The general public tends to trust the numbers behind things; statistics are key to understanding how drastic a particular situation is or can be. But the fact of the matter is that many people manipulate their statistics in order to appeal to their own argument. Maybe not changing the numbers themselves, but manipulating the way in which they are presented in order to get the response they are looking for.
In this particular post, I'm going to look at how certain graphs and statistics can be manipulated to look good or bad to the audience. In this case, we will be looking at climate change. Let's start with a good example.
Above is a graph depicting the levels of carbon dioxide it the atmosphere over thousands of years. The consistency of the graph remains in tact, with the Y-Axis increasing by 40 parts per million between each line, and with the X-Axis decreasing by 50 (thousands of years before today) by each line. We are clearly able to determine that the carbon dioxide levels are significantly higher than years past, and the reader is then able to form his or her own opinion on the matter, with no bias being evident in the graph.
Now let's take a look at a bad example.
This graph was posted via Twitter by the conservative National Review, a group that has consistently rejected claims made by scientists on the subject of climate change. It appears that the average global temperature has not increased, right? Wrong. The scale is too big, we can't see the change very well because the temperature increases by multiples of 5.
This graph uses the same data used in the previous graph, but it is magnified to a much smaller scale. With the units on the Y-Axis only increasing by one each time, we can clearly see that the average global temperature has begun to increase.
This is just one of the ways in which certain groups can manipulate the statistics they find in order to support their own agenda, as well as gaining support from the general public. Many people rely on visuals and numbers in order to form their own opinions, and these biased graphs really put a wall in front of many people's judgement. So, it should be noted that one should closely observe statistics before they make any final judgement on the subject at hand.
Sources
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/why-the-national-reviews-global-temperature-graph-is-so-misleading/?utm_term=.6fbd761335d1
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/14/why-the-national-reviews-global-temperature-graph-is-so-misleading/?utm_term=.6fbd761335d1
Okay David, a great discussion! A couple minor edits:
ReplyDelete-Label each graph Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. This also applies to images. You should refer to them like that in the body of the text (eg. Figure 1 shows...). Below in the sources, also specify what website each Figure came from.
-"In tact" is one word (intact)
Please make sure to turn blogs in on time so you don't lose points, your work is very good, it's a shame to lose them like that!
David, you didn't address my feedback. Please remember to do so in a timely manner for future posts so you don't lose any points. More importantly, this is public, so you want to make sure to address comments and make the necessary edits so each post reflects your best work.
Delete