It seems as though no one can post a source without the other side claiming it's bias, untrustworthy, or false. The easiest example of this is the global warming debate: there seems to be little overlap in the sources people use to support their side of the argument. One side is accused of being paid off by right wing interests, and the other is accused of being paid off by left wing interests. Most of the time, the source being used is 100% pro or anti global warming. There doesn't appear to be a source that both sides of the debate regard as unbiased in reporting the issue.
So this is my question: are there any websites that don't take a sides? Is there a source that both liberal and conservative posters can trust? If we find one, maybe less words will be wasted trying to discredit each other's sources.
Everything is trustworthy if you understand the author's perspective.
(03-04-2014 06:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Everything is trustworthy if you understand the author's perspective.
For the most part, I agree with you. Not if the author is flat out lying, though.
I suspect that those that are flat out lying (on climate change) can be found on both sides. But what we do know from the climate-gate emails is that a number of prominent climate scientists conspired to lie, to exaggerate the situation. One even said that nobody will listen unless we act as alarmists.
I know of no sites that are really neutral. Either you are a true believer and evangelist or you are skeptical and are deemed by the believers to be a "denier." The silliness of that term shows how committed the zealots are to getting at the truth. What they want is what all leftists want - to shut down all opposing viewpoints.
I say this because I am convinced that this is just another left wing attempted power grab. A redistributionist's wet dream.
When it comes to science news, I mostly want to read articles that have reliable sources and so on. I for one can't understand how anyone from either side of any scientific debate claim their side is the winner and ignores the other side when it's not 100% face global warming is man made or not. The #1 issue that I see w/ all of this is that nobody wants to hear out the other side of the debate.
People have their own minds made up w/out seeing any real data for themselves and just jump on the analysis that a scientist makes. Is anyone on this board actually doing the fieldwork, collecting data, and testing the data? I seriously doubt it. And while scientists may be the collective experts per say, their data and tests may be wrong. I'm not advocating that global warming is man made or not. I tend to think it's not, but vehemently debating the issue on here is counter productive unless you're testing the theories for yourself.
I step out every day. Does that count as fieldwork?
Well, you should drop the IPCC off your dependable list. You reference them quite often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
The problem is that no source provides the whole truth. Each side prints truth--I doubt that there are many, if any, actual lies on either side. But neither gives the complete picture. What you have to do is read from both and ask yourself, "I just read something at source B that appears to contradict completely what I read earlier at source A. But what if they're both true? Is there any way that can be?" If there is a way to reconcile the two, that is probably where the whole truth lies.
(03-04-2014 07:20 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you should drop the IPCC off your dependable list. You reference them quite often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Considering that the IPCC is an aggregation of nearly all of the mainstream research on climate change, that's not going to happen. And FWIW, I've only referenced the IPCC a couple of times.
(03-04-2014 07:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:20 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you should drop the IPCC off your dependable list. You reference them quite often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Considering that the IPCC is an aggregation of nearly all of the mainstream research on climate change, that's not going to happen. And FWIW, I've only referenced the IPCC a couple of times.
Good god
Look up Dr Pachauri. Let me know what you find.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
(03-04-2014 07:42 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:20 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you should drop the IPCC off your dependable list. You reference them quite often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Considering that the IPCC is an aggregation of nearly all of the mainstream research on climate change, that's not going to happen. And FWIW, I've only referenced the IPCC a couple of times.
Good god
Look up Dr Pachauri. Let me know what you find.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
This is the first sentence I found when I looked up his name:
Quote:The review stated: "No evidence was found that indicated personal financial benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest"
This also came up:
Quote:On 21 August 2010, the Daily Telegraph issued an apology, saying that it had "not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years."
(03-04-2014 07:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:42 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:20 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you should drop the IPCC off your dependable list. You reference them quite often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Considering that the IPCC is an aggregation of nearly all of the mainstream research on climate change, that's not going to happen. And FWIW, I've only referenced the IPCC a couple of times.
Good god
Look up Dr Pachauri. Let me know what you find.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
This is the first sentence I found when I looked up his name:
Quote:The review stated: "No evidence was found that indicated personal financial benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest"
This also came up:
Quote:On 21 August 2010, the Daily Telegraph issued an apology, saying that it had "not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years."
Keep digging.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
(03-04-2014 08:00 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:42 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:29 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2014 07:20 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you should drop the IPCC off your dependable list. You reference them quite often.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Considering that the IPCC is an aggregation of nearly all of the mainstream research on climate change, that's not going to happen. And FWIW, I've only referenced the IPCC a couple of times.
Good god
Look up Dr Pachauri. Let me know what you find.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
This is the first sentence I found when I looked up his name:
Quote:The review stated: "No evidence was found that indicated personal financial benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest"
This also came up:
Quote:On 21 August 2010, the Daily Telegraph issued an apology, saying that it had "not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years."
Keep digging.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
What, until I find an anti GW site that I don't trust?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
![[Image: vnmp.gif]](http://imageshack.com/a/img850/1295/vnmp.gif)
Since Al Gore claimed he set up the internet he should know such a site.
He would never tell you though.
I did a good amount of fieldwork as an undergrad until I graduated last may. Most of my professors were pretty dead set in their ways. It got to be too political for not being politics. It ruined the enjoyment of actually studying the earth for it's beauty, wonder, complexity, secrets, etc. You know, the stuff they make picture calendars about? A way to travel, escape, see cool sights....
I switched disciplines
. To politics (Security).
Edit: Anyway, you want to know who's telling the truth? Nobody really. Think about it.. these scientists have a hypothesis. Climate change is an inherently complex subject where statistics and research can easily be skewed in either direction, and masked as reality. Many researchers will go out of their way to skew data to show the results they want. You want unbiased results? Find a mathematician/statistician with no stake in the climate change game to run #'s through thousands of different scenarios and draw conclusions from them. The entire process is so complex I doubt we ever see cause and effect as black and white in our life time. Meteorology and related subjects are just too complicated. Scientists will continue to record data and make observations. They will then twist the reasons behind those observations to fit their study.
(03-04-2014 06:32 PM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ]It seems as though no one can post a source without the other side claiming it's bias, untrustworthy, or false. The easiest example of this is the global warming debate: there seems to be little overlap in the sources people use to support their side of the argument. One side is accused of being paid off by right wing interests, and the other is accused of being paid off by left wing interests. Most of the time, the source being used is 100% pro or anti global warming. There doesn't appear to be a source that both sides of the debate regard as unbiased in reporting the issue.
So this is my question: are there any websites that don't take a sides? Is there a source that both liberal and conservative posters can trust? If we find one, maybe less words will be wasted trying to discredit each other's sources.
first day on the internet, pal?
srsly, it's why I generally don't bother to post links when that "provide a link" BS starts. I could script the next 100 responses; the argument is no longer about the matter at hand, but the relative credibility of the sources being cited.
it just sucks all of the fun out of it.
Any source is fair and balanced if you truly want it to be. We only post things here that confirm our biases anyway.
WHEREAS climate change models have been consistently and spectacularly wrong in their predictions, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
WHEREAS climate science always has lots of "settled facts" that oddly lead to many climate change “settled facts” being frequently changed, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
WHEREAS the very scientists and politicians who make the wrong predictions don't live the lifestyle demanded of the rest of us, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
WHEREAS the science that AGW is real is not falsifiable and therefore it is not scientific to question the science, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
WHEREAS the scientists who invoke “consensus” always seem to be from only like-minded institutions and of predictable political leanings and have banded together to support a common cause that ensures future funding, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
WHEREAS to come to any other conclusion other than that a climate scientist has acted appropriately and their data is infallible would be an admission that the scientist / university / research institution has been fleecing those who gave the money, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
WHEREAS to ridiculously claim that everything from forest fires to polar vortexes to hurricanes are, or a lack of forest fires or polar vortexes or hurricanes are, caused by western nations callously ignoring the threat of global warming, then I would say that there should be a heavy skepticism of climate alarmism and alarmist sources.
As far as global warming is concerned, the people who are the most opinionated on either side of the argument are probably the least equipped to analyze the subject. It's really like a bunch of fry-cooks discussing string theory.