3 ms·

No one ever attract public support and funding by saying: Don’t Panic. Everything is O.K. —- Edited to add: Rate limited so can’t reply without creating mor

No one ever attract public support and funding by saying: Don’t Panic. Everything is O.K. —- Edited to add: Rate limited so can’t reply without creating more alt accounts than I’m willing to, so: @Timon3 - that’s actually a really good point, and I follow at least a few folk that could be categorised as such at least some of the time.

Timon3 8mo ago
No, many people say exactly that and make a lot of money doing so while also telling us that all the evidence is fake.
- mapontosevenths 8mo ago
  Trump asked for a billion. [0] He didn't get the whole billion (as far as we know), but he's keeping up his end of the deal. [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-executives-campaign-finance-00157131 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-exec...
Braxton1980 8mo ago
Unless you have other evidence that this particular report is exaggerating without justification you can't solely rely on the fact that their opinions/results would benefit them as evidence they are providing misinformation. It's possible for information to be factual and opinions to be justified from a source while that source also benefits from the information/opinions existing. I can easily provide counter examples from countless situations that occur each year. ---- If you feel that all scientists and researchers have a lower level of trust because of negative actions of some, that's wrong of course because their reputations aren't connected, but you try to confirm it. For example, find out if a cooler than normal El Nino season would help coral feeds (or whatever) What you did was tell us you don't trust the information, not because of something specific, but a concept/rule you believe. Considering you originally misrepresented their findings, perhaps by accident, you should have done more to make your case.
Braxton1980 8mo ago
Are you going to respond to my earlier comment? Do you have any evidence that this article misinformation besides that attention benefits the author?

Timon3 8mo ago

No, many people say exactly that and make a lot of money doing so while also telling us that all the evidence is fake.

mapontosevenths 8mo ago
Trump asked for a billion. [0] He didn't get the whole billion (as far as we know), but he's keeping up his end of the deal. [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-executives-campaign-finance-00157131 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-exec...

Braxton1980 8mo ago

Unless you have other evidence that this particular report is exaggerating without justification you can't solely rely on the fact that their opinions/results would benefit them as evidence they are providing misinformation. It's possible for information to be factual and opinions to be justified from a source while that source also benefits from the information/opinions existing. I can easily provide counter examples from countless situations that occur each year. ---- If you feel that all scientists and researchers have a lower level of trust because of negative actions of some, that's wrong of course because their reputations aren't connected, but you try to confirm it. For example, find out if a cooler than normal El Nino season would help coral feeds (or whatever) What you did was tell us you don't trust the information, not because of something specific, but a concept/rule you believe. Considering you originally misrepresented their findings, perhaps by accident, you should have done more to make your case.

Braxton1980 8mo ago

Are you going to respond to my earlier comment? Do you have any evidence that this article misinformation besides that attention benefits the author?