Daily Fail: Graphs Edition

Oh, the Daily Mail, where facts are 'facts' and scantily clad women are alternately ogled and concern trolled. Because I'm sure that this was all a simple misunderstanding caused by a careless intern whose only previous published worked included photoshopping cellulite onto some celebrity's hindquarters, I decided to help out.

What the Daily Mail Graph Should Look LikeWhat the Daily Mail Graphs Actually Look Like

So yes, after some seriously high-trending temperatures, it looks like a downward change there at the end - however, that big drop is based on a single monthly data point of an unfinished year (as opposed to the seemingly yearly points of the first graph). I'm way too lazy to actually regraph this thing, so this is what you get. Anyway, matching oranges to oranges (or axes to axes, in this case) makes a big difference in how you see the data, doesn't it? Long-winded explanation after the jump.

Whiskey Fire pointed out some silly graphing by the Mail, in which a few problems arose; can you spot them all? (Daily Mail: Highlights for Adults!) Lessee, the y-axis of the first graph marks the first positive value as '0.5 degrees', while the second's y-axis sports '0.75 degrees'. Why, Daily Mail! That's really misleading! The x-axis of the first graph is marked in units of 25 years, while the second graph is single years. Also, the second graph covers a span of less than ten years. Problem. What's more, the second graph seems (unclear!) to be plotted in terms of months, while the first looks more like yearly data points. Well...well, that's going to be difficult to compare in an accurate way, Daily Mail! It's almost like you commissioned someone at Slate to make this graph for you ("You might think that the Earth has been steadily heating up for the last thirty years, but actually The Strokes are the very best thing to happen to the climate ever!")

In my version of the graph, I've put the two graphs side by side, stretched the second one so that the 0 degree change line and the positive 1.5 degree change line matched on both graphs (matched the y-axis units), and I've shrunk the second one to approximate the x-axis time markings of the first graph. I also traced over (sloppily) the temperature data line on the second one, as all that shrinking made it really hard to see. Oh, and since the first graph covers a significant span of time (9ish years, maybe?) after the year 2000, I've put the second graph (years 2001-some of 2010) over most of that portion of the graph.

This is a sloppy approximation, y'all. Dirty and quick and with absolutely no looking up of new data, and it's still a much clearer presentation than Daily Mail's original graphs. Imagine if someone took the time to actually graph the thing, with science.