How fake data goes viral
http://flowingdata.com/2017/10/04/how-fa...oes-viral/
EXCERPT: BuzzFeed[*] describes how an article on Daily Mail — that falsely reported claims and data about climate change — went viral. Seven months since publishing, the British site finally admitted they were wrong, long after they got all their clickbait traffic I am sure....
- - - -
[*] Here's Why Debunking Viral Climate Myths Is Almost Impossible, In One Animated Chart
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/how-...ead-online
EXCERPT: [...] The original story claimed that a former federal scientist, John Bates, had provided the newspaper with “irrefutable evidence” that NOAA researchers had used misleading data to exaggerate global warming, and failed to archive it so it couldn’t be verified. This flawed study, according to the Mail on Sunday, then “duped” world leaders into spending billions on climate action. At the same time this story went out, Bates published a blog post outlining his allegations.
Ward outlined 30 problems with this narrative. For one, the story presented no hard evidence of faulty data. It also inaccurately said that NOAA had not archived its data: In reality, all of it was published on the website of the journal Science. Plus, the work had actually been replicated: An analysis conducted by the Berkeley Earth team and published in early 2017 independently confirmed the 2015 study’s conclusions.
The original newspaper story also presented a bizarre graphic that suggested clear temperature differences between data from NOAA and from the Met Office, the UK’s weather service. Not only was the data improperly plotted, which was pointed out on Twitter by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, but it wasn’t actually the data discussed in the 2015 study....
MORE: https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/how-...ead-online
http://flowingdata.com/2017/10/04/how-fa...oes-viral/
EXCERPT: BuzzFeed[*] describes how an article on Daily Mail — that falsely reported claims and data about climate change — went viral. Seven months since publishing, the British site finally admitted they were wrong, long after they got all their clickbait traffic I am sure....
- - - -
[*] Here's Why Debunking Viral Climate Myths Is Almost Impossible, In One Animated Chart
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/how-...ead-online
EXCERPT: [...] The original story claimed that a former federal scientist, John Bates, had provided the newspaper with “irrefutable evidence” that NOAA researchers had used misleading data to exaggerate global warming, and failed to archive it so it couldn’t be verified. This flawed study, according to the Mail on Sunday, then “duped” world leaders into spending billions on climate action. At the same time this story went out, Bates published a blog post outlining his allegations.
Ward outlined 30 problems with this narrative. For one, the story presented no hard evidence of faulty data. It also inaccurately said that NOAA had not archived its data: In reality, all of it was published on the website of the journal Science. Plus, the work had actually been replicated: An analysis conducted by the Berkeley Earth team and published in early 2017 independently confirmed the 2015 study’s conclusions.
The original newspaper story also presented a bizarre graphic that suggested clear temperature differences between data from NOAA and from the Met Office, the UK’s weather service. Not only was the data improperly plotted, which was pointed out on Twitter by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, but it wasn’t actually the data discussed in the 2015 study....
MORE: https://www.buzzfeed.com/zahrahirji/how-...ead-online