Science is under threat in Argentina — we must call out the danger

[FrankPintor]

The fact-checkers also have financial incentives to do what they do. So we can disregard their efforts too. In any case, revealing that hardly any signatories to a letter stating that climate change is not an emergency are themselves climate change scientists is irrelevant given the multidisciplinary arguments the letter makes. There are many highly distinguished scientists from my country on the signatory list. I doubt many of them are suckers.

About fact checking by Euronews: "Programme content must be produced without pressure from any national or international institution, government, political party or political or economic pressure group. This obligation of independence, contained in the channel's internal regulations, dictates the conduct of all those participating in the process of preparing editorial content, from news-gathering to broadcasting. In addition, the journalists of Euronews undertake to “reject all forms of pressure and to take editorial directives solely from the directors of News and Programmes” (Declaration of Rights and Obligations of Journalists, 1971).

The Executive Board Chairman of EURONEWS S.A., is by law “Directeur de la publication”.1 He guarantees the channel's editorial independence and impartiality, and is also the guarantor of its editorial policy, respect for the charter, and respect for the principles of honesty and pluralism of information. The Director of News and Broadcasting is responsible for implementing editorial policy.

No external influence or pressure may be exercised on the guarantors of the independence or implementation of editorial policy.

Any television viewer can at any time question Euronews, via its website, about its independence regarding its treatment of news. The company publishes an annual report on this website, which does not affect the aforementioned right of reply (see Chapter 2)".

You can choose to disbelieve, of course, but editorial policies don't get much better, from any reasonable perspective.

 

[FrankPintor]

Why complain about Trump being president in 2016 according to the prophet Al Gore we all should have been dead by 2015. Just thank the climate lord and be grateful for every day

Al Gore also invented the internet. Could you please share what he said about the climate? I have no idea why he even came up in the discussion (I do know who he is, he actually won whatever presidential election he contested, but was denied by the courts and the (entirely undemocratic) electoral college).

 

[WoodbridgeNJ]

Al Gore also invented the internet. Could you please share what he said about the climate? I have no idea why he even came up in the discussion (I do know who he is, he actually won whatever presidential election he contested, but was denied by the courts and the (entirely undemocratic) electoral college).

His movie "An Inconvenient Truth" about 20 years ago started the extreme climate religion and made a lot of claims about how we would all be melted by 2015. You see the same claims in this thread just with the dates moved back 15 or 20 years

 

[Alby]

About fact checking by Euronews: "Programme content must be produced without pressure from any national or international institution, government, political party or political or economic pressure group. This obligation of independence, contained in the channel's internal regulations, dictates the conduct of all those participating in the process of preparing editorial content, from news-gathering to broadcasting. In addition, the journalists of Euronews undertake to “reject all forms of pressure and to take editorial directives solely from the directors of News and Programmes” (Declaration of Rights and Obligations of Journalists, 1971).

The Executive Board Chairman of EURONEWS S.A., is by law “Directeur de la publication”.1 He guarantees the channel's editorial independence and impartiality, and is also the guarantor of its editorial policy, respect for the charter, and respect for the principles of honesty and pluralism of information. The Director of News and Broadcasting is responsible for implementing editorial policy.

No external influence or pressure may be exercised on the guarantors of the independence or implementation of editorial policy.

Any television viewer can at any time question Euronews, via its website, about its independence regarding its treatment of news. The company publishes an annual report on this website, which does not affect the aforementioned right of reply (see Chapter 2)".

You can choose to disbelieve, of course, but editorial policies don't get much better, from any reasonable perspective.

I choose to believe based on experience of how charters and policies are applied in the real world. Here's an example: A well-known and highly prestigious international NGO (much in the news at present) operating in the medical field broke all kinds of rules in its charter (including having a junior employee forge the national CEO’s signature on a yellow Post It note on some mailed reading material) seeking to extort money from my mother who was suffering dementia and had gifted thousands of dollars before we discovered what was going on. Only then did we discover why it was that she had stopped answering the phone several months earlier so as not to take their calls. I wrote to the CEO describing the litany of breaches of its own code of conduct and charter. It took several weeks for the CEO to respond formally. The reply did not address the details other than to make the laughable claim (because evidently, the legal advice left him no choice) that he had two different signatures (one apparently in the flourished right-leaning script of a senior international figure, and another in the rounded left slanted script of a post-adolescent). He offered a phone call, which I took up, during which he could do no more than reiterate the organization's guidelines and state, contrary to the evident facts, that his organization upheld them. Unfortunately, that is often how the world works.

As I said, “in any case”, the fact-checking seems particularly weak here. There are 1107 signatories. Now, perhaps some of them have dementia and, like dear old mum, didn’t know what they were signing. Six have passed away, 20% are engineers (whatever disqualification that entails), eight are connected to Shell. That only seems to leave between 900 and 950. The fact-checking goes on to say that “some” of those 900 have links to fossil fuel: an excellent and unambiguous fact. As far as I can see, we are still left with a document signed by potentially hundreds of reputable and, in some cases, distinguished individuals making six seemingly reasonable claims.

 

[Macanudo]

Al Gore also invented the internet.

You better run that claim through your fact-checker.

 

[Pierre Smith]

I don't know, man. I really hope for the people of Argentina that Milei wins, even if I kind of know that his policies that make Argentines much wealthier will also make Argentina far more costly. You couldn't call me a right-wing guy, but I'm for sure Milei-pilled.

But like, you know, you have to be a true fool to argue on the internet about climate change.

There is a real question about Argentina, a completely broke country with a catastrophic fiscal and monetary situation, spending even a single dollar on "science" in any form. Obviously, that's completely idiotic, it's projected to hit 170% yoy inflation in November. But equally obviously science is good, even if it is bonkers for a country like Argentina to spend a single penny on it.

Some of you people, Jesus.

You know, you can think that some of the things that right of center people correctly propose to change are worth supporting . . . without buying into some bizarre package of conspiracy weirdo shit. Like, be serious.

 

[steveinbsas]

Al Gore also invented the internet. Could you please share what he said about the climate? I have no idea why he even came up in the discussion (I do know who he is, he actually won whatever presidential election he contested, but was denied by the courts and the (entirely undemocratic) electoral college).

Al Gore has said so much about the climate that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 (along with the IPCC).

That doesn't prove he was right or wrong about the climate, just that he said the "right" things, at least according to the folks who hand out the awards.

Since 2007, the facts (aka: scientific evidence) have shown him not to be so "right" about some of the most important things he said and/or predicted about the climate.

 

[TonyTigre]

FACT: When I start cooking inside my home, the temperature in my home will increase.

OR is it? Is that really an undeniable fact? If you're an cockroach living near the stove, never going outside, it will certainly feel like that's an undeniable fact.

What if I started cooking just around the time when the outside temperature started dropping, either because of new weather system approaching or simply because the sun has set. Let's assume I have the window at least partially open.

What if I started cooking just as the outside temperature is rising fast, won't that make it seem like the cooking has a greater impact on the temperature inside the home than it really does?

 

[FrankPintor]

You better run that claim through your fact-checker.

Sarcasm. Sorry if it triggered you.

 

[Macanudo]

Sarcasm. Sorry if it triggered you.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693683563818844201