For large or small problems in modern history, reason and responsible decisions have been our best tools in coming to workable solutions. However, the body of knowledge and understanding that we have access to usually comes from sources, rather than an unbiased pool of information. It’s essential to believe that we’re receiving the best analysis and knowledge, and to examine those sources periodically to make sure we’re not falling into the traps of bias, cognitive dissonance, editorial, or over-simplification, and missing key pieces of information or thought in our decisions.

Social Media has amplified something into the daily information flow: The Conversation. The Conversation, the temperature and the dialogue around events, the quick read and discuss, where opinions fly and arguments live. If several people walk up to an emergency situation, there is a reasonable and effective behavior pattern of reaction, action, and after action. This allows the person to enter into a situation with the knowledge and instincts they have prior to react and act, and then to assess the situation afterwards to confirm, deny, or evaluate new experiences into what they previously knew. Sharing information, thoughts, and experiences at this point ensures to the listener that the source has evaluated their position based on real experience, and the opinion can be considered quickened and having the depth of grounded reality. This is the same hierarchy of information processing that occurs everyday in all our minds.

Too often, we sometimes let the opinions fly willy-nilly, increasing the noise, and disrupting what we do best in evaluating situations, deciding actions, acting and learning with others, and personal evaluation time for the next thing on the horizon.

We don’t think that having a conversation about opinions on the way to the situation or dealing with it is effective, unless its warranted. We don’t mindlessly share information out of sequence because it causes second guessing, devaluation of positions, and generally increases the noise and difficulty of finding directions towards solutions.

Why have we become infatuated with the idea of bringing our opinions along when we need critical thinking the most? And why do we assume that opinions given at poor times won’t just be examined with the rest of the facts, and given equal weight, hijacking the reality of the situation?

One of the biggest global challenges we currently face now is the question of climate change, what humans role is in it, what its effects could be, and what can be done to re-normalize some trends. Some organizations have taken up the cause to increase awareness, and spread information as we learn it. But is it always accurate?

The Weather Channel stands out as a premiere source of all things meteorological and climate. Surely the company that can tell us within minutes of an impending rain, temperature fluctuations, or other essential information, must be a reliable source when they promote an awareness campaign concerning climate change? That they would share nothing but the most reliable of analysis, data as it changes, and act objectively like the representatives of a field of science that they are?

On closer look, however, one can find a disturbing trend in their reporting and information sharing, from an objectivity standpoint. A typical day of social media awareness from them: