Another climate billboard

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.

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.

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

” …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.

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.

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.

“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?

He who sows (Gore) shall reap. What`s wrong with that? Send the graph around widely.

kindlekinser @ 9:01
I read it. I read it again. I don’t understand.
=================

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…….

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?

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.

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.

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). 🙂

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. 😉

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?

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.

@
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;

standaard is Antwerps > standards

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.

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.

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.

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