How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Which one of those says "the whole Amazon is on fire" (which was Alan's claim) ??

Every headline that says “Amazon Burns,” or “Amazon Fires.” It is a logical interpretation of the word “Amazon.” It wouldn’t get lefties apoplectic if the titles would specify that only a minute fraction of 1% is burning. Although just mentioning 1% generally causes lefties’ heads to explode.

[jeremyrh]

Every headline that says “Amazon Burns,” or “Amazon Fires.” It is a logical interpretation of the word “Amazon.” It wouldn’t get lefties apoplectic if the titles would specify that only a minute fraction of 1% is burning. Although just mentioning 1% generally causes lefties’ heads to explode.

Rubbish. You're starting to sound like Klein.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?"

Try to read and keep up Russ. I have already linked to the mention of such studies in post #623, but I'll repeat it:
(https://phys.org/news/2018-04-scientists-drier-amazon-wetter-indonesia.html).

And that's in line with what the IPCC said in its AR5, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf ,  in "section 27.2. Major Recent Changes and Projections in the Region"
"... droughts will intensify along the 21st century in some seasons and areas due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration in Amazonia and NEB". And they indicate that it's getting dryer mainly in Southern Amazonia.
 

What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite?

Which studies that prove the opposite? Can't judge the quality of the studies without being more specific.

Why don't you show us a chart?

Because you don't like charts?

[RSL]

Because you don't like charts?

Not true. I love 'em. They're very decorative.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not true. I love 'em. They're very decorative.

As you wish (attached)

[RSL]

Very decorative, Bart. I think you ought to hang these on your walls. I love the way the trend swoops up, based on hope.

[Alan Klein]

There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?" What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite? Why don't you show us a chart?

That's funny.  🤣

[Alan Klein]

Really, if you are interested in democracy, how about starting to act on the situation you are in today instead of fantasying about how worse things could become some day in a totalitarian socialist state?

In short, a country where corruption is legal through the mechanism authorizing lobbies to fund candidates. A unique feature in any democratic country on earth.

Cheers,
Bernard

How do candidates in Europe fund their campaigns?  Somebody's giving them money.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

How do candidates in Europe fund their campaigns?  Somebody's giving them money.

Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.

The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.

BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.

[RSL]

The political parties get a government subsidy. . .

More accurately known as a taxpayer subsidy.

[Alan Klein]

Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.

The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.

BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.

1. How much maximum from each contributor and how much total can they get for a campaign?
2. Can individuals hire what we call "lobbyists" to represent them in petitioning parliamentarians to support certain legislation?

[LesPalenik]

Back to OP - at least in some way. Not the latest news item (recorded in 2015 as a 10 minute long TED talk), but still valid and quite illuminating:

In the below eyeopening talk, veteran investigative journalist (and Former CBS NEWS investigative reporter) Sharyl Attkisson shows how “astroturf,” or fake grassroots movements, funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/13/cbs-news-investigative-journalist-explains-how-mainstream-media-brainwashes-the-masses/?fbclid=IwAR3tpg-EMsGPcEbfkukmJJfPy7A03Y-RBocluNGiHAhcRAEI8ANNBrFJdqI

[Alan Klein]

"BIARRITZ, France (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump, responding to a question about climate change after skipping a G7 session on the issue, said on Monday that American wealth is based on energy and he will not jeopardize that for dreams and windmills."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-trump-climatechange/trump-on-climate-says-he-wont-jeopardize-u-s-wealth-on-dreams-idUSKCN1VG1RU

[Alan Klein]

Back to OP - at least in some way. Not the latest news item (recorded in 2015 as a 10 minute long TED talk), but still valid and quite illuminating:

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/13/cbs-news-investigative-journalist-explains-how-mainstream-media-brainwashes-the-masses/?fbclid=IwAR3tpg-EMsGPcEbfkukmJJfPy7A03Y-RBocluNGiHAhcRAEI8ANNBrFJdqI

The main problem is that 90% of media is liberal and presents that point of view.  We don't get a balanced view regarding the environment, climate change, or most things. 

[Alan Klein]

As usual, the topic is more complex than a Coffee Corner discussion suggests. This is an interesting article:

https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/nasa_say_the_amazon_is_burning_at_below_average_rates_yet_many_news_stories_say_record_rates-240959

Thanks for the article.  It was very informative.  You're right it's more complex.  Unfortunately, in their usual knee-jerk hyperbole to exaggerate, the press goes for the blood and hyperventilates.  The public ignorant of the reality, go with their feelings and we're all off to the races again. 

[Alan Klein]

Here's a contrarian and more balanced view written by the  nature and environmental journalist Michael Shellenberger.  He is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over three million times.
"Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The "Lungs Of The World," Is Wrong"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#63f10a1a5bde

[BernardLanguillier]

Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.

The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.

BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.

As far as I know, this is how it works in every democratic country, except the US.

In all the countries I know of, having private entities fund parties is called corruption and is punished by jail time.

It is the case because it's obvious that politicians who have received money from a private entity will at some point do it favors that may not be aligned with the interest of the population.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As far as I know, this is how it works in every democratic country, except the US.

In all the countries I know of, having private entities fund parties is called corruption and is punished by jail time.

It is the case because it's obvious that politicians who have received money from a private entity will at some point do it favors that may not be aligned with the interest of the population.

And in addition, our members of parliament are sworn in where they have to publicly swear/declare they will act freely without any obligations to others except allegiance to the King, the Statute, and the Constitution.

The literal (translated as good as possible) text is:

I swear (declare) that, in order to be appointed as a member of the States General, I have not given or promised, directly or indirectly, under any name or pretext whatsoever, any gift or favour. I swear (declare and promise), that in order to do or refrain from doing anything in this office, I have not accepted or will not accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or promise. I swear (promise) allegiance to the King, to the Statute for the Kingdom and to the Constitution. I swear (promise) that I will faithfully perform the duties that my office imposes on me. So truly help me God almighty! (I declare and promise!').

Of course there are no guarantees, that those members will remain uncorrupted, but every individual gift with a market value of € 50 or more needs to be reported.

The issue with the US system is that lots of money governs who is even nominated for an election. Only after that preselection step will the people of the US get a chance to vote (in one way or another, direct or indirect) on nominees who were preselected by a small group of people (in a process that's vulnerable to corruption). Lots of money/services changed hands before the people get a say. With such perverse incentives, the chance of things going wrong is magnified.

[Alan Klein]

1. How much maximum from each contributor and how much total can they get for a campaign?
2. Can individuals hire what we call "lobbyists" to represent them in petitioning parliamentarians to support certain legislation?

Bart,  you didn't answer my questions. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,  you didn't answer my questions.

I did, even though it's off-topic for this thread..

Payments/services/gifts to individual members of parliament above a market value of € 50 have to be reported in a register. Their salaries are public information, the Prime Minister (and other Ministers) gets paid € 165.916 annually before taxes (in a progressive scale).

Payments/donations to Political parties above € 4,500 (sumtotal of a year) have to be reported (and name and domicile of the giver are published), this includes payments from members of parliament to their party (some parties get part or all of the income of a member of parliament, and pay back part of that each month). In practice (from public records), it is rare for amounts to exceed € 10,000 - 15,000 for the full year, and even those donations are rare.

All records are public, and parties publish their annual bookkeeping after approval of accountants.
All information is available on line:
https://www.parlement.com/id/vhnnmt7l3ozz/partijfinanciering