Okie dokie. That seems a little too convenient for me. Can you even just tell me a couple of examples of sources you trust so I have a clue of what you're talking about.
Originally posted by mmQ
Okie dokie. That seems a little too convenient for me. Can you even just tell me a couple of examples of sources you trust so I have a clue of what you're talking about.
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
If they don't take government/corporate/lobbyist cash, they're independent. Simple enough.
That's fair, but it's also unfair to dismiss any and all scientific findings as wrong because the scientist gets paid from a source you don't like. If the BBC reported last week's temperatures, like CustomWeather did in the post I made up there that you didn't respond to, you're gonna say that those temps are wrong and it's bullshit? Those are fake temperatures I posted up there? Paid for by lobbyists and just want you to THINK the high temp in Fargo over the last few weeks was 97°?
Originally posted by mmQ
That's fair, but it's also unfair to dismiss any and all scientific findings as wrong because the scientist gets paid from a source you don't like. If the BBC reported last week's temperatures, like CustomWeather did in the post I made up there that you didn't respond to, you're gonna say that those temps are wrong and it's bullshit? Those are fake temperatures I posted up there? Paid for by lobbyists and just want you to THINK the high temp in Fargo over the last few weeks was 97°?
the only thing the BBC does reliably is molest children
Ok. I'm sorry. I thought they could be correct about some things and incorrect about others. I did not know that they are never correct. FORGIVE ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED.