Disingenuous graphs are the backbone of the AGW propaganda. These methods had been used with great success in politics, but had been rejected by scientists before the standard what qualifies as science had been lowered to what it is in climate "science". Graphs which use disproportionate scaling for the Y-axis are the new norm as well as "correcting" the data they are based on in order to establish a trend to imply a correlation.
It`s been done with every pillar supporting this hoax. Temperature, ice cover , severe weather events etc etc...
Even though the public became aware how these "scientists" used "natures trick" to establish the CO2 & temperature correlation when their emails got hacked these falsifications persist...as they must, because they are essential to this hoax. The latest addition was re-defining heat waves, their frequency and what qualifies as one. Each climate region had it`s own definition what qualifies as a heat wave which of course made it difficult to use a short duration (hot) weather event and morph it into a climate trend...which is being ridiculed if a cold weather event is used in the same context, even though their duration is most of the time longer than most heat waves. That has been "fixed" and now the same threshold what qualifies as a heat wave applies to Australia is what has been called a heat wave in the arctic.
Top ten European heatwaves since 1950 and their occurrence in the coming decades - IOPscience
So far it has been difficult to compare them across regions, because temperatures considered as normal by people accustomed to hotter climates can be categorized as heatwave in cooler areas if they are outside the area's normal temperature range (Lass et al 2011). This problem has been overcome by percentile-based indices (Alexander et al 2006) and by the novel heat wave magnitude index (HWMI, Russo et al 2014)
It`s been done with every pillar supporting this hoax. Temperature, ice cover , severe weather events etc etc...
Even though the public became aware how these "scientists" used "natures trick" to establish the CO2 & temperature correlation when their emails got hacked these falsifications persist...as they must, because they are essential to this hoax. The latest addition was re-defining heat waves, their frequency and what qualifies as one. Each climate region had it`s own definition what qualifies as a heat wave which of course made it difficult to use a short duration (hot) weather event and morph it into a climate trend...which is being ridiculed if a cold weather event is used in the same context, even though their duration is most of the time longer than most heat waves. That has been "fixed" and now the same threshold what qualifies as a heat wave applies to Australia is what has been called a heat wave in the arctic.
Top ten European heatwaves since 1950 and their occurrence in the coming decades - IOPscience
So far it has been difficult to compare them across regions, because temperatures considered as normal by people accustomed to hotter climates can be categorized as heatwave in cooler areas if they are outside the area's normal temperature range (Lass et al 2011). This problem has been overcome by percentile-based indices (Alexander et al 2006) and by the novel heat wave magnitude index (HWMI, Russo et al 2014)
