The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[niky]

Breitbart isn't a great source of scientific news. At all.

https://www.snopes.com/scientific-pa...-warming-myth/

[Frank Lee]

Great. Now how do I bleach my computer?

[oil pan 4]

I think Clinton used a program called bit bleach. And it worked, since she isn't in prison.

We don't need anyone out side of the ipcc, noaa or pro gman made global warming universities to publish papers casting doubt on man made global warming.
Just need noaa, ipcc and other institutions to keep falsifying temperature data and keep getting caught.
That does more damage than anything imaginable.
Nothing has damaged the man made global warming movement than the pro man made global warming movement it's self.
Nothing to do now but stand back and wait for it to finish burning to the ground.

[redneck]

.

Snopes...???


The last bastion of truth and or integrity...???



Facebook 'fact checker' Snopes.com accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail Online


I'll refrain from the more lurid parts of the article even though they show more poor decision making.



From the article.

Lead fact-checkers...

One of the lead fact-checkers, Kim LaCapria, has also been a sex-and-fetish blogger who went by the pseudonym 'Vice Vixen.'

She described her blog as a lifestyle website 'with a specific focus on naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and general hedonism and bonne vivante-ery.'


Describing her day-off activities on another blog, she wrote that she 'played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.' She added, 'That's what I did on my day "on," too.'

David Mikkelson told the Dailymail.com that Snopes does not have a ‘standardized procedure’ for fact-checking ‘since the nature of this material can vary widely.’ He said the process ‘involves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person’s discretion.’

He also said the company has no set requirements for fact-checkers because the variety of the work ‘would be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards.’

‘Accordingly, our editorial staff is drawn from diverse backgrounds; some of them have degrees and/or professional experience in journalism, and some of them don't,’ he added.

So that's the definitive source of truth in scientific news debunking, we're supposed to use...???

Not to mention "any" news in general...???


No Thanks...


Also, Breitbart has found a additional 427 more scientific papers in the second half of 2017 not metioned in the Snopes article.

Are they all wrong...???

Unlikely...



>

[Frank Lee]

Well that escalated quickly.

I don't enjoy this alternative universe where alternative facts rule the day. I get enough of that **** elsewhere.

Massive data fraud. Bartfart as a bastion of truth and integrity. sheesh.

See ya.

[Lemmy]

The fact that something is being reported on a news outlet at all instantly makes it questionable with respect to bias, selective presentation, or even downright pork pies.

[oil pan 4]

A few more years I will be saying "told you so" to all the man made global warming believers.

[Xist]

I am at work, where, arguably, I am supposed to be working, and I am trying to get back to that. I tried to look up something that was work-related and found myself reading a Fox article. I generally avoid Fox just because many people refuse to discuss anything related to it and many times I have said "I read a New York Times article about..."

"You need to stop watching Fox News!"

What part of "New York Times" did they not understand?

I clicked on a few other articles. The system blocked one, but I found the same story from another news source.

Why did the system block Fox and not The Washington Times?

I remember a story where someone criticized a fact checker, although I am not sure it was Snopes, of "disproving" a claim through highly suspicious reasoning. I am not sure how to track down that article, but I found one on Forbes seeming to validate the Daily Mail post that Redneck shared: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle.../#1a6210d3227f

I generally avoid Daily Mail, but if Forbes backs up this one particular story, then I will make an exception for this particular story. Huffington Post says that Wikipedia says that Daily Mail is not reliable.

I avoid Huffington Post, too, as well as Breitbart.

[freebeard]

My friends that live up-river won't believe anything until they hear it from Rachel Maddow. And they claim Fox News isn't legacy media, even though it is beamed into everyone's livingroom.

Snopes and Breitbart? They represent one data point each. I put my trust in Slashdot (and Ars Technica):

slashdot:NYC Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change

Best comment IMHO:

Correct response from oil company should be... (Score:3, Funny)
by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @06:40PM (#55904717)

Wait, you guys did WHAT with that oil we sold you? Do you know how hard that crap is to get out of the ground and make nice and smooth?

Slashdot is moderated. Every comment is rated; you can read them all or only the highly-rated ones. I read at 2 and above.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Not a conspiracy theory at all.
Climate gate 1, 2 and 3.
The only thing they have proven is how much they are willing to lie to make it look like man made climate change is happening.

Only some one who can't come up with a good excuse would try to call it a conspiracy theory and sweep it under the rug and pretend like it isn't happening.
Sorry something you believe in is a lie.

You shouldn't believe the FUD. There is no data manipulation. The science is strong and as certain as we can be.

Read "Merchants of Doubt" - and follow the money. Fossil fuel companies are desperate to keep earning record profits.

Exxon knew in 1978 that humans are causing climate change.