The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
FACT
Humans live on the Earth.
FACT
Humans have been burning fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
FACT
The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.
FACT
Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR in frequencies not absorbed by any other gases in the atmosphere.
FACT
Carbon dioxide does not precipitate under any conditions found on the Earth.
FACT
Carbon dioxide's absorption of IR produces a significant greenhouse effect warming the Earth.
FACT
The increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels is causing the average temperature of the Earth to increase.
FACT
That temperature increase has many effects harmful to humans and their infrastructure, particularly since the change is happening far too rapidly for the normal geological buffering actions to take place.
FACT
If you posted it, you said it.
That has yet to be demonstrated.
There ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences. There is only evidence. Almost everything I post is a conclusion of the vast majority of mainstream science. I'm not the whacko here, you are.
Wrong. I use mainstream science. Occasionally, the MSM will publish an accurate description of MSS but it's always better to go to the source. If you see a science article in the popular media, it ought to have a link to the actual study they're talking about. Forget the article and go read the study. If it doesn't have a link to a study, forget the article.
I don't trust your sources right off the bat because those numbers are just too high and too unqualified. When I went looking I found that only a small percentage (14.5% according to a Harvard study) of news media owners and executives were found to openly give to political candidates or causes. (
Political Donations by News Media). So, when you say 96% and 90% donated to Hillary and Biden that is still a rather small segment of media personnel and is not the daming evidence of bias you seem to think it is. I am not surprised that among those donating, a large percentage were going to Clinton and Biden. Most of those donations were more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton or pro-Biden. How much free media do you think Trump got by being an ignorant bigot during his term in office and since? A HELL of a lot more than 32.7 hours.
And you think that had nothing to do with what Trump was actually DOING?
You're shouting because you're stupid and angry.
And you think the Washington Times is an objective source of information? Have you ever seen this graph or one like it? Bias is left to right and accuracy is the vertical axis. This one is from the League of Women Voters and may be found in an article at
How Reliable is Your News Source? Understanding Media Bias 2022. I know this is a bit small and hard to read but may be used interactively at the link provided at its bottom.
The interactive link can be used to look up actual scores for specific media. The Washington Times scored 36.07 out of 64 points for accuracy and a 12.37 out of 42 point rightward bias. Not grreat, particularly on the accuracy. Some of the best scores were for NPR News Now and Reuters. ABC, CBS and NBC are all very slightly left and near the top for accuracy. Who do we find on the far right? OAN, NewsMax, InfoWars, Dan Boingino, Alex Jones and so forth. Who do we find on the far left? Occupy Democrats, The Jimmy Dore Show, The New Abnormal and Pod Save America.
But, back to the topic. You cannot expect the personnel working for the news media to have no political inclinations. What needs to be asked of them - and has been since the profession started - is that they set aside their personal convictions and accurately and objectively report the news. This review shows that such is indeed possible and that several news organizations do precisely that.
As I think I just explained, I don't care who they donate to and I don't generally use them as a source of scientific information regarding global warming or any other topic. I care about the accuracy and the objectivity of their reporting which can and is determined far more reliably by studies such as the one above by the LoWV.
I am fully convinced that Donald Trump should never have been elected president (and of course, in the popular vote, he was not) and, based on his attempted coup, should never be allowed in any elected office ever again. I actually think the man deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars for the violation of a number of laws that would have already put any normal American in jail. Historians may believe he's only the second worst, but in my book, he's the worst president in the history of this nation. Awful, awful, awful. And I have a hard time understanding how those of a mental configuration that allows them to believe otherwise; who believe he was a great president and should be reelected, manage to get out of bed in the morning and make themselves breakfast. You and your rightwing news stories aren't going to convince me otherwise. And, of course, this is the Environment Forum and this thread was some sort of discussion on how settled is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. It wasn't a thread about the press or about politics or about Trump. So, how about we call it quits on this?