Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Graphology

I’ve always been impressed with the skill of ‘climate scientists’. Particularly when it comes to graphs. The first that comes to mind is of course that famous ‘hockey stick’ curve. And what a curve (ball) it was. Despite being shown to ‘hide the decline’ and be completely fabricated, it nonetheless captured the hearts and minds of the warmist brigade.

 A good graph will do that to you.

So it’s no surprise that I find myself in the same enthrall of some recently revealed data.

Apparently Australia’s plethora of Silver, and not Gold, Medals won in the London Olympics, isn’t due to a lack of training, or a surfeit of tweeting but something far more noxious.

It’s the Carbon Tax, Labor’s tax on carbon dioxide, that’s worrying our Olympians. They’re afraid to breathe in or out, lest they rack up a carbon dioxide debt upon returning home.

This graph proves that.

Yep, that’s right folks, our sportsmen and women are afraid to breathe, just as our businesses are afraid to  make a profit, in case they rack up a ‘carbon debt’.

This is the Labor way.

However, there is an upside to this supposed global warming apocalypse. As the next graph shows, when the global temperature supposedly rises, piracy on the high seas decreases.

 So rest easy folks, because, as the planet heats, you’ll be bothered less and less by pirates.
Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Iain Hall says:

    So glad that you have put to rest all of my fears of pirates in a warmer world GD so as a reward I offer a little musical commentary on Graphology as practised by the Warministas;

  2. deknarf says:

    Unlike the Anthropogenic Climate Change graphs those you provided just show that correlation does not necessarily demonstrate causation. And delightfully amusing they are too! But relevant to the ACC debate — nup!

  3. GD says:

    Well may you say, deknarf, that those graphs don’t show causation, although I like to believe the pirate one.

    However neither do those graphs from the IPCC. They fudged and fiddled and f*cked around with the numbers that gave them the result they wanted. This is common knowledge among thinking people.

    Of course the staunchly religious among us, the AGW believers, will never look at evidence, instead preferring to believe their High Priests such as Flannery and Gore.

    Here’s another graph you won’t like.

    causation graph

  4. deknarf says:

    Uh Oh! Another one of your funny graphs. Who made this one up, and was it published in a journal under peer review? Or is it just another piece of selective data manipulation by the AGW deniers perpetrated as evidence for their head in the sand attitudes?

    Unfortunately I’m an unstaunchly irreligious believer and have never considered Flannery or Gore as the priestly. The science, appropriately peer reviewed, published in recognised journals and critically thought about by this little ‘thinking person’ is my religion. Do I base my belief on common knowledge — nup!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: