Unlike yourself he's been here since the beginning of the debate, and he knows what you don't. If you view facts from a skewed perspective the statement "there's been no warming since 1998" becomes true. This is problematic, not because it has any real significance to climate science, but because it complicates the Gorons ability to BS. It reveals what a Bullshit misrepresentation of facts looks like. They can't have that.

For example. Ever since I've been following this argument I've noticed this graph which sooner, or later gets posted. I've seen it here as recently as a few weeks ago. It shows a marked upward trend to 2001, then stops. To the mind's eye it speaks of a continuous upward trend to catastrophic levels.

(Incidentally what you guys keep calling "my graph" is in fact a time extension of the 2001 bullshit graph I just mentioned and comes from a link by Zipperfish, not from me. It's his graph. I've said that three times now.)

I've always wondered why that graph ends at 2001 in it's original form. Now I know if they continued the mind's eye of the average, uninitiated viewer would get a different impression. He'd see the little flattening tick at the end. It's just not the same emotional message. That tick matters not for it's scientific significance, but because the viewer doesn't get the same emotional message.

* It uses selective data.

As I understand it, it averages anomalies to display a more or less smooth line progressing steadily upwards and displaying a dramatic spike to 2001 from the 80s, after which (in the mind's eye at least it continues rising.

* It cherry picks an anomaly and starts from that time period.

As I recall the bullshit graph starts around the mid-1800s. Curiously enough that's about the same time we were coming out of the little ice age. So what the graph really shows is a warming after a cold era. But they don't tell you that when they post it, of course.

* El Ninos Matter.

Here's an assertion from Wikipedia about El Ninos.



So what does that say about the dramatic rise seen on the graph from the mid-80s to 2001. We concede the 1998 anomaly was most likely El Nino forced. El Nino's matters. Did they cause the more noticeable rise from the mid-80s. Who really knows. But it doesn't present the possibility of a natural forcing, from if not El Nino perhaps other factors. They're a natural factor. And we've seen how such factors can affect the climate record from the 1998 anomaly. In other words accounting for the rise seen on the bullshit graph does not necessarily have to rely on an explanation of C02 forced global warming.

* Twenty years is not a sufficient amount of time to signify a trend.

Real simple. If ten years is not enough, then why is twenty from 80ish to 2000ish?

No takers on Oct 30, 1938?

sasquatch2 wrote:

Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

Blue_Nose Posted:


Dance sucker dance!

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Little soundbites like "there's been no warming since..." and "the hottest year this century was..." may interest the political advocates of this issue, but neither have any real scientific significance.

Again, that may be the case for Joe Burgerflipper off the street. It's quite evident to anyone who seriously examines that set of data that there's no trend year to year, as you're trying to suggest occurs in the last few available pieces of data.

Well, since you put it so nicely...

I'll do that. Now that you're able to admit the 1998 anomaly exists I'll show you why it matters, and why Zip has been calling black white, attempting to misdirect the conversation and refusing to admit it does exist.

Unlike yourself he's been here since the beginning of the debate, and he knows what you don't. If you view facts from a skewed perspective the statement "there's been no warming since 1998" becomes true. This is problematic, not because it has any real significance to climate science, but because it complicates the Gorons ability to BS. It reveals what a Bullshit misrepresentation of facts looks like. They can't have that.

For example. Ever since I've been following this argument I've noticed this graph which sooner, or later gets posted. I've seen it here as recently as a few weeks ago. It shows a marked upward trend to 2001, then stops. To the mind's eye it speaks of a continuous upward trend to catastrophic levels.

(Incidentally what you guys keep calling "my graph" is in fact a time extension of the 2001 bullshit graph I just mentioned and comes from a link by Zipperfish, not from me. It's his graph. I've said that three times now.)

I've always wondered why that graph ends at 2001 in it's original form. Now I know why. If they continued the graph to 2006 the mind's eye of the average, uninitiated viewer would get a different impression. He'd see the little flattening tick at the end. It's just not the same emotional message. That tick matters not for it's scientific significance, but because the viewer doesn't get the same emotional message.

OK. So why is the statement "no warming since 1998" bullshit. The warmer's critique of it is valid. Here's what they say.

* It uses selective data.

* It cherry picks an anomaly and starts from that year.

* El Nino matters and can be seen as the cause of the temperature rise to the 1998 peak.

* Ten years is not a sufficient amount of time to signify a trend.

Now let's go back to the Warmer's graph. What I now refer to as simply the "Bullshit graph"

* It uses selective data.

As I understand it, it averages anomalies to display a more or less smooth line progressing steadily upwards and displaying a dramatic spike to 2001 from the 80s, after which (in the mind's eye at least it continues rising.

* It cherry picks an anomaly and starts from that time period.

As I recall the bullshit graph starts around the 1800s somewhere. Curiously enough that's about the same time we were coming out of the little ice age. So what the graph really shows is a warming after a cold era. But they don't tell you that when they post it, of course.

* El Ninos Matter.

Here's an assertion from Wikipedia about El Ninos.



So what does that say about the dramatic rise seen on the graph from the mid-80s to 2001. We concede the 1998 anomaly was most likely El Nino forced. El Nino's matters. Did they cause the more noticeable rise from the mid-80s. Who really knows. But it does present the possibility of a natural forcing, from if not El Nino perhaps other factors. They're a natural factor. And we've seen how such factors can affect the climate record from the 1998 anomaly. In other words accounting for the rise seen on the bullshit graph does not necessarily have to rely on an explanation of C02 forced global warming. In fact I've heard it said if you account for El Nino warming and Volcanic cooling there's been no warming since 1979.

* Twenty years is not a sufficient amount of time to signify a trend.

Real simple. If ten years is not enough, then why is twenty from 80ish to 2000ish?

So basically here's my point. Saying there's been no warming since 1998 is true. It's also a bullshit misrepresentation by selected facts. Selecting a time period of warming beginning as we come out of the little ice age, is also bullshit. Neither of these selected facts have significance in themselves to the science of climate change as regards possible human causes. Stressing either is pure out and out bullshit. It's just a tricky way of manipulating public opinion with a quick selected picture, or choice of phrasing, and the next time someone tries it with the "bullshit graph", or any other method they'll hear me telling them there's been no warming since 1998.

Yeah! It really smarts when your heretics develope clever soundbites doesn't----that's politics----CO2AGW is politics/propaganda not science so it is very appropriate.

It is evident to anyone who seriously examines this "graph" that data is misrepresented to demonstrate a trend when the opposite trend is obvious....to anyone who carefully examines the graph.

Face it, samsquanch, you're a stupid old trucker who knows nothing about science. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

Actually the termination of the black line at the temperature peak of the 1998 anomoly when the other data continues and demonstrates a dropping/leveling is proof enough.

[
Saying there's been no warming since 1998 is true.