A factchecking micro-scandal that hides another one

[QuebecOverCanada]

For me, taking the reader for a dumb person is one of the worse things you can do. Fact checkers have done just that.

Appearing mostly during the months after Trump's election, fact checkers are pundits or journalists who work for a mainstream media and try their best to present arguments delegitimizing a theory that is contrary to the establishment's beliefs, or ridiculing an outrageous theory to paint in a same brush those on a political side whose not for establishments' gain. They came as faith in media hit an all-time low, with good reasons, after they predicted Hillary Clinton win in a landslide, a hard No for Brexit, and other predictions which ultimately failed. What I just wrote is my take; I think the media just engages in fact cheking to try to look good. Not to say the truth.

One example would be the what so called fact checking on a 'doctored' cover magazine for Time. 

According to the Time magazine, there was a doctored TIME magazine cover depicting a false claim; Global Cooling was about to happen according to scientists in the 1970s.

This doctored image is in fact a doctored image, to make an article about here; https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

The image is as followed; 

So what is the problem, exactly?

Well, according to the Time Magazine, they have been victim of a negative campaign, depicting their magazine as falsely claiming Global Cooling could happen. In their fact check, they say specifically ; Ads, jokes and protests are one thing, though — hoax covers are something else entirely. And that’s the problem with a faked TIME cover about global warming that’s been floating around the Internet for some time

According to their story, they are telling the truth. They have a totally objective view on this, and physical evidence of said mischaracterization of their cover.

BUT.

Even if I am born in 1995, I had access to the Internet. Most critiques were referring to this, not doctored at all version of Time Magazine, published in 1973;

What are your thoughts about this little peace of dishonesty I found on my free time?

Edited June 30, 2021 by QuebecOverCanada

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

 

 

1. That cover doesn't say there's a coming ice age.
2. Many Republicans called out Trump as a liar, and it didn't stop him.  Fact Checkers were added to TV and press coverage à la Snopes.com, because the political process to reject a dishonest man was failing, and cynically.
3. The bad man is gone now, kind of  
 

[QuebecOverCanada]

Look at this Mike;

Another Ice Age?

Monday, June 24, 1974

• • In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

    As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

    Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

    Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

    http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,944914,00.html

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Look at this Mike;

Yes, ok they DID raise the spectre of an ice age it seems !

Well, they should have shown more humility in their explanation as they were guilty of sensationalistic reporting.  They hint at it on the page by saying they did report 'a version' of this, but it links to a non-page:

https://time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html

 

So, a cover up.  Good catch. 

[OftenWrong]

Yes, I remember hearing about it when I was a kid about 12 years old. It was also mentioned in newspapers and on tv. 

But it wasnt sensationalized like global warming. No Greta Thunbergs were trotted out before us.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

But it wasnt sensationalized like global warming. No Greta Thunbergs were trotted out before us.

Which is a good thing.

But, also it was a fringe theory.

[OftenWrong]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But, also it was a fringe theory.

If you says so.

I thought I recently read more speculation that we are entering a period of global cooling, and on the road to another ice age. Slowly, that doesn't mean cold winters are a sign of anything new.

And that the melting we are going through sets the stage for rapid ice flow as water levels rise. But that was at least five to ten years ago.

So now I asked the google oracle, "Are we entering a new ice age?" and find my memory to be pretty good, for an old guy.

Melting icebergs key to sequence of an ice age

 

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. I thought I recently read more speculation that we are entering a period of global cooling, and on the road to another ice age. Slowly, that doesn't mean cold winters are a sign of anything new.

2. And that the melting we are going through sets the stage for rapid ice flow as water levels rise. But that was at least five to ten years ago.

So now I asked the google oracle, "Are we entering a new ice age?" and find my memory to be pretty good, for an old guy.

3. Melting icebergs key to sequence of an ice age

 

 1. It depends on where you read that.  There's a lot of disinfo out there, but I have to remind myself to read deep before I dismiss things.  It's very difficult to keep doing that and I do slip up.
2. For example, I doubted what you wrote here but when I saw the link...
3. It's a completely legitimate theory, published by real scientists and it makes sense.  This BBC article dumbs it down for non-climate-scientists like me.  It's a three million year cycle though, and may have been disrupted by the human-caused carbon dumb we are living through now.  

The fascinating thing for me is that I never heard of a carbon sink like that before.  Thanks for posting.

[OftenWrong]

You're welcome!

See I know about legitimate sources, an stuff.

I like the notion that we know some things, but not all things and there's a lot we only know a little about. This same model described a mechanism for an ice age to occur that is taking place now, for different reasons and we have no experience in empirically determining what it means. If you get what that word prescribes.

I learned about computer modelling and how it works, and how it's just smoke and mirrors simulation, respite with 'k' factors or presumed constants that are inserted to fudge a physics problem, or an unknown parameter. Kinda like yer dark matter.

Or better yet... dark energy, for that matter!  

As a kid I went to the library 'alot'

I also learned about chicken littleism

that it's a thing

and that every generation has believed

itself to be the last

for a variety of reasons that were accepted at the time

as logically true

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1.  I learned about computer modelling and how it works, and how it's just smoke and mirrors simulation, respite with 'k' factors or presumed constants that are inserted to fudge a physics problem, or an unknown parameter. Kinda like yer dark matter.

2. I also learned about chicken littleism

3. ...for a variety of reasons that were accepted at the time

 

 

1. In my statistical modelling course, after we learned the process of linear regression to formulate/test correlations, the prof put a set of data up on the slide.  "Does this look like it could be correlated ?"  It did, and what it was, was dimensions of a rectangle vs. area.  The point being that you can get fooled into thinking you know the answer, especially if you don't step back.

2. Yes.  As is liberal bias.  There is zero doubt in my mind that the threat of a Donald Trump, Climate Change, Chinese takeover are hugely exaggerated.  That doesn't mean, though, that they are insignificant, or even small.  You can 

3. What I'm interested in, is how we actually and eventually "learn" things as a group.  Have we "learned" that war is costly ?  That there is no god ?  If not, what ?

The latest liberal fallacy taking hold is that a Universal Benefit paid by the government makes economic sense.  The initial concept was submitted by a Red Tory as a way to cut government red tape, and benefit the poor with the savings.  A bold program, for sure, but it is geared to be revenue neutral or close to that.  Hugh Segal wrote about the ineffective programs that the government spends money on to help the poor.

That has now become a simple welfare increase, and a huge one.  And payable to anyone who wants it.  There are no longer cuts proposed to counter this.

If conservatism insists on focusing on transgender washrooms, instead of economics, then this fad could take hold and torpedo our budgets.

[OftenWrong]

You cannot get a consensus across the whole world because it is separated in space and time. The effort to do that would undo any presumed benefit it provides.

As long as there are countries there will be a need for war, and there are those who benefit from it. It can only be achieved by a conquering empire that takes over the world. Obviously that can't be done without a price.

Therefore, moderate conflict must be allowed to continue.

[OftenWrong]

It's like an ancient chinese secret

you cannot hear the sound

of one hand clapping

there is no motion of the wheel

without both yin and yang

they are both within the same wheel

but when separated

they are what makes it go round

[dialamah]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If conservatism insists on focusing on transgender washrooms, instead of economics, then this fad could take hold and torpedo our budgets.

Indeed.  We need fiscal conservatives a lot more than social conservatives.