4 ms·

> green holy day Seriously? You're going to use that phrase and then complain that others aren't trustworthy? Physician, heal thyself.

assblaster 9y ago
I am just quoting the link provided, I think it was necessary to keep that part of the quote because it reveals bias by the link author.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Why did you choose such a biased source in the first place, then?
  - southern_cross 9y ago
    Not biased, so much; more like balanced. (Dare I say "fair and balanced"?) After going through my daily news feeds and perusing so many stories (so freakin' many!) about how climate change (or whatever) is going to kill us all soon enough, I also now routinely head over to WUWT to see what their take on the matter is. Some of what shows up there I think is crap, of course, but much of it is quite thoughtful and remarkably clear-headed. And if you're the type to just automatically dismiss such a site out of hand as being too "biased" without actually reading what they have to say with an open mind, then perhaps the problem lies with you and not with them.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Um, the person who provided the link called it biased. I’m just commenting on the phrase I quoted.
    - mturmon 9y ago
      “Some of what shows up there I think is crap, of course, but much of it is quite thoughtful and remarkably clear-headed.” This is a strange thing to say. By claiming X and not-X, it means precisely nothing, but it superficially sounds judicious.
      - conistonwater 9y ago
        It's like the clearest description of confirmation bias: things that you agree with are thoughtful and remarkably clear-headed, others can just be ignored and don't reflect on the quality of the source. Avoiding confirmation bias would require one to give up on this attitude.
        southern_cross 9y ago
        No, it's more like much of what shows up there (from either side) should rightly be questioned. And sometimes those questions are answered and the answers are reasonable, and sometimes not so much.
      - southern_cross 9y ago
        If you bothered to actually read the site, then you'd know that the articles there come from many authors and many sources - some of them even from the so-called "alarmist" side of things, though the site itself is usually tagged as "denialist". (Hence my balanced comment - they do generally cover stuff from both sides.) Comments from the site's owner and from readers about all of these articles can get quite interesting and heated, though. As an example of crap, a couple of articles were recently posted there about the current Judge Alsup proceedings - articles that were quite clearly incorrect to those of us actually following the proceedings; the reader comments called out this error. I don't know if the authors of those articles ever actually went back and corrected them, but I'm thinking not - which is bad! Also, I have on occasion seen things quoted there which weren't actual quotes, but rather paraphrases (to put it nicely) - which is also bad! For the record, these days the "legitimate" press is sometimes very bad at doing this kind of thing, too, but it seems that they are rarely called out for it.
        mikeash 9y ago
        A site which misquotes people seems like a really bad source for a bunch of quotes.
        9y ago
- conistonwater 9y ago
  If the quote is that bad, why post it at all?

assblaster 9y ago

I am just quoting the link provided, I think it was necessary to keep that part of the quote because it reveals bias by the link author.

mikeash 9y ago
Why did you choose such a biased source in the first place, then?
- southern_cross 9y ago
  Not biased, so much; more like balanced. (Dare I say "fair and balanced"?) After going through my daily news feeds and perusing so many stories (so freakin' many!) about how climate change (or whatever) is going to kill us all soon enough, I also now routinely head over to WUWT to see what their take on the matter is. Some of what shows up there I think is crap, of course, but much of it is quite thoughtful and remarkably clear-headed. And if you're the type to just automatically dismiss such a site out of hand as being too "biased" without actually reading what they have to say with an open mind, then perhaps the problem lies with you and not with them.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Um, the person who provided the link called it biased. I’m just commenting on the phrase I quoted.
  - mturmon 9y ago
    “Some of what shows up there I think is crap, of course, but much of it is quite thoughtful and remarkably clear-headed.” This is a strange thing to say. By claiming X and not-X, it means precisely nothing, but it superficially sounds judicious.
    - conistonwater 9y ago
      It's like the clearest description of confirmation bias: things that you agree with are thoughtful and remarkably clear-headed, others can just be ignored and don't reflect on the quality of the source. Avoiding confirmation bias would require one to give up on this attitude.
      - southern_cross 9y ago
        No, it's more like much of what shows up there (from either side) should rightly be questioned. And sometimes those questions are answered and the answers are reasonable, and sometimes not so much.
    - southern_cross 9y ago
      If you bothered to actually read the site, then you'd know that the articles there come from many authors and many sources - some of them even from the so-called "alarmist" side of things, though the site itself is usually tagged as "denialist". (Hence my balanced comment - they do generally cover stuff from both sides.) Comments from the site's owner and from readers about all of these articles can get quite interesting and heated, though. As an example of crap, a couple of articles were recently posted there about the current Judge Alsup proceedings - articles that were quite clearly incorrect to those of us actually following the proceedings; the reader comments called out this error. I don't know if the authors of those articles ever actually went back and corrected them, but I'm thinking not - which is bad! Also, I have on occasion seen things quoted there which weren't actual quotes, but rather paraphrases (to put it nicely) - which is also bad! For the record, these days the "legitimate" press is sometimes very bad at doing this kind of thing, too, but it seems that they are rarely called out for it.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        A site which misquotes people seems like a really bad source for a bunch of quotes.
        9y ago
conistonwater 9y ago
If the quote is that bad, why post it at all?