Another climate billboard

Of course we all know about that other ill-fated unabomber billboard last year that went over like a lead radiosonde balloon, but I like this one by CFACT (minus the date controversy of course).

Drive by this!

Science tells us that there is nothing out of the ordinary about today’s weather. There have always been droughts, floods, fires and storms and they will continue no matter what we do. A little historical research shows us that today’s weather is not even particularly extreme and by some measures is unusually tame.

NOAA and the U.K. Met Office, the two main sources of temperature data the UN’s IPCC rely on most, report that any warming there may have been has been limited to only three quarters of a degree in a century! Three quarters of a degree! Hardly the sort of thing to make a noticeable difference in extreme weather.

Further, the Met Office’s data shows no warming for the last 16-17 years! Our new billboard plasters the Met Office data in an easily understood graph right up in the sky. 

It shows no warming for over 16 years 15 years. I’ve sent them a correction notice.

billboard16yrsgraph

If you want to chip in to get one in your area, visit the link below. Billboards are surprisingly inexpensive.

http://www.cfact.org/donate/support-cfacts-billboard-campaign/

UPDATE: the 15/16 year issue discussed in comments is a matter of perception. If you count years, 97,98,99,00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12 you get a count of 16 years.

If you do the math, you get 15 years:

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=08&d1=31&y1=1997&m2=08&d2=31&y2=2012&ti=on

Note the extra day in that report. The issue has to do with defining the start point as zero or one. Counting years, like counting days, can give you can extra day. The timeanddate.com website allows for this by allowing you to not count the end day:

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=08&d1=31&y1=1997&m2=08&d2=31&y2=2012&ti=off

Either way, te lack of warming over the time period is a compelling argument.

About these ads

104 thoughts on “Another climate billboard

  1. I am not paranoid; I just can’t be bothered to give out my details as well as my money. If there’s a PayPal tip-jar somewhere I’ll contribute. Not otherwise.

  2. If they can’t accept a donation without telephone number matching their arbitrary validation process, they loose. In my part of the globe, phone number is 12 or 13 digits depending if you include the internationalisation.

  3. oldspanky says:
    February 27, 2013 at 7:56 am

    Sean Houlihane says:
    February 27, 2013 at 7:57 am
    ###

    I guess you guys are a bit clueless about the lefties propagandist tactics that necessitate the processes that you are whining about. Think a little bit before posting next time.

  4. AW: “Billboards are surprisingly inexpensive.”

    CFACTS: “This kind of advertising is expensive”

    You might want to align the message.

    REPLY: Well right there is proof there is no organizational aligned messaging as some people assert. Compared to television advertising (which I’m most familiar with) billboards are in fact quite cheap. – Anthony

  5. That ‘inconvenient truth’ tag was bound to bite him in the derriere again and again!
    Now that the Arctic ice has rebounded be ready for, ‘it’s the wrong’ type of ice alarmism from the Warmistas!

  6. @DesertYote: I disagree. It is very important to be objective and precise when trying to get your message out. Otherwise you are no better than the side you are criticizing.

    I also would contribute if PayPal were an option, if the billboard took out the ad hominem attack on Mr. Gore, and the data that was presented showed the same time period as the text. Otherwise the “message” looks mean-spirited and foolish.

  7. That billboard will will look better in a couple of years, if it starts cooling, because then the “start” date can be kicked back further.

  8. ” …should at least be internally consistent.”

    There is no contradiction. Obviously the graph highlights two points with the identical temperature, while the statement is supported. The dates are clearly marked, and the intent of supporting the statement has been achieved.

    Any message can be nit picked, and total agreement will never found.

    I like the billboard, it sends the message loud and clear, and discussion about internal consistency will serve to underscore the main message. As far as mentioning Al Gore, as someone else commented on, he was not just the producer of the misleading movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, he was also the star actor and is identified with the message of doom that is the point of the movie. The image that comes to mind is AG standing in front of a graph just like this one, except on his the tail sticks up like an exxxxxxx and is coloured red.

    A bit of controversy doesn’t hurt, provided it doesn’t insult the very people it is designed to persuade, it actually helps.

    Well done on the billboard.

  9. If it is not warming, why has the temperature stayed at a high level for the last decade and a half? Shouldn’t it be cooling? I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here. Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening?

  10. PRD says:

    February 27, 2013 at 8:45 am

    When you include the year 1997, it does add up to 16 years. Or figure it this way, 2000 to 2012 is 13 years, then add 97 – 99. So the billboard is actually – correct.

    If it was including yearly averages from 1997 thru 2012 then it would in fact have 16 years worth of data. But it is not – it is starting with the month of August of 1997 and going through the month of August of 2012 which comprises 180 months of data – 15 years worth of monthly data.

    Good that this gets corrected before the billboards go up. Otherwise, the error would become the CAGW focus and divert from the inconvenient truth.

  11. batpox says:
    February 27, 2013 at 8:33 am
    “I also would contribute if PayPal were an option, if the billboard took out the ad hominem attack on Mr. Gore, and the data that was presented showed the same time period as the text. Otherwise the “message” looks mean-spirited and foolish.”

    Could you show us the ad hominem attack, batpox? I don’t see it. Is “An Inconvenient Truth” a mortal insult in Amerenglish?

  12. In some respects the actual technical ‘correctness’ of the ad is irrelevant since it is well within the spirit of post normal science but wouldn’t it be nice if they could actually get it right. It makes us look incompetent.

    It’s right to name Gore as, I guess, this is aimed at the chattering classes not the true believers, the rent boys of cake science or someone who might know what Svante Arrhenius contributed to the state of affairs.

    I’m using the term ‘chattering classes’ in it’s original meaning as the educated left liberal elite who believe that they have the right to be the arbiters of consensus (the meaning of the term in the U.S. is a bit different). The rent boys of cake science are the likes of Mann and Jones.

    Perhaps the glorified disc jockey’s presenting BBC programmes might start to think before calling us deniers.

  13. The 16 year error is brilliant, 15 or 16 years, the warmists will slam this “error”, while failing to realize they concede there has been no warming.
    2nd I am amazed by their misery over the planets failure to warm.
    If I had been deeply concerned that catastrophic harm through warming was a real consequence and then reality showed me to be mistaken, I would be giddy with joy.
    What is the mood from team global warming?
    Happy? Joy Joy?

  14. Wow if I put up a billboard like that where I live, the greenie protesters would haul out the pitchforks, the local tv station would show videos of the blasphemous billboard, the police would be called and my son would do a face-palm. The face-palm is the worst.

  15. I suspect it doesn’t really matter, but there are 16 Augusts in the 15 years since August 1997. I will leave it to the folks who deal with this data set whether that is 16 or 15 years. I do know that when you compare annualized data such as crime statistics you would compare 2012 data to 1998 data for a 15-year trend.

  16. “I think calling out Al Gore by name seems a tad unprofessional. I would have liked the billboard more if it had left personalities out of it.”
    There is just no response to this.The Gorbull calls us crazy,and you think it is fair? And how much is he paying you?

  17. This billboard may have set a record for the ultimate cherry pick — I wonder why they didn’t pick April 1997 to April 2012 (+0.24 C) or May 1997 to May 2012 (+0.24 C)?

    And actually, HadCRUT4 has Aug2012 – Aug1997 = 0.1 C.
    And actually the surface temperature (“14 C”) isn’t computed, only the anomalies. But then, there isn’t the impression this billboard really cares about the science. Too bad.

  18. kindlekinser says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:01 am …. I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here…

    The message might have been more clear if the graph also included the undoubtedly rising CO2 levels over the same time period. CAGW theory says that as CO2 levels rise, temperature will rise as well. Skeptics argue that all we are seeing is natural variation, which can include rising, falling, or even temperatures.

  19. Kindlekinser, think about this for a second. If the possibilities are warming and cooling, then perhaps we are doing neither and temperatures are stagnant. Isn’t this a good thing? I thought after all was that everyone has been worried about climate change since the 1970’s and if the Climate ain’t changing doesn’t that mean we have nothing to worry about? Read the billboard again if you need to but I think the stagnant temperatures are rather obvious.

  20. Amazing how whenever a punchy bit of advertising is created, all sorts of people pop up saying “ooh, thats going a bit far”; “be better if (it were toned down in some way as to make it less effective)”. Now no-one could believe that an outfit like, say, Fenton Communications keeps a roster of people who are told to go leave a certain kind of comment on sites like this when something effective happens……. that would suggest that there’s an organised warmist conspiracy out there, what could be further from the truth. Everyone knows that warmists are just good people who really, really care…….

  21. kindlekinser says:
    “Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening?”

    Out: “Global Warming”
    In: “Global Not Getting Cooler”

    Stand by for further developments.

  22. Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:20 am

    This billboard may have set a record for the ultimate cherry pick — I wonder why they didn’t pick April 1997 to April 2012 (+0.24 C) or May 1997 to May 2012 (+0.24 C)?

    And actually, HadCRUT4 has Aug2012 – Aug1997 = 0.1 C.
    And actually the surface temperature (“14 C”) isn’t computed, only the anomalies. But then, there isn’t the impression this billboard really cares about the science. Too bad.
    ————————————————————————————
    Cherry picking. Tell me, have temperatures plateaued over the past 16 years or haven’t they?

  23. DesertYote writes; “I guess you guys are a bit clueless about the lefties propagandist tactics that necessitate the processes that you are whining about. Think a little bit before posting next time.”

    I’ve thought quite hard now, and I have decided my posting was just fine. In fact I will repeat myself: make it easy for people to fund the billboard ‘cos it’s too easy not to bother.

  24. Kindlekinser
    Think about it as walking up a hill (warming) then the ground levels out (the last fifteen years, no warming, no cooling). Where does it go next? Up, down or straight on? Who knows.

  25. I’m glad the billboard has Al Gore’s name on it. He’s the leading propagandist, a Baghdad Bob, for the Climate war.

  26. kindlekinser says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:01 am

    If it is not warming, why has the temperature stayed at a high level for the last decade and a half? Shouldn’t it be cooling? I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here. Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening?
    By what measure is the temperature “high”? It was, for example, .5C higher during the MWP, back when warmer was better, and agriculture and mankind thrived. Why do we have to be either warming or cooling? Don’t worry though, cooling is in the cards. Meanwhile, we should just enjoy the warmth instead of kvetching about it.
    What is happening is that the much-ballyhooed GCM’s have been shown to be useless. You see, it turns out that in fact, C02 isn’t at all like a thermostat for our climate. It is not only not a major driver, it is a very minor one. We knew that, but it took mother nature to show it to the carbon-goggled Warmists.

  27. c’mon people… think it through…. it’s 15 years, because you’re not counting the first year, it’s your base point. If you stated that the avg temp in Aug 97 was 14.5 and in Aug 98 it was 14.5 (just for arguements sake), you wouldn’t say that was 2 years of no warming, right? of course not. It’s 1 year. Of course, that wouldn’t be true in all cases. If you were measuring something independent, like, ‘how many years with an avg temperature below 16 (again, for arguments sake), then you could include the first year. But because you’re measuring ‘warming’ the first year doesn’t count – it’s a base point.

  28. It is ineffective to address Gore. He and his movie just helped focus the hysteria of aimless greens and misguided youth. Gore was just a highly-paid (but technologically-challenged) marketing agent of global warming paranoia. It little serves to give the deluded marketers of doom a public nose-thumbing. “How’s that sky-falling thing going, there, Chicken Little?”

    I would superimpose this graph against one showing the hockey stick shaped curve of spending on AGW over the same period. Use the simple heading “15 Years of Global Warming”.

  29. ” kindlekinser says: February 27, 2013 at 9:01 am
    If it is not warming, why has the temperature stayed at a high level for the last decade and a half? Shouldn’t it be cooling? I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here. Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening? ”

    Sine wave. Nothing unusual at all. If you look at the data in this link (my favorite post here at WUWT over the years and that says a lot) you will see it has been cooling for thousands of years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    Get yer parka out :)

  30. I agree with bill at 9:28, disagree with Bill Parsons at 9:53.

    If I, a non scientist, non climatologist, ordinary person, hears or reads two opposing arguments about whether a graph supports 15 or 16 years of non warming, when I thought it had been warming all along, what is then the main takeaway message for me? The best thing would be that this becomes an issue that gets publicized.

    In fact the louder the cry that it is warming, as per some comments above, the greater the perception that either 15 or 16 year graph should support that statement. If it doesn’t warm for another year then it can be milked further at that time. When it comes to persuasion then perception is everything, just look at the impact that AG’s movie had on public perception.

  31. It’s 15 years cardinal and 16 years ordinal I think. If CFACT used 16 years cardinal and 17 years ordinal it would have shown a cooling trend because of the El Nino year. I think the billboard is honest.

  32. Referring to the math: no, it is not arbitrary. You can’t claim either 15 or 16. For 15 consecutive years (assuming it is correct), there was no observed warming. For 16 years, you would have to move the origin back 1 further year. You could claim that we are NOW in the 16th year of no warming, but to make the claim that 16 years have PASSED with no warming, you would have to complete the current year, observing no warming.

    So, no. It’s not semantics; it’s mathematics. I’m not correcting the science here, btw; I have no data to suggest that the 15 year no warming claim is either accurate or inaccurate. I’m just pointing out that you can’t just use, “When in Rome,” or “Let bygones be bygones,” or some other not-applicable platitude, to appease people who can’t be bothered to figure out basic math.

    Those are the same people who thought the year 2000 was the beginning of the new millennium, vice the final year of the previous millennium (since the current calendar began AD reckoning in year 1, not year 0). :)

  33. Aug 2012 was 6 months ago. At this point, I think 16 years is acceptable, if temperatures have stayed at the same flat level.

  34. You need month and day for the dates to see if the claim is correct. From January 1, 1997 – December 31st 2012 would be 16 years.

  35. MarkD says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:51 am

    c’mon people… think it through…. it’s 15 years, because you’re not counting the first year, it’s your base point. …
    But because you’re measuring ‘warming’ the first year doesn’t count – it’s a base point.

    But your “base point”, as you admit, IS a year wide–so you can count it as a valid year, Mark–whatever the temperature it shows.

    May I suggest YOU think it through?

  36. Mark Bofill says: “Tell me, have temperatures plateaued over the past 16 years or haven’t they?”

    Asked, and answered.

    If you mean surface temperatures, there is a statistically significant warming trend: 0.07 (0.04) C/decade according to GISS, 0.04 (0.04) C/decade according to HadCRUT4.

    If you mean ocean temperatures, there is a statistically significant warming trend in the 0-700 m layer, and insufficient data in the 0-2000 m layer.

    If you mean ocean surface temperatures, there has not been a statistically significant nonzero trend in that time.

    If you mean the lower troposphere, there has been a statistically significant trend according to UAH data, but not according to RSS.

    The stratosphere has significantly cooled in the last 16 years according to both RSS and UAH.

    But why 16 years? No climatologist would ever make a judgement about climate based on 16 years. Would you judge the Medieval Warm Period based solely on what was happening from 997 AD to 1013 AD?

  37. Roger says:
    February 27, 2013 at 10:23 am

    “Referring to the math: no, it is not arbitrary. You can’t claim either 15 or 16. ”

    The chart shows an ordinal value of 16 years of no warming, the claim is that there is no warming for 16 years, there is no semantics here, the chart is correct. The cardinal value of 16 in this case is 15.

  38. Bill Parsons says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:53 am
    ——————————————
    I respectfully disagree with the notion that “He (Gore) and his movie just helped focus the hysteria of aimless greens and misguided youth.”

    Gore’s movie was portrayed by the US media (in my opinion) as the ultimate authority on climate change. Sadly too many “average” people in the US still consider the mainstream media to be a reputable source of information. Add to this the fact that the MSM insist on portraying skeptics as deluded fools, flat-earthers on the fringes of reality, it’s not surprising how few average folk even question the warmist dogma.

    Sometimes it takes a billboard with a very simple and direct message that conflicts with peoples beliefs to make them actually put down the Angry Birds game and do a little investigating on their own.

  39. Re:

    Ben says:
    February 27, 2013 at 10:08 am

    I agree with bill at 9:28, disagree with Bill Parsons at 9:53.

    If I, a non scientist, non climatologist, ordinary person, hears or reads two opposing arguments about whether a graph supports 15 or 16 years of non warming, when I thought it had been warming all along, what is then the main takeaway message for me? The best thing would be that this becomes an issue that gets publicized.

    Hi Ben,
    I don’t agree with your post, which seems to saying that AGW believers can willfully misunderstand the graph’s message, and claim that “it actually shows…” I don’t see any room for ambivalence about the graph. 15 years: no warming.

    However, it is often repeated that it is impossible (and unnecessary) to prove a negative, or the “evidence of an absence”. The rule of rhetoric applies here because CO2-induced warming, man-made CO2-induced warming, and indeed warming itself are all bogus claims about non-events. Refuting them gives them credence.

    What no one can refute are the levels of spending which have been growing over the same period. That is why I proposed “superimpos(ing) this graph against one showing the hockey stick shaped curve of spending on AGW over the same period. Use the simple heading “15 Years of Global Warming”.

    Nobody likes to see currency being incinerated, but that is what our government is, in effect, doing.

  40. It really doesn’t matter if its 15 or 16 years, or 17 for that matter if we can simply reach a consensus on what number fits the narrative best.

  41. Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am
    ———————————————–

    Come on Phobos. Are you playing games here? Yes, 0.04 C/decade is warming, no, 0.04 C/decade isn’t important warming. 0.4 C/century isn’t worth talking about, and it isn’t what the IPCC predicts, obviously. You know this as well as I do, so what’s the point in an answer like that?

    Why 16 years? Again, you know perfectly well why. Temperatures have been pretty darn flat for that period, and that fact doesn’t do much to support the IPCC’s position on CO2 and temperature.

  42. Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am

    But why 16 years? No climatologist would ever make a judgement about climate based on 16 years.

    Funny ….

    Hansen – in 1988 – used a shorter 13 year trend to BEGIN his crusade and his requests for funding FOR his theory of CAGW.

    Then again, I would then be assuming Hansen is somehow, a “responsible scientist” instead of a screaming CAGW dogmatic extremist, er, criminal.

  43. Pedantic bunch aren’t we? :)

    Seriously folks ask one question: Is it effective? Heck yea is my vote.

    Do all future versions more accurately? Sure. But you have to admit that is one very effective sound bite that makes a point in the space of time most people will actually spend analyzing things.

  44. Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Mark Bofill says: “Tell me, have temperatures plateaued over the past 16 years or haven’t they?”


    But why 16 years? No climatologist would ever make a judgement about climate based on 16 years.

    Funny, Phobos–you using the word “judgement” when talking about “climatologists”. Would you use that term to describe Mann, Jones, Gore, or any of the other clowns you describe as “climatologists”?

    I wouldn’t.

    What I would use is the standard CAGW acronym, but correctly spelled: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas.

    That’s accurate.

  45. That figure…you know the billboard would be a gigantic own-goal, making every climate sceptic a laughing stock apparently unable to count or do simple arithmetic.

  46. Hansen uses GISTemp, not HadCru. Without using his data, OR explaining that his data is suspect, and HadCru4 is good, this billboard is misinformation. The warmists will see this right away.

    The CAGW war is being fought with the same weapons on both sides here. Tactically sound, but I have a problem with the strategy. Of course, I also have a problem with our side using torture as public policy, but perhaps there is a reason and a social justification for certain people: whatever works goes. Morals or ethics should not stand in the way.

    As I said, I have a problem with the strategy.

  47. RACookPE1978 says:
    February 27, 2013 at 11:23 am

    Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am

    But why 16 years? No climatologist would ever make a judgement about climate based on 16 years.

    Funny ….

    Hansen – in 1988 – used a shorter 13 year trend to BEGIN his crusade and his requests for funding FOR his theory of CAGW.

    Then again, I would then be assuming Hansen is somehow, a “responsible scientist” instead of a screaming CAGW dogmatic extremist, er, criminal.

    *

    This was going to be my point, RACookPE, only you beat me to it and said it better.

    I like the billboard. It sure doesn’t look like a hockey stick. I like Gore mentioned and the “inconvenient truth”. I hope these billboards get everywhere.

    As for the dates, I took the years to be inclusive, but if they are in fact from Aug to Aug, then they are not and, if that is the case, I agree it should be corrected. While controversy will draw more attention to the message, it won’t help if they say “They got that wrong, that means they got the rest of it wrong.”

    Just my two cents.

  48. The billboard is spot on. Al Gore will be remembered by this generation as being a treasonist. He sold his country and people, with a bunch of inconvenient lies, to make himself wealthy beyond belief. All this from a man that was nearly POTUS. Unforgivable. By biblical comparison Judas was just a petty criminal .

  49. judging from the number of hysterical warmist sock puppets showing up to nay-say, this billboard is very effective. No frigging hockey sticks, please! Too complicated for the average Joe/Jane to comprehend.

  50. Regarding the 15/16 business, it’s better to err on the side of understatement, so as not to give the other side a nit they can pick. (Plus the understated side is correct.)

    Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:20 am

    This billboard may have set a record for the ultimate cherry pick — I wonder why they didn’t pick April 1997 to April 2012 (+0.24 C) or May 1997 to May 2012 (+0.24 C)?

    By not using a more defensible date, like the end of 2012 compared to the end of some preceding year, we’ve given the other side another nit they can pick. Even if the numbers work out less favorably to us with a more recent date, or we can only claim 14 years of no warming thereby, we must “do the right thing.” We must put that above point-scoring. It’s the best policy in the long run, too.

    And actually the surface temperature (“14 C”) isn’t computed, only the anomalies.

    14C is the baseline from which the anomalies are computed, I believe, So it was OK for CFACT to make the computation.

  51. kindlekinser says: (February 27, 2013 at 9:01 am)

    “If it is not warming, why has the temperature stayed at a high level for the last decade and a half? Shouldn’t it be cooling? I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here. Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening?”

    LOL that’s an upside down effort to blame skeptics for being unable to clarify a lack of warming. Nice try though, I’m still laughing. I think you should ask the CAGW-promoters, don’t you think? Just call them: “Where is the catastrophe, where is the warming!”

    What’s happening? Well: NOTHING and CO2 keeps rising. Start to see the skeptics point???
    And why should it be cooling? Do you know something I don’t? Please share your thoughts.

    I know for sure that no-one knows what will happen AND that CO2 is not the driver of it.

  52. Bill Parsons wrote:

    “I don’t agree with your post, which seems to saying that AGW believers can willfully misunderstand the graph’s message, and claim that “it actually shows…” I don’t see any room for ambivalence about the graph. 15 years: no warming.”

    Hi Bill Parsons,
    How do you get the nice Italic and indented quotes to appear?
    I did not quite understand your message, and wonder if I had stated my comment clearly. I was referring to a hypothetical discussion about whether the billboard graphic was consistent with the title re the 15 versus 16 year issue, and the effect such a discussion would have on the general public. I agree the strength of the billboard is the non ambivalent graph that clearly shows no warming in 15 years. Or by some measures re above comments it is 16 years. It doesn’t matter, that’s the point, but a controversy over such a minor point draws attention to the no warming issue. An example. Is the emperor naked? No, he is carrying a hanky. See, I win, he’s not naked!! Um I lose, everybody now must admit he has no clothes on his torso.

    The public is the ultimate battle ground, and the main complaint from the alarmists has been that the public is too stupid to comprehend the science and for the greater good they should be persuaded using simplified and dumbed down explanations, justified by the excellent and beyond reproach scientists that by a lopsided margin of 97 to 3 agree with their message. Further to that is the implication that sceptics and deniers are the stupid people.

    Most people would not like to think of themselves as stupid, but might be quite willing to except that the general public is, even though they are members of the general public. Therefore the alarmist message does get traction, as insulting as it is. It was in this vein that “The Inconvenient Truth” could be justified– not. I watched the movie shortly after I had started to become sceptical and it strongly reinforced that scepticism, but there is no denying the impact it had on the general public. My adult children and a daughter-in-law insisted that I should watch the movie, so alarmed were they at the message. I was also alarmed, in the opposite direction, but I have been involved in advertising and promotional work so for me it was obvious propaganda.

    I don’t agree with that approach as a rule, but that is essentially the justification for any distortions in the alarmists message, or possibly outright lies in some cases. I disagree strongly with such an attitude, but to some extent the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle does become a factor. Especially on a billboard that is most often fleetingly, if at all taken note of. I’m not saying your approach wouldn’t have merit too, but I like it the way it is. It’s simple and easily understood. Other valid solutions for messaging exist.

  53. Jesus, it saddens me to see all the arguments claiming that August ’97 to August ’12 is “16 years.” I thought we were more intelligent than the Green buffoons, but clearly many are not. It ain’t rocket science. It ain’t even climate science. Sheesh!

  54. Kindykind..

    It was called global warming… it hasn’t warmed

    Then it was called climate change.. it hasn’t changed either.

    in fact, nothing much has happened at all, except lots more lovely beneficial CO2.

  55. oldspanky says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:42 am

    DesertYote writes; “I guess you guys are a bit clueless about the lefties propagandist tactics that necessitate the processes that you are whining about. Think a little bit before posting next time.”

    I’ve thought quite hard now, and I have decided my posting was just fine. In fact I will repeat myself: make it easy for people to fund the billboard ‘cos it’s too easy not to bother.
    ####

    Then your thinker is broken.

  56. batpox says:
    February 27, 2013 at 8:33 am
    ###

    And who the el are you? Begone troll. You are stinking up the place; you along with the rest of your buddies that were told to post idiocy here.

  57. Looks like it would make a readable and affordable bumper sticker and get a lot more exposure too. And I agree with leaving out the naming of names.

  58. My 2c-worth.

    Using those dates, it is 15 years not 16. If it has now become 16 then the billboard should only say 16 if its date and graph are changed accordingly. That it doesn’t need 16 – see below – is irrelevant.

    It isn’t an ad hominem. An ad hominem addresses the person not their argument. The billboard clearly addresses Al Gore’s argument.

    Yes, there is a reason for 15 years of non-warming being significant.
    NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008 –

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    – states on page 24/198. “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. “.
    We now have that discrepancy thanks to 15+ years of non-warming, in other words, the model has failed.

  59. People, remember it is a billboard, not a published paper. GISTemp vs. HadCru, 15 vs 16, who cares. Drivers are not looking for fine detials, they see the graph, they start questioning the “consencus”. Mission accomplished.

    I also would donate if paypal was available.

  60. An here is another climate billboard:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/suzuki_runs_away1.jpg?w=269&h=442

    Where is Mr Donearunner?

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/suzuki_runs_away1.jpg?w=269&h=442

    What happened to the climate crisis? No time to wait and all that? What about the climate refugees David? What about the children and the grandchildren?

    The coward legged it. Why? What was he going to say to the audience that could not be repeated to the public at large?

  61. Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:20 am
    This billboard may have set a record for the ultimate cherry pick — I wonder why they didn’t pick April 1997 to April 2012 (+0.24 C) or May 1997 to May 2012 (+0.24 C)?

    And actually, HadCRUT4 has Aug2012 – Aug1997 = 0.1 C.
    And actually the surface temperature (“14 C”) isn’t computed, only the anomalies. But then, there isn’t the impression this billboard really cares about the science. Too bad.
    ———————————————–
    I don’t care for the billboard, either.
    I’d prefer to see it near a high school with:
    “An inconvenient truth? ”
    “Did your science teacher tell you this?”
    Show the graph and leave off the years thing just let people do the math.

    Whether the earth is warming or not I am not knowledgeable enough to know but, I’ve always doubted scientists could measure this massive ball warming with any accuracy.
    My response to 0.24C warming is ……sure…. whatever.
    cn

  62. Kindelkinser

    The Earth has warmed and cooled many, many times. There have been several times when the Earth was warmer than today during the Holocene: Holocene optimum, Minoan Warm period, Roman Warm period and Medieval Warm period just to name a few. And we only recently (circa 1850) exited the Little Ice Age which was more than 2C cooler than today around 1750. Thank God it has warmed since then, the LIA was a period of hardship, famines, plagues and mass deaths!

    The skeptics acknowledge these cycles and believe the current warming is mostly, if not entirely, driven by natural variabilities. The Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years and probably actually is cooling except for the NASA/GISS “adjustments” since 2000.

    I don’t pretend to predict the Earth’s future temperature trend(s) over the next 10 to 100 years. But if the Sun is going into another Dalton or Maunder Minimum, you are likely to see a lot more cooling in the next 2-3 decades than anyone wants!

    It’s a sine wave, and we’re at the peak and very likely will see cooling in the next decade.

    Bill

  63. We now have that discrepancy thanks to 15+ years of non-warming, in other words, the model has failed.

    Now watch them up it to 20 years. Or even 30. IIRC, two or three years ago Phil Jones was saying 13 years was enough to refute CAGW, and he revised that to 15 when we got to 14. Now it’s 15 … wonder what he’s saying now?

    That aside: I’m in general agreement with those who say the discrepancy in the timespan isn’t a problem. If it generates discussion (as it has here) then the message itself is more likely to stick in people’s mind. As Oscar Wilde said: The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. If this billboard gets people talking, it’s done it’s job.

  64. Apologies, in my comment I omitted attribution. It should have begun:

    Mike Jonas says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    We now have that discrepancy thanks to 15+ years of non-warming, in other words, the model has failed.

  65. Ben says:
    February 27, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    How do you get the nice Italic and indented quotes to appear?

    You put blockquote and /blockquote before and after the quotes, surrounding those tags with open and close angle brackets. This will work on any WordPress site–and most others too. I wish more people used them–they clarify who said what.

  66. Anthony
    There is no better place than your home page to place this billboard message just under or above the widget icon. With millions of people reading this web page , it would get tremendous exposure to everyone who comes to this web page .Unfortunately the battle appears to be no longer about the correct science or weather global warming is really happening and for how long but one of international politics and tradeoffs,possible new carbon tax, and transfer of more wealth to United Nations. The science which is clearly flawed is just a cover to pacify the publci. No other scientific field would tolerate so much bad science and get away calling this solid science unless there is support at governmental levels despite the flawed science

  67. DesertYote writes: “Then your thinker is broken.”

    Well I haven’t donated and only because of the hurdles they foolishly put my way, so I’ve proved my point. What have you got?

  68. @OldSpanky
    Your logic is fine; I did not contribute for the same reason, even though I very much like the general idea of this billboard; I do not (like any prudent person) give out my credit card to the internet except for a very few trusted sites. It is so easy for sites to accept PayPal that I wonder why it isn’t as standard as Visa and MasterCard.

    And you should pay no mind to DesertYote; he/she seems quite agitated.

  69. rogerknights says:

    You put blockquote and /blockquote before and after the quotes, surrounding those tags with open and close angle brackets. This will work on any WordPress site–and most others too. I wish more people used them–they clarify who said what.

    Thanks, this will be my test.

    [It worked. — mod.]

  70. Sean Houlihane says:
    February 27, 2013 at 7:57 am

    If they can’t accept a donation without telephone number matching their arbitrary validation process, they loose.

    So does your English teacher. ;)

  71. Why stop at 15/16 years? Why not a billboard showing the MWP, RWP, etc, along with today’s temps, no warming for 3000 years…

  72. All the comments about the alarmists ridiculing sceptics over 15 or 16 years.
    They are gonna attempt to ridicule anyway, thats all they ever had for an argument.
    Smug group think, they are the good and true holders of wisdom.
    Those who doubt are demented, misguided sub humans.
    I doubt, therefore I be evil.He wants evidence? Heretic.
    It is pointless trying to argue with the true believer, their logic is fully circular.
    The billboard reaches out to the busy public, it works.
    And when the alarmists pounce on the “error” and start bending the ear of normal people, they just annoy. The public is not as gullible as the average true believer, 15 or 16 years? So what, where’s my global warming dude?

  73. The difference between a newborn (0 yr old) and a 1 yr old is quite significant. The difference between a 15 yr old and a 16 yr old, not so much.

    I love the billboard! Gimme a bumper sticker to go next to my NRA sticker!

  74. I think this is really clever taking advantage before the temperature goes up again. Most people wouldn’t know the difference anyway or check to see how high the temperature got in 1997-98. They’ll just think it’s been flat like forever. For the same reason it doesn’t matter if it’s 15 or 16 years. Who’s going to check? Only alarmists and that’s not the target audience.

    Excellent all around!

    And I think it’s great to use it to have a go at Gore, too. It shows what side we skeptics are on.

  75. Why not just CONGRATULATE the alarmists for saving the planet? Note that since Kyoto, global warming seems to have stopped.

    “Awesome! Thanks so much for saving us from this dreadful threat! You guys ought to win a prize or something.”

    Some of them will take the bait. Imagine how much fun that might be.

  76. To the general public the name Al Gore is likely to be associated with a alarming / dangerous warming from burning fossil fuels.

    Other climate alarm proponents probably are less familiar to the general public.

    The poster concretizes the thought of no warming when it mentions Al Gore the warming alarmist. It makes it more effective than just the graph without a person’s name would be.

    Go for it CFACT.

    John

  77. One way to use a 15-year period–or even longer–without cherry-picking an advantageous end date, would be to avoid the claim “no warming for nn years” n instead ask a question, like “Can you see any global warming here?” or “Let’s look at the record. Where’s the global warming?”

    Alternatively, or in addition, “The hockey stick is playing hooky” or “Where’s the hockey stick now?”

    Also, “The warm is turning.” Use that one after it’s been cooling for a couple of years.

  78. Just a general question: are the comments by Graham Green above (Feb 27, 09:10 am), referring to public figures as ‘rent boys’ (= male prostitutes) to be seen as a good example of the WUWT comment policy?

    Reply: Insulting a public figure is not proscribed by the “no personal attacks” clause of the blog policy. A rather nasty insult such as the one noted may come close to the “no vulgarity” clause, but in this case I think the commenter stayed well within the lines. As a side note, you will find many here have a rather low opinion of Mann and Jones. I myself have written posts which call Mann out on, shall we say, being a bit inept at telling the truth? ~ctm

  79. PS: The complete absence of contrarian publicity campaigns like this until now undermines the alarmists’ contention that the public has been misled by a denial machine. That machine has been conspicuous by its absence.

  80. @
    for those at the other 15, 16, 17 or XX Years no warming discussion on Moncton versus Pachauri;
    all is allready said, this is a waste;
    I take a time – out in solidarity with Jan Perlwitz;

  81. I would like to thanks people for posts that thoughtfully responded to my comment. I was pulled away yesterday, so was unable to continue the dialogue in this thread. Perhaps I can pick it up in another post.

  82. Are these monthly averages, or longer averages centered around those months? If it is just monthly, it is a very weak billboard. For Nasa GISTEMP, Jan 1981 to Jan 2012, .53C down to .37C. Dec 2012 is .44C.

  83. I’d like to clarify my objection to the use of Al Gore’s name. While, yes, his name is associated strongly with the film “An Inconvenient Truth”, he otherwise has very little to do with climate science or policy making, other than making a lot of noise about it. He’s not a scientist, he’s not an elected official, he holds no office of power. He seems like an odd choice, to me, for a person to “call out” – which is essentially what this billboard is doing. It’s like calling out a cheerleader for the failings of her team. I don’t mind the word-play with the phrase “An Inconvenient Truth” because it tweaks the nose of the most prominent public “face” of global warming. But Al Gore? He’s nothing to do with anything. I mean, would the billboard make the same amount of sense to use David Suzuki’s name instead? No, and for the same exact reasons.

  84. It would be better if the rise in CO2 were also graphed . It’s not the time which matters other than averaging out the “noise” ; it’s the lack of warming in spite of an 8 or 9% increase in CO2 . This is a common point needing to be made in blog battles .

    Another point that is commonly argued is that these are still the “hottest decade ever” . For that not to be the case , the temperature would have had to take a steeper dive than it did a rise .

    These billboards should be placed at a height above the ground corresponding to their scale so that the ground would represent 0 . Of course that would mean they would be several hundred feet up , so maybe that’s not practical .

  85. I like the idea of CFACT’s billboards, and really Mike Hebb’s idea of turning it into bumper stickers. I’d proudly put one on my car here in the People’s Republic of Austin.

    I would (as others mentioned) only claim 15 years for the given dates; otherwise, the math error casts doubt on the whole point. Better yet, just keep it simple: “No warming”…”Where’s the warming?”…you get the idea.

    As for the reference to Gore? I’d leave it. He got lots of money (not to mention a ludicrous “peace prize”) by being the spokesmannequin for the CAGW crowd. Let him be dragged down with them as this house of cards collapses. Gored by his own bull, as it were.

  86. Phil JOnes at the CRU admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. That’s 18 years!!!!!! Or 19, depending on how you count it.

  87. Phobos says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:20 am

    This billboard may have set a record for the ultimate cherry pick — I wonder why they didn’t pick April 1997 to April 2012 (+0.24 C) or May 1997 to May 2012 (+0.24 C)? *********************************************************************************************************
    If you want to say there has been no significant warming for 15/16 years, what is the relevance of not using the current date as the end date. Similarly, if I say it’s been raining every day for the last three weeks, what is the period being referred to? My team has not won a match this year, can you work out the start and end dates? There is no cherry-picking, it’s a simple statement of how long there has been no warming (despite a steady increase in carbon dioxide and the predictions of consequential catastrophic effects).

    My only regret is that I have to admit that the person responsible for the billboard really does need some extra help with mathematics and the rules for rounding upwards.

    As has been explained many times up-thread, the reason for raising “the no warming for x years” at this point and for not saying it ten years ago is that we have finally reached a length of time that even the warmists have previously said would be significant and would invalidate models etc.

    It’s very simple really.

    Steve T

  88. From: http://www.cfact.org/donate/support-cfacts-billboard-campaign/
    “”. . . pyright © 2006-2013 Stewardship Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.”

    Stewardship Technology, Inc. https://www.egsnetwork.com/pages/emailsupport.php

    https://www.egsnetwork.com/pages/front_start.php

    https://www.egsnetwork.com/pages/aboutus.php

    I wouldn’t want to contribute through this process either . . .

    http://www.justmeans.com/Black-As-Sin-Vatican-Bank-Accused-Of-Money-Laundering/31884.html

    check out the publication date . . .

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-vatican-bank-head-idUSBRE91E0N520130215

    or is it just one infinite loop for just another cover for a money skimming operation?

Comments are closed.