Do You Feel Like Everything That You See on CBC and CNN is 100% Legitimate?

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Climate Gate was a conspiracy theory from 2009.

Do you think anything else may have happened to confirm warming since then?

Hint: warming.

Warming? Who knows. Only the biggest liars on the planet are talking about it. 

Alarmism? Most likely.

There are always going to be records broken because we have more specific data now than we ever had 50 years ago.

With an extra 200,000 weather stations around the world we will constantly be made aware of new "records" being broken which aren't actually records, because there is no actual historical comparison for the new data from micro-climates.

When we hear things like "Portugal set a new record at 117 degrees" why don't they say what the old one was? Was it 116.4? Was it the entire country, or a small patch of desert that never had a weather station before 2001, or just around a 7/11 in a new parking lot with shiny black asphalt? 

The media can use global warming whenever they want because it's too easy to mislead people about. 

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're quoting sites that don't include editorial content.

What exactly are you proposing to replace them with?  

Think, man.  Your conspiracy videos are funded by someone...

A conspiracy video of a man peacefully surrendering on his knees and then being beaten by police is funded by someone? 

[blackbird]

Mainstream media is run by a bunch of very simplistic journalists that in many cases they know little to nothing about the subject they are reporting and profundicating on.  Example, the climate change scare.  This should come as no surprise.  Journalists are specialists in reporting what they hear; not in understanding the subjects in any depth.  So they report what  makes the loudest noise or bang.  The finer points or dissenting opinions are often ignored or purposely left out.

[ExFlyer]

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

The climate and global warming and cooling has always occurred.  Global warming and cooling is part of nature and cyclic.  That is an elementary fact.  Try again.

I believe we are definitely experiencing climate change.  I am a climate change believer.

Man made? Not so sure. There is where I am contested.

My discussion point is that there have been 5 or 6 major ice ages in earth history and for the ice to melt, there had to have been "warming' and climate change. Had to get pretty hot to melt the glaciers that were as far south as New Mexico.

Is this climate change any worse than the ones that melted the ice? Who knows and no one is seemingly about to say.

To keep it within topic context, neither CNN, Fox, CBC or Epoch Times is saying or questioning anything

Edited July 19, 2022 by ExFlyer

[sharkman]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why would a corporation be leftist? Ask yourself why a vehicle controlled for, and created for the wealthiest and most powerful be against the status quo?

Seriously I wonder about you people.

Gay agenda.  Trans agenda.  Pro abortion.  Climate change.  The Christian church.  Guns.  Free speech at universities.

You don’t know your left from your right…

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The thing with integrity is it's an either or thing, there's no sliding scale.

I gave you a clear unambiguous answer 'all the time' to a clearly ambiguous question. If you can't deal with that and choose to write it off as a lie at least have the integrity to do so without all the long winded hooey.

Never mind what I said about getting a grip, just fuck off.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Man made? Not so sure. There is where I am contested.

We know that more CO2 in the atmosphere raises temperatures. You can reproduce this effect in the lab. It's called the greenhouse effect.

 

Then you look at how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere, and realize that correlates with a rising temperature.

It's a pretty open and shut case.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I believe we are definitely experiencing climate change.  I am a climate change believer.

Man made? Not so sure. There is where I am contested.

The vast VAST majority of experts are quite sure enough to have made it prudent to have started acting accordingly decades ago.

I have to laugh my ass off at concerns about the MSM's influence and bias towards climate alarmism given the way it's devoted at least 50% or more of the podium to the miniscule fraction of scientists that aren't 'so sure'.

Why would the MSM do that? The influence of owners of media outlets who also happen to own fossil fuel companies would be my guess - to simply make more money.

[ironstone]

I think it's absurd to suggest that networks like CNN are not hard left.

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows | Investor's Business Daily (investors.com)

Did CNN ever say anything positive about Donald Trump? If they did it would be dwarfed by the enormous amount of time they spent attacking him.

Here in Canada Leslyn Lewis get's ignored by our MSM because she's in the Conservative party. If she was challenging for the leadership of the Liberals or NDP she would get wall to wall coverage.

 

[ironstone]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We know that more CO2 in the atmosphere raises temperatures. You can reproduce this effect in the lab. It's called the greenhouse effect.

 

Then you look at how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere, and realize that correlates with a rising temperature.

It's a pretty open and shut case.

Cooling or warming? Mostly due to mankind? The message keeps changing but the goal is the same, make people panic. I won't count on the mainstream journalists for this kind of information.

 

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I gave you a clear unambiguous answer 'all the time' to a clearly ambiguous question.

It wasn't "ambiguous", it was open-ended: I gave you every opportunity to just show that you had the oomph to question something that you saw on the MSM even one time in your entire life. Just one example. 

You had nothing so you tried to turn it around on me, asking if I felt like leftists had "at least some level of integrity". 

I explained to you that integrity is something that you have or you don't, no one has 50% integrity. That's not a thing. The fact that you think it's a thing means that you don't have it.

I was completely unambiguous when you asked me questions. I told you outright that I hate leftists and I have no respect for them. What more did you want?

Quote

If you can't deal with that and choose to write it off as a lie at least have the integrity to do so without all the long winded hooey.

Never mind what I said about getting a grip, just fuck off.

You came, you weaselled, you whined, you swore, you proved that you don't understand another common English word, and in the end you failed to show that you've ever questioned anything that you ever saw on CTV, CBC, and CNN.

I knew that was the case all along, I just wanted you to admit to it. Thanks for doing that. 

[WestCanMan]

30 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Did CNN ever say anything positive about Donald Trump? If they did it would be dwarfed by the enormous amount of time they spent attacking [lying about] him.

Fixed it for ya.

Quote

Here in Canada Leslyn Lewis gets ignored by our MSM because she's in the Conservative party. If she was challenging for the leadership of the Liberals or NDP she would get wall to wall coverage.

TBH Annamie Paul didn't get a lot of fanfare leading up to the Green leadership race, then again no one takes that party seriously.

She also got way more respect than she deserved when she spoke out loud, which was never good for her party. 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why would a corporation be leftist? Ask yourself why a vehicle controlled for, and created for the wealthiest and most powerful be against the status quo?

Seriously I wonder about you people.

Did you figure out what was wrong with this yet?

Is CBC a "corporation" or is it the propaganda arm of a big government party?

We always call the MSM lackeys "leftists" because the theory goes that the the parties that they shill for are liberal at heart. The Dems and Libs are "big government" types, yesirree, which also lends the impression that they care for the people whom they refer to as peons, but they're really just into division, which helps create a class system.

I think they know that they're not doing black kids a favour when they stand up for their "right" to argue with & assault cops. No one would tell their own kid to do that, why do they act like black kids should be doing it? 

The "leftists" have a big welfare arm to keep people dependent and poor, they want unchecked immigration because they want cheap nannies and migrant workers, they really don't want to help out poor people at all. They want more of them.

Do you think that CNN is really there for the little guys, with Anderson "Vanderbilt fortune" Cooper and the poor humble Cuomo boy, whose father and brother were mere governors of NY State? "Can you find it in your heart, good sir, to give a poor little Cuomo boy a nickel for some bread?"

They're big biz all the way. 

Everything that they do divides people into groups of humans who are theoretically "entirely different from each other and can't find common ground!!!" but it's just their shtick. They hate democracy, love a peasant class, and that's why they roll around in private jets and mega yachts while making energy too expensive for the poor. 

Morneau's family can afford gas at $100/litre. So can Trudeau's. Biden's. Pelosi's. Schumer's. Schiff's.

"Fuck you peon, you can't afford it at $3/ltr." - liberals/dems.  

[ironstone]

Yes my bad. It was years of lying to be accurate.?

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We know that more CO2 in the atmosphere raises temperatures. You can reproduce this effect in the lab. It's called the greenhouse effect.

 

Then you look at how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere, and realize that correlates with a rising temperature.

It's a pretty open and shut case.

With a pint of pessimism, I am not sure it is so open and shut. I am quite sure there is climate change. What I am not so sure of is it is all man made. You may be right about C02 but, is that really the root cause?

Like I said, we have had at least 5 ice ages. Why and how did they happen? then all that ice melted, because it got warmer. How did that happen? Are you insinuating C02 is the reason back then too? if so, it was man made?

Maybe the earth has a cycle??

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The vast VAST majority of experts are quite sure enough to have made it prudent to have started acting accordingly decades ago.

I have to laugh my ass off at concerns about the MSM's influence and bias towards climate alarmism given the way it's devoted at least 50% or more of the podium to the miniscule fraction of scientists that aren't 'so sure'.

Why would the MSM do that? The influence of owners of media outlets who also happen to own fossil fuel companies would be my guess - to simply make more money.

Like I said, I agree that there is climate change. I am just a bit doubtful of the cause.

I will not repeat the ice age and melt comment again but, perhaps the earth is in a cycle.

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

you proved that you don't understand another common English word, and in the end you failed to show that you've ever questioned anything that you ever saw on CTV, CBC, and CNN.

A person with integrity would acknowledge that when someone tells you they question these all the time it clearly means everything.

If you feel the need to weasel around telling people they're outright lying to you it's because on some level you realize you'd need to supply evidence of the lie.

Until you come up with something more tangible than the hooey mucking up your thinking all you come off looking like is a douchebag.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Like I said, I agree that there is climate change. I am just a bit doubtful of the cause.

I will not repeat the ice age and melt comment again but, perhaps the earth is in a cycle.

Perhaps, but you'll need to change the minds of the vast VAST majority of scientists who've said its us to convince me.  As I often repeat, you should submit your reasons for thinking action isn't necessary to them along with the IPCC.  I bet if you did convince them you'd have schools named after you, statues would be built in your honour and you'd be buried under a pile of everyone's panties for saving us all trillions of gazillions of dollars. 

[herbie]

It's not up to the 90% to post proofs of vax stats/climate change, it's up to you to post claims we're wrong. There's there's this thing called Google, Health Authorities and places called libraries. If you think they're all fake that's a problem with you not them

You remind me of long ago when if taunted by the mean kids, one would lay on the classroom floor, spinning and kicking and screaming "I'm not retarded! ALL OF YOU are retarded". The level of those who insist health & the environment are leftist concerns.

see

https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

It's not up to the 90% to post proofs of vax stats/climate change, it's up to you to post claims we're wrong. There's there's this thing called Google, Health Authorities and places called libraries. If you think they're all fake that's a problem with you not them

You remind me of long ago when if taunted by the mean kids, one would lay on the classroom floor, spinning and kicking and screaming "I'm not retarded! ALL OF YOU are retarded". The level of those who insist health & the environment are leftist concerns.

see

https://sproutsschools.com/bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity/

it's called a fake consensus

science doesn't agree with you

you just pretend it does and then act like a large group of people believing in nonsense somehow makes it true

appeal to authority and argument ad populum

science is not a popularity contest

science is not a consensus of experts

science is a process

it is on you to prove what you're saying is true

you made the claim, it is not on the person not making the claim to prove it wrong

that's not how science works, that's anti-science

it's on you to prove it's true, and sighting popular belief or a consensus of experts doesn't do that

Edited July 20, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Moonlight Graham]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are oversimplifying.  All of these are corporate news sources, therefore they can't be leftist by the traditional definition.  And if you use the new definition, you're tacitly acknowledging that the left died, politically.

FOX CBC CNN and the rest do of course carry their share of inaccurate stories.  Gulf War WMD and the Kuwait City incubator stories come to mind as being false.  Same with the Steele Dossier.  And they repeat false stories of climate change that achieve scare mongering click bait status as well.

The question to ask is what does objectivity look like, and how do we achieve it.

Leftwing corporate news = socially leftwing/progressive, economically right or center-ish.

They are not Bernie Sanders leftists, they are the Democrat establishment types and typical urban progressives.

Cable news is really quite terrible, none are very reliable.  PBS is ok i guess.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

With a pint of pessimism, I am not sure it is so open and shut. I am quite sure there is climate change. What I am not so sure of is it is all man made. You may be right about C02 but, is that really the root cause?

Like I said, we have had at least 5 ice ages. Why and how did they happen? then all that ice melted, because it got warmer. How did that happen? Are you insinuating C02 is the reason back then too? if so, it was man made?

Maybe the earth has a cycle??

The causes of the ice ages are known.  CO2 and solar radiation are the prime drivers of temperature.

CO2 increased in pre history at times, due to volcanic activity.  

There's no other cause identified for our current warming and our CO2 production increases.

[Yzermandius19]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The causes of the ice ages are known.  CO2 and solar radiation are the prime drivers of temperature.

CO2 increased in pre history at times, due to volcanic activity.  

There's no other cause identified for our current warming and our CO2 production increases.

you not knowing a better answer isn't proof that your answer is correct

arguing from ignorance

there is no scientific consensus on the degree to which human activity is impacting the changes in climate

and there is certainly no scientific consensus that human activity is the main driver in the current changes in climate

there is only consensus that climate is changing and CO2 levels play a role in that

conclusions of climate catastrophe are anti-science, yet these are the people who claim most vocerifously that this is the scientific consensus

as if science has anything to do with consensus, in the first place, which it doesn't

Edited July 20, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The causes of the ice ages are known.  CO2 and solar radiation are the prime drivers of temperature.

CO2 increased in pre history at times, due to volcanic activity.  

There's no other cause identified for our current warming and our CO2 production increases.

I guess it is a debatable (to an extent) issue.

I am not denying, just asking why the 5 or more ice ages and 5 or more melts in earth history are not discussed and are not compared.

If it was volcanic action that increased C)2, then how much is needed? The 20th century had some very large volcanic events that affected world wide air traffic and such, world wide weather. Was that enough? If not , what is enough. What caused the preceding ice ages than the climate change melted?

I agree that many, if not most scientists have proof of climate change and the earth is getting hotter but it has in the past too.

Back to topic of CBC or CNN being legitimate? well all news sources seem to agree with climate change and some other events but where they differ is on political issues. Some report and some do not, some slant and others do not even mention.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by ExFlyer

[sharkman]

15 hours ago, sharkman said:

Gay agenda.  Trans agenda.  Pro abortion.  Climate change.  The Christian church.  Guns.  Free speech at universities.

You don’t know your left from your right…

What I mean is, take the gay pride thing.  The local media is already promoting the upcoming Pride parade event(in the middle of news stories) in Vancouver, and it’s two weeks away.  They didn’t even do that for Canada day.

This is a bit different than the thread direction, but just as important, IMV.  Canadian media show great bias in what they cover or report on, and how they cover it.

Any of the above items I quoted above get a left wing bias.  It actually becomes fake news right before your eyes.

Edited July 20, 2022 by sharkman
Clarity