Remember White House science advisor John Holdren’s wackadoodle video about the Polar Vortex? The opening line of the video spoken by Dr. Holdren says
” If you’ve been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one we’re having in the United States now disproves global warming…don’t believe it.”
He then goes on to present evidence, like this plot of mid-tropospheric temperature, which looks like it is from UAH/Dr. Roy Spencer, though no citation is given in the video.
The funny part? Watch these two guys blow the glossy WH take on this visual out of the water with just a ruler and some common sense.
For more information on the UAH temperature record, see our most recent update here: Global Temperature Report: January 2014 Upper Michigan was ‘coldest’ spot on the globe in January
Then there’s the other satellite record, from RSS: Satellites show no global warming for 17 years 5 months
For more on the polar vortex, see the new WUWT Polar Vortex Page.
Now that was well done! This is the way to get the idea across to the every day voter – showing the dishonesty inherent to the warmists argument, combined with a healthy dose of ridicule. NEVER forget to emphasize how ridiculous the warmists arguments are – they hate that more than anything else you can do, because they know they have no answer to it. And they cheat on even the small details – like tilting the entire chart and hoping no one will notice. That needs to be shown again and again and again.
People don’t want to sit through graphs, and lectures,and charts, and long-winded explanations – but they love to laugh. These got the important points across, while giving their audience a laugh. Perfect!
The tilted graph next to the round globe is very clever.
I’ve seen a lot about lying with graphs but that is a new one on me.
Funny? Holdren? Sinister comes more readily to mind.
Some of the flaws of this recent performance of his were well-spotted by the two chaps in the clip.
The reason that the AGW promoters put on so many “climate communication” conferences is so they can find new ways to deceive us. As an aside, if a President was serious about science, why would someone who has been so wrong be the choice for adviser?
Shades of an Inconvenient truth! Tilting graphs now to promote hysteria?
Obviously, WUWT has abandoned any attempt to make a serious scientific contribution and is just try to pander to the lowest common-denominator audience.
– I worry for America’s future with this rubbish being pushed down people’s mouths
REPLY: it’s funny, just laugh, then get over yourself – Anthony
The dishonesty of the AGW fanatics never ceases to amaze me.
Terrific! Cuts straight through all the ‘smoke & mirrors’ stuff so anyone can understand what has been done.
Why does the time axis end around 2008 or so? Or is that just an axis-labeling problem?
For this chart, we use only satellite-era data, but for our other charts, we include inverted treemometer data, ice-core data and even sediment data.
It’s interesting what’s deemed important.
Slartibartfast says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:29 am
Why does the time axis end around 2008 or so? Or is that just an axis-labeling problem?
______________________
42.
Nicely done, I’m surprised they didn’t pick on the dataset ending in 2009 while they were mentioning dates though.
They say figures– and charts– don’t lie. The problem is that liars figure and produce charts to suit their interests–.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:27 am
“Obviously, WUWT has abandoned any attempt to make a serious scientific contribution and is just try to pander to the lowest common-denominator audience.
– I worry for America’s future with this rubbish being pushed down people’s mouths”
Do we have an angry statist climate communicator here? I found their analysis of the propaganda tricks used in the graph very good. Some sheeple will wake up. Bad for your business, I know.
Tip: Find a table to wait; earn your money the honest way.
Actually the piece has a nasty side to it. That last bit of the mid troposphere graph shows a massive release of heat with not enough heat behind it to keep it flat or force it to rise further.
brrrrrrr.
Clouds must have blocked a lot of heat from entering the oceans in the recent past. I suppose that will be related to global wa…cli…weath…ah ^$#%&!
I would note one lie that caught my attention right away and that is the way the red line is set up. It goes from the low point on the left to the high point on the right. A truly drawn line would be from the low points on both ends of the graph– let’s make that line red– and another, green line between the high points on both ends of the charts.
Problem: If you do that, there isn’t a lot of change between the beginning and the end, except for that big spike near the beginning of the Clinton administration. Then it drops off after that to the average.
The way they did that line, it’s like trying to “prove” we have a problem because the high of the day is warmer than the low for the day.
Try doing what they did with the current UAH graph
– it doesn’t work as well, because the temps after 2007 sprang back up again…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Well, it bares a close resemblance to UAH and RSS TMT temperatures but that is not the current data from these two agencies.
And it does appear to end in June 2009 for some reason.
These politicos are so clueless … with a winter season having so many days of high temps below the average … and even below the average low temp … I say, bring on that promised warming … please, let me suffer with all that global warming … I’m feeling the alternative and it ain’t no fun.
The sly dogs showed the original graph image on a ‘normal’ screen making it almost impossible for the naked eye to spot the ever-so-slight graph tilt.
But these guys had a larger screen made up of several smaller ones – thus an unexpected dead horizontal line was running through the image like a beacon of truth.
Holdren, White House et al totally busted!!!
On a more serious note it reveals the quite deliberate dishonesty that is now integral to the warmist cause. Christ, they HATE this damn Pause!
@NotTheAussiePhilM: But that raises the question further. This graph isn’t from the two guys laughing about it. It’s from the White House. Why would you play with regression lines and graph tilting if you could just add more data to support your position? Doesn’t make sense, although it sort of adds to the overall humor level.
Hey Aussie guy!
Warming or no warming, a singularly applied OLS statistic is a horrible device when applied to noisy oscillating data. Now that the AGW science community has admitted to oscillating natural variation, they more than any other group, should be using more than just a linear trend line to describe data. Such a narrow focus on a statistical method is the epitome of low hanging fruit at BEST. That they continue to use linear statistics exclusively speaks to THEIR lowest common denominator! So take your infantile diapered comment and go play with other infants.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00293.1
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:55 am
Try doing what they did with the current UAH graph
– it doesn’t work as well, because the temps after 2007 sprang back up again…
You miss the point. The two guys use the same graph that the government used to show warming. They did not choose which graph to use the government did. And the two guys are correct, you are not.
An excellent example of what brought me to the “the science is settled” table.
Why, if man-caused global atmospheric temperature warming is so clearly understood and observable, do its supporters need to resort to deception, half-truths, and fabrication?
The answer becomes clear:
man-caused global atmospheric temperature warming is neither clearly understood nor observable and, if it actually is happening, it is barely discernable.
This bears repeating:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Text from the Petition Project)
The government vill tell you what to belief.
Power Point. This guy is on to something. He has deconstructed long-range data and found that short term variations, including the recent supposed anthropogenic warming trend, are possibly buried in long-range trends. Has he found the slow continued rebound from the last ice age? At the very least, using long-term data, our recent little warming bump may indeed be nothing more than natural variation, and insignificant at that, at least in the Antarctic.
http://imsc.pacificclimate.org/proceedings/11IMSCppt/Franzke_session10.pdf
Another blatant attempt to deceive by an administration that may possibly be the most dishonest in U.S. history.
Oh snap! Someone beat me to it. By a long shot. I must stay caught up on my journal reading!!!!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/what-is-signal-and-what-is-noise/
If you like your hockey stick, I’m 97% certain you can keep your hockey stick. Period.
=======================
” NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:27 am
Obviously, WUWT has abandoned any attempt to make a serious scientific contribution and is just try to pander to the lowest common-denominator audience.
– I worry for America’s future with this rubbish being pushed down people’s mouths”
The point is that scientific debate is about the two sides seeking out objective truth by challenging the weaknesses of the other ides points of view. When one side is intentionally manipulating their presentation to pull the wool over the eyes of the other side, then this becomes a cause for very serious concern.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is the gorilla in the room. The White House can no more predict the outcome of their policies than Holdren could predict climate 40+ years ago. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Climate Reparations is the name of the game. The 3rd world holds the majority of votes at the UN. They want to be paid for the damage the industrialized world has caused through CO2 emissions.
The die was cast when the EPA formally recognized CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. The US, by far the largest CO2 global polluter for many decades, has backed itself into a corner.
Anyone with strong scientific training who cheers on the likes of the Marcott 2013 “super hockey stick” that showed no blade in the actual input data knows that peer review is a sham in climate science. That makes supporters of the sham evil, especially as they willfully self-deceive themselves that they are acting heroically to destroy the economy in order to fulfill some mad religious impulse to create a tree hugger utopia, or the minor case of being heroic activists against greedy capitalism and its skeptical pawns.
I’m only too happy though that they are digging deeper now that half of the political equation has woken up to it. The strong statement direct from the White House is a damn nice target to knock down since it features someone who is fully capable of spotting bad science if he wants to. It’s now not just a politician being inadvertently misled, but the whole scientific establishment itself, failing to speak out en masse, allowing honest academics to be slandered, ridiculed and isolated enough to me marginalized. Yet I have a practical “supercomputer” in my pocket that lets me post real data far and wide, and that real data falsifies climate models and exposes false headlines.
It’s only a matter of time now until liberalism itself falls on the sword of climate alarm. Canada, the UK, China, Japan and Australia are already laughing at the US over our glorious United Nations and its billionaire supporters like Ted Turner whose CNN is already losing its viewership to Fox News. The UK is about to axe 80,000 pages of environmental and building regulations.
The doubling down by liberals in the US is panic about young people finally catching on, which so far they mostly have not, but boy will they be pissed off for all the scaremongering and economic waste as they struggle for decades to pay off monstrously inflated academic loan debt. Occupy Wall Street may become Occupy Academia. Climatology is effectively a liberal art, and the rest of science better damn well call their bluff soon or the backlash will rightfully be against everyday academic scientists in general. Already, their legacy, even after they earn their awards, is to have been active during the most obvious scientific fraud in history, and they said nothing!
I ditched academia in 1998, straight out of three years at Harvard. It was mostly political correctness on campus that spooked me, but also the way hype had come to dominate aclaim in nanotechnology. I barely saw the climate fraud developing though, that being a rather soft science in the mind of a cocky young chemist.
Even if you use their red line we’re only talking .25ºC increase in 30 years, and why does the chart stop at 2009?
Now that was well done! This is the way to get the idea across to the every day voter – showing the dishonesty inherent to the warmists argument.
, combined with a healthy dose of ridicule. NEVER forget to emphasize how ridiculous the warmists arguments are – they hate that more than anything else you can do, because they know they have no answer to it. And they cheat on even the small details – like tilting the entire chart and hoping no one will notice.. That needs to be shown again and again and again..
People don’t want to sit through graphs, and lectures,and charts, and long-winded explanations – but they love to laugh.. These got the important points across, while giving their audience a laugh. Perfect!
In support of:
M Courtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:14 am
The tilted graph next to the round globe is very clever.
I’ve seen a lot about lying with graphs but that is a new one on me.
William:
It is pathetic that the Obama administration’s ‘senior’ science advisor, John Holdren would tilt a graph to create a propaganda video. It is pathetic that the Obama administration would select an activist to be their ‘science’ advisor. Activists create propaganda to push agendas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
“Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[28] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[29] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of means to address overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including compulsory abortion, adding sterilants to drinking water or staple foods, forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.”
When $23 billion of continued government funding is at stake, data and charts will be manipulated to draw the conclusion necessary to keep the money flowing.
Did the White House really use a graph ending in 2009? This is 2014. How is this interesting? Other than to show the complete incompetence of the group currently occupying the White House, it is not. Let’s hope the Dems who hope to be re-elected this year give this bum the bum’s rush…
” NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:27 am
So i guess you would categorise Gore’s ‘Inconvenient truth’ as equivalent to a peer-reviewed paper and worthy of all the plaudits it received? I mean, I’m pretty sure Gore had no plan to ‘pander to the lowest common-denominator audience’.
BTW: As WUWT is the most viewed scientific blog in the world I figure it must be making some serious scientific contribution. If it wasn’t it would be sharing similar stats to SkS. Now there’s a thing….
Pamela Gray says: @ February 7, 2014 at 5:54 am
Clouds must have blocked a lot of heat from entering the oceans in the recent past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, From Big Bear Obs. Earthshine Project, you can see the change from decreasing cloud cover to increasing around 1997-98 GRAPH
WUWT discussion: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about. Keep it simple and humorous.
When people tell me that the Arctic sea ice has been in a declining trend since 1979 I reply that it has been since the end of the Little Ice Age ~1850. There was also very little sea ice during parts of the Medieval Warm Period.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C0255:AATOSI%3E2.0.CO;2
http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/3434.html?cid=4634
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/lamb.ppp.1965.pdf
Pamela Gray says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:40 am
Power Point. This guy is on to something.
============
What he has found is that if you change your statistical model for climate, you get a different answer. That “different answer” in real science is evidence that uncertainty is high.
Julian in Wales says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:52 am
The point is that scientific debate is about the two sides seeking out objective truth by challenging the weaknesses of the other ides points of view. When one side is intentionally manipulating their presentation to pull the wool over the eyes of the other side, then this becomes a cause for very serious concern.
I agree with you
– but I would say that Glenn Beck & WUWT are doing more of the wool pulling in this case…
– the graphic should have gone up to 2013, not ~2009
– it would have better illustrated the point.
Glenn Beck & co are taking a graphic that was on screen for about 3 secs and a trend line that was on-screen for about 2 secs and making a 4 minute woollen pullover out of it…
Whilst such nonsense is expected from Glenn Back, I do actually expect better of WUWT than to propagate it.
Mike86 says: @ February 7, 2014 at 6:18 am
…. Why would you play with regression lines and graph tilting if you could just add more data to support your position?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because the flat no trend for 17 plus years would stick out like a sore thumb when you only have 36 years worth of data and ~50% of it is flat.
@NotTheAussiePhilM:
You are hell-bent on Believing, aren’t you? Question for ya: what (if anything) would you consider sufficient DISproof of CO2-driven warming?
If there is nothing that would convince you that the carbon-dioxide-causes-climate-warming hypothesis is wrong, then what you have is a religious conviction, and you have no place in the scientific conversation.
For me, disproofs include:
Venus at 1atm pressure being not a whit hotter than it “should” be despite 96% atmospheric CO2;
a paleoclimate that, for 3.6 billion out of the last 4.5 billion years has been too warm for permanent, year-round ice even at the poles (i.e., Earth is normally much warmer than at present);
ancient ice ages during times when the CO2 level was orders of magnitude higher than at present;
the resorting to trickery such as the above (and the graph that you offered is still cherry-picked to begin during a cold spell). When the guys who make this study their life’s work have to tilt the graph to make their point, I believe them: it’s their way of saying that they know the DATA don’t support them. Who am I to disagree?
NotTheAussiePhilM,
I don’t understand your argument. It’s OK to have misleading graphics on the screen as long as they’re subliminal?
Good to call out that tilt in the chart. It’s pure deliberate deception by the WH. But then again it could be also be Earth’s gravity curving space-time.
On the one hand we have Holdren saying
Back in 1971 we had Dr. Holdren saying
Both global warming and the previous global cooling were blamed squarely on mankind. Now guess what they’ll say if the wold plunges into cooling?
Grrrr.
“….Now guess what they’ll say if the world plunges into cooling?”
” If you’ve been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one we’re having in the United States now disproves global warming…don’t believe it.”
Translation: Don’t trust your lying eyes.
Harry Passfield says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:10 am
So i guess you would categorise Gore’s ‘Inconvenient truth’ as equivalent to a peer-reviewed paper and worthy of all the plaudits it received? I mean, I’m pretty sure Gore had no plan to ‘pander to the lowest common-denominator audience’.
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was packed with miss-information & exaggeration
– WUWT (& may others) made a good job of exposing that
This Glenn Beck segment is really just as bad (just with a different agenda)
– and doesn’t deserve any extra exposure on WUWT…
NotTheAussiePhilM says: “Obviously, WUWT has abandoned any attempt to make a serious scientific contribution and is just try to pander to the lowest common-denominator audience.
– I worry for America’s future with this rubbish being pushed down people’s mouths.”
Where exactly do you see danger in the graph discussed on the video?
Michael Moon says: @ February 7, 2014 at 7:05 am
….. Let’s hope the Dems who hope to be re-elected this year give this bum the bum’s rush…
>>>>>>>>>>
I think it is a wee bit too late.
You have high unemployment, sky rocketing government debt, Obamacare, the banker bailouts and foreclosure-gate and several skandals…. The hard core will vote Dem no matter what but there are the middle of the roaders who want to toss the whole darn bunch in to the deep ocean. Judicial Watch-Breitbart Poll: 77% of Americans Concerned about Government Corruption; Majority See it Getting Worse
September 24, 2013, GOP Trusted More Than Democrats on 10 of 15 Key Issues
did know one here take drafting? or even art classes? look at the title given the graph. clearly the graph is drawn in 3D perspective. it gives the chart the effect of being viewed at an angle. you simply can not draw a straight line across, it doesn’t work that way. you have to use the same vanishing point and horizon line.
Maggie Bloom says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:41 am
“did know one here take drafting? or even art classes? look at the title given the graph. clearly the graph is drawn in 3D perspective. it gives the chart the effect of being viewed at an angle. you simply can not draw a straight line across, it doesn’t work that way. you have to use the same vanishing point and horizon line.”
Maggie, that is perfectly clear. It is also perfectly clear that the White House PR persons used this to be able to boost the visible slop on the TV screen a little. Little psychological tricks everywhere; much more subtle than for instance the rather crude, always changing, horror stories NATO issues every week about Syria.
NotTheAussiePhilM says: @ February 7, 2014 at 7:21 am
…..Glenn Beck & co are taking a graphic that was on screen for about 3 secs and a trend line that was on-screen for about 2 secs and making a 4 minute woollen pullover out of it…
Whilst such nonsense is expected from Glenn Back, I do actually expect better of WUWT than to propagate it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why, because you want the people at WUWT to sit politely in the corner and discuss the scientific equivalent of how many angels dance on the head of a pin and leave the propaganda alone so it can continue to be used to brain wash the masses?
I wish this was someone besides Glenn Beck, but when, as Anthony just showed, the MSM is censoring skeptics and the future King of England calls us headless chickens, you take what you can get and hold your nose if necessary.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:35 am
“This Glenn Beck segment is really just as bad (just with a different agenda)
– and doesn’t deserve any extra exposure on WUWT…”
What exactly was BAD about it, besides the fact that it came from the devil incarnate, Glenn Beck? Two guys explaining manipulation techniques? You don’t like that? Your propaganda skills flourish best in the dark?
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:21 am
“I agree with you
– but I would say that Glenn Beck & WUWT are doing more of the wool pulling in this case…”
You say that Glenn Beck and WUWT are lying, deceiving, manipulating? How so? You got no leg to stand on. You are just an angry impertinent totalitarian statist with no argument at all, otherwise you would have brought it up.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
“- it would have better illustrated the point.”
Not the point that Holdren selected an arbitrary starting point.
Maggie Bloom says: @ February 7, 2014 at 7:41 am
did know one here take drafting? or even art classes? look at the title given the graph. clearly the graph is drawn in 3D perspective….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I took both drafting and art in high school and college. Perspective is used to FOOL THE EYE, and that is exactly what was done.
Hey, NotPhilAussiewhatever….THE BLAZE didn’t pick the timeline, Holdren or one of his minions did. All Beck’s guys did was illustrate the chicanery and subterfuge used in the “official” presentation.
Standard operating procedure: when the left’s own words/graphs/illustrations are used to discredit them it’s always the ones illustrating the lie accused of trying to pull a fast one?
Holdren’s propaganda video shows the Obama administration’s true colors. The Obama administration is right on track pushing their agenda to de-develop the US, using the phony, fabricated AGW ‘crisis’ as a means to an end. The US is following the EU who is the world leader in de-development and unemployment.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” – Professor Maurice King
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
After somebody sent a link to a Skeptical Science article yesterday, I decided to post a comment there. First thing you need to do is register. I registered with my name and information. The site won’t allow/blocks me from signing in before I’ve even printed a word/thought.
I’ve written numerous articles for our local newspaper and a few other internet places and also comment here on a regular basis under my name, which is of course the one I provided at Skeptical Science.
There must be a group of us that might question statements at that site that are identified and banned from any conversations because of what we might say………..before we state it.
Either that, or it takes days to be registered.
And why did they chose to show mid troposphere temps?
Not near surface lower tropo but mid tropo.
This sort of PR does not happen by accident, so why did they chose that?
Gail Combs,
No, it is not too late, not yet. Mid-term elections are coming soon, and the Dems who want to keep their jobs could certainly turn on our Liar-In-Chief and throw him out. Impeachment only takes a few days, and they have many reasons to do this. I am astonished that a bald-faced liar could take and hold this office, and predict it cannot last much longer.
So why don’t you do your own blog then NotTheAussiePhil ?
[snip. Keep it civil, please – mod]
Another oddity , that data stops in 2009 ! That a full presidential term ago.
Hasn’t Dr Holden got access to any more recent data for his presentations? Or did he just prefer to cut off a major section of the data which is not rising and would thus reduce his fitted trend line.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Lies, damn lies and (climate) statistics.
Again. Follow the source. Always follow the source.
In this case, it’s John Holdren and the Progressives. A quick search of Holdren tells us that this is all about Sustainable Development…
“Development should mean improving human well-being in all 3 dimensions economic, sociopolitical, and environmental”
“Sustainable development should mean doing so by means & to end points consistent with
maintaining the improvements indefinitely”
Some key sustainability appointments
• NOAA: Administrator Jane Lubchenco
• EPA: Administrator Lisa Jackson, Ass’t
Administrator for R&D Paul Anastas
• USGS: Director Marcia McNutt
• USAID: Administrator Raj Shah
• CEQ: Chair Nancy Sutley
• OECC: Director Carol Browner
• OSTP: Assoc Dir for Env’t Shere Abbott
• PCAST: Rosina Bierbaum, Mario Molina,
Barbara Schaal, Dan Schrag
“Societies are not taking the actions that the science indicates are needed and the technology indicates are possible. It’s important to understand why not.”
“The reasons clearly are rooted in human behavior –thus the need to bring to bear understandings from social science and the humanities”
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/caraco/bio320/JohnHoldren_sustainability.pdf
The role of science in changing society and behavior. They need climate change to be catastrophic in the minds of society to create policy changes on a world level.
Always follow the source…trust me, it always comes back to Sustainable Development and the Millennium Development Goals…including with all the big players ie: Hansen, Schmidt, Pachauri, Sachs, the U.N. and Soros that can all be linked to the Earth Institute out of Columbia…..which NASA GISS is part of. Look up their mission and look up their Board of Advisors and look up Sach’s Bio….it’s all there….and spreads out everywhere. Others: RealClimate part of Fenton Communications, ProPublica and on and on….in all aspects of governance, education and society.
It’s the big picture folks.
Is that a real photo of the RED troposphere too? Globull warming must be real. The corrupt politicians told me so. We must give them more power to control us. We must tax and regulate ourselves into dumpsters. Think of the children.
Sigh. In reality, the planet is quite stable. Some of its inhabitants are not.
Apparently these two ‘funny guys’ aren’t familiar the elementary methods used to estimate trends from a set o f data as taught in high school. Why does this not surprise me?
Not the Aussie–“and is just try(ing) to pander to the lowest common-denominator audience.”
A CLUELESS complaint. Pointing out some obvious mistakes in graph interpretation and presentation with wit, humor, and truth are great. When Holdren used this graph, with obvious propoganda in mind, it became a scam- where’s the warming pea??? not where you’re looking in this graph, despite what he said. It was a pure propoganda prop and the guys showed it for what it is.
Holdren could have shown a couple other honest graphs that do show some warming and THEN gone into his spiel that “Gobal Climate Change” is causing all sorts of problems. That would have been an honest propoganda opinion and harder to show up.
It’s worse than we thought! …. The graph isn’t just tilted, they applied a 3D effect so that the start is smaller more compressed (away from you) and the present is expanded (closer).
.. Tricky
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
President Obama and his Administration have already closed their minds up tight and arrived at their conclusion that humanity, not nature, is the primary culprit behind Climate Change.
They ignore facts that debunk their conclusions. For example their claim that CO2 Catastrophic Climate Change is responsible for the Polar Vortex. They ignore the fact that well before the Industrial Revolution Polar Vortex’s existed. Ergo, a reaonalble person would conclude Nature Not Humanity is the Primary Culprit behind Climate Change.
Their unfounded beliefs in CO2 induced Climate Change are enough to condemn humans as the culprit even though the “facts” they cite show their alarmism demonstrates nothing more than natural climate variability.
Do they ever wonder why they come across as a Medieval Inquisitors who condemns anyone who disagrees with their Church’s Climate Change doctrine as “heretics. It appears they need a doomsday scenario to be content. Many primitive cultures condemned dissent as heresy and even burned people at the stake for daring to differ with the orthodoxy of the day. That’s what kept witch doctors employed for so long.
Gail Combs
I wish this was someone besides Glenn Beck
Why? As Willis says, can you provide some direct quotes from Glenn Beck on which you base your opinion?
I think the
[Nothing trimmed by mods. Early submitted syndrome? Mod]
Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 8:04 am
And why did they chose to show mid troposphere temps?
Not near surface lower tropo but mid tropo.
This sort of PR does not happen by accident, so why did they chose that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The lower trop. graph looks like this: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
(Actually the mid has less of a slope) SEE: wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
Of course Glen Beck could have shown this graph of Temperature Lower Stratosphere:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
DARN! I think they are showing the LOWER and CALLING it the MID!
Can someone double check? (My eyes are not that good)
Lower trend = 0.125/decade
Mid trend = 0.078/decade
the last words say it all “this is so unbelievably dishonest”. Makes you want to puke, never pay taxes again, impeach Obama, etc.
This is what the actual global mid troposphere data looks like, UAH v5.6:
http://devoidofnulls.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/uahmtg.png
It doesn’t look like the data cited by the White House at all. Hm, that’s funny, what then could they be referencing as “the” satellite data?
The answer, I would guess, is that they are citing NOAA’s STAR dataset. I believe that John Christy has written several publications documenting issues with various temperature datasets for upper air temperature trends, and STAR is one which has definite problems. But even putting that aside, a quick browsing of RSS’s radiosonde validation browsing tool indicates that STAR happens to be the dataset that shows the most warming. How convenient that the White House “happened” to pick the dataset that most agrees with the story they want to tell.
ferdberple says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:56 am
“Climate Reparations is the name of the game. The 3rd world holds the majority of votes at the UN. They want to be paid for the damage the industrialized world has caused through CO2 emissions.”
Excellent point.
The base point is to chose any two points and draw a line. The typical thinker is not going to recognize the deliberate error and intentional lying with statistics. Especially when the blame game and dollars are affecting the noise.
“A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”
They still couldn’t hide the declining trend after 2005.
Tom In Indy says: @ February 7, 2014 at 8:42 am
Why? As Willis says, can you provide some direct quotes from Glenn Beck on which you base your opinion?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because when you are trying to get a message across you are talking about perception and not the man. People base their opinions on what others say often times and give high weight to someone they respect. (That is why there is so much whinging that @nthony featured this)
The Propagandists in the Progressive MSM have done a good trashing of Beck so many middle left leaning types will not even get past the first couple of words.
The comments in this article are a good example of what I mean.
A recent discussion here at WUWT that brought up the John B1rtchers is another example or Richard the Third or if you really want to see the flame throwing bring up that Shakespeare is probably Edward de Vere the Seventeeth Earl of Oxford in a University English department.
So yes I wish a more ‘neutral’ person had debunked that graph because it would reach a wider audience.
@Gail Combs –
Then you are allowing them to decide who speaks and who does not. They purposefully trash those who they cannot defeat in an honest and open debate. So that others will avoid them, thus removing support for any opposing points.
By agreeing to their rules, you are letting them manipulate the playing field. And on which they will always win. Instead of backing off when a person makes a good point, challenge the naysayers to prove their bigotry. In virtually all cases, they cannot. They parrot the progressive line well. But they have no concrete examples of what they have been told to believe.
It reminds me of the book How To Lie With Charts & Graphs.
The purveyors of common sense, like Bech and Palin, come under the fiercest attack. No surprise there.
Voltaire said it best, “Common sense is not very common”.
He also said, “Prejudices are what fools use for reason”.
I’m looking at the 2007 2008 drop. It goes in one hit. This looks more like mid-tropo that TLT.
Not sure who’s data though. NH or global ??
Great graph with no scale on temp axis too.
While a good guffaw is always appreciated at the expense of the Church of Climate Science, an executive order yesterday created 10 “climate hub” and “climate sub-hub” trojan horses into the heartland whose purposes are clouded in banal sounding jargon. I’m somewhat surprised (and, I confess, disappointed) to note the lack of note here.
The tilt would have been created by the graphics department during production rather than being a deliberate attempt at dishonesty by John Holdren, I personally wouldn’t make a serious point out of that issue (it is funny), the other good points raised are valid though!
Tom Warn says: (February 7, 2014 at 8:25 am)
“Apparently these two ‘funny guys’ aren’t familiar the elementary methods used to estimate trends from a set o f data as taught in high school. Why does this not surprise me?”
Apparently you’re not familiar with the fact that it’s mathematically meaningless to try and estimate a linear trendline from a cyclical dataset. Why does this not surprise me?
Maybe a little off topic but…
From the Science is Settled Department “A study published years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association found the average normal temperature for adults to be 98.2°, not 98.6°, and replaced the 100.4° fever mark with fever thresholds based on the time of day.”
Harvard Health: Normal Body Temperature : Rethinking the normal human body temperature
Sparks says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:27 am
“The tilt would have been created by the graphics department during production rather than being a deliberate attempt at dishonesty by John Holdren, I personally wouldn’t make a serious point out of that issue (it is funny), …”
The production department was instructed on exactly what was to be produced. No stone unturned is the rule. Leave nothing to chance. To imply Holdern is honest is not going to work.
@Anthony Watts & al
This is not funny at all, and has not been so for a while.
What I see on that video is the very common and ugly situation of 2 alian invaders and architect entrepreneur trolls talking rather loud and smashing around with “Blankvals” = shiny linear industrial iron rods, and with “Skurlast” = artificially sawed and regulated wooden half fabricata for dilettants, shouting screaming and planning…. in wild nature.
Where we take a twig of course, or a moose, or a reindeer horn, That is quite more congruent to the situation.
What we see on that video is not how to discuss a curve or how to discuss empirically mapped material from nature at all.
Your basic behaviours and methods of thought and procedure ought to be somehow PHAENOMENICALLY CONGRUENT to where you are, to what you dig into, and to what you try and find out of, and tell people that you are doing and discussing.
I have been in that quite general situation several times. To smash proudly and loudly around with straight linear physical rulers in a rugged and maybe delicate or sensitive or natural material, simply is not the way.
Having got to deal with online servography for instance,….that is what theese things are most alike,……. where are the elementary basically inaugurated and enlighted and trained behaviours and manners that shows that theese 2 quite typical alian bastard barbars ever were near to that kind of practical raisings, work and experience?
Where can we see any civilized impact of basic and elementary learnings of analytic geometry?
===========000
¨
On such a rugged and filzy signal I would quite spontaneously suggest a damping condenser.
And what is that?
That is a resistor over a condenser, that has got its earth or ground lead in order, two passive and bias- free components that brings you closer to having the mass or the heat sum or the integral over time of it, quite more noise- free.
Then the opposite way, a condenser over a resistor , you will have the derivative.
Both methods are alian conscepts to the barbarians, but you will now have what is under any mixing board for rock music and on any large stereo device, a low pass and a high pass filter, namely the Bass and the Discant- control.
Together you will have a bandpass filter or a frequency – window, that you can tune to anything you whish, to the 4 year election period, to Stalins 5 year plans in the area, to Salomos number 70 and thus to eventual storms of your grandchildren and so on.
And then with adjustable positive feedback also, you can get any swinging cycles that you want at any desired or preferred frequency. Rather the R.Lindsen, and the N.Scafetta-way.
But turning that positive feedback lower, you will be able to detect even very weak swinging or cycling tendencies in your material.
I have made that device many times and in many different way for signal analysis.
Who sells or who slams around with cycles being not aware of or being even alian to such methods rather fighting any material with shiny rolled and graded steel or aluminium prophiles, should go right down the toilet. It is not just IMMATVRVS. It is much worse, it is ADVLTERARE!
Placing a ruler from 1950 to 1977, a next one from 77 to 98, and a third one from 98 to 2013 is violating how many elementary laws of Nature?
It is 2 times violence to NATURA NON FACIT SALTVM also, namely in the meeting and knick points of the rulers. Why not just draw a curve free handed and take and use the sponge immediately after. Because allready that is violence to §2 of the 10 commandments, the quite strict and general prohibition of virtual realitty and of model- making. and warnings against its quite severe consequenses.
Allways keep that in mind and use the sponge..
I suggested the damping condenser and integrator.
But I can further recommend a proper soft metal wire that is bent into fom by fingers to be laid into the grasses, and finely adjusted to be as invisible as possible. That comes quite close to the rule of square sum minimum curve- adaption.
If Natural behaviour and possible natural physical causes are to be discussed, then theese very compulsary and elementary basic methods of scientific thought and strategy must be brought in order first, and obvious war against the same “moderated” and degraded.
Those very fameous IPCC climate scientists do indeed have methods similar to what I have described and suggested here, and they call the cobined results of it for “models”.
I do not buy and use other peoples “models”. I make my own.
In fact, allready if you buy or borrow the ruler, you will block yourself physically mentally and emosionally against seeing and grasping straightforwardness!
I repeat….!
Thus, inn order to be “sceptic” and in order to beat them or to fight them or to have any benefit or any possible practical information and use out of it, better be aware of what it is about.
Get PHAENOMENOLOGICALLY CONGRUENT to it on thought and on method and procedure- level.
I went back to the Holdren video and watched it to the part showing the graph and paused it for a closer look, thinking that perhaps the tilt of the zero line was an artifact of how it was projected on the Blaze screen, but sure enough, it’s really tilted in the video. Such dishonesty truly sickens me.
Just an FYI. The two guys have names. Pat Gray and Steve “Stu” Burguier. They have their own daily radio show, and co-host with Glenn Beck daily for three hours on the radio. Stu also has a weekly television show on the Blaze Network. The segment shows that even two non- scientist “funny guys” are smart enough to catch and easily explain the manipulations done by the White House “expert”. And they are 100% correct.
They seem to have done a pretty good number of the mid-troposphere.
I like this view of the “hot spot”
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/GkhPNFh3UDNUIAOkoa3CuRl0-97eX_7ZosWUANzIy74=w979-h477-no
I guess Tamino can make removing the volcanic signal more interesting, but no trend since 1994 looks like no trend since 1994 for the less creative folks.
More graphical Tricks to Hide the Decline.
Lighten up folks! Look this not serious, it’s a joke, no-one with an ounce of common sense would believe what they are saying about the graphs, it’s just good humour and no more valid that saying Glenn Beck is even handed. Just in case you still believe it may have a some truth check out the promotions to join the conversation the ‘impartial’ Glenn Beck. Chill out out, have a laugh then go back to the serious stuff. By the way, just in case anyone really thought this was a genuine attempt at scientific interpretation of data, I’m sad to inform you that Little Britain is also just a parody, it’s not real.
Gail Combs says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:55 am
“Yes, I took both drafting and art in high school and college. Perspective is used to FOOL THE EYE, and that is exactly what was done.”
=========
Gail cuts to the chase.
Good job.
Pamela Gray says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:40 am
Power Point. This guy is on to something. He has deconstructed long-range data and found that short term variations, including the recent supposed anthropogenic warming trend, are possibly buried in long-range trends. Has he found the slow continued rebound from the last ice age? At the very least, using long-term data, our recent little warming bump may indeed be nothing more than natural variation, and insignificant at that, at least in the Antarctic.
http://imsc.pacificclimate.org/proceedings/11IMSCppt/Franzke_session10.pdf
If we could remove all influences such as CO2 from long-range data we will still have an apparent stochastic system. It’s easier to find signals of natural variation in the data such as night and day, seasonal effects that are caused by Earths axial tilt, sidereal and Synodic period’s of its orbital parameters, Lunar effects, Solar signals caused by changes in solar activity and planetary orbits that change both on a short timescale and on a longer time scale which effect our planetary geology.
If anthropogenic carbon dioxide is having a role of any significance on a planetary scale, we still wouldn’t be able to tell it apart from natural sources of carbon dioxide using temperature as a proxy, even if we treat human use of fossil fuels as a volcano, it would be a very tiny volcano compared to the hundreds of thousands of active volcanoes and natural sources of out gassing continuously putting vital gases and minerals into the atmosphere.
so here’s my problem – this shows yet again how you can make stats say whatever you want. But then how can i believe anybody? I don’t think there is any AGW but if, being a novice, I can’t rely on any charts and graphs from either side I might as well just hop a Megabus to Denver and blaze up!
And frankly the plethora of measurements makes my head spin. I would think it would be rather simple to determine the temperature but obviously not. Only the ‘experts’ can understand it – but they are the very people I trust the least since they all have a vested interest in some way.
Bingo says: @ February 7, 2014 at 9:18 am
That is what Tips and Notes is for.
Give A.W. the link. http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/
Or you can submit a story: http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-a-story/
Gail Combes-
“More reach”?
The Glenn Beck radio show (of which the Pat and Stu show is a part) averages 10 million listeners a week, The Blaze website gets 16 Million unique visitors a month, the online streaming network has more than half a million online subscribers, and The Blaze network is being picked up by more and more satelite cable providers every day, including DISH. THAT is quite a reach in some people’s estimates.
highflight56433 says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:39 am
The production department was instructed on exactly what was to be produced. No stone unturned is the rule. Leave nothing to chance. To imply Holdern is honest is not going to work.
I was discussing the tilt, that’s purely an artifact from the graphics production.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:21 am
“Glenn Beck & co are taking a graphic that was on screen for about 3 secs and a trend line that was on-screen for about 2 secs and making a 4 minute woollen pullover out of it…”
So are you arguing that if the president’s science adviser tells a lie in 3 seconds, that no one should be allowed more than 3 seconds to point out that it was a lie and why?
In my experience, telling a lie is far easier than refuting the lie, especially if it is a big lie that has been told over and over again, as per Joseph Goebbels. A ‘global warming crisis’ is just such a lie. As such, it takes much more time and effort to unravel and refute such a lie, because it has become part of the cultural belief system.
The length of time it takes to unravel a lie is irrelevant. If it is a lie, it deserves to be refuted with the truth, even if it takes more than a thousand years to do it.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:35 am
NTAPM, please explain why the segment is "bad". A personal hatred for Beck and/or a suspicious agenda do not cut it as arguements. So far your posts smack of willful obtuseness and your suggestion that WUWT censor Beck to uphold its reputation sounds like concern trollism.
Aw, c’mon. They just tilted that graph to compensate for the missing heat. Now we know where it is. It’s hiding under the dotted line of the tilted graph. And, to think that those other researchers spent gazillions of taxpayer dollars to find that heat hiding out in the ocean when Johnarack Holdrenama just found it under a tilted graph.
These two guys are great. Imagine what they would do to easterbrooks charts
I think Holdren and his boss would benefit a walk at his bosses home town and just maybe they might change their tune . Chicago has the coldest winter in three decades .
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-coldest-winter-in-three-decades-and-counting-20140207,0,4566211.story
Goodman: The ;lower surface satellite measurements failed some time ago check AMSU satellite
http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/
Thanks for all the comments – too many to quote individually!
If I started a blog, I might call it ‘What Up With Watts Up With That (WUWWUWT)’
I think the GB analysis of the WH video is flawed because they
– they home in a 3 sec piece of the video, and make out this is some big attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes
Here are a few problems that I see with the GB video:
1) Complains about the start date
– it’s satellite data, probably UAH, which starts in 1978
– so where’s the problem
– they could use GISS or HADCRUT if they wanted a longer trend..
2) Complains about where the zero is…
– why – that’s where whoever prepared the data put it
– if it is indeed UAH, then it was Dr Roy Spencer, PhD who defined the zero point
– and anyway, we all know the absolute value is not important
– it’s the trend that’s important…
3) At 2:00 – 2:16 discusses ‘where the temperature actually is …’
– same temp as 1978/79
– except, no, that’s the 2008 temp
– the current temp is higher…
– so it’s the Glenn Beck video that is misleading about the current temps
– the WH video shows the year 2008/2009
Please check for yourself:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
4) 2:40-2:46
– ‘this is where the temperature is now’
– nope, unfortunately the dip of 2008 was very short lived….
5) 2:46 – 2:56
‘very little below where we are now’
– nope, as we can see, looking at the 13-month running average, everything before the 1998 El Nino is below where we are now…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
6) Says there are probably 10 more problems he could point out
– really? I think he’s just making that up….
7) Talks about perspective
– yet there isn’t much perspective angle on the image
– not sure that there’s any problem there
– the human brain deal with perspective all day long, and is very good at processing information in perspective.
– it’s just a little paranoid to suggest that it’s really done to for any particular purpose
– especially give that if the graphics people are obviously not that bright, or they wouldn’t have used such an old set of data (since the more recent data actually works better for the message the WH video is trying to convey….)
If we were discussing this in 2008, and the data had been cut off at say, 2007 before the dip
– then I think then I think there might be a valid point to be made about the selection of the end point
– but in 2014, with the temps where they are now, the selection of the 2009 cut-off doesn’t make sense if the perpetrators (the WH) are actually trying to mislead (with this graph)
Amazing! Everything about Obama is a lie – you can’t even trust him to draw a horizontal line a chart!
Gail Combs said @ February 7, 2014 at 7:49 am
Presumably one of the two guys in this excellent clip is Glenn Beck. How would I know? Why would I care? But I enjoyed the clip ever so much 🙂
John Stell (@JohnStell1) says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:18 am
“so here’s my problem – this shows yet again how you can make stats say whatever you want. But then how can i believe anybody? ”
The poor Germans I work with – mushbrains to a man – ask me the same all the time when I demolish what they think are their arguments. My advice is simple: Step 1 – avoid the state media. The state always disinforms. In the US, that of course includes CNN and (MS)NBC.
So. Now you have stopped the daily decline in your mental faculties. Next step. Become a self actualizer. Seek out information yourself. It takes time but it’s fun. When finding info, consider the source. Wikipedia is the regime. Temperature data is mutilated to different degrees.
Find websites that replicate the data from the institutes, WUWT resource pages or
http://www.woodfortrees.org
Another good data replicator
http://www.gapminder.org
for non climate stuff.
NotTheAussiePhilM said @ February 7, 2014 at 11:16 am
Why don’t you take your concerns to where they belong: with the people who generated this graph? The guys in the clip didn’t generate it, neither did WUWT. Methinks you need to get a grip.
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:16 am
“2) Complains about where the zero is…
– why – that’s where whoever prepared the data put it
– if it is indeed UAH, then it was Dr Roy Spencer, PhD who defined the zero point
– and anyway, we all know the absolute value is not important
– it’s the trend that’s important…”
That is of course another Big Lie by you, the warmists.
Warmists hold that the world will be going to hell in a handcart once we have warmed more than 2 deg C.
Ah yeah really? So there must be a definitive temperature where this happens.
It cannot be 15 degC today and 18 deg C tomorrow.
Of course you, the warmists, try at all costs to never SAY what this temperature is because it would give your propaganda game away.
Here is a list of what the global average temperature was according to prominent warmists at different times in the past.
1988: 15.4°C
1990: 15.5°C
1999: 14.6°C
2004: 14.5°C
2007: 14.5°C
2010: 14.5°C
2012 14.0 °C
2013: 14.0°C
Sources
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/coming-ice-age-according-to-leading-experts-global-mean-temperature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/26/why-arent-global-surface-temperature-data-produced-in-absolute-form/#comment-1550024
Sorry. If Warmageddon awaits us I would please like to know at WHICH ABSOLUTE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE exactly. Say it.
The way the graph is used in Holdren’s disinformation pitch is high propaganda art. It would make Joseph Goebbels very proud….
@ NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:21 am
What’s the matter with you? a 3 second lie is still a lie and a 4 minute exposure still exposes the lie. You support the Fairness Doctrine, I take it? If you tell a 3 second lie the other side only gets 3 seconds to dispel it? How in your reality is pointing out the truth “wollen pullover” and propagating it?
Am I alone on what “Carbomontanus says: February 7, 2014 at 9:40 am @Anthony Watts & al”? I don’t think I understood one thing he wrote at us (us being the & al).
I was never interested in Holdren’s background, assuming that it’s quite enough to know that he is Obama’s appointee — that is, a professional liar. In my blissful ignorance, I was a bit surprised to find out that he was Ehrlich’s pal and co-author. This settles it. There should be no further argument, and no further mentioning of any science or objectivity. No one in his right mind could believe anything coming from the mouth of Ehrlich’s co-author.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:02 am
__________________
Are you OK that the US government is also purposely lying to its citizens?
You re purposely misrepresenting what was shown in the video. The grpahics were purposely mis- constructed by propagandists. Are you also a propagandist?
pimf- can’t type…
The Pompous Git says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:26 am
Why don’t you take your concerns to where they belong: with the people who generated this graph? The guys in the clip didn’t generate it, neither did WUWT. Methinks you need to get a grip.
My concern is with WUWT propagating the obvious nonsense from GB & Co
I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with the graph
– it’s most likely UAH data, or it’s RSS
– both of which, WUWT considers reliable, AFAIK
– only problem is they stop at 2008/9
– why not carry on to 2013?
I don’t know if the trend-line is a valid trend line for the data
– no one here has said that the trend line is actually incorrect.
I would prefer them to use the current data, like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:55 am
“My concern is with WUWT propagating the obvious nonsense from GB & Co”
I thought your concern was that the world would warm above 16 deg C?
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:55 am
My concern is with WUWT propagating the obvious nonsense from GB & Co
I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with the graph
________________________
Did you not see the tilt in the baseline to make the incline steeper? Yes, you did see that. You’re not sure that anything is wrong with that technique? You’re not sure that cherry picking start and end points to make a graph appear to show something else is a tctic of lying poropagandists? You’re taking every opportunity that you can to launch ad hominem attacks against the providers of the video? I’m sure that something’s wrong with you.
If you plot the trend to 2008 & 2009, it doesn’t make much different
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/to:2009/trend
DirkH said @ February 7, 2014 at 11:59 am
I think his concern is that we are not only getting a good laugh out of the clip, but another out of NotTheAussiePhilM’s befuddlement 🙂
@ Alan Robertson:
– see above – varying the end point doesn’t make much different….
– the start point is the start of the data – i.e. when satellite measurements started
Day By Day said @ February 7, 2014 at 11:43 am
No, you’re not alone. I’d smoke a joint and try reading what he/she/it/they [delete whichever is inapplicable] wrote again but sadly I do not possess the requisite drugs…
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:55 am
“My concern is with WUWT propagating the obvious nonsense from GB & Co”
I thought your concern was that the world would warm above 16 deg C?
I think I enunciated my concerns fairly clearly
– I can’t be held responsible for you imagination!
😉
otTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm
@ Alan Robertson:
– see above – varying the end point doesn’t make much different….
– the start point is the start of the data – i.e. when satellite measurements started
___________________
Wrong! It makes a lot of difference- so does tilting the entire graph. You know this. That’s the whole point of the video- the government is purposely trying to misrepresent data to the people. You appear to be purposely trying to divert our attention away from that fact.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:02 am
Lighten up folks! Look this not serious, it’s a joke, no-one with an ounce of common sense would believe what they are saying about the graphs, it’s just good humour and no more valid that saying Glenn Beck is even handed.
Gareth,
I wish it were so, mon ami! I work with new hire engineers. Many of them accept the AGW meme ‘hook, line, and sinker’. They have been so thoroughly engrained in the ‘bad man/save the planet’ platitiudes since early childhood that they will not even evaluate basic evidence that refutes AGW and/or conflicts with their ‘environmental’ belief systems. The cognitive dissonance is readily apprarent and the AGW propoganda so firmly engrained that they will excuse the deceits and refuse verifiable evidence contrary to the AGW orthodoxy. Misleading presentiations like Holdrens serve to reinforce the AGW meme with the faithful, lest their strength of faith should falter.
It’s not a joke. It’s not ‘just good humor’. At the behest of Obama, Holdren, and the EPA, the highly reliable coal fired power plants in the US are being shut down, even as we speak, based on the AGW hyperbole that “Carbon (CO2 gas) Is Pollution”. Even as we endure another colder than average winter! We are losing net electrical generating capacity and only replacing a very small portion of it with unreliable solar and wind power. Our electricity prices are escalating. Liquid propane gas is in short supply and the mosly rural home and farm users are experiencing all-time high prices, if they can even get it!
No. This Is Not A Joke. No one with an ounce of common sense would believe otherwise. The ‘joke’ is that anyone would believe that carbon (the elemetal foundation of all life on this planet) and CO2 gas (the basic molecular plant food for all flora on this planet) are pollution.
Gottta go – lunch time is over.
Mac
Alan Robertson says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:51 am
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:02 am
__________________
Are you OK that the US government is also purposely lying to its citizens?
You re purposely misrepresenting what was shown in the video. The grpahics were purposely mis- constructed by propagandists. Are you also a propagandist?
Alan, are you saying it was not a spoof? Good Lord whatever next. I don’t think I am a propagandist, not in the way Glenn Beck is for instance. As far as the US is lying to it’s citizen, I’m not sure that goes on, but seeing as they are privy to the confidential information held by it’s friends and allies I can well believe it. However, I do not think the US government is as black as painted by most of the radical groups across the world. Sure, they make mistakes, but overall I think they are a positive influence. By the way, should we not be discussing US politics on a more dedicated blog?
Day By Day says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:43 am
Am I alone on what “Carbomontanus says: February 7, 2014 at 9:40 am @Anthony Watts & al”? I don’t think I understood one thing he wrote at us (us being the & al).
__________________
(Inviting Carbomontanus to join in)
English isn’t his first language- By some of his sentence structures, etc., I think he is Germanic. He also tries to weave in Latin and odd references to obscurities and thus becomes difficult to understand, but such practice makes a tingle run up his leg.
“””””…..ferdberple says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:56 am
………………………………………
Climate Reparations is the name of the game. The 3rd world holds the majority of votes at the UN. They want to be paid for the damage the industrialized world has caused through CO2 emissions.
The die was cast when the EPA formally recognized CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. The US, by far the largest CO2 global polluter for many decades, has backed itself into a corner…….”””””
Well sorry ferd, but that simply is not true.
The US is the world’s ONLY large land mass carbon SINK. WE are not a SOURCE of atmospheric CO2.
EurAsia, is near carbon neutral, but slightly sourcing. Australia is significantly carbon sourcing, but largely because it is mostly desert, and nothing grows there; plus they have a lot of coal. In the overall scheme of things, they are not big CO2 “polluters”.
But the USA’s extensive agriculture including large tree farming activities, easily swamps all the CO2 generated from our use of energy to make products for the world.
NZ is also an agriculturally rich carbon sink, but not big enough to amount to a hill of beans. They have tree farming down to a science. Tree farms are carbon sinks (lots of growing) but “old growth” forests are not; they are mostly carbon neutral. If old growth forest were carbon sinks, they would eventually become a solid block of wood. If they were carbon sources, they would eventually disappear (evaporate or burn up, or burn down). They don’t do either so they must be carbon neutral.
So don’t blame us; or US . we ain’t the problem.
@Alan Robertson
I am purposely trying to divert your attention *with* the facts:
If you plot the trend to 2008 & 2009, it doesn’t make much different
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/to:2009/trend
And I disagree that the tilting makes a big different
– as I said above, the human brain deals with perspective all day long, and is very good at processing what it means
– and, as I said above, if the people who came up with that graphic were on the ball, they would have used current data not 4/5 year old data…
– but if it makes you happy, I’ll concede that someone could use perspective to try to emphasize one end of a graph vs the other
– but in this case, the amount of perspective applied doesn’t seem all that great…
In the end, the trend is what it is, and doesn’t need exaggerating
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/to:2009/trend
Carbomontanus says:
You’re wrong because at the end of the video your Neanderthals evolve and start MEASURING the positive slope of that lie of a horizontal “0” axis thus exposing the fraud of it in a very scientifically acceptable manner -via autopsy. Isn’t all truth, large and small, what this site of Anthony’s is all about?
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:25 pm
“…are you saying it was not a spoof?”
—————–
What spoof? The video was lighthearted and funny, for certain, but it pointed out the obvious tricks used by the administration in order to present data in a distorted way, but the video was not a spoof.
__________________
“I don’t think I am a propagandist, not in the way Glenn Beck is for instance.”
—————-
Then why attack Glenn Beck, et cie? Why try to obscure the truth of things? Why act like a propagandist if you aren’t one?
_______________________
“As far as the US is lying to it’s citizen, I’m not sure that goes on,”
——————
Of course you aren’t sure… right. Uh- huh- you don’t pay any attention to the world, at all. You didn’t get the point of the video, did you- you are lying through your teeth.
______________________
“By the way, should we not be discussing US politics on a more dedicated blog?”
————————
Of course we can discuss politics here and especially since this thread deals with actions of the US gov’t… The entire effort to change mankind’s behavior because of “climate change” is political. You know that full well, therefore your pretense that politics is to be avoided is just another attempt by you to obscure the truth. You have shown yourself to have exceedingly limited veracity. Got any more rabbit holes you want to dance around?
I think there’s an important point that’s being lost in all of this. I think there’s an additional ‘nature trick’ involved in John Holdren’s graph. The graph begins in 1978. Oh well, of course it does; the MSU satellites were first launched in 1978. But, the satellites were launched in November 1978! 10 months of 1978 are not even measured! True; the southern half of the globe was into summer, but what is the land mass for snow cover vis a vi the northern half, and thus what is the summer/winter temp. differentials between the two hemispheres? What is the temp. anomaly for the last 2 months, out of 12, for 1978?
All temp. records for the satellites begin in 1979. The NOAA NCDC analysis uses 1979 as a start date. RSS uses 1979 as well. Why did Holdren show a graph inclusive of 1978?
Day By Day says: Am I alone on what “Carbomontanus says:
He does evoke an interesting question to climate analysis albeit in an obtuse way with his reference to electronic band pass filters. Digital computer models aren’t doing a very good job at predicting future climate has anyone considered using an analog version?
NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:35 pm
@Alan Robertson
I am purposely trying to divert your attention *with* the facts:
_____________________
Why keep bringing up W.f.T. graphs? That’s like trying to change the subject. Deal with the video and this thread.
The point is, members of the current administration presented that graph dishonestly, to make the data appear to show something that it doesn’t and that is being dishonest. Your words will not obscure Holdren’s actions.
The guy with the ruler says that 1998 was “the warmest on record.” Wasn’t 1934 the warmest on record (in the US, at least), even with all the recent adjustments and manipulation?
Aphan says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:20 am
Gail Combes-
“More reach”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good, glad to hear it. I just hope he is also reaching the independents. (I have no radio or TV, haven’t for years. I hear Glen Beck occasionally on other people’s equipment.)
NotTheAussiePhilM says: ” And I disagree that the tilting makes a big different – as I said above, the human brain deals with perspective all day long, and is very good at processing what it means”
1) It makes a difference … period.
2) It was intentional.
3) The human brain, mine and yours, is continuously fooled every waking moment by false perspectives because we are only able to view things in 2 dimensions and are therefore condemned to rely solely upon on our visual cortex to synthesize the third and toss out whatever doesn’t ~appear~ to make any sense.
http://www.reto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/dsc03634.jpg
@Alan Robertson
Please see my previous comment answers your points:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/friday-funny-two-guys-with-a-ruler-blow-up-the-white-house-global-warming-video-claims/#comment-1561332
“By the way, should we not be discussing US politics on a more dedicated blog?”
For the last 5 years (at least!) EVERYTHING is political. Once Washington decided to take over every aspect of every facet of life, there is nothing that can be discussed adequately unless the political questions are fully addressed first. When I say EVERYTHING is political now, I mean the food you have for dinner, the private beliefs you may or may not have, what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do with your free time, and what “science” is politically in favor and which “science” is politically out of favor – those are just a few.
I HATE living in a world like this, but I didn’t make it. All I can do is fight it.
@Mike M
Really? So your total criticism of the WH video is that the graph presented for 3 seconds has a couple of degrees of perspective added, and your brain can’t cope with it?
– and that makes the GB analysis video a worthy piece of journalism?
philjourdan says:….
>>>>>>>>>>>
Look I am very glad Beck took the time to debunk this. I am very much opposed to censorship of any kind but It STILL does not get around the fact that in the USA you have a group of people who will ONLY hear what ‘Trusted Sources” (neutral and on the left) say. The right is pretty much convinced. It is the middle of the roaders that is the target audience and I hope like heck that is who Beck is reaching but I have my doubts and that is why I would have liked a more neutral source.
I went through this a decade ago with Lynn Cohen-Cole and a hand full of others. Organic Consumer Assoc. and Food & Water Watch supported the LIE that farmers were responsible for the e-coli food poisonings (It is a slaughter problem- feces on contaminated meat) They pushed the Food Safety Modernization Act that allows the UN/WTO to regulate US farmers.
Because the ‘Trusted” big name NGOs supported the Food Modernization Act and we did not we were called “Hysterical”. You would not believe the closed mindedness (well yes you would) Maude Barlow a “no dog in this fight” Canadian, is a director of both. She was handsomely rewarded for selling the US consumer out with an appointment as New Senior Advisor to the UN President on water issues.
The food borne illness doubled after the USDA/FDA ‘Modernized’ food inspection with the international HACCP regs.
@Gail Combs – I fully understand your reservations. But the truth is you will not get any truth from sources that “some” will believe. We see that daily in the MSM – indeed just recently there was an article here of another paper deciding they knew more than any scientists and the debate is over.
They will slam the source. But you only need to lead them back to the data. That is why they slam the source. They cannot refute the message.
Get a life NTAPM! You are just getting yourself deeper and deeper into backing up
something that is trying to trick folk by presenting a graph that looks like something that it is not.
Why are you trying to back up obvious visual trickery. It weakens your case more, and your case is teetering on the brink already after 17 years of no warming!
People wonder why the era of ’78-’79 is where this chart starts. The simple answer to that is that this is satellite data. Before then, there was no data. So, I have to give John Holdren a break on that point.
The end point is arbitrary because newer data is available and should have been used. Thing is, using newer data would have hurt Holdren’s argument.
Gareth Phillips says: @ February 7, 2014 at 12:25 pm
…. However, I do not think the US government is as black as painted by most of the radical groups across the world…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither did I until I started looking into it a decade ago. Now I KNOW the US government is totally corrupt.
So do a lot of other Americans. Poll: 77% of Americans Concerned about Government Corruption; Majority See it Getting Worse
Rasmussen poll: 7% Think Congress is Doing a Good or Excellent Job
It looks even more foolish relative to the longer temperature record.
http://issuu.com/faykelly-tuncay/docs/salby_lecture/1
Slide 30
Tom J says: @ February 7, 2014 at 12:49 pm
I think there’s an important point that’s being lost in all of this… What is the temp. anomaly for the last 2 months, out of 12, for 1978?
All temp. records for the satellites begin in 1979. The NOAA NCDC analysis uses 1979 as a start date. RSS uses 1979 as well. Why did Holdren show a graph inclusive of 1978?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice catch. They lop off several years of recent data but add in a partial year (a cold year) to lower the starting point.
Sleazy
If you level out the baseline and place the red line where it is supposed to be, the 1978 to
present trend would be nearly as flat as a chest on a female Olympic gymnast!
“People wonder why the era of ’78-’79 is where this chart starts. The simple answer to that is that this is satellite data. Before then, there was no data. So, I have to give John Holdren a break on that point.”
It merely gives him cover. Had that start point been inconvenient, he’s amply shown that he’d have found a different year to begin with.
“Get a life NTAPM!”
If nothing else, he’s demonstrated how hard it is to defend the indefensible.
Last time around, we let people like Holdren off the hook for their belief in Ehrlich’s dismal predictions. Society has suffered greatly because of it. This time we need to make sure these people are run out of science on a rail, preferably covered in hot tar and feathers.
NotTheAussiePhilM says: “So your total criticism of the WH video is .. ..”
No, sorry that I didn’t make it obvious enough for you. My criticism was of you and your defense of that specific detail. (and I will not respond to anything further from you about it because others might accuse me of “feeding the troll”)
I hate to say it. But they are not going about it properly. You simply can’t run a linear trend with a ruler. They are overstating the case. And the case is fine when stated properly.
NTAPhilM-
Some facts.
1-That screen shot is directly from the Holdren video. Why was that chart purposefully chosen, with the data ending BEFORE 2009? If the temps are rising higher and higher, and you want to impress that point upon people, why not choose a chart that SHOWS ever increasing temps past 2009 right up to today?
FACT-Mid tropospheric temps are lower today than they were in 2009….so that wouldn’t have proven their point.
2-Stu (in the video) points out that the trend line starts in 1978, a point where a global cooling trend was just ending.
FACT-If the graphed line started in 1980 and went to 2013 (33 years) there would be pretty close to a zero trend.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Aqua-AMSU-60N-85N-ch-3-5-temps-30-dy-smooth.gif
Selective choice of beginning and ending points can make the trend anything you want it to be.
3- You said: “- as I said above, the human brain deals with perspective all day long, and is very good at processing what it means”
FACT- Any neuroscientist will tell you that the human brain is EASILY fooled by illusions, slight of hand, and angle placement. For example-Click on the “angles” studies at the link below.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/illusions/
The chart with trend line were placed out of the center of the video, behind the speaker, for 3 seconds (according to you).
A-They were not meant to be focused on and properly interpreted or they would have been front and center.
B-The Y axis covers a mere HALF a degree C above and below the 0 “average”. As such, the “trend” shown is less than 0.5 C+.
C-The bright red/hot color of the troposphere around the image of the globe is the same color as the 0C-0.5C+ end of the Y axis (upper half). The brain interprets the color red as hot. The bottom half of the Y axis is blue, which the brain associates with cold. (Ask any artist or paint department employee about “warm colors” vs “cool colors”)
C-the chart was tilted so the end trend line point was higher than the beginning point. The reason doesn’t matter. It’s a fact.
All of these things are common marketing tricks designed to “sell” an idea subliminally…here, the idea is that the globe is warming rapidly and dangerously. But if that was true, they wouldn’t need to use tricks at all.
Don’t know much about climate science, but if that were a chart showing the value of an investment, I’d be kicking myself for not having dumped it years ago.
Day By Day says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:43 am
Am I alone on what “Carbomontanus says: February 7, 2014 at 9:40 am @Anthony Watts & al”? I don’t think I understood one thing he wrote at us (us being the & al).
__________________
(Inviting Carbomontanus to join in)
English isn’t his first language- By some of his sentence structures, etc., I think he is Germanic. He also tries to weave in Latin and odd references to obscurities and thus becomes difficult to understand, but such practice makes a tingle run up his leg.
=====================================================================
Obscurities is an understatement here. I tried to Google “PHAENOMENICALLY” for a definition and only got 4 hits (none of which included a definition).
It would be fun to see someone technically more competent than I superimpose a chart with a horizontal axis and the complete satellite era on top of the Holdren chart.
o_0 The dude with the ruler needs a lesson in statistics. You don’t choose a start date and end date and rule a line between them. Fail.
Techgm-
“The record” used by the chart is the satellite records, which does not go back to 1934.
Gail,
Beck has LONG been an Independent and in the past few years has grown ever more critical of the “Establishment” Republican/GOP side of things. He’s not at all wedded to a “party” anymore, and he’ll take down progressives whether they be Democrats or Republicans or anything else. In fact, he gave a speech last week at the GOP Texas’s Reagan Day Dinner and BLASTED the GOP all over the place. The audience loved it, the GOP leaders…not so much. (He warned them but they invited him anyway).
People will see what they want to see, be they right or left, extreme or moderate. There are those on the left that are just as “convinced” that their position is correct as there are on the right. The ONLY group that will see the truth, no matter where it is, no matter who speaks it, no matter what source it comes from, are those who SEEK THE TRUTH. For people like that, the truth is what matters, not where it came from or what “side” anyone/everyone is on. And for the most part, they aren’t fooled by the propaganda from either side.
Gail Combs says:
Aphan says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:20 am
Gail Combes-
“More reach”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good, glad to hear it. I just hope he is also reaching the independents. (I have no radio or TV, haven’t for years. I hear Glen Beck occasionally on other people’s equipment.)
The problem, which I think Aphan and Phil are missing, is that nobody will listen who isn’t already inclined to do so. People willing to even HEAR a viewpoint different from their own are incredibly rare. I’ve convinced more than a few that I have better information and more knowledge about, for example, AGW, than they’re getting from their ‘trusted sources’, but they still won’t bother to look at any skeptical information source for themselves. Even when they concede those ‘trusted’ sources might be wrong.
Oops – forgot to check ‘notify’
Sean-the “dude with the ruler” didn’t draw the line there. No one does that to high end plasma screens. The people who created the video did that. Not his FAIL.
Just for the fun of it, I turned that image upside down, then turned the graph within its shear upside down as well. So now the zero line is pointing down instead of up while the graph is still upright. I think it didn’t change much on it, actually the angle between the two lines is now bigger. Human brains have great capability of removing perspective distortion.
http://i.imgur.com/4n2izEs.png
If WUWT tilted graphs *down*, graphically, in presentation videos, there would be all hell to pay and a raucous party of snide condemnations about rank dishonesty, yet nobody on the skeptic side would defend such a thing like NotTheAussiePhilM is very much doing. This undeniable double standard is the height of ridiculous hypocricy as we now hear that the human eye can resolve subliminally short suggestions. Then he suggests creating yet another echo chamber orbiter blog play on the WUWT name, already a genre of about a dozen existing blogs where counter arguments remain isolated from skeptical feedback, a very odd and cultish phenomenon that affords true believers daily defense mechanisms against cold hard facts.
TonyG-
I’m not missing that point. I’m trying to express it. And people like that might be rare, but if surveys indicate anything, it’s that people will admit “I don’t know” and that they can and do change their minds all the time.
The problem (in my opinion) is getting people to actually CARE enough about something to actually take the time, and do the work, to obtain an informed viewpoint about it in the first place. I’m resolved to the idea that most never will. 🙂
Aphan –
My mistake, then. Seems we may be more in agreement than I initially thought.
Sparks says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:27 am
The tilt would have been created by the graphics department during production rather than being a deliberate attempt at dishonesty by John Holdren, I personally wouldn’t make a serious point out of that issue (it is funny), the other good points raised are valid though!
——————-
It’s a remarkable coincidence that they tilted it up when they could have just left it untitled or even titled it down. When is it common practice to tilt a 2-D graph? Sure you have to show a 3-D graph in perspective, but 2-D?
Thanks Glenn, for showing this. Thanks A, for pointing it out.
It is so sad to see the willful misleading coming from those who are in power.
This is what the image should be similar to without the tilting and the cherry picked end date
http://oi60.tinypic.com/jzitlg.jpg
Green = original position of their line
Red = actual start and end positions
evanmjones says: @ February 7, 2014 at 2:04 pm
I hate to say it. But they are not going about it properly. You simply can’t run a linear trend with a ruler. They are overstating the case. And the case is fine when stated properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are dealing with people who can not multiply 7 times 9. (I kid you not)
@NotTheAussiePhilM-In your comment above you state that the data is “most likely” UAH or RSS data. I don’t think that’s the case, unless it has been mislabeled, by the White House. You can look at UAH’s data for the mid troposphere, I showed a plot of it above. It looks nothing like the data shown by the White House. And I stated where I think the data actually comes from: I believe it to be NOAA’s STAR dataset, which shows more warming than any other data for the global mid troposphere, and exhibits obvious problems (for example, note the ridiculous looking amount of seasonal noise).
attS says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:17 pm
I deduce that he meant phenomenologically: In terms of, or as regards, phenomena or phenomenology where phenomenology means: The science of phenomena as distinct from that of being (ontology).
Definitions from the OED. The German philosopher Husserl said that the pure and transcendental nature and meaning of phenomena, and hence their real and ultimate significance, can only be apprehended subjectively; the method of reduction, based by Husserl on Descartes’s method, whereby all factual knowledge and reasoned assumptions about the phenomenon as object and the experiencing ‘ego’ are set aside so that pure intuition of the essence of the phenomenon may be rigorously analysed and studied.
Hope that helps, though I suspect not 🙂
Aphan says: @ February 7, 2014 at 2:44 pm
…The problem (in my opinion) is getting people to actually CARE enough about something to actually take the time, and do the work, to obtain an informed viewpoint about it in the first place….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Truer words were never spoken.
If they are not interested in what you have to say you are labeled ‘eccentric’ at best or ‘kook’ or worse.
(P.S. I am glad Beck blasted the GOP they need it! – an interesting link just for you.)
@Gail Combs – KOOKS – Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society. 😉
http://4cornishchoughs.livejournal.com/
Kashua-
“…So now the zero line is pointing down instead of up while the graph is still upright. I think it didn’t change much on it, actually the angle between the two lines is now bigger. Human brains have great capability of removing perspective distortion.”
In the image, the “zero line” is STRAIGHT on the graph itself, and if the graph “is still upright” (perfectly) is would not point up or down. It was only when the show projected that image onto multiple screens (as shown in the video) that they inadvertently realized that the the entire graph AND LINE had been skewed making the right side slightly higher than the left. Our human brains didn’t even SEE that perspective distortion, much less remove it from the initial image.
Your trick DID highlight how cleverly they blended the chart with the background behind it in it’s original form. When switched around, it is CLEAR that the chart does not match up with the bottom of the screen/image and is definitely skewed/warped rather than a straight on, lined up image.
You also CROPPED the image so that the top of the +0.5C (red) line and the blue WH.GOV box are both at the very top of your inset box. In the initial image, they are NOT at the same height.
Human brains are easily fooled with illusions.
Gail, thanks.
The question you have to ask yourself is “Why would/should I care what someone THAT (insert) stubborn, narrow minded, stupid, uneducated, idiotic, agenda driven-thinks of me in the first place?” I give a person’s opinions the exact same weight I give to that persons importance in my life. If it’s someone I respect, admire, trust, and believe in-then I give their opinion greater weight and consideration..but I still don’t accept it blindly. If it’s a stranger or someone who has not earned my respect, admiration, trust or belief, then I examine whatever it is they have said for any reason or logic that might be present in it and toss everything else.
They can, and WILL, label me whatever they choose to. I can’t do a thing about that, so I don’t waste a whole lot of time trying to get them to pick one that’s flattering. 🙂
Read the link Gail. And yes, division is coming. I welcome it.
I worry about America too. When the government literally has to tilt the evidence in its favour to make a nonexistent point.
NTAPM
First you say,
“If you plot the trend to 2008 & 2009, it doesn’t make much different.”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/to:2009/trend
So you admit there is a difference. If both the trend lines in your chart started at the same point on the left side or beginning of the trend line, the difference would look even greater.
“So your total criticism of the WH video is that the graph presented for 3 seconds has a couple of degrees of perspective added, and your brain can’t cope with it?”
And if you rotate it “a couple of degrees”, you’d be adding twice the difference you already acknowledge. The difference in your WfT link is about 1 degree. The trend decreases when it is extended using that data.
I agree with Gail.
“Because the flat no trend for 17 plus years would stick out like a sore thumb when you only have 36 years worth of data and ~50% of it is flat.”
I see that Tamino has tried to do his usual slant on this post.
Don’t bother going there but the link is here.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/q-how-do-you-outdo-anthony-watts/
And typical of Tamino, he uses misdirection showing the 500 mb level of temps from HadAT2 which goes back to 1958.
But he should have used the Channel2 equivalent temperatures here (which is the correct comparison to the chart in question – using radiosondes with data back to 1958). Channel 2 here, which clearly shows a 1977? low point and not much change overall since 1958 – 0.3C? over 55 years or 0.055C per decade versus the climate models which have this level increasing at about 0.25C per decade over this timeframe.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png
Thanks Bill,
Tamino aka Grant Foster, has never understood humor, probably because he lives a humorless life holed up in an apartment in Maine with his cat XKCD style. He’s incapable of laughing at things that are funny, and gets way too serious with his chest beating.
Clearly he doesn’t understand tilting either.
RaiderDingo says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:03 pm
This is what the image should be similar to without the tilting and the cherry picked end date
http://oi60.tinypic.com/jzitlg.jpg
Green = original position of their line
Red = actual start and end positions
_________________________
Thanks!
[Now working. Mod]
They are dealing with people who can not multiply 7 times 9. (I kid you not)
I’ve taught in NYC public schools. I know it.
But we need to win the debate with the ones who actually do know the times table. The rest will follow.
Raider, what would happen if you used available latest data to 2014 rather than 2009?
Pompous Git, Carbowhatthehell is “Latinizing” a number of words in his post in order to make
himself seem smarter than the average bear! I caught this when I read his lengthy screed.
The one thing that was missing in his post was any kind of coherent point.
We know he has a Thesaurus and a penchant for “Latinizing” words, but seems not to
possess a spelling checker, as a number of common words were misspelled.
My Mother instilled in me a passion for reading. In my early teens, I was reading Steinbeck,
the classics, and contemporary works like Catch 22, MASH and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s
Nest. I grew tired of being disappointed at watching a movie after I read the book. My Mom
told me that any time spent reading is never a waste of time. For the first time in my life,
I have come to the realization that my Mother was wrong!
evanmjones says: @ February 7, 2014 at 4:40 pm
…I’ve taught in NYC public schools…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a better man than I. I quit the teaching program (and just got a BS in chemistry) when they shot at a friend who was a student teacher in one of the Chicago schools. All I needed was the student teaching I was supposed to take the next semester.
Leonard, your mother wasn’t wrong. Now you know what “crazy” reads like…and that can be a valuable lesson too. 🙂
Hoping this isn’t too late since this was a morning (here in Chicagoland) post: One other thing I couldn’t help noticing is that the line we were supposed to look at that showed the warming tendency started in winter, when you get the coldest temps of the year, and ended in summer when you get warmer temperatures. Around my neck of the woods, June is always warmer than December. Even if you stretch the line over several decades this will hold true. So, if I put up a chart and have a line that stretches from a cold point in December to a warm point in June a couple of decades later, what would you normally expect to see?
That chart needs some work, I’m thinking. If I had turned that in to my science teacher when I went to high school (the early 1970s just so you know) I would have expected that effort to get a failing grade– maybe with some notes added for extra interest.
I wish to address the issue of the baseline tilt. As I see it, There are only a few possibilities;
Any finished graphic image (JPG, BMP, etc,) would be devoid of layering.
Layering could only exist with Photoshop or other graphic development programs in their
proprietary file format. I am not a graphic arts guy, but there are only a few ways to tilt
the graphics in an otherwise plumb and level screen;
1 Select a layer (Say the baseline,) and rotate it.
2. Or, with a finished file select everything and rotate a few degrees.
In either case, it took a conscious effort to make these changes even if was only to “Add
a 3-D effect.” Nothing can alter the fact that the graph was altered. And it was altered in
a way so as to bolster AGW theory.
Anthony Watts said @ February 7, 2014 at 4:13 pm
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.” ― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Leonard Jones said @ February 7, 2014 at 4:52 pm
Likely the dictionary his spellchecker uses is German, so not much use when typing English.
I rather thought Miloš Forman did an excellent job on Cuckoo’s Nest. It’s impossible to distill much from a book into a movie; there’s far too much information. Forman virtually wrote a new story from a different character’s POV. My favourite Forman film though is The Fireman’s Ball. It was banned for all time in Czechoslovakia, Forman’s home country.
The Pompous Git says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:21 pm
attS says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Obscurities is an understatement here. I tried to Google “PHAENOMENICALLY” for a definition and only got 4 hits (none of which included a definition).
I deduce that he meant phenomenologically: In terms of, or as regards, phenomena or phenomenology where phenomenology means: The science of phenomena as distinct from that of being (ontology).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two of the four references I found appeared to be articles from linguistics journals, so I assume that “PHAENOMENICALLY” is in fact a real word. However, without knowing what it means, judging if he really meant phenomenologically is difficult.
Gail Combs says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:05 am
……..So yes I wish a more ‘neutral’ person had debunked that graph because it would reach a wider audience.
——————————-
It actually reached a very good audience. These are conservatives and we need them to hold the line against the loons. If Beck’s audience gives in to CO2 is pollution all is lost.
cn
MattS said @ February 7, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Phaenomenically may “in fact be a real word” though I’m unsure what that means. It is not in the Oxford English Dictionary, but might one supposes be found in some dictionary somewhere. It’s not in my Chambers or Websters either. The nearest word in the OED is phænocarpous: “Bearing a fruit which has no adhesion with surrounding parts” (Treas. Bot. 1866).
Pompous Git-
I’m just going to start ending all of my emails with:
“Allways keep that in mind and use the sponge..”
🙂
By now, I had hoped that I would be attacked for my tilted baseline post. But there are far too
many issues with the graph;
1. Selective start point. It is significant that the graph starts in 1978. A major national
magazine asked the question “Are we entering a new ice age?” based on the fact that
temperatures were in decline for the 10 years prior to 1980. If the graph had an earlier
start point, the trend line would have (As I said in an earlier post,) been as flat as a female
gymnasts chest.
2. The trend line was manipulated. It went from the bottom of a cooling trend to the
highest point near the end of the sampled data, instead of the end point.
3. Selective end point. All of this adds up to an attempt to manipulate the data to the
extent that what should be a decline in temperature is represented as a rise. If tilting
the 0 point (baseline) a few degrees, were the only issue with this graph, I could dismiss
the other 3 flaws.
This is evidence of a systematic manipulation of data. There may even be other problems
with the graph that I have not even caught!
David L says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm
Sparks says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:27 am
The tilt would have been created by the graphics department during production rather than being a deliberate attempt at dishonesty by John Holdren, I personally wouldn’t make a serious point out of that issue (it is funny), the other good points raised are valid though!
——————-
It’s a remarkable coincidence that they tilted it up when they could have just left it untitled or even titled it down. When is it common practice to tilt a 2-D graph? Sure you have to show a 3-D graph in perspective, but 2-D?
The video is actually in good humor. Elaborating on the original graph, it’s a 2-D graph shown in a 3 dimensional environment for effect, I’m actually astounded more you don’t find it funny that it was pointed out.
H/T Friday funny.
@ Mike M. re being worried that you wouldbe feeding a troll ( NTAPM ), don’t worry he feeds himself rather well. and if he reads this when will you get through your head that it was the WHITE HOUSE that published the graph in the first place??
The tilt was a conscious effort, as were the three other major flaws. This was not a simple mistake. On the contrary, I am amused that such an obvious fraud could be dis-proven by a guy with a straight edge, just as I am amused that Michael Mann (The Jerry Sandusky of climate science) can claim that average global temperatures represented a horizontal
line at the bottom of a graph for thousands of years could form a “Hockey Stick” in the last 30 years.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..:
The problem with my representation is that the upper dot on the right side would be touching the lower dot. Hockey stick my hairy arse! You cannot represent average global temps. over so long a period that would represent even a blip when the rise over 30 years is just under 1degree C.
Leonard- according to the chart trend, the rise in that 30 year period is 0.5 C or less. The line starts at roughly -0.25C and rises to less than +0.25 C. Even less of a blip.
Ahpan says:
You also CROPPED the image so that the top of the +0.5C (red) line and the blue WH.GOV box are both at the very top of your inset box. In the initial image, they are NOT at the same height.
_______________________________________
I did not remove a single pixel out of that image. I only made a preview how the graph would look if the image was organized in vertically reversed manner. The WH box is irrelevant, I just did not care enough to cut it out and place it in bottom right corner so it got processed as if it was part of the graph. The zero line in my version is pointing down at the same angle it is pointing up in the original image. Of course to understand what I did, you would first need to understand how the original image was made.
Another way of looking at the graph is just to look at the overall picture – i.e. inspect it, something also taught at school which seems to been forgotten in the rush for trend lines. Presumably the data points are all anomalies from the 1951 -1980 period.
So what is there to see? Over thirty years, the anomalies have been oscillating at a mere +/- 0.6 degreesC, mostly +/- 0.4C. We’re looking at fractions of a degree either way.
Let’s not overlook the possibility that this graph indicates that nothing odd at all is happening, and that the earth is regulating its temperature perfectly well.
As I asked in an earlier post, where exactly is danger evident in this series of plots?
Sorry Im in a Stats area and create graphs all the time and you know when an axis is tilted. And you would only do that if you were trying to manipulate / exaggerate the data such as in advertising. Which is the problem. Starting with Gore Greenpeace etc they have deliberately used hyperbole for effect. To wake up the masses. The trouble is ultimately they have over-reached and it has proved counter productive. The people have switched off.
@timetochooseagain
– you may well be right
– it was Anthony who first suggested it was probably UAH
– but it doesn’t matter as all the satellite temp series are fairly similar due to the fact they are measuring the same thing (temperature) with the same thing (satellites)
– I’m not sure about the others, but RSS & UAH actually use the same raw satellite data, but have different algorithms for processing the data.
If we assume that UAH is a good example of temp graphs, and if we are happy to use Lower Trop, rather then Mid-Trop we can see that the 35 year trend is up
– and if you move the start & end points by a few years, the trend doesn’t alter much
Also note, we can show a nearly flat trend for 1979-to1998 *and* for 1998-to-2013 on the same graph, and also show a positive trend for the whole 35 year period
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
It just depends on how you pick your start and end points….
😉
“The video is actually in good humor. Elaborating on the original graph, it’s a 2-D graph shown in a 3 dimensional environment for effect, I’m actually astounded more you don’t find it funny that it was pointed out.”
Yes, it was distorted to give a 3D effect. Is that an appropriate was to present data? No.
Applying distorting linear transformations do a graphical presentation of data is clearly not acceptable, however “artistic” the result may be. In view of the blatant deception included in the carefully worded SOTU address “climate change is real and it’s happening now” there is no reason to think this 3D graphics trick increasing of the slope is anything other than another attempt to mislead.
I see that Tamino has tried to do his usual slant on this post.
Don’t bother going there but the link is here.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/q-how-do-you-outdo-anthony-watts/
Grant Foster behaves like a gutless coward. If he had something to say he could come here and do it in the open without being censored instead of hiding behind the censorship he controls on his own site laughably called Open Mind.
Sparks on February 7, 2014 at 7:25 pm
David L says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm
—————
Maybe I’m misunderstood, I do find it funny! And I do think that graph was tilted on purpose to make the trend look “worse than we thought”
Amazing how a straight edge honestly and openly applied can refute a web of confusion, for those with eyes to see. Was that Carbomontanus’ point? Was his an excerpt from Finnigan’s Wake? Or does he post for the record a response to the question that will one day be addressed (pray it be soon) to fully exposed warmunista functionaries .. “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?”
I laughed and laughed. Thanks. Humor is the best medicine.
Glenn Beck’s video? What a crock of misinformation. Some people here are trying to pass it off as humour a bit belatedly, though many people posting here obviously take it seriously. It was embarrassing to watch.
REPLY: No, what’s embarrassing is this sort of snarky dismissive response from people like yourself with fake names and fake email addresses, who can’t understand that tilting a graph gives a visual impression of a greater trend. I find it telling that you are too cowardly to put your opinion with your real name – Anthony
Jammy.Dodger@jupiter.com – Result: Bad
MX record about jupiter.com exists.
Connection succeeded to jupiter.com.p1.mx-route.com SMTP.
220 Postini ESMTP 250 y690_pstn_c2 ready. CA Business and Professions Code Section 17538.45 forbids use of this system for unsolicited electronic mail advertisements.
> HELO verify-email.org
250 Postini says hello back
> MAIL FROM:
=250 Ok
> RCPT TO:
=550 No such user – psmtp
Perhaps it was embarrasing for old Jammy to watch because his only response was an ad hominem attack against the messenger, not the message.
The thing that makes this seem suspicious to me is that the horizontal axis has been tilted but the vertical one, as far as I can tell, has not. Had the whole chart simply been tilted I think viewers would have readily spotted it because the vertical axis would be leaning to the left. The selective skewing of the chart is more subtle.
I don’t think they should have tilted the x-axis, this is deceptive, however I don’t see what the big deal is… they could have stretched the y-axis to make the upward trend look much steeper that what is shown without tilting the x-axis … beside no one is denying there is warming anyway
Err, it’s a perspective rotation – so that’s what it looks like
– the verticals remain parallel, the horizontals converge on the vanishing point – so they are no longer parallel
– many graphics packages used in TV production can do this…
Gail Combs
The Propagandists in the Progressive MSM have done a good trashing of Beck
Much like they have done to AGW Skeptics?
You are allowing one side to control the narrative and control where people get information.
In a comment above you mentioned “neutral” sources of information. I doubt any of the independents you refer to can identify a single source of information that is actually neutral on any policy debates. Instead they are fed a steady stream of left-leaning propaganda from the standard information outlets.
Just caught up with this video. It has given me a opportunity to learn about the wonderful abilities of climate models. As John Holdren say, “Climate models tell us, there are many different factors influencing these patterns”, (of climate or weather, maybe)
Stupid me thought the scientists would be the people to ask not the calculator. Anyway, I understand that the models are continuing to debate what it all means.
That dotted line he points to looks like the least squares linear regression of all the anomalies (via satellite data) going back to 1979, not an axis of the graph tilted upwards. If so, it shows an increase of about one tenth of a degree over thirty years, which is nothing. An increase of only one tenth of a degree over thirty years lends proof to the assertion that the Earth is not warming out of control and that the Warmists are totally hysterical. That’s more damning than tilting a graph a little.
@NotTheAussiePhilM: how many hours have you spent now on this mission complaining that a 4 minute exposure of a 3 second lie was disproportionate?
Wait a minute. President Obama just said in the State of the Union that “climate change” is settled. Would the president lie? I’m SHOCKED!!!
@NotTheAussiePhilM-“you may well be right”
Well we can’t know, can we, since the White House provides no citation, no source. We can only guess.
I base my guess on the assumption that the White House did not mislabel the data.
“it was Anthony who first suggested it was probably UAH”
Yes, and I am almost certain he is wrong
“but it doesn’t matter as all the satellite temp series are fairly similar due to the fact they are measuring the same thing (temperature) with the same thing (satellites)”
Note true. Methodology matters a great deal. STAR has trends in places in the mid troposphere which are twice as large as UAH. And they are clear outliers, too, being higher than all radiosonde datasets, and also higher than RSS. And yet this appears to be the data the White House cited.
“I’m not sure about the others, but RSS & UAH actually use the same raw satellite data, but have different algorithms for processing the data.”
This is mostly true but it really doesn’t have the significance that you think it does. As I said above, it appears they are using a dataset deliberately chosen for it’s extreme, almost certainly erroneous trends.
“If we assume that UAH is a good example of temp graphs, and if we are happy to use Lower Trop, rather then Mid-Trop”
Why are we happy to assume that the White House mislabeled their graph? I’m not.
Hi all,
To those interested, using photo editing software I have corrected the distortion effects and updated the graph using the full UAH dataset (1). I have also extended the red trend-line shown in the White House video and included the trend for the UAH data from WoodforTrees (2) in green.
1. My image
2. Wood for Trees graph
• From this image (1) we can observe that the linear trend presented in the video is actually LOWER than than the 1978-2013 UAH trend as calculated by WtF (2). Thus, the White House could have increased their trend line by using the full data-set.
• The trend for the UAH data (shown in green) is only 1.43 degrees Celsius per century. This is noteworthy in itself as it implies a low climate sensitivity and is under the hallowed 2 degrees warming so feared by the White House. (The red line presented in the original image shows only 1.14 degrees Celsius per century!)
• IMO the distortion applied to the y-axis is not overtly problematic in the perception of the graph, however I also am of the opinion that the creator of the graphic did not have entirely wholesome intentions when skewing it as such. A moot but nefarious point. – in short: shouldn’t have been done but matters little IMO.
• I take more issue with the glowing red planet than with the graph but that’s just me.
Kind regards
Matthew
PS. This is my first post after many years of regular reading. I only post now because I saw much undue negativity, hostility (and bainality) in this comments thread. I’m of a mind that we should all aim to keep WUWT respectful to all.
PPS. Anthony, thanks for simply doing what you do. You have played no small part in my ambitions and aspirations to date and I wish you continued success.
Hi all,
To those interested, using photo editing software I have corrected the distortion effects and updated the graph using the full UAH data set (1). I have also extended the red trend-line shown in the White House video and included the trend for the UAH data from WoodforTrees.com (2) in green.
1. My image
2. Wood for Trees graph
• From this image (1) we can observe that the linear trend presented in the video is actually LOWER than than the 1978-2013 UAH trend as calculated by WtF (2). Thus, the White House could have increased their trend line by using the full data-set.
• The trend for the UAH data (shown in green) is only 1.43 degrees Celsius per century. This is noteworthy in itself as it implies a low climate sensitivity and is under the hallowed 2 degrees warming so feared by the White House. (The red line presented in the original image shows only 1.14 degrees Celsius per century!)
• IMO the distortion applied to the y-axis is not overtly problematic in the perception of the graph, however I also am of the opinion that the creator of the graphic did not have entirely wholesome intentions when skewing it as such. A moot but nefarious point. – in short: shouldn’t have been done but matters little IMO.
• I take more issue with the glowing red planet than with the graph but that’s just me.
Kind regards
Matthew
PS. This is my first post after many years of regular reading. I only post now because I saw much undue negativity, hostility (and banality) in this comments thread. I’m of a mind that we should all aim to keep WUWT respectful to all.
PPS. Anthony, thanks for simply doing what you do. You have played no small part in my ambitions and aspirations to date and I wish you continued success.
Underlying the decades-long dreck-ology of Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber is a savagely reactionary death-wish. “Thanatism” is neither nihilism nor Luddite primitivists’ “nostalgia de la bue”, but an existential “phobia of being”.
Ehrlich in 1968 raised virtual hosannas to the pending extermination of 97% of Earth’s existing population by famine and disease, while Holdren in 1974 famously characterized humanity as “a mass of seething maggots”. Farnish proposes immediate demolition of all post-medieval global infrastructure, lamenting (for example) High Dams as sources of hydro-electric power. Linkola is an explicitly murderous advocate of “culling the bourgeoisie”, Schelllnhuber a ranting communo-fascist ideologue whose New World Order would make North Korea blush.
However this peculiar mindset may originate, its policies are always-and-everywhere the same: Divide-and-rule, something-for-nothing, us-against-them. Churchill had much to say of this mentality, as did T.S. Eliot in “The Wasteland” and Eric Hoffer in his “True Believer.” Anyone who thinks to combat this Wrecking Crew with reasoned argument or sober scientific fact will “light a candle” not of civilized debate but at the Stake.
The reason why the TMT (mid Trop) series is the right one to use is because that is where the polar vortex sits. Here is an appropriate link from NOAA. Geez
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/wobbly-polar-vortex-triggers-extreme-cold-air-outbreak
Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords is learning how to drive again.
Remember, she was a victim of a Beck & Palin fanatic. “Don’t retreat, instead RELOAD”
Your charge linking Beck and Palin to Gifford’s assault is a blatant lie: Her assailant was extremist democrat-anarchist, was an independent crazy fool who strongly opposed both George W Bush and Giffords, but believed in many 9/11 and other anti-republican/anti-Bush government conspiracy theories. He had supported several your democrat causes, but the ADL found no links to any conservative principles or religious beliefs of any form at all.
In any case, your comment is off-topic.
@Ed Mertin 8:07.
Nice smear.
Shame it ain’t true, but whats a good progressive to do?
Smear on, show us all your true character.
Oh my bad, sure, he never saw Glenn’s jack boots or her crosshairs list. Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.
Ed,
You aren’t exactly creating a climate of love or tolerance by making up wild assumptions about total strangers and a paranoid schizophrenic who hated Gabrielle Giffords, and posting them on science thread. I can give you a list of angry, hateful comments made by the left if you’d like. You want to be fed troll….I’ll give you a feast.
@Ed mertin – It is your bad – very bad. You might try education. Such as these:
And that is just this century. For a more complete view, check this one out. http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/10/efficient-gun-control-that-actually-makes-sense
Seems all the crosshairs are being used by liberals.
wws @ here
Sea ice has an annual cycle. Therefore all the posts on whether the trend is declining, advancing or back to normal are meaningless.
The sun has an 11 year cycle. Therefore all the posts on solar trends are meaningless.
Sea level has a seasonal cycle. Therefore all the posts on sea level trends are meaningless.
Etc.
None of that is true, of course. You can determine a trend from data that has periodic or quasi-peridoc fluctuations. This is most clearly seen in the 56 year CO2 data, which has an annual cycle.
If one can’t determine linear trends from cyclical data, then no one could say that Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979.
Ed Mertin says: @ February 8, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords is learning how to drive again.
Remember, she was a victim of a Beck & Palin fanatic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SORRY, YOU are the victim of a lying left-wing fanatic masquerading as a reporter. It is about time you broaden your reading habits and took the blinders off.
Jared Loughner was a liberal socialist, I saw some of his writing. It was actually on a board I sometimes read. However Keith Olbermann, reported less than 15 minutes after Loughner attempted to murder Gifford, (with ZERO FACT CHECKING) that not only was the shooter a rightwing activist, but he was under the direct, personal influence of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
The story was picked up, and quoted as fact by the rest of the media. The lie was too egregious for MSNBC and Olbermann lost his job for LYING! No doubt Olbermann would still have his job and the lie that Loughner was under the influence of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck would still stand, if Loughner’s ramblings had not been unearthed at the board I read and spread all over the internet.
NotTheAussiePhilM,
Very entertaining! Perhaps donning ruby red slippers and clicking your heels together while reciting the incantation will be more effective than the incantation alone.
Ed Mertin says:
February 8, 2014 at 9:10 pm
” Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.”
Except when the violent acts take place by the hands of the Abortionist – am I right, Ed?
Do you have to read and remember you Logic-free ideologue scripts, or are they uploaded directly into your cranial void?
timetochooseagain says: “it appears they are using a dataset deliberately chosen for it’s extreme, almost certainly erroneous trends.”
Only a congenital Dolt would think otherwise, and with great effort.
I quit the teaching program (and just got a BS in chemistry)All I needed was the student teaching I was supposed to take the next semester.
You got me beat, Gail. I have a graduate degree in Occupy Wall Street from an Ivy league university. (But I got better. I proved a bit of a disappointment even at the time.)