Reuters “fact checks” me.
Fact Check: Antarctic ice data cherry-picked to make false global warming claim | Reuters
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
Recent Comments
- William on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Compassion For Terrorists
- Francis Barnett on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Ulric Lyons on Woke Grok
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
- Disillusioned on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Jehzsa on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
I see. Reuters cherry picks its ‘experts’.
People who no longer know what a woman is (because they were told so 2 years ago) are doing Fact Checks?
Who is better suited for fact checking than people who don’t have the skills of 4 year olds.
What’s next ? Pigs as restaurant critics?
I wonder when Reuters will Fag Check the Scientific American for claiming that the Ice Age Scare never existed and is only based on a single Newsweek article ,
or the official claim that there was no arctic satellite data before 1979 though the first Nimbus satellite started in 1964.
Or a little fact check that sea ice extent in a region full of underwater volcanos
is something that shouldn’t be used at all.
And here is my Fact Check : The number of Wars the USA could have started during the last 3 decades if Reuters would have actually done their fact checking Job would have been Zero.
But Thompson corp. owned Reuters has its headquarters in London and Thompson headquarters are in NY – the 2 global money and warhubs.
And Thompsons major shareholder seems to be Blackrock,
the de facto MiC as major shareholder of the 5 remaining arms manufacturers.
It is now inclusive at Reuters to hire only people with IQs in the lower quadrant to be fact-checkers. Either that, or the fact-checkers are passively resisting their bosses by proving the opposite point to what they are ordered to prove.
3,165 million to 3.075 million is misleadingly similar.
The truth was that it was even more similar at 2.75 million to 2.8 million.
Morons!!
I noticed that too. My first thought was “do these ‘fact checkers’ even understand what they writing?”
Just about everything the ‘fact checkers’ refuted regarding a certain gene therapy treatment has turned out to be true. None of them have any credibility, they came into existence specifically to prop up lies. The only morons are those who believe them. If a fact checker refutes something, it is almost certainly true, but embarrassing to the establishment.
It seems that the higher your IQ the more likely you can be deluded. At least that’s what is being pushed. I think it’s a catch 22 type of analysis. If you’re really smart and don’t believe in Climate Change, then you’ve been deluded. Only stupid beings can see the truth that co2 causes warming. I’m sure there are witches controlling the Climate.
To paraphrase the old wartime adage and add a little to it, ‘When you are on the receiving end of exponentially more flak, it means you are ever more closer to a target which must be protected at all costs, by any means available.’
+1`
When I read the OP, I immediately thought of the same – albeit the truncated version: ‘When you’re catching flak, you know you’re over the target.’
And they published it. Show how they think the audience will read just the title of the post.
But if they really don’t understand what they just published, they are even more stupid than a broomstick.
So they refute data using two data points with their own two data points. Awesome! They also claim that two data points do not make a longterm trend except when its their two data points. Got it!
LOL. I love the climate cultists. Everything that flies in the face of their religion is always dismissed as “cherry picking”. I see that term more than anything, because it’s a one size fits all broad refutation. The true believers won’t ask how something is “cherry picking”. They’ll just be comforted and reassured.
The proof that climate change/global warming is a total religious scam is the fact that the faithful have clearly repeatedly lied about one very important thing: The news stories just 45 years ago or so claimed the world was going into a new ice age, and we were all going to freeze to death. That story was literally everywhere, because I remember it very well as a 12 year-old kid. I was scared. However, the Mann and Hansen faithful now lie like a rug, and claim that the story was in maybe one or two periodicals, so it’s to be ignored. It’s a total lie. The story was in thousands of places, for almost 10 years years, including National Geographic. Of course, the ice age never came, so the fascists changed the story, and now it’s fire and brimstone, and it’s all mankind’s fault, blah, blah, blah. Basically, leftists hate humanity, and think we’re dirty and awful beings. So, they want to destroy human civilization, western democracy, and capitalism.