Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Global Warming Fun With Statistics

Global Warming Fun With Statistics

|Views: 29|Likes:
Published by iairesearch6649
Watch how people try to "sell" you on their facts.
Watch how people try to "sell" you on their facts.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: iairesearch6649 on Feb 28, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Global Warmists and Fun with Statistics
IAI Research, Immokalee Acquisition, Inc.
We now know most “global warming”
is suspect. But if 
the data were completelyaccurate, one should still question how Global Warmists (short for Warming Alarmists)
 data to manipulate opinion. The purpose of this paper is to show how those trying to convinceyou of something can “play with the pictures” to tell stories that have not really happened.Darrell Huff’s wonderful little book, How to Lie with Statistics, should be required reading. Oneof his major points is that one can purposely mislead readers through the graphical depiction of statistics. The format, scale, and even colors may tell a story that appears stronger than facts cansupport.Below is a typical chart used to demonstrate the evils of global warming and its tsunami-likeincreases in temperature.Note the scale on the chart: it
measures only one degree
of Celsius in each direction. Over thecourse of 130 years the world’s average temperature bounced from its lowest level to its highestby all of 0.9 degrees. If one simply moves from the data’s beginning to end, the difference turnsout to be only about 0.6 of one degree. Clearly we must spend trillions of dollars to prevent suchmassive changes!
Over the course of a year and across the globe, temperatures vary much more. One canexperience temperatures that range from below zero to well over 45 degrees Celsius. Wouldn’tthat be a better scale to use for such a chart? However, using that scale you would notice littlemovement in 130 years. For the entire 20
century, the average annual surface temperature was13.9 degrees Celsius. Using a more appropriate scale creates much less dramatic results thanNOAA uses to alarm you, and pry money out of your pocket:
Global Mean Surface Temperature Estimates
   1   8   8   0   1   8   8   8   1   8   9  6   1   9   0  4   1   9   1   2   1   9   2   0   1   9   2   8   1   9   3  6   1   9  4  4   1   9   5   2   1   9  6   0   1   9  6   8   1   9   7  6   1   9   8  4   1   9   9   2   2   0   0   0   2   0   0   8
 But Warmists would quickly tell us that this depiction is not dramatic! True. They might alsopoint out that small differences in temperature
have dramatic impacts on our lives. Theyare welcome to prove this using reasonable science and honest depictions of data.What could cause temperature to swing by as much as 0.6 of one degree Celsius? What coulddrive politicians to demand new laws and taxes? (Actually, it takes little to drive politicians todemand new laws or taxes.)The Warmists feel these “large” temperature swings are the result of massive buildups of CO2 inthe atmosphere. Therefore we should spend trillions of dollars, euros, and yuan to fix theproblem. (Regretfully, they mostly want to spend dollars—your dollars.)
The next chart is one of the most famous depictions of the buildup of CO2 over the past 1,000years. Look what modern man has done in 250 years: CO2 increased by 60 parts per
 since the American Revolution. (George Bush
have had a relative involved.)
dramatic increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere:Somehow this variation does not appear to be as dramatic. And do not doubt that theproponents of man-caused global warming want drama. Polar bears, who have increasedfive-fold over __ years, are endangered. The Himalayan glaciers are melting ….The primary concern over any increase in a chemical in the atmosphere should be its e in
Assuming the data is correct (a big assumption that a leading Warmist recently discredited), thereare some simple graphic points to note:
Why start the scale at 270 parts per million rather than zero? Why end it at 350? Whyuse 80 parts per million rather than a scale running from zero to one million? Is the goalto make a small increase appear more dramatic?
We are talking about a concentration in the atmosphere measured in parts per
.If we were measuring parts per hundred, or even per thousand the concentration of CO2would not even reach one.
So from 1750 to 2000, or 250 years, CO2 concentrations increased from about 275 toabout 335 parts per million. A
increase of 60 parts PER MILLION in 250 years.One can quickly understand the cause for concern. So what if the real numbers aren’tvery big; we can make them
big by picking the right graph.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->