4 ms·

I have seen the video and it is pretty sensible and definitely helps the debate around the fire. Either ways what caused fires is far from settled, the fact tha

I have seen the video and it is pretty sensible and definitely helps the debate around the fire. Either ways what caused fires is far from settled, the fact that climate change has anything to do with it is also disputed "fact".

burkaman 5y ago
I would recommend reading the fact check as well to get a full sense of what happened here. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores... https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
- temp8964 5y ago
  The responses are laughably long. If John Stossel made false claims, a few paragraphs should be sufficient. If you need to write two full length articles to explain what happened, you don’t get to label other people as false/misleading.
  - d4mi3n 5y ago
    While I don’t disagree that the responses may be overlong, I think it harms your argument to criticize the format of the response rather than the content. If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with. EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page. Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
    - temp8964 5y ago
      Long is not about format. The content has to be long. This means simple label is wrong. This is a very easy point in my previous comment.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    It was not labeled as false, it was labeled as missing context, and this is the context. You can see the label here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157121971976621&id=46675576620 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197...
- cwkoss 5y ago
  This doesn't effectively refute Stossel's claims in my opinion. To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. This rebuttal article only "This is at odds with the majority of wildfire scientists, who suggest that both are major factors in driving the changes we are seeing". This is an NPO whose full reason to exist is to increase climate awareness, so I'm sure they don't like the idea that climate wasn't the primary factor, but I don't see a good argument for why we should consider climate the primary factor vs forest management. Their rebuttal reads like someone scrambling after their hand was caught in the cookie jar overstepping their bounds. EDIT (to reply because max thread depth): "They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video" - What? I watched the video - you linked it. He absolutely did not claim "climate change is not a factor at all" - he explicitly said that it IS a factor it just isn't the main one.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    They did not say at any point that climate change is the primary factor. They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video (although the fact check was not written to specifically address that video). Stossel also says that climate change has made things worse, but the fact that his video contradicts itself does not make the fact check invalid.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. No. Stossel would need to prove that forest management practices had a greater impact than climate change, and that the fact checkers knew that, and that they deliberately lied. You don't have to prove that you're correct if someone sues you for defamation. The standards for defamation are a lot higher than that. To take this a step further, they don't even need to prove Stossel actually made that claim. The fact that a reasonable person could interpret Stossel as having made the claim that climate change was not a contributing factor (evidenced by multiple scientists chiming in that they felt the label was appropriate) would be enough of a defense. Finally, they probably don't even need to prove that they thought Stossel made the claim, because calling someone misleading or saying that their statements are missing context likely doesn't rise to the level of defamation regardless of any of the above points.
- adolph 5y ago
  Stossel complains that we should not have rated his post using a claim review of a quote that does not appear in his video. This is a misunderstanding of how fact-checking partners operate on Facebook. Given that many pieces of content posted on Facebook can separately make the same claim, it is not necessary to create a separate claim review article for each post we rate. It is, of course, necessary that the claim we reviewed is representative of the claim in each post we rate, which is true in this case. https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
- readams 5y ago
  It's pretty scary that an advocacy organization gets to be an "independent" fact checker. The ones that are at least nominally independent definitely show their biases but this is really egregious.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Why do you call them an advocacy organization?
  - grayhatter 5y ago
    they're unaffiliated which makes them independent but why are you concerned about them being an advocacy organization? do you think that means they're going to lie or have a vested interest in misrepresenting the truth?
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  Sadly we live in the times where nuances are completely ignored. We can all agree that climate change increased fuel aridity in forests (which is what lots of research indicates) and yet agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management lead to those forests burning down. And this need not even be a politically charged issue as anyone who cares deeply about climate should also be upset with forests burning down. > For years, they and environmentalists increased the risk of big fires by opposing the thinning of forests. > The town of Berry Creek, California, tried to get permits to legally clear their forest. For two years, regulators delayed approval. This year, fire destroyed the town. Who is responsible here for the forest fire ? While many academicians will talk about "climate change", the local people will be right to see the regulatory hurdles as the biggest reason. We can all acknowledge the fact that climate change is real, california's temperatures warmed by 3 degrees in last 50 years, that this increases probability and scope of fire AND still agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management, California's failure to create sensible policies that would have helped us manage these forests better are key contributor to the damage these fires have done in California.

burkaman 5y ago

I would recommend reading the fact check as well to get a full sense of what happened here. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores... https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...

temp8964 5y ago
The responses are laughably long. If John Stossel made false claims, a few paragraphs should be sufficient. If you need to write two full length articles to explain what happened, you don’t get to label other people as false/misleading.
- d4mi3n 5y ago
  While I don’t disagree that the responses may be overlong, I think it harms your argument to criticize the format of the response rather than the content. If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with. EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page. Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Long is not about format. The content has to be long. This means simple label is wrong. This is a very easy point in my previous comment.
- burkaman 5y ago
  It was not labeled as false, it was labeled as missing context, and this is the context. You can see the label here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157121971976621&id=46675576620 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197...
cwkoss 5y ago
This doesn't effectively refute Stossel's claims in my opinion. To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. This rebuttal article only "This is at odds with the majority of wildfire scientists, who suggest that both are major factors in driving the changes we are seeing". This is an NPO whose full reason to exist is to increase climate awareness, so I'm sure they don't like the idea that climate wasn't the primary factor, but I don't see a good argument for why we should consider climate the primary factor vs forest management. Their rebuttal reads like someone scrambling after their hand was caught in the cookie jar overstepping their bounds. EDIT (to reply because max thread depth): "They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video" - What? I watched the video - you linked it. He absolutely did not claim "climate change is not a factor at all" - he explicitly said that it IS a factor it just isn't the main one.
- burkaman 5y ago
  They did not say at any point that climate change is the primary factor. They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video (although the fact check was not written to specifically address that video). Stossel also says that climate change has made things worse, but the fact that his video contradicts itself does not make the fact check invalid.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. No. Stossel would need to prove that forest management practices had a greater impact than climate change, and that the fact checkers knew that, and that they deliberately lied. You don't have to prove that you're correct if someone sues you for defamation. The standards for defamation are a lot higher than that. To take this a step further, they don't even need to prove Stossel actually made that claim. The fact that a reasonable person could interpret Stossel as having made the claim that climate change was not a contributing factor (evidenced by multiple scientists chiming in that they felt the label was appropriate) would be enough of a defense. Finally, they probably don't even need to prove that they thought Stossel made the claim, because calling someone misleading or saying that their statements are missing context likely doesn't rise to the level of defamation regardless of any of the above points.
adolph 5y ago
Stossel complains that we should not have rated his post using a claim review of a quote that does not appear in his video. This is a misunderstanding of how fact-checking partners operate on Facebook. Given that many pieces of content posted on Facebook can separately make the same claim, it is not necessary to create a separate claim review article for each post we rate. It is, of course, necessary that the claim we reviewed is representative of the claim in each post we rate, which is true in this case. https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
readams 5y ago
It's pretty scary that an advocacy organization gets to be an "independent" fact checker. The ones that are at least nominally independent definitely show their biases but this is really egregious.
- burkaman 5y ago
  Why do you call them an advocacy organization?
- grayhatter 5y ago
  they're unaffiliated which makes them independent but why are you concerned about them being an advocacy organization? do you think that means they're going to lie or have a vested interest in misrepresenting the truth?
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
Sadly we live in the times where nuances are completely ignored. We can all agree that climate change increased fuel aridity in forests (which is what lots of research indicates) and yet agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management lead to those forests burning down. And this need not even be a politically charged issue as anyone who cares deeply about climate should also be upset with forests burning down. > For years, they and environmentalists increased the risk of big fires by opposing the thinning of forests. > The town of Berry Creek, California, tried to get permits to legally clear their forest. For two years, regulators delayed approval. This year, fire destroyed the town. Who is responsible here for the forest fire ? While many academicians will talk about "climate change", the local people will be right to see the regulatory hurdles as the biggest reason. We can all acknowledge the fact that climate change is real, california's temperatures warmed by 3 degrees in last 50 years, that this increases probability and scope of fire AND still agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management, California's failure to create sensible policies that would have helped us manage these forests better are key contributor to the damage these fires have done in California.