4 ms·

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. htt

by __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).
  - mercurial 14y ago
    I must confess I did not (especially as I don't read Dutch). But I still fail to see how a change of 0.03 degree should be a deliberate attempt at misleading people. I assume that the Daily Mail staff, while not necessarily embarassed by ethics, have at least a modicum of common sense.
    - Steeph 14y ago
      It's done at both side of the graph, so it makes 0.06 :-) But that's not the point. It's the principle. If you present a graph based on actual data (verified by many scientist) and you change the data however slightly to fit your point of view, that's malice. Why do it otherwise? Maybe not enough for this though: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Nzg5Nw== http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Nzg5Nw=...

by __alexs 14y ago

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).
- mercurial 14y ago
  I must confess I did not (especially as I don't read Dutch). But I still fail to see how a change of 0.03 degree should be a deliberate attempt at misleading people. I assume that the Daily Mail staff, while not necessarily embarassed by ethics, have at least a modicum of common sense.
  - Steeph 14y ago
    It's done at both side of the graph, so it makes 0.06 :-) But that's not the point. It's the principle. If you present a graph based on actual data (verified by many scientist) and you change the data however slightly to fit your point of view, that's malice. Why do it otherwise? Maybe not enough for this though: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Nzg5Nw== http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Nzg5Nw=...