Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics

11/26/201512 Comments

Don’t you hate when Fox News and the other MSM spin-meisters use simple tricks to skew and misrepresent data and statistics? How about when the World Meteorological Organization does it? Or NASA? Or the Journal of Climate? Or GISS? Join James for today’s thought for the day as he shows you some of the grade school level parlour tricks the global warming alarmists use to misrepresent their data and bamboozle the public.

SHOW NOTES:
The statisticians at Fox News use classic and novel graphical techniques to lead with data

You can’t deny global warming after seeing this graph

Lying with Charts – Global Warming Graph

A History Of Dishonest Fox Charts

WMO Climate Status 1999

Black Tuesday of Climate Science

The Yamal implosion

YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World

Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Rocco says:

    Very good video, James.

    Note on the Ezra Klein graph, they are also truncating the X-axis. By starting with the year 1881 and excluding earlier years where they also have data*, they create a graph showing a clear upward trend. Adding in earlier years however, would create a U-shaped trend line, which gives the reader a very different message.
    *Of course, we know such data is often unreliable.

    On the color graphs, another deception is that the scale is not balanced. Notice that the reddest color is +0.5 degrees, while the bluest is -1.0 degrees. Logically, you would run the scale from -1.0 to 1.0.

    • oregonstu says:

      Note that, on any graph, both the X and Y axis must be truncated SOMEWHERE. Moving the X axis back even further, and it looks like an “N”. Further back yet, it looks like a “W”… although you will note that the GENERAL TREND since the beginning of the industrial revolution is for the left side of the letter to be lower than the right side.

  2. oregonstu says:

    How about Lies, Damned Lies, and Koch Brothers funded Libertarian corporate deep state fake science global warming statistics?

    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

    • phreedomphile says:

      The Kochs are globalists, faux Libertarians, going back to their father co-opting the John Birch Society. Despite long ago JBS members having known the intricacies of the world government agenda none of the billionaire brothers used their fortune to educate Americans on this globalist Holy Grail of plans.

      David Koch was a board member of the Earthwatch Institute, described by some as a sustainability Agenda-21 promoting organization, he is currently a board member of the uber-globalist Aspen Institute formerly headed by Club of Rome and UN superwonk Maurice Strong, and an the board of Trustees of Rockefeller University. William Koch has been known at times to donate millions more to Democrats than Republicans. While they work both sides, their outward mask is the antithesis of the Rockefellers.

      American plutocrat dynasties are known for having family members pull the strings from both sides. It the dialectic, it never goes away it just gets slicker with each generation.

      Part of the strategy of the Kochs as “fossil fuel polluter oilgarchs” funding AGW skeptic groups is they can set up the necessary strawman entity for litigation intended to silence critics. This is already being put into motion using the model of the Tobacco lawsuits as precedent to go after any person or group publicly critical of the “accepted science”. It’s an escalation of the attack on free speech against skeptics of the Establishment including threats of fines, jailing, and termination of employment (e.g. the French meteorologist). I view it on par with General Wesley Clark suggesting disloyal Americans (thought crime critics of the global war on terror) should be sent to internment camps.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Thanks for the tip, LibertyLover!… I’d looked into Maurice Strong some time back but I know nothing about the Koch brothers. Must pursue that!

        p.s.: I’m somewhat confused as to why folks can understand the art of funding, controlling and profiting from both sides of something when it comes to business and war

        but have trouble grasping the concept when it comes to “climate”…??

  3. Myers says:

    Again, if the stats are being manipulated mainly by the ‘climate change alarmists’ why do the Koch brothers (and others) feel the need to spend tens of millions on fudging their own psywar? If the facts speak for themselves, why haven’t those forces that allegedly have created a false hysteria also suppressed the forces that seek to damp down that hysteria and thereby de-rail the plan ?

    It makes no sense.

    You cite Fox as a classic exemplar of a disinformation service, yet it is they who are the prime network for voicing doubts about climate science. Why?

    • phreedomphile says:

      If FOX didn’t provide an outlet for climate skepticism in the “conservative” camp, then many in that group would bolt from the mainstream media. Some would settle into controlled op alt media and a subset, finding that lacking or distasteful, would likely migrate to fairly good alternative media sources and start thinking for themselves. TPTB don’t want more serfs to fully awaken.

      • Myers says:

        That is a coherent reply.

        If I understand you right, the widespread coverage of climate skepticism in right-leaning mass media outlets is a kind of containment exercise; smoke and mirrors to keep the inquiring minds of the Conservatives ‘on the path’ and suckling from the propaganda teat.

        My first thought is that that is quite elaborate. I am familiar with the misapplication of ‘Occam’s Razor’ from those who defend the official 911 narrative (when they claim that insider involvement would have been complex, therefore consideration of such should be rejected per se), however, the two issues are quite different in scope and in terms of the practicalities of information control. It is hard for me to see how a double deception could work unless part of a meta-conspiracy, a power network that is all encompassing.

        My second thought is that I still do not understand the role of Exxon’s own research that supports the notion that there was/is significant risk in exploiting carbon fuels for our energy sources that is in the news at present. Why was this suppressed for thirty years ? Is it all part of a longterm plan as well ? The fact that it ties into the known wide scale employment of proven track record disinformation agents and front groups, is all that part of some double bluff, another part of a meta-conspiracy to hoodwink and confuse?

        I know that these are not arguments relating directly to one side or other of the scientific dispute, but to be honest, that is a very complex subject area. I thought about just approaching it from a ‘reasonable doubt perspective’ – that it seemed congruous that religiously committed conservatives who hold a faith position that “only God can change the weather”, and who are tied up financially in the fossil fuel industries, are also the ones who are most vocal and determined to be ‘skeptical’ about climate science – even if this means spending huge sums of money on psyops, media and propaganda….
        Qui Bono?

  4. Eetu.Karioja says:

    Thank you James!

    Here is a very informative video on the topic of climate change by Ben Davidson:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU

    Have a good day!

  5. candideschmyles says:

    Lmao! If we manipulate these manipulated graphs then they support what we believe!! That’s genius!! No…. Wait…. It’s sophistry.

  6. BennyB says:

    James,

    This has to be the best presentation I’ve seen to date on this information. Once again, you’ve done a great job clearly, comprehensively, and concisely demonstrating the inherent flaws in the statistical models which have been used in grossly misleading ways. Hats off on this one my friend. I sincerely appreciate it and it’s something I’m making a mental note of for future reference.

    I’ve begun to formulate a concept for presenting a counter argument for why those who legitimately care about the environment need to move away from the “warming” narrative and why it’s necessary to abandon any investment of hope, time, or energy into something like these “climate summits” and refocus efforts elsewhere. On top of that I see how an effective argument on this topic could become a valuable analogy which could be applied to abandoning a comparable investment of hope, time, and energy in the political process as it currently exists (at least in the United States).

    I’ve presented some of my ideas on the climate change topic here already, but I feel like I have a more comprehensive idea for presenting a compelling argument, at least to those who are concerned about climate change based on the IPCC hype.

    I know this statement here is relatively vague, but these are ideas I intend to flesh out more comprehensively moving forward. I don’t have the time at the moment to present an initial sketch of these ideas here, but I’ll come back to the topic for sure and share them here and perhaps at Boiling Frogs to further hash out and hopefully refine this “concept” into something which can have an impact on shifting conversations where the opportunity presents itself.

    There’s nothing particularly groundbreaking in what I have to say and, as mentioned, I’ve probably more or less stated so much already. However, I’m a believer in the concept that the fine points of how an argument is presented can go a long way in pushing a conversation in a more proactive direction. Particularly when it comes to arguments or concepts which challenge deeply held beliefs or adherence to “official narratives”. To me, that’s one of the most valuable aspects of your work. It’s fine to vent within the company of those who understand the nature of your frustrations in ways which others can’t, but if this is where the conversation ends, the time and energy invested in covering, uncovering, and analyzing topics which (let’s be honest) typically aren’t exactly the most uplifting, becomes a matter of questionable value (at least imo). I think your emphasis on “solutions” is reflection that you see the matter on similar terms.

    That’s all for the moment, but I just wanted to say kudos on this video and thanks for continuing with the great work you do here =]

    ~Benny

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top