3 ms·
I posted the article and I certainly haven't first hand validated it's content as objective fact, and I know that Reason has a bias (although I think they are a
by version_five 5y ago
I posted the article and I certainly haven't first hand validated it's content as objective fact, and I know that Reason has a bias (although I think they are at least usually pretty consistent). By the same token, the "climate denialist" website you linked to is not exactly an unbiased source either, and even if it was, it's still more of a personal criticism of the guy than a counterargument to his article.
I suspect this article has cherry picked some data to support a narrative, but I expect the same from articles that talk about the rise of extreme weather.
What did you find misleading about the bar chart?
- vanusa 5y agoWhat did you find misleading about the bar chart? Do you really think there was a 5x increase in climate disasters between 1st and 4th decades as indicated in that chart? And doesn't this suggest to you that there might be something just a bit... "funny" about the data as a measure of events happening in the real world? It's still more of a personal criticism of the guy It's based on the content of his writings. Nothing personal about it at all.
- version_five 5y agoThe article mentioned that it was due to increased reporting. I agree that whole graph could be written off, but the same applies to instances when people point to some dramatic increase in recent disasters.
- vanusa 5y agoAll I can tell you is: The article stands or fails on the basis of its content. That's how you should evaluate it. It doesn't matter what any other article in the world says about any other topic.