Representative Mark Meadows is upset that the Democrats cannot even come up with 5 billion dollars for President Trump's "wall".
He says this is just a small number. Maybe he forgets the 1.5 TRILLION that the Republicans gave to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks.
Do you think if they had not squandered that money they may have been able to find the money for the wall?
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Mis-Simplification
People who deny climate change often look to headlines for their ammunition:
THE PLANET NOW HAS MORE TREES THAN IT DID 35 YEARS AGO
The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Conservative web site used this information to claim that we have nothing to fear from "climate change" and that getting warmer is good for our planet.
I call this mis-simplification of the information. They take a bit of information, out of context, present it with no backing data and draw a conclusion from it.
For example - the planet has more trees than it did 35 years ago. Okay - some questions:
1. Was there a reason why 35 years ago we had a dearth of trees?
2. Are the trees today equal to trees prior to 35 years ago.
3. What about 100 years ago?
4. If there are more trees - are they the same trees?
5. What does more trees mean exactly?
Even in the case of the second headline, the author of the article (A) admits that the author of the study (B) he cites, has told A to stop misquoting B!
So how do you identify mis-simplification?
1. The information comes from headlines, not a careful reading of the article
2. There information is too specific ("35 years")
3. The information is too logical - so obvious that it is hard to contradict.
Mis-simplification might is a major part of "fake news" and is being used to distract people from real issues and critical thinking.
How we convince people to recognize this? We have to them to question their own biases. That is a much more difficult problem.
THE PLANET NOW HAS MORE TREES THAN IT DID 35 YEARS AGO
The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Conservative web site used this information to claim that we have nothing to fear from "climate change" and that getting warmer is good for our planet.
I call this mis-simplification of the information. They take a bit of information, out of context, present it with no backing data and draw a conclusion from it.
For example - the planet has more trees than it did 35 years ago. Okay - some questions:
1. Was there a reason why 35 years ago we had a dearth of trees?
2. Are the trees today equal to trees prior to 35 years ago.
3. What about 100 years ago?
4. If there are more trees - are they the same trees?
5. What does more trees mean exactly?
Even in the case of the second headline, the author of the article (A) admits that the author of the study (B) he cites, has told A to stop misquoting B!
So how do you identify mis-simplification?
1. The information comes from headlines, not a careful reading of the article
2. There information is too specific ("35 years")
3. The information is too logical - so obvious that it is hard to contradict.
Mis-simplification might is a major part of "fake news" and is being used to distract people from real issues and critical thinking.
How we convince people to recognize this? We have to them to question their own biases. That is a much more difficult problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)