News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by CobaltFire on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:07PM (#36776834)
AIER seems to be a Conservative/Libertarian think tank that's anti-climate science, among other stances, including anti-lockdown (what this article is about).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economi...

Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by radiator on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:27PM (#36777130)
Are you implying that we should only be reading articles by Liberal/Progressive think tanks?
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by coding123 on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:37PM (#36777273)
At this point I'm already dismissing CNN and NPR out of hand, I guess it only makes sense for it to go the other way too.

3 Years ago I was actually on the other side too. Wow what a journey.

Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by tzs on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @09:55AM (#36786392)
He's implying that we should be more skeptical of articles from sources that have gotten basic science wrong in other articles.

It's not a liberal vs conservative thing per se. There are plenty of liberals and progressives who get basic science wrong. Liberals are more likely to reject nuclear power or GMO food for reasons that are not scientifically justifiable, for example [1]. Liberals have historically also been more likely to believe in medical nonsense like healing crystals and homeopathy and anti-vaccination.

The things liberals are more anti-science on though are also less likely to be the kind of things that require national or international solutions and so attract fewer think tanks.

Hence there is a better correlation between libertarian/conservative think tanks and scientifically unsound positions than there is between liberal/progressive think tanks and such positions.

[1] There is a decent argument against GMO food in places where food is abundant and cheap so avoiding GMO doesn't mean famine, but it has nothing to do with the science of GMO itself. It is that GMO gives food companies much more ability to customize and tweak foods in ways that are great for business but bad for public health. We already know when it comes to money vs health they go for money, which is a big contributor to rising obesity. They can still accomplish many of the same things without GMO that they would use GMO for but it is slower and more expensive which reduces the amount of harm they can do and gives more time to get regulations to catch up.

Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by CWuestefeld on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:14PM (#36776940)
Does the fact that somebody opposes something mean that, prima facie, that position must be wrong?
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by jdlshore on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:17PM (#36776989)
No, but given limited time, it makes sense to evaluate whether a source is (edit: heavily) biased or a crackpot before spending attention on them.
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by mcpackieh on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:19PM (#36777006)
There's no such thing as unbiased. The pertinent question is whether they're telling truths or lies.
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by larl on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:35PM (#36777244)
And a good shorthand for that is whether the is a propaganda site with a history of carefully worded deceptions...
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by mrguyorama on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @03:44PM (#36778159)
No, but a rejection of Climate Science is good evidence that they do not put the facts first.
Re:In the Asian Flu of 1957-58, they rejected lockdowns (2021) by orangepurple on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @02:13PM (#36776917)
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks