Science/Environment Hide the incline!

[bit_pattern]

Dr. Roy Spencer at it again. Spot the difference! Andrew Bolt just eats that shit up uncritically

 

[fabulousphil]

I dont have time to look at graphs or read mountains of crap, someone please give me a answer are we going to freeze to death or will we be fried like a egg.

I needz to know.

Should i turn off my air conditioner now ... its very hot in perth though

 

[Nasma]

^^
To hide the increase in temperatures, Bolt shifted from a 13 month moving average which he used to use to a 23 month moving average. I'm hoping he might start using a 10 year average, but that may not help his case.

 

[Chief]

The problem, unfortunately, isn’t a particularly unique one – a lot of this pseudo-statistical arsehattery that gets passed off as evidence in any climate change debate (or any debate that contains numbers and lots of politics, sadly) tends to come from the loudest voices involved in that debate…. which also generally happen to be the most ignorant.

The other problem is that they are easily fooled by others – lacking any professional capacity to critically analyse info they are fed or have “studied”, they become effective victims to any old horseshit that might be floating around. The errors or questionable work of others becomes too easily and too often integrated into their own output.

Scathing!

 

[HarryTiger]

Only a blind man would be fooled by a moving average that has the raw source sitting behind it. And it's give and take, in the second chart he can't say that our record high occurred in 98 because he's flattened that out too.

It's barely worthy of a mention and crikey writes a long winded article about it, at it again they are.

Tell us when someone substitutes one data set with another on the same chart because it stopped moving in their preferred direction.

 

[Chief]

Because two wrongs make a right.

 

[bit_pattern]

Only a blind man would be fooled by a moving average that has the raw source sitting behind it.

Like Andrew Bolt and his legion of denier-**** minions? The fact that an influential columnist is feeding this garbage as proof definitive GW is over to his less than critical fanbase, who swallow it all unquestioningly (have you read the comments on Andrew's blog latly?) then, yeah, it needs be pointed out that Bolt should be *******ed with a calculator - especially when he is on national TV bleating about the fact that he "studies" global warming.

And there is world of difference to using chicanery like this than leaving data out of a prxy temp reconstruction (not replacing it) because it can't be explained and writing up an academic paper that explains step-by-step why the divergence was left out. But, of course, numpty's like you can pass judgement on the basis of an email without ever having read the paper it was based on, because you have such awesome powers of observation.

 

[medusala]

Dr. Roy Spencer at it again.

Another epic failure by Crikey in its ongoing hissy fit with News.

Accusing others of manipulating the time period for moving average - have they no shame or are they just utter turkeys? I suspect the latter.

Almost as dismal a failure as their efforts on refugee stats and ethnic crime stats.

 

[Chief]

Accusing others of manipulating the time period for moving average - have they no shame or are they just utter turkeys?

So you're saying it didn't happen? That Crikey have done it themselves? That it is an acceptable practice?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Andrew Bolt really is pathetic.

Which begs the question – if Bolt is so easily fooled, why does the ABC or any media outfit attempting to be informative use him? Tabloids I can understand – they’re rubbish from arseh*le to breakfast time in the serious debate stakes, it’s entertainment not serious news and analysis. But the ABC?

Good ****ing question.

 

[medusala]

So you're saying it didn't happen? That Crikey have done it themselves? That it is an acceptable practice?

I and Crikey makes it clear they agree, am saying Bolt did not do it.

It needs to be emphasised that Andrew Bolt didn’t create these charts – he merely lifted them from this dude.

Alarmists are notorious for cherry picking and changing moving averages to suit their argument. It looks as though Spencer may be at it as well

To criticise a journo for sourcing a graph rather than creating their own is a bit rich.

I presume Crikey has also done articles showing what a statistical fraud the Hockey Stick is.

 

[bit_pattern]

I and Crikey makes it clear they agree, am saying Bolt did not do it.

Bolt is the only one spreading this nonsense in the Australian media every few weeks.

And you're the only one having a hissy fit here, matey.

 

[bit_pattern]

So you're saying it didn't happen? That Crikey have done it themselves? That it is an acceptable practice?

He's just saying it! Anything to defend Rupert for the ideologically improper Crikey!

After all, we're talking about someone who can from one corner of his mouth say he doesn't "not believe" in the greenhouse effect, then from the other suggest that GW is somehow suspect because CO2 only makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere - despite the two positions being mutually exclusive because both the greenhouse effect and GW are based on the same radiative forcing calculations. Meds is just a shrill contrarian and nothing else.

 

[HarryTiger]

BP can you quote one paragraph from the article that gets to heart of this false comparison? What claims have been made which rely on the using of the 2 different periods?

I tried yesterday reading the Crikey article and it just went on and on and I really couldn't be bothered.

Two graphs alone a scandal make not, or something like that.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not going to spoon feed you because you can't be bothered reading something!

 

[HarryTiger]

Well the substance of your thread at the moment is two quite legitimate looking graphs with you crying fraud.

 

[Relativity]

Are the graphs wrong?

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ No, but by pushing the running average back to 25 months it is possible to make the rise in temps look less severe, when just a few months ago they were using a 13 month running average to make the dip in temp look more pronounced. It is statistical chicanery.

And since Harry too thick/lazy to read the article for himself:

It shows satellite based global temperate data, but in a format where each month’s actual global average temperature measurement is converted into the difference between that global average temperature observation and the long run average between the years 1979 and 1998. The full data set can be found here: Bolt uses this chart as evidence for his claim:

Did they suddenly think to check the satellite data – and discover (Good God!) that the planet hasn’t warmed since at least 2001:
​

Try and overlook the obvious fact that this particular chart doesn’t actually, statistically support Bolt’s claim at all – we’ll write that off as just another example of the more obvious pitfalls involved when someone attempts to punch above their actual skill level.
The reason he’s claiming what he is, comes from the behaviour of that 13 month moving average – the red trend line – where it was showing a recent decline, at least relative to where it was over the last few years or so.
The problem though with that 13 month running average, at least as far as Bolt’s argument is concerned, is that it’s starting to head sharply up – to the point where even Bolt’s blatant misinterpretation of the meaning of that red trend line is not going to support his “no warming” argument for much longer, let alone the “global cooling” argument he often substitutes in its place.

The 13 month moving average in the previous chart – the one showing a steep incline over recent months – has been conveniently replaced by a much more ideologically friendly 25 month moving average. An average that, because of the longer period of time used to calculate it, still covers all of the 2007/08 decline, artificially lowering the most recent values of the trend line.
Rather than deal with the reality of the data in a consistent fashion, the methodology used to calculate the trend was altered in such a way that it conveniently lowered the most recent values of the trend line – also conveniently allowing Bolt to continue to use this chart as so called ‘evidence’.
This is worse than curve fitting, it’s worse then cherry picking – it’s an exercise in misrepresenting manipulated data to fit an argument, knowingly or not.
If we focus on the period at the end of those two charts – this is what the difference between the old 13 month and the new 25 month average looks like (EDIT: Just to avoid any confusion – this chart below is mine, designed specifically so that the size of the difference between the two running averages can be clearly seen)

Quite a difference – a very convenient difference as it turns out.

You could have both figured that out for yourselves if you'd read the bloody article

 

[bit_pattern]

And, again if you guys would just follow the bloody link, you would have seen this (same goes for you Meds, this is why it is aimed at Bolt, you nuffa):

These charts just get worse – thanks to a heads up from thomasbarret in comments, this isnt the first time the smoothing methodology of these charts have mysteriously and conveniently changed to result in an artificially lowered end point for the trend lines. Back in March 2009, rather than using a moving 13 or 25 point average, it had a completely and utterly ridiculous 4th degree polynomial curve fitted to it (click to expand):

Polynomial curve fitting is pretty much the first econometrics 101 sin you get beaten into your brain to avoid. Some curves like quadratics (various parabola shaped curves) or cubics (a sideways flattened “s” shaped curve) have their uses – things like quadratic production functions or statistical analysis where there are non-constant marginal changes involved in the relationship between one variable and another in some area of analysis are frequent, For instance, we’ve used such quadratic functions here before to analyse the size of the informal vote as a function of ballot length. Similarly, cubic functions have their regular uses as well, particularly in areas exhibiting non-linear behaviour such as technology diffusion rates, or even here where we used such 3rd degree polynomials as a means to project election results from exit polls.

So here we have 3 charts reproduced by Andrew showing the same data set, but with three different trend line methodologies used in three separate time periods – all of which have conveniently mislead readers into believing that there is a downward trend happening. There’s a methodology for all occasions!
UPDATE 2:
If you want to see what that silly 4th degree polynomial trend looks like now with updated data, Tim Lambert over at Deltoid has the goods. It’s pretty funny.

Now is there anything else you need reproduced for you? Maybe I could hold your hand and walk you through the Deltoid post as well?

 

[HarryTiger]

This is why I didn't read it all before too much interjected ad hominem and superfluous explanation. It shouldn't require that much to be quoted to get to the point.

Let me try and translate.

It shows satellite based global temperate data, but in a format where each month’s actual global average temperature measurement is converted into the difference between that global average temperature observation and the long run average between the years 1979 and 1998. The full data set can be found here: Bolt uses this chart as evidence for his claim:

It shows satellite derived global temerature averages as anomalies with a moving average, the usual.

Did they suddenly think to check the satellite data – and discover (Good God!) that the planet hasn’t warmed since at least 2001:
Try and overlook the obvious fact that this particular chart doesn’t actually, statistically support Bolt’s claim at all – we’ll write that off as just another example of the more obvious pitfalls involved when someone attempts to punch above their actual skill level.

Andrew Bolt is a stupid and he's wrong again.

The reason he’s claiming what he is, comes from the behaviour of that 13 month moving average – the red trend line – where it was showing a recent decline, at least relative to where it was over the last few years or so.
The problem though with that 13 month running average, at least as far as Bolt’s argument is concerned, is that it’s starting to head sharply up – to the point where even Bolt’s blatant misinterpretation of the meaning of that red trend line is not going to support his “no warming” argument for much longer, let alone the “global cooling” argument he often substitutes in its place.

In 08 the chart dipped a lot which Bolt highlighed due to the falling nature i.e. cooling. I think he did this in the past, but date isn't mentioned.

The 13 month moving average in the previous chart – the one showing a steep incline over recent months – has been conveniently replaced by a much more ideologically friendly 25 month moving average. An average that, because of the longer period of time used to calculate it, still covers all of the 2007/08 decline, artificially lowering the most recent values of the trend line.

No mention of dates again, but reference is made to a subsequent usage of a 25 month moving average in which the recent upswing in global temperature is less pronounced than if he'd stuck with the previous 13 month period.

Rather than deal with the reality of the data in a consistent fashion, the methodology used to calculate the trend was altered in such a way that it conveniently lowered the most recent values of the trend line – also conveniently allowing Bolt to continue to use this chart as so called ‘evidence’.
This is worse than curve fitting, it’s worse then cherry picking – it’s an exercise in misrepresenting manipulated data to fit an argument, knowingly or not.
If we focus on the period at the end of those two charts – this is what the difference between the old 13 month and the new 25 month average looks like (EDIT: Just to avoid any confusion – this chart below is mine, designed specifically so that the size of the difference between the two running averages can be clearly seen)

Not much further added, Bolt was purposely inconsistent to present his argument, cherry picked. We still don't know when and what specific claims were made by Bolt.

No actual Andrew Bolt quotes or links to his words. Trust us.

 

[bit_pattern]

Who's being superfluous now?! The original article was much easier to digest than your 'translation', you should try reading it sometime

Pollytics is a purposely 'entertaining' blog, of course it's going to be inflected with humour and antagonism. You don't need to know the dates (although I'll think you'll find most examples are linked to, you could have followed the links for yourself, something you have proved time and again not to be very good at, had you bothered to read the article) to know that Bolt consistently cherry picks methodology that suits his argument.

 

[HarryTiger]

Let me help you BP and Crikey.

---------------

In <insert date> Andrew Bolt posted this blog entry/article <choose one> where he claimed that <insert claim>,

<insert Bolt quote>

<insert URL to Bolt quote>

But in <insert date> Bolt then went on to claim that <insert claim>

<insert Bolt quote>

<insert URL to Bolt quote>

But, to do this he had to use a 25 month moving average instead of his original 13 month moving average.

See in this chart I have created which superimposes both moving averages how the longer one hides the recent upswing in temperature which is clear in the shorter moving average that Bolt used previously,

<insert your chart>

As you can see Andrew Bolt is a fraud who likes to cherry pick his data to suit his argument.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, because that would be really entertaining! The whole point of Pollytics pieces are the humour, something you seem to lack.

Is this what you do when you can't actually come up with any other argument even though you want to disagree? It's like when you attacked that climate progress post because you didn't like the format, had no other argument so you have to find an excuse for ignoring any argument that makes your side look like the braindead numpties that you really are

 

[HarryTiger]

Yeah, because that would be really entertaining! The whole point of Pollytics pieces are the humour, something you seem to lack.

Is this what you do when you can't actually come up with any other argument even though you want to disagree? It's like when you attacked that climate progress post because you didn't like the format, had no other argument so you have to find an excuse for ignoring any argument that makes your side look like the braindead numpties that you really are

How do I react then when I see something that makes a vaguely defined claim with no supporting evidence?

 

[bit_pattern]

Maybe if you actually read the article? Kind of hard to see the evidence when you purposely ignore it!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/you_can_lead_a_horse_to_a_cold_blast/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...comments/warmists_buried_under_britains_snow/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/no_backers_for_rudds_reckless_plan/

Took me thirty seconds to find those links in the article, but, by all means, keep trying to deflect! Do I sense a Bolt fan trying desperately to ignore the fact that he's been misled so badly all this time? Your use of the term 'warmist' suggests that I do!