Ben D wrote:Iamwhomiam wrote:
"It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years."
Yes of course, I see that in the graph, and it's been accounted for in the 0.8 degree C warming over 130 years, but can you also see that there has been no increase in warming this century.
That's what Chris Jones was on about the lack of warming in the last whatever years in the Climategate emails...global warming has been in a pause over the last 12 to 14 years, and that's why all the projections (again see graph) over time by the IPCC/AGW lobby are showing that their computer climate models using CO2 as the main driver remain in error.
Surely everyone can see that....
^^^They're using one of their very favorite forms of graphic deceit there.
In fact....Well, this may already have come up and been explicated earlier in the thread. But since I can't remember and don't have time to look and -- more to the point -- because everyone on every side of the issue should learn to recognize it when they see it simply as a matter of intellectual self-defense, given that its potential for exploitation by would-be deceivers isn't limited to this subject, I guess it can't hurt to repeat it. So here goes:
Any graph that compares a raw-data line to a trend-line while urging readers who aren't scientists or statisticians to marvel at how erroneous the predicted trend was should INSTANTLY and ON SIGHT set off alarm bells, followed swiftly by a query-to-self about why on earth anyone mocking up a graph that purported to show statistical error wouldn't fucking include the error bars.***
It's kind of abstruse, but it can't really be that difficult to remember, if you're interested in a subject that requires elementary statistical-graphic literacy? Can it? So let's try harder.
***Which, in this case, would look something like this:
I was too rushed to give it a considered reading, but fwiw, the above came from what looked more or less like the clear explanation of the above that I was looking for when I ran out of time, a link to which is here: