Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Misrepresentation' keyword pg.1 of 1
06 JUNE 2017

Sowing Climate Doubt Among Schoolteachers Through Unscientific Propaganda

"The book [Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming] is unscientific propaganda from authors with connections to the disinformation-machinery of the Heartland Institute. In a recent letter to his members, David L. Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, said that 'labeling propaganda as science does not make it so.' He called the institute’s mass mailing of the book an 'unprecedented attack' on science education.

Judging from the responses of educators I know who have received 'Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming' in recent weeks, most copies of it are likely to be ignored or discarded. But if only a small percentage of teachers use it as intended, they could still mislead tens of thousands of students with it year after year."

(Curt Stager, 27 April 2017, The New York Times)

1

TAGS

2015 • 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference • Breitbart • climate changeclimate change casualty • climate change denialists • climate change propaganda • climate change scepticismclimate contrarians • climate crisis • climate experts • climate reconstructions • climate science skeptics • climate scientists • conservative think tank • creationism • creationist perspectives • dishonesty • Energy Makes America Great • explanation of phenomena • fake science • false assertions • false premise • fossil fuel emissions • global warming • human-driven climate change • ice cores • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • IPCC • Joseph Bast • lake sediments • Marita Noon • misrepresentationNew York Times • paleoclimatology • propagandaresponsibility • school teachers • science educators • scientific consensus • scientific evidence • solar activity • The Heartland Institute • the role of human activity on climate change • tree ringsunnatural phenomenon • volcanism

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
19 JANUARY 2013

Make your own 'Hitler finds out...' parody video

"You've probably seen your share of 'Hitler finds out...' and 'Hitler reacts to...' videos that take the famous scene from the 2004 movie Downfall (Der Untergang) and add funny subtitles misrepresenting the reason for Hitler's rage... This website lets you create such videos easily. All you need to do is come up with the captions. We'll make the video for you and upload it straight to your YouTube account."

(Jacek Fedorynski)

1

TAGS

2004Adolf Hitler • air-raid shelter • Bruno Ganz • bunkercaption • captions • composure • Der Untergang • Downfall (2004) • extreme frustrationfamous scene • fuhrerbunker • funny subtitles • Hitler finds out • Hitler reacts to • Jacek Fedorynski • memememe culturemisrepresentation • misrepresenting • Oliver Hirschbiegel • parodyragesubtitlevideosYouTube

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
22 APRIL 2011

The History of Instant Runoff Voting ('Alternative Vote' in Australia)

"The key the to the development of instant runoff voting (IRV) was the invention of the single transferable vote (STV) in the 1850's by Thomas Hare in England and Carl Andrae in Denmark. The essence of STV is the concept that a citizen would have one vote in a particular contest, but that that vote might be transferred from one candidate to another according to each voter's ranking of candidates, depending on the aggregate result of other voters' ballots. Hare devised this balloting and counting procedure in creating a system of proportional representation.

IRV, however, is not a system of proportional representation. Instead, IRV uses the STV innovation in a winner–take–all context. Instant runoff voting, using a preference ballot, was invented by an American, W. R. Ware, a Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, around 1870. The first known use of IRV in a governmental election was in 1893 in Queensland, Australia. However, this was a modified version of IRV in which all candidates except the top two were eliminated in a batch rather than sequentially, as in the pure form of IRV. The 'staggered runoff' concept that we understand today as IRV was first used in Western Australia in 1908.

IRV, called 'alternative vote' in Australia, came to be used in most Australian legislative elections, although it was superseded by Hare's STV system of proportional representation for the federal Senate. IRV is still used for electing members of the lower house. IRV is also used in other nations, such as Ireland. In the United Kingdom, the Jenkins Commission, appointed by the new government, released their report October 29 that recommends the use of IRV for electing the House of Commons (with proportional representation achieved through the election of additional members based on the popular vote for parties nationally). ...

The single transferable vote is a more common voting procedure in the U.S. than most of us realize. Even the Academy Awards uses STV in determining their finalists. The American Political Science Association (APSA), the organization of political science professors, uses IRV to elect their national president, since political scientists understand that IRV is the fairest and simplest way to elect a single winner from a field of candidates."

(Center for Voting and Democracy, Washington, D.C.)

1

TAGS

1850s1893advocacyAlternative Vote • American Political Science Association • APSA • Australia • Australian Federal Senate • Australian Lower House • Carl Andrae • contest • counting procedure • Denmark • election • fairnessHouse of CommonsInstant Runoff VotingIRV • Jenkins Commission • legislative elections • Massachusetts Institute of TechnologymisrepresentationParliamentpolicypolitical representationpolitical sciencepoliticspopular vote • preference ballot • proportional representation • QueenslandrankingRepublic of Irelandsimplicity • Single Transferable Vote • single winner • STV • systemThomas HaretransferUKvotingvoting system • W. R. Ware

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
03 DECEMBER 2003

Official Forms: The Misconception of Data Abstraction

Jane Christie (Gina Bellman), a character in the British comedy series Coupling complains about the inadequacy of official forms. She feels that they prejudice her by not allowing her to fully elaborate on her circumstances – especially when it comes to describing her marital status. She desperately wishes to be married and finds it humiliating to be single.

This example quite humorously highlights the problem of quantifying non–metric data. Official forms like the ones being described here suffer from the misconception that everyday experience can be meaningfully abstracted (and analysed).

1

TAGS

abstractionBritish comedycomedy series • Coupling • data abstraction • Gina Bellman • inadequate • Jane Christie • married • metric • misrepresentation • official forms • prejudiceUK
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.