Fake News Not New. Scientists Have been Fighting it for Decades

November 20, 2016

Fake News is not new.
I started creating videos specifically to push back against a sewertide of nonsense spewing from the alphabet soup of “think” tanks spawned by the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and a rogue’s gallery of fossil fuel info criminals.

The ability to tell fake from factual is a critical skill we should be teaching in the digital age.
I’ll be exploring this in future vids – for now, here are some good examples of how I learned to track a false meme to it’s source.

 

 

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Fake News Not New. Scientists Have been Fighting it for Decades”

  1. otter17 Says:

    Seeing a denial myth traced back to its origin was a rather jaw-dropping moment in your videos from a few years back.

    It just blew my mind that pretty much all these myths that everyday Americans casually hold in their minds were created, for the most part by these think tanks. Even from just my circle of friends and colleagues in engineering, these false memes colored the perception of the issue in total. I could only imagine the number of bright technically-minded folks that have been falsely dissuaded from pursuing a course towards solving this issue over the years.

  2. indy222 Says:

    Excellent, Peter! Yes, as a college instructor I would welcome any possible new insights I could add to my own teachings on seeking clarity of understanding and separating agenda-driven lies from truth. I’ll look forward to more. If you end up with a Sinclair-quality video concisely illustrating exactly this, I’d be happy to include it in my presentations.

    • Tom Bates Says:

      If you want to include data why not include all of it. Here is a tiny example
      http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
      Warmer than today with half the CO2 unless trees grow under ice.

      another
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1619000
      ocean rise trend 3 inches in 100 years. The studies claiming more throw in the 80 percent of land moving up and down and simply drown out the reality with data from sources that are not actually measuring ocean trends. Read one study where they actually had data on ground movement for 20 percent of the data points, they simply ignored it.

      another
      http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_BarrowWPostWRogersArpt_Barrow_AK_October.html
      you notice if was colder in 1902 than the same time last year. Yet the arctic was supposed to warmer than ever. Go read up on the adjustment to Giss by NOAA, per one study 66 percent of Giss was adjusted data which just by the grace of God was 99 percent higher than the actual measured temperature which is what happened to barrow Alaska temperatures.

      The story line of AGW falls apart when you start looking at all the data. The world is warming but not much and not any different than before the industrial revolution showed up to make your job possible.

      The myth of harm from tobacco smoke is similar to today’s AGW myth. . About 10 percent have problems from smoking. The rest have no problems from smoking. Smoking is bad for some people and if you do not want to be that some people do not smoke but the story line is everybody is effected and we have a religious duty to stop smoking of anybody. it is an appeal to emotions not facts, not data, not even common sense, it is strictly emotions.

    • Tom Bates Says:

      If you want to actually teach why not look up contrary data to the AGW line on this blog and see why there is two sides to this issue. NASA and NOAA have a lot of contrary data to offer so you cannot say the data is simply wrong because it was not paid for by the taxpayers. CO2 warming was in fact measured once, 0.034F increase was the result, the study was never repeated. CO2 increase has increased plant mass by 8 percent per another study. 415 million people are alive as a result. Ocean rise trends on Johnston atoll or Sydney is 3 inches in 100 years, Miami is sinking as are a lot of other areas for various reasons. If you want to teach, please teach, the propaganda people do not deserve to be in teaching.

      • otter17 Says:

        Your opinions of the data do not determine what is taught.

        We teach from actual references and research that have made it through several rounds of checking in the scientific method. Your 0.034F increase claim that you have been making has been shown false by numerous people here, and they have given you references to show why. Give it a rest.

        Every national academy of science or equivalent in the modern world says the issue of AGW is a significant one. Your personal feelings on what the data may say holds zero weight as compared to the references to the actual scientists and research groups. They know the subject… you don’t.

  3. Peter Smith Says:

    Thanks for these crock videos pointing out the origins of climate myths. Keep them coming.

    I would like to point out that the Oregon Petition Project, in addition to being based on fraudulent premises and non-experts, has one fundamental flaw. That is, as worded, nobody other than a climate science denier would sign it. It self-selects its signatories. It is is simply a list of unqualified deniers. As such, it is meaningless. Its seedy origins are also of great interest.


    • A fun thing about deniers is that they are often very loud about claiming that climate science can’t reached by consensus, and then in their next breath they refer to this Oregon Peition nonsense. They clearly have no idea what scientific consensus is versus a petition/opinion.

      • Tom Bates Says:

        The consensus you refer to is a study. The study is simply a sample of various self selected peoples papers which have a certain opinion in the finding of the study. Those are no more data based than the oregon petition you oppose based on your opinion the signers are unqualified to have an opinion.

        Your failure is to rely on an opinion of somebody else without looking at the facts and data yourself. If a claim is made that the oceans will rise 10 feet in 30 years when current rise trend is 3 inches in 100 years, something is not correct. A wise person would look at more data before jumping on the bandwagon.

        • Peter Smith Says:

          “The study is simply a sample of various self selected peoples papers”

          No. The abstracts reviewed by Cook (2013) were based on a comprehensive literature survey, not self selected. Plus, there are 6-7 independent peer reviewed studies on the scientific consensus. There is a consensus of consensus paper here that describes them.

          Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

          Plus the scientific consensus is obvious, if you bother to read the peer-reviewed literature and read science-based sites yourself. It is also obvious if you consider that all the science societies in the world and 195 countries, signatories to COP 21, agree that AGW is real and a problem. Your denier opinion that the scientific consensus is propaganda, equivalent to the Oregon Petition, is utterly worthless. That is eactly what Peter Sinclair was saying.

          The scientific consensus does *not* claim that the oceans would rise 10 ft in 30 years. The projected sea level rise, relative to 1986-2005 levels, has an upper bound of 1 m (3.3 ft) by the end of the century, 84 years from now, per the RCP 8.5 scenario in the IPCC AR5 report.

          https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

          Recent studies project that the sea level rise will be double the above estimate, around 6 ft. upper bound by 2100. In any case, your 10 ft. in 30 years is wrong.


        • Voting yourself up Tom?

  4. Ron Voisin Says:

    No matter how you slice it…if unidentified natural variability can trump CO2, then CO2’s climatic strength is weaker than purported.

    Further, if unidentified natural variability can trump CO2, the science is not settled as the unknown causes of this natural variability are more important than CO2.

    • otter17 Says:

      Logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. Here is another fallacious example based on yours: “If political ideology can trump reason within a AGW denier’s brain, then the denier’s reasoning strength is weaker than purported. Further, if political ideology can trump reason in the denier brain, the denier’s statements are not settled as their ideology is more important than their reason.” See how this doesn’t make sense on its own? You actually have to cite evidence from the scientific method research journals and publications to back your assertion, rather than just a fallacious if-then statement. There are some good books on formal logic, or possibly local courses on the subject.

      But, to more important matters discussed in a previous article.

      What do you propose to reduce GHG emissions 80 to 100% by 2050, as per scientific agreement at climate conferences, without tanking the economy?

      If your initial reaction is that, there is no way to accomplish such a task, then there you quite likely have the reason why you deny the problem.

      If you have a detailed answer to the question, please share.

  5. otter17 Says:

    Logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. Here is another fallacious example based on yours: “If political ideology can trump reason within a AGW denier’s brain, then the denier’s reasoning strength is weaker than purported. Further, if political ideology can trump reason in the denier brain, the denier’s statements are not settled as their ideology is more important than their reason.” See how this doesn’t make sense on its own? You actually have to cite evidence from the scientific method research journals and publications to back your assertion, rather than just a fallacious if-then statement. There are some good books on formal logic, or possibly local courses on the subject.

    But, to more important matters discussed in a previous article.

    What do you propose to reduce GHG emissions 80 to 100% by 2050, as per scientific agreement at climate conferences, without tanking the economy?

    If your initial reaction is that, there is no way to accomplish such a task, then there you quite likely have the reason why you deny the problem.

    If you have a detailed answer to the question, please share.

  6. Tom Bates Says:

    So when Mann makes a graft which depends on kicking out 80 years of one proxy that is not fake news? When Hansen makes a claim the arctic is warmer than measured by plugging in a bunch of fake temperatures that is not fake news? So what is fake news in science? That they have found the Higgs, when it has not been actually independently confirmed? Same with dark matter and energy or the claim the human race will only last a thousand years? That they come up with 120 climate models to explain the climate and than ignore the tiny fact that none actually predict past climate even if four are somewhat close? Fake news is fake no matter who puts it out.

    • otter17 Says:

      Every statement in your post is a myth. If you have a contrary piece of research that can make it through the scientific method and rebut Mann and others, why don’t you give it a shot?

      Until then, your opinions on the science don’t determine what is fake. Your tenuous grasp of how science actually works to figure out reality doesn’t lend you any credibility.


  7. […] Source: Fake News Not New. Scientists Have been Fighting it for Decades | Climate Denial Crock of the Week […]

  8. earlosatrun Says:

    Lorne Gunter, wrong about everything. It’s why he was hired in the 80s, he was ultra-rightwing, and very wrong.

    I’m sorry we inflicted him on the world. Oh, when he argues that he’s not paid by the oil company to write what he does, he’s lying. He knows he’d not be working at what he does if he didn’t support Alberta Oil. (that doesn’t mean he supports Alberta, just that he supports those people who are responsible for his paycheque. Directly, or indirectly)


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: