>I find it always fascinating, that the same groups (Greenpeace, etc.) are always quick to point to UN reports about climate change (like the IPCC report) as if

>I find it always fascinating, that the same groups (Greenpeace, etc.) are always quick to point to UN reports about climate change (like the IPCC report) as if they were gospel but all the reports of the UN about Chernobyl and Fukushima are supposedly fake. I personally believe both are correct. I find this sort of thing is a reminder that I always need to find multiple sources, try to understand what the studies are and the extent they cover the topic and what the experts are saying about them to get a fair idea of what is going on. Its also a reminder that everyone has biases, both implicit and explicit, and it reminds me that I need to constantly review my stances to ensure I'm not only going by what my own biases want to follow (instead of the facts).as well as ensure I identify why a group may support one thing, but not another when currently available and reviewed info suggests both are correct. I also try and discourage myself from two other things I find common. The first is taking a large organization and assigning the same value to anything and everything they produce, even when its an org of many people and experts who have different internal groups that are experts in different areas. Its too easy to go "oh this group knows their stuff of X, published by doctors A, B, C. That is automatically equal to this other paper on a completely different topic published by Doctors X, Y, and Z."