Friday, February 10, 2017

Jack Peat — Daily Mail brandished “fake news” – by Wikipedia

Now they need to move up the chain. 

One way propaganda works is to create anchors that appear credible based on the proportion of factual stories to stories that are not fact-checked and turn out to be incorrect or even bogus. Then work to plant stories that are spun or even bogus for publication without adequate sourcing. For example this can be accomplished through editors or reporters that are complicit or compromised. Very few news sources have the resources anymore to do adequate sourcing in a highly competitive environment in which infotainment now rules.

The Daily Mail is a UK newspaper.

7 comments:

MRW said...

I call complete bullshit on this! This is false news about false news and a violation of our First Amendment.

The Jack Peat article ends with this:
QUOTE
Wikipedia discussion boards cited all kinds of Daily Mail scandals from reporting the wrong verdict in the Amanda Knox trial, accusations of fake celebrity interviews and manipulating climate science to undermine the consensus on global warming (CF article below).
END QUOTE

Wikipedia pulled this stunt in response to the bombshell The Daily Mail published last Sunday, February 5, 2017 that never saw the light of day in the US.

Dr. John Bates, one of two NOAA Principal Scientists at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, blew the whistle on Thomas Karl, the former director of NCEI, the NOAA section that produces climate data, of manipulating data in a controversial paper released just before the Paris conference on climate change. Karl’s paper caused an uproar among real scientists and researchers around the world at the time because it falsified the scientists’ work, who relied upon US government archival data for their work.

Dr. Bates retired after 40 years at the end of 2016, and came forward, using the only newspaper that would print it. ”Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

QUOTE
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
END QUOTE

I’m not going to repeat the article. You can read the ‘for the people’ explanation of it in The Daily Mail here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

For those of you who are not intimidated by scientific explanations and who like to read source papers and proof, Dr. Bates wrote an explanation published the day before on Saturday, Feb 4, 2017, on Dr. Judith Curry’s site: Climate scientists versus climate data
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Dr. Curry was the chair or head of the Earth Sciences dept at Georgia Tech for years, one of the country’s prestigious climate science institutions. She recently gave up her tenure and resigned because of the dishonesty and intimidation in ‘consensus’ climate science, and the effect it was having on the honest research.

There are forces at Wikipedia (and one activist citizen editor in particular) trying to hide this from the world. I’ve been following all this since 2009. You’re being duped if you believe Jack Peat’s assertions.

MRW said...

[second time I'm attempting to publish this.]

I call complete bullshit on this! This is false news about false news and a violation of our First Amendment.

The Jack Peat article ends with this:
QUOTE
Wikipedia discussion boards cited all kinds of Daily Mail scandals from reporting the wrong verdict in the Amanda Knox trial, accusations of fake celebrity interviews and manipulating climate science to undermine the consensus on global warming (CF article below).
END QUOTE

Wikipedia pulled this stunt in response to the bombshell The Daily Mail published last Sunday, February 5, 2017 that never saw the light of day in the US.

Dr. John Bates, one of two NOAA Principal Scientists at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, blew the whistle on Thomas Karl, the former director of NCEI, the NOAA section that produces climate data, of manipulating data in a controversial paper released just before the Paris conference on climate change. Karl’s paper caused an uproar among real scientists and researchers around the world at the time because it falsified the scientists’ work, who relied upon US government archival data for their work.

Dr. Bates retired after 40 years at the end of 2016, and came forward, using the only newspaper that would print it. ”Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

QUOTE
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
END QUOTE

I’m not going to repeat the article. You can read the ‘for the people’ explanation of it in The Daily Mail here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

For those of you who are not intimidated by scientific explanations and who like to read source papers and proof, Dr. Bates wrote an explanation published the day before on Saturday, Feb 4, 2017, on Dr. Judith Curry’s site: Climate scientists versus climate data
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Dr. Curry was the chair or head of the Earth Sciences dept at Georgia Tech for years, one of the country’s most prestigious climate science institutions. She recently gave up her tenure and resigned because of the dishonesty and intimidation in ‘consensus’ climate science, and the effect it was having on the honest research.

There are forces at Wikipedia (and one activist citizen editor in particular) trying to hide this from the world. I’ve been following all this since 2009. You’re being duped if you believe Jack Peat’s assertions.

MRW said...

[this is my third attempt to publish this. What gives?]
PART1

I call complete bullshit on this! This is false news about false news and a violation of our First Amendment.

The Jack Peat article ends with this:
QUOTE
Wikipedia discussion boards cited all kinds of Daily Mail scandals from reporting the wrong verdict in the Amanda Knox trial, accusations of fake celebrity interviews and manipulating climate science to undermine the consensus on global warming (CF article below).
END QUOTE

Wikipedia pulled this stunt in response to the bombshell The Daily Mail published last Sunday, February 5, 2017 that never saw the light of day in the US.

Dr. John Bates, one of two NOAA Principal Scientists at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, blew the whistle on Thomas Karl, the former director of NCEI, the NOAA section that produces climate data, of manipulating data in a controversial paper released just before the Paris conference on climate change. Karl’s paper caused an uproar among real scientists and researchers around the world at the time because it falsified the scientists’ work, who relied upon US government archival data for their work.

Dr. Bates retired after 40 years at the end of 2016, and came forward, using the only newspaper that would print it. ”Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

QUOTE
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
END QUOTE
—————————————
contd.

MRW said...

PART 2….contd.

I’m not going to repeat the article. You can read the ‘for the people’ explanation of it in The Daily Mail here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

For those of you who are not intimidated by scientific explanations and who like to read source papers and proof, Dr. Bates wrote an explanation published the day before on Saturday, Feb 4, 2017, on Dr. Judith Curry’s site: ”Climate scientists versus climate data”
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

Dr. Curry was the chair or head of the Earth Sciences dept at Georgia Tech for years, one of the country’s prestigious climate science institutions. She recently gave up her tenure and resigned because of the dishonesty and intimidation in ‘consensus’ climate science, and the effect it was having on the honest research.

There are forces at Wikipedia (and one activist citizen editor in particular) trying to hide this from the world. I’ve been following all this since 2009. You’re being duped if you believe Jack Peat’s assertions.

Tom Hickey said...

I fished some comments out of spam.

Tom Hickey said...

BTW, I agree that Wikipedia is no saint about not putting out fake news and suppressing real news.

I don't have enough of a background in the science to comment on this particular kerfuffle.

MRW said...

I wish it were a "kerfuffle," Tom. It's a fucking bombshell. An immoral scientific bombshell.