How the media pushes false climate change

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by linuxcooldude, Apr 16, 2019.

  1. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #1
    After a recent post I commented on when someone posted about how climate change and Trumps rhetoric was the reason for migrants from Honduras coming to America.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/world/americas/coffee-climate-change-migration.html

    The premise is that climate change caused rust that affected crop production. But during that year ( 2018 ) it only effected 2% of Honduras crop production. Not only that, the two previous years ( 2016/17 ) had record growth.

    https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/honduras-coffee-annual-3

    The biggest effect on Hondura was coffee prices dropped by 40% due to over production supply and bumper crops from Brazil and Vietnam.

    https://dailycoffeenews.com/2018/09...risis-market-fundamentals-and-the-human-cost/

    Of course media everywhere blown it out of proportion and blamed climate change over insignificant crop failure of 2%.

    One of the ways the media drives the false narrative of climate change and gets to blame Trump in the process.
     
  2. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    These days “climate change” is blamed more for people’s problems than God.
     
  3. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #3
    Climate deniers are quickly becoming like flat earthers or anti-vaxxers. We have empirical science and data to backup the reality of climate change and man's role in it and the media has also embraced it, because it's based in fact.

    This outweighs the fringe right and their opinion based pundits with absolutely zero credibility or education in the sciences who keep pushing against it.
     
  4. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    One article is now "the media" in total and an example how they are pushing a false climate change story.

    Or Occam's razor. They got a story wrong.
     
  5. linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #5
    We deniers after doing a some of our own research find its not always so, as my example shows.
     
  6. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #6
    Anyone who flat out refuses to accept that climate change is occurring and that Mankind has a factor in it, is no different than a flat earther.

    And I will continue to treat them the same.
     
  7. linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #7
    Washington Post: How Trumps boarder crisis is driven by climate change. No link, just show WashingtonPost.com

    PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/c...g-crops-in-honduras-and-driving-farmers-north

    The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/migrant-caravan-causes-climate-change-central-america

    Time Magazine: http://time.com/5318245/coffee-industry-climate-change/

    National Geographic: https://blog.nationalgeographic.org...-central-american-response-to-climate-change/

    Are you a media story denier?
     
  8. missbing macrumors 6502

    missbing

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    #8
    Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. What do they have in common? They supposedly do their own research so they know more than doctors/scientists that went to school for years and worked in the field.
     
  9. samcraig, Apr 16, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019

    samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    2 of those stories are about coffee specifically.

    I don't claim to be a climate change expert. Or a scientist. But if research is being used and the media is reporting on the research. That's doesn't mean they are pushing false climate stories. Yes, it comes down to the integrity of the research. Maybe your beef is with the scientists and researchers. I don't know. But this attack on the media for "fake news" plays right into Trump's BS narrative.
     
  10. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #10
    Why do republicans hate weather, numbers and facts?
     
  11. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #11
    Looks like you have it all figured out and won me over. Good job.
     
  12. linuxcooldude, Apr 16, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019

    linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #12
    The rest of the articles do mention Honduras and coffee in some way, even though they don't make it the main topic in the articles.

    My own theory is similar to some science, even though taken out of context some bit. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. In other words, any pollutants, from CO2 and others already exists in one form or another on our planet. Which eventually breaks back down into its basic components and reabsorbed. So it is always changing.

    Climate change happens, but humans have an insignificant role in the long term.

    I submitted evidence this happens. Questioning the media on the accuracy of their news reporting is crucial. One of the reasons why many Americans don't trust the media. People pointing to fake news on both sides of the aisle in these forums. But it does happen.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 16, 2019 ---
    Do you think the weather, numbers and facts align with the case I gave in my example. If not, how so?
     
  13. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #13
    this right here shows a complete, fundamental lack of understanding about what Captive Carbon is, and what releasing it into the atmosphere via burning does.

    you're entire argument hhere is Titanic... As in, you've spotted the tip of the iceberg and think you know everything, while completely ignoring what's actually occurring under the surface.

    While your not wrong about the number of carbon atoms that likely exist within the entire biosphere of earth. You are wrong about how much of that Carbon exists in our atmosphere directly.

    By burning fossil fuels, and other carbon based manufacturing, we are taking trapped carbon. Carbon that usually only exists in liquid/solid form, burning it, which combines it with other airborn particles and enters the atmosphere itself.

    We know beyond reasonable doubt, that when you increase the carbon density in the atmosphere, that carbon traps heat. That heat is one of the primary motivators of "climate change".

    we also have measurable changes to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, that takes a significant uptick when the industrial revolution and other carbon based economies took root. That increase has continued to trend upwards, alongside average earth temperatures.

    these are all verifiable via decades of scientific ressearch, that has been peer reviewed, approved and published. Research into this is also still ognoing and even current modern research shows that the trend is worsening, not getting better.

    Yes, some politicians get hyrepbolic statements about "12 years!" or "we'll all be underwater in 5 years!". and while it doesn't necessarily help the cause of making such statements, using that as an excuse to say "see they were wrong! we're still here, climate change isn't real" is just fallacious reasoning at best.
     
  14. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #14
    I feel like there’s some contradiction in your theory ending with human actions being insignificant.

    If a coal miner gets black lung would your theory be that a certain amount of random people would get it anyway or that the coal miner put themselves in a job and environment that made that far more likely? I assume you’d go with the latter. It’s not that much of a stretch to feel 100+ years of continuous global industrialization and deforestation could break the natural balance of climate.
     
  15. linuxcooldude, Apr 16, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019

    linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #15
    Too much of anything could kill you. Did you know drinking too much water can kill you? Water intoxication/poisoning. I don't think we are talking extreme narrowly defined cases here.

    I can run my car in my garage with the door closed, it will kill me. Outside allowing the fumes to dissipate, where it can eventually breakdown in by water, sunlight other factors.
     
  16. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #16
    And we had empirical science back in the 70's that said the earth was cooling. So at some point you have to admit that scientists can be wrong.
     
  17. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #17
    Not just that they can be wrong, but they can admit to it and adapt based on the evidence, as they have done over the last 20 years in which they've made great strides. That's where science differs from hardliner opinions.

    Denying the existence of what is categorically true doesn't make it less real. We now know, get on board.
     
  18. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    Everything has an effect. It's as simple as that. The question is - what is preventable or able to be limited vs not. If we reduce our pollutants in the air by 50% - does that mean 100, 200, 500, 1000 years of better air quality. Or nothing?

    If we cut down every tree - what affect does that have on the environment.

    If we don't protect endangered species that are endangered because of man-made issues, what affect does that have?

    Nuclear energy - you're saying that since it's created here on earth that it wouldn't have any effect in the long term if humans unleashed it all over?

    The logic and math doesn't work. Sorry.
     
  19. linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #19
    Things like rain and photosynthesis naturally scrub CO2 from the air. 1 Tree removes 48 lbs CO2 a year, one ton in 40 years. With 3 Trillon trees estimated on planet, 3 trillion tons of CO2 removed not counting regular plant life.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 16, 2019 ---
    Actually ice age was mentioned too.
     
  20. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #20
    Awesome yes they can be wrong. That definitively proves that they are definitely wrong about this!!!!!!!! /s
    --- Post Merged, Apr 16, 2019 ---
    What research? Have you authored some studies we aren’t aware of or by research do you mean picking articles created by scientists like everyone else does? Because guess what that’s not your own research that’s the same research everyone else is doing. And yea everyone else has it wrong you guys are the few who have it right :rolleyes:
     
  21. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #21
    I noticed such “journalism” too, specifically in publicly funded ”news” sources.

    Reminds me of what happens when you dont have a separation of church and state.
     
  22. linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #22
    Don't be daft. I research my own sources, removing the media filter to discover things on my own. The same thing the media does. Or do they create their own? Well, they do sometimes makeup their own news.

    If you like, feel free to refute what I provided if you disagree with my initial post.
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #23
    What?

    People are 60 percent water, but you can still drown in 2 inches of water. The Earth receives about 1,368 W/m2 of solar radiation, but if you focused that radiation in a pulse on a single point it would vaporize.

    The application, focus, timing, and amount of energy matters. If you want to get all woo-woo about the universe and how we're all made of stardust, fine. But, you cannot dismiss the idea that pushing gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to have an effect.
     
  24. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #24
    So it’s your belief that all these chemicals that are toxic to the environment and climate were already just floating around to begin with and humans have very little to do with it? Would you be cool if we dropped off some barrels of radioactive nuclear waste to just dreakdown in the sunshine and rain in your yard? With your theory to back you up you should have no problem with that. Tell you what. We won't even put it in your yard. We'll put it in your neighbor's. That should be safe enough. That's a lot more air, sun, and rain to make it harmless for you, or at least not a reason you could use if you get cancer.
     
  25. linuxcooldude thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #25
    We are talking climate change, not reactor meltdowns or spent fuel rods.
     

Share This Page

36 April 16, 2019