Matt Berkley

@mattberkley

Comparing source documents to claims by governments, UN agencies, media, fact checkers and others on global progress, large-scale social science and UN pledges.

ungoals.org
globalfactcheck.org
Joined February 2009
190 Photos and videos Photos and videos

You may also like

·

Tweets

You blocked @mattberkley

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @mattberkley

  1. Pinned Tweet
    Mar 16

    Why have the UN, UK, BBC, and Royal Statistical Society misled on UN pledges, poverty or clean water? Matt Berkley questions the 2015 UN Statistical Commission Chair (UK National Statistician, 2013 RSS President). 5 December 2016. Reply is at 1.00.15:

    We cannot play the video in this browser. Please try a different web browser.
    Undo
  2. Retweeted
    Feb 7
    Replying to and

    In 2011, charities campaigned for the 2020 goals.

    2 replies 1 retweet
    Undo
  3. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    The failure is perhaps worse in respect of a) the charity's trustees, and b) the "Statistics of the Year" panel - including David Spiegelhalter, who presents himself as a world expert on uncertainty, and Jil Matheson, a former chair of the UN Statistical Commission.

    1 retweet 1 like
    Undo
  4. Retweeted
    Jun 3

    Apple Censors 29 and Related Apps in China

    2 replies 9 retweets 3 likes
    Undo
  5. Retweeted
    May 28
    Replying to and

    A major problem for some official claims on human progress is the insistence that a) the data exist, and at the same time b) the data do not exist. This is in addition to the other lunacy, that the concepts are inadequate but it is adequate to use the misleading words anyway.

    1 reply 10 retweets 19 likes
    Undo
  6. Retweeted
    May 22
    Replying to and

    Is the Society not already bound by its own standards to generate public understanding - through prominent and timely corrections?

    1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
    Undo
  7. Retweeted
    Mar 18

    Time to end the myth of official poverty measurement? New version of 2011 original.

    1 retweet
    Undo
  8. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    These and other deep flaws in claims from the Royal Statistical Society are discussed in a book-length document, RoyalStatScandal:

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  9. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    1 reply 2 retweets
    Undo
  10. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  11. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  12. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    The recent statement appears to confirm what was already clear: The Royal Statistical Society's claim "all the stats...are fully fact-checked and fully trustworthy" (BBC World Service, Newshour, on 18 December 2018) needs correction.

    1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes
    Undo
  13. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    The Royal Statistical Society has spread further misinformation: "we have received some criticism for *reporting* the World Bank figures." The criticism was in fact largely of the Society's claims, and discrimination against people in poor countries.

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  14. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    The Society seems not to have addressed a key problem: the damaging effect of misinformation of this kind on politics, policy choices and voters' perceptions of the success of governments. It should be obvious that this risks lives.

    2 replies 4 retweets 8 likes
    Undo
  15. Retweeted
    May 21
    Replying to and

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  16. Retweeted
    21 Dec 2018
    Replying to

    The Society's press release may imply that there was 27.8% from solar during that day: "the peak percentage of all electricity produced in the UK due to solar power on 30th June" "peak...which came from solar...during" For the 24 hours, the Electric Insights figure is 9.9%.

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  17. Retweeted
    30 May 2013

    report notes need for - what will come first: Nerds for Dev campaign or true evidence-based policymaking?

    2 retweets 1 like
    Undo
  18. Retweeted
    Feb 7
    Replying to and

    Governments at the 2011 conference made a 'solemn commitment'. The General Assembly endorsed its outcome.

    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  19. Retweeted
    Feb 7
    Replying to and

    I have myself repeated propaganda, assuming that the academic and campaigning consensus on global goals was based in reality.

    Replying to @Dsatterthwaite @ThomasPogge and 19 others
    I was wrong until 2013, 2015 and 2017. I wrote of "MDGs", ignoring world leaders' pledges of 2000; assumed MDG 7c on water had a 1990 baseline; and failed to learn of goals for 2020 on…
    1 reply 1 retweet
    Undo
  20. Retweeted
    Mar 13
    Replying to and

    If poverty is needing more than resources, how can low spending "define poverty"? It is lunacy, and convenient for bad policies: If you are forced to spend more, you are richer.

    1 retweet
    Undo
  21. Retweeted
    4 Dec 2018
    Replying to

    "2030" ? 21 SDG targets are for 2020, and more for 2025. UN members' agreed and constantly reaffirmed development agenda is more than the SDGs. It includes water and sanitation for all in "least developed countries" by 2020 (Istanbul Programme) and for all by 2025 (Agenda 21).

    1 retweet 1 like
    Undo

@mattberkley hasn't Tweeted yet.

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.