"Fake but Accurate"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, May 15, 2017.

  1. jpietrzak8, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017

    jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    An interesting article in Politico has put forward how Trump learns the news; and, in doing so, starts believing falsehoods. It might be a clue to how he seems to believe so fiercely that the MSM news is "fake", as he has no firm grasp on the truth himself.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/donald-trump-fake-news-238379

    In one example, K.T. McFarland (deputy national security advisor) showed Trump printouts of two Time magazine covers, one from 1977 warning of a coming ice age, and one from 2008, about surviving global warming. From this, Trump immediately became aggrieved over the media's hypocrisy.

    Only one problem: the 1977 cover was a hoax.

    Philip Bump reacts to this in a WaPo article, and sums it up nicely:

    It’s worth running though all of the points of failure that occurred, leading to Trump raging against a hoax.

    1. Obviously, that the deputy national security adviser was sharing an Internet hoax. And not just any Internet hoax, but one of the most pernicious rhetorical “rebuttals” to the idea of climate change of the past decade.

    2. That she — an adviser to the president on national security! — was sharing it with Trump without having taken any steps to verify its accuracy.

    3. That Trump reportedly accepted the story uncritically.

    4. That, when confronted, a White House official defended the underlying premise of the fake cover — which itself is misleading.​

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-at-the-white-house/?utm_term=.787de2ce23e1

    In the end, an anonymous White House official defended the hoax as being "fake but accurate". That is, it highlighted what this official believed is the truth. The problem, of course, is that it's not the truth...

    FYI, a pic of the two covers (hoax on the left):

    [​IMG]

    Time magazine's own article on the fake cover:

    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    plenty of fake news in the U.S.........win by a landslide they said........
     
  3. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #3
    Problem is this administration can't tell the difference... and not just between the electoral college and the popular vote... :p
     
  4. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #4
    No, that was wishful thinking (and trying to influence voters).

    Fake news is plain old lying with a politically correct name.
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    if you were presented with those articles would YOU be able to tell the difference?
    the level of stupid in the U.S is too damn high. minute 2:20 on climate.

    --- Post Merged, May 15, 2017 ---
    global warming/climate change......................get your carbon credits and it will all go away...............

    that kind of lying?
     
  6. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #6
    Yes, because ALL respected scientists have decided to get onboard with a lie. It's not the big polluting companies that are trying to make as much money while they can while evading responsibilities, it's the scientists. Right.
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    are you implying that actually buying carbon credits will clean up the earth?
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Please, in detail, explain how and where you pulled that assertion from? Nobody brought up credits (which is a pay to play scheme) but you.
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    Well duh, they were a scheme for fabulously wealthy companies to just keep doing the same **** they were doing.

    But why bring it up in such a knee-jerk fashion? It's not the answer to climate change, but nobody even came close to mentioning them other than you. So you're asserting that you brought up a topic out of the blue to ask a question you posted after the fact?
     
  11. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #11
    If you mean 'willful or ignorant misinterpretation' as "that kind of lying" then yes. Carbon credits are not meant to make the problem go away... at least overnight. It's a way to establish a maximum emissions threshold, which will allow companies time adjust their carbon emissions as the maximum thresholds will get smaller and smaller.

    TL/DR? Carbon credits are a tool to reduce carbon emissions overtime and allows for a certain flexibility.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    Right up until the "exchanges" go into place, trading in credits starts up, and eventually you just have the equivalent of banking fraud in the carbon credit pool.

    It was nonsense to begin with, because it essentially licensed large multinational corporations to have the ability to still produce whatever emissions they wanted as long as they bought offsets.
     
  13. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
  14. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #14
    Ultimately, the one true problem with pollution, any form of pollution, is that the people who generate the pollution are usually not the ones who have to clean it up. If there were a way to tie the true cost of pollution to its generation, the free market would find excellent and efficient ways to reduce it. :)

    Unfortunately, there is no good way to tie those costs back to the producer. The "Carbon Credit" mechanism is, I think, a fascinating and novel concept to make the impossible possible; but it requires a whole lot of knowledge about the polluters, the pollution, and the effect of the pollution on different regions in order to actually work. You really need the folks generating the pollution to provide a lot of help themselves in order for it not to just fall to pieces in a very short period of time. :(

    Most likely, the free market will have to endure the good old state-based regulation upon it to ensure that all pollution creators are treated equally...
     
  15. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #15
    It's not nonsense, there is a "limited" carbon credit pool that allows a certain amount of carbon emissions without penalty. However as @jpietrzak8 points out there's a tracking and enforcement concerns with some companies who wish to cheat this new regulation.
    --- Post Merged, May 15, 2017 ---
    First row is fine, the first pane of the second row is fine, then it goes off the rails... BTW how does one integrate climate forecasts with economic models?
     
  16. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #16
    Oh, thank Gawd, a cartoonist is here to save us from ourselves...

    Maybe the Great Pumpkin can weigh in on the sensitive dependence on initial conditions.... :rolleyes:
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    The fact that the entire notion was originally created by those free market think tanks tells me it was a scam from day one.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    And people really believe that we know this level of detail for so many private meetings that are Helen in the Oval Office?
    Don't believe all you read, which is exactly the point of the very same article you posted.
    Most of the times this kind of unnamed sources is someone who heard from someone that heard from a friend that someone was let know that someone was told that something happened.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    During the talks around setting a scheme up there was a heavy push from the corporate wings of both party (which is almost the whole damn bird) about setting up an "independent" middle man agency that would be tasked with allocating the credits. Companies were then going to be given the option of front-loading their credits. So if there is a limit, as you correctly stated, and multinationals are allowed to buy them up.....you can bet pretty quickly that some institutions *cough, banks, cough* were going to scoop them up and then do everything they could to skim off the system/use that leverage to squash initiatives their paymasters don't like.

    I don't trust business to regulate itself, it's self defeating from the very core of the business model.
     
  20. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20
    The problem with 3rd party trading of credits could be legislated out (if it isn't already), and yeah businesses regulating themselves hasn't worked well before.

    I haven't read it in a long time, and the paper is almost 100 years old, but I'm willing to bet the principles are still sound. The end of laissez-faire (1926) In university I remember talking to professors about how this was kind of prophetic considering the Great Depression was 3 years away.

    <edit> Had to post the last paragraph from the paper</edit>
     
  21. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #21
    Man, there are human beings inside of companies; even inside of "think tanks". :) I guarantee you that every company ever created was created by a human being. There's no point in demonizing people offhand; plenty of folks who have grown up within the free market system, and understand its benefits, seek to find ways to apply that system to new problems when they arise.

    I don't think it's a bad idea to try to apply free-market principles to an issue that is being caused primarily by operators within the free-market system. If the scope of the problem was not so enormous in terms of both time and space, something like "carbon credits" might be an efficient way to go. But yeah, I disagree with the premise that all the costs can be captured that way, nor that it is possible to distribute the costs efficiently.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    hence the reason it was a scam........
     
  23. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #23
    I believe this one. It (a) describes a very specific action by a very specific actor on a very specific date; thus, should be easily falsifiable if it is a lie. It (b) is referenced by four separate sources (anonymous though they may be), and also appears to be the cause of a warning by Reince Priebus to his senior staff to "quit trying to secretly slip stuff to the president". And (c), this fits precisely within the observed pattern of behavior of Donald Trump himself -- how, in an extremely short period of time, he can begin violently advocating a specific point of view, even if it contradicts his past policy positions.

    Donald Trump is a man who lives in the "now". If he sees something, or hears something, or reads something that sets him off, he acts. Someone films a baby dying from an Assad chemical strike? Well, let's drop some cruise missiles on him, right now! Forget that we were partnering with him just yesterday. President Xi says some nice things to us in a face-to-face meeting? Well, let's make China our biggest friend and ally in the world, right now! Forget that we called them a "currency manipulator" and were all set up to start a trade war with them.

    I do believe that Donald Trump will act when sees something he considers outrageous. And he will do so right now! No waiting for confirmation, no time to understand the fine details behind the headlines.

    It's the way that this man works.
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #24
    There are two different issues here, and although the thread is running on yet another debate on climate change, I think we're missing the more important issue.

    Regardless of whether or not the science of climate change is correct, the fact of the matter is the Deputy National Security Advisor has failed in a way that would get a freshmen journalism student an automatic "F" for an assignment.

    First, let's assume that in 1977, this was a real Time Magazine article. That means that 40 years ago, researchers might have an idea that upon further research turned out to be wrong. How does this disprove the current science? It doesn't. Paleontologists once thought that dinosaurs were slow-moving reptiles. Now, they've realized that some were warm-blooded, fast, and be feathered. Do you grab a textbook from 1966 and complain loudly that the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers must be wrong because "look at this illustration."

    It's a stupid argument.

    Second, this means that K.T. McFarland either presented the president with a bunch of made-up ********, or she's too stupid to know the difference.

    Now, if I were the Deputy National Security Advisor, I'd send an aide to the Library of Congress and copy that year of Time Magazine and then, once schooled that no issue of Time Magazine existed, keep my mouth shut.

    But, apparently, K.T. McFarland sees no importance in telling the truth. Either because she's so far down the "Climate Change is a Hoax" rabbit hole that lying to the president is okay, or because she's so far down the rabbit hole that checking her sources seems unnecessary.

    And, neither of these possibilities gives me comfort.


    People can be wrong, and not be liars. You're constantly wrong, but I would accuse you of lying.

    You hit that straw man as hard as you can, and when you're good and tired, I'll explain how carbon credits—one of those attempts to make market forces work for good introduced by conservative economists—were actually supposed to work.

    Short version: by making people pay for pollution it encouraged people to make less pollution.
     
  25. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #25

    So you're saying that plausibility is what matters, yet you criticize Trump because supposedly he fell for a plausible story.
    I completely disagree with this approach.
     

Share This Page