By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Commenters on my recent posting about using graphics as effectively as the Forces of Darkness do, but to use them to tell the truth, said they would like a smarter version of the 99.5% no-consensus pie-chart in that posting.
My large and able staff have burned the midnight o. The hi-res image below is the result. Attach it to every email. Send it to every news medium. Mail it to the White House. Make buttons out of it and wear them. Time to send the F. of D. sniveling into their noisome lairs.
Ø Legates, D.R., Soon, W. W-H., Briggs, W.M., and Monckton of Brenchley, C.W., (2013), Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change, Sci. & Educ., DOI:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.
I agree with most here. The graphic is confusing, but the intended message is even more confusing.
Something far simpler is needed, along the lines of “99.5% find mankind innocent” or “Innocent: 99.5%; Guilty: 00.5%. Spread the message first, then make the button.
For example, if you see a button with a toasting earth on it and simply the number 97%, you would know what it meant because the message is out there.
The background on the one proposed here could be a paradise setting, for example, or any other graphic that suggested lack of concern, peace, etc.
If someone made a button that simply said “Rush: 99.7% Accurate” with a picture of a golden microphone every Rush Limbaugh listener on the planet would know what the reference was. A similar reference in this case could be, for instance, “Man: 99.5% Innocent” with a picture of a lush earth for a background.
That should be the goal here too. First build the case, spread the word, then design the button/logo. It should prompt awareness, and/or a discussion of the facts; it should not attempt to explain, as the one here does.
The 9s look like 8s at first glance.
Too many words, Chris, on the badge.
Me, I’m a ‘swatter’: “So What!” – on the principle that what ever rise in warming is being predicted (Hah!!) is very much to be preferred to any fall in warming (ie: COLD) that is (ignoring models) on the cards.
“Brevity is the essence of wit”
Lot’s of wit and wisdom in this long video.
richard says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:55 am
would love
A 99.5% Consensus of 11,944 climate papers find no evidence of man made global warming.
throw the word back at them.
——————————————————————————
+1
I had no trouble with the 9’s or the pie chart but it required a few seconds to decipher because of the intervening 0.5% message. I’d say it would be confusing for the lay person who don’t necessarily understand pie charts.
My version of a summary graphic has a few more words, but I think more clearly defines a position of many on here which is not clearly understood by the general public. This isn’t perfect, and doesn’t include the play on “97%, but this is generally how I need to start discussions with coworkers to get their attention. http://postimg.org/image/h6rthuair/
Do you have a link to a pdf of the Legates, et. al. (2013) paper?
CAGW.
An INTELLIGENCE Test.
You FAILED
Thats the version for future use, on the fools and bandits currently warming desks inside our bureaucries.
bureaucracies.
eve,
maybe one day, in the meantime where oil is used
http://www-tc.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf
somebody should have just asked. Graphics, that’s my thing 🙂
@Rod Everson
…A similar reference in this case could be, for instance, “Man: 99.5% Innocent” with a picture of a lush earth for a background…
I would prefer a picture of cell bars, with the wording:
“Mann: 99.7% Guilty”
The video that Chris B posted.
Is Dope!
I just agree with it 97%.
I still like Banana’s.
That doesn’t seem a very useful statistic. How many of the papers even address the question?
I think I have better design. Just much simpler.
http://imgur.com/eXsgp5p
http://s30.postimg.org/ujegujwo1/simple.png
Thanks.
Yes, bad typeface.
B&W would be better for most people. (Big Oil has not sent me money to buy a colour laser printer, yet. :-P)
I’m sorry Lord Christopher – we don’t need you as the the clown prince we need you as the Laudable Lord. – cheap graphics don’t cut it – precise statements backed up by credible references do.
I think it would be more effective to cite the
Only 60 (.5%) out of 11,944 scientific climate papers in the last 21 years said ‘most’ global warming since 1950 is man-made.
That would serve as a good conversation starter as most people are totally unaware that this is a fact.
If it won’t work as a highway billboard it will not work as a message on a button or a tee shirt. You are given less than 2 seconds to get the message; any more than that and it is a wasted message. Start over with a more apropos staff.
Although clever, I never did notice the pie chart until I read about it in the comments.
That’s sure is a cluttered graphics job. Did they have to use every graphics gimmick?
it should be a forest of trees in chorus shouting , “thank you to the 99.5% of climate papers that say our food is safe”
Strap lIne, ” don”t be mean, feed a forest, create co2″
Doesn’t work for me, I’m afraid.
IMO, it would be more effective if you stated the actual number. ie :
“11884 of 11944 of scientific papers issued in the 21 years 1991-2011 did not say that most global warming since 1950 was man made.”
Congratulations on your first peer reviewed publication.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
Bosh.
The “Did Not” needs to be in a larger point so that it stands out more. It’s not clear at first whether the 99.5% means they did or didn’t because those words are not emphasized. (just my two cents it’s just not clear at a quick look which is all it will get as a bumper sticker or button or even on an email. It’s too wordy. Over thought.
Should just say: 99.5 % (at the top as it is)
Then repeat the 11,944 Scientific papers
DID NOT . . . .
Leave the .5% slice unexplained.
KISS
needs brevity to make a bigger impact.
Appreciated, but not my style.
Perhaps, the thin wedge on the right should be non-yellow because it now appears topologically part of the background and not part of the circle.
—–
This does not follow, but:
I have this image of a bunch of chickens running around cackling “The sky is falling” with each wearing a tiny hat saying “Global Warming” with a name under it (Gore, Hansen, Mann, and so on). In about 4 or 5 frames of a cartoon an increasing snow falls and accumulates, eventually burying these cAGW critters.