4 ms·
Did you read the first couple of links in the article? On the day the original publication from DM came, we already debunked it, pointing to the longer time per
by Steeph 14y ago
Did you read the first couple of links in the article? On the day the original publication from DM came, we already debunked it, pointing to the longer time period:
http://sargasso.nl/tweespalt-opwarming-plateau-of-niet/ http://sargasso.nl/tweespalt-opwarming-plateau-of-niet/
(in Dutch sorry).
And we refer to others who did similar things.
But this specific article is about adjusting the data before presenting it. The first point (missing 8 months) is "understandable".
The second point, changing the data at the beginning and end of the graph, is lying on purpose. That's unacceptable.
Even though these are small adjustments (about 0,03 degrees), they are done in purpose and to reach a goal (make more people doubt).
- mercurial 14y agoI must confess I did not (especially as I don't read Dutch). But I still fail to see how a change of 0.03 degree should be a deliberate attempt at misleading people. I assume that the Daily Mail staff, while not necessarily embarassed by ethics, have at least a modicum of common sense.
- Steeph 14y agoIt's done at both side of the graph, so it makes 0.06 :-) But that's not the point. It's the principle. If you present a graph based on actual data (verified by many scientist) and you change the data however slightly to fit your point of view, that's malice. Why do it otherwise? Maybe not enough for this though: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Nzg5Nw== http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Nzg5Nw=...