> ... but it is surely undeniable that they > presented their results in a manner which > could be expected to mislead people in this way.
I answered that in the related thread at your blog. I can't quite say I _denied_ that at your blog, but "could be expected" omits "expected by whom" -- that's the crux of the problem. I yield to no one in having trouble finding exactly and only words that can't be misinterpreted. But it's awfully common, especially reading text on a page or screen, to fill in malice where there may only be wholeheartedly cheerful honest spin, or even unconscious bias, tweaking wording. By the way, do follow the pointer in the post to the thread on that other climate site, which has since developed into a lively example of something related. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/04/media-misleading-or-misled.html#115946913229842537 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
