Fact check.org is fraudulent

We have all become accustomed to people in hear using this site to validate what they claim especially what they claim about global warming. In a thread on the environment forum someone did this and I looked into just who the so called fact checker was and it turns out he was a big time AGW promoter. Not exactly an unbiased source now is it. It seems like this fact check site is nothing more than another leftist group with an agenda trying to mold and society into their version of Utopia. I reject it and reject the post of anyone in here that runs to it as a source to validate what they are saying.

Here is a quote from Dave Levitan who does fact checking on anyone who questions the AGW hypothesis.

"I spend a lot of my time trying to convince people that climate change is not a thing that will someday show up and force us to deal with it, but a thing that is happening now"

http://archive.onearth.org/blog/no-vacation-climbing-through-climate-change-in-utah?device=mobile


"The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.
Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2923825/posts

 

I wholeheartedly agree! Fact checking websites are no different than mainstream media. They all have biases.

The amazing thing about "science" today is that it often requires your steadfast belief even when there is doubt. That's not science! You don't vote on whether you believe in a scientific idea. At least stop, and ask questions, whether it's science or fact checkers. People seem to have missed reading George Orwell's 1984.

Steve

 

So if one person has doubts, a scientific theory cannot become a theory? Two? What's your threshold for doubt? 2% - 3%.
Or is it just a political stance?

You understand what a theory is, right. You know it's not called the Law of Global Warming, right?

 

I honestly don't care if you wish to be brainwashed or not. But don't tell me how to live my life when there are reputable scientists that disagree global warming is something caused by humans, or can be reversed if I stop driving a car. That's called fascism.

Steve

 

There are scientists who believe in the Muslim God - thousands in fact. There were scientists who believed that the atomic
bomb would not work - there were scientists who thought the Cern experiment would rip the fabric of the universe. When did
it become fascism to discount a small minority of scientists?

How many scientists have stopped you from driving your car? Do they wait for you at your door?

 

No it's called the Church Of Global Warming.

 

There is no source on the planet that is completely unbiased. Since all fact checking is done humans and all humans have a built in bias it stands to reason that all fact checks will be biased. My point is this. If your measure on weather a sources material is valid is dependent on the person and you will only ever believe information confirmed by a source like minded to you it is pointless. This in the end tells you nothing since progress can only be made by the debating of differing views.

 

It begs the question, who's going to fact check the fact checkers?

 

Don't you think someone that has said the following should be ineligible to fact check AGW stories?


"I spend a lot of my time trying to convince people that climate change is not a thing that will someday show up and force us to deal with it, but a thing that is happening now"

 

One thing I learned years ago is that any written work product, including everything from Supreme Court opinions to op eds to content/human interest pieces, to books and magazine articles, to web page content, is written by young, smart... yet dumb at the same time... people at the bottom of whatever org structure is in place. That's right, callow 24 year olds are writing all our text. Supposedly this is then reviewed by senior staff, but often not.

In light of this, lots of seeming political bias is actually just dumbass young people who don't know anything spouting off or rebelling against "daddy." Even Obama's staff acknowledged this of late, then backpedaled it. I think the average age of staff writers at AP was in the 20s last I checked. O the horror.

 

We all need to hone our own critical thinking skills in order to decipher the truth.

I was fortunate to have such a class many years ago in junior high school. The teacher started the class with, "Pepsi is the drink for those who ...." All the students chimed in, "those who think young," based upon the commercials they ran back then. It also showed that we were all brainwashed and we were going to learn how to use critical thinking skills.

I don't think many schools include that in their curriculum. If anything, schools are likely doing the most brainwashing these days.

Steve

 

So, you do not know what is science.
In science just one person can overturn any theory with right proof. When "science" needs voting (like in global warming thing) it is not a science, but opinions. There are no proofs that global warming is caused by humans. It is beyond possibilities of current science.
Right now it is very profitable for meteorologists and such to preach a human-induced global warming (fat grants given because of PR thing), so they do prevail when it comes to voting. I am sure if grants were given only to non-believers, then they will be in majority. In science grants are tremendous force.

 

I see, they have finally upgraded from being a cult...

 

People need to be chamioning the lowering of Beef consumption if they want change. I have seen several studies that show that the beef market accounts for about 51% of negative greenhouse affects.

Cars and power stations dont hold a candle to it.

 

I see your point, but conversely would this person (example) be a good fact checker.

I spend a lot of my time trying to convince people that climate change is a thing that is here today and force people to deal with it now.

The odds of finding that happy "indifferent" person in the middle while possible is not very likely.

 

It's a yes or no question. Do you think someone who said the following should be employed as a fact checker on AGW issues?



"I spend a lot of my time trying to convince people that climate change is not a thing that will someday show up and force us to deal with it, but a thing that is happening now"

 

Global warming denial is a fraud. That is why deniers rely on falsified data. There is no fact checking anywhere that can honestly see global warming denial as anything but non-fact.

 

Let's see global warming is happening now. 2014 was the warmest year on record until 2015 surpassed it. 2016 is on track to be even warmer. Don't see how it is an issue.

 

Data is being manipulated and falsified.

http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/457579-climategate-sequel.html

 

Well the blog post of some guy who slept in a Holiday Inn is all the proof I need ... thank you.

 

Don't know much about science do you? Learnt everything you know from a science denying right wing hack?

There is a thing called empirical evidence. It's what is. From that evidence scientists discover how the world works. Man caused global warming has become evident. Most scientists can look at the data and see that man caused global warming is indeed happening.

 

Yes I agree data is being manipulated and falsified. That is the entirety of the global warming denial movement.

 

Typical cult member response to evidence they worship a false god

 

It's good you know long words. The only thing remaining to explain to you for the second time is that empirical evidence by itself can prove nothing. Like in case of global warming. Unfortunately (repeating again) current state of atmospheric sciences does not allow to make decisive conclusions. It leads to "voting", which is not scientific, and we do have historical evidence how voting (even with 99% in agreement) can lead to very wrong conclusions.

 

Once again climate gate and it's sequel show data being manipulated so scientist are basing their opinions on false data. Add to that that the oft repeated phrase " most scientist" is manufactured nonsense. Most scientist believe man has a role in climate not and I repeat not that man is warming the planet at an alarming rate and if we don't stop catastrophic results will rain down on our sinning heads