OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[jc456]

The Wikipedia article on Politifact verifies some of the assertions you've made about them but the only evidence that there might be a bias is that they print more fact checks of Republican statements than Democratic statements. Their fact checks are consistently accurate and can be trusted. The conclusion I drew from it, that Wikipedia would not voice, is the assumption that conservatives, mimicking their glorious leader, were simply lying far more often than were liberals.

Except………they are fake

 

[Crick]

How you could be more wrong in your assertions is beyond me. LOL... you don't have a clue that the math doesn't add up and you are incapable of doing the math yourself. You seem to know a lot that isn't true... Again, with personal attacks, that fail missing their target.

Which specific assertion of mine are you claiming is wrong? You've yet to identify it. And what specific math doesn't add up? You've yet to identify that either.

As to personal attacks: the egotistical gall you exhibit claiming to have a PhD in atmospheric physics when you do not, is simply something that even the best of manners cannot abide. You are the absolute epitome of a lying scumbag and I will not pass up opportunities to tell you so - and to make certain everyone you speak to at these forums knows that you are not what you claim to be. If you want me to stop, admit what you've done and stop lying about your education.

 

[healthmyths]

The Wikipedia article on Politifact verifies some of the assertions you've made about them but the only evidence that there might be a bias is that they print more fact checks of Republican statements than Democratic statements. Their fact checks are consistently accurate and can be trusted. The conclusion I drew from it, that Wikipedia would not voice, is the assumption that conservatives, mimicking their glorious leader, were simply lying far more often than were liberals.

Oh by the way, again having lived in Tampa Bay area for over 25 years, I'm very familiar with both Poynter Institute and Wikipedia.
..."The (Wikipedia) website's server farms were moved from California to Florida,"...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia
MSM Bias influences favorable Democrat activities
Hmm... so those of us that believe that according to the attached, the BIASED MSM which most Americans (maybe not you of course...) depend on, has told lies as part of their biased news. When you honestly read the two attached articles I'd like you to honestly evaluate how these two articles at the minimum show's the financial support to the Democrats by the MSM.
Couple of points to prove my point.
a) Read this link as carefully as you say you did...https://www.politifactbias.com/p/the-annotated-principles-of-politifact.html
Note the authors ARE BIASED and admit it! But read this "(annotated) Principles of PolitiFact."
b) An example of what the above authors' document illustrates...especially omitting information!
From the above...
"That said, one of our favorite tricks is to use a very limited quotation that features an ellipsis (indicating material missing from
the quotation) and sourcing it to a subscription source. Either just trust us or pay up! Ha ha."
c) The example of leaving out information by Poltifact.org...
Trump's "both sides" statement..
How many people including YOU Cricket" believe Trump said "fine people, on both sides" and that's it! Trump supported Neo-Nazis is what you and millions of people think...except you and millions NEVER heard the rest of the comment because as part of the MSM plan to defeat Trump i.e. including donating money to Democrats, they repeated this line and it's what you and millions STILL believe..."were very fine people, on both sides."... an event that occurred August 11 to 12, 2017. But ever since then millions of people including you still believe that Trump refused to condemn "ned-nazis" etc.

BUT... you and millions that believe the MSM NEVER heard the continuation of that as the biased MSM took OUT of CONTEXT the statement you remember.
Trump responded: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

After further questioning from the reporter, and responses from Trump about people who were at the Charlottesville rally to support keeping the Lee statue, the president said, "You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."

Fact check: Meme on Trump 'very fine people' quote contains inaccuracies

A viral Facebook meme falsely says Chris Wallace, Joe Biden spoke of neo-Nazis at the debate. It also misrepresents a Donald Trump quote.

www.usatoday.com

But why do you and millions like you still believe Trump supports as BIDEN lied... on Feb 9,2020 BIDEN told ABC News...
He’s yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis. He hasn’t condemned a darn thing. He has given them oxygen

Campaign Press Release - FACT CHECK: After Charlottesville, President Trump Specifically and "Totally" Condemned "Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists" | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Have you heard that? Of course not!
Yet a Google search of "Trump supports neo-Nazis" shows over 9 million results.
BUT "Trump condemns neo-Nazis" less than 2.5 million results.
YOU tell me what millions of people including YOU believe... Trump supports neo-Nazis... right!

And yet you believe Biden...
And Biden had the least negative news of the last 5 presidents.
The study found that about 19% of the coverage of Biden's first 60 days days has been negative over the first 60 days of his administration, which ranked best among presidents of the last three decades.
1) lowest negative news Biden 19%
2) Former Presidents Bill Clinton (28%), negative
3) George W. Bush (28%), negative
4) Barack Obama (20%), negative
5) Donald Trump (62%) negative. (again REMEMBER the BIASED MSM Donated 96% of their money to Hillary..she LOST!

Biden received less negative media coverage than any president on record while Trump received most: study

A new study shows President Joe Biden has received less negative coverage from U.S. media than any president in the last 30 years.

gazette.com

And this ONE example of hundreds of examples of where the BIASED MSM including these 3 network news groups that donated over $400 million in advertising time against Trump have continued to BIAS information.
ABC,CBS,NBC donated $400 million in free advertising by providing in over 32.7 hours of coverage,(7/29/2020-10/20/20).
(by TV standards an eternity of news time). Everything You Need to Know About TV Advertising Costs $104,700/30 sec.
What they found was, over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history —
92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.from July 29 through October 20

Broadcast networks deliver 92% negative coverage for Trump, 66% positive for Biden: Study

The country’s major broadcast news media outlets have never been more negatively biased against a sitting president than Donald Trump, a conservative media watchdog has concluded in its latest study, which found President Trump receives negatively-slanted coverage 92% of the time in network news...

www.washingtontimes.com

So again... If you and millions of others like you were REALLY HONEST and do as I have done... IGNORED Trump's truly politically INCORRECT, braggart, narcissistic,(I personally don't like Trump)... BUT like a few bosses I've had as millions of us have had,
we grudgingly respect these types of bosses executive results!

I mean I can give you thousands of accomplishments that Trump had but one that the MSM doesn't promote at all as this google search results show.."Trump donates salary"... results: 363,000!
But even when they do here are the headlines of a couple:Trump may donate his salary, but Americans pay millions for his golfing | COMMENTARY

Trump may donate his salary, but Americans pay millions for ...​

https://www.baltimoresun.com › opinion › readers-respond
Oct 16, 2020 — How much has President Donald Trump used of the Americans' money to play golf in the past three years and nine months?

Did Trump shortchange the 'suckers' and 'losers'?​

https://www.publicopiniononline.com › story › 2020/10/07
Sep 28, 2020- There are a number of people who believe that Donald Trump donates his $400,000 Presidential salary to veterans

They could NOT make a positive statement!

So Cricket and millions like you continue to have this extremely biased opinion of Trump that even if you discount all the above, please tell me how to ignore these FACTS, i.e. the Biased MSM donated to Hillary 96%, she lost the MSM spent next 4 years with a majority of negative Trump news,(I'm sure accepted by ignorant people as true...) and then donated 90% to Biden and after Biden elected provided the least amount of negative news since Bill Clinton!

 

[jc456]

they print more fact checks of Republican statements than Democratic statements.

which means they are biased. You even admit it.

 

[Crick]

Oh by the way, again having lived in Tampa Bay area for over 25 years, I'm very familiar with both Poynter Institute and Wikipedia.
..."The (Wikipedia) website's server farms were moved from California to Florida,"...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia

Having lived in Tampa Bay does NOT guarantee you are familiar with Poynter or Wikipedia. If you want to show such a thing, show us some of that special knowledge you claim to have.

MSM Bias influences favorable Democrat activities

This is not the Trump forum nor the mainstream media forum. This is the Environment Forum where we talk about the environment

 

[healthmyths]

Having lived in Tampa Bay does NOT guarantee you are familiar with Poynter or Wikipedia. If you want to show such a thing, show us some of that special knowledge you claim to have.

This is not the Trump forum nor the mainstream media forum. This is the Environment Forum where we talk about the environment

I did already...remember this web site that is totally honest about it's position?

About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.

www.politifactbias.com

They point out their position UNLIKE the biased Poynter or Wikipedia which pretends to be "unbiased"!
But here is what others have to say about Poynter...https://adfontesmedia.com/poynter-bias-and-reliability/
Ad Fontes Media rates Poynter in the Skews Left category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability. Poynter is a website that covers news about “the people, organizations, technology, trends and ideas shaping journalism and its vital role in democracy.” It focuses on training, ethics, fact checking and other resources important to journalists. The site is run by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit organization established in 1975 and based in St. Petersburg, Florida. Poynter operates a journalism school and owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the International Fact-Checking Network. It also operates Politifact, a project that evaluates the accuracy of statements made by elected officials and others working in politics. The Poynter website records approximately 1 million visits per month.

Now as far as politics goes i.e. Trump,etc. this maybe the environment forum and discussions are regarding the environment BUT the simple fact is there is politics in the environment discussion!
GEEZ... what do you think the Democrats and obviously you are trying to do to the environment but make it political!
As I've pointed out in the past all the concern about horse manure in NYC in the early 1900s and how the ICE changed that environment WITHOUT politics involved. In the 1900s there were none of the below agencies involved in the environment...
but today... Billions of our tax dollars being blown by overblown environmental concerns that are POLITICALLY DRIVEN!

The federal agencies which implement and enforce US environmental laws are the:

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ...
• Department of the Interior. ...
• Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). ...
• National Marine Fisheries Service. ...
• Department of Justice (DOJ). ...
• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

 

[jc456]

Having lived in Tampa Bay does NOT guarantee you are familiar with Poynter or Wikipedia. If you want to show such a thing, show us some of that special knowledge you claim to have.

This is not the Trump forum nor the mainstream media forum. This is the Environment Forum where we talk about the environment

why don't you point to us the evidence of global warming or climate change. Like, where has climate changed? Still waiting four years for you to post that place.

 

[ding]

Having lived in Tampa Bay does NOT guarantee you are familiar with Poynter or Wikipedia. If you want to show such a thing, show us some of that special knowledge you claim to have.

This is not the Trump forum nor the mainstream media forum. This is the Environment Forum where we talk about the environment

Great. Then explain what radiative forcing component was responsible for the previous interglacial cycle to be 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

 

[Crick]

I did already...remember this web site that is totally honest about it's position?

About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ

The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.

www.politifactbias.com

They point out their position UNLIKE the biased Poynter or Wikipedia which pretends to be "unbiased"!
But here is what others have to say about Poynter...https://adfontesmedia.com/poynter-bias-and-reliability/
Ad Fontes Media rates Poynter in the Skews Left category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability. Poynter is a website that covers news about “the people, organizations, technology, trends and ideas shaping journalism and its vital role in democracy.” It focuses on training, ethics, fact checking and other resources important to journalists. The site is run by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit organization established in 1975 and based in St. Petersburg, Florida. Poynter operates a journalism school and owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the International Fact-Checking Network. It also operates Politifact, a project that evaluates the accuracy of statements made by elected officials and others working in politics. The Poynter website records approximately 1 million visits per month.

Now as far as politics goes i.e. Trump,etc. this maybe the environment forum and discussions are regarding the environment BUT the simple fact is there is politics in the environment discussion!
GEEZ... what do you think the Democrats and obviously you are trying to do to the environment but make it political!
As I've pointed out in the past all the concern about horse manure in NYC in the early 1900s and how the ICE changed that environment WITHOUT politics involved. In the 1900s there were none of the below agencies involved in the environment...
but today... Billions of our tax dollars being blown by overblown environmental concerns that are POLITICALLY DRIVEN!

The federal agencies which implement and enforce US environmental laws are the:

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ...
• Department of the Interior. ...
• Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). ...
• National Marine Fisheries Service. ...
• Department of Justice (DOJ). ...
• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

So, your own source says that PolitiFact's analysis and fact reporting are reliable. Got it.

Politics can not be eliminated from political bodies. It's what they do. But the environmental policies of the Biden administration are driven, to the greatest degree possible, by the science that Trump chose to ignore. Trump ignoring and rejecting science made HIS choices political. There was nothing left.

 

[ding]

So, your own source says that PolitiFact's analysis and fact reporting are reliable. Got it.

Politics can not be eliminated from political bodies. It's what they do. But the environmental policies of the Biden administration are driven, to the greatest degree possible, by the science that Trump chose to ignore. Trump ignoring and rejecting science made HIS choices political. There was nothing left.

Actually his politics is driven just like any other politician’s… to get the most votes.

It’s hilarious he had these grand visions but no detailed plan on how they can be done. Probably because they can’t be done. But all he cares about is getting votes now. When his fiasco comes home to roost he’ll be long gone.

 

[healthmyths]

So, your own source says that PolitiFact's analysis and fact reporting are reliable. Got it.

Politics can not be eliminated from political bodies. It's what they do. But the environmental policies of the Biden administration are driven, to the greatest degree possible, by the science that Trump chose to ignore. Trump ignoring and rejecting science made HIS choices political. There was nothing left.

Again... YOU read what you wanted to read. Politifactbias.org has pointed out frequently the definite left leaning of Politifact.org.
In 2020, through today, PolitiFact was 4.61 times more likely to rate a claim it regarded as false as "Pants on Fire" if it came from a Republican instead of a Democrat. [Note: 12-31-2020: These numbers may reflect a minor transcription error for the number of "Pants on Fire" claims and probably slightly exaggerate PolitiFact's left-leaning bias. See update below]

Research

The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.

www.politifactbias.com

PolitiFact is a fact check source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Lean Left.
Fact checking sites display bias in what stories they choose to fact check, as well as how they interpret information. Often, fact check outlets will interpret information for the reader, drawing a conclusion rather than just giving the facts and allowing the reader to decide the meaning for themselves.

PolitiFact Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of PolitiFact. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Now as far as Biden you wrote "driven, to the greatest degree possible, by the science..."
I'm just laughing my head off! And you also believe the MSM is not biased?

 

[Crick]

Again... YOU read what you wanted to read. Politifactbias.org has pointed out frequently the definite left leaning of Politifact.org.
In 2020, through today, PolitiFact was 4.61 times more likely to rate a claim it regarded as false as "Pants on Fire" if it came from a Republican instead of a Democrat. [Note: 12-31-2020: These numbers may reflect a minor transcription error for the number of "Pants on Fire" claims and probably slightly exaggerate PolitiFact's left-leaning bias. See update below]

Research

The independent watchdog of the PolitiFact fact-checking website. Offering the best evidence of PolitiFact's mistakes and bias since 2011.

www.politifactbias.com

PolitiFact is a fact check source with an AllSides Media Bias Rating™ of Lean Left.
Fact checking sites display bias in what stories they choose to fact check, as well as how they interpret information. Often, fact check outlets will interpret information for the reader, drawing a conclusion rather than just giving the facts and allowing the reader to decide the meaning for themselves.

PolitiFact Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of PolitiFact. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Now as far as Biden you wrote "driven, to the greatest degree possible, by the science..."
I'm just laughing my head off! And you also believe the MSM is not biased?

I pulled my first line from YOUR article on PolitiFact. I really couldn't care less about them

Biden is cleaving enormously more closely to the policies that mainstream science would recommend than did Trump. Trump rejected global warming science altogether. You can NOT claim that Trump's policies weren't political. They were nothing but.

 

[Dagosa]

The bed wetters got tired of having to change the narrative from "global cooling" to "global warming" every few decades so they came up with climate change.
That encompasses anything- hot/cold, wet/dry, calm/storm- they all can fit under that umbrella to fool the sheeple with nonsense hysteria about the weather.

The climate has always & will always change. Going Chicken Little over it is for the masked morons.
Most of the US is under record breaking drought conditions so where's all this water going?

You obviously don‘t read enough.

 

[Dagosa]

WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

Why even give one single source credit whose own institutional credential providers disagree with him.
Thats not science. Science is institutional not a hand selected bunch of deniers who happen to agree with them.
Science is posted research by NASA, the military and

• 1. University of Tasmania ...
• 2. University of Victoria ...
• 3. Wageningen University & Research ...
• 4. Arizona State University (Tempe) ...
• 5. King Abdulaziz University ...

among 3400 others.
no, just Heller.
Deniers would have a case if they could find ONE related accredited institution, anywhere in the world.
Just one, only one; but they can’t.

 

[ding]

Why even give one single source credit whose own institutional credential providers disagree with him.
Thats not science. Science is institutional not a hand selected bunch of deniers who happen to agree with them.
Science is posted research by NASA, the military and

• 1. University of Tasmania ...
• 2. University of Victoria ...
• 3. Wageningen University & Research ...
• 4. Arizona State University (Tempe) ...
• 5. King Abdulaziz University ...

among 3400 others.
no, just Heller.
Deniers would have a case if they could find ONE related accredited institution, anywhere in the world.
Just one, only one; but they can’t.

They will figure out their error eventually.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why even give one single source credit whose own institutional credential providers disagree with him.
Thats not science. Science is institutional not a hand selected bunch of deniers who happen to agree with them.
Science is posted research by NASA, the military and

• 1. University of Tasmania ...
• 2. University of Victoria ...
• 3. Wageningen University & Research ...
• 4. Arizona State University (Tempe) ...
• 5. King Abdulaziz University ...

among 3400 others.
no, just Heller.
Deniers would have a case if they could find ONE related accredited institution, anywhere in the world.
Just one, only one; but they can’t.

Tell me again what an appeal to authorities is? It sure isn't proof of anything, (Fallacy Arguments 101)

 

[Crick]

Tell me again what an appeal to authorities is? It sure isn't proof of anything, (Fallacy Arguments 101)

An appeal to an authority that has actual expertise in the field under discussion IS a valid argument.

 

[ding]

An appeal to an authority that has actual expertise in the field under discussion IS a valid argument.

Not always. Only when what they say makes sense. Titles don't matter. Content matters. Computer models aren't content. This is especially true for computer models which are designed to produce a specific result.

 

[Crick]

An appeal to an authority that has actual expertise in the field under discussion IS a valid argument.

An appeal to an authority that has actual expertise in the field under discussion IS a valid argument. It is not invalidated simply by being an appeal to an authority.

 

[ding]

An appeal to an authority that has actual expertise in the field under discussion IS a valid argument. It is not invalidated simply by being an appeal to an authority.

Only when what they say makes sense. Titles don't matter. Content matters.