How Climate Catastrophists at NOAA Mislead without Lying

[Geee]

AIER.Org

By now practically everyone who follows news and commentary about climate change has seen graphs of global warming over the past century or more. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) produced this one in 2017, covering 1880–2016. 

Ever since it first appeared, it’s been one of the most commonly used, whether in scholarly journals or government websites or news media or blogs or social media. More recent data generally are communicated similarly — and it’s not hard to understand why. 

Here, solid bars, one for each year, depict the change in global average temperature (depicted as anomalies, i.e., departures, from the 20th-century average), and the psychological impact is predictable: fear. 

How? Bars in the early years, below the average, are a comforting blue; later bars, above average, are an alarming red. If all the bars were the same color, the psychological impact of the different colors would be lost. 

But the color choices aren’t all. They’re just the most obvious. Another choice is less obvious, and readers unfamiliar with how to interpret graphic representations (or misrepresentations) of data are likely not to notice it. 

Ominously, the longest blue bars reach almost to the bottom of the graph, and the longest red ones almost to the top. Why? Because the vertical axis chosen (and note that word — it’s a definite choice) covers only from -0.5°C to +1.0°C (-0.9°F to +1.8°F). A grand total of 1.5°C (2.7°F). :snip:

[Valin]

@Geee

One More Reason why so many people have lost faith in so many of our Institutions. If we're not seeing outright Lies, we're seeing Spin/Manipulation in service of The Narrative. The jab is perfectly safe, crime is going down, There were no  problems with the 2020 election, Joe Biden is Fine, etc etc etc etc  etc etc.....

It seems to me All Corporate Media stories should  start out Once Upon A Time A long Time Ago.

[Geee]