How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Luckily, not all Dutch are climato-crazies:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/angry-dutch-farmers-clog-up-700-miles-of-highway-during-protest-over-emission-rules

Slow-moving convoys of tractors clogged up nearly 700 miles of major highways in the Netherlands on Tuesday, as farmers inched toward The Hague to protest what they claim is an attempt to blame them over nitrogen pollution.

About 10,000 farmers planned the protest to argue they are unfairly being blamed after a court ruling found that the Netherlands is violating European emission rules.

[kers]

Luckily, not all Dutch are climato-crazies:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/angry-dutch-farmers-clog-up-700-miles-of-highway-during-protest-over-emission-rules

Here we are trying to bring down pollution of nitrogen and the farmers are one of the main polluters.
We have a kind of intense animal farming called BioIndustry- the word explains it more or less- it has little to do with the nostalgic idea of farming.
For instance in our small country we have much more pigs than humans, allthough you will never see a pig in the open as they never see daylight.
We only see little pieces of the pig in supermarkets.
To feed all these animals we need to import vegetable food that has grown on areas many times our country.
However the shit the animals produce end up here, It is the base of the pollution.
Also more and more people think animals deserve a better live.
To change this way of farming the momentum seems to be now.

The farmers protest is a beautiful one. It started out with a cry of one farmer and others followed.
They have been forced into that system through time and deserve to have time and government assistance to change their way of farming.
But the need for a change is obvious.

[Alan Klein]

https://www.facebook.com/thehodgetwins/videos/2104503403189410/

That's funny.

[Alan Klein]

...The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implications. The initial judgement is not a reflection on the technical validity of the work described, or on its importance to people in the same field.
...

So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before.  This is an example of preaching to the choir.  Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming.  Opposing views don;t get published so easily.  So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.

[Robert Roaldi]

Nobody seemed to care about that distinction while shrieking "OMG the oceans are warming!"

The oceans are warming but they may not be to the exaggerated extent in that one particular article in which some errors seem to have been detected.

You're making one hell of a pointless mountain over a meaningless molehill.

[Robert Roaldi]

So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before.  This is an example of preaching to the choir.  Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming.  Opposing views don;t get published so easily.  So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.

This is an utterly silly and nonsensical comment. There are primary source publications and there are publications which print summaries in review form or sometimes reprint articles. They each have a niche. 

[Alan Klein]

The oceans are warming but they may not be to the exaggerated extent in that one particular article in which some errors seem to have been detected.

You're making one hell of a pointless mountain over a meaningless molehill.

I'm sure the media that repeated the original story won;t retract their editions of the story like Nature did.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm sure the media that repeated the original story won;t retract their editions of the story like Nature did.

Another silly and nonsensical statement. When scientific journals receive notice of errors in an article, they publish corrections (less often retractions, depends on the nature of the error) in the next available issue. And the online versions of those articles are flagged with links to the errors and the corrections. This is standard practice in the field.

[Alan Klein]

Another silly and nonsensical statement. When scientific journals receive notice of errors in an article, they publish corrections (less often retractions, depends on the nature of the error) in the next available issue. And the online versions of those articles are flagged with links to the errors and the corrections. This is standard practice in the field.

I don't think it's "silly and nonsensical" to expect publications to correct errors they made in reporting news, science, global warming, or anything else for that matter. That seems to me to be responsible reporting. 

[Ray]

The problem, as we all should know by now, is the tendency of the various competing media to grab the public's attention by exaggerating the significance and the importance of every news event.

I recently came across a very old article in the Brisbane Courier newspaper in Australia, dated January 10, 1871. Refer attached photo.

In case some of you have trouble reading the script, I've copied it, word for word, as follows.

"Three consecutive years of drought, while they have stimulated the inventive resources of practical agriculturists, have had the natural effect of calling forth a plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets, and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities.

We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be "extraordinary", almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known.

Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it."

[Alan Klein]

The problem, as we all should know by now, is the tendency of the various competing media to grab the public's attention by exaggerating the significance and the importance of every news event.

I recently came across a very old article in the Brisbane Courier newspaper in Australia, dated January 10, 1871. Refer attached photo.

In case some of you have trouble reading the script, I've copied it, word for word, as follows.

"Three consecutive years of drought, while they have stimulated the inventive resources of practical agriculturists, have had the natural effect of calling forth a plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets, and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities.

We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be "extraordinary", almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known.

Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it."

Ray, that's the most amazing thing you've post to date.   

[jeremyrh]

So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before.  This is an example of preaching to the choir.  Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming.  Opposing views don;t get published so easily.  So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.

Where the hell did you get that from? 

[kers]

Ray, that's the most amazing thing you've post to date.

It is written in a period of time when IQ was correlated with rainfall, temperature, and race.
-
( However today at religious based universities students still learn that the earth is not more than 10.000 years old)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The problem, as we all should know by now, is the tendency of the various competing media to grab the public's attention by exaggerating the significance and the importance of every news event.

Correct. That's why one should always refer to the original study/paper that the article is talking about. Popular media tend to draw the wrong conclusions, or leave out the important nuances and disclaimers. Blog posts are notorious for (sometimes deliberately) getting things wrong.

Cheers,
Bart

[faberryman]

So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before.  This is an example of preaching to the choir.  Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming.  Opposing views don;t get published so easily.  So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.

Did you read the article linked to in the OP, or even the thread title?

[Alan Klein]

Correct. That's why one should always refer to the original study/paper that the article is talking about. Popular media tend to draw the wrong conclusions, or leave out the important nuances and disclaimers. Blog posts are notorious for (sometimes deliberately) getting things wrong.

Cheers,
Bart

The average person doesn;t have time to research original scientific papers.  They depend on popular media.  Even if they did, most papers are so obtuse, they're difficult to understand. 

[Alan Klein]

Did you read the article linked to in the OP, or even the thread title?

The article is wrong or their methodology is wrong.  The fact is from what I see with my own eyes and ears, is that the regular media hypes climate change and global warming.  Every nature program you watch makes it seem that man is evil when it comes to nature, that we're destroying animal and plant alike.  People watch this stuff and get hysterical like that poor 16 year old girl Greta Thunberg.  Her parents should be drawn and quartered for what they did to her. 

[degrub]

the effects are real enough and present. The degree of guilt is the only question.

[Alan Klein]

the effects are real enough and present. The degree of guilt is the only question.

Guilt?  Increasing population causes all the problems.  What penalty should we apply?  Allow woman to only have one child like the Chinese tried? 

[kers]

The article is wrong or their methodology is wrong. The fact is from what I see with my own eyes and ears, is that the regular media hypes climate change and global warming. Every nature program you watch makes it seem that man is evil when it comes to nature, that we're destroying animal and plant alike.  People watch this stuff and get hysterical like that poor 16 year old girl Greta Thunberg.  Her parents should be drawn and quartered for what they did to her.

That is not a fact at all.