Sentences with phrase «cherry picking the data»

See, by cherry picking the data, you're not necessarily lying, you're just not telling the whole truth either.

you are cherry picking the data.

But obviously the AKBs usually don't understand how real statistics work and will usually cherry pick their data to support some meager point they make while ignoring the bigger picture.

Can we please try not to make blanket statements about our players based on a few cherry picked data points?

The author has cherry picked data to support his conclusions which is not something smart, and educated people do.

Seems you're a simpleton who makes sweeping judgements based on superficial info, who also cherry picks his data to use in argument (conveniently left out our spurs / anderlecht embarrassments, our Monaco show, getting put out the carling cup at home vs saints...... you know, the truth).

Well, at least I know where to find you if I need cherry picked data and fear mongering.

«Once again the Comptroller is cherry picking data and ignoring key details in its reporting,» said DOB spokesman Morris Peters.

Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data.

I agree that most likely being vegan is the healthiest option but i feel like you are cherry picking your data

It's all relative and this is why most scientific studies are cherry picked data.

Greger cherry picked data?

Weston A. Price Foundation (2012) CDC cherry picks data to make case against raw milk.

Sad sad sob story that only holds up as long as no one challenges the cherry picked data and outright lies that make up the bulk of their complaints.

As we all know, data can be easily manipulated simply by cherry picking your data pool.

I haven't cherry picked data or excluded results.

Either way, you are missing the fundamentals of climate forcing and seemingly cherry picking your data to support your argument.

An outsider might accuse both of us of having cherry picked our data, but what else could we do?

Absolute credence in one obscure publication while distrusting mountains of «mainstream» papers is a sure sign of cherry picking data to support an agenda, not clear - thinking scepticism.

So Crichton cherry picks the data, twists the facts, and actually makes stuff up.

It's simple cherry picking your data, and a huge no - no when it comes to real science.

Know you that this is almost as prestigious as Al Gore and Michael Mann's nominations fer the Nobel (gasp) Prize... so many qualities required, cherry picking data, confimation bias, and the sang froid ter selectively criticise others fer what you do yrself.

By cherry picking data inputs for aerosols, you can make CO2 — and other GHGs — appear to be the driving force.

The other «trick» is to cherry pick data that supports the AGW fiction and discard data that contradicts that meme.

[old math joke] Let me cherry pick the data, and I can prove ANYTHING!

I don't know where you've been for the past week or so, but it appears that many of the scientists who have been writing reports for policy makers in the UN and various world governments have been manipulating data, cherry picking data, and then destroying data.

Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two - 100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree.

Personal attacks, circular reasoning, cherry picked data, unwillingness to debate, demands for vast public policy solutions, that actually do nothing for the alleged problem, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

If your answer is that I cherry picked my data then I respond, «I rest my case regarding your data range selections».

In fact, most uncertainties in the alarmist pseudo-science are internal contradictions and consequences of its shoddy practices: cherry picking data, making conclusions based on statistically insignificant observations, declaring trends based on variations that are within error margins, relying on computer models that contradict principles of the information theory, forging forecasts for unreasonably long time periods, etc..

Someone to come here and mount a coherent arguement on RE and r2, on the possible justifications for cherry picking data, on the justification for claiming that the Bristlecone and Foxtail pines are temperature proxies, amongst many issues.

If we really want to know who's cherry picking data — land - based measurements vs geological time scales vs models, the answer is to create a betting market for climate prediction and get the people who think they know put their money where their mouths are.

Just because the selected data they use somewhat support the arguments they make already invalidates the arguments since they are openly admitting they are cherry picking the data they see fit to add solely by personal whim.

You should not cherry pick data in a scientific study.

Getting caught cherry picking data?

I would like to focus on policy and progress for the big picture, not the down in the weeds talking points and cherry picked data that is not presented in a full, policy relevant context..

The Hockey Stick is an accurate reflection of historic global temperature — it is of course, but only if you splice together different time series, ignore inconvenient facts and cherry pick the data.

Followed by: «Researchers examining the recently released data from HadCRU centre's Dr Phil Jones have found that the series showing warming last century has been based on cherry picked data, and adjustments made by Dr Jones that have never been subjected to independent peer review or audit.

They invented the IPCC to find the proof, it could not be found so they made it up by distorting old data, «not showing their working» or cherry picking data that suited their»cause».

There's no shortage people taking shots at the data which is fine even helpful or people simply hacking away with little or no or cherry picked data (not good).

Jacoby's claim that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade also misses the point and perfectly illustrates deniers» tendency to cherry pick the data.

This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.

Only your belief is that what you are trying to tell people is actually true, even though it is a combination of cherry picked data points, citations and lots of confusion.

Now they are cherry picking data on this by ignoring ARGO and sat data and using a» 79 - 2000 basis.

Looks like they cherry picked data, other icecores come out with different results.

It should come as no surprise that that are willing to cherry pick data in advance of the most important policy meeting of this decade.

Instances of attacks on individual scientists, mocking the science, and cherry picking data were all equally common.

I have presented hard data along with McCracken, Steinhilber and Beer, if you choose to ignore this data then we can only presume you are cherry picking data to further your cause.....

They used an invalid computer model to cherry pick data to make the relationship go away.

They celebrate fake experts, cherry pick the data, argue using misrepresentation and logical fallacies, indulge in conspiracy theories, and demand impossible expectations of what research can deliver.