Horrible "Media" Misquote

[cubby]

Yahoo, which is not what I would necessarily call a mainstream media source, really rammed a shitty misquotation down Pat Robertson's throat.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/1...-suvs-on-mars/

Now, I do not like Pat Robertson at all. The guy is and always has been a menace to the thinking world. But in this case, Yahoo really fucks up and, if you read the entire story, rather than just the headline or the first few paragraphs, you'll see that Pat makes an interesting point, based on scientific knowledge. I disagree with him, but it's beside the point I'm making here.

Yahoo "News" basically lies in their headline, and at the very least misleads everyone. I really hate the "news media" these days.

[semaphore]

I'm not sure I see this puported "scientific knowledge".

[obdigore]

So... he literally says that because Mars is slightly warming in the time we have been able to observe it, and there are no SUV's and Oil Refineries on Mars, humans must have absolutely no impact on the Earth?

I find that a foolish assumption, but from what I can tell you didn't link anything about what yahoo was stating, unless Yahoo owns this rawstory site?

[cubby]

I'm not sure I see this puported "scientific knowledge".

No no no. I'm just pointing out that Pat was using a scientific piece of knowledge, regarding the warming of Mars from the sun ("recent warming trend") as a reasoning for global warming here on Earth. Which has merit, in a scientific sense.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH PAT ROBERTSON - just to be clear.

I'm just saying he was hosed in this case because his opinion, albeit wrong, was based on some scientific knowledge.

Was he stupid in what and how he said it? Of course. As usual. But in this case he read something that wasn't the bible before talking. Self serving, sure, but would we expect anything less?

[procne]

The only thing that Pat Robertson said in this matter was
"Just keep in mind that Mars, and say, ‘How many SUVs, how many oil refineries are there on Mars?’ And yet, it’s the relationship to the sun that is effecting the climate on Mars,"

The quotes that follow were said by Michael Mann

[cubby]

So... he literally says that because Mars is slightly warming in the time we have been able to observe it, and there are no SUV's and Oil Refineries on Mars, humans must have absolutely no impact on the Earth?

Yeah, basically. I mean, he's wrong, of course, but he's basing something on science. And the story misleads the point he's making. Keep in mind, I don't like the guy, but this was a little, well, mean spirited.

I find that a foolish assumption, but from what I can tell you didn't link anything about what yahoo was stating, unless Yahoo owns this rawstory site?

I don't think Yahoo owns it, but they posted the story on their site. Which is where I first saw it.

[obdigore]

Yeah, basically. I mean, he's wrong, of course, but he's basing something on science. And the story misleads the point he's making. Keep in mind, I don't like the guy, but this was a little, well, mean spirited.

I don't think Yahoo owns it, but they posted the story on their site. Which is where I first saw it.

I'm not sure where any misleading is going on beyond the point that Pat Robertson is actually claiming that global warming is a myth because Mars is getting slightly warmer? It is like saying 'I shouldn't be charged with murder because I shot that guy, because someone else died of old age, therefore it was old age that killed the guy I shot, not the bullet wound!'.

[cubby]

I'm not sure where any misleading is going on beyond the point that Pat Robertson is actually claiming that global warming is a myth because Mars is getting slightly warmer? It is like saying 'I shouldn't be charged with murder because I shot that guy, because someone else died of old age, therefore it was old age that killed the guy I shot, not the bullet wound!'.

It's misleading because Pat (and keep in mind, I hate him, and he's evil, and he's wrong here about global warming) is basing his point about SUV's and Mars on a piece of scientific information, which is so rare these days, we should at least be aware of it. And this story pisses all over the real point and ignores the key issue.

[procne]

I still can't see this terrible misquotation?

He basically said that he doesn't believe we, humans, are the cause for the global warming, and, as an argument in the discussion, points out to the fact there are no humans on Mars and its climate is still changing. If he uses this as an argument then it's feasible to use "because" in the headline.

So what's wrong?

---------- Post added 2012-04-18 at 06:19 AM ----------

It's misleading because Pat (and keep in mind, I hate him, and he's evil, and he's wrong here about global warming) is basing his point about SUV's and Mars on a piece of scientific information, which is so rare these days, we should at least be aware of it. And this story pisses all over the real point and ignores the key issue.

How does it "piss" all over the real point? They did mention: "In recent years, some global warming deniers have pointed to a slight warming trend on Mars as evidence that man-made climate change is not real." to explain what Pat meant

[semaphore]

No no no. I'm just pointing out that Pat was using a scientific piece of knowledge, regarding the warming of Mars from the sun ("recent warming trend") as a reasoning for global warming here on Earth. Which has merit, in a scientific sense.

Fair enough. I don't see it as much of a misquote though. Robertson's point was that Mar's warming despite not having SUVs is evidence that we're not causing global warming on Earth (and that the Sun is responsible for fluctuations). I think the quote concisely captured the stupidity of his logic quite well.

[cubby]

Fair enough. I don't see it as much of a misquote though. Robertson's point was that Mar's warming despite not having SUVs is evidence that we're not causing global warming on Earth (and that the Sun is responsible for fluctuations). I think the quote concisely captured the stupidity of his logic quite well.

That's reasonable, and I'm not in the business of defending Pat Robertson. I guess my point is that the story could have been titled something like: Pat Robertson Defends Global Warming Scare with Science.

But then again, of all the media fuck ups, I guess this one isn't really that big of a deal.

[obdigore]

That's reasonable, and I'm not in the business of defending Pat Robertson. I guess my point is that the story could have been titled something like: Pat Robertson Defends Global Warming Scare with Science.

But then again, of all the media fuck ups, I guess this one isn't really that big of a deal.

But he didn't defend it with science. He defended it with horseshit and psuedo science. The title of the story you linked is perfectly correct for what the story contains.

[cubby]

But he didn't defend it with science. He defended it with horseshit and psuedo science. The title of the story you linked is perfectly correct for what the story contains.

No, he made a reasonable, albeit wrong analysis of global warming being tied to the sun's influence rather than anything humans are doing. It's crap, and most informed people know this, but the relation to Mars warming up is a mildly decent one.

And he did defend it with science. That was basically the point here.

[obdigore]

No, he made a reasonable, albeit wrong analysis of global warming being tied to the sun's influence rather than anything humans are doing. It's crap, and most informed people know this, but the relation to Mars warming up is a mildly decent one.

And he did defend it with science. That was basically the point here.

No. Saying that because there are no humans on mars and it is getting slightly warmer, therefore humans are not the cause of global warming is shortsighted and the two things are not related. Since 1970 the average mean temperature has raised by one degree on the earth. We have no knowledge of any martian temperature changes since all our readings are estimated.

And, since many actual scientific places refer to the martian global warming as a regional happening, we cannot even argue about if Pat's statement about mars getting warmer holds water, as it were, since he didn't explain his sources.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/

[procne]

Look, it's obvious there would be some scientific basis. In a subject like this, any media would be frowned upon if they presented (wither themselves or via interview) some hypothesis without giving any scientific basis. And the title is more of a tongue-in-cheek - it's quite obvious, isn't it? Its point is to increase curiosity in the reader - "Now, what did he mean by that?"

[cubby]

No. Saying that because there are no humans on mars and it is getting slightly warmer, therefore humans are not the cause of global warming is shortsighted and the two things are not related. Since 1970 the average mean temperature has raised by one degree on the earth. We have no knowledge of any martian temperature changes since all our readings are estimated.

And, since many actual scientific places refer to the martian global warming as a regional happening, we cannot even argue about if Pat's statement about mars getting warmer holds water, as it were, since he didn't explain his sources.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/

Just read Procne's post - he's got it. I'm too tired to explain this again.

[Sayl]

I don't think Yahoo owns it, but they posted the story on their site. Which is where I first saw it.

Look carefully at the "Yahoo News" site sometime. They don't write original headline news stories. They pay to reprint articles from outside sources, including political commentary from all over the spectrum.

Robertson did not "base his comments on science." Robertson regurgitated a years-old claim made by a Russian scientist about global warming being solar-induced. That claim originally made the rounds between 2005 and 2007, and did not find academic support. A mountain of peer-reviewed science published since has consistently disproven those claims (recent example).

[Very Tired]

This example honestly isn't that bad as the media gets. That article title could just be called a poor attention grabber to reader which presents the content of the article improper way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3hMODMyed8
Thats my example for major media out of contextness.

[Twiddly]

I think humans effect our climate, make it warmer; however, the whole "THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE UNDERWATER IN 10 YEARS" is a scam to make money.


Look at al gores power consumption and his private jets, while telling us to do nothing like that. Then look how much money he makes off of "Green things" and "cap and trade"

sickening really, and he is just a small player.