8 ms·

Daily Mail manipulates graph to suggest stagnant global warming

28 points by jaap_w 14y ago

djhworld 14y ago
I don't think it's any surprise that the Daily Mail has used its agenda to mislead its readers.
- Oxxide 14y ago
  Not at all.
metatronscube 14y ago
I sometimes feel that papers or news/media outlets that do this should end up getting fined huge amounts and made to run public apologies (full page or TV) because its such a dangerous topic to mislead people on. That said, its no surprise its coming from the Daily mail.
- tehwalrus 14y ago
  It depresses me that Apple have to do something like that over the Samsung lawsuit, but the newspapers can lie to our faces every day and get away with it. That said, I don't read newspapers anymore for this exact reason.
EliRivers 14y ago
For readers outside the UK, it is worth knowing a little context about the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a newspaper in the loosest sense of the word. It is essentially a propaganda rag, flattering its readership by provoking their emotions on topics such as women in the workplace (which is a bad thing and gives them cancer), women not in the workplace (which is a bad thing and gives them cancer), the causes of cancer [1], immigrants, taxes and house prices. Bizarrely, for a publication with such a high female readership, it's remarkably misogynistic. Typical readers are middle-aged to the elderly, who do not like having their assumptions challenged and find catharsis in the simplicity of the world as presented by the Daily Mail. The phrase "Daily Mail reader" has become shorthand for someone demonstrating characteristics such as ignorance, extremely simple viewpoints on complex situations, and bigotry poorly veiled under spurious numerical data or contextless "factoids". [1] http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/
- hackerboos 14y ago
  Let's not forget the paper's fascist past - "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" - http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurrah http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurra...
  - gadders 14y ago
    So was the Daily Mirror. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/daily... And I'm sure you can find articles in the Guardian supporting Soviet Russia.
    - hackerboos 14y ago
      I don't read the Mirror either. Though I find it hard to believe that the Guardian supported the Soviet Union.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - gadders 14y ago
        No, it just employed spies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Journalist_allegedly_working_for_Russian_intelligence_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Journalist_alleged... :-)
- gadders 14y ago
  And context for the comment above: It is very common to sneer at Daily Mail readers as a way of demonstrating your own right-on, progressive credentials. Daily Mail readers are largely right-wing, but that doesn't by definition make them wrong.
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    The Daily Mail, however, is often wrong and frequently guilty of the sins I list above. Demonstrably so. Sometimes, we sneer at something not because it makes us look good (or, as you put it, to demonstrate "progressive credentials", and your assumption that I want to do that is insulting and ignorant, thank you very much), but because it genuinely is dross. If you like, I can balance the equation by criticising the Guardian for its ridiculous adherence to leftist views despite the most ferocious evidence in its own pages, or we can do the Economist which suggests less regulation as the solution to almost any problem that exists. Edit to respond to comment below: Of course it's doing something right. It's selling newspapers. It does it by, as I said, flattering its readership and presenting them emotional sensations that confirm their beliefs. That doesn't make it worthy or correct. It makes it admirable only in a "magnificent bastards" kind of way. They know what they're doing and they do it very well.
ars 14y ago
Um, the real graph looks just as stagnant as the Daily Mail one. The difference between them is barely even there. Is anyone actually looking at the graphs on the blog, or are you just reading the title?
- __alexs 14y ago
  This. Very odd. The real problem is that they are showing a tiny period of time. Global warming levels out a bit now and then and then keeps on going. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly... around 1965-1975 it didn't really go up much. And a graph of 1935-1945 might make you think we'd conquered global warming forever and that we could all get on with building the global socialist utopia or whatever. Sadly long term trends in complex systems aren't nearly that easy to form conclusions about.
  - mercurial 14y ago
    Yes. Although it wouldn't surprise me that the Daily Mail altered the figures, it doesn't change much of anything to the overall shape of the graph. Therefore it's probably safe to attribute to stupidity rather than malice. The article is absolutely missing the point.
    - Steeph 14y ago
      Did you read the first couple of links in the article? On the day the original publication from DM came, we already debunked it, pointing to the longer time period: http://sargasso.nl/tweespalt-opwarming-plateau-of-niet/ http://sargasso.nl/tweespalt-opwarming-plateau-of-niet/ (in Dutch sorry). And we refer to others who did similar things. But this specific article is about adjusting the data before presenting it. The first point (missing 8 months) is "understandable". The second point, changing the data at the beginning and end of the graph, is lying on purpose. That's unacceptable. Even though these are small adjustments (about 0,03 degrees), they are done in purpose and to reach a goal (make more people doubt).
Fletch137 14y ago
It seems that there is not much difference between the gossip magazines and the newspapers any more.
james1507 14y ago
But the UK Met Office agrees with the Mail article author. 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.' And they correctly note - 'However, we do suggest that measurements over the longer-term are more representative of the trend in climate due to the influence of natural variability over shorter timescales.' http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-...
- phaemon 14y ago
  Why did you choose a quote from the comments rather than the more complete one from the article itself? "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."
  - james1507 14y ago
    Because the quote in the comments is by the author of the article, expanding on what he said in the article?
- SagelyGuru 14y ago
  Man made global warming is a PR invention carefully engineered to create more taxation, trading profits in 'indulgences', and to revive the public support for the nuclear industry. Even if they persuaded you, you got to admit that these three things are the main tangible results and that they are happening. The support for the nuclear industry was seriously flagging exactly at the time when the 'global warming' suddenly started getting pushed by certain prominent VIPs and the main stream media. Now many new nuclear reactors are planned, despite Fukushima. This would never have been accepted before 'global warming'. If you are not convinced, look for example into the background of Sir John Bebbington (made into the UK's chief scientific advisor) and his pronouncements on Fukushima: 'No question, absolutely no danger whatsoever. No comparison with Chernobyl.... etc.'. Made at the time when the reactors were exploding and melting, one after another. 0.03 C per decade means that this trend would have to continue unbroken for a thousand years to achieve a noticeable warming of 3C. Use your common sense, please?
motters 14y ago
I wrote a program to plot temperature data a while ago, although it's from the GHCN rather than the HadCRUT4 data set. https://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/ https://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/ The square gridding method which they appear to have used in HadCRUT4 introduces problems with singularities, but even with a better gridding method the anomaly results are broadly in line with the conventional view about global warming.

28 points by jaap_w 14y ago

djhworld 14y ago

I don't think it's any surprise that the Daily Mail has used its agenda to mislead its readers.

Oxxide 14y ago
Not at all.

metatronscube 14y ago

I sometimes feel that papers or news/media outlets that do this should end up getting fined huge amounts and made to run public apologies (full page or TV) because its such a dangerous topic to mislead people on. That said, its no surprise its coming from the Daily mail.

tehwalrus 14y ago
It depresses me that Apple have to do something like that over the Samsung lawsuit, but the newspapers can lie to our faces every day and get away with it. That said, I don't read newspapers anymore for this exact reason.

EliRivers 14y ago

For readers outside the UK, it is worth knowing a little context about the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a newspaper in the loosest sense of the word. It is essentially a propaganda rag, flattering its readership by provoking their emotions on topics such as women in the workplace (which is a bad thing and gives them cancer), women not in the workplace (which is a bad thing and gives them cancer), the causes of cancer [1], immigrants, taxes and house prices. Bizarrely, for a publication with such a high female readership, it's remarkably misogynistic. Typical readers are middle-aged to the elderly, who do not like having their assumptions challenged and find catharsis in the simplicity of the world as presented by the Daily Mail. The phrase "Daily Mail reader" has become shorthand for someone demonstrating characteristics such as ignorance, extremely simple viewpoints on complex situations, and bigotry poorly veiled under spurious numerical data or contextless "factoids". [1] http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

hackerboos 14y ago
Let's not forget the paper's fascist past - "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" - http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurrah http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurra...
- gadders 14y ago
  So was the Daily Mirror. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/daily... And I'm sure you can find articles in the Guardian supporting Soviet Russia.
  - hackerboos 14y ago
    I don't read the Mirror either. Though I find it hard to believe that the Guardian supported the Soviet Union.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - gadders 14y ago
      No, it just employed spies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Journalist_allegedly_working_for_Russian_intelligence_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Journalist_alleged... :-)
gadders 14y ago
And context for the comment above: It is very common to sneer at Daily Mail readers as a way of demonstrating your own right-on, progressive credentials. Daily Mail readers are largely right-wing, but that doesn't by definition make them wrong.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  The Daily Mail, however, is often wrong and frequently guilty of the sins I list above. Demonstrably so. Sometimes, we sneer at something not because it makes us look good (or, as you put it, to demonstrate "progressive credentials", and your assumption that I want to do that is insulting and ignorant, thank you very much), but because it genuinely is dross. If you like, I can balance the equation by criticising the Guardian for its ridiculous adherence to leftist views despite the most ferocious evidence in its own pages, or we can do the Economist which suggests less regulation as the solution to almost any problem that exists. Edit to respond to comment below: Of course it's doing something right. It's selling newspapers. It does it by, as I said, flattering its readership and presenting them emotional sensations that confirm their beliefs. That doesn't make it worthy or correct. It makes it admirable only in a "magnificent bastards" kind of way. They know what they're doing and they do it very well.

ars 14y ago

Um, the real graph looks just as stagnant as the Daily Mail one. The difference between them is barely even there. Is anyone actually looking at the graphs on the blog, or are you just reading the title?

__alexs 14y ago
This. Very odd. The real problem is that they are showing a tiny period of time. Global warming levels out a bit now and then and then keeps on going. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly... around 1965-1975 it didn't really go up much. And a graph of 1935-1945 might make you think we'd conquered global warming forever and that we could all get on with building the global socialist utopia or whatever. Sadly long term trends in complex systems aren't nearly that easy to form conclusions about.
- mercurial 14y ago
  Yes. Although it wouldn't surprise me that the Daily Mail altered the figures, it doesn't change much of anything to the overall shape of the graph. Therefore it's probably safe to attribute to stupidity rather than malice. The article is absolutely missing the point.
  - Steeph 14y ago
    Did you read the first couple of links in the article? On the day the original publication from DM came, we already debunked it, pointing to the longer time period: http://sargasso.nl/tweespalt-opwarming-plateau-of-niet/ http://sargasso.nl/tweespalt-opwarming-plateau-of-niet/ (in Dutch sorry). And we refer to others who did similar things. But this specific article is about adjusting the data before presenting it. The first point (missing 8 months) is "understandable". The second point, changing the data at the beginning and end of the graph, is lying on purpose. That's unacceptable. Even though these are small adjustments (about 0,03 degrees), they are done in purpose and to reach a goal (make more people doubt).

Fletch137 14y ago

It seems that there is not much difference between the gossip magazines and the newspapers any more.

james1507 14y ago

But the UK Met Office agrees with the Mail article author. 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.' And they correctly note - 'However, we do suggest that measurements over the longer-term are more representative of the trend in climate due to the influence of natural variability over shorter timescales.' http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-...

phaemon 14y ago
Why did you choose a quote from the comments rather than the more complete one from the article itself? "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."
- james1507 14y ago
  Because the quote in the comments is by the author of the article, expanding on what he said in the article?
SagelyGuru 14y ago
Man made global warming is a PR invention carefully engineered to create more taxation, trading profits in 'indulgences', and to revive the public support for the nuclear industry. Even if they persuaded you, you got to admit that these three things are the main tangible results and that they are happening. The support for the nuclear industry was seriously flagging exactly at the time when the 'global warming' suddenly started getting pushed by certain prominent VIPs and the main stream media. Now many new nuclear reactors are planned, despite Fukushima. This would never have been accepted before 'global warming'. If you are not convinced, look for example into the background of Sir John Bebbington (made into the UK's chief scientific advisor) and his pronouncements on Fukushima: 'No question, absolutely no danger whatsoever. No comparison with Chernobyl.... etc.'. Made at the time when the reactors were exploding and melting, one after another. 0.03 C per decade means that this trend would have to continue unbroken for a thousand years to achieve a noticeable warming of 3C. Use your common sense, please?

motters 14y ago

I wrote a program to plot temperature data a while ago, although it's from the GHCN rather than the HadCRUT4 data set. https://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/ https://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/ The square gridding method which they appear to have used in HadCRUT4 introduces problems with singularities, but even with a better gridding method the anomaly results are broadly in line with the conventional view about global warming.