Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers about global warming
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers about global warming
#2A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Derogatory, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading.
Re: Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers about global warming
#3"Breitbart article is bullshit" is pretty much taken as read, but letting the cited authors have a Marshall McCluhan moment ("you know nothing of my work") does hav e its own satisfaction. Too bad it won't be seen by as many people.
Re: Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers about global warming
#4"Breitbart article is bullshit" is pretty much taken as read, but letting the cited authors have a Marshall McCluhan moment ("you know nothing of my work") does hav e its own satisfaction. Too bad it won't be seen by as many people.
33k social media shares for the Breitbart article, 15.1k for Climate Feedback's debunk + 6k for Snopes' (http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/), not too bad...
Re: Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers about global warming
#5"Breitbart article is bullshit" is pretty much taken as read, but letting the cited authors have a Marshall McCluhan moment ("you know nothing of my work") does hav e its own satisfaction. Too bad it won't be seen by as many people.
33k social media shares for the Breitbart article, 15.1k for Climate Feedback's debunk + 6k for Snopes' ( http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/ ), not too bad...
Are we assuming shares is proportional to total viewing?