5 ms·

AIER seems to be a Conservative/Libertarian think tank that's anti-climate science, among other stances, including anti-lockdown (what this article is about).

AIER seems to be a Conservative/Libertarian think tank that's anti-climate science, among other stances, including anti-lockdown (what this article is about). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economic_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economi...

orangepurple 3y ago
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks
CWuestefeld 3y ago
Does the fact that somebody opposes something mean that, prima facie, that position must be wrong?
- jdlshore 3y ago
  No, but given limited time, it makes sense to evaluate whether a source is (edit: heavily) biased or a crackpot before spending attention on them.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    There's no such thing as unbiased. The pertinent question is whether they're telling truths or lies.
    - larl 3y ago
      And a good shorthand for that is whether the is a propaganda site with a history of carefully worded deceptions...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  No, but a rejection of Climate Science is good evidence that they do not put the facts first.
peepeepoopoo18 3y ago
HN seems to be a Leftist discussion forum that's anti-economic science, among other stances, including anti-biology.
radiator 3y ago
Are you implying that we should only be reading articles by Liberal/Progressive think tanks?
- coding123 3y ago
  At this point I'm already dismissing CNN and NPR out of hand, I guess it only makes sense for it to go the other way too. 3 Years ago I was actually on the other side too. Wow what a journey.
- tzs 3y ago
  He's implying that we should be more skeptical of articles from sources that have gotten basic science wrong in other articles. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing per se. There are plenty of liberals and progressives who get basic science wrong. Liberals are more likely to reject nuclear power or GMO food for reasons that are not scientifically justifiable, for example [1]. Liberals have historically also been more likely to believe in medical nonsense like healing crystals and homeopathy and anti-vaccination. The things liberals are more anti-science on though are also less likely to be the kind of things that require national or international solutions and so attract fewer think tanks. Hence there is a better correlation between libertarian/conservative think tanks and scientifically unsound positions than there is between liberal/progressive think tanks and such positions. [1] There is a decent argument against GMO food in places where food is abundant and cheap so avoiding GMO doesn't mean famine, but it has nothing to do with the science of GMO itself. It is that GMO gives food companies much more ability to customize and tweak foods in ways that are great for business but bad for public health. We already know when it comes to money vs health they go for money, which is a big contributor to rising obesity. They can still accomplish many of the same things without GMO that they would use GMO for but it is slower and more expensive which reduces the amount of harm they can do and gives more time to get regulations to catch up.

orangepurple 3y ago

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks

CWuestefeld 3y ago

Does the fact that somebody opposes something mean that, prima facie, that position must be wrong?

jdlshore 3y ago
No, but given limited time, it makes sense to evaluate whether a source is (edit: heavily) biased or a crackpot before spending attention on them.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  There's no such thing as unbiased. The pertinent question is whether they're telling truths or lies.
  - larl 3y ago
    And a good shorthand for that is whether the is a propaganda site with a history of carefully worded deceptions...
mrguyorama 3y ago
No, but a rejection of Climate Science is good evidence that they do not put the facts first.

peepeepoopoo18 3y ago

HN seems to be a Leftist discussion forum that's anti-economic science, among other stances, including anti-biology.

radiator 3y ago

Are you implying that we should only be reading articles by Liberal/Progressive think tanks?

coding123 3y ago
At this point I'm already dismissing CNN and NPR out of hand, I guess it only makes sense for it to go the other way too. 3 Years ago I was actually on the other side too. Wow what a journey.
tzs 3y ago
He's implying that we should be more skeptical of articles from sources that have gotten basic science wrong in other articles. It's not a liberal vs conservative thing per se. There are plenty of liberals and progressives who get basic science wrong. Liberals are more likely to reject nuclear power or GMO food for reasons that are not scientifically justifiable, for example [1]. Liberals have historically also been more likely to believe in medical nonsense like healing crystals and homeopathy and anti-vaccination. The things liberals are more anti-science on though are also less likely to be the kind of things that require national or international solutions and so attract fewer think tanks. Hence there is a better correlation between libertarian/conservative think tanks and scientifically unsound positions than there is between liberal/progressive think tanks and such positions. [1] There is a decent argument against GMO food in places where food is abundant and cheap so avoiding GMO doesn't mean famine, but it has nothing to do with the science of GMO itself. It is that GMO gives food companies much more ability to customize and tweak foods in ways that are great for business but bad for public health. We already know when it comes to money vs health they go for money, which is a big contributor to rising obesity. They can still accomplish many of the same things without GMO that they would use GMO for but it is slower and more expensive which reduces the amount of harm they can do and gives more time to get regulations to catch up.