How do you know what is true

[said]

Here we go again.

Another thread where the rest of us with an ounce of common sense (and 97% of the world's climatologists) can see what is happening in the world, and the resident conspiracy theorist / Covidiot is determined to change everyone's minds.

Nobody will be convinced. Etc, etc.

Well of course you would know, so I must be wrong then.

[said]

How do you know what is true?

As a rule of thumb, the truth is most often the opposite of anything you claim.

Of course it is. You are absolutely right, as usual. However - there are just a few of us who think a bit differently to you.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110412...oceedings.html

[said]

The first thing I’d do, would be to go online and have a look to see if any other reputable news agencies are running the same story. Found this diverse range of links from the first page off a Google search.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/77216803.cms

https://www.newslaundry.com/amp/stor...the-sundarbans

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...llegal-logging

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/07/in...and-sinks/amp/

https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...62267.html?amp

https://indiaclimatedialogue.net/201...limate-crisis/

By this judgment, id say it is an accurate report, and indeed yes, the Sundarbans do appear to be sinking.
No doubt with your vast array of climate change denying drivel, your about to prove me wrong though?

No, you are right! It is correct to seek out other supporting evidence and I am glad to see that you do that. Some years ago that would have been all you needed to do - but in this present day, agencies are employed to edit all reports/articles etc., to ensure they follow a particular political leaning. So any supporting evidence has to be really scrutinised. You have to check out the source of the report as to its affiliations, the author and his credibility, who he is being paid by etc., then the content. You would need to have some understanding of the content to be able to discriminate the facts. It is far from just scanning a news report now, and it is not easy - so many people do not bother. I am lucky in that I have a number of resources and contacts if I need to clarify anything and I read overseas reports from independent news agencies to get a different view which helps too. But great that you did take the trouble, I mean that.

[local]

No, you are right! It is correct to seek out other supporting evidence and I am glad to see that you do that. Some years ago that would have been all you needed to do - but in this present day, agencies are employed to edit all reports/articles etc., to ensure they follow a particular political leaning. So any supporting evidence has to be really scrutinised. You have to check out the source of the report as to its affiliations, the author and his credibility, who he is being paid by etc., then the content. You would need to have some understanding of the content to be able to discriminate the facts. It is far from just scanning a news report now, and it is not easy - so many people do not bother. I am lucky in that I have a number of resources and contacts if I need to clarify anything and I read overseas reports from independent news agencies to get a different view which helps too. But great that you did take the trouble, I mean that.

How do you know your international SMERSH contacts have not been got at by "agencies"

Maybe your "contacts" have been similarly got at, in the murky world you live in how often do you sweep your home for bugs, check your communications for intercepts, your bin may be being screened as we speak.

Are you armed? someone with your inside knowledge is a clear threat to these harbingers of doom.

[said]

How do you know your international SMERSH contacts have not been got at by "agencies"

Maybe your "contacts" have been similarly got at, in the murky world you live in how often do you sweep your home for bugs, check your communications for intercepts, your bin may be being screened as we speak.

Are you armed? someone with your inside knowledge is a clear threat to these harbingers of doom.

They may well have been 'got at' - I must check into that. They are not with SMERSH they are with SMURFS.