Showing posts with label daily mail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label daily mail. Show all posts

Sunday, 25 November 2012

'Filthy Rich'

Okay...so a time out from the Lea and Perrins brief and a quick look at the news;

" Filthy Rich: Britain's favourite dictatorship had so much oil its heiressess bathe in it...[...]"

...wait...what?!

 The rich ladies of Azerbaijan bathe in crude oil believing that it can cure skin diseases and arthritis even though medical science states that after 10 minutes the effects are more than likely to be carcinogenic.



This infuriates me because to me it appears to be the exact definition of greed and gluttony. Argggh.


SOURCE

Filthy rich: Britain's favourite dictatorship had so much oil its heiresses bathe in it... but beneath the fabulous wealth of Azerbaijan lurks very murky secrets

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237824/Azerbaijan-oil-heiresses-bathe--beneath-lurks-murky-secrets.html#ixzz2DG3EqsAo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sunday, 14 October 2012

'Global warming stopped 16 years ago'

You know that feeling when you've just made a decision on something and then someone/something comes along and brings about a whole new perspective to mess you up?

To elaborate I'll start from the very beginning...

Personally I believe that global warming is an issue. However I completely believe that the government only regurgitates statistics when and as needed. So if they need a diversion they whip out the old 'GLOBAL WARMING IS DEAD DEAD BAD' speech. I also have an issue with statistics. If you can manipulate statistics to your advantage you're on to a winner. For example, the national average salary plays on the 'mean'. The average is a term used to group the mean, mode, median and range. If a student, or pretty much anyone who isn't in the government, wants to find the average salary they would find the mode, as finding the salary that is the most common seems the most appropriate. However, when politicians find the average they use the mean, they add up all the salaries and divide by the number of workers. Consequently, the people with phenomenly high salaries affect the result dramatically. They use this manipulation of statistics to their advantage by saying that the 'average salary' is actually a lot better than it actually is. (not an anti-government rant)

"Is there a point to this rant?"

Yes. I think that people who study global warming may also manipulate statistics, but then again, if that's what gets people thinking then I have no issue with this.

This segues beautifully into the roots of this post.

I was reading the daily mail (stop hatin' and just let me continue...) and was greeted by this headline;


'Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it'

I literally rolled my eyes when I read 'HERE IS THE CHART TO PROVE IT' stats stats stats.The manipulation of statistics. 'IF THERE'S A CHART IT MUST BE TRUE!!'

The basis of the article is that 'the world stopped getting warmer 16 years ago'. It's so hard to reach your own conclusion when people keep throwing 'facts' at each other. How can they all be facts yet so contradicting?

READ IT HERE.