Cato is very good at producing nice, thought stimulating, or at the very least very funny cartoons. Unfortunately, as a thumb rule their data are routinely doctored and/or misrepresented and can not and should not be trusted.
How about a source? Cato is criticised for playing with climate change skeptics and for sponsorship by successful industries, but by whom are they charged with manipulating data?
Hmmmmm.. Let's see... There are many others, but how about... myself? A person I really trust, you know. Cato has its ecological niche and plays its important role in questioning everyone and everything. However, they are agenda-driven, they are manipulative, their reasoning is biased and lacks logic, and their numbers are either outright wrong or misrepresented/taken out of the context. Do not take me wrong, they are not the only politically motivated entity of this sort, but this does not make me trust them any more than those others. Just an opinion based on review of some of their captivating essays. Not really interested in digging through others.
It is one thing to (ab)use data to make a point or advertise or publish in a scientific journal . . . and it is quite another transgression altogether to report fabricated or bad data. For the second time I ask, can you provide an example of "outright wrong" numbers published by the Cato Institute?
So now we are making a fine distinction between big and bigger lies? Don't you think it's ridiculous? Besides, it brings any issue down to a very unproductive nitpicking and finger pointing, while the actual subject and meaning become meanwhile forgotten. A lie is a lie. Data have their domain, meaning, and context. If you use your data outside of those, they are as good as fabricated. Honestly, I could not care less if someone tried to pass the data on lemming migrational patterns for the results of a supercollider experiment, or if the latters are fabricated altogether from a start. In either case the perpetrator committed a "transgression" that's supposed to cost him dearly (unless he's a politically motivated and driven pundit at Cato or any other entity of this kind, left or right). I do not quite see how one such lie would be better than the other. And in both cases I would feel free to call the data "fabricated", pardon my language. I will not waste my time making that fine distinction between "types" of lies and by pointing to
( ... )
Многабукаф!!! OK, so the answer is "no, I cannot back my claim that Cato Institute publishes data that are " routinely doctored;" I just distrust any publication by the Cato Institute, probably because I do not approve of their ideological backing." Let's work on brevity. Thanks.
Hahaha, you actually started from making an artificial difference between 'doctored' and 'purely fabricated' data. Looks from the change in your question that there is not that much difference anymore? I guess the excessive letters did their job. That's a progress, we may eventually agree on something at some point
( ... )
Did you seriously just pull a "I gots mo' important scientifical thangs to do than answer a clear and direct question" with me? Guess what! I know some science too. I read it, write it, plot it, discuss it all day long ... long enough such that I can imagine what kind of scientist you are. Yay for science and politics FAIL!
Answer me later then, dearest Dr. rather than writing a book about why you refuse to answer me now. I am genuinely curious to know which of [the] data are bad based on your analysis, but you can take your time, please!
Guess what, I just did! Dearest colleague, I never doubted your ability to write, and plot, and understand. That's exactly why I am confident you could figure this out by yourself, all the politics aside. When I find it amusing enough to write an essay about "Cato science", which I indeed consider to be of lowest priority, I promise I'll let you know and we will compare our notes.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Answer me later then, dearest Dr. rather than writing a book about why you refuse to answer me now. I am genuinely curious to know which of [the] data are bad based on your analysis, but you can take your time, please!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment