NASA figures representing what? Andrew Neil was a serious journalist. He's now showing his true far right colours.
So you just copy-and-pasted something that you didn't really understand because you're open-minded. Perhaps the 'serious journalist' should clarify.
If any journalist shows their far left colours are they no longer serious either? Is it just the extremes that shouldn’t be taken seriously?
So, is 2.2% of the world surface being burned annually a good situation? I genuinely don’t know, I’m sure that some level of burning naturally happens and is ultimately good. Or does the reduction show that the environmentalists and activists have had some success in getting their message through and there is more reluctance to set fire to the countryside now? Does Andrew Neil know the answers to these questions or is he posting stuff with inflammatory ‘world on fire’ commentary (pun deliberate) out of some political or personal impulse? Of course the scale chosen on the y axis is hugely misleading and would be rejected in any academic peer reviewed paper. So Goldie are you applauding the impact of environmentalists or saying that 2-3% of the surface of the planet being burnt every year (if the figures are accurate, only Andrew Neil says it’s NASA) is fine, and if so, based on what serious evidence?
I used to quite like Neil, but since he's no longer bound by rules of impartiality and fairness he's resorting to agenda-driven, out-of-context, deliberately misleading bullshit like the thing Goldie posted. That's not serious journalism. If James O'Brien resorted to similar tactics, I wouldn't take him seriously either.
The media, particularly left wing media like the BBC, is constantly pushing the position by way of narrative and flaming red imagery on weather maps, that we'll all be burned to a crisp by mid-century. Most, myself included, believe climate change is genuine. The question is the extent. So if NASA put out figures that suggest that global burning incidents have decreased steadily since the turn of the century, it is surely worth noting and questioning. Of course, it gives those climate change devotees an opportunity to challenge the figures and debate them. Always healthy. I look forward to reading their critical analysis.
How do we know that they are NASA statistics? What constitutes a 'burned area'? Where are the statistics from pre-2001? Without source documentation and context this stuff is just climate-denier propaganda.
I’ve just had a look at the actual NASA website. I can’t find the graph which Neil used, which doesn’t mean it’s not there, it’s a big website. But the overall stance on climate change from NASA is unequivocal: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I’m surprised that Neil didn’t include some of this stuff in his tweet.
Also surprising that 'open-minded' people are so quick to latch onto climate-denier propaganda such as Neil's.
Since Andrew Neil has no history whatsoever of putting out fake information, I'm prepared to believe that he would not jeopardise his professional reputation by putting out false statistics re NASA. And it's a reliable source. Compare that with James O'Brien, who put out fake and incredibly damaging personal slurs of *****phelia against right wing establishment figures re: Carl Beech.
Didn’t realise he got England caps. Probably should have been in the Euro 92 team if we were playing **** like Keith Curle at right-back. Anyway Hancock should maybe not be uploading **** TikToks.
‘No history whatsoever’ - after one google search: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bbc-presenter-andrew-neil-mislead-14969304 https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/11...-fake-tory-statistics-general-election-video/ https://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-pres...-fake-figures-to-spin-tory-economic-failures/ https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2021/01/11/truth-and-trust-correcting-the-record-and-andrew-neil/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/1...ils-brexit-supply-chain-claims-question-time/ https://theconversation.com/uk-elec...-much-of-a-problem-are-doctored-videos-126897 https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...iers-haul-out-a-daft-conspiracy-theory-about- Regarding the alleged NASA graph, he put it out without context but implying that the issue of climate change is either exaggerated or improving. I have supplied the official NASA perspective on this. James O’Brien is simply the other side of the same coin, I have no doubt that he spreads equally false crap. Both these creeps, part of the odious class that loves the sound of its own voice and has opinions for money, make my skin crawl. But pointing out the sins of one does not absolve or disprove the sins of the other. Best to ignore both, neither are sources of authority in anything.
