I can easily see how this would be useful to beginners, especially for those who have to make a lot of charts and graphs for reports and presentations. I don’t really think about these things much and do a lot of eyeballing, so it was kind of weird for me (in a good way) to see specific directions on what to do. It was particularly interesting for me, because a lot of the stuff in the book I’ve just learned from experience. Common pitfalls and misconceptions are also covered. Wong covers a lot of the details like axes, proportions, and proper math. There are lots of time series plots, bar charts, and a little bit of mapping along with some other graphic types that you’ll find in The Journal (e.g. Going a little deeper, the type of examples provided are a lot like what you see in newspapers. There is about as much text as there are graphic examples, which I like. The guide is on the smaller side at about 150 pages of content, but it’s mostly a visual book. The book description also makes a point of highlighting that Wong was a student of Edward Tufte, which was a big hint on what the book is like. They’re not graphics from The Journal but they do look a lot like them. Given Wong’s background, you can make a pretty good guess about the examples used. Wong, former graphics director of The Wall Street Journal and now strategy director for information Design at Siegel+Gale, provides the dos and don’ts of data presentation in The Wall Street Journal Guide to Information Graphics. 5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.Add another book to the growing library of guides on how to make information graphics the right way. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13☌ between 19. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” 4 This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. 3 The original draft document did not say this. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred. We do not agree.” 2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. 1 In his editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the list of “what everyone knows.” Editor-The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |