Punditfact: a gripe on climate science

Okay, first off, what the hell:

No, there is no element of truth. Guys, this one’s straightforward. The earth has been warming, and this myth has been done to death. Moore, of all people, knows this. He wasn’t just wrong or misleading, he was lying. Generally speaking, the classification for statements like that is usually “pants on fire”, isn’t it?

Then there’s this gem. They got the rating right, but look down below:

…“Science blogger Anthony Watts” was one of the experts they used? There are, like, three things wrong that last sentence. Even lower, they cite Judith Curry. Not to be a dick here, but what the hell, guys? Calling Anthony Watts a “science blogger” is like calling Anne Dachel “not a terrible person” (or, for that matter, “science blogger”) - usually, when we think of the term, we imagine something slightly less… full of shit. And whereas Judith Curry is a real scientist, so is Steve McIntyre, and so is Giles-Eric Seralini. Just being a scientist doesn’t make you a legitimate source for scientific information. I’m honestly surprised she got this one right. Either way, you shouldn’t be holding these people up as sources of information, in the same way you shouldn’t hold up the pseudoscientific fringe as sources in any scientific discipline. I dunno, I was just scrolling through and saw this, and it disappointed me, because usually Politifact is pretty great at what it does. But it kinda dropped the ball here, in two cases I spotted just minutes apart from each other.

Recently when I saw another pit thread by you, I posted this:

Unfortunately, it looks like I was right.

I call 'em “PolitEquate,” myself, because of their need to have things work out so that Both Sides Do It.

Not really sure why they bother, because conservatives always dismiss their findings anyway.

Oh man, don’t you just hate that awkward feeling when someone shoehorns in what they want to be taken as a spontaneous, clever one-liner, but it’s dreadfully apparent they’ve been thinking about it for a while? Especially when the one-liner doesn’t really apply to the situation at hand, as if in their zeal to unleash the zinger they couldn’t wait for a more fitting occasion to use it.

So, if I understand correctly, I’m to be outraged because a web site mainly dedicated to political matters calls something outside its area of expertise “mostly wrong” instead of what the OP believes should be “entirely wrong”? Sorry, I can only get really worked up at one thing per day, and I think I’ll save mine for the “Playing Racketball With Kittens” item that I hear is just about to break.

Anyway, when I saw the linked article led off with “Fox News pundit Sean Hannity…” I knew there wasn’t much point in reading further.

…oh, yeah? Well the jerk-store called, and they’re running out of you!

-George Costanza

If you haven’t been paying attention here’s the deal: Budget Player Cadet has a very long history of posting dumb pit threads. This is widely known and not really in dispute by anybody.

Basically, the SDMB is a better place when he isn’t posting every random thought that crosses his mind when he reads an article online. This certainly qualifies, as does the last pit thread of his that I came across. So rather than retype the same thing as last time I just reposted it. Just saving pixels. I’m an environmentalist.

If they’re going to evaluate the statement at all, they have a responsibility to get the facts exactly right, that’s their self-assigned job.

Whether a claim is “pants on fire” or “mostly wrong” is a subjective determination, not a matter of objective fact.

This is the rare backfire backfire Pitting.

Maybe, but “liar, liar, mostly wrong” would make a shitty skipping rhyme.

I think we could make it work.

Liar, Liar, mostly wrong
your ding-dong is really small


Can anyone name me a single good post by Debaser?

And it’s not a matter of opinion whether something is “mostly false” or “pants on fire”.

There you go. It’s the rehashing of an ancient, debunked myth, a claim which is absolutely ridiculous if you know anything about the science. And to make matters worse, it’s one which Moore knows is false. There’s no way he missed the memo; this crap has been making the rounds for, what, a decade?

This one.

How does that even work? Even if they could hold the racket, there’s no way they’d wear a sweatband.

I’m so confused. Are you on Debaser’s side or Rhythmdvl’s? How many backfires is that?

It’s the sinister triple-dog-dare-you backfire. It’s been known to make people’s brains explode.

Here, let me help you with that:

If you haven’t been paying attention here’s the deal: Budget Player Cadet has a very long history of posting dumb threads.

Or better yet, and simpler:

If you haven’t been paying attention here’s the deal: Budget Player Cadet has a very long history of posting dumb

Or even just:

Budget Player Cadet very dumb.

For the record, I’m not disputing that; what I was disputing was whether this partiular teapot outrage was worthy of a Pit thread. But hey, that’s just, like, my opinion, man. Carry on.

golf clap

And if you been paying attention, you’d realize his entire point is that this Pit thread is not stupid, and the only reason you think it is is because you have a hard on for the guy. You even admitted to waiting on him to make a Pit thread just so you could make this response.

The problem with the BP thread you are referencing was not that he was upset about something, but that he was too upset by it. It wasn’t that he brought up something you don’t care about. People did actually think the BP oil spill was bad. BP was just obsessing over it, crying at night about it.

This thread does not have that problem. BPC is complaining about a fact checking website being incorrect. Assuming he is correct, it is spreading ignorance. If you don’t care about that sort of thing, you’re on the wrong message board.