SecondJon @SecondJon@social.cleverlibre.org

@trianglman
I think this exhibits the problem. With a constant stream of headlines that aren't backed up with solid data, you are certain that US emissions are rising, and that the rise is due to a single person's influence. I saw that they cited a source about global emissions that blames China to back up their anti Trump article and it seemed like a mismatch. I was not calling out stats on climate, just their lack of valid sources for what they published.

Searching the web now....looks like US emissions from energy consumption peaked in 2007 and have been trending down since. Not every year, but as a pattern per Statista.com and every other site I've seen in checking just now. And 2017 after Trump's election they were the lowest since 1990. As we're still in 2018, I suppose we only have speculation about what this year's numbers will be.

Stats show that GLOBAL emissions are up (science daily, yesterday) . If Trump is responsible for global emissions increasing while US emissions decrease, that's odd.

Bloomberg reported in September that the US is still on track to meet some Paris climate goals, despite the presidents rejection of the Paris accord. I've read that we're making better progress toward the goals than nations that are still on board with the whole agreement.

I didn't know the data, but was just pointing out that they didn't back up their claims, but this is more evidence that the constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated headlines leads us to believe certain things that may not be backed up by the data. Things can become Common Knowledge without even being factually correct.

I'm glad to see that US emissions are down. That says little about Trump, as I don't believe a president is the sole or even primary factor in carbon emissions. But it definitely says something about NPR and how we process the news.

#uspol #mediabias

The source on emissions going up is about emissions in China. What about emissions in the US?

It talks about new regulations that must be bad (because Trump is bad) but doesn't specify what they are, and getting rid of old rules that must have been good (because Obama is good).

Instead we should talk about relevant info such as
- what is happening with US emissions
- what ARE the new regulations?
- why did Obama pass through executive agencies that the next president could simply cancel, rather than through legislation?
- was the Obama regulation to promote clean air, or only to stop new plants from opening while letting existing plants not comply?
- is alternative energy cheap enough to be competitive without government oppressing coal?
- what do advocates mean by clean coal? How unclean is coal?
- How does coal power compare to the pollution caused by manufacturing clean power products and hardware and supplies?

But instead we just get :
"smart man think Obama good, Trump bad. Smart man need reminder so smart man keep thinking that. Here is headline that Obama good, Trump bad. You no need good data. Only need headline that Obama good. Trump bad. Here go."

It seems condescending to have this headline bias with only partially relevant data sources linked.

@mlg I've had those experiences...
I had a temp job at a mortgage company during the mortgage bubble. When I understood the problems and dysfunction I got a lower paying job elsewhere.

But this employee shows no signs of moving on, seems intent on being here...where she thinks what we do is providing no value.

I lead a development team at a manufacturing company that makes the highest quality products of its kind, provides awesome customer support, and only sells through its partners, thousands of small businesses in North America, so a lot of what we do is business development for those small businesses. The company makes a positive impact on its employees, community, etc., with great policies, benefits, charity, etc. So much good here to be ignored with that attitude.

I was surprised. I would have a hard time going to work every day (and I'd get a new job asap) if I didn't see my job as helping people. I add lots of value to a lot of people's lives, so I'm paid value in return. If you're not adding value, you're just... extracting value, which is harming others, rather than helping.

Sad to see someone with this viewpoint, that her daily work helps no one. Helps explain the constant bad attitude and regular tension surrounding the person, I suppose. Maybe that's what you get when you're at a job believing your and everyone's work is worthless to people.

@DrChris
That's what I call charity.
@adam

@wtwagg
George H. W., not George W., per the link.

@Surasanji
I think that's the most important point. The fervor around statistics like gender representation in STEM, the gender pay gap, etc., should always be taken with a grain of salt. The only difference with this article is that the author is honest about that.

The general consensus seems to be that we're all in a bigoted oppressive culture, but that's only because we've looked at statistics in a very specific and arbitrary way.

This drives bad political and corporate and educational policy, and it also draws obscures what is actual oppression.
@hasmis

@GreenZeta
Or alternatively by treating men's lives as dispensable.

@hasmis
You only dated people in certain majors? Or given your field people didn't my to date you?