Nuclear does not solve climate change. For every kWh produced, nuclear puts two kWh worth of water vapor, which is a "greenhouse gas", in the atmosphere.
That makes no sense. First, you can't measure water vapor in kWh. Second, although water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, water vapor in the atmosphere equilibrates on a time scale of days: it's called "rain".
You are right about nuclear having other problems, which may or may not be addressable. One problem is that current technologies won't solve the problem: in the long term, you'll either need to start up breeder reactors to produce enough fuel (something people don't want to do, because of weapons-potential), or switch to a new and unproven cycle such as thorium.
Probably doable. The problems are technically solvable. But whether they're politically and socially and economically solvable, I don't know.
Also, Greenland would be quite nice.. and it's largely uninhabited.
Once the ice pack melts, Greenland will be largely underwater. Much of the actual land is below sea level.
No, it isn't. Greenland is way above sea level.
Where do you get your information from?
Here's a nice set of maps of the shorelines if all the ice caps melted, for what it's worth: http://www.nationalgeographic....
Greenland is almost unaffected.
One of the best-understood ways to reduce population growth is to improve the standard of living.
The grandparent post is actually accurate: fix the issue and the problem is solved-- or, at least, you're on the way to solving it.
Let them die I say, they're not furthering humanity's progress anyway. It'll make space for us to actually make use of their resources rather than just sit on them.
I'll ignoring the anonymous trolling part of your post.
...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
It won't be "solved," but, indeed, giving access to electricity would indeed be a useful thing to do for many reasons.
That's like someone having terminal cancer and just taking pain killers to 'fix' it. You have the fix the root of the problem, if you really want things to be fixed. That means halting global warming. And that means drastic action to limit Carbon and Methane emissions by humanity's machines
The clear solution to the problem of lack of electricity in remote parts of India is photovoltaic solar panels. For a country with a million villages that aren't on the electric grid-- and a country with a very unreliable electric grid-- the distributed nature of solar arrays is a good feature.
And solar panels are now cheap enough that it actually is economically feasible to use them for this.
and realistically a healthy dose of atmosphere engineering at this point to pull those molecules out of the air.
Sorry, you're moving out of science and into science fiction. Carbon dioxide is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere. That's enough to absorb outgoing infrared, but ppm levels are hard to distill out of the atmosphere.
It is much, much easier to sequester CO2 from emissions, where the concentration is high. Once you've diluted it into the atmosphere, it's not easy to remove.
Massive plantings would do it. But you have to then sequester the plants afterwards, since if they then decay there's no point.
Oh wait: Full disclosure: I'm not a professional photographer, but I am an Instagram addict. My phone is my primary lens
So, basically, you just said you're not a photographer and not really interested in good pictures; you have a phone and your criterion for it is "good enough for Instagram is good enough for me."
That's fine. But why did you keep typing after telling us to ignore your opinion.
There are gradations in privacy. The fact that I'm ok with having some small portion of my data used by corporations whose services I utilize does not mean that I'm ok with massive violation of privacy without any notice at all by some other corporation.
If you tend to shoot portraits and that's what matters to you most, the iPhone 7 Plus is an obvious choice. Portrait mode is dSLR-esque, and we only expect it to improve by the time it gets a public release.
But if brighter colors, sharper detail throughout the backgrounds of photos and capable low-light photography is more important, it's the Pixel. I have to admit, I initially thought Google over-promised on its new flagship -- especially after those disappointing Nexus cameras -- but I was wrong. It's a new chapter for Google phones and this one earned its name.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to pay using my phone. I need my wallet anyway because it has my drivers license and health insurance card in it- two things I'd never go anywhere without..
In the future your driver's license and health insurance card will be on your phone.
...
4. MOVE TO BETTER LOCATION. The problem isn't how much money you make. It's how much you have to spend to just subsist in that area of the country....
There are many locations in the US that have much, much lower cost of living.
The problem is, there aren't any jobs in those places.
The cost of living being low doesn't help if you're living where they have 50% unemployment.
Kids are expensive. Ultra expensive if you give them a chance to go to college. They are a major drain on finances. Like it or. Ot their own decisions have put them in the situation.
Statements like this make me queasy. You're telling me that we now have a society where we have decided that it's ok that raising the next generation is too expensive for ordinary people to do. There has to be something wrong with a society that considers raising the next generation to be something ordinary people can't participate in.
My wife and I make 300k combined in Atlanta. We are talking about 1 kid. Figuring out how we will budget for daycare, college, food, clothes, etc. plus any life emergencies and our retirement. Three kids would not only break us but be unfair to them.
YOW! $300K and it's not enough to raise children?
Really, you are telling me that there is something very, very wrong with our society.
You're missing the fact that the EU also has regulations covering financial services to deter fraud, of course (look up "European system of financial supervision".)
So, basically, the article says that the SEC ruled that regulations to deter financial fraud apply.
This is actually good, not bad.
Except if you're a libertarian, and consider the right to be defrauded to be a form of "freedom"
So, when I said they needed more facts that were relevant to the sentences they wrote, your response is:
On that point, I'm "yeah, whatever."
and then you write
We care about different things. What I care about is are the facts correct, or not?
So, you're indifferent to whether all the relevant data is present, but you really care about facts that are correct.
No. In this particular case, you told me that if they added additional information which they did not have, their article would have been better. I don't expect them to report information that they don't have. I don't even have any reason to believe that information is available at all-- you told me that you speculate that this is a subject "on which political parties must have done a lot of research", but you don't cite any source suggesting that "the political parties" have released this analysis... and even if you had, I don't trust political parties as a source of unbiased information.
Bottom line, Snopes gave me the relevant fact: they told me upon what information the original claim was based. Everything else is commentary, in which I am uninterested.
they predict new sales primarily electric within 10 years
Let's do one thing. If by July 2027 most of new cars being sold in the US are electric, I would pay you $5; if not but by July 2037, $4; and so on until July 2067. If most of new cars being sold in the US by the 1st July 2067 aren't electric, you would pay me $1 million for having wasted 50 years of my life waiting for nothing.
This is a screwball bet, but (ignoring inflation), what you basically proposed is a bet in which your stake, betting against electric cars, is $5, and your payoff, paid by people betting in favor of electric cars, is $1,000,000. So the odds you just offered were 200000:1 in favor of electric cars.
(in fact, the odds are nothing like that, because the terms of the bet are peculiar, you can't ignore discount rate or inflation over a fifty year period, and the million dollar payout occurs after we're dead. But, nevertheless, the odds you proposed are vastly lopsided-- a five dollar payout if electric cars are real and a million dollar payout if they are not.)
And the problem with all of these "hammering out" of regulations is that those writing the regulations are typically underfunded compared to those protesting the regulations.
... and as a result, the people writing the regulations most often are the people protesting the regulations-- that is, the car companies have way more input into the pollution regulations than the people actually worried about the effects of pollution, because the car companies have a lot more funding than the people worried about the effects of pollution.
The writers will come up with a cost and benefit and decide the regulation is good. Those opposed to the regulation will say that the cost is half as much and the benefit may not be achievable.
Once the regulation is written, it suddenly gets met at half of the original estimate provided by the regulators.
That turns out to be true very often: the companies complain about how expensive the cost will be to meet the regulation, but once the regulation is in place, suddenly it turns out that the companies can meet it at half the cost they said it would take: they had been overestimating the cost in order to prevent the regulations from being more strict. (Or, to take a less antagonistic view, they were quoting the worst-case cost estimates when opposing regulations.)
Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. If you object to a regulation saying it will cost X and then the implementation actually costs less, you ought to have to pay a tax that brings the cost up to your original estimate. That way at least there would be motivation to be honest.
Interesting thought, but of course actually doing that would kill innovation, because whenever somebody finds a better way to lower pollution, the companies would have negative incentive to implement it.
The third line of their article told me that he had registered as a Democrat ten years ago. The very third line.
They gave me the facts. That's what I care about.
They buried the facts deep into the article, downplaying them in the headline. And the headline is the only piece most people see.
Buried the fact in the third line of the article.
Facts are what I want. If you can't even bother to read to the third line of an article when looking something up (because three lines is "buried deep" in the article), it doesn't matter what the article said, you're not going to learn anything.
Uh, that post is almost certainly trolling, in the original internet sense of the word: somebody who is posting for no other reason than to get a reaction. Responding to him in any way does nothing other than feed the troll; the correct reaction was to ignore him and wait for him to be moderated "troll".
It's too late for that now, though. To deal with facts: the actual response is that autism rates are not declining: http://blogs.discovermagazine....
I think they could have gone a long way towards seeming unbiased by putting a little research into their words:
I don't care whether they "seem" unbiased. I care whether their facts are correct. They told me that the fact behind the snark was that he had registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago. That's the factual basis for the internet rumor, and that's what I call "informative."
The rest of your post seems to say "if they had added some information that they didn't have, it would have been a better article," On that point, I'm "yeah, whatever." I don't even think it would have been a better article; I think it would have turned a straightforward article into a confused article that now uses dubious information from unreliable (political) sources to make some sort of point of unknown use. I just want the facts.
... With one piece of data, "unknown" in the summary sounds too much like "nothing is known" instead of "it's old data."
They told me that it's old data. That is useful information. And since there only is "one piece of data," telling me what that one piece of data is, is also useful.
And, a big paragraph of explanation with no new data comes across as someone trying to justify a bias. I'm not saying that they were trying to justify a bias, just that this writing gives that impression.
We care about different things. What I care about is are the facts correct, or not?
Gasoline powered cars, for example, met the regulations easily.
This isn't true. Meeting the emission standards is one of the most problematic parts of designing any engine during the last quite a few years. It is everything, but easy.
We are using the word "easily" different. If I rephrase this to state that meeting exhaust regulations, using gasoline engines, is a solved problem, is that better?
And the targets tend to be quite unrealistic as far as people setting them don't have the knowledge or the interest to be realistic.
The regulations are hammered out in exhaustive detail (no pun intended) by people who have both knowledge and interest, with extensive input from the auto industry about what can be achieved and what can't. They are realistic in that they are targets that not only can be achieved, but that have been achieved.
You also shouldn't assume that Diesel is intrinsically dirtier than gasoline, because it isn't (not since quite a few years ago)
You just rephrased my statement "Old-fashioned diesel engines are classically dirty and polluting (although also simple and efficient)-- but new "clean diesel" technology was being developed."
both are different and equivalently-dirty realities.
No, it's obvious bias. All available information point to him being a Democrat, there's not a single piece that says otherwise. Thus, it's dishonest to say "mixed".
The third line of their article told me that he had registered as a Democrat ten years ago. The very third line.
In general I try to not get my news or even my news analysis from comedians, left nor right.
However, reading the Daily Mail article, the "Louder with Crowder" article, and the Snopes article, the one that has facts in it is: the Snopes article.
Crowder isn't quite saying that the Snopes article is inaccurate, he is saying he doesn't like the spin (not quite the same thing as saying it's inaccurate) and complaining that in rating the article "mostly false" people won't read the whole article: his exact quote (not what Snopes actually says, but a parody of what he says Snopes says) is "but screw it, you’re not going to read our explanation below". But the "explanation below" is all I care about. I don't care about other people not reading the whole article. I care about whether the facts are accurate.
So, if what you're saying is "I don't like the spin Snopes puts on the fraction of their articles that deal with politics, but they do get the actual facts right": well, ok, I can deal with that.
This. Snopes is invaluable for a quick "That is not true" link for that kind of stuff. For political stuff... it's a maybe. If they debunk some slanderous rumor about a conservative or Republican, that's pretty definitive. Slanderous rumors about liberals or Democrats... maybe still useful; read the article carefully and check their sources. I've found that though they have a bias, they aren't liars. (At least, I haven't caught them in a lie.)
That's the highest on my list of criteria. I'm more interested that the facts are correct (and getting links to sources). I can form my own opinions once I have facts, but I do want the facts to be accurate.
Example I recall from way back when -- there was some utterly idiotic rumor that Ashcroft was terrified of calico cats because he thought they were minions of the Devil or some such. At first, Snopes marked that one "unconfirmed", though they did report that Ashcroft laughed out loud when asked about it.
That's praise in my opinion. If they did not have a definitive source saying that Ashcroft was not afraid of calico cats, nor one showing that the rumor was made up, "unconfirmed" is accurate. Reporting that Ashcroft laughed at the rumor allows me to form my own opinion (that the rumor is absurd and I personally rate it "pants on fire")-- but if they simply stick to the facts, good for them.
A week or so later, it had been improved to "False".
Corrected incomplete information with more detailed information: excellent.
I very strongly suspect a rumor of similar stupidity about a Democrat would have been stamped "False" from the very beginning.
That seems like speculation. May be true, but it's hard to fault them for something that they didn't do that you speculate that they might have done.
Slashdot Mirror
Actual scientists, on the other hand, never mention him; he's not really very important.
What is it was you guys and Gore? You need somebody new to obsess about since Princess Di is dead?
and oh yes, man-eating tigers.....
Not very many of them left. Tiger population of the world, outside zoos, is under 4,000.
http://tigerpopulation.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/7/8/37787381/1412938552.png
Nuclear does not solve climate change. For every kWh produced, nuclear puts two kWh worth of water vapor, which is a "greenhouse gas", in the atmosphere.
That makes no sense. First, you can't measure water vapor in kWh. Second, although water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, water vapor in the atmosphere equilibrates on a time scale of days: it's called "rain".
You are right about nuclear having other problems, which may or may not be addressable. One problem is that current technologies won't solve the problem: in the long term, you'll either need to start up breeder reactors to produce enough fuel (something people don't want to do, because of weapons-potential), or switch to a new and unproven cycle such as thorium.
Probably doable. The problems are technically solvable. But whether they're politically and socially and economically solvable, I don't know.
Also, Greenland would be quite nice.. and it's largely uninhabited.
Once the ice pack melts, Greenland will be largely underwater. Much of the actual land is below sea level.
No, it isn't. Greenland is way above sea level. Where do you get your information from?
Here's a nice set of maps of the shorelines if all the ice caps melted, for what it's worth: http://www.nationalgeographic.... Greenland is almost unaffected.
> ...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
> Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
...Generating more electricity, however causes even more pollution...
Not if you do it with solar.
Plus also overpopulation is a problem.
One of the best-understood ways to reduce population growth is to improve the standard of living.
The grandparent post is actually accurate: fix the issue and the problem is solved-- or, at least, you're on the way to solving it.
Let them die I say, they're not furthering humanity's progress anyway. It'll make space for us to actually make use of their resources rather than just sit on them.
I'll ignoring the anonymous trolling part of your post.
Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
It won't be "solved," but, indeed, giving access to electricity would indeed be a useful thing to do for many reasons.
That's like someone having terminal cancer and just taking pain killers to 'fix' it. You have the fix the root of the problem, if you really want things to be fixed. That means halting global warming. And that means drastic action to limit Carbon and Methane emissions by humanity's machines
The clear solution to the problem of lack of electricity in remote parts of India is photovoltaic solar panels. For a country with a million villages that aren't on the electric grid-- and a country with a very unreliable electric grid-- the distributed nature of solar arrays is a good feature.
And solar panels are now cheap enough that it actually is economically feasible to use them for this.
and realistically a healthy dose of atmosphere engineering at this point to pull those molecules out of the air.
Sorry, you're moving out of science and into science fiction. Carbon dioxide is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere. That's enough to absorb outgoing infrared, but ppm levels are hard to distill out of the atmosphere.
It is much, much easier to sequester CO2 from emissions, where the concentration is high. Once you've diluted it into the atmosphere, it's not easy to remove.
Massive plantings would do it. But you have to then sequester the plants afterwards, since if they then decay there's no point.
Oh wait: Full disclosure: I'm not a professional photographer, but I am an Instagram addict. My phone is my primary lens
So, basically, you just said you're not a photographer and not really interested in good pictures; you have a phone and your criterion for it is "good enough for Instagram is good enough for me."
That's fine. But why did you keep typing after telling us to ignore your opinion.
There are gradations in privacy. The fact that I'm ok with having some small portion of my data used by corporations whose services I utilize does not mean that I'm ok with massive violation of privacy without any notice at all by some other corporation.
What the Blu phone does is way over the line. They are not only secretly sending data to China, they have "a command-and-control channel that can execute code on a user’s phone as a system user."
This is not merely "spyware"-- this is actual spying, by a foreign power.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/researchers-find-phones-secretly-sending-data-china/
Their bottom line is:
If you tend to shoot portraits and that's what matters to you most, the iPhone 7 Plus is an obvious choice. Portrait mode is dSLR-esque, and we only expect it to improve by the time it gets a public release. But if brighter colors, sharper detail throughout the backgrounds of photos and capable low-light photography is more important, it's the Pixel. I have to admit, I initially thought Google over-promised on its new flagship -- especially after those disappointing Nexus cameras -- but I was wrong. It's a new chapter for Google phones and this one earned its name.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to pay using my phone. I need my wallet anyway because it has my drivers license and health insurance card in it- two things I'd never go anywhere without. .
In the future your driver's license and health insurance card will be on your phone.
And not too far in the future, either.
... 4. MOVE TO BETTER LOCATION. The problem isn't how much money you make. It's how much you have to spend to just subsist in that area of the country....
There are many locations in the US that have much, much lower cost of living.
The problem is, there aren't any jobs in those places.
The cost of living being low doesn't help if you're living where they have 50% unemployment.
TWO kids is the magic number of kids to have to not increase OR decrease world population.
2.1, actually: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
If you're bothered by the idea of fractions, consider that as 90% of the women having 2 children and 10% having 3 children.
Kids are expensive. Ultra expensive if you give them a chance to go to college. They are a major drain on finances. Like it or. Ot their own decisions have put them in the situation.
Statements like this make me queasy. You're telling me that we now have a society where we have decided that it's ok that raising the next generation is too expensive for ordinary people to do. There has to be something wrong with a society that considers raising the next generation to be something ordinary people can't participate in.
My wife and I make 300k combined in Atlanta. We are talking about 1 kid. Figuring out how we will budget for daycare, college, food, clothes, etc. plus any life emergencies and our retirement. Three kids would not only break us but be unfair to them.
YOW! $300K and it's not enough to raise children?
Really, you are telling me that there is something very, very wrong with our society.
You're missing the fact that the EU also has regulations covering financial services to deter fraud, of course (look up "European system of financial supervision".)
So, basically, the article says that the SEC ruled that regulations to deter financial fraud apply.
This is actually good, not bad.
Except if you're a libertarian, and consider the right to be defrauded to be a form of "freedom"
So, when I said they needed more facts that were relevant to the sentences they wrote, your response is:
On that point, I'm "yeah, whatever."
and then you write
We care about different things. What I care about is are the facts correct, or not?
So, you're indifferent to whether all the relevant data is present, but you really care about facts that are correct.
No. In this particular case, you told me that if they added additional information which they did not have, their article would have been better. I don't expect them to report information that they don't have. I don't even have any reason to believe that information is available at all-- you told me that you speculate that this is a subject "on which political parties must have done a lot of research", but you don't cite any source suggesting that "the political parties" have released this analysis... and even if you had, I don't trust political parties as a source of unbiased information.
Bottom line, Snopes gave me the relevant fact: they told me upon what information the original claim was based. Everything else is commentary, in which I am uninterested.
they predict new sales primarily electric within 10 years
Let's do one thing. If by July 2027 most of new cars being sold in the US are electric, I would pay you $5; if not but by July 2037, $4; and so on until July 2067. If most of new cars being sold in the US by the 1st July 2067 aren't electric, you would pay me $1 million for having wasted 50 years of my life waiting for nothing.
This is a screwball bet, but (ignoring inflation), what you basically proposed is a bet in which your stake, betting against electric cars, is $5, and your payoff, paid by people betting in favor of electric cars, is $1,000,000. So the odds you just offered were 200000:1 in favor of electric cars.
(in fact, the odds are nothing like that, because the terms of the bet are peculiar, you can't ignore discount rate or inflation over a fifty year period, and the million dollar payout occurs after we're dead. But, nevertheless, the odds you proposed are vastly lopsided-- a five dollar payout if electric cars are real and a million dollar payout if they are not.)
And the problem with all of these "hammering out" of regulations is that those writing the regulations are typically underfunded compared to those protesting the regulations.
... and as a result, the people writing the regulations most often are the people protesting the regulations-- that is, the car companies have way more input into the pollution regulations than the people actually worried about the effects of pollution, because the car companies have a lot more funding than the people worried about the effects of pollution.
The writers will come up with a cost and benefit and decide the regulation is good. Those opposed to the regulation will say that the cost is half as much and the benefit may not be achievable. Once the regulation is written, it suddenly gets met at half of the original estimate provided by the regulators.
That turns out to be true very often: the companies complain about how expensive the cost will be to meet the regulation, but once the regulation is in place, suddenly it turns out that the companies can meet it at half the cost they said it would take: they had been overestimating the cost in order to prevent the regulations from being more strict. (Or, to take a less antagonistic view, they were quoting the worst-case cost estimates when opposing regulations.)
Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. If you object to a regulation saying it will cost X and then the implementation actually costs less, you ought to have to pay a tax that brings the cost up to your original estimate. That way at least there would be motivation to be honest.
Interesting thought, but of course actually doing that would kill innovation, because whenever somebody finds a better way to lower pollution, the companies would have negative incentive to implement it.
The third line of their article told me that he had registered as a Democrat ten years ago. The very third line. They gave me the facts. That's what I care about.
They buried the facts deep into the article, downplaying them in the headline. And the headline is the only piece most people see.
Buried the fact in the third line of the article.
Facts are what I want. If you can't even bother to read to the third line of an article when looking something up (because three lines is "buried deep" in the article), it doesn't matter what the article said, you're not going to learn anything.
[Citation Needed]
It falls on you to back up your claim, first.
Uh, that post is almost certainly trolling, in the original internet sense of the word: somebody who is posting for no other reason than to get a reaction. Responding to him in any way does nothing other than feed the troll; the correct reaction was to ignore him and wait for him to be moderated "troll".
It's too late for that now, though. To deal with facts: the actual response is that autism rates are not declining: http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Here's a good correlation graph, if you're looking for correlation: https://www.sciencebasedmedici...
I think they could have gone a long way towards seeming unbiased by putting a little research into their words:
I don't care whether they "seem" unbiased. I care whether their facts are correct. They told me that the fact behind the snark was that he had registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago. That's the factual basis for the internet rumor, and that's what I call "informative."
The rest of your post seems to say "if they had added some information that they didn't have, it would have been a better article," On that point, I'm "yeah, whatever." I don't even think it would have been a better article; I think it would have turned a straightforward article into a confused article that now uses dubious information from unreliable (political) sources to make some sort of point of unknown use. I just want the facts.
... With one piece of data, "unknown" in the summary sounds too much like "nothing is known" instead of "it's old data."
They told me that it's old data. That is useful information. And since there only is "one piece of data," telling me what that one piece of data is, is also useful.
And, a big paragraph of explanation with no new data comes across as someone trying to justify a bias. I'm not saying that they were trying to justify a bias, just that this writing gives that impression.
We care about different things. What I care about is are the facts correct, or not?
Gasoline powered cars, for example, met the regulations easily.
This isn't true. Meeting the emission standards is one of the most problematic parts of designing any engine during the last quite a few years. It is everything, but easy.
We are using the word "easily" different. If I rephrase this to state that meeting exhaust regulations, using gasoline engines, is a solved problem, is that better?
And the targets tend to be quite unrealistic as far as people setting them don't have the knowledge or the interest to be realistic.
The regulations are hammered out in exhaustive detail (no pun intended) by people who have both knowledge and interest, with extensive input from the auto industry about what can be achieved and what can't. They are realistic in that they are targets that not only can be achieved, but that have been achieved.
You also shouldn't assume that Diesel is intrinsically dirtier than gasoline, because it isn't (not since quite a few years ago)
You just rephrased my statement "Old-fashioned diesel engines are classically dirty and polluting (although also simple and efficient)-- but new "clean diesel" technology was being developed."
both are different and equivalently-dirty realities.
"Different," yes, "equivalently dirty," arguable.
No, it's obvious bias. All available information point to him being a Democrat, there's not a single piece that says otherwise. Thus, it's dishonest to say "mixed".
The third line of their article told me that he had registered as a Democrat ten years ago. The very third line.
They gave me the facts. That's what I care about.
In general I try to not get my news or even my news analysis from comedians, left nor right.
However, reading the Daily Mail article, the "Louder with Crowder" article, and the Snopes article, the one that has facts in it is: the Snopes article.
Crowder isn't quite saying that the Snopes article is inaccurate, he is saying he doesn't like the spin (not quite the same thing as saying it's inaccurate) and complaining that in rating the article "mostly false" people won't read the whole article: his exact quote (not what Snopes actually says, but a parody of what he says Snopes says) is "but screw it, you’re not going to read our explanation below". But the "explanation below" is all I care about. I don't care about other people not reading the whole article. I care about whether the facts are accurate.
So, if what you're saying is "I don't like the spin Snopes puts on the fraction of their articles that deal with politics, but they do get the actual facts right": well, ok, I can deal with that.
This. Snopes is invaluable for a quick "That is not true" link for that kind of stuff. For political stuff... it's a maybe. If they debunk some slanderous rumor about a conservative or Republican, that's pretty definitive. Slanderous rumors about liberals or Democrats... maybe still useful; read the article carefully and check their sources. I've found that though they have a bias, they aren't liars. (At least, I haven't caught them in a lie.)
That's the highest on my list of criteria. I'm more interested that the facts are correct (and getting links to sources). I can form my own opinions once I have facts, but I do want the facts to be accurate.
Example I recall from way back when -- there was some utterly idiotic rumor that Ashcroft was terrified of calico cats because he thought they were minions of the Devil or some such. At first, Snopes marked that one "unconfirmed", though they did report that Ashcroft laughed out loud when asked about it.
That's praise in my opinion. If they did not have a definitive source saying that Ashcroft was not afraid of calico cats, nor one showing that the rumor was made up, "unconfirmed" is accurate. Reporting that Ashcroft laughed at the rumor allows me to form my own opinion (that the rumor is absurd and I personally rate it "pants on fire")-- but if they simply stick to the facts, good for them.
A week or so later, it had been improved to "False".
Corrected incomplete information with more detailed information: excellent.
I very strongly suspect a rumor of similar stupidity about a Democrat would have been stamped "False" from the very beginning.
That seems like speculation. May be true, but it's hard to fault them for something that they didn't do that you speculate that they might have done.