This is the most inaccurate portrayal of the science I've seen this month. It's worth a look just to see how appalling it really is. Talk about cherrypicking the data to make your case fit...yes, let's talk about cherrypicking the data. It goes like this : let's choose the time period that best fits our preconception of what's actually going on, and then publish the data in a way that makes it look as though we are right ! Utter rubbish. They should be ashamed of themselves. This kind of approach has been debunked and refuted countless times. But the Herald Sun doesn't seem to realise it's made a huge boo-boo on this one. Andrew Bolt the writer is a known sceptic and has been outed as having manipulated science data before :- http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20061005-Climate-change-s... This is the offending article this time :- http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-5000117,00.html
|
|||||||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
And cheerypicking is just limited to sceptics?
The pro-lobby never does that e.g. NASA constantly revisiting the historical data under the guidance of Dr James Hanson (Al Gore's GW advisor).
And the MMGW lobby never manipulate data ? 'Course not !
And "missing out" the LIttle Ice Age in statisitcs because they upset the argument of the MMGW lobby is OK ?
The words "Pot" and "Kettle" spring to mind Jo.
Not quite on topic, but
Does follow with the title of the article.
Was trying to find the thread where someone quotes a George Monbiot article saying
"There was a recent ICM poll which showed that people in social classes D and E are far more concerned about environment and far more concerned that the government does something about it than people in social classes A and B. [His emphasis] "
And what that poll actually said was
"The number of people who thought that environment should be the government’s priority rather than the economy was substantially higher (56%) among the lower income, less well-educated DE demographic than among the better-off ABs (47%)."
And the details from the website i found this on:
And even that was a highly optimistic interpretation. Yes, 56% of DEs thought that environment should have priority over economy compared to 47% of ABs, but that difference was balanced out by the 33% of DEs (compared to 26% of ABs) who thought green taxes should never be introduced. The responses of ABs and DEs to the remaining two questions were the same. And as we pointed out at the time, closer scrutiny of the small print reveals that the demographics of the poll’s respondents were such that a much higher proportion of DE respondents were unlikely to be affected by environmental tax hikes.