Fact checking while ignoring facts?

Hahaha. It takes time and effort to determine the truth but this was presented very well. Fact checkers said that a photo presentation - historical photos - then and now - that apparently shows no rise in ocean level at a certain location was deemed untrue or not accurate. The fact checkers presented facts that only supported their position while ignoring other facts that would counter their label of the presentation being untrue. While the sea did rise by only millimeters over a hundred years, the land actually sank by a greater amount than did the ocean rise.

I just gave another talk to my daughter yesterday of the theories that support the idea of Pangaea.

Let’s see your examples of slanted fact checks

If the sea rose only by millimeters, the sea still rose. Checkmate! :stuck_out_tongue:

This is enough to give anyone nightmares. Really so terrible what garbage I grew up being brainwashed about. I now worry how my daughter will deal with all of the new garbage being spewed.


Ah yes, the good old days when it was global cooling that was going to destroy civilization! :cold_face: :rainbow:

I must admit though, “Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989” sounds pretty far out. :dizzy_face:

I just find it amusing that Reuters are publishing an article with that title. They are, I suppose, the unchallenged experts.