Green New Deal + Vox article = hhmmm


Interesting how dependent the world is on fossil fuels.



Prager U - when you absolutely positively need the partisan conservative take but The Blaze is too harsh.

Of course, you can look at numerous other lifecycle analyses from actual research orgs and find out the answer is “it’s complicated” and the conclusion depends on a host of assumptions, projections, and accounting for various common scenarios.



It’s down to a matter of who’s buck is paying for the press.


If it’s a hatchet job / puff piece, absolutely. If it uses good methodology and is peer-researched markedly less so.


There’s only a really small difference between the two. :cry:

I wonder who’s buck in the background is paying for this, and how long will it take to happen.
It touches all the right buttons, but the statement about clean air is indicative.

Tell me who your friends are…

How does the list break down according to the pie in the video?


I disagree. Take an opinion piece on your favorite partisan site on some contentious subject and compare it to a peer-reviewed journal article on the same subject. The opinion piece may be nuanced and to a degree fair, but its examination of the issue centers around persuasion and making a compelling case, which typically necessitates selective exploration of the subject and only inclusion of convenient facts. A journal piece may well be flawed, biased, and occasionally bankrolled by some interest seeking to make a point, but it’s going to use a methodology they go to some pains to describe, present data, and almost always present a nuanced view of the subject that doesn’t attempt to make splashy hammerblow arguments.

The journal article’s conclusions will be far easier to assess.


I agree with your points, if not necessarily the conclusion. The who’s behind(peers included) what’s being said will always reveal the bias of either one. $ always matter. :neutral_face:


Peer review is a cr_p filter, not a guarantor of excellence. I’ve browsed a few pieces that were naked facades for future hatchet jobs that would cite such a convenient paper, easily determined by looking at the experiment design and protocol … yet they passed peer review. And peer review has some problems with replication. Yet the process is still better than editorials making such simple pleasing points.


Sounds like a plan.


Was talking to some friend the other day and idea/plan gelled.
Let’s gather Sanders, Cortez and others who endorse/embrace socialist ideals
and send them to Venezuela.
Have them stay there until the problems are fixed and things become/ stay stable.
Yeah…dream on.
The very least we can do is ask these folks “How would you fix Venezuela?”.


A well researched, and annotated counterpoint to the terribly inacurate and cherry-picked prager video.


A couple of arguments for and against nuclear.