Posted on 10 January 2010 by Melany Hamill.
Scott saw this climate change article
in Macleans, full of fallacious arguments and little science. The author even argues that the hole in the ozone could be a good thing. It’s an opinion piece, but it’s so full of bad arguments I picked it as the Skeptical Fail runner up.
Parrot0123 sent in this piece they spotted on the Weather Network. Just watch and you’ll understand why I picked it as the winner this week.
Perhaps the Weather Network should stick to the weather report. Thanks for finding this and sharing it Parrot0123. This is about as credulous as it gets. There is no attempt to even question the claims that this alt-med practitioner is making. I groaned out loud in a few spots while watching this. How about you? So why didn’t anyone at the Weather Network question these claims?
Sadly, there were few submissions for skeptical wins. Perhaps this is why so many of us turn to science and skeptical blogs when it comes to certain news topics. Good skeptical reporting on these topics can be a lot harder to find in the mainstream media. But some of you did find some good ones.
Michael and Frank submitted two older articles [1
] about the power line debate in Edmonton. It looks like this was a hot topic last fall.
The best recent article was submitted by one of our own, Marion. The CBC covered the topic of autism and digestive problems
. I think the article starts off really well, but gets a little credulous at the end. What do you think? It was certainly nice to see the word “discredited” next to Andrew Wakefield’s name.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to email us. Please keep these links coming…and keep an eye out for skeptical wins in particular.
There is one more thing you can help me with…This is our first regular weekly column, and we need a name! I’m looking for something clever and catchy that describes Skepti-fails and skeptic-wins.
Send your submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org.