3 ms·

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 co

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.

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.