4 ms·

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 gre

by 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.
- pstuart 5y ago
  Stossel saying "sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse'" reads to me that he's a climate denier and his reporting was to enforce that (and double down on his favorite hate: "government").
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    The phrase "climate apocalypse" comes from his interview of Michael Shellenberger, a pro nuclear environmentalist. Shellenberger's core points aren't climate denial, but instead optimism that we as a species will prevail against the challenges posed by climate change, and that the apocalyptic rhetoric of some environmentalists hurts that effort.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    I want to make it really clear though; it doesn't matter whether or not Stossel is a climate denier, it's still probably not defamation. The fact checkers don't need to prove that Stossel is a climate denier.

by cwkoss 5y ago

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.

pstuart 5y ago
Stossel saying "sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse'" reads to me that he's a climate denier and his reporting was to enforce that (and double down on his favorite hate: "government").
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  The phrase "climate apocalypse" comes from his interview of Michael Shellenberger, a pro nuclear environmentalist. Shellenberger's core points aren't climate denial, but instead optimism that we as a species will prevail against the challenges posed by climate change, and that the apocalyptic rhetoric of some environmentalists hurts that effort.
- danShumway 5y ago
  I want to make it really clear though; it doesn't matter whether or not Stossel is a climate denier, it's still probably not defamation. The fact checkers don't need to prove that Stossel is a climate denier.