4 ms·
I 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 pe
by mercurial 14y ago
I 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=...