What can lobbyists do when science contradicts their political messages? Some simply deny the science, as many conservatives do with climate change. Others pretend to embrace the science, while ignoring or purging the disagreeable content.

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist,[1] although the general concept is much older.[2] The observation has also been called "Davis' law"[3][4] or just the "journalistic principle."[5] Betteridge explained the concept in a February 2009 article, regarding a TechCrunch article with the headline "Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data To the RIAA?": This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.[6] Five years before Betteridge's article, a similar observation was made by UK journalist Andrew Marr in his 2004 book My Trade. It was among Marr's suggestions for how a reader should approach a newspaper if they really wish to know what is going on: If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no.' Is This the True Face of Britain's Young? (Sensible reader: No.) Have We Found the Cure for AIDS? (No; or you wouldn't have put the question mark in.) Does This Map Provide the Key for Peace? (Probably not.) A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means 'don't bother reading this bit'.[7] Betteridge has admitted to breaking his own law (writing a question headline with the answer "yes"), in an article published at his own site.[8]

Errors and manipulations of rhetoric and logical thinking

Hear that crocus? A ripe alcove chock full of crooked Theremins. Inside is a Jekyll, your personal rejoinder to alkali: the bright and beautiful mother of a brutal shade. Because this breakthrough is not malignant the resultant effervescence is only 18% frenetic. It is a real live sports car. It is a thoroughly enjoyable smoke. It will keep bottle-fed babies strong and virile.

There’s a heaping crust of manganese here - enough for one or two backbones of amaranth. And as it ogles onwards a fuller sense of violence precipitates. Is it alive? Perhaps a thousand butchers suggest so. There is no need to snuff it when you’ve got sheer energy. Translucent yet lively too, in Nude, Herring, Vertical, Possom: they’re utter soft.

This antique panache does little for your décor. You deserve some make time - and live it! If you really want a young-minded experience, look at a tree, particularly in the evening. But don't do it for long - it's double-rich!

Brains or chrysalid? - but why choose? Combine turgid with cynicism - that's what the thousand girls do. By removing pore accumulation your wrinkles do it for the face. Features, more, now, what? It's a cream above the lavender spectacle. Obtain a cake today.

You wouldn't spoil that stain with satin, would you? Just rinse and pat dry. Just dot it on.

More stronger than powerful. Perhaps.

Or like it breath-taking fresh? Wouldn't you look pretty strange to me? The perfect woollen primate?

You feel a viscous film. Do not use. That film is clinging. Don't even think it.

Your body responds. The results are up to 60% - the chief cause of pyorrhea.

Thus, in a simply manner, millions.

Six experts discuss the merits of framing climate change, the language that troubles them, and the inherent bias of any chosen word.

In a report to be released the first week in June — though a summary was accidentally leaked by email to the press late last month — the firm has compiled the results of extensive polling and focus-group sessions conducted over the last several years. Those studies, according to EcoAmerica, indicate that words like “global warming,” “cap and trade,” and “carbon dioxide” turn people off. The firm advises that environmental and government leaders begin talking about “our deteriorating atmosphere” and a “pollution reduction refund,” ditching greenhouse gas-speak in favor of phrases like “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.”