This ice storm has a liberal bias!

This ice storm has liberal bias!

The headlines read:

A swirling storm with a potential for more than a foot of snow clobbered the mid-Atlantic and the urban Northeast on Tuesday, grounding thousands of flights, closing government offices in the nation’s capital and giving students another day off from school.

Could this story be part of a LIBERAL PLOT TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING???

Consider the evidence:

1) Five years ago, in 2009, Scientific American was reporting that climate change would result in more severe winter storms with more precipitation.

2) In 2010, Scientific American explained again that global warming should predict heavier, harsher winter storms. They even explain why: “U.S. government scientists predicted [in 2009] that global warming will actually increase snowstorms, thanks to the potent combination of more moisture in the atmosphere from warmer average temperatures paired with the usual cold of winter. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted the same in 2007. In short, winter storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with stronger winds.”

3) In 2011, the liberal website “The Christian Science Monitor” also explained to people that scientists all expect that gradual warming on a global scale would lead to harsher and more dramatic winter storms.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

All good conservatives know that “global warming” is a total hoax designed by atheists to enact a one-world Marxist government through fear and the psychotic tyrannical demand for less pollution.

So how is it possible that this storm just happens to come along, exactly as the theory of global warming predicted??

Obviously, this winter storm must be A LIBERAL, snowing on us and messing with our roads just to try to convert us to liberal ideology.

We have added the appropriate speech bubble to the above picture to illustrate this fact.

Another “climate change is a hoax” graph, completely free of facts!

Montkton World Net Daily Graph

Montkton World Net Daily Graph

Some tiny, insignificant website called “World Net Daily” has published a glorious tirade about how climate change is a total hoax, complete with the above graph. This is a perfect example of data not burdened by pesky “facts” or “reality”.

The graph looks fairly impressive, to be sure. It seems to suggest that the “theoretical models” that predicted global warming (red zone) are completely wrong, because the actual trend in temperatures (blue zone) has been one of cooling. In fact, the “error margin” on the prediction zone and the “error margin” on the actual trend zone don’t even overlap! Wow, obviously global warming is a complete scam.

Good conservatives approve of this message. Which is why they will not be interested in the liberally biased “facts” in the rest of this article.

The actual data in this graph is taken from the monthly global mean UAH observed lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt). This graph goes all the way back into the deep and distant past of the year 2005. Of course, the models that generate predictions of global warming usually go back until at least the 1970’s.  The source data (click on the previous link) goes back to 1978.

By creating a trend line based only on 2005-2013, they are effectively “cherry-picking” the data.  Weather data is very noisy, like the stock market or the children of liberal parents. When you observe only a very short period of time, almost anything can seem like it’s happening.

For example, in following graph we show the same experimental data with four different trend lines: one that starts from the beginning of the data set (1978), one based on data since 2000, one based on data since 2001, and one based on data since 2011.

Global Temperature: four trendlines

Obviously, because of the large fluctuations in the data, you can pretty much pick a data range to predict anything you want, if the tool that you are using is linear regression. Moreover, when you pick a very narrow range of time, it creates the illusion that your “margin of error” is very small. The only reason the margin of error in the model predictions in the first graph (red area) is so large is because it’s based on modeling a much larger data set, going farther back in time.

Now, the screaming headline “global warming has exploded since 2011!” (green line) is no more nor less accurate than the headline “the world has been cooling since 2005!” (the original graph, above), because global warming is a statement about long-term trends in climate, not fluctuations in temperature that span less than a decade.

All of these, however, are just  “liberal facts”. They have no place in good, conservative articles that appear on “World Net Daily”.

 

graph data source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
graph found via: World Net Daily

related story: UNSKEWED GRAPH: Scientists split on climate change

 

How to graph climate change without liberal bias!

"Annual Global Temperature Anomalies" blah blah blah

Listen up, conservatives! There is a right way and a wrong way to present graphs about climate change. When presented the wrong way, climate change data can lead to all kinds of liberal bias!!!

"Annual Global Temperature Anomalies" blah blah blahFor example, in the radical leftist subversive anti-American Wonk Blog today, there was a graph presented showing that annual global temperature anomalies have been increasing drastically since the 1950’s, and are still increasing today, although the rate of increase seems to have slowed down somewhat.

This graph is obviously way too confusing and filled with liberal bias. First of all, it shows way too much data. Who needs to go back all the way to the 1950’s?  I mean, unless you are looking for inspiration for new women’s issues policies.

Second, this term “global temperature anomalies” sounds pretty vague and suspicious to me. They are probably measuring something weird.

Third, well just look at the graph. Clearly it might lead people to the false conclusion that the climate is changing, when very clearly it is not, because God would never do that. Plus, liberals are very suspicious. Plus, I heard there were some emails that proved global warming is false, or something.

So instead, we present to you the following conservative-approved graph (guaranteed to be free from Liberal Bias):

Ocean Surface Temperature

In this graph, we have limited the data collection to just the last few decades, and we’ve measured something very simple: the surface of the ocean. As you can see, in this graph, there is obviously NO WARMING.

Therefore, global warming is a big hoax.

 

Now, of course, some people might say that measuring just the surface temperature of the oceans for only 30 years is sort of like saying “I measured the weight of my right hand over the last 5 hours, and from that I conclude that I haven’t gained any weight!”

……But don’t listen to that kind of thing. It’s clearly just another form of liberal bias!!!!

 

graph 1 found via: Wonk Blog
graph 2 found via: Bob Tisdale’s Blog

Temperature anomalies have a liberal bias!

Liberal temperature anomalies

This left-wing propaganda chart seems to imply that this year is one of the hottest years since 1895. But that can’t be right, because some guy at Forbes magazine said the world is cooling!

According to this graph, January through July of this year was the warmest first seven months of any year on record for the United States. The national temperature of 56.4°F was 4.3°F above the long-term average. Most of the contiguous U.S. was record and near-record warm for the seven-month period, except the Pacific Northwest.

BUT THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT! THIS GRAPH IS A LIE!

How do I know?

Because Peter Ferrara told me.

Who is Peter Ferrara, you may ask? Is he some notable climate scientist? No, but even better: he’s the Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute. And he wrote an article for Forbes magazine.

The title of this article is, “Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling.” So basically, you can stop reading right there. The earth is cooling, which totally disproves the above graph. Case closed.

But if you did bother to read further in the article, you would find that he attended a conference where lots of serious people said serious things, and one of the people presenting at this conference predicted that we are now in the middle of a 25-year cyclical cooling period. He makes dire predictions that it could get REALLY cold, in fact, over the next 10-15 years. You just wait.

You will also be impressed by the fact that Peter Ferrara spends a lot of time talking about how scientific and objective and not like partisan political hacks any of the people at these conferences are. You know he can recognize partisan political hacks when he sees them, because when you look over his history of contributions to Forbes Magazine you get things like:

Obama’s Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession’s On The Way
Obama Is The Biggest Spender In World History
There’s No Mystery To Slow Economic Growth: Progressives Are The Problem
Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

Clearly this is a man who is not only unbiased, but is also correct about everything.

So I leave you with this question: which would you rather believe? The above chart created from government data? Or Peter Ferrara, the obviously neutral and unbiased non-scientist who attended a conference recently?

I know who I trust. How about you?

graph source: National Climactic Data Center

Sneaky climate chart uses numbers to lie!

Biased Climate Change Chart

This chart severely misrepresents the ambiguity of the Global Warming debate. By relying on liberally biased “numbers”, it fails to represent the basic principle of fairness: there are two sides to every story.

This chart is being spread on Facebook and through other liberal social media conduits. It divides the circle into two pieces: one piece represents people who believe in the fallacy of global warming (black) and the other piece represents the people who correctly reject the discredited theory of global warming (red). By nefariously making the surface area of each piece proportional to the number of studies supporting each position, it gives the overall impression that there is overwhelming support for the climate change lie.

In fact, by looking at this graph, one might even get the impression that people who deny climate change are just a sad, tiny little fringe cadre of whack-a-doodle extremists pathetically trying to get some attention by catering to ignorant people.

But that interpretation is obviously nonsense!!

The only conclusion, therefore, is that the graph must be wrong. This graph is simply unfair to climate change deniers.  And don’t liberals say they like fairness?

Unbiased climate change chartWe at LiberalBias.com have decided to provide for you the unskewed version of this same graph. Notice that this graph more correctly represents the fact that there are two sides to this story, and nobody can really know for sure what the right answer is. This graph shows the fair and balanced version of the debate.

Notice that we are not lying about any of the numbers, per se. We point out that 24 papers reject global warming. But we have adjusted the area of each section of the graph to correctly get across the correct feeling of the debate, namely: there are two sides to every story, and we’ll have to leave it there.

We will not allow our graphs to be dictated by numbers and statistics!

After all, if we did that, it would inevitably lead to liberal bias!!

 

graph data source: “The State of Climate Science: A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming” by Dr. James Powell
graph found via: The “I fucking love science” Facebook Page