4 ms·

Answer: They are buying Google ads I still have questions with NYT's perspective on that issue. Are they seriously expecting Google to evaluate the scientific

Answer: They are buying Google ads I still have questions with NYT's perspective on that issue. Are they seriously expecting Google to evaluate the scientific proof behind every ad that is placed? Those website do nothing illegal, most probably don't even lie but just present very selective facts. Or is that just about the next level of trial by internet and the NYT is already scouting for next potential victims they can target?

username223 9y ago
> Answer: They are buying Google ads So Google search results are just ads? I can't reproduce the NYT's results, though looking at Google search results for the first time in awhile, I'm surprised at just how trashy they've become.
- melling 9y ago
  A couple years ago I created a little Wordpress site so I could write my replies to the same questions that deniers always bring up: https://2cco2.wordpress.com https://2cco2.wordpress.com What the Internet really needs is a community version of this. Perhaps on Github?
vixen99 9y ago
Some people stand to profit from saying the climate is responding to anthropogenic warming to a worrying (adjust the adjective) degree and others will profit from discounting (same adjustment applies) such concerns. It's therefore (knowing human nature) likely that some members of both groups will present 'very selective facts'. It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group. Alternatively you have good reasons to argue for a high climate sensitivity value rather than a low one. Do you? Discussion totally dissociated from CS consideration is mere rhetoric. Here's a recent summary: http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7BVQeLDP.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensit...
- Oletros 9y ago
  > It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group And do you say that after linking to a blog that has a really obvious agenda? Yap, entries like [0] are really unbiased, isn't? [0] http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emancipating-itself-as-trump-accomplishes/#sthash.p5fl5T6W.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emanci...
- 1337biz 9y ago
  I agree fully with your premise that both sides are driven by interest groups. Personally I am pondering in that context in how far science is really helping the argument on both sides. The suggestion that there are absolute cause and effects in something as complicated as climate is just for most people (including myself) not beliveable. They watch the weather forcast and see every day that all the science in the world is not even able to predict next week's weather. In other areas are confronted every day with conflicting studies and recommendations. I am sure trust in science and scientists' interpretstion of things is going is more and more decreasing.

username223 9y ago

> Answer: They are buying Google ads So Google search results are just ads? I can't reproduce the NYT's results, though looking at Google search results for the first time in awhile, I'm surprised at just how trashy they've become.

melling 9y ago
A couple years ago I created a little Wordpress site so I could write my replies to the same questions that deniers always bring up: https://2cco2.wordpress.com https://2cco2.wordpress.com What the Internet really needs is a community version of this. Perhaps on Github?

vixen99 9y ago

Some people stand to profit from saying the climate is responding to anthropogenic warming to a worrying (adjust the adjective) degree and others will profit from discounting (same adjustment applies) such concerns. It's therefore (knowing human nature) likely that some members of both groups will present 'very selective facts'. It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group. Alternatively you have good reasons to argue for a high climate sensitivity value rather than a low one. Do you? Discussion totally dissociated from CS consideration is mere rhetoric. Here's a recent summary: http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7BVQeLDP.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensit...

Oletros 9y ago
> It seems you have an agenda so you side with the former group And do you say that after linking to a blog that has a really obvious agenda? Yap, entries like [0] are really unbiased, isn't? [0] http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emancipating-itself-as-trump-accomplishes/#sthash.p5fl5T6W.dpbs http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/20/america-unshackled-emanci...
1337biz 9y ago
I agree fully with your premise that both sides are driven by interest groups. Personally I am pondering in that context in how far science is really helping the argument on both sides. The suggestion that there are absolute cause and effects in something as complicated as climate is just for most people (including myself) not beliveable. They watch the weather forcast and see every day that all the science in the world is not even able to predict next week's weather. In other areas are confronted every day with conflicting studies and recommendations. I am sure trust in science and scientists' interpretstion of things is going is more and more decreasing.