kitler53 said:
the way i read the article, "CESA estimates a loss of...." and then the author states that the number may be "questionable". CESA should have made better assumptions but they didn't, the released a ridiculous headline generating number that discredits the entire point. |
Exactly, instead of being more upfront and transparent, they go for shock factor. It just seems careless, if it's careless on CESA's part, the validity of the study is suspect. Now, if it's just because of the writer of the article, then that has nothing to do with validity. However, I suspect the former, since it seems like the writer acknowledges the shortcomings at first, but that last line almost seems like something more directly from the study.







