Aldeman: Weingarten is right that many Americans don't have sufficient retirement savings, but she's using those stats
here in misleading ways.
Not exact matches
I will spend a bit of time going over this and the next study cited by CarbSane and presented
here, as they are excellent examples of really bad science (if that word should even be used at all) that are very
misleading, and they
in no
way support the position that increasing carbohydrate intake is healthy... at best perhaps only somewhat less unhealthy than worse diets.
I'm always interested
in your perspective on this, but you've gotten some legal questions
here wrong, and
in a
way that I think kind of
misleads your readers.
Without going into more detail
here, it's clear that all of these concepts are relevant, but it's also clear that they are relevant
in particular
ways and that some examples are not relevant or are downright confusing or
misleading.
Here's another recent example — Pielke and his fellow conservative contrarian colleague Dan Sarewitz had an article
in the Financial Times recently («Climate policy robs the world's poor of their hopes») that I think misses the mark so badly,
in a let's - be-provocative-and-act-like-we're - the - real - progressives
way, that it would be tempting to ignore it, except that it's
in a high - profile publication and feeds
misleading talking points to a right - wing corporate political and economic culture.
Even just acknowledging more openly the incredible magnitude of the deep structural uncertainties that are involved
in climate - change analysis — and explaining better to policymakers that the artificial crispness conveyed by conventional IAM - based CBAs [Integrated Assessment Model — Cost Benefit Analyses]
here is especially and unusually
misleading compared with more ordinary non-climate-change CBA situations — might go a long
way toward elevating the level of public discourse concerning what to do about global warming.