was going to institute national sharia and send all white people to death camps (I told her story in a post a while back in one of the white genocide cult threads), and seeing others on sites such as this one dismiss iron-clad facts as "fake news" or construct elaborate scenarios that attempt to mash reality into a form they can live with-that usually includes the idea that right-wing white male Christians are being oppressed and persecuted in Europe and the US.

As to why the right is particularly susceptible to lies and manipulation, blame the billionaires and corporations that decided years ago that using bigotry and anti-intellectualism to get people to give the already mega-rich massive corporate welfare and pay almost no taxes was the way to go.

[Cope]

I'm not insinuating it. That is my view. I completely and openly admit I believe that people on the political right are uniquely susceptible to misleading or false information and that they are more partisan in their choice of sources. This belief came from many sources; including watching people I knew on the right that I considered rather smart degenerate into Qanon cultists who think everyone who doesn't agree with them on any issue is by definition a pedophile, knowing someone before that who came to believe Obama was a Kenyan Muslim who was going to institute national sharia and send all white people to death camps (I told her story in a post a while back in one of the white genocide cult threads), and seeing others on sites such as this one dismiss iron-clad facts as "fake news" or construct elaborate scenarios that attempt to mash reality into a form they can live with-that usually includes the idea that right-wing white male Christians are being oppressed and persecuted in Europe and the US.

As to why the right is particularly susceptible to lies and manipulation, blame the billionaires and corporations that decided years ago that using bigotry and anti-intellectualism to get people to give the already mega-rich massive corporate welfare and pay almost no taxes was the way to go.

Don't expect anyone to be impressed with anecdotal evidence. If you want to introduce some verifiable data, feel free. Until then I'll continue to condemn you for peddling the sort of "anti-intellectualism" and "tribalism" that you're so keen to accuse others of. Here is a study which looked at the way in which false perceptions (the likes of which you posted above) unnecessarily exaggerate polarization within the political discourse. Note especially the finding that "the wider people’s "Perception Gap", the more likely they are to attribute negative personal qualities (like ‘hateful’ or ‘brainwashed’) to their political opponents."

[swabian]

For Common Soldier:



https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...used-townhall/

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not only the main cause of global warming, they are virtually 110%-120% of the contributing factors, since the natural processes that change climate in somewhat periodic cycles are actually cooling the atmosphere since the last 50 years.

It's true that natural processes in the geologic past have brought forth periods of heating and variations in CO2 enrichment in the atmosphere, but these variations were expressed in changes that occured over thousands of years; not nearly as rapidly as is observable since the industrial revolution.

There is no more scientific debate since the 1980's about the matter at hand, anthropogenic global warming is a long established fact and it has to be fought swiftly and vigorously to prevent potentially catastrophic scenarios in the equatorial regions of the inhabited earth. The industrial nations will get their share of suffering as well once wars over resources are fought and migrators move out of Africa by the millions.

Every current "debates" about the topic are rhetorical games that may be played in the political theaters or at court, they will however not generate any relevant facts.

[Ludicus]

Remember the whale song from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
Remember Moby Dick?
" the whale is prepared, beheaded, and barrels of oil are tried out. Standing at the head of the whale, Ahab begs it to speak of the depths of the sea"

Before kerosene, to get light at night the man needed the whale to die. Now the man needs the whale to survive. Hmm, how poetic am I?
But this is a very interesting study from IMF Finance and Development Magazine.

Nature's Solution to Climate Change – IMF F&D

--Edit,
Oh Swabian, Swabian,I bow down before you. Is it possible to be overwhelmed by the amazing depth of your superior knowledge? if you love oil and gas and coal and Trump, The State of Science in the Trump Era (2019) | Union of Concerned feel free to make your case. But please, please, don't pretend that burning these things doesn't put CO2 in the atmosphere, and please, please, don't pretend that this doesn't make the planet warmer.

[Cyclops]

...what if we weaponised the whales? Each cetacean (or in the case of Orcas, Delphinidoi) could carry a nuke that would destroy any whale hunting vessel and could be trained to patrol specific seas (eg SCS). As they are not ships they would not come under normal arms control treaties, and if they weren't flagged they would be a deniable asset.

Tell me this is possible, I'm still smarting from when I found out Seal Team 6 was actually made up of humans.

[The spartan]

Then why are you trying to "assure" me that the term fake news predates CNN's popularization of it?

Because I am not sure (or confident) in what you count as "popularizing" an already existent and applicable term.

That has got nothing to do with my comment. I was rebuking Coughdrop addict's insinuation that people on the political right were uniquely susceptible to misleading or false information or that they were more partisan in their choice of sources. There is no convincing evidence of this being the case. I don't care about a dick measuring contest between garbage outlets like CNN, MSNBC and Breitbart.

I don't think he said that the political right was uniquely susceptible in that post. Especially given the context of the thread, my guess is that he is talking about the Right's denial or "skepticism" (not real scientific skepticism) regarding Global Climate Change. You may not "care about it", but HH and BW are drawing a clear line in the sand about what is "credible". You are free to pick sides. So far, you seem to be on the side that doesn't agree with modern scientific consensus.

[Cope]

Because I am not sure (or confident) in what you count as "popularizing" an already existent and applicable term.

The frequency with which the phrase "fake news" was/is used in common parlance dramatically increased after the 2016 election in large part thanks to CNN. Ex. 1, 2 & 3.

I don't think he said that the political right was uniquely susceptible in that post. Especially given the context of the thread, my guess is that he is talking about the Right's denial or "skepticism" (not real scientific skepticism) regarding Global Climate Change.

You'd be guessing wrong.

I'm not insinuating it. I completely and openly admit I believe that people on the political right are uniquely susceptible to misleading or false information and that they are more partisan in their choice of sources.

You may not "care about it", but HH and BW are drawing a clear line in the sand about what is "credible". You are free to pick sides. So far, you seem to be on the side that doesn't agree with modern scientific consensus.

Non of the outlets you were arguing over are credible sources, but my point had nothing to do with that anyway.

[Genava]

Non of the outlets you were arguing over are credible sources, but my point had nothing to do with that anyway.

On the principle and in absolute, there is no credible sources giving you perfectly an objective information. Moreover, pure objectivity cannot be the same for everyone. It is mandatory to be skeptical and to be temperate (emotionally). Feeling threatened by anything, simply because a media is challenging your point of view time to time, this is not healthy. If your favorite media is never challenging your point of view, then it means you are cherry-picking information. Living in a bubble.

But even if its perfect version does not exist, it does not mean that every media are on the same level. Some a clearly making more effort to be objective. Some are clearly relying on what is called "fake news". This is the difference between misinformation and disinformation.

The frequency with which the phrase "fake news" was/is used in common parlance dramatically increased after the 2016 election in large part thanks to CNN. Ex. 1, 2 & 3.

Or it could be due to an increase of the phenomenon and to an increase of the consequences of the phenomenon.

Far-left, far-right, antivaxx, climate deniers, libertarians, vegans, SJW etc. those movements became more and more visible on social medias the last 10 years. It is not because one of those movements is winning politically that it means they are right and they are spreading information as good as the others.

[Ludicus]

Someone told me I misinterpreted you, Swabian. I'm sorry if that is the case.

[The spartan]

@Efail

On topic question: what is your view on the IPCC reports and findings?

[B. W.]

On the principle and in absolute, there is no credible sources giving you perfectly an objective information. Moreover, pure objectivity cannot be the same for everyone. It is mandatory to be skeptical and to be temperate (emotionally). Feeling threatened by anything, simply because a media is challenging your point of view time to time, this is not healthy. If your favorite media is never challenging your point of view, then it means you are cherry-picking information. Living in a bubble.

But even if its perfect version does not exist, it does not mean that every media are on the same level. Some a clearly making more effort to be objective. Some are clearly relying on what is called "fake news". This is the difference between misinformation and disinformation.



Or it could be due to an increase of the phenomenon and to an increase of the consequences of the phenomenon.

Far-left, far-right, antivaxx, climate deniers, libertarians, vegans, SJW etc. those movements became more and more visible on social medias the last 10 years. It is not because one of those movements is winning politically that it means they are right and they are spreading information as good as the others.

Just for clarification, what is a "climate denier" because I've never met one?

And, BTW, just so you know, I'm not joining the march to Jonestown just because of a politically motivated IPCC report.