Difference between revisions of "Cherry picking"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(the idea that global warming makes strong hurricanes more frequent) |
(Hurricanes are becoming less frequent, and this graph proves it, but hoaxers only cited the part of the graph they wanted) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* Consider a report by three environmentalist authors back in 1998 in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), analyzing male-female birth ratios between 1970 and 1990. The authors found male births declining, and predictably blamed man-made chemicals. Yet public data going back to 1940 showed gender ratios are always changing, for no obvious reason. Years that disproved their thesis were simply sliced out.<ref> [http://fumento.com/media/medjournals.html Michael Fumento: Science Journals Delivering "Political Science"]</ref> | * Consider a report by three environmentalist authors back in 1998 in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), analyzing male-female birth ratios between 1970 and 1990. The authors found male births declining, and predictably blamed man-made chemicals. Yet public data going back to 1940 showed gender ratios are always changing, for no obvious reason. Years that disproved their thesis were simply sliced out.<ref> [http://fumento.com/media/medjournals.html Michael Fumento: Science Journals Delivering "Political Science"]</ref> | ||
| − | Here is statement widely used to promote the idea that [[global warming]] makes strong hurricanes more frequent: | + | [[File:Hurricane.gif|thumb|right|Hurricanes are becoming less frequent]]Here is statement widely used to promote the idea that [[global warming]] makes strong hurricanes more frequent: |
* "... over the past 35 years ... A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16166514?dopt=Abstract] | * "... over the past 35 years ... A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16166514?dopt=Abstract] | ||
Here is the rebuttal: | Here is the rebuttal: | ||
Revision as of 15:55, July 29, 2010
"Cherry picking" is the practice of collecting data which supports your point while systematically ignoring all contradictory data. This is a blatant violation of the scientific method and among scientists is generally considered to be unethical (see scientific misconduct and advocacy science).
A political example occurred in the 1990s, when the "black church burning epidemic" captured headlines:
- The CDR had systematically ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade; it had also labeled some fires as arson that clearly were not — all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be an escalating phenomenon.[1]
Even science journals have been fooled:
- Consider a report by three environmentalist authors back in 1998 in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), analyzing male-female birth ratios between 1970 and 1990. The authors found male births declining, and predictably blamed man-made chemicals. Yet public data going back to 1940 showed gender ratios are always changing, for no obvious reason. Years that disproved their thesis were simply sliced out.[2]
Here is statement widely used to promote the idea that global warming makes strong hurricanes more frequent:
- "... over the past 35 years ... A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." [1]
Here is the rebuttal:
- "... not a trend. Rather, it is likely a part of the large interdecadal variations in the number of intense typhoons related to similar temporal fluctuations in the atmospheric environment." [2]