One of the things that continues to amaze me is how the climate denialist industry doesn't seem to notice how obvious it is when they are misrepresenting the science. A couple of days ago the denialist web site Icecap, which is an aggregator of anti-science "news," posted a brief article consisting only of the graphs I'll talk about below (see October 13, far right column, though the "news" tends to move as new "news" is added). That's all they posted because they simply pulled it from a blog called Popular Technology.net hosted by a handful of computer engineers with no science training.
You'll see on the linked site that they suggest that scientists are "distort[ing] the scale on temperature graphs to exaggerate the mild warming of less than a degree since the end of the little ice age." I have to laugh, because it is the denialist industry that is caught distorting time after time. And not surprisingly, they have this one backwards too.
So this computer jock web site shows the following graphs, which they label "Realist" (i.e., denialists) and "Alarmist" (i.e., actual NASA climate scientists):
Realist:
Alarmist:
The accusation is that the data really show what is in the top graph but the scientists show the bottom graph because it is somehow scarier (and alarmist....boo). In truth, scientists use the bottom graph because it is more accurate and honest to show the correct axes. The top graph is scientifically unsupportable. Let me explain.
In the top graph you can see the scale on the left hand side that shows numbers from 0 to 5 going up and 0 to -5 going down. But the temperature data are only within the -1 to 1 range. So why is all that empty space there? Well, because the denialists want to try to make the 1 degree change seem like it doesn't mean much. It is, in fact, pretty important. But since they are trying to minimize the data, why not have the scale go from 0 to 100? That way you could pretty much hide all the value in the data completely. But it also would have made their attempted sleight-of-hand a little more obvious.
In the bottom graph the scientists use the correct range in their scale on the left, from -0.4 to 0.6. Why is that the correct range? Well, because that is where all the data are found. By using a scale that shows all the intricacies of the data they can see not only the trend in the data, but the internal variability of the data. In this way they can better understand what the data are telling us. Seems pretty logical, eh.
So in an effort to accuse the scientists of being unduly alarmist, the denialists (I'm sorry, "realists") employ deception in an attempt to be unduly dismissive of the value of the data. In short, the denialists completely lose track of the science in their efforts to create an impression that fits their preferred narrative, though in their defense it's clear they don't really understand any of the science anyway. In fact, despite their rather obvious attempt to hide it, the first graph clearly shows that the temperature has been climbing during this period, exactly as the scientists say it did. The second graph also shows that the temperature has been climbing (since it shows exactly the same data), but unlike the denialist version, the scientists' graph provides much more information useful for understanding the variation and trends of the data. Which is why we do graphs in the first place. To understand what is going on with the data.
So here we have a blog picked up by an aggregator, neither of which seems to have anyone who actually understands the first thing about statistics or even such a simple thing as plotting data in a graph. To their faulty graph they add no analysis whatsoever, which fits with the usual denialist tactic of insinuation and innuendo without explanation (largely because they don't understand it enough to explain it, nor would it support their contention anyway). Oh, and the links they provide as supposed sources don't actually link to the graphs they show. Shocker!
The bottom line is that the denialist industry is incredibly transparent in its attempts to distort the science. They start with a predetermined conclusion - one degree change isn't important - and try to make the graph emphasize this conclusion. But doing so ignores not only basic scientific principles but all the important data that the proper graph allows to be seen. Of course, that lack of scientific understanding or logic doesn't seem to bother the denialist wannabes, who simply pass these bizarre attempts at mental sleight-of-hand around amongst themselves without any clue how it demonstrates their lack of critical thinking or veracity.
© David K, October 2010
Note that this article is archived in a group called "Exposing Climate Denialism - A Guide to Tactics and Tall Tales," located at climatelies.gather.com.Â
For those interested in knowing the truth about climate change, please check out my group The Truth About Global Warming at climatetruth.gather.com.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 51
The shortness in time frame is definitely important, but then so is the fact that we understand why it is happening and can do something about it. This isn't just someone standing outside with a thermometer and guessing as to why it's getting warmer. We know why. Because there has been an incredibly amount of research that has been done for figure it out.
Keep up the good work David.
Also with: Not Gathering Dust
The thing that gets me about the graphs is that in trying to make one point they demonstrate unequivocally just how little they understand what they are saying. Either that or they demonstrate unequivocally just how much they don't care whether what they are saying is accurate or meaningful, as long as it convinces the followers who clearly don't understand it and clearly don't care to understand it. All it needs to do is sound sciencey fit into their predetermined narrative.
Ah, but David, you see, that is the problem -- it is logical, and that is a tool they, the denialists, haven't learned as yet. BTW, have you noticed the high correlation between the denialists and the Obama bashers?
Good post.
There does seem to be a correlation. It seems that one party has decided that their base voters prefer not to take responsibility for our actions and thus have all declared their denial of the science for political expediency. Even John McCain, who as late as 2008 was an advocate for taking action and being responsible, has now declared his denial just because he was challenged by the far right reactionary wing of his party in the primaries.
And that is why this election is so dangerous to our future.
For scientists, it's all about gaining more information and more knowledge. Unfortunately, for denialists it is all about disinforming the public.
It's very cynical.
Or you can read these to find out why the temperature increase is such a big deal.
No one is panicking. We are, however, taking responsibility for our actions while others irresponsibly deny all the science simply because they don't want to have to deal with it.
But even in the top graph, people can still see the up trend. They really should have made it -100 to 100, thus create a total junk graph.
But graphs are not to be used to mislead the viewer, they are to be used to inform the viewer. The denialists accuse NASA of choosing the axes just to "be scary," but in reality it is the denialists who have intentionally chosen the scale to hide as much of the valuable information in the data as they can.
Sorry for the statistical talk. :)
And since we show no signs of taking any action to even hold emissions where they are now, never mind reduce them, and you figure in the feedbacks that we are only now beginning to understand (most of which are "positive" feedbacks), it's highly likely the slope of the temperature lines are going be getting steeper.
But it also demonstrates another point - that they start with the conclusion and then cherry pick the data or manipulate the graphs solely to try to support their predefined conclusion.
In this case, and since they clearly don't understand the science, they decided that the temperature rise was not important because, well mostly because they have to in order to deny the science and avoid taking responsibility for our actions. So they carefully selected a graph and a y-axis scale to give the impression that they want to see instead of selecting the proper axis to best communicate all of the value in the data.
What amazes me is that they aren't looking at the science at all, but rather tilting at windmills. And apparently so enthralled with their own self-perceived cleverness that they fail to see just how transparent their deceit and denial has become.
Another factor is the width of the charts. The narrower they are, the steeper it looks. The second chart seems narrower than the first.
It seems both sides are doing the same thing.
It’s hard to present the data without some subjective influence. (I could find a smooth glass mirror and call it bumpy by zooming in on it with a microscope and amplifying the bumps on a graph).
The question, which both sides should focus on, is how many degrees of change is important.
Ah, but they aren't. And here's why. It comes down to intent.
In the top graph the intent is to minimize as much of the data as possible specifically to create an impression that meets with their predetermined conclusion - that the 1 degree rise is unimportant. So they create a scale that is totally unsupported by any scientific principles. It would be like taking a photograph of someone way in the distance such as their head looks tiny on the horizon, and saying that it proves that people's heads aren't really that big. They would have used an even larger scale if they could have gotten away with it, but they purposely selected a scale that would minimize the value of the data but still show a hint of the increase. After all, they have to admit there is an increase because that's what the data show.
The bottom graph, on the other hand, plots the scale accurately in order to maximize the value of the data. It isn't done to suggest the increase is big, it's done because it is scientifically appropriate to show the data within a scale that covers the upper and lower boundaries. So the bottom graph shows that there was less than 1 degree rise over that time. Exactly what the top graph shows and on which both concur. But look at all the other value the bottom graph shows. We can see all the annual variation (well, we could actually see it better on the actual NASA graph; I should have pointed out that the graph shown in the denialist blog simplified the line and botched the left hand scale to suggest absolute temperature instead of temperature anomaly...which just proves the bloggers didn't understand what they were looking at).
Besides the annual variation, we can also see in the bottom graph the shorter-term trends. So we can look at the 10 or 20 year ups and downs and then go back and look at conditions during those periods. So was x year a little cooler and we had a big volcano that year? Well, that gives us tons of information on how volcanoes effect temperature. So the period between 1945 and mid 1970s looked kind of like it was cooling a bit? Well, we can look at what was happening during that time and learn more about how aerosols (which have a net cooling effect) masked the warming effect of CO2, not to mention what happened after we dealt with the excess aerosols (which came mostly from pollution that was causing killer smogs and burning rivers). Same for all the twists and turns in the data during the entire period of time covered by the graph (which is the period of reliable instrumental measurements).
So the top intentionally tries to minimize the value of the data (to "prove their point") while the second intentionally tries to maximize the value of the data (to "learn as much as they can from the data").
The question, which both sides should focus on, is how many degrees of change is important.
I agree. Which is why the bottom graph is so critical and scientific while the top graph is propaganda. As I said, the bottom graph tells us a lot. We can learn incredible things from the ups and downs of the graph in conjunction with all the other empirical data out there. And the sum total of all of that information gives us an idea of the sensitivity of the climate to various inputs - CO2, methane, the occasional volcano, El Ninos, etc. And from that we can evaluate how important the 1 degree change we've seen is. And it turns out that all of that information teaches us that with our current contributions to the various forcings (in particular GHGs), plus all the positive (i.e., reinforcing) feedbacks that we are better understanding every day, has already set us up for another increase of 1 degree in the not too distant future. And with no action taken to deal with it, we're looking at 3 or 4 degrees by the end of the century. And that is a very big deal.
Think of it this way. With what we know now, we are like the guys giving a push to a soapbox derby car at the top of the hill. The car starts off slow but gains momentum going down the hill until it's racing pretty fast. But in the case of the climate we are not only raising the height of the hill but have rigged the car with a jet pack. What all that data tell us is that the climate changes we've seen so far are just going to speed up in rate and magnitude.
Keep in mind that the IPCC reports and most other data presented by scientists are most often considered to be underestimates of the problem. Not only are they not "alarmist," but they in fact don't stress the urgency as much as the data usually support. Scientists are inherently conservative.
This is one of the most detrimental effects of our lack of scientific knowledge in the general citizenry. It is alarming to me that so many people know so little about science, so little about the 'rules' as you state. What happens is that they do not have the knowledge to make these critical judgements when data is given to them, even in such a blatantly bogus format. They do not have the basis of even the most fundamental knowledge on which to base critical thought. They simply accept whatever is provided as 'truth' because they do not have the tools to discern fact from fraud, and also because they have learned to accept anything that comes along that aligns with their particular ideology without question.
This is the greatest danger of a faith-based society: accepting what is given you by the leaders and 'powers that be' without question. Questionning is the very basis of science. It is one of the most valuable lessons we can learn from studying science: how to question the information in the world around us intelligently and be able to weigh the data provided with intelligence and discretion.
The very notion that there ever was a meaningful "consensus" about global warming, is a myth, plain and simple. Here is a portion of an April 2010 paper written by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and prominent participant in the IPCC itself;
"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
You gonna deny what that insider and scientific expert tells us, David? ; )
I don't have to. Mike Hulme came out soon after the partial quote was first used to misrepresent his words:
"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."
Hulme goes on to complain how the denialist industry has completely distorted his entire meaning into the opposite of what he said.
Which you know, because I have already provided to you and others a long explanation of exactly how the denialist industry intentionally misrepresented what Hulme said, and how Hulme set the record straight. When I have time I'll repost the entire lengthy explanation again.
What amazes me is that even after Hulme himself has complained how denialists have completely distorted what he said, even after you have seen Hulme's rebuttal, and even after you know what you are cut-and-pasting into your comment is false, you still choose to do it anyway.
Why on earth would you choose to post what you know has already been shown to be false?
Seriously, why just paste the same misrepresented partial quote that has already been debunked by the guy who was misquoted?
:) People who have any knowledge of science, or reading charts for that matter, would realize right off the bat that the first graph is meant to obfuscate the data and make the observer believe in something other than reality.
There is so much evidence to support the fact that we are headed down a dangerous (and exponentially accelerating) path of warming. And that our ever-increasing gas emissions are a major contributor. People who try to argue to the opposite should at least have the dignity to educate themselves in science, and marketing apparently.
Agreed. It's not rocket science. If all your data are squished into 1/10th of the chart scale you really have to wonder what they are trying to hide.
There is so much evidence to support the fact that we are headed down a dangerous (and exponentially accelerating) path of warming.
Agreed, the empirical evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt.
People who try to argue to the opposite should at least have the dignity to educate themselves in science, and marketing apparently.
Aye, there's the rub. They don't want to be educated. Then they would have to take responsibility. And that they do not want to do.
It's really rather embarrassing to see people present such graphs, but then it does demonstrate unequivocally the lack of credibility of anyone who does.
I'm not comparing the stock market to climate change - just the way the data is presented.
It's simply amazing.
In other words, the quality of work you do brings me back to Gather. Thank you so very much for what you do.