3 ms·

Speaking of credibility, it’s always conspicuous when someone copy-pastes a list of quotes without attribution and especially not noting the denial site where y

by acdha 3y ago

Speaking of credibility, it’s always conspicuous when someone copy-pastes a list of quotes without attribution and especially not noting the denial site where you copied that list from. That’s important because what you’re doing is incredibly dishonest, representing quotes by individual people as representative of entire scientific fields. For example, your first quote is the lede in an Australian newspaper’s coverage of an unspecified person’s testimony before the U.S. Congress which was considering funding an Arctic mission during the international geophysical year, the kind of thing which would collect data needed to make better predictions and quite notably was not a consensus position in the field. Similarly, your second was from an editorial by John Kerry, not a climate scientist, and rated false at the time because few climate scientists actually shared that aggressive timeline: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/sep/02/john-kerry... The third is again based on a single researcher who had a more aggressive timeline than most of their peers: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/m... For things like this, what matters is consensus - science always has disagreements but over time converges on accuracy. If you look at the IPCC reports from the late 1980s and early 90s, for example, we can see they pretty closely track what we’ve observed in the decades those were published.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
Whoosh! The third quote is from the same exact same source as the parent article is from. If the third link is bullshit, the parent article is bullshit. That's the point. You're making a motte and bailey argument. When people respond to a news media article with other past news media articles, people claim they aren't consensus science. Well neither is the parent article. The IPCC disagrees with the conclusions of the parent article. If consensus science matters, then people should flag non-consensus science articles from the same popular press sources that have been wrong in the past over and over and over again, for longer than I, as an old person have been alive. I'm tired of the bullshit and the only thing I trust about the news media is that they are lying to me.
- acdha 3y ago
  One of your mistakes is thinking that The Guardian is the source rather than a news organization covering the actual sources. They clearly describe that relationship and link to the source where you can learn more about the data and confidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 As a reader, you have to make decisions about trust - one thing here is recognizing that, for examples, climate change deniers have been wrong for decades and keep moving from one wrong explanation to another whereas over the last half century the scientists working on climate change have made increasingly accurate estimates and each new source of data has corroborated rather than contradicting the other sources. The climate is very complex but the trend is clear and we have no reason to expect a sudden and dramatic reversal: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16arctic/logs/july12/media/icegraph_800.jpg https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16arctic/logs/ju... Now, if you really care about lying, perhaps it’s a good time to ask yourself why you find comfort in fossil fuel industry propaganda to the point that you are voluntarily spending your time and reputation sharing it but are unwilling to recognize the scientific consensus which has been established for decades by a community without anything like the powerful conflicts of interest which fuel the denial campaign.
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    The parent article link is "https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/ice-free-summers-in-arctic-possible-within-next-decade-scientists-say https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/ice-free-summe...". That's the source. That's the Guardian.
    - acdha 3y ago
      That’s coverage of the source. The third paragraph links to the source and the fourth summarizes the range of predictions. You can see that the Nature article is a review article covering the range of predictions in the field along with discussing which ones they think are more likely. There’s a table here which is useful for comparing the ranges: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9/tables/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9/tables/1

by acdha 3y ago

rufus_foreman 3y ago

Whoosh! The third quote is from the same exact same source as the parent article is from. If the third link is bullshit, the parent article is bullshit. That's the point. You're making a motte and bailey argument. When people respond to a news media article with other past news media articles, people claim they aren't consensus science. Well neither is the parent article. The IPCC disagrees with the conclusions of the parent article. If consensus science matters, then people should flag non-consensus science articles from the same popular press sources that have been wrong in the past over and over and over again, for longer than I, as an old person have been alive. I'm tired of the bullshit and the only thing I trust about the news media is that they are lying to me.

acdha 3y ago
One of your mistakes is thinking that The Guardian is the source rather than a news organization covering the actual sources. They clearly describe that relationship and link to the source where you can learn more about the data and confidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9 As a reader, you have to make decisions about trust - one thing here is recognizing that, for examples, climate change deniers have been wrong for decades and keep moving from one wrong explanation to another whereas over the last half century the scientists working on climate change have made increasingly accurate estimates and each new source of data has corroborated rather than contradicting the other sources. The climate is very complex but the trend is clear and we have no reason to expect a sudden and dramatic reversal: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16arctic/logs/july12/media/icegraph_800.jpg https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16arctic/logs/ju... Now, if you really care about lying, perhaps it’s a good time to ask yourself why you find comfort in fossil fuel industry propaganda to the point that you are voluntarily spending your time and reputation sharing it but are unwilling to recognize the scientific consensus which has been established for decades by a community without anything like the powerful conflicts of interest which fuel the denial campaign.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  The parent article link is "https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/ice-free-summers-in-arctic-possible-within-next-decade-scientists-say https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/ice-free-summe...". That's the source. That's the Guardian.
  - acdha 3y ago
    That’s coverage of the source. The third paragraph links to the source and the fourth summarizes the range of predictions. You can see that the Nature article is a review article covering the range of predictions in the field along with discussing which ones they think are more likely. There’s a table here which is useful for comparing the ranges: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9/tables/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00515-9/tables/1