by Roger I. Roots, JD, Ph.D., founder, Lysander Spooner University
Anyone seeking the truth about climate change should learn the art of studying official government charts.
Climate change hysteria is built on a foundation of deceptive graphs and charts–which any savvy observer can easily see are fabricated to achieve a propaganda, rather than an informative, purpose.
The recent (2018) National Climate Assessment, published by numerous U.S. government agencies, contains numerous graphs which are plainly deceptive. All one needs to dismantle them is some knowledge of the data that is MISSING from each graph.
Page 38 of the Assessment contains a dozen charts, and most of them contain deliberate deception.
The legendary data analyst Tony Heller points out that the “U.S. Heatwave” graph (Chart B) begins in 1960. The chart makes it appear that U.S. heatwaves are steadily increasing, and invites the reader to assume the cause is CO2. But if the data from prior decades were included, the chart would show that heatwaves have DECLINED since the 1930s. “The 2018 report released to the public, cherry-picked the only start date in the graph which they could use to create the appearance of a warming trend.”
The same goes with the Report’s ‘F’ chart (Arctic sea ice extent) which STARTS IN 1975–a high point for Arctic ice. If the chart began in any year prior to 1975 it would have shown that Arctic ice levels were LOWER prior to 1975, and that current (2018) ice levels are fairly normal or even more expansive than ice levels of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.
The most deceptive chart of all in the government Assessment Report is Chart K–“U.S. Wildfires.” The chart begins around 1980, a relative low point for U.S. wildfires, and makes it appear that wildfires are now (in 2018) at record levels. REALITY IS ALMOST PRECISELY OPPOSITE. Any chart showing U.S. wildfires over the entire past century would have shown that contemporary (2018) wildfire levels are MUCH LOWER than levels in the 1930s and 1940s.
Ask yourself: if government “climate scientists” were doing real, unbiased, dispassionate science would they need to conceal such countervailing data from their readers?