This method works only with real errors. Not if disagreement with your ideology already counts as "error".
Which you made - as usual, I listed examples in the post, to illustrate.
You don't know what my ideology is, of course, but that doesn't matter when your errors are simple and factual - like the ones listed above.
Beyond the shared use of normal, undistorted by PC, language
The language you "share" with its only source is so badly corrupted and distorted by PC considerations as to be essentially meaningless (remember "Liberal Fascism"? Remember refusing to call anything "fascist" unless it first labeled itself and displayed Nazi symbolism?)
That is a major goal of fascist propaganda efforts: since libertarian, liberal, and most Western leftwing opposition to a fascist movement will rest on reason, on analysis and comparison, on history and science and economics and the like, if the media feed can make such reasoning difficult, destroy its vocabulary and deny it public venues, fascism will be fighting on its own turf.
Of course, there is a focus of interest on bad effects - this is natural and reasonable.
You claimed exclusion of good effects from the research reports, and bias in the choice of research topics toward bad effects, and all of that due to threats against vulnerable grad students and political pressure from "the left" or "the deep state" or the "statists" or some vague cabal that is trying to impose tyrannical world government on everybody.
You have labeled as "alarmist" a great deal of sober, straightforward research findings - for example.
So, even if there is such a bias, it is not problematic. What is problematic is what the mass media do - they intentionally present only the negative effects.
You make claims about AGW itself. You make claims about the bias in the research, and the research reports. You make claims about the IPCC and similar sources of information about AGW.
This is your website on the topic. It is not about the media - it is about AGW itself.
This website is my own: https//ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/.
You have no way of identifying problems with the "mass media", because you don't know anything about the reality it is reporting on (with the result that you often agree with it, especially the US rightwing corporate feed, when it is most wrong and biased)
Another lie about me. Quote me, liar.
Get used to the idea that liberals and lefties remember stuff.
You lie that "All of these are claims about what the researchers have found". No. Some of the claims are justified differently.
It is a simple, physical, fact. You don't know what the researchers have found, is your problem. You don't know when your claims contradict research findings. Your "justifications" for contradicting them don't change the fact that you are contradicting them.
And your "justifications" are more of the same, btw - full of assumptions and assertions that conflict with the findings of the researchers in the field. I listed a few, above.
Your presumption - your explicit claim, repeatedly made here, that you can evaluate propaganda and employ "common sense" and so forth without knowing what you are talking about - is a blunder.
The claim that I have not read research reports which I have explicitly quoted is obvious nonsense.
No such claim appears.
And it would not be obviously nonsense. For example: I recall you having claimed to have read an article I posted for you about the consequences of crossing tipping points of AGW in certain kinds of regions, and responding to some bit of it you quoted (denying its findings) by posting about your experience in crossing ecozone boundaries on mountains, which you claimed were examples of such things - there's no way to tell, by such responses, whether you read the article or not.
In particular, by common sense considerations, or by rough expectations of costs for some imaginable countermeasures.
All of those "considerations" and "expectations" in your posts contradict the findings of researchers and the arguments of better informed people. Every single one of them, in the case of AGW; the majority of them, in discussions of US domestic politics and similar matters. You don't know that, because you don't know what those findings and arguments are.
Of course, I, intentionally and deliberately, don't follow PC prescriptions.
Unfortunately, your source identifies them for you. You are unable to identify "PC prescriptions" for yourself, because you lack information. But your source has an agenda; so what you are intentionally and deliberately refusing to "follow" turn out to be the findings of scientific researchers and the sound arguments of competent and informed analysts. Your source is trying to destroy them, for money and power and other reasons of its own, and you are a handy tool.
And that is how you came to be propagandizing for the likes of Trump and the US Republican Party and the heirs of the Confederacy - while claiming to love freedom, and be libertarian, and so forth, you favor the demolition of whatever remains of liberal and democratically representative government in the most heavily militarized and intrusively corporatized nation on the planet.
