Guest post by Andrew Rose
Just thought I’d bring this comedy to everyone’s attention, and in particular Andrew Bolt’s skills in “graphical analysis” – ie: picking two arbitrary start and end points to support his point of view (completely ignoring the fact that these graphs indicate an increase in the mean over time).
NASA warming preacher James Hansen recalls that June day 20 years ago when he so memorably sounded the alarm about global warming:
On June 23, 1988, I testified to a hearing chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend, and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible… My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism.
Scepticism? I wonder why? Fast forward 20 years, and let’s see how that prediction in fact turned out, with the red dots marking the date of Hansen’s famous speech and his latest scare’um testimony:
Any 15 year old with a year 9 education would have laughed at this attempt at statistical analysis. Which I guess says a lot for those buying Bolt’s analysis of those graphs.
13 Comments
4 July, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Good to see your statistical analysis is so much better (oh wait…).
Ignoring the peak/outlier in 1998, the temperature variation barely goes beyond 0.5 degrees (celsius?). Therefore, the increase in the mean must be less than this. Let’s be generous and call it 0.4 degrees (over 20 years).
The issue now is why is that 20 years relevant (apart from Bolt’s saying so)? Is the last five years with an increase of around 0 degrees more or less relevant? The earth has survived for billions of years already; do decades matter at all? We’re not even into climate science yet; as an engineer I’m still well within my bounds of knowledge.
Of course, these questions “aren’t relevant”. Just as any trends aren’t relevant if they don’t have a suitable period. “My father has had an average of 0.5 birthdays a year over the last 100 years.” What pointless information.
Yes there’s much more analysis required than Bolt has put in. Keep in mind that his intent (his job, even) is to motivate people to a better understanding of the issue and promote debate. As his column today shows, he has discovered over time that it is more effective to create controversy (and blog posts like yours) rather than present the simple facts.
4 July, 2008 at 12:52 pm
He’s not making any claims to any statistical analysis. Just comparing two points that are relevant to his article (being today, and the time of the famous speech).
The graph shows what he claims it does. What is wrong with that?
4 July, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Keep in mind that his intent (his job, even) is to motivate people to a better understanding of the issue …
Poppycock. He is unabashedly pursuing his own ideological agenda — and being paid handsomely to do so.
Half his luck, by the way — but don’t try to make it sound nobler than it actually is.
4 July, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Steve D., in the last five years the temp. spends more time beyond the 0.5 line marker than it did previously. Because, you know, the planet is warming and everything. Even if you don’t believe AGW, there is ample evidence to demonstrate the earth is warming, and Bolt’s argument here is the temperature is currently lower than it was 20 years ago, which is insane when you consider that the averages are higher.
4 July, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“Poppycock. He is unabashedly pursuing his own ideological agenda — and being paid handsomely to do so.”
Yes, I cant sleep at night his posts are in my dreams, aaaaah heeeelp! The whole world is rallying behind him and against me! His idealogical empire is on the march!
Must – continue – posting on this site…millions of souls are at stake.
Why doesn’t the world listen to me instead? Why do people have different opinions than mine? Why can’t we all be tolerant and peaceful? Lets lynch him!
4 July, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“there is ample evidence to demonstrate the earth is warming”
This is where the issue of ranges comes in. Yes the mean measured temperature over the last five years is higher than over the five years before that. Does that mean we are doomed? I can pick any five year period to compare against and come up with any result I like. It doesn’t mean anything though.
Bolt’s argument here is crap. I know. He’s got plenty of better ones which he has made at other times. This one is designed to provoke – it’s about attacking Hansen moreso than attacking AGW theories. And his point is valid, though poorly expressed: the hearing in 1988 was skeptical of the catastrophic warming they were hearing about. Twenty years on temperatures are less than a degree higher than they were back then. That’s hardly a catastrophe.
Ant – I actually toned down the nobleness to get to that (because what I originally ran out made me gag). You’re right though, I’m assuming much more noble intentions than I can vouch for.
4 July, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Ant-Sociopath: nice caricature.
4 July, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Oh yes, Abu, satire at its most biting.
His idealogical (sic) empire is on the march!
… he jokes, as he marches across from Boltland to give a heretical unbeliever what for.
Please don’t dribble on the carpet on your way out, lickspittle.
4 July, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“Which I guess says a lot for those buying Bolt’s analysis of those graphs.”
exactly. the earth isn’t warming because i’ve found some obscure, never-before-heard of town somewhere (anywhere) that had an unseasonably cool day. don’t believe me? tomorrow i will also find an equally obscure, never-before-heard of town somewhere (anywhere) that is also unseasonably cool. still don’t believe me? take a look at these graphs……
enough said. let’s put this down to Lesson 3: facts seem barely to count against a moral crusade.
LOL!!
4 July, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“This one is designed to provoke – it’s about attacking Hansen moreso than attacking AGW theories”
this exactly is how bolt prosecutes most of his oblique viewpoints. attack the individual and provoke the collective ballast into supporting him. at the risk of sounding immodest, i have to say i am pleased that you can at least recognise this aspect of his ‘opinion’.
5 July, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ah Mr Bolt. Has there ever been a columnist more prone to play with semantics? I mean if you play Bolt’s game, you could select 2 other points in time and show a dramatic rise in temp.
The steady gradual increase in temp over time across many parts of the world is indisputable.
I love knowing what’s coming and how Bolt’s crew are not gong to be able to cope with the change. They are truely pathetic!
7 July, 2008 at 9:21 am
According to Bolt’s theory Don Bradman was a shit batsman because he scored a duck in his last innings.
16 July, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Fuck me dead if I’m lying, the man’s discovered linera regression:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus_and_no_warming_either/
Linear regression over a six year period, but a trend line nonetheless. Sheer fucking genius…
Comments are closed.