smoke smog in NYC
- Thread starter trunole1
- Start date
Both look like the north end of a southbound mule!
The flatulence that spills from their mouths would spare 100 cows if they would just shut up and begone!
The flatulence that spills from their mouths would spare 100 cows if they would just shut up and begone!
True but the page hasn't been edited in two months. If there was some inaccurate information, there has been ample time to have it corrected.
Did I post something from either? If you choose to use biased sources, that's fine. Just own it.
All sources are biased in some way. There is likely bias in Google searches and what information shows up first.
I believe the speakers at the National Conference on Climate Change are credible.
You apparently don't.
So what do you believe?
AllSides Media Bias Chart
The AllSides Media Bias Chart is an easy way for you to identify political bias in the news so you can be better equipped to navigate our increasingly polarized media landscape.
www.allsides.com
In the interest of absolutes ill say most are biased.
Not that you asked me but... I think both sides are working with very small amounts of data to make a call either way.
I don't see how that site is substantially different from the one I posted but thanks.AllSides Media Bias Chart
The AllSides Media Bias Chart is an easy way for you to identify political bias in the news so you can be better equipped to navigate our increasingly polarized media landscape.
In the interest of absolutes ill say most are biased.
Given that the conference is organized by the Heartland Institute, I believe it is an echo chamber and not an exchange of ideas and beliefs.
Its not. Just illustrating where mainstream media sites sit on the spectrum of bias from a source that is probably biased too in some way. The thing about Wikipedia is while the info can be questionable sometimes it enables people from all sides to input information and be vetted.
Yes. I find them to be credible at first glance and they did provide some good data points. Now I didn't go and fact check all of their data and do background checks on them to discredit the information. I do find them more credible than Greta or Al though. Here's the thing though. They are interpreting data to make a point they want to make to an audience that wants to hear the same thing so its not totally objective either. Since climate change is such a hot button left or right issue now its going to be hard to get a true objective view on what's actually happening but I don't think that matters. Lets say scientists are correct and the earth stopped warming 4-8k years ago. We have reliable (semi) climate and weather data for the last 150 years. So we have between 1.8 and 3.75 % of that time in actual data to make a determination one way or another. I dont see it. One of the charts in the videos supported this when discussing peer reviewed papers and most had no opinion. That should be the case given the amounts of data we have. Even if we went back 400,000 years with ice core data we still would only have less than .01% of the total amount compared to the age of the planet. We could go in C02 levels but its the same issue.
My main take is that the whole issue is far more complex than blaming C02 for the issue. Without out CO2 life as we know it doesn't exist.
