Its claim boils down to "Data visualization techniques can't be interpreted literally" -- which is obvious -- but is titled and written in such a way to provide ammunition to climate change deniers that "the other side" is being loose with facts, or something.
Absolute and insulting garbage. Whoever wrote this, edited it, approved it for release, and whoever posted it here, should be ashamed.
But "my side" isn't being loose with facts. That's my point. Data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.
Do you honestly think the BBC are climate change deniers?
Even when discussing something considered to be an emergency one shouldn't suppress truth and normalize deceit.
My point is that the article is claiming deceit where none exists. Data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. The article tries to paint this lossiness as deception, and that's wrong.
Why. Because it doesn’t support climate change?
It gives the impression Australia is a burnt cinder with no unburnt areas left.
The maps referenced in the article aren't "obviously misleading" -- data visualization techniques are always lossy, that's just how they work. Claiming they're misleading is the real deception.