CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24080
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:52 pm
 


raydan wrote:
Quote:
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.

Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principi ... rnational/

Who posted this crap anyways... oh, now I understand. :lol:

Oh they're anti-vaccine too.

Makes sense now.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 64817
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:49 pm
 


raydan wrote:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principi ... rnational/

Who posted this crap anyways... oh, now I understand. :lol:


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02- ... s-checkers

Quote:
MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.

Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

“These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)

Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.



“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …



“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30085
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:16 pm
 


Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you.

Bart: No you can't.
Ray: Yes, I can.
Bart: No, you can't.
Ray: Yes, I can.
Bart: No, you can't.
Ray: Yes, I can, Yes, I can! :lol:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/ ... ith-watts/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... f333b15785

https://skepticalscience.com/just-who-a ... imate.html

https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-sc ... ernational


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 64817
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:22 pm
 


So far I do not know of any bias checking site that is itself not biased.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30085
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:27 pm
 


Forbes is NOT a fact-checking site... and if anything it even leans right of centre.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30085
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:54 pm
 


Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11428
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:36 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
raydan wrote:
What is the point? [huh]

He doesn't want me pointing out his flaws in logic. That's the point.


What flaw/flaws would that be? There are many things necessary for life as you just might possibly know. Is this case CO2 is the point of discussion, not your 'look over here' attempt at distraction.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11428
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:37 pm
 


raydan wrote:
What is the point? [huh]


Try reading the article, it would help somewhat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30085
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:53 pm
 


Read the Forbes link I posted and you might won't understand why.
You can look at the other ones too.

Here's a couple more, one's from NASA.

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/ ... e-deniers/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1460
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:30 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
The boogeyman of CO2 is just another in a long line of bullshit predictions from people who don't believe the bullshit they sell to others.
It is worse than that. It is a money-grab scam to steal more money from the poor and to funnel it to the rich.

The environmentally-retarded climate hysteria shills are evil selfish people with bad intentions that they hide behind bow-ties and lab-coats and crazy cartoon shows. They are modern-day pervert priests.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14066
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:58 am
 


Tricks wrote:
PluggyRug wrote:
CO2 is now dangerous. ROTFL Without it life would not exist.

Without water, life wouldn't exist. Without Oxygen life wouldn't exist.
In regards to oxygen, yeah it would. There's all kinds of life on this planet that doesn't need oxygen to survive. In fact for them, oxygen is a toxin.


Last edited by PublicAnimalNo9 on Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24080
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:11 pm
 


PluggyRug wrote:
Tricks wrote:
raydan wrote:
What is the point? [huh]

He doesn't want me pointing out his flaws in logic. That's the point.


What flaw/flaws would that be? There are many things necessary for life as you just might possibly know. Is this case CO2 is the point of discussion, not your 'look over here' attempt at distraction.

Sure, it's essential for life. You know you can have too much of it right?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24080
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:13 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Tricks wrote:
PluggyRug wrote:
CO2 is now dangerous. ROTFL Without it life would not exist.

Without water, life wouldn't exist. Without Oxygen life wouldn't exist. Doesn't mean both are devoid of danger.
Life exists just fine without oxygen.

Beyond microbial life, or shit like tardigrades, all life we have observed requires oxygen. So sure, if you're going to nitpick, there can be micro-organisms that don't need oxygen. But considering we're talking about Humanity (you know, the word in the title) I figured I didn't need to be that pedantic.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11428
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:37 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
Sure, it's essential for life. You know you can have too much of it right?


With more CO2, how about a greener planet.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14066
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:51 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
Beyond microbial life, or shit like tardigrades, all life we have observed requires oxygen. So sure, if you're going to nitpick, there can be micro-organisms that don't need oxygen. But considering we're talking about Humanity (you know, the word in the title) I figured I didn't need to be that pedantic.

Huh, I also see the words 'volcano' and the nomenclature for carbon dioxide in the title too. Seems to me there's actually three things to discuss in that title.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.