So I came across this little gem at Factcheck.org - a site I increasingly use to observe bias and poor journalism - on climate change - the biggest cottage industry around at the moment.
One way to determine if an article has weight and mustard is to check its sources. The problem I have with Factchecks 'fact-checking' is its homage to Pravda in that it relies too heavily on government agencies to support its claims in what's supposed to be an 'objective' piece.
As you read, like in mainstream media outlets, it becomes apparent an appeal to authority is the crux of what they consider objective. By citing mostly government backed research, it's telling its readers these are the only sources you can trust.
And if you have a modicum of healthy skeptical awareness, it doesn't take much convincing this is a bad idea.
At this point, we may even need a separation of science and state, and media.
At the moment, there's an armada of scientists and researchers who have staked their claim and reputations on climate change being a real thing. They need to keep the ante on 'we need to do something now' or else whether their grants. It's a persistent tactic that seems to work.
Climate alarmists like Gore, Ehrlich and Hansen have been so spectacularly wrong, it's a wonder of mighty epic proportions why they're even cited at this point. Never mind the simple acts of hypocrisy by pop culture celebrities like Gore easily observed. For example, using private jets to fly around the world warning people of the evils of carbon foot prints and using fossil fuels that contribute - allegedly - to the pending climate doom threatening to make extinct the human species.
Take the sea rises. The political classes are convinced coasts are threatened and only policy action can save the day. Of course, it's far more complicated than that.
Forgive me, but I don't put a whole lot of trust into Climate Barbie McKenna, Justin and Obama when it comes to such a complex issue. The idea they have the ear of the 'scientific consensus' ergo we must heed their calls is absurd. Never mind they're not convincing mouth pieces for the movement.
Take a look at this in-depth examination of sea rises at Climate Etc. Here, here, here and here.
Makes Factcheck look silly, eh?
The whole debate is marked by manipulated data, moving targets, is wildly unpredictable, relies on small data sizes and samples, and vague language (it is 'very likely' 'medium' and 'high confidence' etc).
Does that sound 'settled' to you?
One way to determine if an article has weight and mustard is to check its sources. The problem I have with Factchecks 'fact-checking' is its homage to Pravda in that it relies too heavily on government agencies to support its claims in what's supposed to be an 'objective' piece.
As you read, like in mainstream media outlets, it becomes apparent an appeal to authority is the crux of what they consider objective. By citing mostly government backed research, it's telling its readers these are the only sources you can trust.
And if you have a modicum of healthy skeptical awareness, it doesn't take much convincing this is a bad idea.
At this point, we may even need a separation of science and state, and media.
At the moment, there's an armada of scientists and researchers who have staked their claim and reputations on climate change being a real thing. They need to keep the ante on 'we need to do something now' or else whether their grants. It's a persistent tactic that seems to work.
Climate alarmists like Gore, Ehrlich and Hansen have been so spectacularly wrong, it's a wonder of mighty epic proportions why they're even cited at this point. Never mind the simple acts of hypocrisy by pop culture celebrities like Gore easily observed. For example, using private jets to fly around the world warning people of the evils of carbon foot prints and using fossil fuels that contribute - allegedly - to the pending climate doom threatening to make extinct the human species.
Take the sea rises. The political classes are convinced coasts are threatened and only policy action can save the day. Of course, it's far more complicated than that.
Forgive me, but I don't put a whole lot of trust into Climate Barbie McKenna, Justin and Obama when it comes to such a complex issue. The idea they have the ear of the 'scientific consensus' ergo we must heed their calls is absurd. Never mind they're not convincing mouth pieces for the movement.
Take a look at this in-depth examination of sea rises at Climate Etc. Here, here, here and here.
Makes Factcheck look silly, eh?
The whole debate is marked by manipulated data, moving targets, is wildly unpredictable, relies on small data sizes and samples, and vague language (it is 'very likely' 'medium' and 'high confidence' etc).
Does that sound 'settled' to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.