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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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)