The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Josh writes: Who fact checks the Fact Checkers? Inspired by this superb article by @aDissentient in @TheConWom
… #FactCheck #ClimateFeedback
The farcical climate ‘fact-checkers’ who don’t check facts
Anthony…the “continue reading” thingy is not working
While we’re waiting to read the article, can I ask if there’s anyone on here, other than our nitwit trolls, who sees an article from the lame-stream media with “Fact Check” in the title and not know it’s going to be a pack of lies?
Yep, “Fact Check” is right up there with “the check is in the mail” and “we’re all in this together”.
I’ve actually checked the claims of a couple of fact checking groups. They lie by omission.
A perfect example Pat: I went to Snopes years ago to see if “97% of scientists” really represented only 75 out of 77 respondents to the Cook survey. Snopes to this day has no investigation into the 97% claim. They know what it would show.
The last place I would go for a “fact check” is Snopes.
Run by a non-scientist ignoramous and his dog !
That might be an example of lying by conscious silence.
I checked a FactCheck.org claim that a border wall didn’t reduce crime in El Paso, Texas, as Pres. Trump said it had done.
The stats for crime in El Paso showed that FC.org had addressed all crime except drug offenses. Drug-related crimes had plummeted after illegal immigration had been halted. See the graphic. Other crime had bubbled along as usual.
FC.org ignored the drug crime and reported on the rest, in claiming Trump had lied. I wrote FC.org about their oversight, and received the usual silence in reply
So called “drug crimes” are not crimes altogether but honest business.
Some people like caffeine, others like cocaine, it’s their right. And there are entrepreneurs who offer people their favourite stuff, – only crazy Puritans can name them “criminals”. Real criminals are legislators, cops, and judges who punish people for nothing.
So you are totally wrong, the real crime level in El Paso hasn’t changed and the whole Wall thingy ( built for stolen money on stolen land) is a huge waste.
if “97% of scientists” really represented only 75 out of 77 respondents to the Cook survey.
You’re referring to the ‘Doran/Zimmerman’ survey, which was the first one, done several years before the Cook et al (2013) survey where he claimed a 97.1% consensus. Legates et al analyzed that and found it only showed a 0.3% consensus (meaning 99.7% did NOT accept the AGW fraud).
I believe that should be Maggie Zimmerman’s survey for an M.S. degree.
Omit and obfuscate. I don’t recall if Snopes or Politifact but a decade or more ago I went to the site to fact check something about Hillary. Of course their conclusion supported her but the explanation was so protracted and circular I became convinced it was to confuse and frustrate in order dissuade the reader from continuing to read and understanding how they determined their result and just accept their opinion as true. I later investigated Snopes and found they get their info and draw their conclusions from information on the internet. No independent investigations at all.
“Fact checkers” did not exist until the ugly truth started to get out, and someone realized they had to stop this from happening.
The poynter group is like that. Some of our media people use it and get the wron answers. I checked it for Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. They pick the bad cases or if someone said 100% cure, they give it “pants on fire” which really means they have no evidence, just their opinion.
You forgot “I’m with the government and I’m here to help”.
That’s why we have the 2nd Amendment
“Now, more than ever.”
one of my personal favorites.
And with ”i wont cum in your mouth i promise”.
Exactly. The basic job of journalism used to be to fact check. When the job description switched to shilling for Novaya Pravda (the new truth=the old lies) they looked for a way to restore their credibility so they invented their own Ministry of Truth. A classic case of “The lady protests too much, methinks”.
An apocryphal mondegreen?
Years ago I thought I heard Donald Rumsfeld (Somebody I despise) ironically paraphrasing an interviewer by echoing the words “fact-check” with “fat cheque!”
I can’t help hearing anything else ever since! ;-(
I could go on, but I won’t. I was very close to accepting a job at G.D. Searle when he was Chairman/CEO or whatever and got NutraSweet approved. There’s some interesting (personal) history in this for me as my mate, one of last year’s Nobelists for Medicine learned his Mol Bio there (in the UK).
Right click the prompt and select ‘Open in New Tab’
Right click on the link and select open in a new tab or open in a new window.
Hmm seems to be here The farcical climate ‘fact-checkers’ who don’t check facts | The Conservative Woman
See if that works.
text version for cut-and-paste
Right click and “follow link”.
Ironically enough, most of the article is about missing links!
Missing links and pictures of Michael Mann in the same article. Great way to TGIF. Brilliant stuff.
Right click it and open in a new tab.
A competent investigator/writer needs to do an in-depth investigation of tge self appointed “fact checkers”.
The self-appointed fact checkers performed a fact checking analysis upon themselves and found that their fact checks fell within the 6-sigma standard.
They then gave themselves accolades and a generous gratuity.
I find there appears to be nothing continuing from “continue reading” and neither the photo of a rather decayed elephant, nor “The Conservative Woman” although indicating that there should be a link, lead anywhere. To repeat a certain lady politician “Please Explain”.
Seems to be a glitch. In the meantime, try https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-farcical-climate-fact-checkers-who-dont-check-facts/ , which might be where it’s trying to continue.
Right clicking on he links and choosing “open in another tab” works fine.
I *really* like this excerpt:
“Hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel takes Delingpole to task for saying that hurricane frequency is not increasing. His objection is not that what Delingpole says is not true, but that he ‘neglects to mention that there was never a consensus prediction that the frequency of all hurricanes would increase’.
Really? Because when I refer back to the Summary for Policymakers from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I find it stated that it is ‘likely’ that there will in an increase in hurricane activity. The Fifth Assessment says it’s ‘more likely than not in some basins’.
There’s that definitive, settled science term again –
I’m “likely” to see a healthy gain in my ETFs investment portfolio next week.
Or not ☹
You trust Montford to quote honestly? How quaint. Here’s the section that precedes his very selective extract from IPCC AR5
<i>Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates</i>
Emanuel 1, Montford 0.
The piece elevates pettifogging complaints (No link, really?) but leaves the meat of the Climate Feedback evisceration untouched.
“Science says” is “Simon says” for stupid people who also have no self respect.
When addressing almost any ordinary biology or astronomy story, reporters almost always write “scientists say”. For climate change reporters (almost?) always write “science says”.
Now that you’ve read, you will probably notice too. The difference is both connotation and denotation..
or possibly “detonation”?
Speaking of Simple Simon, he hasn’t shown to insult everyone dares to disagree with him.
He met a pieman going to the fair.
He asked him “What have you got there?”
“Pies you idiot. I’m a pieman”.
With that being an old nursery rhyme, I would never have guessed that he was still alive before I came on here.
If you right click and open in a new tab it works
If one or both of those cartoon characters is/are supposed to be Dr. Mann, the characterization is wrong. Mann would never admit any kind of doubt about CAGW which he insists is as solid as the law of gravity.
right click and open in new tab or new window and the article comes up. May just be a popup blocker. You could also copy the link and paste to another open tab.
Ouch! That’s gotta hurt.
Montford absolutely eviscerates the soi-dissant fact-checkers.
I roared when he pointed out:
“…But worse, the Climate Feedback author appears not to actually have understood the graph – because it doesn’t show an increase in wildfires in the Western US. It’s a cumulative graph, which means it will always increase. That’s what ‘cumulative’ means…”
Somebody’s got some serious egg on their face with that rather fundamental error.
It’s kinda like griff posting links to stories that actually refute the point he was trying to make.
They looked at the graph, saw what they wanted to see, then responded.
Actually reading the caption and understanding the graph wasn’t something they had time for.
Agreed, but it’s even worse than Montford says. The so-called fact checker’s graph purports to show areas burned with and without “climate change”. Where would they find actual data for the “without” portion? They are implying that specific fires and burn areas can be identified as the result of climate change. Utter nonsense.
Until we get effective weapons against propaganda and misinformation, the “fact checkers” will continue to get away with presenting their twisted delusions as reality! Why the Big Tech Nazis, like Twatter and Fakebook, can get away with lying to Congress and murdering people with their suppression of proper medical treatments is beyond rational understanding!
Until our ruling elites start making actual lines in the sand and stop merely lining their pockets, we will get no relief from editors who claim they don’t REALLY edit and fact checkers who don’t REALLY present facts! Corporate American has been killing citizens by the boatload for decades with their processed foods and overhyped medications, and now Big Tech has jumped in bed with them! Look at the rates of diabetes in the US before and after the low-fat diet hoax was introduced if you don’t believe me! And Congress is too stupid or too corrupt to have any meaningful effect! We’ve got the best government money can buy, only we citizens don’t have enough money to get their attention!
Why do you think big media hates Parler so much? And Fox News? Big media has built an empire and they will do whatever it takes to protect. Remember that in war, truth is the first causality.
Fox news is also garbage. They gulp MSNBC scripts, reverse the adjectives and puke them back out.
“Remember that in war, truth is the first causality.”
hmm, that’s funny. I always thought it was the first casualty. 🙂
It is lying by omission, and more subtly, lying by choosing inaccurate and pejorative words that is the essence of the problem with the MSM. There are 1st Amendment issues in any attempt to suppress such behavior. We have to be careful that any changes don’t come back to bite us.
However, I think it is important to hold the liberal Media to higher standards than they impose on themselves. Their ‘news’ articles often are little more than political screeds with a few facts tossed in to provide an excuse for berating those they disagree with.
The FCC has long had the power to control words used on TV and radio. Perhaps an approach that would work is to have an objective, or bi-partisan FCC committee, deal with citizen complaints about lack of objectivity and lies of omission. If found to be in violation of the standards of objectivity, the station or broadcaster could be fined, and a website could list the offenders and their fines. A pattern would quickly emerge, and even the zealots would see that their sources of information are not reliable. More leeway could be provided for interpretation by requiring editorial opinions to be labeled clearly as such, in contrast to what is supposed to be news.
As long as the liberal media and social networks are free to distort truth, and censure facts they don’t like, our democracy is at risk.
The free market will produce a conservative platform when demand gets high enough.
Tell that to Parler.
I understand and share your concerns; I just don’t see how a supposed ‘news’ org can present obvious lies and falsehoods with no repercussions! At the very least they should be dinged by the FEC for in kind campaign contributions!
Personally, I think we need to revamp the laws concerning libel. If media could be sued for libel for printing false or misleading information they might go back to doing their jobs again! Some real journalism would be a big relief in the age of anonymous sources! That’s why real reporters like Glen Greenwald and John Solomon have such loyal followers; and that’s also why they are attacked and disparaged so mercilessly!
“Fact Checkers” and “fact checking” is a concept created to make oneself (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) look unquestionable and infallible. “Fact checking” is then used to justify censorship when one’s “fact checkers” do not agree or cannot confirm the statement of another person. It is an excuse to silence dissent.
With the climate alarmist narrative today, the “fact checkers” can only assume that the alarmist scientists they are listening to and believing have their science correct and that the scientist’s claims have been confirmed and are unquestionable. It then becomes a matter of religious faith as much as anything else if the “fact checkers” have no scientific background. It demonstrates that the “fact checkers” must rely on belief rather objective proof. They know little or nothing of how scientific discourse works. The alarmist scientists become demigods, and they probably enjoy the role. One does not question demigods.
The “fact checkers” become little more than Big Brother from Orwell’s novel when they are treated as the final word on the matter at issue. What we call objective truth can be a difficult thing to pin down without one’s emotions and personal opinions getting in the way. Or, to put it another way, one person’s truth is another person’s lie.
That’s my two cents worth for whatever it’s worth.
What is that picture? It looks like the attack of a zombie elephant!
They are pulling their “facts” from a place where the sun doesn’t shine.
While Andrew Montford’s analysis and explanations are both accurate and enlightening, there is a far more insidious, more chilling aspect involved here.
There are millions and millions of people around the world, many exceptionally bright and sincere, who read this type of rank propaganda (the fraudulent fact checking screed) and swallow it wholeheartedly as Supreme Truth.
The diabolically clever, stunningly effective program of psychological subversion that was launched decades ago is manifesting on a daily basis all around us.
Participant Yuri Bezmenov tried to alert us to this operation.
Attempts to combat this scourge using provable facts, observable data, clear-as-bell observations are futile as this is a Pavlovian-like state of conditioning within which tens (hundreds?) of millions of people permanently reside.
Possibly slightly OT, but has anyone been following NSIDC the past few days, besides griff and myself?
Holy moly sportsfans, griff may be right and we are all going to die of no Arctic Sea Ice after all. It looks imminent, and God help the cuddly polar bears:
The oceans beg to differ today with new data…
PDO MonthlyIndexSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×475) (wp.com)
NOAA SST-Nino3-4 GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×475) (wp.com)
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (wp.com)
The ice continent has no comment.
S_stddev_timeseries.png (1050×840) (wp.com)
I think they’ve been having instrumentation problems at NSIDC going back to 2014, but I haven’t seen anyone admitting it yet. This one is pretty damned obvious.
there is actually no data in the NSIDC link since 19th Feb., they are having “issues”
Starting Feb 20th they have problems with their data, starting with 2 missing days. Also the data they published today seem to be wrong with an decrease of over 1,200 km² for the 21th, a before missing date.
Whenever cold air scoots south, warm air scoots north.
I would have loved to have continued reading…but apparently the censors don’t want me to. (link does not work)
Ah…brought up a new tab and there it was. Weird.
I especially enjoyed the first comment after the article where a self-described non-climate-scientist attacks the author’s credentials but fails to find anything wrong with what he wrote. This is entirely typical of a climate activist – attack the person to try to deflect the truth.
I wonder if they (the activists) have enough intelligence to actually understand their logical fallacy(of fallacies) or if they truly believe this is an appropriate method to debate an issue?
Yes, i tried to reply to him but disqus being as usual totally useless and wouldn’t let me log in.
He provided a long list of supposed proof of CO2 and temp, all small scale laboratory stuff going back to the 1800’s we all know is not applicable to the atmosphere at large, but he also listed Rachel Carson and Silent Spring. Really???
Its like a CBC radio hit piece i mistakenly listed to 3 weeks ago, one interviewee was an Alberta rancher who said his dad had a stroke after getting some chemical on his skin.
Oh, and he’s noticed the climate “change” at his ranch. No description of what that change was.
This is the level these people operate at.
And the level of those who tune in.
I do so occasionally so you can hear what the enemies of mankind are actually saying.
And its stupid!!!!!
From the article.
”But this car crash of an article does at least allow us to see that misrepresentation and deception have become the tool-in-trade of the internet fact-checker. It allows us to see these people for what they are.”
Yeah scum is what they are, human filth, parasites in chino’s.
Climate Feedback, pretending they are interested in FACTS ??
Now that would be a first !!
Very rare you meet a leftist who cares about facts, fact checkers are only there for lazy leftists to link to when you engage them with facts that blue screen them,
They have been taught all their formative years that correct think is critical think.
They simply do know how parse information, and their trust in so called ”experts” is absolute because that is what they have been educated to believe.
However they have no problem with cherry picking their experts, when they google for confirmation of their bias, any expert or data that does not conform is hand waved away as part of some denier conspiracy theory.
“Gates To Gate Internet “Truth” ”
“If this doesn’t scare the hell out of you, you are not fully awake yet.”
“In other words, orchestrated organized Group Think based on the most fanatic screamers who volunteer or are paid by Soros & his NGOs. Resistance if futile, you will be absorbed into The Body…”
So what else is new from the doomsters. I’m bombarded with them but the one truth they have stumbled upon is my brain kicks in-
Why aren’t we more afraid of global warming? The psychology of procrastinating on climate change (msn.com)
It does that before I run around in circles with the news the end is nigh screaming hysterically we’re all doomed because of the weather. Wot is this dreaded weather and coastal/esplanade RE price crashes you speak of? Fact checked….now wot about this Covid thingy they’re all worried about?
protect the NHS?
Snopes had a fact check for Trumps claim that Clinton started the birther conspiracy. It was false because two obscure books brought it up before the 2008 primaries and it was two campaign employees who started it during the primaries, not Clinton herself.
Removed from the site for obvious reasons.
Part of the early portion of this thread claims that fact checkers lie or lie by omission, and a number of them do, but in some instances they are simply ignorant people, victims of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, who have no idea what they speak about. An example is perfectly clear right here…
But worse, the Climate Feedback author appears not to actually have understood the graph – because it doesn’t show an increase in wildfires in the Western US. It’s a cumulative graph, which means it will always increase. That’s what ‘cumulative’ means.
This same problem has occurred repeatedly in articles about the pandemic. No matter what the current epidemic is actually doing (it has actually surged and then receded three times in some localities) the journalists write that it is “surging, accelerating, rising, spiking, …” It finally dawned on me that the graph included is often the cumulative cases graph. Journalists, and many other, have no idea what they are looking at.
There is an important lesson about mathematics education here…