40 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Two Guys With A Ruler”

  1. The political warmest position $$$ needs to be reassured that they are still going to receive money they don’t deserve and the people who support it politically need to be reassured that their NIMBY solutions are still gonna give them a political free ride..
    There will be no self regulation in regards to global warming.. Its not possible so don’t expect it..
    Vote them out and keep them out until they smarten up is the only solution worth thinking about.. Cut off their funds to bleed their phony support to make them deal in reality..
    We need a whole new string of laws and regulations to bring these zealots back down to earth.. That or a civil war..
    We are running out of time..

  2. Are these two for real? Draw a line between the starting temperature and the ending temperature, and that’s the trend? Wow. Do they think their audience is that stupid?

  3. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”
    A well known phrase that one of my bosses, a PhD chemist, used to joke about. If you have to mislead and manipulate the data this badly then you’ve pretty much admitted your science is flawed.
    I’ve heard you should always try to find something positive when criticizing someone’s work. Normally, you could at least say that they drew their lines straight as a backhanded compliment but the genius that conjured up this graph couldn’t even manage that. Under the circumstances, the best I can come up with is that, yes, it has warmed since 1978 and the 80s&90s warmed quite quickly.
    Since I’m not a young earth warmer, the surface temperature warming has now paused and surface temps are still arguably cooler than other eras (MWP,RWP) the end of the 20th century warming is not particularly worrying or evidence of imminent catastrophe. The solutions to the not yet proved CAGW, OTOH, have proved to be costly, inefficient and corrupt.
    Bad science, bad politics.

  4. Ian: if you actually listened to them you would have heard them say the 2 end point temperatures were the same…no mention of a trend line.
    Would you care to explain why Holder’s graph ends in 2009 and his trend line ends in 2007…what happened to the last 4-5 years of data?
    Also I believe the satellite record actually starts 1-2 years before this…but it was warmer than this starting point which the settled science won’t allow.

  5. Many years ago (1974, if memory serves), I took a class in graduate school on planning and control for production and inventory. The class included some time on forecasting demand for a product. The professor was quick to note that the fact that your model fit your data well didn’t mean much of anything, because “Of course it fits your data well! You used the data to create your model! The test is whether it predicts well, so, if you’re dealing with time-series data, fit your model to the first half of the data and see whether it predicts the second half.” That sort of thing is a good deal of what’s missing in the modeling done by those who have decided that the earth is warming.

  6. @massspike, why mention the temperatures are the same and connect them with a ruler, then? It’s irrelevant. They could have talked about which trending algorithm was in-use and cast doubt on that, but to just connect the two temperatures and imply there is no upward trend is as shifty as they’re accusing Obama’s climate scientists as being. There are much better ways to make an argument against this graph, as many blogs (and you) have shown. Their ignorance and misrepresentation hurts us all.

  7. Bull.
    Speak for yourself.
    Do not presume to speak for me.
    The blatant dishonesty of said graph, needs ridicule.
    This propaganda prop was chosen by the Whitehouse.
    Flashed up for 3 seconds, on the assumption voters are stupid.
    Sarcasm, mockery and deliberate missinterpretations are all fair reply to lying by public officials.
    For any attempts to correct the misinformation, highlights the lie.
    A more correct response should be prosecution for oath breaking and treason, but we are not impoverished or resentful enough to proceed.
    Yet.

  8. There’s an old calculation in economics called the Spearman Rank Correlation which, based upon selected inputs, would produce a unique result. Change the inputs, change the result. It would appear this AGW data is produced using a computerised version. The old story of asking first what result you want, then choosing the inputs to produce it.

  9. So a lie (deliberate misinterpretation as you put it) is an appropriate response when you’re calling out liars, john? Surely we’re better than that.

  11. So what is the Lefts solution to their claim of manmade global warming anyway?
    Tax’s always taxes, and the western middle class cutting back their standards of living to that of Neanderthal’s living in prefabricated mass public housing units the size of phone booths.
    Only for the first world of course, China, India, Indonesia and Brazil get a pass.
    Yet it’s the very same people that insist on bringing in as much mass immigration from the Third World as they can manage. By the millions.
    If 1 American child leaves the same carbon footprint as a large African village, why would you insist on dragging those Africans out of their little jungle paradise’s to become a ‘piggish American consumer”?

  12. First, I agree with you and it is not a good way to look at that type of graph.
    Second, the ruler guy was speaking off the cuff in my opinion. Not an excuse but an explanation. The graph presented by Holder, OTOH, is a deliberate attempt to produce a graph that manipulated the audience. It was not off the cuff. In fact it probably took some time and copious amounts of “messaging” experts to do what they did.
    If you were grading it then you’d take off marks for questionable arguments from the ruler guys but the government work should be failed for intentional deceitfulness.

  13. It is called using the scam artists language against them.
    A classic example is the rise of lake levels in the spring, an obvious seasonal event.
    However using enviro-speak, I can insist that if the May-June trend, continues all year we will all drown.Perfectly true yet absolute nonsense.
    This is a deliberate misinterpretation, is that a lie?
    Exactly as true and meaningful as the attempts to make linear trend projections of climate from records of cyclic weather system.
    Come June we will be warming like never before,(day x in June 2014) especially as this winter will set a few record cold temperatures.
    Two men with their ruler is as accurate as Holdron’s catastrophic climatisms.
    More so as their observation,for the continent, is true.
    The Whitehouse chose that graph, pretended it supports the claims they made, want to bet how much attention they want to draw to questions over its accuracy?

  14. The 4 obvious elements are;
    Selective start point.
    Selective end point.
    Tilted baseline.
    Trend line ending on a high instead of the end.
    The one that is not so obvious is that if you extend the graph
    by 10 years to the left and to the present on the right, the
    difference between the hottest and coldest temperatures in
    the graph would be just about 1 degree C.
    Message to Michael Mann (the Jerry Sandusky of climate science:)
    Global warming my hairy arse!

  15. you point out the exact reason, and point that the two mischievous lads point out, yet you call them idiots.
    You miss the whole point, due to your diehard leftwing idiotology.
    The two points are that ANY two points on the graph can be used to show a “trendline”, it doesn’t mean its right. The most telling point of the graph are a few items, the x axis is not level (as it is in all graphs), and the data conveniently ends in 2009……does the data past 2009 not match the storytelling (or past 2007 for that matter) of the ideological warmistas?
    As in all longterm graphs, there is no straightline anyways, its usually a trending complex curve, much like a 100 day average on stock or index values.
    I suspect the trendline of temperatures right now is trending down, and that MUST be hidden from the masses, as it doesn’t fit the storyline.
    The whole Global Warming schtick is an ideology, not proven by facts, just half-truths and wishful thinking, with a good dose of command control thrown in.

  16. The AGW crowd should look on the bright side – these two skeptics just did an excellent job of showing that global warming is entirely man-made!
    Granted, not entirely in the manner the administration might have wished, but… hey. You can’t win them all.
    Now we have a solution. To solve the global warming crisis, ban scientists! Or possibly computers. Maybe the graph paper they manipulate the statistics with? Don’t worry, we’ll think of something. You know, for the children.

  18. So let’s get the data missing from the extremities of that graph and publish it for all to see, using the same trend algorithm Obama is using and a few more for good measure. Bang, case closed with no mischief. We all know the data exists, some of us have seen it, so what’s the big deal? Someone must be doing this!

  19. Once you’ve declared without reservation that the Titanic is the safest ship afloat and you’ve climbed aboard for the voyage uou can’t abandon the ship.

  20. Ian, it has been said by Phantom and myself that it ain’t the pollies, it’s the voters you need to worry about. The LIVs need to have it presented in a simple manner for them to understand, and this “ruler” guy does just that. Now quit trying to tell us how smart you are, that’s LAS’ job!!!

  21. Is it colder or warmer than ‘normal’? Here, see for yourself, just click on the links
    Canada/YT/Snag
    http://weatherspark.com/#!graphs;a=Canada/YT/Snag
    USA/ND/Fargo
    http://weatherspark.com/#!graphs;a=USA/ND/Fargo
    The data set is from the 1950s to present, which covers most of the lives of our readers. Over your lifetime has it become warmer or colder than the average of the past 50 years? The shading on the temperature plot shows the range of temperatures historically and their probability.
    Click on ‘more’ on the toolbar, then click on ‘global warming’ Select the data you want to include and see for yourself if it’s been warming or cooling
    You can easily see for your own location. Think for yourself, draw your own conclusions.

  22. Fair, NME666, although I do feel those two could have spread their message without resorting to over-simplifications and theatrics.

  24. Yes. And they would be correct.
    This is basically everybody here. blah blah blah. graph graph graph.
    None of it matters. Nobody here, not one of you (myself included) is even remotely qualified to talk about this stuff. And the few old cranks they might sorta be, probably haven’t worked in the field in decades, or work for the oil industry now, and are incapable of recognizing their own bias.
    Bottom line… every major scientific body on the planet concurs. Climate change is happening, and human activity is a driver. This is enough for us to look for alternative sources of energy, and to leave the oil in the ground. Worse that happens, we spend a few trillion, and we have new sources of energy, and a large amount of oil remaining in the ground for other industrial processes.
    And yes, I’m being glib about a few trillion. You guys were over the Iraq war, and that was a pointless exercise that has cost over $1 T. At least if we spend the money on new tech, it will ultimately drive our economy.

  25. Ian, they are mocking the Warmistas for doing exactly that kind of cherry picking.

  27. John, you never fail to amaze with your arch superiority complex. You’re just so much smarter than the collected wisdom of thousands of mature SDA followers. The science is settled, blah blah.
    The ‘97% of scientists’ schtick has been debunked countless times, so I won’t go into that. But who you gonna believe, “independent scientists” who behave as a pack, all dependent on their grants and fearful of being an outlier in their field – or your lying eyes?
    Yeah sure. Spend a trillion public and largely unaccountable dollars on “new technologies” – Solyndra, anyone? If they were there to be discovered today, companies would be fully invested. I’ll bet that world wide nearly a trillion has already been spent on research and development and the only thing our “best and brightest” have come up with are windmills and solar panels. Both of which are useless in replacing fossil fuel power.
    People like you are typically four square against what does work – nuclear power and hydro – yet demand that we forfeit still more of our tax dollars for carbon taxes and chasing unicorns. Where have you put your money, John? Have you actually invested in any companies researching new forms of energy? C’mon put your money where your mouth is, as that’s the true test of belief and sincerity.
    I don’t believe global temperatures are rising, but if they are, so what? Who’s to say that a particular point in time was the ‘perfect temperature’ for the earth as a whole? What benefits your locale might be worse for another and vice versa. Frankly, I fear my area growing colder much more than any concern of it getting warmer.

  29. ” Do they think their audience is that stupid? ”
    Evidently you just might be, or you watched a different video than the rest of us.
    Cheers,

  31. Think of the plants, John. They are so much happier with healthier CO2 enriched air. And those C4 photoynthesizers are desperately hoping you’re right about global warming.

  33. The video shows us that the whitehouse is full of people that wouldn’t have a chance to get a job with walmart as door greeters, their only way of making a living is to become politicians and scientists and become part of the Predatory government that lives off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity.

  34. The most shocking thing, as is pointed out, is that the whole graph is skewed
    upward on the right; the “base line” is four inches higher at its terminus on the
    right than at its initial point on the left. Nothing left to chance … profoundly
    dishonest.
    As for scientists agreeing, I don’t know any who do take CAGM
    seriously. My physical oceanography colleagues are conspicuously silent. I
    suspect that they would like to believe it, but the scientific malpractice
    of so many people in the “climate studies” field is too evident.
    It is also worth mentioning that most of the “climate scientists” are fourth-rate
    researchers; dim little people who are pleased to be making a big noise. The only
    first-rate person who has written on climate is Freeman Dyson. There are a few
    people of the second rank. The rest ….

  35. The most salient point in this video was the tilted graph. That converts what is a clear decline into an incline. Also, ending the graph at 2009 hides the recent cooling.
    In talking with people about this issue, I’ve found that most haven’t a clue about even the basics. Thus, while I cringe when I see this type of presentation, it’s probably the only thing that most people will understand given the widespread innumeracy in the general population.
    The hockey stick graph fabricated by Mann was thorouly destroyed by Steve McIntyre although unfortunately only a small fraction of the population is able to understand statistics to the degree that Steve McIntyre does. The climate models have been proven wrong and yet the statist narrative continues unabated given the immense investments which have been made in “green” energy which represents trillions of dollars wasted. If the public were to know the full extent of the fraud that has taken place, then there would be politicians and bureaucrats hanging from every elevated place one could hang a rope from.
    Science doesn’t operate by consensus, science operates by the strength of predictions of a theory. CAGW has been proven false as temperatures have failed to rise in accord with the increase in CO2. Climate sensitivity, a bogus measure if there ever was one, is so small that it is overwhelmed by natural cycles. We’re in an interglacial and soon there will be another ice age. Svensmark’s theory on the role of cosmic rays in creating nucleation centers from which clouds form has been verified in experiiments at CERN. These results were dramatically underplayed, but with the less active sun, cosmic ray intensity has increased and the overall cloudiness has increaased. Contrary to the dire predictions of the warmists, clouds don’t cause warmiing — they decrease solar insolation during the day, but they do warm during the night. Clouds are viewed as a positive feedback in the flawed climate models whereas they are primarily a negative feedback.
    If the earth’s climate was so fragile with only positive feedbacks, and no negative feedbacks, then we wouldn’t be here today as such a model atmosphere is incredibly fragile. There are negative feedbacks and the role of CO2 is a very minor one. Having spent hundreds of hours studying the models and data (I started out as a believer in the CO2-warming hypothesis and viewed it as a way of getting most power from nuclear reactors), it’s clear that the warmists are totally deluded. I don’t care if 99% of scientists believe in an incorrect theory – it only takes one scientist whose findings better fit the data to disprove a theory.
    As it currently exists, CAGW (now known as “climate disruption”) is non-disprovable. Thus, it qualifies as a religion, not a scientific theory. The tactics used by its proponents are those of confidence men and con artists. True science stands on its own merits and can be easily verified by independent researchers. As in any fraud, the best advice to find out who’s benefitting is to follow the money.
    Ironically, by wasting trillions of dollars on get rich quick schemes for the politically well connected, the biosphere of the earth is in far worse shape than if that money had instead been spent on environmental conservation efforts that produce results. The orangotang is now in danger of extinction in Indonesia given the massive palm oil plantations that are being used to produce “biofuel”. The use of food for fuel is simply criminal and, besides starving millions of people in the third world, the addition of ethanol to gasoline destroys engines designed to run on pure hydrocarbons and increases the environmental impact when one has to replace them. The worst enemies of the biosphere are watermelons.
    In the future, assuming that we still have an industrial civilization, the current CAGW period will likely be viewed as a classic example of mass hysteria. What it primarily shows is that humans are still governed by primitive emotional responses that are easily exploited by those seeking absolute power for themselves. Gaia is very unhappy with this state of affairs and will likely actively eliminate homo sapiens and try again with another species which might be more logical and less inclined to mass hysteria.

  37. John. Global Warming is a fraud. This is proof. Not consensus. It has been proven that ‘scientists’ who wanted to perpetuate the scam…did just that. No consesus or conspiracy theory required. They got caught creating a scam. If you can’t see that you are lost.

  39. The problem for real science is our ignorance.
    96% of the Universe is made up of Dark Matter & Dark Energy.
    Dark Energy & Matter is the Scientific descriptor of we don’t know shit or give a F&&&, but it must exist to explain our theory. That means scientific knowledge is based on a 4% understanding of the universe and the rest is pure speculation
    It should not be a surprise that a witch doctor Bone-thrower has a greater probability of accurate prediction.
    “Science is more important than to be left to Scientists” Scientific Journalism

  40. “…At least if we spend the money on new tech, it will ultimately drive our economy.”
    Yup. Working well in Ontario. New tech solar panels, new tech windmills.
    Driving the economy alright…right into the *&^$@#g ground.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation