....
Pffft.
skepticalscience.com is a joke. Even their name. Typical carbon-tax scammers in all ways, and especially in their leaning on censorship to cover for their lack of 'science'. I find
Murry Salby to be much more rigorous and credible.
Skepsci is a propaganda operation, no more or less.
I'm curious...
Could you people please define what is a reliable source of information?
Because when I read you I get that:
Independent sites like skeptical science are a joke
Private medias like "Le Monde Diplomatique" are a joke
Popular medias like CNN are a joke
Governmental or international institutes like NASA are a joke
Where do you get your data from then?
Since you ask...
I spend a fair bit of time (because I have it) reading up on a pretty broad swath of topics (because I enjoy it.) Most of this stuff cannot be fully understood using a narrow focus since it has a lot of overlap.
These topic run the gamut of politics, geo-politics, economics, sociology, science, history, etc, etc.
In addition to reading/watching what others put out, I also in my own mind play around with all of the things I've taken in. Or as many as my mental ability allows at least. Pretty standard hypothesis testing produces theories which are strong because most or all of the pieces from the broad ranging exploration fall into place.
There are some pretty basic tools from a well worn toolbox which can be applied to such efforts. Among them, 'null hypothesis testing', 'cui bono', 'means, motive, and opportunity'.
So, to answer your question, I 'get my data' from a wide range of sources, but use my own mental library of observations and methods of thesis to discriminate it.