DM to the Biden Bros
Comments
-
Sentence #1, Agree.
Sentence #2, Disagree. I've cited sources.
.
-
Bottom line
Findings reached independently by multiple assessments are particularly strong. Three broad conclusions follow from multiple highly credible assessments: 1) people are causing climate to change, particularly through emissions of greenhouse gases, 2) human-caused climate change poses very serious risks to humanity, and 3) there are many risk management options available that can meaningfully address climate change.
- Maybe 2. No. 3. Unlikely
Hope this helps.
.
-
You beat me to the punch. Nature.com get everything wrong about Covid. Everything.
#science
.
-
Now now, we aren't here to attack sources, which is after all, a fallacy of rhetoric.
I'll give @CallMeBigErn credit, he's listed three more than anyone else from the left. I hope we can continue to build on the list.
-
You should know idgaf and know how to stay on target.
-
If you must know, nothing specific. I read some Foreign Affairs, the New Yorker, The Atlantic, Axios newsletters, various sci journals, AP News app, I use RSS aggregators sometimes. I listen to Up First and the Telegram Ukraine pod some mornings. I browse r/UkrainianConflict, r/guitarlessons, r/Mariners, and r/discgolf alot. I poke my head in on r/news sometimes to see if anything catches my eye. r/politics is ehhh. Too many Slate-type articles. I watch a lot of music theory videos on YouTube. That's my biggest thing lately while I do some physical therapy on a bulged disc I suffered. I listen to Softy sometimes and have my Twitter curated to sports only. Disinformation and propaganda fascinates me so I spend a lot of time researching that stuff lately as well. This forum has contributed to it. I could go on. I pick and choose. Everything is out there. I have a lot of interests. Just have to understand how to read news and information to know what's bullshit and what isn't.
Now, how about you?
-
I do know. Well. Thus I didn't think I needed to add a sarcasm disclaimer.
.
-
The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Axios explain everything. The biggest TDS rags around. And you think you are a moderate.
.
-
Who couldn't see that comin?
When I see something interesting, sure. It's usually a rec through my Pocket or Refind app. I aint hung up on em or nothin'. I'm big into the Russia/Ukraine conflict so that's the majority of my article reads sometimes. I seek whatever intrigues me.
-
Awesome! A much improved contribution.
Ftr fuck Vanilla, new quote function is aids. Anyway, I love telegram as there's a lot of primary source material out there. Getting tougher and tougher though with improved cgi, ai, and just the level of editing that people are capable of to differentiate. Substack is great for following individual journos doing investigative journalism. I check AP and MSN just to see what the latest narrative generator is spinning. Follow through on YouTube and X for a few things.
Everything is with a massive grain of salt as everyone has a motive or even if they have integrity are viewing things through the myriad lenses that have been created to distort reality. I try to think of it as a short hand bayesian analysis with a statistical sampling of sources.
Can we agree that it is harder than ever to vet sources and that indeed, the msm has gotten A LOT wrong the last however many years at this point?
