Main Page Contact Register Log In


Without objective evidence of positive or negative bias being stronger one way or the other, you should expect these biases to cancel each other out except for increased sensitivity. That is to say you will need to read more sources to get a clear picture than you would if everyone was being objective, but you should still expect the average source to be accurate adjusting for source quality. But I wouldn't worry about it. Take a look at the policymakers summary from IPCC; specifically page 19. They're estimating only weak impacts to the economy currently unless you live in a mostly coastal country.

IPCC AR5 summary






The opposite biases might cancel each other if they were affecting the same group of people. However, if you have two groups with the opposite biases and neither group has much to lose from distorting the facts, then there is no reason to expect that the average source would be accurate.
66%
melian
stars0
Replies (0)


Agh! https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf&ved=0CDsQFjAKahUKEwjt0pWlgOvIAhWB8x4KHZUECbg&usg=AFQjCNHQ1BT19enD20E72zgY5gDi5zm08g
66%
FrameBenignly
stars0
Replies (0)


Weak impacts for an increase of ~2 degrees Celsius. But there's a significant risk that, without government action, it'll end up being much hotter than that.
62%
yaacov
stars0
Replies (0)