Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global warming deniers mount ad campaign calculated to outrage (and it's working!)
Los Angeles Times ^ | May 4, 2012 | Dan Turner

Posted on 05/06/2012 7:36:50 PM PDT by Zakeet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-59 last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


51 posted on 05/07/2012 2:27:13 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
What does that even mean, "the origin is suppressed?" What 'origin?' How is it 'suppressed?'

Origin = see the first paragraph of the following:

Cartesian_coordinate_system

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.

52 posted on 05/07/2012 4:19:24 PM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

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?


53 posted on 05/07/2012 4:36:43 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
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?

54 posted on 05/08/2012 10:50:50 AM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Moltke
I don't know what graph you're looking at but the one I posted in post #44 has a time scale from 1995-2009. The only purpose of it is to show that CO2 increased over that time period and that temperature did not. That is true.

Peeve away!

55 posted on 05/08/2012 11:36:12 AM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

FWIW ‘surpressed’ is not a word even though you keep using it.


56 posted on 05/08/2012 11:40:14 AM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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*.)


57 posted on 05/08/2012 12:06:59 PM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Moltke
I do get it. The graph has one purpose and one point to make that CO2 was rising while temperature was not. It was not intended to convey that the rise was significant only that there was a rise. When a graph is made to put on a poster to be shown in front of an audience, as that one was, it is common to compress the axes in relation to each other so that the key point is in contrast enough to be easily seen. There was no attempt to mislead anyone.

Your point is moot because you are arguing against a premise that is non-sequitur to the intention behind the graph.

58 posted on 05/08/2012 12:29:22 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

As I’m always saying to Mrs. Liberty: Ya gotcher ipsos, ya gotcher factos, and ya gotcher QEDs....


59 posted on 05/08/2012 12:38:09 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-59 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson