Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[Krikkiter]

That wold be rather unlikely. Remember he's teaching a first semester course, so many things will be simplified. The students are not knowlegeable about heat transfer, ocean dynamics, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, solar physics, or many other parts of the discussion. In fact Harris notes the fact that the "auditors" were biologists, who by way of training, were not competent, either.

Many things that are brought down to an introductory level of understanding can be criticized as actually being more complex. What you don't know is whether Harris has qualified any or all of his statements in such a fashion, those qualifications being of course, left out of the report. In the interview, he shows an understanding of this so I would assume he did qualify them.

Essentially the document in question takes John Cook's summaries of common arguments against skeptics of one or another aspects of AGW and (1) asserts Harris teaches (X) (2) repeats the skepticalscience argument against that climate skeptic opinion.

If you read the "Report", you will find that in many cases, it simply elaborates on something Harris says, instead of contradicts it. For example, Harris says (less of X) and the Report argues (more of X). Or Harris argues for a result being caused by f(a,b,c,d) and the "Report" argues for a result being caused by (A). Or that the only thing that somehow should be discussed is (A).

I've already noted how the "Report" was wrong, and Harris was correct, regarding black soot. It's a hastily prepared thing, and doesn't appear to be well thought out.

Given the obvious bias of the "Report", I think the question is simply this. Should Harris be forced to teach the AGW Religion or not? That is different than teaching the science.

I have read the report. Its criticisms and sources seem valid to me.

I'll ask the question again: "Please show how the sources cited are wrong."

 

[RobDegraves]

A side which notes that intelligent discussion does not consist of childish name calling such as calling people "Deniers" in the title of a report,

I take it you are not familiar with the concept of irony.

1. We are still waiting for you to start an intelligent discussion.
2. We are still waiting for you to stop your childish name calling.

because of the screaming and hysterical whining warmers.

You are a fool.

etc.


To be honest, the childish name calling isn't even the worst part. The fact that you don't answer the OP, our questions or even acknowledge obvious facts means that we are arguing with a crank who's bias is more important than real debate.

1. The report says that Harris teaches incorrect science about global warming.
2. Harris, in his own interview, makes statements that are provably untrue about global warming.

Ergo, the report is correct in it's conclusion.

What the University should do about it has already been discussed and concluded as far as I am concerned.

Ergo...this is done.

 

[mhaze]

....
1. The report says that Harris teaches incorrect science about global warming.
2. Harris, in his own interview, makes statements that are provably untrue about global warming.

Ergo, the report is correct in it's conclusion.
....

Typical thinking of a True Believer. Disregard contrary facts, accept the premises of others, as long as they are in the Faith.

Here's your thinking, simplified.

1. The report, by a Believer, says Harris is a Denier.
2. Harris is a Denier.

In fact, what you are calling "provably untrue" are best described as meta-generalizations, as they are generalizations from generalizations (often of poorly understood chaotic phenomona) in dozens of separate areas of science.

Whether Harris has correctly and accurately described these processes is not clear at all to me.

I guess I should just Believe that Report. Everything is so simple then.

 

[RobDegraves]

Obviously you don't actually read any posts other than your own and you don't care about actual arguments or facts. I am done here. Back to deserved obscurity you go.

 

[mhaze]

Obviously you don't actually read any posts other than your own and you don't care about actual arguments or facts. I am done here. Back to deserved obscurity you go.

And we'll all be cannibals....a claim that, in the happy world of the Faithful of AGW, should never be questioned or ridiculed.

 

[Mikemcc]

And we'll all be cannibals....a claim that, in the happy world of the Faithful of AGW, should never be questioned or ridiculed.

Niff-naff and trivia as usual, without substance or arguement. no surprise.

 

[Mikemcc]

Typical thinking of a True Believer. Disregard contrary facts, accept the premises of others, as long as they are in the Faith.

Here's your thinking, simplified.

1. The report, by a Believer, says Harris is a Denier.
2. Harris is a Denier.

In fact, what you are calling "provably untrue" are best described as meta-generalizations, as they are generalizations from generalizations (often of poorly understood chaotic phenomona) in dozens of separate areas of science.

Whether Harris has correctly and accurately described these processes is not clear at all to me.

I guess I should just Believe that Report. Everything is so simple then.

So which of the issues raised in the appendices of the report was factually incorrect? It would be appreciated if you could provide each on a point-by-point basis so that they can be addressesed separately so that future responses can deal with each issue seperately. This would reduce confusion on the issues that we agree with, and those that we dont.

 

[mhaze]

So which of the issues raised in the appendices of the report was factually incorrect? It would be appreciated if you could provide each on a point-by-point basis so that they can be addressesed separately so that future responses can deal with each issue seperately. This would reduce confusion on the issues that we agree with, and those that we dont.

Let's say the "Report" was a college dissertation. We'll do this for a moment (A) because it's kind of funny, the student would be failed on this piece of work (B) because it illustrates a rather important point.

Who, exactly, would criticize the dissertation based on the "issues raised in the appendices"?

Explain if you will, how exactly that's rational.

Or are you saying, let's ignore the report, we all know it's junk science, and compare Harris's teaching to the specific array charges in the "Report"?

Here's an example

Harris now falls back on the second line of defence, which is to claim that the causes of global warming are not anthropogenic:

 "We would be arrogant to think that we understand and we control the climate of the earth" (TH)
 ‚The only constant about climate is change.‛ (TH)

RESPONSE: However, there is now strong and growing evidence that the contemporary phase of environmental warming (since the 1950s) cannot be explained without the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings, specifically the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.​

Look at the bolded charge against Harris. Compare it with the two quotes. Do the quotes have anything to do with the charge? Actually, no. Then look at the affirmation of the charge in the closing paragraph. It's a recitation of dogma. But the charge isn't even supported by the "evidence". This is what I called slipshod work. Rather than defend or attack slipshod work, I'd simply toss it out.

Here's another.

Perhaps the best summary of the questionable arguments used in the course is given by Harris in the final lecture, where he provides take-away slogans for the students:

 ‚The only constant about climate is change.‛ (TH)
 ‚Carbon dioxide is plant food.‛ (TH)
 ‚There is no scientific consensus about climate change causes.‛ (TH)
 ‚Prepare for global cooling.‛ (TH)
 ‚Climate science is changing quickly.‛ (TH)​

These are questionable arguments? I think rational people could argue with the 3rd item, up to recently (but not today) the 4th.

Here's yet another.

Claim 16. ‚The only constant about climate is change.

RESPONSE: The fact that climate has changed dramatically in the past only goes to demonstrate the sensitivity that the climate system exhibits. This makes it more reasonable to assume that humans are capable of perturbing that system. In fact, models suggest that only with the inclusion of anthropological factors can we adequately account for the causes of the contemporary phase of climate change [7–9].​

What you see here is a general statement, followed by a somewhat different response. This is called in logic "reframing the argument". One more or less ignores the specific statement made, but uses it to launch off in the direction one wishes to go. By the way, "reframing an argument" is not a refutation of the assertion.

Here's another "reframing of the argument". This one is largely just plain confusion.

Claim 22. ‚Since the Holocene optimum about 5000 years ago, we’ve seen a gradual ramping down. And some geologists believe that this is a harbinger of the next glacial period about to begin. When it begins is very hard to say. It could be starting now.‛ ‚There’s no question that in the next 5000 years, we’re headed into the next glacial.‛

RESPONSE: If glacial cycles were to continue, we might expect cooling at some stage in the next 5,000 years. However, that is assuming that all other factors remain constant. Even if this is not the case, the projected warming of 1.8-4.0 ºC by the end of the 21st Century....​

WTF??? If glacial cycles were to continue? Might expect cooling? So...they agree with Harris. Then lead into the reframing and misdirection with the sentence "Even if this is not the case...".

And then there's the "claim" and the non-response about Greenland.

Claim 18. ‚Greenlanders, a lot of them, are looking forward to any warming that might happen, the only thing is the fact is we simply don’t know. If warming happened, more of Greenland would be habitable, but we simply don’t know.‛

RESPONSE: The positive and negative results of climate change will not be evenly distributed. Greenland may warm and become more hospitable to human habitation, but other areas are likely to become inhospitable...​

Here the Report simply agrees with the statement made by Harris. The follow on about "other areas" is not pertinent and does not negate the claim Harris made.

And here's the last one I'll waste my time on.

Claim 21. ‚This is something we’ll see generally speaking throughout history, is that we ended up in periods of drought and extreme weather at times when it was cold. A lot of the forecasts of the future from the IPCC talk about extreme weather events increasing when it gets warmer, but in fact in general that’s not the case. And it was explained in the Great Global Warming Swindle, where in fact, in general, weather is driven by the difference in temperature – actually difference in pressure, but that causes temperature – between the poles and the tropics. And in a warmer world, as forecast by David Suzuki and the IPCC, the difference in temperature between polar and tropics reduces. And yet it’s that that drives extreme weather.‛

RESPONSE: Harris claims that ‚extreme weather‛ is not increasing when temperatures increase. We need to define ‚extreme weather‛ before we can evaluate the claim....​

Okay, here these guys just "respond" by defining the words the way they want to make the point they want.

I hope these few examples serve to make my point, which is just that the workmanship of this "Report" is quite embarrasingly poor and chock full of logical errors and fallacies. Harris, or any of a number of people, would decimate the writers of this "Report" in a debate.

Thus any self-respecting Warmer would disassociate himself from this "Report" as it shows much more of the politicized and poorly thought out though processes of a True Believer than actual science.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
And we'll all be cannibals....a claim that, in the happy world of the Faithful of AGW, should never be questioned or ridiculed.

Niff-naff and trivia as usual, without substance or arguement. no surprise.

Actually, that's wrong. It's a specific rebuttal to the charge made in the report that Harris encouraged his students to ridicule advocates of global warming.

I've shown where in my opinion, it is appropriate and fun to ridicule extreme advocates of global warming. Note that the "Report" does not qualify this by saying that Harris encouraged students to ridicule scientists who believe some level of catastrophic outcome to current carbon emissions. This shows the dogmatic bias of the writers of the "report".

So...I've got my stash of barbecue sauce ready for those tough times coming....how about you?

I'll add one more to the list of "Responses debunked"

Claim 23. ‚Here’s what the sea level rise looks like since the end of the last glacial. And as you can see, at times it was going up 10 times faster per year as it is now.... the forecast for sea level rise by around the year 2100 according to the American Environmental Protection Agency is around 20 cm between now and then. And typically, that’s the rise we’ve seen. As Tim Patterson says in the video I’ll be showing you later, there’s no indication of an acceleration of sea level rise.‛

RESPONSE: Harris is incorrect here. There have been a number of papers over the past few years which may have led to his confusion. First of all, he is correct that sea levels rise during interglacials – temperatures warm, ice melts and water expands as it heats leading to higher sea water levels around the world (although the amount of rise varies between regions). In 2006, a reconstruction of sea level rises from 1870 to 2004...​

I'm not sure from reading these guys' Response that they are clear about what "rise" is versus "acceleration". Leaving that aside, clearly Harris does. Who is right? If Harris is working with the latest data, he may be simplifying the reality. The rate of rise has been going down the last 5 years or so, which is a negative acceleration. Technically, that's an acceleration. The guys writing the "REPORT" list a string of articles back and forth one way and then the other.

I'd give it to Harris overall on this one, based on the latest facts, and assuming he simplified "negative acceleration" to "not accelerating".

 

[OMGturt1es]

I struggle with your last sentence and thought to correct it:

Filtered through the narrow, slitted eyes of some hysteria warmers and propagandists at some unknown "council" who wrote a pseudoscientific "Report" to criticize a curriculum, when viewed in turn through prejudiced, biased, and gullible believers in global warming, the class in question appears to have been carefully crafted in it's distortions and misrepresentations.

Little problem there?

The anthropogenic cause of modern climate change is literally text book stuff. Really. This is a brief list of Earth-science-related text books that are sitting next to my computer and what they say about climate change:

• Earth Science, Tarbuck & Lutgens, 2003 - Section: Human Impact on Global Climate
• Earth, Tarbuck & Lutgens, 2005 - Section: Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming; additional mentions of coastal erosion, ice sheet collapse, desertification, etc. throughout.
• Elemental Geosystems, Christopherson, 2001 - Section: Global Climate Change; extensive text of energy balance through first two parts.
• Physical Geography, McKnight & Hess, 2005 - Section: Global Warming; additional text of energy balance
• Integrated Science, Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2007 - Section: Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
• Foundation of Earth Science, Lutgens & Tarbuck, 1999 - Section: Global Warming
• The Blue Platent, An Introduction to Earth System Science, Skinner, Porter, & Botkin, 1995 - Chapter: Global Change, A Planet Under Stress
• Geosystems, Christopherson, 2006 - Multiple sections throughout: The Greenhouse Effect and Atmospheric Warming, Global Temperatures Suggest a Greenhouse Warming, Global Climate Change, etc.
• Earth Then and Now, Montgomery & Dathe, 1997 - Section: The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming
• Exploring Earth, Davidson, Reed, Davis, 2002 - Small section: Human Interplay, refers to as "widely acknowledged"
• The Earth, Tarbuck & Lutgens, 1993 - Section: Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
• Understanding Earth, Press & Siever, 1994 - Carbon dioxide and global warming mentioned in two locations; one section called "Climatic Catastrophe"

You're free to disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. But suggesting that science classes ignore their own textbooks is simply ridiculous. And you know it. Or, at least, you should.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . . . Disregard contrary facts . . . . .

What contrary facts?

 

[mhaze]

The anthropogenic cause of modern climate change is literally text book stuff. Really. This is a brief list of Earth-science-related text books......

You're free to disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. But suggesting that science classes ignore their own textbooks is simply ridiculous. And you know it. Or, at least, you should.

Poorly contrived misdirection.

The issue is the "Report" and whether it's mass of logical fallacies has any merit whatsoever. Do not grace it with (your) clearer thinking than it's content.

Think carefully about what you know and do not know. Was there a textbook for Harris's class, and if so, what was it?

If you don't know that, you know very little.

What contrary facts?

See 68, 69 for starters.

 

[kmortis]

Stay civil and on topic. The topic is not the other posters

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Trakar]

(...)

Perhaps the best summary of the questionable arguments used in the course is given by Harris in the final lecture, where he provides take-away slogans for the students:

 ‚The only constant about climate is change.‛ (TH)
 ‚Carbon dioxide is plant food.‛ (TH)
 ‚There is no scientific consensus about climate change causes.‛ (TH)
 ‚Prepare for global cooling.‛ (TH)
 ‚Climate science is changing quickly.‛ (TH)​

These are questionable arguments? I think rational people could argue with the 3rd item, up to recently (but not today) the 4th.
(...)

They are incorrect, misleading and reject the mainstream scientific perspective of a nominally science cirricula class being taught at a major university. Rational people arguing otherwise are abandoning rationality to make such an argument.

(...)
I hope these few examples serve to make my point, which is just that the workmanship of this "Report" is quite embarrasingly poor and chock full of logical errors and fallacies. Harris, or any of a number of people, would decimate the writers of this "Report" in a debate.

Thus any self-respecting Warmer would disassociate himself from this "Report" as it shows much more of the politicized and poorly thought out though processes of a True Believer than actual science.

I do not perceive any significant problems in the report nor are the arguments you make against it substantive or valid. If you have a valid, scientifically accurate argument to make against the report or its findings please present it, I would be most interested in seeing it.

 

[Trakar]

I'll add one more to the list of "Responses debunked"

Claim 23. ‚Here’s what the sea level rise looks like since the end of the last glacial. And as you can see, at times it was going up 10 times faster per year as it is now.... the forecast for sea level rise by around the year 2100 according to the American Environmental Protection Agency is around 20 cm between now and then. And typically, that’s the rise we’ve seen. As Tim Patterson says in the video I’ll be showing you later, there’s no indication of an acceleration of sea level rise.‛

RESPONSE: Harris is incorrect here. There have been a number of papers over the past few years which may have led to his confusion. First of all, he is correct that sea levels rise during interglacials – temperatures warm, ice melts and water expands as it heats leading to higher sea water levels around the world (although the amount of rise varies between regions). In 2006, a reconstruction of sea level rises from 1870 to 2004...​

I'm not sure from reading these guys' Response that they are clear about what "rise" is versus "acceleration". Leaving that aside, clearly Harris does. Who is right? If Harris is working with the latest data, he may be simplifying the reality (...)

This is not "debunking," at best it is "railing against."

Compare Harris's statements to those from sources focussed on and supported by published mainstream science information and the difference is clear and incontrovertible.

Sea Level Rise
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

Sea Level Changes
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html

Sea Level and Climate
Introduction
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/pdf/fs002-00_williams_508.pdf

Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet
http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

[Trakar]

Climate scientist `troubled' by skeptic's teachings at Carleton University
http://www.canada.com/Climate+scien...chings+Carleton+University/6236644/story.html

The only real question I have is why a supposed legitimate university would hire a retired mechanical engineer to teach a science department class on climate change when his only connection to climate science is that he chairs a radical political advocacy group that seeks to reject and misrepresent mainstream climate science?

 

[mhaze]

They are incorrect, misleading and reject the mainstream scientific perspective of a nominally science cirricula class being taught at a major university. Rational people arguing otherwise are abandoning rationality to make such an argument. ....

Incorrect and misleading? "Carbon dioxide is plant food". Ok, I must be an idiot jacking up the CO2 and creating horizonal airflow in the greenhouse. Wait, that allows 10 degrees hotter temperature and 40+ % higher growth rates.

Where is the abandoned rationality?

I do not perceive any significant problems in the report nor are the arguments you make against it substantive or valid. If you have a valid, scientifically accurate argument to make against the report or its findings please present it, I would be most interested in seeing it.

Scientifically accurate argument? If, as I have shown, many of the arguments in the Report consist of reframing and misdirection, you would seek a scientifically accurate argument to WHAT? Something that Harris said, or the misdirection and reframing? This is in case you didn't know....a significant problem.

....
Compare Harris's statements to those from sources....

No. The subject is this poorly written "Report" and the charges in it against Harris. That is what I am looking at. And I pretty much addressed the issue of "Accelerating sea level rise". It doesn't look like the writers of the Report understand the difference between a rise, and an acceleration. Certainly scientists do.

If you are suggesting that you, or I could do a better job than the writers of the Report, I most certainly would agree with you.

And that's the nature of the problem.

With the "Report".

 

[OMGturt1es]

Think carefully about what you know and do not know. Was there a textbook for Harris's class, and if so, what was it?

The course was titled, "Climate change: an Earth Sciences perspective." As an Earth scientist, I can assure you that no modern, reputable Earth science textbook denies the anthropogenic contribution to modern climate change. None. Zero. Zip. And I have a pretty good understanding of what they say, because, as a nerdy Earth scientist, I collect them. Every modern Earth science textbook I own acknowledges the greenhouse effect, human-caused CO2 emissions, and their contribution to global warming.

So it's that simple. It really is. If you advocate against the report's conclusions, you advocate for instructors to deny textbook science. There's no escape.

 

[OMGturt1es]

[Attempts to justify the below statements]


 "We would be arrogant to think that we understand and we control the climate of the earth" (TH)
 ‚The only constant about climate is change.‛ (TH)
 ‚Carbon dioxide is plant food.‛ (TH)
 ‚There is no scientific consensus about climate change causes.‛ (TH)
 ‚Prepare for global cooling.‛ (TH)
 ‚Climate science is changing quickly.‛ (TH)
 ‚Since the Holocene optimum about 5000 years ago, we’ve seen a gradual ramping down. And some geologists believe that this is a harbinger of the next glacial period about to begin. When it begins is very hard to say. It could be starting now.‛ ‚There’s no question that in the next 5000 years, we’re headed into the next glacial.‛
 ‚Greenlanders, a lot of them, are looking forward to any warming that might happen, the only thing is the fact is we simply don’t know. If warming happened, more of Greenland would be habitable, but we simply don’t know.‛
 ‚This is something we’ll see generally speaking throughout history, is that we ended up in periods of drought and extreme weather at times when it was cold. A lot of the forecasts of the future from the IPCC talk about extreme weather events increasing when it gets warmer, but in fact in general that’s not the case. And it was explained in the Great Global Warming Swindle, where in fact, in general, weather is driven by the difference in temperature – actually difference in pressure, but that causes temperature – between the poles and the tropics. And in a warmer world, as forecast by David Suzuki and the IPCC, the difference in temperature between polar and tropics reduces. And yet it’s that that drives extreme weather.‛[/I]
[/INDENT]

Those are all trash. Garbage. Rubbish.

1. We will never understand everything in any science. But we have a very good understanding of climate. And we have a very good understanding of how greenhouse gases impact climate. It's not arrogance to acknowledge the state of science. It's accurate.

2. Climate is based on energy balance. Earth warms until it emits as much energy as it absorbs. That's constant. Greenhouse gasses absorb and remit outgoing longwave radiation. That's constant. Glaciers reflect incoming radiation. That's constant. Also constant: CO2 and temperature rise and fall together.

3. Not all CO2 is the same. Not all plants can utilize the CO2 humans emits. Not only that, most most plants are constrained by other nutrients. Moreover, the negative impacts of warming and drought caused by human-caused CO2 will often exceed the limited benefits of increased CO2.

4. There is a consensus.

5. Complete rubbish. All data indicate warming. No data indicate cooling. There is no reason to expect cooling.

6. Not changing; evolving. The conclusions remain largely the same; the resolution only increases.

7. No. Glacial and interglacial periods over the past couple million years or so have been caused by orbital cycles. We know where we are in our current cycle, but more importantly, we know the impact of human-caused CO2; we will miss the next orbitally-forced glacial period. Which is great. At least there's some good news-- in the distant future.

8. We have a very good idea that warming will continue. Claiming what we have no idea is simply wrong. And I thought this was an Earth science perspectives course, not a Greenlanders' perspectives course.

9. Wrong. The IPCC did not conclude that warmer weather will cause more extreme events; the IPCC drew from the scientific literature and reported the consensus. The consensus is robust. It is supported by the conceptual understanding of what drives drought and storms, the output of virtually every climate model experiment, and empirical data over the past few decades. Extreme precipitation events are becoming more frequent and intense. Heat waves are becoming more extreme and intense. Droughts are becoming more extreme and intense. There is good agreement that these trends are due to multiple factors that are changing due to increased temperature. And citing the "Great Global Warming Swindle" is just ridiculous.

There's no winning this one, haze. Really. I'm very familiar with climate and Earth system science. I subscribe to and follow the journals. I read textbooks. I attend conferences. The claims that this instructor made are not substantiated by science. You won't find them in any real journal. You don't find them in any real textbook. You won't find them in any real conference (no, Heartland conferences don't count). It's that simple. He's that wrong. And you are too, if you defend him.

 

[mhaze]

The course was titled, "Climate change: an Earth Sciences perspective." As an Earth scientist, I can assure you that no modern, reputable Earth science textbook denies the anthropogenic contribution to modern climate change. None. Zero. Zip. And I have a pretty good understanding of what they say, because, as a nerdy Earth scientist, I collect them. Every modern Earth science textbook I own acknowledges the greenhouse effect, human-caused CO2 emissions, and their contribution to global warming.

So it's that simple. It really is. If you advocate against the report's conclusions, you advocate for instructors to deny textbook science. There's no escape.

If your answer was done with full understanding of my prior posts, then it is reframing and misdirection. I assume that is not the case, and that I simply have not made my point clearly. Therefore here goes:

1) If you don't know what textbook the course uses, you don't really know anything about the course. This factoid was "left out" of the "Report".

2) If you have not noticed the ease with which I debunked seven or eight (randomly selected..) "RESPONSES" of the report, then you should go back and take a quick look at them. These are examples of "CLAIMS" by Harris and "RESPONSES" by the "Report" that .... simply stated .... do not support any conclusions whatsoever.

3) The "Summary" of the report is so inconsistent and as noted by Harris, so mixed up with logical fallacies as to not qualify under your assertion:

If you advocate against the report's conclusions, you advocate for instructors to deny textbook science.

In other words, I can argue against the "report" as garbage. That doesn't mean you'd approve of Harris's teachings. That's a separate matter. I might not agree with some of what he says. I view that as somewhat unknown. The course is apparently available at least sometimes through web access. That'd be the way to fact check. Not by believing a piece of trash.