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.
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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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….
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisuglyAnthony 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 @ur momisugly 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 🙂
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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…