Right back when I first started blogging – 18 years or so ago – a catchphrase was “Don’t These People Have Editors?”
Someone mangling facts, facts that should have been checked rather than mangled.
This now seems to have matured for I’m getting paid to do this now. Not a lot, admittedly, but enough that it’s worth doing. Read for likely idiocies, check footnotes – and as I’ve said, I’m so boring I will in fact read references from footnotes – and see what’s been mangled.
Here the example is that there’s an IOC report out there saying that of all the places that have had Winter Olympics before then, if climate change is really bad (RCP 8.5), only one of them would be able to have a Winter Olympics again. Which everyone is reporting as only one city will ever be able to host the Winter Olympics.
There’s a certain difference in those two statements.
“…if climate change is really bad…”
Fortunately it isn’t.
I actually skimmed one of this IPCC reports the other day and noticed that all the stuff reported as apocalyptic in the papers is couched in rather cautious language in the report.
Don’t we have to switch to burning tractor tires for fuel to get to RCP 8.5 anyway?
I find it instructive that all of these organisations & government itself are using exactly the same SOP as scam artists. Vastly exaggerate the negatives & positives to get the sale. They don’t even have the honesty of a decent scam artist & back off on the claims if they’re rumbled. They double up.
They double up.
And some. Your average scam artist won’t go to the trouble of ending your career and destroying your social reputation.
Yeah PJF. I’m thinking they studied at the feet of accomplished blackmailers when they finished the scamming course.