“truth and community”

Apparently Facebook censorship and fake fact checking isn’t enough to make some people happy.

“try BeReal. This is a social media app that wants to cut out all of the filters, fakery, and misinformation that you find elsewhere. Social media should not be a force for evil but one of truth and community”

7 Alternatives to Each Major App We Almost All Use (That Are Much Better) | by Tosny | Sep, 2022 | Medium

Facebook fact-checkers determined that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, and also have determined that earth’s climate didn’t used to change.

(20+) CO2 Coalition – Posts | Facebook

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to “truth and community”

  1. rah says:

    Never have been on Facebook or twitter.

  2. arn says:

    Seems Joe Biden is going to massively improve truth and community with EO 14067 – Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets.
    In a world of social credit scores censorship and punishment could read unknown levels.

    Btw – a remarkable EO considering that the president doesn’t even know what Digital Assets are)

  3. GWS says:

    Trust but verify — unless they’ve burned your trust to a cinder.

  4. Scott Sauyet says:

    The linked article is titled “While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis.”

    A fact-checker partnered with Facebook said that this is false, and you take this to mean, “Facebook fact-checkers determined … earth’s climate didn’t used to change” ?!!!

    You really do think your audience is extremely stupid, huh? Perhaps they are, I don’t know. Any bright five-year-old should see through this attempted misdirection.

    To say that “While A is true, B is not” is false, is not to make any claim at all about A. The sentence is about B, and the subordinate clause is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

    They were clearly and obviously saying that “there is no climate crisis” is false. Anything else is sophism.

    • tonyheller says:

      Your anger and ugly hateful thoughtless rhetoric has become trademark of the left. Your behavior mirrors that of every other hate group.

      Instead of reading the CO2 Coalition article and trying to understand it, you froth at the mouth.

      • You forgot passive aggressive

        • Scott Sauyet says:

          Is it passive aggressive to ask whether a glaring logical fault is a cynical attempt to manipulate one’s readers? If so, then I guess I’m passive aggressive. I’d rather be that than someone who — even teasingly — misrepresents what the fact checker says in order to make fun of them.

      • Scott Sauyet says:

        I did read the article. I am still researching its claims.

        But the claim you made is the problem I brought up. There is no reasonable way to interpret that fact-check as implying that the climate didn’t used to change. While I’d love to believe that this is not a lie on your part, the only way to accept that is if you’re a complete idiot. I don’t want to believe that either. But no intelligent person would read that fact-check the way you did. Do you see a third alternative?

      • spren says:

        Tony, Sauyet is a left-wing clown who lives in my town. I have done battles with him for a couple of decades in our local rag. He will never admit when he is wrong but only doubles down on his foolishness. He’s like the 2nd grade kid on the playground that will argue endlessly “Did not…Did so…Did not…Did so…”

        It’s irrelevant whether your comment or the “fact-checkers” referred to the entire headline or just the part about there being no climate emergency. All that “fact-checkers” actually are is left-wing propagandists who are determined to counter anything attacking their group-thinking narratives. They always deny or attempt to confuse and distort things. Their self-designed title is an oxymoron.

        I mentioned your site in a letter to the editor and said that you provided actual data from NOAA and newspaper articles demonstrating the historical record and nonsensical claims. He responded first by calling you a conspiracy theorist, and then most recently describing your site as quackery. But you can see from his response exactly what kind of person he is and what you’re dealing with.

        • Stuart Hamish says:

          That information is much appreciated spren …I see Scott has scarpered like
          a millipede after a lifted rock exposed it to sunlight.

          I have never observed a letter to the editor defending Tony and his blog – or any climate skeptic website – published in my local , and widely ridiculed green left rag that is little more than a Pravda organ for the Labor Party and the Greens …One of the more pathetic and disgraceful articles in that newsletter was titled : ” How to Deal With Climate Deniers ” …..Of course no debate is allowed as to what a ‘climate denier’ is or that those who use this slur resemble Maoist radicals , the Puritans and heretic hunting Church Inquisitors

          • spren says:

            Stuart, I return the favor by now always referring to them as “Climate Liars.” How can I deny something that isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen?

            They live on insults and smears, all in an attempt to deflect from any actual debate or substantive discussion. I’ve always portrayed Sauyet as a group-thinking follower, and I think all of his comments in this thread have only supported that.

          • Scott Sauyet says:

            “I see Scott has scarpered”

            Because I hadn’t responded within seventeen hours of you previous message? Really?

            I do have a life.

        • Scott Sauyet says:

          My view of Sam is equally complimentary. I think he’s a right-wing hack who can’t even *hear* a correction.

          This is central to our disagreement: “All that ‘fact-checkers’ actually are is left-wing propagandists who are determined to counter anything attacking their group-thinking narratives. They always deny or attempt to confuse and distort things. Their self-designed title is an oxymoron.”

          That’s pure nonsense. I’ve been following these folks for over twenty years, and they’ve always been even-handed and reliable. It’s pretty clear that to Sam/spren the fact that they disagree with him must mean they’re wrong. For he couldn’t countenance the idea that he might be.

          And this is quite true: “He responded first by calling you a conspiracy theorist, and then most recently describing your site as quackery.” Of course I supplied a reference for this, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/, which rates RCS as a moderate level of conspiracy theory, but a quackery level of pseudoscience.

      • Demonizing Latvians en masse as if they are all villains and Russians are victims is the epitome of ‘hate group ” behavior

    • There is just one glaring problem with the Chequeado ‘fact check Scott Sauyet :
      there is no climate crisis. To pretend otherwise is sophism or worse unless you can provide the evidence ……So what was the purpose of the ‘fact check ” ?

      • Scott Sauyet says:

        You know very well what its purpose was. It was intended to explain that the article which claimed there was no crisis was entirely false. You claim there is no crisis. A vast majority of scientists working on the issue disagree with you. Unless you can show me some amazing bona fides and/or some compelling research, I’ll likely take their word over yours.

        I was directed to this site as one of the best counters to the prevailing consensus. So far, I’m not impressed.

        • Disillusioned says:

          “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

          Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

          In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

          In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

          In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

          There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

          Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

          The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

          Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

          And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

          Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ”
          — Michael Crichton

          • Scott Sauyet says:

            Unless you’re prepared to double-check every experiment ever done, you also need to consider consensus. That something is verifiable is only a small portion of the battle, if no one ever hears about it or believes it.

            It’s true that many important scientific achievements are found in bucking the consensus — part of the reason they’re considered important is exactly that — but the vast majority of the time, those bucking the consensus end up wrong. So maybe that paper you saw last week really is the start of a paradigm shift, and maybe it’s author is the next Darwin or Einstein, but it’s a hell of a lot more likely that this author is another Lysenko.

        • ” You claim there is no crisis . A vast majority of scientists working on the issue disagree with you . Unless you can show me some amazing bona fides ….. ”

          That is Appeal to Authority and the Bandwagon Fallacy . You do understand these concepts ? The vast majority of scientists working on this meta – paradigm are on the government funded payroll and have observed the bullying , career curtailment and character defilement of Professor Peter Ridd , Judith Curry. Bob Carter , Bill Gray , Roger Pielke Jr and a whole raft of others …You have some nerve inverting renegade maverick scientists who defy the consensus as somehow akin to ‘Lysenko ‘ after the manner of Michael Mann’s projective gaslighting .

          I would submit you “are not impressed ” with Tony’s blog because you arrived here with preconceived prejudices exemplified by your interpretation of his malign motives [ “you know very well what its purpose was” ?.. Do I ? ] and nitpicking of a small error on his part perhaps pertaining to a Spanish language translation . That is all you have ? As far as I can tell Scott Sauyet has not challenged let alone rebutted Tony’s reams of scientific evidence at all unless someone can direct me to the Real Climate Science . com archives . There are instances where I am in vehement disagreement with Tony – usually when he strays from his specialty of climate science fraud . This is not one of them .

          Are you sure you didn’t miss the linguistics class Scott ?

          As for this “climate crisis ‘ , instead of reversing the onus of proof , where is the overwhelming evidence for this surrogate millenarian faith ? Why don’t you cite the peer reviewed ” scientists declare a climate emergency ” 2019 junk paper that deceptively truncated multiple graphs to the year 1980 and whose co signatories in the attached petition – discounting the plethora of genuine non scientists – included such luminaries as Araminta Aardvaark , Mickey Mouse of the Namibia Institute of the Blind and Professor Dumbledore of Hogwarts ?

          • This is the Spanish to English translation of the Chequeado ‘fact check statement : ” Es falso que ” la crisis climatica no existe ” afirma una declaracion firmada por supuestos cientificos ”

            ” It is false that the climate crisis does not exist affirmed by a declaration signed by alleged scientists ”

            What could this ‘declaration signed by alleged scientists ” be referring to ? And what is meant by the disclaimer “alleged ” ? Watch the Rebel News report ” 11,000 scientists warn about climate change ? FAKE NEWS ! ” and there is the answer I suspect . Notice that Appeal to Authority and the Bandwagon Fallacy are the criteria used by the Facebook ‘fact checkers decision to label the CO2 Coalition paper as having “no basis in fact ” ..Facts were not even consulted [ !! ] and the Chequeado group knew a multitude of the signatories to the declaration were not scientists at all. Hence the weasel word “alleged ”

            Are you still plowing through that CO2 Coalition article ?

          • Scott Sauyet says:

            “That is Appeal to Authority and the Bandwagon Fallacy . You do understand these concepts ?”

            Yes, I do.

            But as I’ve already pointed out, it’s a very important part of how science is done. It’s precisely because of the trust in the competence and integrity of certain other scientists that it’s possible to build on the work of others without reconfirming every finding. Sure there’s a possible bandwagon effect if there is too little rechecking, but once a certain threshold is reached, the finding becomes part of the baseline scientific knowledge that others build upon. So yes, absent strong evidence to the contrary, I would trust the vast majority over the few.

            “The vast majority of scientists working on this meta – paradigm are on the government funded payroll […]”

            This is the Guilt by Association fallacy and ad hominem. You do understand these concepts?

            First of all, I have not seen any evidence for this fact beyond your assertion. And of course that also raises the question of whether a higher percentage of these particular scientists are “on the government funded payroll” than the percentages of all scientists who are. Even if this is true, it’s hard to see what it proves. Are you suggesting that scientists that receive funding from the government are less intelligent than others? Less honest? More inclined to group-think? What?

            But let’s go back to basics here. All I criticized was the logical fallacy of saying NOT (A and B) implies Not (A). It’s not a good sign that what people are claiming as a great resource for the AGW-skeptical community posts such nonsense on their front page. The most recent time before this that I visited this site, it was the same sort of ridiculous nonsense, juxtaposing two stories, and claiming a causal relationship specifically denied in those stories. It’s clear that this was an attempt at proof-by-headline. (https://realclimatescience.com/2022/09/leaders-in-the-race-to-net-zero/)

            Both times, I simply looked at the first climate-related post on the front page, ignoring all the political and other non-climate ones. Both times I found what seemed to be brazen attempts to push a point disproved by the very evidence supplied. I’m waiting to be impressed.

          • ” This is the Guilt by Association fallacy and ad hominem . You do understand these concepts ” ?

            Not at all and responding with mimicry is pathetically childish and a vindication of spren’s criticisms of you. In fact you continued with obfuscation and diversion – gaslighting no less – from my actual argument with this sleazy deceitful riposte :

            ” Even if this is true , its hard to see what it proves . Are you suggesting that scientists that receive funding from the government are less intelligent than others . Less honest . More inclined to groupthink ?..”

            In other words you know its true most scientists are government funded but dissembled anyway . I was quite clear that publicly payrolled scientists have observed the bullying , career hobbling and character defilement of Judith Curry, Peter Ridd , Bob Carter Tony’s friend the hurricane expert Bill Gray , Roger Pielke Jr et al . Many publicly funded scientists are understandably apprehensive and anxious about challenging the status quo – the climate crisis meta – paradigm if you will – for that reason and you expressed no sympathy for the scientists I listed whatsoever . You are indeed fobbing and denying ,
            “attempting to confuse and distort ” just as spren characterized you .

            As “for more inclined to groupthink ” why would you find that an offensive criticism when you stated , in your own words , that ” its [ ie the bandwagon fallacy ] a very important part of how science is done “? Do you even pause to cross check your own stupid, dishonest arguments ?….. Too little rechecking indeed eh Scott Sauyet ?

            I’m not sure if there is a ‘Rabbit Holes Fallacy but Im sure you would be a devious practitioner of it …You can always go with the ‘ad hominem’ complaint again in response to that if you feel insulted.

            As for ” lets go back to basics ” why not heed your own recommendation ? You impugned nefarious motives to Tony’s comments when it may have been merely a Spanish to English translation error and it must be reiterated the translated statement is an Appeal to Authority coupled with the Bandwagon Fallacy referring to a widely ridiculed and discredited ‘declaration ‘ signed by alleged scientists ” A plethora of the signatories were not scientists at all so what was ‘fact checked ” ? ..

            Lets get back to basics – where is the empirical evidence for this climate crisis Scott Sauyet ?

          • Scott Sauyet says:

            Let’s start with this:

            “The vast majority of scientists working on this meta-paradigm are on the government funded payroll and have observed the bullying , career curtailment and character defilement of …”

            I have to admit that I saw that as two separate points: they’re government-funded and they have observed. You explain that they are one point: somehow because they are government funded, they must be more likely to have observed something, and of course then you seem to be attributing cowardice to them. I didn’t realize that government-funded scientists were so weak-willed. The ones I know definitely are not.

            “I would submit you ‘are not impressed’ with Tony’s blog because you arrived here with preconceived prejudices …”

            Absolutely. As, I’m sure, did you, and everyone else here. Please don’t fault me for being human. I had also seen https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ which didn’t give me much hope. But I am one who happens to find a need to look for myself. As I said, so far I’m unimpressed.

            “…exemplified by your interpretation of his malign motives ”

            That was much more of a surprise. I was expecting good-faith argument here. And twice I went for the first climate-related (non-video) article on the page, and twice I saw not attempts at scientific refutation of the AGW consensus but instead two posts that tried to imply something not remotely supported by the articles they linked. The first one required actually reading the articles to understand that Heller’s gloss was a fabrication. In this case, it’s right on the surface. The image posted showed a fact-check superimposed over an article titled, “While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis”. The fact-check, said, “False” and said, “Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact.” It doesn’t matter what the Spanish says. I did the Google Translate as others here did, and found nothing there, and nothing elsewhere to support his conclusion, that, “Facebook fact-checkers […] have determined that earth’s climate didn’t used to change.”

            This is not a matter of some minor misinterpretation. This is a sign either of stupidity or crass manipulation.

            “[ ‘you know very well what its purpose was’ ?.. Do I ? ]”

            I did give you the benefit of the doubt about your intelligence. I’ve been wrong before, led astray by someone who’s articulate — hi spren! — into believing there is also some intellectual depth. If you didn’t understand the purpose of that fact-check, then I’ve probably been led astray again, and I apologize for thinking you intelligent.

            “As ‘for more inclined to groupthink’ why would you find that an offensive criticism when you stated , in your own words , that ‘its [ ie the bandwagon fallacy ] a very important part of how science is done’?”

            What I said, was “You claim there is no crisis. A vast majority of scientists working on the issue disagree with you. Unless you can show me some amazing bona fides and/or some compelling research, I’ll likely take their word over yours.” In the paragraph you responded to I pointed out how, while this is a necessary part of how global science is done, it can occasionally be carried too far into groupthink. So no, there was no “stupid, dishonest argument” here, just a your failure to read before your responded.

            “Lets get back to basics – where is the empirical evidence for this climate crisis Scott Sauyet?”

            I’m sorry, I’m a mathematics-trained computer programmer, not a climate scientist. I don’t have any particular expertise to offer. Do you? Are you a professional scientist working in a related field? An enthusiastic hobbyist with some interesting insights? I came here to see the state of the minority viewpoint. I wasn’t going to engage at all until I saw the manipulative, illogical posts. So I’m not going to debate the climate crisis with you. I’m sure you can use a web search as well as I can. Try “evidence for climate crisis”.

            “Are you still plowing through that CO2 Coalition article ?”

            I read maybe 15% on Monday, and another 10% Tuesday. I haven’t touched it since, and probably won’t until after the weekend.

          • Scott Sauyet says:

            Let’s start with this:

            “The vast majority of scientists working on this meta-paradigm are on the government funded payroll and have observed the bullying , career curtailment and character defilement of …”

            I have to admit that I saw that as two separate points: they’re government-funded and they have observed. You explain that they are one point: somehow because they are government funded, they must be more likely to have observed something, and of course then you seem to be attributing cowardice to them. I didn’t realize that government-funded scientists were so weak-willed. The ones I know definitely are not.

            “I would submit you ‘are not impressed’ with Tony’s blog because you arrived here with preconceived prejudices …”

            Absolutely. As, I’m sure, did you, and everyone else here. Please don’t fault me for being human. I had also seen https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ which didn’t give me much hope. But I am one who happens to find a need to look for myself. As I said, so far I’m unimpressed.

            “…exemplified by your interpretation of his malign motives ”

            That was much more of a surprise. I was expecting good-faith argument here. And twice I went for the first climate-related (non-video) article on the page, and twice I saw not attempts at scientific refutation of the AGW consensus but instead two posts that tried to imply something not remotely supported by the articles they linked. The first one required actually reading the articles to understand that Heller’s gloss was a fabrication. In this case, it’s right on the surface. The image posted showed a fact-check superimposed over an article titled, “While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis”. The fact-check, said, “False” and said, “Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact.” It doesn’t matter what the Spanish says. I did the Google Translate as others here did, and found nothing there, and nothing elsewhere to support his conclusion, that, “Facebook fact-checkers […] have determined that earth’s climate didn’t used to change.”

            This is not a matter of some minor misinterpretation. This is a sign either of stupidity or crass manipulation.

            “[ ‘you know very well what its purpose was’ ?.. Do I ? ]”

            I did give you the benefit of the doubt about your intelligence. I’ve been wrong before, led astray by someone who’s articulate — hi spren! — into believing there is also some intellectual depth. If you didn’t understand the purpose of that fact-check, then I’ve probably been led astray again, and I apologize for thinking you intelligent.

            “As ‘for more inclined to groupthink’ why would you find that an offensive criticism when you stated , in your own words , that ‘its [ ie the bandwagon fallacy ] a very important part of how science is done’?”

            What I said, was “You claim there is no crisis. A vast majority of scientists working on the issue disagree with you. Unless you can show me some amazing bona fides and/or some compelling research, I’ll likely take their word over yours.” In the paragraph you responded to I pointed out how, while this is a necessary part of how global science is done, it can occasionally be carried too far into groupthink. So no, there was no “stupid, dishonest argument” here, just a your failure to read before your responded.

            “Lets get back to basics – where is the empirical evidence for this climate crisis Scott Sauyet?”

            I’m sorry, I’m a mathematics-trained computer programmer, not a climate scientist. I don’t have any particular expertise to offer. Do you? Are you a professional scientist working in a related field? An enthusiastic hobbyist with some interesting insights? I came here to see the state of the minority viewpoint. I wasn’t going to engage at all until I saw the manipulative, illogical posts. So I’m not going to debate the climate crisis with you. I’m sure you can use a web search as well as I can. Try “evidence for climate crisis”.

            “Are you still plowing through that CO2 Coalition article ?”

            I read maybe 15% on Monday, and another 10% Tuesday. I haven’t touched it since, and probably won’t until after the weekend.

          • To get back to the basics : where is the overwhelming evidence for a climate crisis Scott Sauyet ?…….It’s been a few days now

          • There is this scene in the movie Reds where Warren Beatty’s character is bickering and remonstrating with this anil bespectacled Soviet commissar munching on a lemon only pretending to listen to Beattys reasoned arguments …..He reminds me of someone

          • Scott Sauyet : ” I’m sorry , I’m a mathematics -trained computer programmer , not a climate scientist . I don’t have any particular expertise to offer ”
            Another slippery deflection and a nod to groupthink . Your personal ‘expertise’ is not of any relevance . Yet here you are attacking Tony who also trained as a computer programmer [ and geologist ] , refusing to debate any of his archived easily accessible research – in ‘bad faith ” – while telling us how you are perusing the CO2 Coalition article . You are leading yourself and your opponents astray down rabbit holes to confuse and distort the debate just as spren characterized you .

          • ” I have to admit that I saw that as two separate points . They’re government funded and they have observed . You explain they are one point ”

            Do have a set of Salvador Dali glasses or is it just your internalized filter Mr Sauyet ? I ‘explained’ no such thing and you truncated my statement. It is a conjoined point . Many publicly funded climate scientists – and I provided a sample of respected scientists who incurred such retribution – are anxious and fearful of reprisal and career curtailment for the reason they are dependent on government salaries . Of course Scott Sauyet can just detour down another rabbit hole arguing about the merits of two separate points or a conjoined point .. He can play this game indefinitely

            ” It doesnt matter what the Spanish says ”

            Oh yes the Chequeado “fact check ” does matter as facts were either not consulted or acknowledged in a statement reliant on Appeal to Authority, the Bandwagon Fallacy and a declaration whose signatories included fictional characters and non scientists ..Hence the weasel word ‘alleged ” …

          • Scott Sauyet says:

            “[Y]ou are attacking Tony […], refusing to debate any of his archived easily accessible research.”

            Why should I? I haven’t read it, and haven’t decided if it’s worth my time.

            Squirm and wiggle all you like, you are participating in a thread that started when Mr. Heller gave the title of an article, “While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There is no Climate Crisis” and a fact-check report of that article declaring it false and containing a gloss that said, “Independent fact-checkers have determined that this information has no basis in fact.” And he summarized the situation as “Facebook fact-checkers […] have determined that earth’s climate didn’t used to change.” Although the discussion has veered into nonsense about translations and into somewhat interesting discussion about epistemology, it was my response to this that started the debate.

            My question for you is whether you think that is a fair summary of the information at hand. Do you actually believe these fact-checkers were claiming that the climate didn’t used to change?

            If so, I’m not sure there is much more reason to try to convince one another of anything. To my mind anyone who actually believes that is probably not capable of serious reasoning; and I get the impression that your opinion of me is already near that level. If you don’t believe it, then can you offer any other explanation for the post beyond my suggestion of cynical manipulation?

            So when it comes to my “It doesn’t matter what the Spanish says” and your response that, “Oh yes the Chequeado ‘fact check’ does matter as facts were either not consulted or acknowledged in a statement,” no, it only matters if the fact-check actually says that the climate didn’t used to change. Can you supply any evidence whatsoever that it does?

            So again, was Tony Heller’s post a fair summary? If not, can you supply any reasonable rationale for the post besides manipulation of the reader?

      • spren characterized your personality perfectly ….. Gaslighting , projecting your foibles [ squirm and wiggle “] onto your opponents …….There is no empirical evidence for a climate crisis and one is not obliged to have any ‘expertise’ in climatology to debate climate science …

        Notice that Scott Sauyet is persistently avoiding the embarrassing Chequeado ‘fact check” reference to the “11000 scientists declare a climate emergency ‘ petition. .I suppose thats one rabbit hole with a dead end .. A fact check that did not consult facts to rule against the CO2 Coalition article.

        • Scott Sauyet says:

          “…Projecting your foibles [‘squirm and wiggle’] onto your opponents…”

          So we come down to “I know you are, but what am I?” Really, that’s the level of discourse around here?

          Obviously no one around here can answer a simple question about Tony Heller’s lie about what the fact check meant. Rather than that, you try to debate climate change, the fears of government scientists, the number of people who signed some document, and too many other irrelevancies to count.

          If no one wants to respond to the critique I keep raising, then I think I’m done with this thread. In case you have read as little of what I’ve said as it seems, once again, I asked, “Were these fact-checkers claiming that the climate didn’t used to change?”

  5. toorightmate says:

    I can not discern how this is any different to burning the books.

  6. I wonder at the grade of fool who views all matters as binary true/false choices, especially in a subject as complex as the Earth’s atmosphere. Read the original article and see how the conclusion was reached, whether the premises on which it is based are correct and whether the line of reasoning is valid. We do not need ‘fact checkers’, parroting an orthodoxy which has been screamed from the mountain tops for forty years, to remind us of the party line, lest we stray from the straight and narrow..

  7. Paul Marks says:

    “community” – I am reminded of the attacks on Dr Brian Tyson in California. The left did not seriously deny that he had saved many lives – but they said by advocating Early Treatment for Covid 19 he had “divided the community”. That is what is important to the left – the ideological “unity of the community”, that is their “truth”. And it is the same with their hatred of CO2 – everyone must hate CO2, everyone must accept the narrative (not question it), otherwise “the community is divided” (divided ideologically).

    This is how the left think that science works – with everyone being forced to say the same thing (no dissent allowed) and basic data manipulated (or just manufactured) to fit “the narrative”. Grants for research now, de facto, depend on getting predetermined results.

    • GeologyJim says:

      Well spoken, Paul

      Nothing makes me cringe more than hearing the saccharine repetition of the word “community” in advertising and political speech (i.e., propaganda)

      As used by the Left, it is synonymous with “people who (should/must) think like me”

    • arn says:

      The dividers of communities got angry because someone divided their community?

      My guess is he divided nothing,but the division came from them because his actions violated mandatory groupthink.

  8. brian says:

    It’s about time people started suing FB and these other platforms for defamation when they label a correct posting as “false”.

  9. Scott Sauyet says:

    “Where is the overwhelming evidence for a climate crisis?”

    I responded to this in my previous message… which somehow posted twice, so you had two chances to read it.

    In short, I’m only participating because the manipulative behavior exhibited by this post.

    I don’t have the expertise to debate climate science and you’ve done nothing to make me believe you have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.