Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Advisor, Dr. Holdren, and blew it to pieces!
Пікірлер: 198
@Siegetower10 жыл бұрын
The alarmist deceptions continue.
@patswickedpissah10 жыл бұрын
Damn these Deniers, using facts and exposing deception to further their view!
@cypresshill09able9 жыл бұрын
Tea Baggers/Creationists detected.
@astronmr2010 жыл бұрын
Amazing. We are being lied to.
@DavidSanger10 жыл бұрын
Hilarious!! These guys have no clue at all... Lol
@ScotClose10 жыл бұрын
How dare they start the graph in the same year the data starts!
@walterjnr10 жыл бұрын
Clearly more of a clue than you have.
@m1aws10 жыл бұрын
"Hilarious" is a commonly used word from the far left, terrified and clueless individuals who have no answer to this fact. They omitted to show the atmosphere in red. This is supposed to instil a heating/burning atmosphere to the emotionally ridden unthinking. The Image intentionally shows reduced ice. Less than the NH summer. With absolutely no ice on the pole. The picture is carefully grafted NLP from end to end. Anyone who imagines this is hilarious must be some sort of psychopathic Malthusian who backs deliberate propaganda and lies from those who take money off the people.
@ThomasCooper201310 жыл бұрын
These guys missed so much math when they were in high school. Their illogical approach to the data is limited to what they can surmise with a yardstick and the display.I couldn't even understand what the second guy was talking about. This is what you get when money spins the message; a circular narrowing of knowledge. Anyone ever read George Orwell???
@MichaelinNeoh10 жыл бұрын
Thomas Cooper yeah they seriously over did it with the metal yard stick..
@mr.magister553110 жыл бұрын
I see the warmists have come out swiinging here, but as usual they will be hitting nothing but air, these guys are not that far off the mark.
@Trigger_00010 жыл бұрын
Brilliant debunking of the Alarmist bullshit!
@impeachobama201410 жыл бұрын
There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s. A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn’t get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years. A recent explanation for this pause (if not reversal), was offered in a scientific paper blaming the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming in 1997-98 for triggering the hiatus.
@Trigger_00010 жыл бұрын
Obama Failed America Well said. All the alarmists' claims are wiped away in one stroke by one scientific paper, since it proves that our CO2 is not the cause of the observed CO2 rise in the atmosphere; "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature", O Humlum, K Stordahl, JE Solheim - Global and Planetary Change, 2012 'The debate is over'. :)
@impeachobama201410 жыл бұрын
***** indeed, there so full of shit funny and good luck 86, that dam carbon tax The Australian government said it would repeal the country’s carbon tax in July, saying new data on greenhouse gas emissions proved the controversial levy introduced by the previous Labor administration was inflicting “plenty of pain, with no environmental gain”. “The carbon tax is a $7bn hit on the economy every year. And it’s all for nothing,” said Greg Hunt, Australia’s environment minister, on Wednesday. “The carbon tax doesn’t work, plain and simple.” www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5032080c-8e28-11e3-98c6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2srtHhoNg
@TheFluffyDuck10 жыл бұрын
As somebody who is trained in science, watching this bafoon "dissect" the graph was hilarious.
@69jaymez10 жыл бұрын
For those people who are trying to sound learned and writing that these guys have no clue about calculating a trend - this graph is nothing to do with calculating a trend. Neither incidentally is it plotting temperature. It is plotting the 'temperature anomaly'. It is not actually stated anywhere how the mean was derived to calculate the anomaly, but it is usually the mean temperature over a given 30 year period. If it was the UAH Satellite based temperature data then is will be 1981 - 2010. From the information provided we are not told whether the data points are monthly average temperatures, annual, 13 month rolling averages or what! However all the issues those two guys in the video brought up are totally relevant. The graph has been deliberately fudged and presented to show a misleading picture. Does that mean it hasn't warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, of course not. But those who present the data in such a misleading fashion are trying to insist that the recent warming is correlated to CO2 emissions and is unprecedented. Both claims can be seen to be untrue if you show the full picture. That is, a longer data history which includes cooling and stable periods even when CO2 emissions are increasing, and periods post instrumental recorded history when shown on a proper scale which show prior periods of warming at curves just as steep as post 1978. And of course reconstructed temperature record periods which were warmer during lower atmospheric CO2 including the MWP, Minoan Warm Period and Roman Warm Periods.
@RogerRocks10 жыл бұрын
These guys should be running dodgy investment seminars.
@Canucklug10 жыл бұрын
Yeah... it seems more like these guys should be debunking dodgy investment seminars
@RogerRocks10 жыл бұрын
Canucklug I've got a bridge for sale if you are interested...
@m1aws10 жыл бұрын
John Brookes I wonder which of you two is buying the lie? Obviously you have no bridge to sell and the last warming phase started in '79 and ended in '97.
@RogerRocks10 жыл бұрын
m1aws '97? One of your fellow "skeptics" was saying 2003. But I guess as long as you agree that its now cooling, you'll be happy.
@Canucklug10 жыл бұрын
John Brookes '98 was the big El Nino spike so imo you could say it was 2000 although that would technically be cherry picking and not exactly science journal worthy. As I understand you get '97 as the point where the 5 year average has not increased from in a statistically significant degree. So I would guess that up to 2003 there was a small degree of warming that was less than statistically significant or that from the current 5 year average it's no warmer than '97. 17 years of no temperature increase isn't unquestionable proof of anything, except that the similar time of warming before that isn't unquestionable proof of anything either. (One 'warming friendly' scientist was asked how long of a 'pause' would be significant years ago and said 15 years)
@Shelama10 жыл бұрын
Pat & Stu & Glenn didn't do their homework... again.
@voxac30withstrat10 жыл бұрын
Interesting that no alarmist picks up these so-called experts on the fact they used to say we are going into a mini Ice age and now when getting hotter. They love to pretend or ignore the stupid predictions and poor science until it fits their world view.
@Viracocha71110 жыл бұрын
I have never seen a better display of Conservative IDIOCY than this video!! The utter IGNORANCE on display was mind boggling & really SAD!!
@konchog310 жыл бұрын
Is there a place to complain to KZfaq for sliming me with this absolute buffoonery? "Recommended"???? I'm all for free speech but that also extends to expressing my compete and utter revulsion such a piece of offal as this even exists. It speaks so poorly of my beloved country.
@shrikedecil10 жыл бұрын
Tilting the -frame- of the graph. Boggling.
@andyryjax10 жыл бұрын
I love all the people on here trying to talk like they are some kind of climatologist and everyone else who is skeptical is an idiot. Well if you are a climatologist, good for you. Not everyone is. If the truth is the truth, then release honest data to convince the general populace. Don't 'cherry pick' or skew the graph to exaggerate or any of that other stuff. Be honest. And if that means you don't get your funding the next year, then so be it. You did your job. Don't lie to keep research money coming in. All these guys are saying is - this chart isn't honest. Anything else and you're just being a troll or a drama queen. Wake up to the fact that 'your team' isn't always right or honest. That goes for both sides. Be skeptical my friends, think for yourself and do just a bit of research. Don't let any talking heads or idiots on KZfaq decide what you should believe for you.
@jazcobar10 жыл бұрын
Nice to see the global warming propaganda getting addressed in the main stream media.
@rugbyguy5910 жыл бұрын
I guess when you absolutely have no clue about how to calculate a trend you might think these guys have a point. But that's why people are deniers, they don't have a clue. Watching this is like watching Beavis and Butthead give us their learned opinion about the Theory of Relativity. They do so many dishonest things in this video...LOL
@m1aws10 жыл бұрын
Define your case.
@morganwright22410 жыл бұрын
They don't do anything dishonest in this video. If you side with the idea of starting at 1978 for the "trend", then you are a liar and a fool.
@m1aws10 жыл бұрын
Morgan Wright 1978 was when the last warming trend began. "Skeptics cherry pick the data", they say. Oh the irony. Then they turn around and say, "ok, we'll start at 1910". In the bowels of the Dalton minimum.
@rugbyguy5910 жыл бұрын
Morgan Wright They start the data at 1978 because that's when the satellite data begins. The data used in that slide is an old version of the UAH satellite record. They could use a longer data set by using one of the surface records. Now the makers of the government video did deniers two favours: A) they used satellite data which fluctuates more with things like ENSO and volcanic activity than surface temperatures like GISS. This makes the trend less obvious. B) They ended the data in mid-2009 in the middle of a strong La Nina. If they used all available data the end of the line is again much higher. This second point is what these two clowns use to demonstrate their ignorance of statistical analysis. Makes you wonder why the government picked a data set that looked like a smaller warming trend than other data sets or even all of this one shows. If they wanted a tropospheric data set that made the warming trend look bigger they could have used HadAT2. (Red line in this graph comparing it to the UAH data set) It is also a valid empirical data set for the same region of the atmosphere. tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/choose.jpeg?w=750&h=407 Makes you wonder what their real subliminal message is eh? Drawing a line between two data points and claiming it is a trend is an old David Rose (Daily Mail) trick but not how you calculate trend. You calculate a trend by including all the data points and use a method of trend calculation. In this case that mysterious red line is the trend calculated with the least squares method. Just using the ruler as these guys do either shows their complete ignorance or is intentionally done to fool people who don't understand trends, statistics, science. So if the red line is the actual trend line then why is the first point below zero? Any one who looks at any graph of anomalies will know that it is plotted against a long term average. In this case it may well be the average of the entire period. Being below the line (below the zero) simply means that point is below the average of the time period. In this and in other cases Beavis and Butthead hear pretend (or unaware) that these things they are calling nefarious are just well accepted, easily understood, standard practices. If they are unaware of these things then they have not looked at much climate science and if so why are they given air time to talk about something they know nothing about? Another interesting question is why has Anthony Watts over at WUWT endorsed their silliness? Could it be he'll publish anything that helps plant doubt into the under informed?
@morganwright22410 жыл бұрын
How funny. You mock Anthony Watts but quote Tamino, the known wizard of deceptive statistics with the 1000 horsepower cherry picker who has no regard for the truth. Global warming is over, the earth is colder this year than a witch's titty, Antarctic sea ice is at an all-time high, Arctic sea ice rebounded by 60% this year, the Great Lakes are frozen, and all you Chicken Little fools should be happy that the sky's not falling anymore, but you're not happy at all, you are desperatly trying to make up "scientific" reasons that prove AGW is still happening. Southern Ocean is stratified you say, so the increase in sea ice is caused by a decrease in sea ice. All the cold we are experiencing is cause by heat. There are no hurricanes anymore so you go all the way to the Philippines to find one, and then lie about it. The excessive cold is caused by a Polar Cyclone caused by AGW, where the stratosphere miraculously came down to the troposphere, rather than a normal polar high. You people are a bunch of liars, lying "for the cause", which is marxism, you people are truly disgusting.
@LucisFerre110 жыл бұрын
The line was supposed to show averages, but it didn't show averages. It was too low on the left and too high on the right. If one corrected that line and showed the real averages, and anti-skew the entire graph (since it was tilted up as one travelled right), the average line would be virtually flat.
@RAtargi10 жыл бұрын
So, there isn't a ice age because of global warming? Nice :-)
@bryanwiley136410 жыл бұрын
Some very good points here. I am at a loss as to why global warming is being pushed so hard. I know it's always a case of "follow the money" but who will benefit? Obama is not a stupid man, so what benefit does he/other politicians/scientists have in promoting this? For those who are warmists, many of us grew up when scientists were convinced the globe was cooling in the seventies. It was even part of our curriculum. Two things irritate me the most about the science. 1. They keep fudging the historical data (cooling the past temps and warming the present) 2. The data starts in the cool seventies, ignoring the RELATIVE great swings in temperature seen over millenia (throughout which the earth miraculously survived)
@EliRabett10 жыл бұрын
The reason that mid troposphere measurements were used is because that is the level where one finds the polar vortex. www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/wobbly-polar-vortex-triggers-extreme-cold-air-outbreak The mid-tropospheric temperature rise is well know to be lower than that found at ground level, so no, if anything the graph was a correct and conservative choice, however it would have been much better if it had been continued to 2013 or so rather than cutting off in 2009.
@135Badger10 жыл бұрын
They are exposing, quite rightly, the statistical fallacy of applying trend lines on stochastic (random) data sets. Because if you choose the start and end dates correctly you can make the data say anything you want, and the Eco-fascists are doing just that. Moreover they point out that the alarmists take the small, temporary and completely unremarkable warming trend between 1979 and 1997 and use apply those same temperature rates to the rest of time thus producing, impressive expensive, graphs that predict Armageddon. Convenient to ignore the cooling tends both before and after the data set put forth by the left (i say that as global surface temperatures have cooled ever so slightly since 1997 and show no signs of stopping yet). i am not a climate scientists but i am an economist, i know how to examine data and this data id total BS. I used to buy in to this nonsense hook line and sinker (even as a though i am conservative/libertarian) but the more i looked into it the more skeptical i became. my story is not unique!
@Jagetful10 жыл бұрын
LOL deniers so funny
@MichaelinNeoh10 жыл бұрын
congratulations on debunking one tiny graph in a video that otherwise made sense to me.
@brianstacync10 жыл бұрын
the earth warms and cools, thats what it does. its called WEATHER and the sun controls the global temperatures- NOT you suv