On 12/06/2016 10:42 PM, John Newman wrote:

On December 6, 2016 11:46:18 PM EST, Razer wrote:

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

ROTF!

Yeah I caught that one too :) What's funny is it's actually one of the puff pieces of garbage news Zen forwarded in.

Oil-money talks.

John

On 12/07/2016 02:58 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

On Dec 7, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 12/06/2016 10:42 PM, John Newman wrote:

...

On December 6, 2016 11:46:18 PM EST, Razer wrote: The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

ROTF! Yeah I caught that one too :) What's funny is it's actually one of the puff pieces of garbage news Zen forwarded in. Oil-money talks.

And rational thought walks.

...

...

John

It was almost 32 degrees F this morning at sea level on the Central California coast. This last summer it went to 100 degrees F for one day. About seven years ago it went to 105 for THREE DAYS breaking all records ... and one morning the following winter it was 28 degrees and stayed there for the better part of the morning leaving a slush puddle on the shady side of the building I worked in that stayed slush for two days. I've lived in the area for 40 years. When I arrived in 1976 I noted this was where all the Italian and Portuguese immigrants had settled on the coast in the 1800s because it's Mediterranean climate with two seasons. Spring and Fall, with a touch of mild winter in the 40s and summers that rarely cracked 80, was familiar to them (and wine grapes grew well). This is NOT a Mediterranean climate anymore. Some might say it's part of a natural cycle. That MIGHT be. But if so, it was long before anyone was keeping record, including the trees, whose inner growth rings can tell no lies. Rr

On 12/07/2016 07:26 AM, Razer wrote:

On 12/07/2016 02:58 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

...

On Dec 7, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 12/06/2016 10:42 PM, John Newman wrote:

...

On December 6, 2016 11:46:18 PM EST, Razer wrote: The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

ROTF! Yeah I caught that one too :) What's funny is it's actually one of the puff pieces of garbage news Zen forwarded in. Oil-money talks.

And rational thought walks.

...

...

John

It was almost 32 degrees F this morning at sea level on the Central California coast. This last summer it went to 100 degrees F for one day. About seven years ago it went to 105 for THREE DAYS breaking all records ... and one morning the following winter it was 28 degrees and stayed there for the better part of the morning leaving a slush puddle on the shady side of the building I worked in that stayed slush for two days. I've lived in the area for 40 years. When I arrived in 1976 I noted this was where all the Italian and Portuguese immigrants had settled on the coast in the 1800s because it's Mediterranean climate with two seasons. Spring and Fall, with a touch of mild winter in the 40s and summers that rarely cracked 80, was familiar to them (and wine grapes grew well). This is NOT a Mediterranean climate anymore. Some might say it's part of a natural cycle. That MIGHT be. But if so, it was long before anyone was keeping record, including the trees, whose inner growth rings can tell no lies.

Hypothesis of global climate change predicts increased variability in weather, and increased intensity of weather events. There's more water in the air, so higher energy density. Also, reduced temperature differentials between equator and poles reduces jet-stream stability, making seasons more chaotic. And extremes in El Nino / La Nina have been increasing. So anyway, what you're seeing isn't unexpected.

Rr

From: Shawn K. Quinn On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote:

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

...

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

...

ROTF!

Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news. We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main American sources of fake newsare ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM".   We saw in the recent election seasonthat these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary Clinton.This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a couple of months before theelection, especially.  Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that camefrom the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake":  By and large, eventuallythe MSM simply refused to publicize them. That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news" phenomenon.  In prior election cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course.  Anaverage person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a givensource, or 'side'.  But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary.  I'm not saying that they entirely avoided them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was completely stilted. As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be  apparently-quite-legitimate stories onone 'side', and not another.  This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell themwhich thing to believe, and which not to.              Jim Bell

On 12/07/2016 12:12 PM, John Newman wrote:

On December 7, 2016 2:01:32 PM EST, jim bell wrote:

...

From: Shawn K. Quinn

...

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using

On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote: their

...

...

data to create #FakeNews.

...

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

...

ROTF!

...

Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news. We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main American sources of fake newsare ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM". We saw in the recent election seasonthat these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary Clinton.This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a couple of months before theelection, especially. Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that camefrom the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake": By and large, eventuallythe MSM simply refused to publicize them.

There's no question the DNC fucked itself with its dirty shenanigans to fuck Sanders for Clinton, a fucking god awful candidate.

That said, some of the fake news conspiratard shit has ended up causing a lunatic with a gun to go "investigating" .... (Pizzagate HEH). Nobody looks good in this election. Then again, I can't think of a counter example ;). (Obama as first black president was mildly inspiring if you paid zero attention to the details eg his global assassination program, etc etc)

Obama isn't "Black", in any meaningful sense. He's certainly not "African-American" in the traditional sense. His ancestors weren't slaves in the US. His father was African, yes, but he was raised in Hawaii by his white mother. So arguably, he's a typical upper-class academic, who just happens to have black skin. He did jump-start his political career in Chicago. And he did join a radical Black church, whose pastor was at least sympathetic to Black Nationalism. But that was arguably just a cynical ploy to infiltrate the community, and start building his political base. And he dumped them quickly after going national. Now if they had elected Wyclef Jean ;)

John

...

That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news" phenomenon. In prior election cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course. Anaverage person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a givensource, or 'side'. But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary. I'm not saying that they entirely avoided them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was completely stilted. As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be apparently-quite-legitimate stories onone 'side', and not another. This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell themwhich thing to believe, and which not to. Jim Bell

On December 7, 2016 2:40:49 PM EST, Mirimir wrote:

On 12/07/2016 12:12 PM, John Newman wrote:

...

On December 7, 2016 2:01:32 PM EST, jim bell

wrote:

...

...

From: Shawn K. Quinn

...

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using

On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote: their

...

...

data to create #FakeNews.

...

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

...

...

...

ROTF!

...

Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news. We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main American sources of fake newsare ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM". We saw in the recent election seasonthat these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary Clinton.This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a couple of months before theelection, especially. Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that camefrom the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake": By and large, eventuallythe MSM simply refused to publicize them.

There's no question the DNC fucked itself with its dirty shenanigans to fuck Sanders for Clinton, a fucking god awful candidate.

That said, some of the fake news conspiratard shit has ended up causing a lunatic with a gun to go "investigating" .... (Pizzagate HEH). Nobody looks good in this election. Then again, I can't think of a counter example ;). (Obama as first black president was mildly inspiring if you paid zero attention to the details eg his global assassination program, etc etc)

Obama isn't "Black", in any meaningful sense. He's certainly not "African-American" in the traditional sense. His ancestors weren't slaves in the US. His father was African, yes, but he was raised in Hawaii by his white mother. So arguably, he's a typical upper-class academic, who just happens to have black skin.

He did jump-start his political career in Chicago. And he did join a radical Black church, whose pastor was at least sympathetic to Black Nationalism. But that was arguably just a cynical ploy to infiltrate the community, and start building his political base. And he dumped them quickly after going national.

Now if they had elected Wyclef Jean ;)

Lol. Immortal Technique (Felipe Coronel) would be my pick, although he's of Peruvian ancestry, hes effectively black.... I always thought he was black until I first saw him live!

...

John

...

That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news" phenomenon. In prior election cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course. Anaverage person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a givensource, or 'side'. But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary. I'm not saying that they entirely avoided them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was completely stilted. As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be apparently-quite-legitimate stories onone 'side', and not another. This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell themwhich thing to believe, and which not to. Jim Bell

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 07:01:32PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

From: Shawn K. Quinn On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote:

...

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

...

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

...

ROTF!

...

Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news.

We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main American sources of fake newsare ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM". 

 We saw in the recent election seasonthat these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary Clinton.This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a couple of months before theelection, especially.  Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that camefrom the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake":  By and large, eventuallythe MSM simply refused to publicize them.

"But they're private companies, they can publish or not publisch as they please, they have a right to maximise profit and to execute their political agendas. Same with Twitter shutting down 'hate speech' accounts even though half all USAians uses Twitter. Free market."

That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news" phenomenon.  In prior election cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course.  Anaverage person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a givensource, or 'side'.  But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary.  I'm not saying that they entirely avoided them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was completely stilted.

As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be  apparently-quite-legitimate stories onone 'side', and not another.  This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell themwhich thing to believe, and which not to.  

           Jim Bell

-- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a...

On 12/07/2016 11:01 AM, jim bell wrote:

*From:* Shawn K. Quinn

On 12/06/2016 10:46 PM, Razer wrote:

...

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

...

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

...

ROTF!

...

Good for them. We need more real news, and less fake news.

We could agree with THAT, but I happen to believe that the main American sources of fake news are ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and many others, called the "MSM".

Oh absolutely. #FakeNews is called Government Press Releases, and Official Stories (from often un-named sources) which the media can parrot fully indemnified because News REPORTING requires no obligation to fact-check those sorts of official items. Like fact check to see if that CWD lab outside Saddam's 'palace' is really what it's claimed to be "By Official Sources". Journalists and Critics are tasked with that, and they ARE obstructed at every turn. There's WAY more 'reporting' than investigative journalism and critics are often bought off. Rr

We saw in the recent election season that these organizations were tending to avoid covering things that were negative to Hillary Clinton. This was particularly true once the Wikileaks leaks became heavy, a couple of months before the election, especially. Sure, there's the "fake news" meme, but I don't recall a single email that came from the DNC/Podesta/Weiner camp that was claimed to have been "fake": By and large, eventually the MSM simply refused to publicize them.

That's one big reason I blame the MSM itself for the "fake news" phenomenon. In prior election cycles, generally all the outlets covered all the stories...with a different slant and spin, of course. An average person would have a good clue that a given story was fake if it came solely from a given source, or 'side'. But in 2016 the public observed that the MSM was studiously limiting its coverage on those issues that happened to be negative to Hillary. I'm not saying that they entirely avoided them, but I think most people would agree that their coverage was completely stilted.

As a consequence, it became virtually "normal" for there to be apparently-quite-legitimate stories on one 'side', and not another. This meant that ordinary people no longer had this as a clue to tell them which thing to believe, and which not to.

Jim Bell

On 12/07/2016 04:16 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

argumentum ad puellam pulchram

Is THAT what they're teaching you in skool down under? How to evade arguments from pretty girls? If I was a racist like you appear to be from your dstormer etc posting I'd think that's why those well-hung black men are ... well you know... So deesired, by your country's women. Rr

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:46:18PM -0800, Razer wrote:

...

The folks at Weather.com have asked Breitbart to kindly stop using their data to create #FakeNews.

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

ROTF! Keep rollin dude, keep rollin on that floor if that's where you wanna be :)

Breitbart’s climate science has come under attack from a devastating new rhetorical technique: the argumentum ad puellam pulchram (aka the Argument from a Pretty Girl) http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/07/weather-channel-attacks-b... [picture of said 'pretty girl' included in article]

Comedy gold, for those who prefer to not roll on the floor.

Trigger Warning: article contains big words that pretty girls who like rolling on the floor may be triggered by, like "peroration".