4 ms·

You aren’t missing anything by not being able to see that first link. It’s a misleading post from a right wing grifter that does pretty much nothing but make mi

You aren’t missing anything by not being able to see that first link. It’s a misleading post from a right wing grifter that does pretty much nothing but make misleading posts. More info on this specific viral image here: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32FV7W7 https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32FV7W7 Bottom line is that the all-green and color coded versions of this temperature map have both been used for 30 years. It wasn’t some change in the last few years to make the temperatures seem scary, as the grifter is clearly implying (and the HN user is clearly inferring).

systemvoltage 3y ago
That fact check was full of bullshit. It does nothing to convince me it wasn’t intentional. There is no “fact checking” here. They agree it’s different colors and one is portraying rain in 2022 with red colors. Yeah… there is a reason why they chose red and not blue. I thought AP was being sarcastic.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  Well it’s not AP, and the red one isn’t portraying rain. Here’s their note about the broadcast the red one is from: > The report later includes green maps, but they are focused on general forecasts and rainfall -- not temperatures. But honestly, you don’t even need any of this context to know why the implication of the original viral post is nonsense, just a tiny bit of logic: one of these is topographical, and one of these shows heat indicated by color. They both have temperatures listed because the weather report is more useful to the people watching it that way. If you watch weather on like any news they’re going to show you a number of different maps, all within probably 90 seconds. Temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind speeds & direction, topography, storm tracking maps, maybe more. This is why countering misinformation is such an uphill battle: someone goes to substantial lengths to track down exactly the context that completely obliterates the initial implication. But the context doesn’t go viral, and people fooled by the viral post in the first place who actually see the context instantly reject or misunderstand it.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    [flagged]

systemvoltage 3y ago

That fact check was full of bullshit. It does nothing to convince me it wasn’t intentional. There is no “fact checking” here. They agree it’s different colors and one is portraying rain in 2022 with red colors. Yeah… there is a reason why they chose red and not blue. I thought AP was being sarcastic.

tehwebguy 3y ago
Well it’s not AP, and the red one isn’t portraying rain. Here’s their note about the broadcast the red one is from: > The report later includes green maps, but they are focused on general forecasts and rainfall -- not temperatures. But honestly, you don’t even need any of this context to know why the implication of the original viral post is nonsense, just a tiny bit of logic: one of these is topographical, and one of these shows heat indicated by color. They both have temperatures listed because the weather report is more useful to the people watching it that way. If you watch weather on like any news they’re going to show you a number of different maps, all within probably 90 seconds. Temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind speeds & direction, topography, storm tracking maps, maybe more. This is why countering misinformation is such an uphill battle: someone goes to substantial lengths to track down exactly the context that completely obliterates the initial implication. But the context doesn’t go viral, and people fooled by the viral post in the first place who actually see the context instantly reject or misunderstand it.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  [flagged]