3 ms·

Here you go: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm

Here you go: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reasons-why-global-warming-is-so-totally-over-in-2016/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/04/1001-reas... >Always, but always, it has been about the cynical exploitation of mass crowd hysteria and about the sly manipulation by activists and crony capitalists of the political system in order to advance the cause of global governance. Let's not be disingenuous. There's tons and tons of stories like this.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
Not demonstrably false. Opinionated yes, but if that is your criteria for silencing a news org then you need to re-examine.
nailer 10y ago
This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. If that's your threshhold for 'fake' news it's very low. I read the newspaper linked below most days. Here's them reporting on a incredibly misleading front page headline o their own: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... I personally believe in global warming, but I also previously believed that major cities would be underwater by the year 2000 due to the 'greenhouse effect' (since that's what we learnt in school) so can understand someone else believing that news organisations often tend to sensationalize science.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  >This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. That's a very liberal reading of that article. Like most yellow journalism and conspiracy theories, there's always of tinge of truth or credibility. The rest of it dives down into completely contrived fear mongering and conspiracy theories, as well as willfully ignoring the mountain of contradicting evidence to the point the article is trying to make. The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative.
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    It cites real data from a real scientist. I disagree with the conclusion and the premise just like you do, but it's absolutely not "fake news". >The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative. You could say this for a ton of MSNBC and Fox News articles. Should they also be banned as fake news? People in this thread generally aren't saying Breitbart should be considered a reputable source for anything; in fact I'd bet most of the Breitbart defenders in here are leftists or at least not far-right like Breitbart. I'm saying there shouldn't be calls for it to be censored in any way. Censorship is extremely dangerous; far, far more dangerous than Breitbart publishing their silly headlines.
    - justinlaster 10y ago
      Literally no one is calling for censorship.
      - rudolf0 10y ago
        >Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? I interpreted your statement here to mean you should group it along with other fake news distributors and which Facebook and Twitter are now beginning to block. If you didn't mean that, then I apologize.
tomp 10y ago
It's reporting on sources. Opinionated, yes. False? Maybe. But let's remember all the decades when the MSM were peddling stories how e.g. salt is bad, saturated fat is bad, etc. (now, we're starting to see stories about the reverse).
masonic 10y ago
Let's not be disingenuous. There's tons and tons of stories like this. Out of these "tons and tons", surely you can provide us with links to your favorite ten or so examples?
- grzm 10y ago
  Just a heads up: quoting long-line content with code quote blocks makes it hard to read, especially on mobile.

cloakandswagger 10y ago

Not demonstrably false. Opinionated yes, but if that is your criteria for silencing a news org then you need to re-examine.

nailer 10y ago

This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. If that's your threshhold for 'fake' news it's very low. I read the newspaper linked below most days. Here's them reporting on a incredibly misleading front page headline o their own: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-mark-duggan-headline https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m... I personally believe in global warming, but I also previously believed that major cities would be underwater by the year 2000 due to the 'greenhouse effect' (since that's what we learnt in school) so can understand someone else believing that news organisations often tend to sensationalize science.

justinlaster 10y ago
>This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. That's a very liberal reading of that article. Like most yellow journalism and conspiracy theories, there's always of tinge of truth or credibility. The rest of it dives down into completely contrived fear mongering and conspiracy theories, as well as willfully ignoring the mountain of contradicting evidence to the point the article is trying to make. The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  It cites real data from a real scientist. I disagree with the conclusion and the premise just like you do, but it's absolutely not "fake news". >The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative. You could say this for a ton of MSNBC and Fox News articles. Should they also be banned as fake news? People in this thread generally aren't saying Breitbart should be considered a reputable source for anything; in fact I'd bet most of the Breitbart defenders in here are leftists or at least not far-right like Breitbart. I'm saying there shouldn't be calls for it to be censored in any way. Censorship is extremely dangerous; far, far more dangerous than Breitbart publishing their silly headlines.
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    Literally no one is calling for censorship.
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      >Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? I interpreted your statement here to mean you should group it along with other fake news distributors and which Facebook and Twitter are now beginning to block. If you didn't mean that, then I apologize.

tomp 10y ago

It's reporting on sources. Opinionated, yes. False? Maybe. But let's remember all the decades when the MSM were peddling stories how e.g. salt is bad, saturated fat is bad, etc. (now, we're starting to see stories about the reverse).

masonic 10y ago

Let's not be disingenuous. There's tons and tons of stories like this. Out of these "tons and tons", surely you can provide us with links to your favorite ten or so examples?

grzm 10y ago
Just a heads up: quoting long-line content with code quote blocks makes it hard to read, especially on mobile.