Interesting ways graphic design data can be used to manipulate people

[Cathoholic]

Interesting ways graphic design data can be used to manipulate people.

We have seen a lot of climate graphs with overfitting as well (although Beauregard does not address this concept here).

Beauregard in a video here below discusses graphic design as it relates to the Global Warming debate.

Elmer’s PowerPoint Presentation – Confessions of a Graphic Designer

By Elmer Beauregard on February 13, 2017 in Multimedia, Opinion

I decided to put part of my PowerPoint presentation online. As a Graphic designer I have been designing “graphs” for many years and I think bring a different perspective to the Global Warming debate.

globalclimatescam.com/opinion/elmers-powerpoint-presentation-confessions-of-a-graphic-designer/

The video can also be seen here:

youtube.com/watch?v=SU2tKKonXbA&feature=youtu.be

 

[on_the_hill]

I work with a lot of data and graphs in my day job, and found his video very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

I do question his conclusions, however. It is true that the numerical difference between 288ppm and 368ppm is teensy tiny (that’s a scientific term). However, it could very well be the case that a difference of 80ppm is sufficient to cause serious problems.

There are plenty of substances out there, (some poisons, for example, or radioactive particles) where a exposure to a minuscule amount can be very dangerous. [in some instances, skin contact with a few particles of the opioid carfentanil can be fatal].

So I don’t think one can reasonably draw the conclusion that there is a negligible difference between two measurements because the numbers are small.

If a 2º(f) or 3º(f) increase in average global temperatures is all it takes to melt an ice cap, it certainly makes a lot of sense to emphasize the data.

He does drive home the point, however, that one has to be a vigilant consumer of data and graphs, and look at them intelligently. And, frankly, that’s beyond most people. Either they don’t understand, they don’t want to understand, or they don’t have time, or they’re pushing an agenda.

 

[Jared2914]

I remember going through something like this in school about how advertisers organize and display data to make everything look better. The same study can look very different. My parents did a pretty good job teaching me not to trust advertising though. Whenever possible I do a lot of research before spending any money (or believing in some social cause like climate change).

 

[Cathoholic]

I work with a lot of data and graphs in my day job, and found his video very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

You are welcome.

 

[lynnvinc]

Interesting ways graphic design data can be used to manipulate people.

We have seen a lot of climate graphs with overfitting as well (although Beauregard does not address this concept here).

Beauregard in a video here below discusses graphic design as it relates to the Global Warming debate.

globalclimatescam.com/opinion/elmers-powerpoint-presentation-confessions-of-a-graphic-designer/

The video can also be seen here:

youtube.com/watch?v=SU2tKKonXbA&feature=youtu.be

He obviously is not a climate scientist.

The real climate scientists will tell you that even those slight increases – in global average temps and CO2 – make a whale of a difference. (You can check out skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm )

Ice ages were only about 7C cooler than today, and warming that wiped out some 95% of life on earth some 251 mill yrs ago got to only some 12C warmer than today. We could get up to 4C, perhaps even 6C warmer by 2100 (6C would wipe out much of the world’s agriculture). And much much warming thereafter.

That trace amount of GHGs (mainly CO2) in our atmosphere makes life possible – otherwise earth would be 32C colder with no life possible. Likewise slight increases in CO2 have enormous impact in warming.

Scientists work with numbers. They only make the graphs so as to help people understand the situation, and since very tiny increases in the global average temp can have an enormous impact there is nothing fraudulent in showing only a small portion of the y-axis.

Furthermore, even that graphic designer was wrong, since neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit scales have “true zeros.” The scientists use the Kelvin scale, since it does have a true zero. But bogus scientists use the other scales to jigger and falsify the results.

We need to keep our eyes not only on the graphs, but also on the numbers, and we need the scientists to tell us what those numbers mean.

 

[Cathoholic]

He obviously is not a climate scientist.

He doesn’t claim to be. He is an expert in graphic design.

Since you recently placed a mislabeled graph up elsewhere, and I pointed that out (here), maybe it would be reasonable to listen to him. Even if he is not a “climate scientist”.

Furthermore, even that graphic designer was wrong, since neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit scales have “true zeros.” The scientists use the Kelvin scale . . .

Yet you continually cite graphs elsewhere that are not in degrees Kelvin lynnvinc.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yet you continually cite graphs elsewhere that are not in degrees Kelvin lynnvinc.

They use Celsius for graphs (sometimes Fahrenheit), since we are familiar with those. They use Kelvin for their calculations. However, since the graphic designer was trying to go from zero, then he should have used a Kelvin scale.

The climate scientists’ graphs do not go from zero, unless they are showing some baseline average (which they put at zero) and then the deviations or anomalies from that average (that is their typical graph).

 

[lynnvinc]

He doesn’t claim to be. He is an expert in graphic design.

Since you recently placed a mislabeled graph up elsewhere, and I pointed that out (here), maybe it would be reasonable to listen to him. Even if he is not a “climate scientist”.

I didn’t read your question re “temperature” and “temperature anomaly” on that other thread, but I don’t think the scientists are doing anything wrong there. That is what they are looking at, the deviations (increases and decreases) from the normal or baseline average. Also, since C and F do not have absolute zeros, it would not necessarily be appropriate to “go down to zero” on charts using these.

And even our TV weatherman puts up an “average for this date” line, and tells how many degrees higher or lower we are than the average. There’s nothing weird about that.

BTW, a park about 80 miles west of us reached 107F two days ago, and the weatherman claimed that was the hottest on record for any US location in February.

It’s really up to us to figure out the graphs and look at the labels on the y and x axes. It does take some practice. When I taught statistics, we spent a whole week on graphs and charts.

 

[Cathoholic]

Also, since C and F do not have absolute zeros, it would not necessarily be appropriate to “go down to zero” on charts using these . . .

Yet YOU were the one being critical about the degrees Kelvin issue, not me.

It’s really up to us to figure out the graphs and look at the labels on the y and x axes. It does take some practice.

I had a feeling you’d make an excuse for a mislabeled graph you posted.
And it may even be a good excuse. But there always is an “excuse”.

Why not just admit it?

Why not just say, “nobody bats .1000, this WAS a mislabeled graph, and it slipped by me too.”

 

[lynnvinc]

Yet YOU were the one being critical about the degrees Kelvin issue, not me.

I had a feeling you’d make an excuse for a mislabeled graph you posted.
And it may even be a good excuse. But there always is an “excuse”.

Why not just admit it?

Why not just say, “nobody bats .1000, this WAS a mislabeled graph, and it slipped by me too.”

I didn’t perceive any mislabeling. “Temperature anomaly” is a type of “temperature” stat. Abbreviating the title is not uncommon, as long as the more detailed description is given in the article or on the axis. No one was trying to deceive anyone. I think you’re being too picky. But IF you have an issue, then contact the university that put it up and make the complaint.

Furthermore, nearly all the other CC charts use the temp anomaly, not the actual global average temp, so if one is familiar with those charts, they won’t have any problem with that graph. And the shape of the graph would be the same anyway, even if the actual temps (in K, C, or F) had been used instead.

For a chart with actual temps, you would just add 14C (Earth’s average temp at that baseline average 1960-90) to the temp anomaly line for Celsius; 57F for Fahrenheit (after converting the line into F); and 287K for Kelvin. You’d have to add a lot more paper at the bottom, and that paper would be blank.

Here’s a temp anomaly chart (too big for CAF, so just the link) that goes back 500 mill years: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.png . (Watch out, the time is not done in even increments & if it had been, you’d need paper that goes on for miles.) It shows how the global average temp has gone up to a high of about 15C above the 1960-90 average and to a low of 6C below that average.

Now, if you insist, you can just add 14C for Celsius, 57F for Fahrenheit (to F side of the graph), and 287K for Kelvin, adding more paper at the bottom to do so, paper which would be blank.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ve been giving some thought to that video in the original post. I’m thinking retired people like ourselves are really interested in that 3% or 5% that we get each Jan from our annuity, and not so much focused on the bulk. So we wouldn’t be interested in a chart that starts a zero for our total annuity, only that part that show what we are going to get that year.

The man the guy worked for – well it seems some law required him to show it down to zero, and what he did was fraud & that’s why he went to prison.

When making a chart, you have to think about what’s its purpose. Sometimes it is better to include the zero, and sometimes not (such as unnecessary waste of space, which can also cause confusion and misdirect the viewer from the important aspects).

 

[lynnvinc]

Interesting ways graphic design data can be used to manipulate people…

I just notice that the guy’s “new and improved” climate charts are also misleading, at least in that they do not include data for 2016 (which he may not have had at the time he made his graph). But if he had included it, it would make at least a blip upward to 1C on his chart, which goes from -6C or a deep ice age state to +8C or an extreme extinction-level warming state.

For people who know, that -6C to +8C chart would be just as “scary” as the other charts that go from, say, -1.0 to +1.0, since people in the know see the trend and know what’s happening re our emissions and positive feedbacks that could cause the temp to increase to 6C in 100 or 150 years or so (near the top of his chart), which would pretty much mean the end of life as we know it – a great extinction-level event. In fact once we reach a 3C warming (which could come as early as mid-century but almost certainly by 2100 if we refuse to mitigate), the positive feedbacks will kick in with a vengeance, and even if we were to halt all GHG emissions then, it would be too late – nature would take over and spiral the temps up to 6C and perhaps beyond.

But since a large minority of people, the skeptics, are not the least bit “scared” or even slightly concerned by the charts that the scientists put out there, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Cathoholic]

I just notice that the guy’s “new and improved” climate charts are also misleading . . .

Lynnvinc. You are missing the whole point of the guy’s video.

He’s not advocating for or against global warming here.

 

[Cathoholic]

But since a large minority of people, the skeptics, are not the least bit “scared” or even slightly concerned by the charts that the scientists put out there, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

The “fuss” is two-fold.

The “fuss” is about two aspects that a 97% homecoming contest never addresses.

The “fuss” is about the control package that is being attempted to be attached to a science that has too many variables at this point in time to give consistently accurate predictions and diverts attention away from and also harms real solutions.

 

[lynnvinc]

The “fuss” is two-fold.

The “fuss” is about two aspects that a 97% homecoming contest never addresses.

The “fuss” is about the control package that is being attempted to be attached to a science that has too many variables at this point in time to give consistently accurate predictions and diverts attention away from and also harms real solutions.

Since you don’t seem concerned about AGW, what is it to you?

 

[Cathoholic]

Since you don’t seem concerned about AGW . . . .

Then you haven’t read or comprehended my posts.

The hysterics and gyrations of activists are hurting the whole discussion.

And if something environmentally substantially, ever comes of this, it is people who have engaged in hysterical melodramatic behavior that ironically will be accountable for hurting the environment by forfeiting a real rational discussion.

The warmists are the ones ultimately harming the environment indirectly by not allowing the rational discussion (and in the cases of their unchallenged “leaders” . . . . DIRECTLY harming the environment. Which is exacly what Pope Francis has warned about, I’ve quoted it to you, and you keep ignoring him calling these warnings “a red herring” elsewhere).

And because of their over inflated view of Government as their “quasi-savior”, they will never be able to see it without a special grace.

 

[lynnvinc]

Then you haven’t read or comprehended my posts.

The hysterics and gyrations of activists are hurting the whole discussion.

And if something environmentally substantially, ever comes of this, it is people who have engaged in hysterical melodramatic behavior that ironically will be accountable for hurting the environment by forfeiting a real rational discussion.

The warmists are the ones ultimately harming the environment indirectly by not allowing the rational discussion (and in the cases of their unchallenged “leaders” . . . . DIRECTLY harming the environment. Which is exacly what Pope Francis has warned about, I’ve quoted it to you, and you keep ignoring him calling these warnings “a red herring” elsewhere).

And because of their over inflated view of Government as their “quasi-savior”, they will never be able to see it without a special grace.

Oh I see it all clearly now.

But please excuse me for my past sins of reducing our GHGs (and concomitant pollution) more than 60% below our 1990 levels with hardly any gov incentives at all. And for saving many $1000s since 1990 without lowering our living standard.

We did get tax breaks in 2012 and 2013 for our solar panels & Chevy Volt (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa).

However, you needn’t worry hereafter at all. All those tax breaks will be taken away very soon and the gov will only be continuing their very heavy subsidizing of fossil fuels, making everyone happy thinking that they are saving money by not going on alt energy, or not spending much by being inefficient and wasteful – except on April 15th when they have to pay the bill for those subsidies, but they won’t know it is for that, so they’ll just get someone more to the right of Trump to take away SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, etc so as to keep increasing the subsidies for fossil fuels (and for harming the health of those affected by fossil fuel extraction, processing, combustion & waste), so we can all live happy, free, wasteful lives, only upset on April 15th.

So you never ever have to become energy/resource efficient/conservative or go on alt energy. There just won’t be anyone to incentivize those or even suggest it is a good and wise thing to do. (I’m at the end of my life, so I won’t be around much longer to suggest all those.)

But eventually – and you are right on this – once we have plundered and polluted the earth, maybe in 100 years or so, there will be a mad scrambling for life resources and some dictators will probably be taking over, ruling by brutal force.

But you have nothing at all to worry about that, since you probably won’t be alive 100 years from now.

And to heck with the future generations – what have they ever done for us?