Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

/…/While activists overstate the costs of climate change, they suggest its reversal is simply a matter of political will. In fact, there are significant costs to climate action: It often involves replacing relatively cheap, efficient fossil fuels with still-uncompetitive green-energy sources.

Climate economist William Nordhaus has shown that a globally coordinated and gradually increasing carbon tax could cut temperature rises to 6.3 degrees from 7.4 at a cost of $20 trillion in lost productivity, but more than pay for itself by lowering climate costs.

Yet this requires a very well-designed, coordinated global policy. In the real world, climate policies are typically less effective and much costlier.

Nordhaus shows that more ambitious policies like the Paris Agreement target of 3.6 degrees would cost some $134 trillion, much more than the associated climate benefits. Such prescriptions for climate change are worse than the disease.

Yes, we need to speed up the transition from fossil fuels by investing in green R&D. Even so, reporting on climate change needs to be grounded in reality. Exaggeration is understandable but dangerous, because it risks wasting resources on the wrong policy answers, and gives ammunition to those who would ignore this real challenge.

Criticism
The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.

Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage. Former Post executive editor Steven D. Cuozzo has responded that the Post "broke the elitist media stranglehold on the national agenda."

According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).

Political stance and content

Climate change denial
The Washington Times has published a number of columns that promote climate change denial. The Times headlined its story about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, "Under the deal, the use of coal, oil and other fossil fuel in the United States would be cut by more than one-third by 2002, resulting in lower standards of living for consumers and a long-term reduction in economic growth." In 2010, it published an article claiming that February 2010 snow storms "Undermin[e] The Case For Global Warming One Flake At A Time". In 2014, The Washington Times said that a NASA scientist claimed that global warming was on a "hiatus" and that NASA had found evidence of global cooling; Rebecca Leber of the New Republic said that the NASA scientist in question said the opposite of what The Washington Times claimed. In 2015, it published a column by Congressman Lamar Smith in which he argued that the work of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was "not good science, [but] science fiction."

Obama falsehoods and conspiracy theories
In 2008, the Times published a column by Frank Gaffney that promoted the false conspiracy theories that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya and was courting the "jihadist vote." In 2009 and 2010, the newspaper published pieces promoting the false claim that Obama is a Muslim. In 2016, the paper published an article that claimed $3.6 million of taxpayer money was spent on President Obama going on an outing with golfer Tiger Woods in 2013. Snopes rated the article "mostly false", because the estimated cost included both official business travel and a brief presidential vacation in Florida.

New York Post och Washington Times – Lögnaktiga publikationer som genomgående sprider fake news.

New York Times och Washington Post – Seriösa tidningar som ägnar sig åt seriös journalistik.

Citat:

Ursprungligen postat av lasternassumma

Nyktra till!
Jag citerade information om det kommande mötet i Polen.
Du replikerar med en kommentar om rapporten som nyligen släpptes i USA!

Varför citerar du sådant du vet är Fake News?
Jag tror att dom flesta här är vakna nog för att veta att nypost och washintontimes som du ofta refererar till och som du uppger att dom genomför "nyktra analyser" båda genomgående framstår som skolexempel på spridare av lögner och fake news.

"It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Om New York Post:

Criticism
The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.

Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage. Former Post executive editor Steven D. Cuozzo has responded that the Post "broke the elitist media stranglehold on the national agenda."

According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism

Om The Washington Times:

Political stance and content

Climate change denial
The Washington Times has published a number of columns that promote climate change denial. The Times headlined its story about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, "Under the deal, the use of coal, oil and other fossil fuel in the United States would be cut by more than one-third by 2002, resulting in lower standards of living for consumers and a long-term reduction in economic growth." In 2010, it published an article claiming that February 2010 snow storms "Undermin[e] The Case For Global Warming One Flake At A Time". In 2014, The Washington Times said that a NASA scientist claimed that global warming was on a "hiatus" and that NASA had found evidence of global cooling; Rebecca Leber of the New Republic said that the NASA scientist in question said the opposite of what The Washington Times claimed. In 2015, it published a column by Congressman Lamar Smith in which he argued that the work of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was "not good science, [but] science fiction."

Obama falsehoods and conspiracy theories
In 2008, the Times published a column by Frank Gaffney that promoted the false conspiracy theories that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya and was courting the "jihadist vote." In 2009 and 2010, the newspaper published pieces promoting the false claim that Obama is a Muslim. In 2016, the paper published an article that claimed $3.6 million of taxpayer money was spent on President Obama going on an outing with golfer Tiger Woods in 2013. Snopes rated the article "mostly false", because the estimated cost included both official business travel and a brief presidential vacation in Florida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance_and_content

Om det finns ett mönster i hur New York Post och Washington Times agerar så är det att dom regelbundet sprider samma uppenbara lögner som Donald Trump ägnar sig åt att sprida.

Hur väljer du dina källor, auktoriteter och förebilder egentligen?

Vill du avsiktligt sprida lögner eller är du bara mer än tillåtet naiv?

OBS! VARNING!

New York Post och Washington Times – Lögnaktiga publikationer som genomgående sprider fake news.

New York Times och Washington Post – Seriösa tidningar som ägnar sig åt seriös journalistik.

–

Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n ˈlʌmbɒːˀw]; born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and President of his think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world’s rising temperature.[1]

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, a project-based conference where prominent economists sought to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methods based on the theory of welfare economics.

In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.[3][4] In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat."[5] In 2011, and 2012, Lomborg was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy "for looking more right than ever on the politics of climate change".[6]

Här finns lite om Bjorn Lomborg och hur han finansierar sin verksamhet:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center

"It is a social problem – a force for evil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism