warmicles
i happened across two climate change articles. they were the same but opposite. i explain. in the first article, the citations of the scientists were very measured. they found a correlation between co2 levels and melting the antarctic ice during the time of the dinosaurs. the journalist organized phrases in such a way that if you were so predisposed you'd think this was proof of man made global warming by burning fossil fuels. if you were predisposed in the other direction, you'd call it an obviously slanted piece of garbage. now, in the second article, the citations of the scientists were very measured. they used a combination of models that produced a solar driven warming effect much greater than the sum of each model individually. the journalist organized phrases in such a way that if you were so predisposed you'd think this was proof that global warming is entirely caused by the sun. if you were predisposed in the other direction, you'd call it an obviously slanted piece of garbage. heh. the same. but opposite.