Did anyone notice that the ‘graph’ they showed repeatedly (with a red zigzag line allegedly showing the increase in co2 from 1960 to the current) DID NOT have a Vertical Axis marked in values or units ?
Submitting a ‘science’ graph like that in a jr high general science class (at least in the old days) would earn you a ‘F’ Grade (and worse in any advanced class).
Without the scale and values the ‘marked’ line could be simply a trivial increase (note how their expert mouthpieces also refered to it as accelerating which even with that line was still largely linear).
-
Another graph going back much longer (the one showing patterns over more than a million years) which they ‘correlated’ CO2 with temperature - did you notice a ‘lag’ effect in a significant part of the pattren where the CO2 increase *FOLLOWED* the temperature increase (there is a REAL climatologist (a scientist not some academic) who has mentioned this effect - that the CO2 appears to go up AFTER the Earth warms up and I spotted that very pattern on the graphed data the show displayed (several times in the repeating patterns they showed).
-
I had to turn it off for a while when they got all Algorish with the ‘showing whats gonna happen stuff’ - DID THEY EVER MENTION Sun activity at all ??? Remember years ago it was mentioned that the planet Mars was heating up at the same time there was the recent warming trend on Earth (and it was pointed out that there is no manmade-CO2 increase there - totally ignored by the chicklittle-warmists.
-
Basically they attempt to demonstrate their theory with very bad unqualified data presentation, counting on a carefully picked short interval of only one bit of the much longer climate patterns, and alot of supposition for their conclusions.
The simplest counter to all of this is the very same people made predictions 20 years ago which have not come true (remember the ‘hockey stick graph ?).
What we must ask loudly is WHY are they going to such efforts to falsify all of this.
you make good points imho.
however, i noticed the same thing about some of the graphs. it bothered me until they presented other graphs which appeared to show atmospheric CO2 levels increasing from ~350 PPM to ~400 PPM over the last few years. I am not certain it showed the PPM units of measure. However, that unit of measure is well known in the weather science community wrt atmospheric CO2 levels, apparently perhaps to the point that it is almost assumed in atmospheric CO2 level graphs.
Still, what is the intended target audience? If one wants to be precise, if one’s target is scientists or college educated people, my own belief is that one should always include quantities and units of measurement on graphs.
I think their target audience was (deliberately) the average TV viewer. I am not sure about that demographic but I think it can be presumed that it precludes a college education and also precludes any exposure to high school math above first year algebra, and no focused HS science courses (biology, physics, etc). If so, then that viewing audience would probably not even have sufficient education to know what to do with the quantities and units of measure. Then they would get bored and turn the channel.
It may not be altogether fair to the program to require that it present all data with the rigor of a high school science course.
Others have mentioned other troubling omissions which are perhaps equally if not more important.