SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democratic presidential hopeful Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders participates during the fourth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
FactCheck.org Ridiculed for Claiming Sanders Use of 'Existential' Misleading Because Climate Crisis May Not 'Obliterate All People From the Planet'
"Looking forward to Democratic candidates describing climate change precisely as 'something short of a literally existential threat' so that they can finally debate the issue in good faith."
Oct 16, 2019
A fact-checking website came under fire from journalists and progressives on Wednesday when it claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders misrepresented the dangers posed by the climate crisis and the for-profit health insurance industry at Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate.
FactCheck.org, which is run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, claimed Sanders inaccurately described the climate crisis as an "existential threat."
"Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet," wrote the think tank's fact checkers.
Sanders's description of the crisis--which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says policymakers have less than 12 years to drastically mitigate to avoid its worst effects--"could use some clarification," continued the article, titled "Factchecking the October Debate."
"If taken literally to mean the end of humanity, the descriptor is incorrect," the authors wrote, before admitting:
Yet scientists are clear that climate change does pose serious risks to civilization through increased temperatures, sea level rise and extreme weather, among other factors--especially if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. In some cases, this could even mean a specific location would be uninhabitable.
The so-called "correction" was denounced by a number of critics on social media.
Sanders's urgent message about the climate--echoing the repeated messages of the world's top scientists over the past several decades about the continued burning of fossil fuels--should not be placed in the same category as inaccurate claims and lies put forward by climate change deniers, suggested Economist editor Gady Epstein.
"Looking forward to Democratic candidates describing climate change precisely as 'something short of a literally existential threat' so that they can finally debate the issue in good faith, like the GOP," Epstein wrote.
Others sarcastically joked about the usefulness of "fact-checking" resources quibbling over the meaning of the word "existential" to correct Sanders's warning about a crisis that is already causing rising sea levels and often deadly weather events, and forcing people in Bangladesh, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and countless other regions to leave their homes.
FactCheck.org also highlighted two comments from Sanders about healthcare.
Regarding Sanders's statement that medical expenses have led to 500,000 people "going bankrupt," the website pointed to a report in the American Journal of Public Health which showed that two-thirds of nearly 1,000 respondents to a survey said medical expenses contributed to their bankruptcies.
"Medical issues weren't the sole reason for some of those bankruptcies," the authors wrote, without explaining why the distinction was important for debate-viewers to understand in order to make an informed decision about their vote.
The article also took issue with Sanders's statement that "87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured," noting that the statistic comes from a Commonwealth Fund study which included "19.3 million who were insured when they were surveyed but had a gap in coverage in the previous year."
"Thanks for checking the fact that those people were underinsured and confirming the fact that they were underinsured," tweeted podcast host Cody Johnston.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A fact-checking website came under fire from journalists and progressives on Wednesday when it claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders misrepresented the dangers posed by the climate crisis and the for-profit health insurance industry at Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate.
FactCheck.org, which is run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, claimed Sanders inaccurately described the climate crisis as an "existential threat."
"Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet," wrote the think tank's fact checkers.
Sanders's description of the crisis--which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says policymakers have less than 12 years to drastically mitigate to avoid its worst effects--"could use some clarification," continued the article, titled "Factchecking the October Debate."
"If taken literally to mean the end of humanity, the descriptor is incorrect," the authors wrote, before admitting:
Yet scientists are clear that climate change does pose serious risks to civilization through increased temperatures, sea level rise and extreme weather, among other factors--especially if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. In some cases, this could even mean a specific location would be uninhabitable.
The so-called "correction" was denounced by a number of critics on social media.
Sanders's urgent message about the climate--echoing the repeated messages of the world's top scientists over the past several decades about the continued burning of fossil fuels--should not be placed in the same category as inaccurate claims and lies put forward by climate change deniers, suggested Economist editor Gady Epstein.
"Looking forward to Democratic candidates describing climate change precisely as 'something short of a literally existential threat' so that they can finally debate the issue in good faith, like the GOP," Epstein wrote.
Others sarcastically joked about the usefulness of "fact-checking" resources quibbling over the meaning of the word "existential" to correct Sanders's warning about a crisis that is already causing rising sea levels and often deadly weather events, and forcing people in Bangladesh, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and countless other regions to leave their homes.
FactCheck.org also highlighted two comments from Sanders about healthcare.
Regarding Sanders's statement that medical expenses have led to 500,000 people "going bankrupt," the website pointed to a report in the American Journal of Public Health which showed that two-thirds of nearly 1,000 respondents to a survey said medical expenses contributed to their bankruptcies.
"Medical issues weren't the sole reason for some of those bankruptcies," the authors wrote, without explaining why the distinction was important for debate-viewers to understand in order to make an informed decision about their vote.
The article also took issue with Sanders's statement that "87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured," noting that the statistic comes from a Commonwealth Fund study which included "19.3 million who were insured when they were surveyed but had a gap in coverage in the previous year."
"Thanks for checking the fact that those people were underinsured and confirming the fact that they were underinsured," tweeted podcast host Cody Johnston.
A fact-checking website came under fire from journalists and progressives on Wednesday when it claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders misrepresented the dangers posed by the climate crisis and the for-profit health insurance industry at Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate.
FactCheck.org, which is run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, claimed Sanders inaccurately described the climate crisis as an "existential threat."
"Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet," wrote the think tank's fact checkers.
Sanders's description of the crisis--which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says policymakers have less than 12 years to drastically mitigate to avoid its worst effects--"could use some clarification," continued the article, titled "Factchecking the October Debate."
"If taken literally to mean the end of humanity, the descriptor is incorrect," the authors wrote, before admitting:
Yet scientists are clear that climate change does pose serious risks to civilization through increased temperatures, sea level rise and extreme weather, among other factors--especially if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. In some cases, this could even mean a specific location would be uninhabitable.
The so-called "correction" was denounced by a number of critics on social media.
Sanders's urgent message about the climate--echoing the repeated messages of the world's top scientists over the past several decades about the continued burning of fossil fuels--should not be placed in the same category as inaccurate claims and lies put forward by climate change deniers, suggested Economist editor Gady Epstein.
"Looking forward to Democratic candidates describing climate change precisely as 'something short of a literally existential threat' so that they can finally debate the issue in good faith, like the GOP," Epstein wrote.
Others sarcastically joked about the usefulness of "fact-checking" resources quibbling over the meaning of the word "existential" to correct Sanders's warning about a crisis that is already causing rising sea levels and often deadly weather events, and forcing people in Bangladesh, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, and countless other regions to leave their homes.
FactCheck.org also highlighted two comments from Sanders about healthcare.
Regarding Sanders's statement that medical expenses have led to 500,000 people "going bankrupt," the website pointed to a report in the American Journal of Public Health which showed that two-thirds of nearly 1,000 respondents to a survey said medical expenses contributed to their bankruptcies.
"Medical issues weren't the sole reason for some of those bankruptcies," the authors wrote, without explaining why the distinction was important for debate-viewers to understand in order to make an informed decision about their vote.
The article also took issue with Sanders's statement that "87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured," noting that the statistic comes from a Commonwealth Fund study which included "19.3 million who were insured when they were surveyed but had a gap in coverage in the previous year."
"Thanks for checking the fact that those people were underinsured and confirming the fact that they were underinsured," tweeted podcast host Cody Johnston.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.