Self-regulation and dealing with problem posters
03-12-2017
, 02:02 PM
03-12-2017
, 02:04 PM
03-12-2017
, 02:48 PM
03-12-2017
, 11:00 PM
03-12-2017
, 11:05 PM
03-13-2017
, 12:40 AM
03-13-2017
, 12:43 AM
Hi spaceman Bryce! I like your post! 
If I got my thread unlocked, would you like to participate? It might offer a bit of what you're looking for imo.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...48/?highlight=
If I got my thread unlocked, would you like to participate? It might offer a bit of what you're looking for imo.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...48/?highlight=
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 03-13-2017 at 01:03 AM.
03-13-2017
, 12:44 AM
03-13-2017
, 01:50 AM
Quote:
Hi spaceman Bryce! I like your post!
If I got my thread unlocked, would you like to participate? It might offer a bit of what you're looking for imo.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...48/?highlight=
If I got my thread unlocked, would you like to participate? It might offer a bit of what you're looking for imo.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...48/?highlight=
after some deliberation i haved eicded this thread is a good idea.
03-13-2017
, 07:18 AM
This question is open to anyone here who might have an idea:
(The PC rule)
(the question)
Anybody?
(The PC rule)
Quote:
2. The forum will have a PC bias. This isn't censorship of ideas. It means posters making an effort to avoid offence to vulnerable groups. Some very extreme topics won't be allowed but in general if there's some political merit to the topic then it's welcome in this forum. What is or isn't PC will change with time - discussion about it will be welcome.
(the question)
Anybody?
03-13-2017
, 07:40 AM
As a result of chezlaw's arbitrary decision to censor my post, this post that asserts without citation that Breitbart is a good source of information:
Still exists, but this post, that I will now make here, was deleted, and no longer exists:
No, Breitbart is not a good source of information. In fact, they are not a credible source of information or news. They publish falsehoods. For example:
Breitbart cherry picks data in this article.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...ate-alarmists/
Weather.com had this to say:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...ate-alarmists/
Furthermore, how about this Breitbart article, which states that Donald Trump had a massive 7.5 million landslide win of the popular vote. It's entirely false, and ridiculously so.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...tream-america/
This report, and map, is a complete false hood, and Breitbart is not in any way a credible source of information or journalism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-popular-vote/
This is a critical analysis. I make the assertion that Breitbart is not credible, because they publish falsehoods, and I provide two examples of published critical analyses, criticizing two Breitbart articles, detailing how they published falsehoods, and I provide a link to the original source; the article on Breitbart. This is in accordance with journalistic standards, and is taught in College/University.
This post of mine was deleted by chezlaw, because it violates the PC rule, which states
I have asked chezlaw to explain specifically how my post violates the PC rule, and chezlaw refuses to even try to answer. (This question has been posed like ten times now)
Still exists, but this post, that I will now make here, was deleted, and no longer exists:
No, Breitbart is not a good source of information. In fact, they are not a credible source of information or news. They publish falsehoods. For example:
Breitbart cherry picks data in this article.
Quote:
Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.
But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.
...
But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.
...
Weather.com had this to say:
Quote:
Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans
Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in an article published last week.
Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it.
The Breitbart article – a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case – includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare."
In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so.
...
CLAIM: "Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record."
TRUTH: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Niño event.
Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet – about 70 percent – is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth’s lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.
CLAIM: "It can be argued that without the El Niño (and the so-called "Pacific Blob") 2014-2016 would not have been record warm years." (David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted by Breitbart)
TRUTH: NOAA data show that the 2014-16 El Niño did not even begin until October 2014. It was a borderline event until mid-2015, barely above the El Niño threshold. El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015. However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest, according to climate scientist Zeke Hausfather (Berkeley Earth).
CLAIM: "Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. Myles Allen of Oxford University says that by the time of the next big United Nations climate conference, global temperatures are likely to be no warmer than the Paris COP in 2015. This would be a strange thing to happen if, as some climate scientists have claimed, recent years would have been a record even without the El Niño." (David Rose, U.K. Daily Mail, quoted by Breitbart)
TRUTH: There is nothing unusual about a drop in global surface temperatures when going from El Niño to La Nina. These ups and downs occur on top of the long-term warming trend that remains when the El Niño and La Niña signals are removed. If there were no long-term trend, then we would see global record lows occurring during the strongest La Niña events. However, the last year to see global temperatures hit a record low was 1911, and the most recent year that fell below the 20th-century average was 1976.
Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in an article published last week.
Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it.
The Breitbart article – a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case – includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare."
In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so.
...
CLAIM: "Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record."
TRUTH: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Niño event.
Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet – about 70 percent – is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth’s lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.
CLAIM: "It can be argued that without the El Niño (and the so-called "Pacific Blob") 2014-2016 would not have been record warm years." (David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted by Breitbart)
TRUTH: NOAA data show that the 2014-16 El Niño did not even begin until October 2014. It was a borderline event until mid-2015, barely above the El Niño threshold. El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015. However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest, according to climate scientist Zeke Hausfather (Berkeley Earth).
CLAIM: "Many think that 2017 will be cooler than previous years. Myles Allen of Oxford University says that by the time of the next big United Nations climate conference, global temperatures are likely to be no warmer than the Paris COP in 2015. This would be a strange thing to happen if, as some climate scientists have claimed, recent years would have been a record even without the El Niño." (David Rose, U.K. Daily Mail, quoted by Breitbart)
TRUTH: There is nothing unusual about a drop in global surface temperatures when going from El Niño to La Nina. These ups and downs occur on top of the long-term warming trend that remains when the El Niño and La Niña signals are removed. If there were no long-term trend, then we would see global record lows occurring during the strongest La Niña events. However, the last year to see global temperatures hit a record low was 1911, and the most recent year that fell below the 20th-century average was 1976.
Furthermore, how about this Breitbart article, which states that Donald Trump had a massive 7.5 million landslide win of the popular vote. It's entirely false, and ridiculously so.
Quote:
Donald Trump Won 7.5 Million Popular Vote Landslide in Heartland
This report, and map, is a complete false hood, and Breitbart is not in any way a credible source of information or journalism.
Quote:
The only appropriate way to describe this map, gracing an article at Breitbart.com, is “hilariously idiotic.”
As a media outlet interested in accuracy, The Washington Post has a version of the county-by-county map that is based on actual data. In reality, the county split in last week's election looked like this:
Still a lot of red, but you will notice on our map that large U.S. cities that always vote Democratic are clearly demarcated by their county boundaries. You will also notice that the counties are not all little blue squares as they are in Breitbart's map, because our map is a map of actual American counties and not a red map that someone took into Microsoft Paint to dapple with little squares to have a fake map for a completely made-up story about the results of the election.
As a media outlet interested in accuracy, The Washington Post has a version of the county-by-county map that is based on actual data. In reality, the county split in last week's election looked like this:
Still a lot of red, but you will notice on our map that large U.S. cities that always vote Democratic are clearly demarcated by their county boundaries. You will also notice that the counties are not all little blue squares as they are in Breitbart's map, because our map is a map of actual American counties and not a red map that someone took into Microsoft Paint to dapple with little squares to have a fake map for a completely made-up story about the results of the election.
This is a critical analysis. I make the assertion that Breitbart is not credible, because they publish falsehoods, and I provide two examples of published critical analyses, criticizing two Breitbart articles, detailing how they published falsehoods, and I provide a link to the original source; the article on Breitbart. This is in accordance with journalistic standards, and is taught in College/University.
This post of mine was deleted by chezlaw, because it violates the PC rule, which states
Quote:
2. The forum will have a PC bias. This isn't censorship of ideas. It means posters making an effort to avoid offence to vulnerable groups. Some very extreme topics won't be allowed but in general if there's some political merit to the topic then it's welcome in this forum. What is or isn't PC will change with time - discussion about it will be welcome.
I have asked chezlaw to explain specifically how my post violates the PC rule, and chezlaw refuses to even try to answer. (This question has been posed like ten times now)
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 03-13-2017 at 07:50 AM.
03-13-2017
, 09:54 AM
03-14-2017
, 01:51 AM