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.
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: @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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.