Officially Global Warming ended 11/28/2012 confirmed. Mike
Well mainstream media cannot be trusted at all, the fact that the nearly all are affiliated to one political system or another shows bias.
I have a quick look through the climate blogs that show sources, following up the sources is where I get most of my info, in other words I use them to point me in a direction.
If I have a particular subject in mind, I look with yahoo search, google or google scholar.
The more different info you can get from different sources, the more chances you have of sorting the wheat from the chaff, weighing up the pro's and con's.
I am also a documentary fan, and there are many internet sites where you can watch free documentaries.
I used to read sciencedaily but find that they too are biased, and the odd scientificamerican article I have read, have just shown me how low a scientific journal can sink.
The National Academy of Science. This is the association of America's greatest scientists.
You have to pick what you can consider a reliable source based on your best efforts. No one else can decide that for you. It is like picking a course of action in the medical world. There are many conflicting opinions in medicine too, but we all still pick a course of action based on some source. You must realize that you can pick wrong, but plunge ahead despite that.
For the most part, the “liberal” media is guilty of being “too liberal” (i.e., “everyone’s opinion has value and deserves to be heard) in pretending that there are legitimate scientific arguments on both sides and for not exposing the lies and pseudoscience that underlie the Science-denial political agenda.
S and Orange Bear are correct. Science journalism is a dying profession. Only considering those things that I have first-hand knowledge of – I’ve never seen a news story that did not get something really wrong. I can only assume that reports of things that I do not know about are at least as inaccurate.
Well, if you're not going to do your own research you are repeating someone else's opinion, and your politics will probably enter into it. On that basis I recommend you read what the Norsk Polarinstitut has to say and what they they consider to be reliable sources. They're funded by the Norwegian government which is quite conservative and dismissive of U.S, politics, considering the rest of the world to be mostly wimps. Norway gets most of its money from fossil fuels and is actively interested in polar oil exploration and in polar shipping, They depend on the institute for accurate data to further their national interests. Overall, that puts them about as far from U.S. - style liberal or conservative bias as you can get. Check out their views and who they reference at the english language site below.
Both liberal and conservative media is generally crap when it comes to science information. When science is politicized, people paint the issue as a political message, when it is not.
Its best to get your information from a science website or publication. Government agencies like NASA usually post their own articles too on their discoveries. Or at lease a website that is not a politically affiliated one. Here is one, http://www.sciencedaily.com/ . They are pretty good on showing all kinds of new studies and information. All of it is about science, not politics.
Fortunately for me, I don't look for people to believe in. I certainly don't give much consideration to media that have proved to be biased. What are these "conservative" media you are referring to? And no I wouldn't look for them for my science information either. I know most alarmist think Bush is an evil conservative. In fact, Bush was a moderate who was probably closer to Clinton than Reagan. The left should have loved him but he had a bad name associated with him, Republican, which prevented it.
None! We are being lied to around the clock.
Clearly, with a couple exceptions, none of us are scientists, much less climate scientists.
The idea, "Do your own research" is silly (to be kind).
So where should we get information?
More importantly, where should those of us who (a) don't subscribe to scientific publications, and/or (b) don't have the patience or understanding to read research papers, look for information?
Clearly there are both liberal and conservative publications.
Is it reasonable to give more credibility to liberal publications that minimize global warming?
Is it reasonable to give more credibility to conservative publications that promote global warming is a problem?
Is it reasonable to treat op-ed pieces the same as featured articles?
Who is to be believed?
not having sunscriptions is not an excuse. university libraries are generally open. the trick is to understand published papers from a reasonably solid education.
interpretation and opinions found on blogs, tv and mass media is entertainment, not science.
don't expect deniers to change even if fox news and wall street journal do. they are more likely to accuse them as turncoats bought out by the liberals if that ever happens.
Scientific American Magazine is owned and published by a top notch scientific journal.
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican...
