5 ms·

I find data that chooses 1880 to be extremely counter productive. This [1] is an image of longterm temperature estimations from NASA. When somebody sees this th

I find data that chooses 1880 to be extremely counter productive. This [1] is an image of longterm temperature estimations from NASA. When somebody sees this they're inclined to ask themselves why exactly do these sort of data start at 1880? It misses the critical cyclical pattern of temperature changes and starts at the lowest low possible to present a misleading picture indicating complete clarity of a linear pattern. To be clear I think we're almost certainly playing a significant role in the current rate of temperature changes, but presenting misleading data completely removed from context is a really great way to completely undermine faith in everything you say. [1] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_temperature_relative_to_peak_Holocene_temperature,_based_on_ocean_cores_(NASA).png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_te...

kenfox 8y ago
You think there is a conspiracy to supress detailed global temperature measurements that were taken before 1880? It's interesting that we have ways to estimate global temperature before 1880, but that marks the start of modern record keeping. It also has the advantage of showing the blip of very high US temperatures in the 1930s. People also complain about bias if those extremes are left out.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I'm not sure my personal opinion is relevant, but the answer to your question is no. But understanding the typical patterns of climatic change is absolutely critical for making an informed opinion. These sort of presentations prevent a misleading snippet of climatic activity that is taken out of the critical context of typical patterns. Consequently it seems intentionally geared towards trying to provoke people into responding in an ill informed fashion. And while I suspect this is well intentioned, I also think it's more likely to backfire than to help produce positive change. Poisoning the well [1] is very much a thing. When information is presented in a way that can be shown to be very misleading, it tends to make one question the integrity of all other data even when it is presented in as forthright a fashion as possible. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

kenfox 8y ago

You think there is a conspiracy to supress detailed global temperature measurements that were taken before 1880? It's interesting that we have ways to estimate global temperature before 1880, but that marks the start of modern record keeping. It also has the advantage of showing the blip of very high US temperatures in the 1930s. People also complain about bias if those extremes are left out.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I'm not sure my personal opinion is relevant, but the answer to your question is no. But understanding the typical patterns of climatic change is absolutely critical for making an informed opinion. These sort of presentations prevent a misleading snippet of climatic activity that is taken out of the critical context of typical patterns. Consequently it seems intentionally geared towards trying to provoke people into responding in an ill informed fashion. And while I suspect this is well intentioned, I also think it's more likely to backfire than to help produce positive change. Poisoning the well [1] is very much a thing. When information is presented in a way that can be shown to be very misleading, it tends to make one question the integrity of all other data even when it is presented in as forthright a fashion as possible. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well