More fake news from CNN

[Boilermaker03]

An entire North Carolina police department resigned after a Black woman town manager was hired | CNN

The mass exodus of an entire police department after the hiring of a Black town manager in North Carolina has opened a conversation about public safety and race relations in a small town of just over 1,500 residents.

www.cnn.com

The truth



Sad that the woman in the story is using racism to justify anyone going against her. Almost as if she's been conditioned to do so.

 

[charlespig]

Sigh, another nonsense post b!tching about nothing.

The established facts are: in a small town, 5 police officers resigned, citing hostile work environment. That came two months after a black woman was hired as town manager.

That is basically what CNN reported. CNN tried to get the accounts on both sides. They detailed the police officer's complaint, "Gibson, who claimed the manager wrote him up for being late if he wasn't sitting at his desk, among other things 'She wrote me up for going to businesses and talking with businesses. She wrote me up for talking with council members I've known for 20 years.'" They also tried to get the town manager's side of the story, but she only said it was a private matter and could not comment on the resignations.

CNN also didn't say the cops who resigned were racists, nor the resignation was due to race. In fact, in bold headlines, it said, " Residents split on whether it's a 'race issue'." I don't see any "fake news" with this kind of reporting. It tries to paint the picture as objectively as possible, and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Meanwhile, the OP made a huge deal of basically nothing, all because there was a clip from Real Climate Science (as if that must be the authority in what's happening in a small town in North Carolina). If we look at Media Bias, Real Climate Science is rated "very low" in factual reporting, and "Quackery" in pseudo-sci level. I'd hope that the OP could use less bias and more trustworthy media outlet as the basis on whether something is "truth" or "fake news." And perhaps before calling it "fake news" actually read the CNN reporting first, and then specify which part of the reporting is fake. B!tching about nothing and you'll just be making a fool out of yourself. It's embarrassing.

Real Climate Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[indyogb]

Sigh, another nonsense post b!tching about nothing.

The established facts are: in a small town, 5 police officers resigned, citing hostile work environment. That came two months after a black woman was hired as town manager.

That is basically what CNN reported. CNN tried to get the accounts on both sides. They detailed the police officer's complaint, "Gibson, who claimed the manager wrote him up for being late if he wasn't sitting at his desk, among other things 'She wrote me up for going to businesses and talking with businesses. She wrote me up for talking with council members I've known for 20 years.'" They also tried to get the town manager's side of the story, but she only said it was a private matter and could not comment on the resignations.

CNN also didn't say the cops who resigned were racists, nor the resignation was due to race. In fact, in bold headlines, it said, " Residents split on whether it's a 'race issue'." I don't see any "fake news" with this kind of reporting. It tries to paint the picture as objectively as possible, and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Meanwhile, the OP made a huge deal of basically nothing, all because there was a clip from Real Climate Science (as if that must be the authority in what's happening in a small town in North Carolina). If we look at Media Bias, Real Climate Science is rated "very low" in factual reporting, and "Quackery" in pseudo-sci level. I'd hope that the OP could use less bias and more trustworthy media outlet as the basis on whether something is "truth" or "fake news." And perhaps before calling it "fake news" actually read the CNN reporting first, and then specify which part of the reporting is fake. B!tching about nothing and you'll just be making a fool out of yourself. It's embarrassing.

Real Climate Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

All of that may or may not be true. However, relying on "Media Bias" is like relying on any fact checker - it's only as good as the people doing the fact checking or, in this case, bias estimation. Most of them are just more propaganda and biased BS (mostly left, but some right).

 

[Boilermaker03]

Sigh, another nonsense post b!tching about nothing.

The established facts are: in a small town, 5 police officers resigned, citing hostile work environment. That came two months after a black woman was hired as town manager.

That is basically what CNN reported. CNN tried to get the accounts on both sides. They detailed the police officer's complaint, "Gibson, who claimed the manager wrote him up for being late if he wasn't sitting at his desk, among other things 'She wrote me up for going to businesses and talking with businesses. She wrote me up for talking with council members I've known for 20 years.'" They also tried to get the town manager's side of the story, but she only said it was a private matter and could not comment on the resignations.

CNN also didn't say the cops who resigned were racists, nor the resignation was due to race. In fact, in bold headlines, it said, " Residents split on whether it's a 'race issue'." I don't see any "fake news" with this kind of reporting. It tries to paint the picture as objectively as possible, and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Meanwhile, the OP made a huge deal of basically nothing, all because there was a clip from Real Climate Science (as if that must be the authority in what's happening in a small town in North Carolina). If we look at Media Bias, Real Climate Science is rated "very low" in factual reporting, and "Quackery" in pseudo-sci level. I'd hope that the OP could use less bias and more trustworthy media outlet as the basis on whether something is "truth" or "fake news." And perhaps before calling it "fake news" actually read the CNN reporting first, and then specify which part of the reporting is fake. B!tching about nothing and you'll just be making a fool out of yourself. It's embarrassing.

Real Climate Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Yeah, that "media bias" is total bullshit. As stated above, it's only as good as the people doing it. If they took the time to actually see what real climate science had to say, they wouldn't be calling it fake. Hard to be fake when all you do is quote data and newspaper articles. Doesn't mean they can't be wrong. But to call it conspiracy theories or pseudo science is just wrong.

 

[charlespig]

All of that may or may not be true. However, relying on "Media Bias" is like relying on any fact checker - it's only as good as the people doing the fact checking or, in this case, bias estimation. Most of them are just more propaganda and biased BS (mostly left, but some right).

OK, let's separate the two issues here.

The first issue is that the OP claimed that CNN is spreading fake news. He doesn't provide any supporting argument what is fake about CNN reporting. I even wonder if he has read the CNN article and used any critical thinking skill to determine whether the report was fake. Perhaps all he read was the account from Real Climate Science, and since that matched his preconceived notion of CNN, he gladly shared this news to the board as yet another evidence of CNN being untrustworthy? If so, that is lazy, irresponsible, and brainless. He didn't even seem to question, why on earth do we think "Real Climate Science" would know the TRUTH about police resigning in a North Carolina small town?

The above has absolutely nothing to do with media bias.

Now, onto the second issue, which is media bias. The link that I provided presented not only the rating, but WHY it gave that rating. It listed three failed fact checks as to why it gave them that rating. So if you are questioning the validity of Media Bias, a better approach is to point out why the failed fact checks that they showed are actually valid, and then we can see if that is indeed the case. Just saying "the media bias checkers are just total BS" is not helping the discussion. Otherwise, just complaining Media Bias itself is bias would be like a 3-year-old complaining that his mother is biased against him every time his mother punished him.

 

[BNIBoiler]

OK, let's separate the two issues here.

The first issue is that the OP claimed that CNN is spreading fake news. He doesn't provide any supporting argument what is fake about CNN reporting. I even wonder if he has read the CNN article and used any critical thinking skill to determine whether the report was fake. Perhaps all he read was the account from Real Climate Science, and since that matched his preconceived notion of CNN, he gladly shared this news to the board as yet another evidence of CNN being untrustworthy? If so, that is lazy, irresponsible, and brainless. He didn't even seem to question, why on earth do we think "Real Climate Science" would know the TRUTH about police resigning in a North Carolina small town?

The above has absolutely nothing to do with media bias.

Now, onto the second issue, which is media bias. The link that I provided presented not only the rating, but WHY it gave that rating. It listed three failed fact checks as to why it gave them that rating. So if you are questioning the validity of Media Bias, a better approach is to point out why the failed fact checks that they showed are actually valid, and then we can see if that is indeed the case. Just saying "the media bias checkers are just total BS" is not helping the discussion. Otherwise, just complaining Media Bias itself is bias would be like a 3-year-old complaining that his mother is biased against him every time his mother punished him.

These folks NEVER say anything about the crap Faux News spits out day and night. The evening folks, Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham try to out jackass each other every night.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Yeah, that "media bias" is total bullshit. As stated above, it's only as good as the people doing it. If they took the time to actually see what real climate science had to say, they wouldn't be calling it fake. Hard to be fake when all you do is quote data and newspaper articles. Doesn't mean they can't be wrong. But to call it conspiracy theories or pseudo science is just wrong.

LOL, Of course data can never be fudged and newspaper articles are always accurate. It's hard to believe that any adult can be that naive. If you can't recognize that media bias exists, then you have to be very well indoctrinated. For almost 4 years we heard about Russian Collusion from almost all the MSM outlets and it was proven to be a lie. The NYPost broke the Hunter Biden Laptop story and the Left Wing MSM and Social Media suppressed the story and claimed it was Russian Misinformation. Over a year after the election, the NYTimes & WAPO acknowledge that Hunter's L:aptop is real, yet there is no accountability.

I'll acknowledge that Climate Change exists and has existed as long as the Earth has. I also believe that Political Opportunists on the Left recognized that they could control & manipulate our society, if they could sell it as an existential threat. Look at all the $Billions that have been spent on climate change, during the Obama & Biden Administrations and the net effect has been taxpayer dollars funding a lot of scams like Solyndra.

I spend less time listening to what politicians are saying and more time watching what they actually do.

-- Al Gore twice predicted that the planet was doomed, due to GW/CC. If he were correct, we would have ceased to exist in 2016. In the early 1990's he narrated a video showing NYC being flooded by the melting ice from the Polar Icecap. He predicted with certainty, that this was going to happen. When Gore left the Senate, he was worth about $1-2 Million and now he's worth $200 - $300 Million from Climate hustling and selling Carbon Offsets. His private residence in TN consumes more energy than, any other private residence in the state. Do as I say, NOT as I do.

-- John Carey is the Climate Czar for Biden and he has jetted all over the planet in his private plane, warning everyone about the threat CC poses for our planet. He seems oblivious that he's probably got one of the largest Carbon Footprints in the world. Hypocrisy...

-- B. Obama is a big advocate for eliminating the fossil fuel industry and has told us repeatedly that GW/CC is an existential threat. That didn't stop him from buying a $15 Million Estate on the water in Martha's Vineyard. He spreads the fear of CC, but he's betting $15 Million that it's NOT going to be a problem for him.

-- J. Biden is trying to stomp the fossil fuel industry out of existence and pushes the green agenda and Electric Vehicles daily, yet he owns NO EVs, has NO solar panels on any of his properties and I'm not aware of any Wind Farms in Delaware. Would this be the case, if he honestly believed that CC were an existential threat?

These are 5 of the loudest voices warning us about the threat that GW/CC allegedly poses to our existence and they're expecting us to make great changes to OUR lives to fight this battle. Not one of them has done anything to decrease their carbon footprint and they're all only paying lip service to this contrived crisis.

Best case scenario is that this is really poor leadership by these 5 individuals. Worst case scenario is that they're all in on the scam, that will ultimately loot Trillions of tax dollars from our Treasury and hurt our economy.

 

[charlespig]

LOL, Of course data can never be fudged and newspaper articles are always accurate. It's hard to believe that any adult can be that naive. If you can't recognize that media bias exists, then you have to be very well indoctrinated. For almost 4 years we heard about Russian Collusion from almost all the MSM outlets and it was proven to be a lie. The NYPost broke the Hunter Biden Laptop story and the Left Wing MSM and Social Media suppressed the story and claimed it was Russian Misinformation. Over a year after the election, the NYTimes & WAPO acknowledge that Hunter's L:aptop is real, yet there is no accountability.

I'll acknowledge that Climate Change exists and has existed as long as the Earth has. I also believe that Political Opportunists on the Left recognized that they could control & manipulate our society, if they could sell it as an existential threat. Look at all the $Billions that have been spent on climate change, during the Obama & Biden Administrations and the net effect has been taxpayer dollars funding a lot of scams like Solyndra.

I spend less time listening to what politicians are saying and more time watching what they actually do.

-- Al Gore twice predicted that the planet was doomed, due to GW/CC. If he were correct, we would have ceased to exist in 2016. In the early 1990's he narrated a video showing NYC being flooded by the melting ice from the Polar Icecap. He predicted with certainty, that this was going to happen. When Gore left the Senate, he was worth about $1-2 Million and now he's worth $200 - $300 Million from Climate hustling and selling Carbon Offsets. His private residence in TN consumes more energy than, any other private residence in the state. Do as I say, NOT as I do.

-- John Carey is the Climate Czar for Biden and he has jetted all over the planet in his private plane, warning everyone about the threat CC poses for our planet. He seems oblivious that he's probably got one of the largest Carbon Footprints in the world. Hypocrisy...

-- B. Obama is a big advocate for eliminating the fossil fuel industry and has told us repeatedly that GW/CC is an existential threat. That didn't stop him from buying a $15 Million Estate on the water in Martha's Vineyard. He spreads the fear of CC, but he's betting $15 Million that it's NOT going to be a problem for him.

-- J. Biden is trying to stomp the fossil fuel industry out of existence and pushes the green agenda and Electric Vehicles daily, yet he owns NO EVs, has NO solar panels on any of his properties and I'm not aware of any Wind Farms in Delaware. Would this be the case, if he honestly believed that CC were an existential threat?

These are 5 of the loudest voices warning us about the threat that GW/CC allegedly poses to our existence and they're expecting us to make great changes to OUR lives to fight this battle. Not one of them has done anything to decrease their carbon footprint and they're all only paying lip service to this contrived crisis.

Best case scenario is that this is really poor leadership by these 5 individuals. Worst case scenario is that they're all in on the scam, that will ultimately loot Trillions of tax dollars from our Treasury and hurt our economy.

OK, maybe you and Boilermaker03 need to sort out the narratives first coz you two can't have both. He is claiming that "Real Climate Science" cannot be fake because it is hard to be fake when all you do is quote data and newspaper articles. Meanwhile, you are saying that it is naive. Personally, I believe there is media bias, which is why we need some transparent assessment on how much bias each outlet has.

Now, onto climate change. You said you believe CC exists. So may I ask to what extent do you believe CC exists, and how much it is due to human activities? For example, do you believe atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution? Do you believe that has an effect to the atmosphere, like ozone depletion and the hole over Antarctica? Enclosed is what the Australian Academy of Science says about CC - do you think agree with what they say, or do you think it is just a hoax?

3. Are human activities causing climate change? | Australian Academy of Science

Southern approach to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, NSW. Photo: ©iStockphoto.com/airspeed Human activities have increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere

www.science.org.au

 

[tearsforfears]

These folks NEVER say anything about the crap Faux News spits out day and night. The evening folks, Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham try to out jackass each other every night.

Kinda like how you NEVER say anything about the crap that CNN spits out day and night. You still believe the Haitian whips hoax. CNN and MSM caters to the stupid and mentally handicapped like yourself.

 

[Boilermaker03]

OK, let's separate the two issues here.

The first issue is that the OP claimed that CNN is spreading fake news. He doesn't provide any supporting argument what is fake about CNN reporting. I even wonder if he has read the CNN article and used any critical thinking skill to determine whether the report was fake. Perhaps all he read was the account from Real Climate Science, and since that matched his preconceived notion of CNN, he gladly shared this news to the board as yet another evidence of CNN being untrustworthy? If so, that is lazy, irresponsible, and brainless. He didn't even seem to question, why on earth do we think "Real Climate Science" would know the TRUTH about police resigning in a North Carolina small town?

The above has absolutely nothing to do with media bias.

Now, onto the second issue, which is media bias. The link that I provided presented not only the rating, but WHY it gave that rating. It listed three failed fact checks as to why it gave them that rating. So if you are questioning the validity of Media Bias, a better approach is to point out why the failed fact checks that they showed are actually valid, and then we can see if that is indeed the case. Just saying "the media bias checkers are just total BS" is not helping the discussion. Otherwise, just complaining Media Bias itself is bias would be like a 3-year-old complaining that his mother is biased against him every time his mother punished him.

Yes, and media bias' "fact checks" are all wrong. They don't even attempt to look into what he's really saying. They just take the word of the other side with no real analysis. In fact, all they did was look to see what Politifact had to say about it. LOL Media bias using a biased media. Irony at it's best!

 

[Boilermaker03]

LOL, Of course data can never be fudged and newspaper articles are always accurate. It's hard to believe that any adult can be that naive. If you can't recognize that media bias exists, then you have to be very well indoctrinated. For almost 4 years we heard about Russian Collusion from almost all the MSM outlets and it was proven to be a lie. The NYPost broke the Hunter Biden Laptop story and the Left Wing MSM and Social Media suppressed the story and claimed it was Russian Misinformation. Over a year after the election, the NYTimes & WAPO acknowledge that Hunter's L:aptop is real, yet there is no accountability.

I'll acknowledge that Climate Change exists and has existed as long as the Earth has. I also believe that Political Opportunists on the Left recognized that they could control & manipulate our society, if they could sell it as an existential threat. Look at all the $Billions that have been spent on climate change, during the Obama & Biden Administrations and the net effect has been taxpayer dollars funding a lot of scams like Solyndra.

I spend less time listening to what politicians are saying and more time watching what they actually do.

-- Al Gore twice predicted that the planet was doomed, due to GW/CC. If he were correct, we would have ceased to exist in 2016. In the early 1990's he narrated a video showing NYC being flooded by the melting ice from the Polar Icecap. He predicted with certainty, that this was going to happen. When Gore left the Senate, he was worth about $1-2 Million and now he's worth $200 - $300 Million from Climate hustling and selling Carbon Offsets. His private residence in TN consumes more energy than, any other private residence in the state. Do as I say, NOT as I do.

-- John Carey is the Climate Czar for Biden and he has jetted all over the planet in his private plane, warning everyone about the threat CC poses for our planet. He seems oblivious that he's probably got one of the largest Carbon Footprints in the world. Hypocrisy...

-- B. Obama is a big advocate for eliminating the fossil fuel industry and has told us repeatedly that GW/CC is an existential threat. That didn't stop him from buying a $15 Million Estate on the water in Martha's Vineyard. He spreads the fear of CC, but he's betting $15 Million that it's NOT going to be a problem for him.

-- J. Biden is trying to stomp the fossil fuel industry out of existence and pushes the green agenda and Electric Vehicles daily, yet he owns NO EVs, has NO solar panels on any of his properties and I'm not aware of any Wind Farms in Delaware. Would this be the case, if he honestly believed that CC were an existential threat?

These are 5 of the loudest voices warning us about the threat that GW/CC allegedly poses to our existence and they're expecting us to make great changes to OUR lives to fight this battle. Not one of them has done anything to decrease their carbon footprint and they're all only paying lip service to this contrived crisis.

Best case scenario is that this is really poor leadership by these 5 individuals. Worst case scenario is that they're all in on the scam, that will ultimately loot Trillions of tax dollars from our Treasury and hurt our economy.

You missed the part where I said that they could be wrong. Fake and wrong are two different things. The articles he quotes are back from the early 1900's. I don't think fake news was as prevalent back then as it is today.

Besides, I pretty much always agree with you as I agree with all of the rest of this post.

 

[Boilermaker03]

OK, maybe you and Boilermaker03 need to sort out the narratives first coz you two can't have both. He is claiming that "Real Climate Science" cannot be fake because it is hard to be fake when all you do is quote data and newspaper articles. Meanwhile, you are saying that it is naive. Personally, I believe there is media bias, which is why we need some transparent assessment on how much bias each outlet has.

Now, onto climate change. You said you believe CC exists. So may I ask to what extent do you believe CC exists, and how much it is due to human activities? For example, do you believe atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution? Do you believe that has an effect to the atmosphere, like ozone depletion and the hole over Antarctica? Enclosed is what the Australian Academy of Science says about CC - do you think agree with what they say, or do you think it is just a hoax?

3. Are human activities causing climate change? | Australian Academy of Science

Southern approach to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, NSW. Photo: ©iStockphoto.com/airspeed Human activities have increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere

www.science.org.au

Man made climate change is 99% myth. I will never say we have no effect, but the effect on climate is extremely, extremely small. It is a fact that C02 has increased since the industrial revolution, but I question strongly the methodology used to tell what C02 levels were during the past before we could accurately measure C02. The reason why, is because there are several methods to create proxies for C02 levels in the past. Some of these proxies tend to appear to be more accurate, but they are ignored by the climate alarmists because they don't support the narrative. In fact, these proxies would absolutely destroy the narrative. Without the ice core proxies, the man made climate change narrative implodes.

 

[bonefish1]

Sigh, another nonsense post b!tching about nothing.

The established facts are: in a small town, 5 police officers resigned, citing hostile work environment. That came two months after a black woman was hired as town manager.

That is basically what CNN reported. CNN tried to get the accounts on both sides. They detailed the police officer's complaint, "Gibson, who claimed the manager wrote him up for being late if he wasn't sitting at his desk, among other things 'She wrote me up for going to businesses and talking with businesses. She wrote me up for talking with council members I've known for 20 years.'" They also tried to get the town manager's side of the story, but she only said it was a private matter and could not comment on the resignations.

CNN also didn't say the cops who resigned were racists, nor the resignation was due to race. In fact, in bold headlines, it said, " Residents split on whether it's a 'race issue'." I don't see any "fake news" with this kind of reporting. It tries to paint the picture as objectively as possible, and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Meanwhile, the OP made a huge deal of basically nothing, all because there was a clip from Real Climate Science (as if that must be the authority in what's happening in a small town in North Carolina). If we look at Media Bias, Real Climate Science is rated "very low" in factual reporting, and "Quackery" in pseudo-sci level. I'd hope that the OP could use less bias and more trustworthy media outlet as the basis on whether something is "truth" or "fake news." And perhaps before calling it "fake news" actually read the CNN reporting first, and then specify which part of the reporting is fake. B!tching about nothing and you'll just be making a fool out of yourself. It's embarrassing.

Real Climate Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

if CNN doesn't mention race, gender and imply racism were involved, then it's not a CNN (or MSNBC) type of story worth sharing.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Sigh, another nonsense post b!tching about nothing.

The established facts are: in a small town, 5 police officers resigned, citing hostile work environment. That came two months after a black woman was hired as town manager.

That is basically what CNN reported. CNN tried to get the accounts on both sides. They detailed the police officer's complaint, "Gibson, who claimed the manager wrote him up for being late if he wasn't sitting at his desk, among other things 'She wrote me up for going to businesses and talking with businesses. She wrote me up for talking with council members I've known for 20 years.'" They also tried to get the town manager's side of the story, but she only said it was a private matter and could not comment on the resignations.

CNN also didn't say the cops who resigned were racists, nor the resignation was due to race. In fact, in bold headlines, it said, " Residents split on whether it's a 'race issue'." I don't see any "fake news" with this kind of reporting. It tries to paint the picture as objectively as possible, and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Meanwhile, the OP made a huge deal of basically nothing, all because there was a clip from Real Climate Science (as if that must be the authority in what's happening in a small town in North Carolina). If we look at Media Bias, Real Climate Science is rated "very low" in factual reporting, and "Quackery" in pseudo-sci level. I'd hope that the OP could use less bias and more trustworthy media outlet as the basis on whether something is "truth" or "fake news." And perhaps before calling it "fake news" actually read the CNN reporting first, and then specify which part of the reporting is fake. B!tching about nothing and you'll just be making a fool out of yourself. It's embarrassing.

Real Climate Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Also, just read the title of the article and tell me that it doesn't imply that everyone left because a black woman was hired.

 

[BoilerJS]

Man made climate change is 99% myth. I will never say we have no effect, but the effect on climate is extremely, extremely small. It is a fact that C02 has increased since the industrial revolution, but I question strongly the methodology used to tell what C02 levels were during the past before we could accurately measure C02. The reason why, is because there are several methods to create proxies for C02 levels in the past. Some of these proxies tend to appear to be more accurate, but they are ignored by the climate alarmists because they don't support the narrative. In fact, these proxies would absolutely destroy the narrative. Without the ice core proxies, the man made climate change narrative implodes.

I have posted before but I think the science is there.
17,000 years ago man mastered fire.
16,500 years ago the glaciers melted.
Coioncidence?

 

[Boilermaker03]

I have posted before but I think the science is there.
17,000 years ago man mastered fire.
16,500 years ago the glaciers melted.
Coioncidence?

Sadly, I have talked to people that think man making little campfires made a difference. All the natural forest fires though, no difference at all. It's all mans fault.

 

[charlespig]

Yes, and media bias' "fact checks" are all wrong. They don't even attempt to look into what he's really saying. They just take the word of the other side with no real analysis. In fact, all they did was look to see what Politifact had to say about it. LOL Media bias using a biased media. Irony at it's best!

OK, if MBFC is using a biased media, then what's an unbiased media that you suggest we should use?

 

[charlespig]

Man made climate change is 99% myth. I will never say we have no effect, but the effect on climate is extremely, extremely small. It is a fact that C02 has increased since the industrial revolution, but I question strongly the methodology used to tell what C02 levels were during the past before we could accurately measure C02. The reason why, is because there are several methods to create proxies for C02 levels in the past. Some of these proxies tend to appear to be more accurate, but they are ignored by the climate alarmists because they don't support the narrative. In fact, these proxies would absolutely destroy the narrative. Without the ice core proxies, the man made climate change narrative implodes.

So if I understand correctly, you are saying there are several ways of measuring CO2, let's say {A, B, C, D, E}. A is the most accurate and it is not supporting the man-made CC narrative, and so it is ignored by the climate alarmists. Meanwhile, those climate alarmists hype {B, C, D, E} and give us a false alarm.

I have two questions:

1) Where can I find and learn more about A?

2) Why is A accurate and {B, C, D, E} not?

 

[charlespig]

Also, just read the title of the article and tell me that it doesn't imply that everyone left because a black woman was hired.

OK, then I am telling you, it doesn't imply that everyone left because a black woman was hired.

If you wanna see sh!t, everything you see can look like sh!t.

If you wanna see beauty, everyone you see can be beautiful.

I can say "I wish you are less dumb" and you can all up in arms and whine "Tell me that it isn't an insult." But honestly, I wish I am less dumb.

Lastly, you should always read the content before concluding that something is fake. Just reading the headline and then jump to a preconceived conclusion is just ... at the very least, lazy and naive? Then jumping to make a post out of it on this board is just needless and embarrassing. The worst is to keep doubling down. Congratulations, you just hit the trifecta.

 

[Crayfish57]

These folks NEVER say anything about the crap Faux News spits out day and night. The evening folks, Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham try to out jackass each other every night.

Whats up chump?

 

[Crayfish57]

Sigh, another nonsense post b!tching about nothing.

The established facts are: in a small town, 5 police officers resigned, citing hostile work environment. That came two months after a black woman was hired as town manager.

That is basically what CNN reported. CNN tried to get the accounts on both sides. They detailed the police officer's complaint, "Gibson, who claimed the manager wrote him up for being late if he wasn't sitting at his desk, among other things 'She wrote me up for going to businesses and talking with businesses. She wrote me up for talking with council members I've known for 20 years.'" They also tried to get the town manager's side of the story, but she only said it was a private matter and could not comment on the resignations.

CNN also didn't say the cops who resigned were racists, nor the resignation was due to race. In fact, in bold headlines, it said, " Residents split on whether it's a 'race issue'." I don't see any "fake news" with this kind of reporting. It tries to paint the picture as objectively as possible, and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Meanwhile, the OP made a huge deal of basically nothing, all because there was a clip from Real Climate Science (as if that must be the authority in what's happening in a small town in North Carolina). If we look at Media Bias, Real Climate Science is rated "very low" in factual reporting, and "Quackery" in pseudo-sci level. I'd hope that the OP could use less bias and more trustworthy media outlet as the basis on whether something is "truth" or "fake news." And perhaps before calling it "fake news" actually read the CNN reporting first, and then specify which part of the reporting is fake. B!tching about nothing and you'll just be making a fool out of yourself. It's embarrassing.

Real Climate Science - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Sigh..........

When Charlespig sighs the whole world sighs with him.

How is that big social experiment or whatever BS you were spewing going?

Sigh..............

 

[Boilermaker03]

OK, if MBFC is using a biased media, then what's an unbiased media that you suggest we should use?

There isn't one. That's why you have to use a wide net of sources. Especially ones that you may not agree with ideologically.

One person I use, for example, is Tim Pool. Why? Because he was a Bernie supporter. I loath Bernie, but what I like about Tim is he will tell the truth no matter what. Even about Trump and what the media says about him.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So if I understand correctly, you are saying there are several ways of measuring CO2, let's say {A, B, C, D, E}. A is the most accurate and it is not supporting the man-made CC narrative, and so it is ignored by the climate alarmists. Meanwhile, those climate alarmists hype {B, C, D, E} and give us a false alarm.

I have two questions:

1) Where can I find and learn more about A?

2) Why is A accurate and {B, C, D, E} not?

Your example is incorrect. There are A, B, C, D ways of getting C02 proxies. A,B,C are the most accurate, but climate alarmists use D.

What you want to look into are plant stomata. Plant stomata show that over the last 800 thousand years that the normal C02 range is closer to 250ppm (meaning it varies that much) vs the 20ppm the ice cores suggest (I may have the timeline off a little so don't get caught up on that, I'm just making a point). That would mean that levels of C02 in the upper 400ppm was natural and achieved multiple times over that period of time. This also showed that there was no temperature effect when lined up with historic temperatures (meaning it didn't drive temperatures, but they actually show that C02 follows temperature).

Here is a Phd in Climate talking about the C02 proxies. I highly recommend you watch. He cites papers so you can look up what he is referencing. I start the video where he begins talking about the proxies.

 

[Boilermaker03]

OK, then I am telling you, it doesn't imply that everyone left because a black woman was hired.

If you wanna see sh!t, everything you see can look like sh!t.

If you wanna see beauty, everyone you see can be beautiful.

I can say "I wish you are less dumb" and you can all up in arms and whine "Tell me that it isn't an insult." But honestly, I wish I am less dumb.

Lastly, you should always read the content before concluding that something is fake. Just reading the headline and then jump to a preconceived conclusion is just ... at the very least, lazy and naive? Then jumping to make a post out of it on this board is just needless and embarrassing. The worst is to keep doubling down. Congratulations, you just hit the trifecta.

Sorry, but it does imply that everyone left because a black woman was hired, otherwise why is that in the title? There are many other ways you could title the piece that wouldn't imply that everyone left due to the persons race or gender. CNN did that on purpose.

 

[BoilerMadness]

OK, maybe you and Boilermaker03 need to sort out the narratives first coz you two can't have both. He is claiming that "Real Climate Science" cannot be fake because it is hard to be fake when all you do is quote data and newspaper articles. Meanwhile, you are saying that it is naive. Personally, I believe there is media bias, which is why we need some transparent assessment on how much bias each outlet has.

Now, onto climate change. You said you believe CC exists. So may I ask to what extent do you believe CC exists, and how much it is due to human activities? For example, do you believe atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution? Do you believe that has an effect to the atmosphere, like ozone depletion and the hole over Antarctica? Enclosed is what the Australian Academy of Science says about CC - do you think agree with what they say, or do you think it is just a hoax?

3. Are human activities causing climate change? | Australian Academy of Science

Southern approach to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, NSW. Photo: ©iStockphoto.com/airspeed Human activities have increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere

www.science.org.au

As I said in my previous post, the Climate has changed for as long as the planet has existed and it will continue to change, long after we're gone.

Sorry, I do not buy into all the hysteria around Climate Change being an Existential Threat. That's the Boogeyman that the Dem Politicians roll out to control the populace and misdirect our tax dollars.

Did you realize that temps had been steadily decreasing for about a half Century and in 1975 Time, Newsweek & the NYTimes were all reporting that we were about to enter an Ice Age. Temps bottomed out in about 1978 and in 1982 a NASA Scientist named Hanson noticed that Temps were rising fairly quickly (which would seem logical, since they had be decreasing previously).

Hanson was the Father of Global Warming. As the temps normalized, he started graphing the temperature increase and projecting the slope of that line to infinity and the fear of our planet melting was born. Of course, there was an immediate overreaction and Dem Politicians recognized a tremendous opportunity, "Never let a crisis go to waste" and they've capitalized on it ever since. As time went on, the slope of the temp lime decreased, but that didn't receive much press. In 1992, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice caps would melt in 7 years and we would be doomed in 10, if we didn't make radical changes. In 2006 Gore told us we were doomed in 10 years, if we didn't make radical changes. In 2017, AOC said that we were doomed in 12 years, if we didn't make radical changes. Are you seeing a trend here? Are you starting to feel like Charlie Brown, as Lucy keeps pulling the football away?

Over time, the slope of that line flattened out and a few Global Warming Conferences got snowed in, so Global Warming morphed into Climate Change and here we are.

We keep hearing about our Carbon footprint, with the primary offender being Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Most people aren't aware the CO2 comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere and it really hasn't changed that much. As CO2 increases, plant life flourishes and sucks it up and emits O2 for us to breathe. If you're worried about your carbon footprint, plant some trees. Al Gore became a multimillionaire by spreading GW guilt and selling people Carbon Offsets, so they could continue to consume large quantities of energy guilt free. I'd be curious to know how many trees Gore actually planted, if any?

We've spent Trillions of our Tax Dollars allegedly fighting GW/CC and the result has been a lot of political donors & politicians getting rich at our expense. Solyndra, anyone?

I'm NOT a Climate denier. I'm a hysteria denier.

 

[charlespig]

Your example is incorrect. There are A, B, C, D ways of getting C02 proxies. A,B,C are the most accurate, but climate alarmists use D.

What you want to look into are plant stomata. Plant stomata show that over the last 800 thousand years that the normal C02 range is closer to 250ppm (meaning it varies that much) vs the 20ppm the ice cores suggest (I may have the timeline off a little so don't get caught up on that, I'm just making a point). That would mean that levels of C02 in the upper 400ppm was natural and achieved multiple times over that period of time. This also showed that there was no temperature effect when lined up with historic temperatures (meaning it didn't drive temperatures, but they actually show that C02 follows temperature).

Here is a Phd in Climate talking about the C02 proxies. I highly recommend you watch. He cites papers so you can look up what he is referencing. I start the video where he begins talking about the proxies.

View embedded media

Thanks for the link. It does help our discussion.

That said, before I invest 40 mins to listen to it, can you at least tell me why I should trust your PhD guy when NASA cited 18 scientific agencies all reaching a conclusion that is opposite of your guy?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Droid12345]

Thanks for the link. It does help our discussion.

That said, before I invest 40 mins to listen to it, can you at least tell me why I should trust your PhD guy when NASA cited 18 scientific agencies all reaching a conclusion that is opposite of your guy?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Because those 18 "scientific" agencies are just peddling the falsehood and can't be trusted. They either have no choice but to fall in line with the government narrative or are, in fact, the very "scientific" bodies that have created the climate change hoax. Because...control...or something.

 

[charlespig]

Sorry, but it does imply that everyone left because a black woman was hired, otherwise why is that in the title? There are many other ways you could title the piece that wouldn't imply that everyone left due to the persons race or gender. CNN did that on purpose.

CNN may, or may not, be doing that on purpose. You claim it is, but many claim it isn't, so I don't want to get into these subjective arguments that have no clear answer.

Now you are the one claiming that they were fake news without any evidence or convincing argument. But from what I see, the CNN article gave the perspectives from both sides (actually more coverage from the cop who quit), while also in bold and large headline saying the residents were split on whether the firing was race-motivated.

So can you please actually educate me, which part of CNN is fake? Just because of that headline?

 

[charlespig]

Because those 18 "scientific" agencies are just peddling the falsehood and can't be trusted. They either have no choice but to fall in line with the government narrative or are, in fact, the very "scientific" bodies that have created the climate change hoax. Because...control...or something.

OK, so can you please some evidence why that they cannot be trusted, so we can evaluate whether indeed they can't be trusted?

And let's say you are right, if indeed *ALL* of those scientific agencies cannot be trusted, then who can we trust then? Alex Jones? The PhD guy from Boilermaker03? Why them?

 

[Droid12345]

I suppose I should've written my last post with sarcasm font, but just for fun:

OK, so can you please some evidence why that they cannot be trusted, so we can evaluate whether indeed they can't be trusted?

It's self-evident that they can't be trusted because they prop up the man-made climate change narrative, which I believe is clearly false. Since I believe it's false, any scientific agency who says otherwise must necessarily be lying, or at the very least, falling in line with the government narrative.

I mean, didn't you read Boilermaker03's post about how all the science professors are teaching their students bad science--like the existence of the greenhouse effect, which clearly violates thermodynamics because radiant heat only exists when I want it to--and then NONE of them figure it out later?

And let's say you are right, if indeed *ALL* of those scientific agencies cannot be trusted, then who can we trust then? Alex Jones? The PhD guy from Boilermaker03? Why them?

Oh, believe you me, I've got a whole list of discredited scientists that I could point to. Of course, the only reason they've been discredited is because they didn't go along with the hoax. It couldn't possibly be because they tout flawed science.

 

[charlespig]

I suppose I should've written my last post with sarcasm font, but just for fun:

It's self-evident that they can't be trusted because they prop up the man-made climate change narrative, which I believe is clearly false. Since I believe it's false, any scientific agency who says otherwise must necessarily be lying, or at the very least, falling in line with the government narrative.

I mean, didn't you read Boilermaker03's post about how all the science professors are teaching their students bad science--like the existence of the greenhouse effect, which clearly violates thermodynamics because radiant heat only exists when I want it to--and then NONE of them figure it out later?

Oh, believe you me, I've got a whole list of discredited scientists that I could point to. Of course, the only reason they've been discredited is because they didn't go along with the hoax. It couldn't possibly be because they tout flawed science.

LOL, I got you now, well played.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Thanks for the link. It does help our discussion.

That said, before I invest 40 mins to listen to it, can you at least tell me why I should trust your PhD guy when NASA cited 18 scientific agencies all reaching a conclusion that is opposite of your guy?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

You shouldn't just trust anybody. You should evaluate all sides and decide.

You don't have to listen for 40 min... Good lord, I said I linked it to the part I wanted you to pay attention to. How about you listen to what he says vs appealing to authority.

The graph in that link is so f'ing fake it's sad. Our temp graphs have been manipulated over time to make it look like we've been warming since the late 1800's. Do you really think that we are warmer now than the 1930's when we had the dust bowl and the Grapes of Wrath was written? Or that the 1970's was as close to as warm as the 1930's???? Sadly, the people making our temp graphs have been infiltrated by activists and not good scientists.

UAH is THE most accurate measure of temperatures, but unfortunately it only goes back so far since we haven't had satellites measuring temps for that long.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2022_v6.jpg

I've linked things in the past that shows how the temp graphs have been manipulated, but it gets ignored because people on the left can't comprehend that something like that could happen. Well, it does and it has. The raw data shows we have been cooling for some time now (8 years or so). We are tricked into thinking we are burning up though because all the media focuses on are the hot days wherever they can find them. Much like the temps in Japan during the Olympics. What they didn't tell you was that another part of Japan during the exact same time set a 100 year record low for temps. Why do they ignore those facts?

Please, do yourself a favor and listen to what he has to say. He cites his evidence from peer reviewed papers. He shows you the data. If that's not good enough for you then nothing will ever convince you because you don't want to believe you've been had.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Because those 18 "scientific" agencies are just peddling the falsehood and can't be trusted. They either have no choice but to fall in line with the government narrative or are, in fact, the very "scientific" bodies that have created the climate change hoax. Because...control...or something.

You almost got it right. It's not about control though. It's about money. Follow the money.

Michael Mann, one of the top alarmists has gotten his hands on over $2 million.

Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money

The Wall Street Journal writes that $2.4 million of stimulus money went to climate scientist Michael Mann who helped rig the climate change consensus.

www.wsj.com

 

[Boilermaker03]

OK, so can you please some evidence why that they cannot be trusted, so we can evaluate whether indeed they can't be trusted?

And let's say you are right, if indeed *ALL* of those scientific agencies cannot be trusted, then who can we trust then? Alex Jones? The PhD guy from Boilermaker03? Why them?

Again. You have to be willing to actually look and see what they have to say and what evidence they have to present. Then you have to decide for yourself. This is what intelligent people do. They hear all of the evidence and then they decide.

Otherwise you're in an echo chamber.