Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 221 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Intellectual Dishonesty through Odd Stats by Global Warming Deniers

If you had to stretch reality into an unrecognizable shape in order to maintain a stance, why would you do it?

The movement of global warming denial has left me pondering that question. Two recent episodes in particular have brought that question to the forefront of my mind.

The first is the decision by the people who deny the existence of global warming to assert the opposite: that since 1998, the world has been undergoing global cooling. Take the conservative corporate National Review Online earlier this year:

Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth’s temperatures continue a chilling trend that began eleven years ago. As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream, and push their pet theory — just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

You can find this stuff all over the place: claims that the Earth is undergoing a “chilling trend” of “global cooling.” A month ago I demonstrated graphically how to create such a claim: carefully pick two dots, draw a line, and ignore everything else. To reprise, here’s data from NASA’s Goddard Institute:

How to Make a Global Cooling Claim: Pick Your Dots Very Carefully!

See the little green line? Global Cooling! How carefully do you have to pick your dots to make “global cooling” appear? Very carefully indeed. This line connects 1998 and 2008. But if you connect 1998 and 2007, you’ll get a flat line. And if you go back to 1997, you get global warming all over again. 1998 is a very important year for global warming denial, since it is an outlier and therefore allows all sorts of line drawing that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. But no matter how many little green lines you draw, you just can’t counter the larger trend of global warming.

I’m not just saying that, either. The Associated Press just finished conducting an interesting test in which they gave global temperature trend data to four different statisticians. In order to remove the possibility of biased judging, the AP didn’t tell the statisticians it was temperature data; they removed temperature unit labels, just leaving the numbers themselves in a trend over time. The results of this “blind” analysis?

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

This isn’t the only episode in which global warming deniers have cherry-picked data in order to claim “global cooling.” Before the National Review hopped on the “global cooling” bandwagon, retired Professor Don J. Easterbrook of Western Washington University claimed another “global cooling period” in this graph:

Don J. Easterbrook's "Global Cooling" Claim for 1944-1978

Notice how Don J. Easterbook has placed his nice, neat blue lines to create a “global cooling” period from right about at 1944 to right about at 1978? Those aren’t randomly-picked years. 1944 was an especially warm year compared to the years that followed, and 1978 was a relatively cool year compared to the years that followed. Just as global warming deniers have cherry-picked the years 1998 and 2008 to create “global cooling” in this decade, Easterbrook cherry-picked data points to create “global cooling” in a prior period. Return again with me to NASA Goddard Institute data, and we’ll put Easterbrook’s “global cooling” period in context:

Looking at Don J. Easterbrook's Global Cooling Claim for 1944-1978 in context

If Easterbrook hadn’t picked just the right year, he wouldn’t have been able to refer to such a “global cooling” period. The 50s, 60s and 70s were a relatively flat period sitting below a few years of warmer temperatures in the 40s, but well above the temperatures of the 30s, and well above the 20s, and well above the 10s, and well above the aughts, and well above the 1890s, and well above the 1880s. The most that Easterbrook in full context can refer to is a brief pause in warming, not a period of global cooling.

Whenever you hear someone referring to a “global cooling” period, especially if they throw in references to climatologists as screaming and kicking toddlers, pay close attention to the years they choose. I bet you dollars to donuts that there’s a whole lot of cherry-picking going on.

I still can’t answer the question I started with: If you had to stretch reality into an unrecognizable shape in order to maintain a stance, why would you do it? Motivations, unlike global temperatures, are unmeasurable. When you catch someone mangling the data like this in the future, ask why. Then watch for the reaction.

3 comments to Intellectual Dishonesty through Odd Stats by Global Warming Deniers

  • ramone

    why would you?
    MONEY

  • Kevin

    Thanks for an interesting article. There are two other points regarding GCC that I find important, one silly and one scary. (just like Halloween)

    The silly point is when deniers say that people exhale CO2 so we need to stop breathing to satisfy the facist evil scientists. Fail. People should always be reminded that the CO2 from fossil fuels was sequested away from the biosphere for hundreds of millions of years ago, and laid down over a similar period. Now all that CO2 is being released at once.

    The scary part is comparing fossil CO2 emmissions versus atmospheric CO2 ppm. There is a huge lag because the oceans have been absorbing CO2 at an incredible rate, and becoming more acidic as they do (acetic acid).

    When the oceans become supersaturated, the increase in atmosphere CO2 will match emissions. THen you better watch out…

    thx again for the post
    kd

  • Tom

    To add to Kevin’s statement with regard to the oceans and absorption of CO2: Long before supersaturation occurs most marine life will die – you know like NO MORE FISH of ANY KIND. That alone is enough to remind us that we’re dealing with a TIME BOMB here, and that if we ignore it for too much longer the far future will become the near future and many catastrophic problems will arise that we can’t do anything about – erratic weather (already happening), starvation for the many people whose main diet consists of fish from the ocean, rising sea levels (already happening), and the melting of the tundra which will release METHANE (a much more potent global warming gas) into the atmosphere (already beginning to happen), among many more.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>