Skip to comments.Global warming deniers mount ad campaign calculated to outrage (and it's working!)
Posted on 05/06/2012 7:36:50 PM PDT by Zakeet
It has finally happened: The Heartland Institute, an anti-science front group that used to focus on downplaying the dangers of smoking on behalf of Phillip Morris but now spends much of its time denying the scientific consensus on climate change, has decided to stop even trying to be credible in order to attract publicity. In the vernacular: It has gone all PETA on us.
"I still believe in global warming. Do you?" reads a caption written in bright red on a billboard recently mounted in Chicago by the Heartland folks, next to a wild-eyed mugshot of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. The implication: Only mad bombers would accept the proven fact that global average temperatures are rising. Heartland says this is only the first in a series of similar billboards featuring such renowned tyrants and killers as Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden and the lesser-known James J. Lee, a radical environmentalist shot by police after taking hostages at the Discovery Channel's Washington headquarters in 2010.
It hardly takes genius to figure out why these billboards are bizarre and absurd, but I'll spell it out anyway for clarity's sake: This would be like mounting a picture of Adolf Hitler with the words, "I was a Christian. Are you?" or a picture of Blackbeard with the slogan, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you?" Kaczynski's acceptance that the world is getting warmer no more tarnishes the theory of climate change -- which isn't a "belief," but a well-established scientific theory accepted by virtually every credible expert in the field, despite contradictory theories put forward by non-climatologists and published in the sort of junk-science journal favored by Heartland -- than Hitler's alleged embrace of Darwinism, if true, would tarnish the theory of evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If Dan Turner is so ignorant as to think Hitler was a Christian it’s no wonder he’s bought into the man-made global warming hoax.
The Earth’s “average temperature” has NOT increased for 12 years.
Atmospheric CO2, on the other hand, has increased for 12 consecutive years.
According to some studies, CO2 is at its highest point in thousands of years.
But, whoops, global temperature is not increasing.
Just because it’s a(nother) pet peeve of mine: No credible scientist would/should publish a graph like that. The origin is surpressed for the CO2 scale, which wildly distorts it (i.e., makes the slope look a lot steeper than it actually is). Imagine the same data plotted on a scale that ranges from 0 to 400, and it would look almost flat (i.e., not scary “we’re all going to die” steep).
Indeed. They can't even lie correctly.
...and what part of the atmosphere you look at...
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) - Brightness Temperature Anomaly 1979 to Present
UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies 1979 to Present
RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly 1979 to Present
Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) Brightness Temperature Anomaly 1987 to Present
Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) - Brightness Temperature Anomaly 1979 to Present
...but the one thing that is abundantly clear is that there hasn't been any warming since 1998 and there isn't anything unusual about the warming since The Little Ice Age and it hasn't gotten as warm as it was before TLIA and on average the global temperature at its warmest during the last 10 million years is very very cold compared to what came before that. So peeve away! :-)
What does that even mean, "the origin is suppressed?" What 'origin?' How is it 'suppressed?' It shows CO2 levels juxtaposed with global temperatures over the same time frame. Whether the graph compresses the data or not it still shows temperatures falling and CO2 rising over the same period of time.
See this thrread:
Sure looks like the Heartland Institute will remain a target of ridicule. Meanwhile we witness the extended sea ice build up in the bearing straights and Arctic Ocean in general.
Origin = see the first paragraph of the following:
To wit, the "zero" point. It is not shown in the graph I commented on, hence it is suppressed. As my further comment pointed out. Which leads to a distortion of the perceived significance of the slope of the curve. Learn some basics before trying to piss on my leg.
The zero point of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been sometime during the planet’s formation. You really won’t accept a graph unless it goes back 4.5 billion years?
No! You are totally missing my point, as it were. It's a question of *how* data is represented. There is *no* time scale involved in the graph, or this argument.
When the origin is surpressed for the ordinate (the 'y' axis), it does not give a proper - or exaggerated - perspective of the data. Read my original post again. The graph looks like there is a steep - significant - rise of CO2 over the provided timescale (abscissa, or 'x' axis).
*If* the ordinate values properly started at 0 and went to 400 or so, it would be obvious that the rise of CO2 is actually very slight.
The general public is often mislead by such representation of data. It makes it look much more significant than it actually is. How can you not understand this?
FWIW ‘surpressed’ is not a word even though you keep using it.
Wow. You still don’t get it.
And you also do not seem to understand that my original post was not a criticism directed at you but at whoever made up that graph. (The *content* of which I have no issue with - just the way it is *represented*.)
Your point is moot because you are arguing against a premise that is non-sequitur to the intention behind the graph.
As I’m always saying to Mrs. Liberty: Ya gotcher ipsos, ya gotcher factos, and ya gotcher QEDs....