I think it is funny that early in the video, the narrator describes the use of changing values along the x or y axis to make the charted data seem more significant. The example was a graph showing the reliability of Chevy trucks seemed to show that Chevy is twice as reliable as Toyota and several times more than Nissan—but the graph really shows that they are all better than 95% reliable, and there is only a ~3% difference in reliability between the most and least reliable. But then, at the end, the narrator explains that an ocean temperature graph showing little change since 1880 is misleading because it *didn’t* change the scale to exaggerate the change.
If you want to determine how graphing techniques can be manipulated, you have to apply the same standards across the board.
You can’t have it both ways.
Stock performance graphs on CNBC. They always skew the value scale to make any change look huge.
I had to rewind to see the oceanic temp graphs twice to get a sense, too.
While the overall oceanic temp didn’t change too much from 1880 to 2016, but the second graph showed the Celcius deg change from year to previous year (change between -1 to +1 deg).
The graph does not explain how and why the change (no cause) from this short presentation, but I guess we’ll need to dig deeper in which the original graph was created.
“But then, at the end, the narrator explains that an ocean temperature graph showing little change since 1880 is misleading because it *didn’t* change the scale to exaggerate the change.”
Also note the 2 graphs compared different things. The first was actual ocean temp and the second was temperature “anomaly”. The anomaly graph seems to show unusually low temps in the 1800s gradually changing to increasing temps. The question is, what caused the anomalous low temps prior to large scale industrialization and autos?
I was just going to point out the same thing but you beat me to it. Good eye. Recent ocean temperatures easily falls within the range of normal temperatures.
Exactly what I saw. The long time series showed that we are within the normal variation. The some time series suggests we are outside the normal range of variation.
But, it’s for climate change. As the faculty of Penn State have decided in the case of Michael Mann, it’s is o.k. to withhold data that contradicts the theory of catastrophic global warming. Hence, Mann-made global warming.
Exactly. This clip is more accurately titled "Example of a Misleading Video". It's OK to use a suppressed zero on a graph in order to propagandize climate change it's not OK when comparing domestic vs. foreign car companies.
The fact about the truck chart is that Chevrolet trucks needed half as many repairs as the Toyotas. That's an important point if you keep a truck for a long time (as most buyers do). The fact about the temperature chart is that the time scale of 1880 to 2016 was chosen to eliminate the "Little Ice Age" from which the temperatures are still recovering, and the "Medieval Warm Period" with temperatures higher than they are now.
Their rule seems to be: "Use suppressed zeros to prove something I agree with, and don't use suppressed zeros when I disagree with your conclusion".
If you want to determine how graphing techniques can be manipulated, you have to apply the same standards across the board.
Yes and no. On face value, you are absolutely correct. But then, arguably, you would always express/plot temperature in degrees Kelvin or degrees Rankine. That is, referenced to absolute zero based on perfect gas theory. Which has bupkis to do with whether you can grow bananas.So rather than saying that the scale of a graph imparts a “bias," it is the fact that any scale explicitly or implicitly expresses a perspective.
Just try to plot the price of a stock without biasing your estimate of the future price.