3 ms·

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 relatio

by 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
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    No, the source is the parent link, which is the Guardian's news media coverage of the environment. My third link was also a link to the Guardian's news media coverage of the environment. You then questioned my credibility for posting a link to the same news media source that the parent article is from. Looking at the past climate reporting of the Guardian when evaluating it's current climate reporting is a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do. Implying that I can only use articles from climate scientists to criticize climate reporting in the news media is the motte and bailey argument I was mentioning. If someone wants to post a link to the Nature article, we'll discuss that. And when we do that, we can discuss Nature's scientific credibility (also not great).
    - acdha 3y ago
      Again, you’re mixing up sources with coverage of those sources. This is an important concept to understand because it allows the reader to conclude that a review paper in Nature is more representative of the field than a single paper, and in both cases you’ll get a more nuanced understanding than fits in a single sentence. This is also why the quote mills like the one you copied that from don’t cite their quotes, because their goal is not understanding but to continue collecting a paycheck for delaying action on climate change.
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        No, I'm not mixing up sources with coverage of sources. I am comparing one news media article in the Guardian to another news media article in the Guardian, and I am comparing current popular reporting on climate to past popular reporting on climate. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and which you think means I lack credibility. That's the issue here. The Guardian now, and in the past, has a history of apocalyptic predictions such as "Ice-free summers in Arctic possible within next decade, scientists say". They haven't proven true in the past, and this one won't either. Because what the Guardian is doing, now and in that past, is to pick outliers and the most extreme predictions in order to generate clickbait headlines. They do this in order to make money, and in order to support their ideology. And it has caused real harm. People who know nothing of consensus climate science will read the headline "Ice-free summers in Arctic possible within next decade, scientists say" and it will cause them needless worry, the way the headline about "the danger of an ice-free Arctic in the summer within two years" caused them needless worry over a decade ago. And the journalists and editors writing these garbage pieces that have turned out to be false for the last 75 years will face no consequences for publishing lies. That's the part I am calling bullshit on. These lies affect peoples lives. And, as I pointed out in my original post, "Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth". There's no article that the Guardian could conceivably publish that would get me to take climate change more seriously.

by acdha 3y ago

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
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  No, the source is the parent link, which is the Guardian's news media coverage of the environment. My third link was also a link to the Guardian's news media coverage of the environment. You then questioned my credibility for posting a link to the same news media source that the parent article is from. Looking at the past climate reporting of the Guardian when evaluating it's current climate reporting is a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do. Implying that I can only use articles from climate scientists to criticize climate reporting in the news media is the motte and bailey argument I was mentioning. If someone wants to post a link to the Nature article, we'll discuss that. And when we do that, we can discuss Nature's scientific credibility (also not great).
  - acdha 3y ago
    Again, you’re mixing up sources with coverage of those sources. This is an important concept to understand because it allows the reader to conclude that a review paper in Nature is more representative of the field than a single paper, and in both cases you’ll get a more nuanced understanding than fits in a single sentence. This is also why the quote mills like the one you copied that from don’t cite their quotes, because their goal is not understanding but to continue collecting a paycheck for delaying action on climate change.
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      No, I'm not mixing up sources with coverage of sources. I am comparing one news media article in the Guardian to another news media article in the Guardian, and I am comparing current popular reporting on climate to past popular reporting on climate. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and which you think means I lack credibility. That's the issue here. The Guardian now, and in the past, has a history of apocalyptic predictions such as "Ice-free summers in Arctic possible within next decade, scientists say". They haven't proven true in the past, and this one won't either. Because what the Guardian is doing, now and in that past, is to pick outliers and the most extreme predictions in order to generate clickbait headlines. They do this in order to make money, and in order to support their ideology. And it has caused real harm. People who know nothing of consensus climate science will read the headline "Ice-free summers in Arctic possible within next decade, scientists say" and it will cause them needless worry, the way the headline about "the danger of an ice-free Arctic in the summer within two years" caused them needless worry over a decade ago. And the journalists and editors writing these garbage pieces that have turned out to be false for the last 75 years will face no consequences for publishing lies. That's the part I am calling bullshit on. These lies affect peoples lives. And, as I pointed out in my original post, "Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth". There's no article that the Guardian could conceivably publish that would get me to take climate change more seriously.