3 ms·

I'm sorry, but an article that invokes arbitrary heat waves, fires, rains, and droughts implying a "shit [has] really started hitting the fan" narrative in the

by powera 11y ago

I'm sorry, but an article that invokes arbitrary heat waves, fires, rains, and droughts implying a "shit [has] really started hitting the fan" narrative in the first paragraph is pure link-bait and fear-mongering, regardless of the state of global warming. It's no more accurate than saying "Record snows in Germany, global warming clearly fake".

codyb 11y ago
I don't see that. I see "some snapshots" which points to real world examples of things that are happening, and then I see a quote from a respected panel of scientists issuing a dire warning. Is it not okay to quote scientists studying climate change in an article about climate change these days if the quote is a bit edgy?
- powera 11y ago
  There's a difference between "Here are specific bad things that will happen in the future" and "Some weather happened, it rained here and it didn't rain there, therefore global warming". I don't trust reporters who try to ignore/hide the difference between these.
- krschultz 11y ago
  The problem with using those types of anecdotes is that they empower people to use the opposite anecdotes. This winter was incredibly cold on the US east coast. Boston had record breaking snowfall. If you let the conversation drift into that territory, then you will not convince anyone that global warming is a threat. They can point to a couple things that "disprove" the whole thing and stop caring.
  - codyb 11y ago
    Isn't that why it's called climate change and not global warming? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be hard to drop us into an ice age. We're very much on the edge of a knife here.
dang 11y ago
> "Heat waves. Fires. Rains. Clearly We Are All Doomed" Please don't make something look like a quote if it isn't a quote. That may sound minor but it's important for charitable, substantive discussion.
- powera 11y ago
  Re-worded, I thought it was obvious enough it was quoting my summary of the paragraph but I guess not.
  - dang 11y ago
    Thanks. That's much better.
ErikRogneby 11y ago
And you are surprised? This is Rollingstone, not one of the Economist, NYT, WSJ, or WP.
- ErikRogneby 11y ago
  Referencing their less than rigorous journalism track record recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/06/rolling-stone-isnt-firing-anyone-thats-terrible-for-journalism/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/06/rol...
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Recently, Will Dana, RS's editor at the time of the UV story has left: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/business/media/will-dana-rolling-stones-managing-editor-to-depart.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/business/media/will-dana-r... Yes, that was a massive fuck-up. Yes, it exposed bad practices. It still strikes me as a case of being manipulated by a source bent on deception to whom excess deference was given, not intent to deceive by RS itself.
- jefurii 11y ago
  Rolling Stone runs a lot of articles on difficult topics like the economy and climate change that those other rags should be publishing but don't because they won't risk offending their owners/advertisers. Matt Taibbi and his editors are journalistic rock stars.

by powera 11y ago

codyb 11y ago

I don't see that. I see "some snapshots" which points to real world examples of things that are happening, and then I see a quote from a respected panel of scientists issuing a dire warning. Is it not okay to quote scientists studying climate change in an article about climate change these days if the quote is a bit edgy?

powera 11y ago
There's a difference between "Here are specific bad things that will happen in the future" and "Some weather happened, it rained here and it didn't rain there, therefore global warming". I don't trust reporters who try to ignore/hide the difference between these.
krschultz 11y ago
The problem with using those types of anecdotes is that they empower people to use the opposite anecdotes. This winter was incredibly cold on the US east coast. Boston had record breaking snowfall. If you let the conversation drift into that territory, then you will not convince anyone that global warming is a threat. They can point to a couple things that "disprove" the whole thing and stop caring.
- codyb 11y ago
  Isn't that why it's called climate change and not global warming? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be hard to drop us into an ice age. We're very much on the edge of a knife here.

dang 11y ago

> "Heat waves. Fires. Rains. Clearly We Are All Doomed" Please don't make something look like a quote if it isn't a quote. That may sound minor but it's important for charitable, substantive discussion.

powera 11y ago
Re-worded, I thought it was obvious enough it was quoting my summary of the paragraph but I guess not.
- dang 11y ago
  Thanks. That's much better.

ErikRogneby 11y ago

And you are surprised? This is Rollingstone, not one of the Economist, NYT, WSJ, or WP.

ErikRogneby 11y ago
Referencing their less than rigorous journalism track record recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/06/rolling-stone-isnt-firing-anyone-thats-terrible-for-journalism/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/06/rol...
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Recently, Will Dana, RS's editor at the time of the UV story has left: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/business/media/will-dana-rolling-stones-managing-editor-to-depart.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/business/media/will-dana-r... Yes, that was a massive fuck-up. Yes, it exposed bad practices. It still strikes me as a case of being manipulated by a source bent on deception to whom excess deference was given, not intent to deceive by RS itself.
jefurii 11y ago
Rolling Stone runs a lot of articles on difficult topics like the economy and climate change that those other rags should be publishing but don't because they won't risk offending their owners/advertisers. Matt Taibbi and his editors are journalistic rock stars.