Twice mentions violent clashes between protesters and police around the G8 summit. How is that relevent to the topic of the article? The title of the article is that global warming is 3X faster than "worst predictions". In actuality, it is the CO2 levels that are reportedly rising 3X faster than in the 1990s. While this is a serious problem, mis-representing "facts" does not help the situation.

To quote from the article: "Rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it." The same can be said for news. It is very hard to actually evaluate trustworthiness. Most people are likely to "trust" a source they agree with, and mistrust one they disagree with. I suspect that if NT did a statistical comparison between the political leanings of its members and how much they trust left/right sources there would be a very high correlation.

Has little information beyond the headline. Rather "shallow" coverage of a complex issue.

Makes a number of claims without presenting evidence to back them up. The American system of government has been amazingly resilient though, and is likely to continue as such for the forseeable future, on sheer momentum if nothing else. Our own self-criticisim and the belief that we can do better is certainly one of our greatest strengths, as the author states in the end.

Even with the almost daily reports about global climate change, this should be front-page news. Shows that the problem may be even worse than previously thought.

Covers a lot of territory. Would have been good if it cited the opinions of the women who choose or are forced to dress in particular ways. In the end it seems the real issue is mostly about control, and who controls whom.

Contains little useful information. Mostly a bunch of quotes from both sides of the issue. What "certain benchmarks" are to be met? If it's "nonbinding", what's the point?

Poorly written, hard to follow. Mostly rumours and speculation. Not enough evidence to support the main premises.

Though IP piracy is both illegal and "wrong" (it is stealing after all), the media companies need to develop a new business model. It's hard to be sympathetic to them when their answer is to sue anyone they can. Google makes billions through ads, without charging users for content. Once the media companies figure out how to do the same, people might just get their movies and music legally. Until then, the pirates will just find new places to hide.

The author claims that her "science" is better that the SCOTUS. While the judges are not medical experts, the author, presumably being trained in medicine, should be able to scientifically demonstrate that an unborn baby is "alive", based on medically accepted scientific definitions. Sometime between conception and birth, this life becomes "human".

Not really "everything you want to know", but does address the mercury issue a bit. Other things I'd like to know are: how does the actual life compare with claims? My experience with CFLs is that life is far less than package states. If mercury is so dangerous, why aren't warnings more prominant, and recycling or proper disposal so difficult? Most people probably just throw the burned out bulbs in the trash.

Citizendium is to Wikipedia as NewsTrust is to Digg. Will the crowd-sourced sites win over the potentially more accurate sites where people take personal responsibility for what they say. Unfortunately this seems doubtful. Without anonimity, there is more risk in making an authorititave statement. No matter what you say, a large number of people may disagree, and with your real name they can track you down...

Why do Muslims and Jews hate each other so much? They are alike in so many ways. Orthodox followers seem to want to treat women as second-class citizens (or worse), in the name of "protecting" them.

Interesting, but not much information. Silly of one source to say "It's 20 light-years, we can go there". Maybe in 100 years we'll have the technology to do that. By then, if we haven't wasted all our resources, there will surely be better candidate planets to probe.

Interesting story, but not much information. Repeats the same statements several times.