With all the endless volume on both FaceBook and EvC I'm sure some, perhaps even a lot of useful information comes through both of these. There's hardly any point in making an artificial distinction, FaceBook bad, EvC good, four legs good, two legs . . .
But all this useful information just gets drowned out by the rest of the noise (that post of yours I'm responding to here is a perfect example!). I suppose in the long run more is better than less. If you have a limited number of "official" outlets that are "fact-checked" (by whom, exactly?) you're bound to get more of a Soviet than a Western outlook on life. So, I guess, Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom . . .
The prediction involved sea level rise that did not, in fact, happen. The prediction was not about storm surge. Storm surge has hit many times before Sandy (before New York was New York, even!) The Great Storm of 1693, for example, or the 1788 storm that left the Battery in ruins, or the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane that flooded NY City up to Canal street in 1821, or the 1893 hurricane that washed away Hog Island, or the Long Island Express that hit in 1938.
It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
I clearly wasn't implying they were some sort of consensus, merely pointing out that if you're going to try to persuade people to do something about the environment (which is a good thing to be doing, whether it involves reducing CO2 emissions or heavy metal pollution or agricultural nitrate runoff or . . . ) it helps if you're accurate, rather than hyperbolic.
As far as I can see, the "fact-checking" in both places consists of some posters looking at other peoples' posts and doing some research (or not, as the case may be) before making replies to dispute (or agree with) those posts.
You're missing the distinction between convincing people of things that do not conflict with their current views and convincing people of things that run contrary to their current views.
If you make predictions which turn out to be alarmist hype you may not have problems with people who already believe you (they just shrug it off with the reasonable statement that predictions of the future are never 100% certain). On the other hand, people who are skeptical of you in the first place may have their preconceptions confirmed.
But the whole point is to convince people to change their behavior so you CAN save the environment. If you shoot yourself in the foot by making predictions that turn out to be alarmist hype, people won't change their behavior and you've endangered the environment.
I think this started with a discussion about global warming predictions that turned out to be inaccurate.
It's an interesting question, a case of "does the end justify the means?" when you think of how to persuade people to save the planet. Maybe it's like a game of chess. You can sacrifice a lot, if you succeed in checkmating your opponent. If however, you don't succeed, you're in a worse position.
Perhaps FaceBook has less "information" in relation to chatter compared to evcforum (though the fact that the name of the forum implies that evolution is something to be disputed indicates that . . . perhaps not), but even so, what is your problem? Did someone cite a post from FaceBook that got your goat?