Seen At The American Museum Of Unnatural Propaganda

I was at the (Un)Natural History Museum in Manhattan on Sunday, where they were working very hard to pollute children’s minds with these spectacularly misleading graphs. How much propaganda can a museum pack into one display for children?

ScreenHunter_1478 Jul. 31 21.56 ScreenHunter_1479 Jul. 31 21.57

For some reason, they forgot to include Briffa’s trees.

ScreenHunter_165 Mar. 02 23.27

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Seen At The American Museum Of Unnatural Propaganda

  1. “How much propaganda can a museum pack into one display for children?”

    The Mongolian tree rings show that warming trend from 1850-1950 (no human influence) is pretty much identical to the warming trebd from 1950-2014. So if there is a human influence, there’s no evidence of it here.

  2. Ivan says:

    The “beginning of the industrial revolution” is more correctly ascribed to the period beginning about 1760. Therefore, according to the first graph, the ramping-up of coal-burning and the belching of CO2 into the atmosphere was followed immediately by a decline in temperature of around 0.6deg. Not that facts matter, of course.

    • You ever see a CMIP5 ensemble model run from earlier in time than 1950? Maybe not, they are not widely publicized by the climate Illuminati 😉

      Anyway, those model runs show global temperature variability was very flat prior to 1950. So either those Mongolian trees rings are useless proxies for temperature, or CMIP5 models are useless proxies for temperature. Although the safest bet is they are both useless for temperature.

  3. Jason Calley says:

    I am sure that the Museum has a good paper showing that increasing temperature is the only reason why tree rings get wider. I mean, it has to be there somewhere, right? Maybe it also explains why 1750 had bigger rings than 1950.

    And a Dust Bowl in North America during the 1930s is not even a blip in the temperature record, but a few tree locations in Mongolia, that models global temperatures, huh?

  4. pesce9991 says:

    They didn’t use Briffa’s trees because they are not considered reliable after 1950. That’s a good enough reason not to include them. Let’s not give the children false information.

    • So tree rings are no good after 1950, that is why they are displaying tree rings after 1950.

      You are what is known as a useful idiot.

      • And do you know why there were not considered “reliable after 1950” – because they gave the “wrong” answer. Honest. That was essentially their explanation. Which of course, raises the broader question, why do you think they were reliable before 1950?

      • pesce9991 says:

        “So tree rings are no good after 1950, that is why they are displaying tree rings after 1950.

        You are what is known as a useful idiot.”

        So, no, Steve. First you display ignorance by purposely ‘misunderstanding’ what I said so that you could get by with using your ad homminum.

        Maybe you should read the link first:

        “The authors were able to compare (or calibrate) their density records directly against instrumental data; note that the tree-ring density records become de-coupled from temperature after 1950, possibly due to some large-scale human influence that caused wood densities to decline. Thus, the reconstructed temperature record after 1960 is considered unreliable.”

        • The divergence problem is indeed man-made. It is due to large scale data tampering by NOAA and NASA.

        • pesce9991 says:

          More nonsense, Steven. The second chart shows the temperatures rising through the period while the tree ring data and density fall.

          More nonsense about “the greatest fraud in scientific history. That’s why hardly anybody’s heard of it? Is that why warming deniers are the only ones calling it that?

          When will you acknowledge that the Briffa tree chart was deemed inaccurate as a temperature indicator nothing more nor less?

        • “…possibly due to some large-scale human influence that caused wood densities to decline.”

          What they are saying is that they think *something* in the environment changed such that the data was no good after 1950. They don’t know what changed or why it changed. They admit they can’t prove any of this. It’s pure speculation, in other words.

          Imagine if you do a medical trial and at the end of the trial most of the patients die. Do you argue that the treatment is maybe not so good, or do you argue that something happened to the patients at the end of the trial, to cause all the patients to die, and we don’t know what this is. But it’s got nothing to do with the treatment, although we can’t prove it. Therefore the treatment is still OK… and the trial is a success.

          In any scientific field you’d be laughed at–except Climatology of course.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Very good!

        • Pesc. The whole point of the article is that those temperatures are altered. Have you had an IQ test recently?

          Did you understand anything I wrote?

    • Gail Combs says:

      If the trees are not “reliable” when compared to actual thermometers they are not reliable PERIOD.

      Trees make crappy “thermometers” because they grow in response to Water AND Sunshine AND Fertilizer AND CO2 as well as in response to temperature. In statistics it is a called confounding and without a method for separating the various factors you are not going to get temp out of the measurements.

      • pesce9991 says:

        Thank you! I was looking but couldn’t find a straightforward answer like that!

      • tom0mason says:

        But do not forget Gail, there are those that quite rightly question the validity of the second graphic and it’s completely unnatural rise in CO2 level from ridiculously low level.

      • emsnews says:

        100% correct!

        I have been quite bemused at how tree rings are increasingly used to show ‘warming’ if the rings are small when we already know for a fact that tree rings get small due to COOLING, not warming.

        This is why the Strad violins are so beautiful. The wood grain is very fine due to the Little Ice Age back when the violins were made.

        Cool, wet weather makes for big rings but if it is freezing cold and late springs this makes for small rings. Indeed, the biggest factor is how long the growing season is, more than anything.

      • mjc says:

        Gail, thanks for that CO2 record link…it was just what I was looking for.

    • James the Elder says:

      But Mikey’s are gospel?

    • philjourdan says:

      Then why use Briffa’s trees at all? The only period where they can calibrate are, by your own admission, unreliable. So there is no way to know if they were ever reliable.

      And as the alarmists state, AGW started in 1950, so you are in essence saying that Briffa’s trees are totally unreliable in the debate. Which is what Steven said.

      Really, E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N. Try it.

      • pesce9991 says:

        Try some of that EDUCATION yourself, philly. You ask the question “why use Briffa’s trees at all?” and the answer is THEY DON’T anymore. Not for global temperature readings. They have been used as a way of corroborating global temperatures until they were found to be unreliable for that purpose. They diverged dramatically from actual temperature readings so that they would distort the averages.
        Tree ring readings in general including Briffa’s have many other scientific uses where they are found to be much more useful. They have presented Briffa and others with a dilemma on how to explain the more resent divergence.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    That is really sad.

    The Museum of Natural History used to be one of my favorite haunts as a child.

  6. mjc says:

    Tree rings really are just a record of favorable or poor growing conditions…for that particular species of tree.

  7. KevinK says:

    I’m so sorry you had nothing better to do than go to Manhattan, what a rotten way to spend a day.

    There is a lot of good stuff to see elsewhere in “The Empire State”, I hope you get a chance to see some of it. For example; check out “Stony Brook” state park, one of the very few examples of extant “old growth” (i.e. original) forest on the East Coast, very nice.

    I haven’t spent much time in Manhattan for over thirty years, but I did manage to get to 6 of the 7 continents in those years, much more enriching times.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  8. gofer says:

    CNN anchor calls Fox news “f*cksticks” over global warming denial.

    • pesce9991 says:

      How witty of him. He nailed it.

      • Shazaam says:

        Oh indeed. When you have nothing, it is time to resort to name calling…..

        I predict that we will see a lot of name calling from those members of the media supporting the CAGW scam in the next few months.

        • pesce9991 says:

          I am not a qualified climate specialist just an interested person but having read your submissions always accusing climate scientists of manipulating evidence I will show how you have done just that in your posts. I believe any intelligent person, scientist or not, if they desired could see behind and through your charts and words.

          I n your article, Steven, you included several charts some of which a careful reader could see as manipulated.

          Chart 1:
          This chart of the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE shows the temperatures from 1880 to 1975. It shows a cooling trend from around 1938-1975. It has no data after 1975. not manipulated.

          Chart 2:
          Clearly shows that the mean temperatures (between the five month period April-Sep) RISE after
          1975 while the ring density and width DECLINE. not manipulated

          Chart 3:
          The April-Sep mean temperature line has been REMOVED. This would have shown how the temperatures continued to rise and the tree ring readings continued to fall. It would have shown the divergence you claim doesn’t exist. Manipulated

          Chart 4:
          Cherry picked a chart of “North Extratropic Surface temps” that show a decline to 1978 just about when the divergence begins. Redundant, but as long as it ends with a down trend throw it in. Cherry picked.

          Article from 1961:
          Shows that some climate scientists believed we were going to keep cooling. They could not see that it was an anomaly. At that time they could not have foreseen the warming trend that would occur some 15 years later.

          Chart 5:
          Again only shows the measurements to about 1968. Pointless.

          Chart 6:
          Looks sinister but there’s no context. Just you saying how they manipulated it. No evidence. No proof.

        • philjourdan says:

          All you showed was that your reading comprehension has improved slightly. You have not shown any data manipulation which indicates your writing still leaves a lot to be desired.

        • Robert Kearns says:

          When a chart (#3, if I remember) leaves out the actual temperature readings for comparison that show the temperature rising that’s manipulation. Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:38:32 +0000 To:

        • philjourdan says:

          No, manipulation is change. Not putting in the temperature, only the adjustment, is merely framing the data. And depending upon what point is trying to be proven, may or my not be insufficient.

          You still have a lot to learn.

      • cdquarles says:

        Hmm, so the CNN folk are ‘trustworthy’ and the Fox folk aren’t. I wonder why you’d think that.

        I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to know that not only was Ted Turner a Red and Agenda 21 sympathizer, he married Hanoi Jane to top it off. We know it as Communist News Network and if you were around when Saddam did his thing to Kuwait that made us do our thing to him, you’d know that you could count on CNN to have the propaganda straight but the story inverted or mutilated, or both.

        • Robert Kearns says:

          You carried it too far cdq… I love to hear what people say under their breath or thinking there’s no mike around. Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:50:58 +0000 To:

        • philjourdan says:

          pesce can only regurgitate what has been fed into him. He cannot come up with an original thought. And of course, since spelling is not a strong point of talking points, his spelling and grammar sucks as well.

  9. Mikey ‘nature trick’ Mann-made-warming – used Bristlecone pine trees, and their tree rings, like all tree rings have little correlation with Co2 or any other trace chemical. This was well known in the 1960s. Mikey never mentioned that in his hockey stick fraud which has made him a millionaire. Some trees can sprout 5 rings in one season for reasons that are still not fully understood. Tons of examples of one season multi-rings abound. In other words tree ring data means nothing. Real temperature data cannot be ‘proxied’ without identifying all of the issues. Ergo this museum has committed massive fraud. No more tax dollars.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s