Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Why does the Bishop post graphs he knows to be wrong?

Sandy, I have no idea who you are talking about.

Tiny, your principle "I'm happy to kick climate science any way that works" is a poor one that reflects badly on you. A better one is "a lie is a lie, whoever it is from". People who lie to promote their position deserve to be condemned, whichever side. But let's not redefine what a lie is, like Martin does.

Martin, funny you should mention dinosaurs. I was indeed thinking of you last night, sitting in your vest shouting "Dinosaurs, you lying scumbag!" whenever the weatherman talks of record temperatures.

Stewgreen, don't talk rubbish. Of course there is a graph. But it is all negative, which is inconvenient if you are a Ridley: from the article:

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

BTW the graph comes from the paper, which I published a link to before:

Nov 19, 2015 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

The day you are prepared to — or even allowed to — make the same criticisms on the blogs and websites of those who lie or deliberately mislead, exaggerate, or othwerwise distort the facts in their efforts to prove that there is measurable global warming, that that warming is unprecedented, and that the effects on humanity are likely to be catastrophic, then we might, just might, pay some attention to what you are saying.
But you can't and you won't because you are fully signed up to the cult of climate that claims to be "saving the planet" and that all lies, misleadings, exaggerations and distortions are acceptable in this noble cause.
I am with Tiny. I believe that there is nowhere near enough evidence to make the claims that are being made by the climate activists and if they (and you) are prepared to be so intellectually and morally corrupt that you will do any of those things I have mentioned in order to get your way then I shall support anyone who uses any methods to make sure you don't.
It's simple, really. Be honest about what the science actually says. Include all the caveats. Simply stick to the facts and forget the guesswork (aka totally unvalidated "models") and the hype. And the exaggerations. And the lies.

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike, it has been said, in defense of the Bishop publishing the Tol 2009 graph, that NOAA, NASA, MO or IPCC deliberately lie. Show me a lie - and not merely where there is an omission of the whole context. It should be simple enough, you all seem to believe they lie.

Nov 19, 2015 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff


Take your pick of any historical temperature 'adjustment' where older temperatures and up colder and recent ones warmer.

Nov 19, 2015 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

Wot Nial sed will do for a start.
Telling us that the MWP didn't exist would do as an example.
Telling us that model output is "evidence" would do.
Telling us that 97% of scientists endorse the scam is an ongoing lie repeated daily by the useful idiots.
Tell me when you've had enough.

Nov 19, 2015 at 4:23 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

@Raff misrepresents me and/or is confused
There are 3 graphs..
I posted a link to #3 the newest, @Raff posted a link to #2, Bish used #1
You can see the chronology in Brandon's post

@Stew said "Yes there is a new graph, but its not a curve so difficult to interpret"
and I gave a link to it 5th March 2014 Tol's Blog this was the one used in IPCC WG2 AR5
(lets's call that graph #3)

And in reply @Raff said "Stewgreen, don't talk rubbish. Of course there is a graph. But it is all negative, which is inconvenient if you are a Ridley: "
He then gave a link to a version of Tol's 2009 which has been corrected (lets call that graph #2
Used on a May 2014 BLOG posting hosted on the Washington post server )

So @raff some how shouts at me even though my graph is newer than his.

The reason I didn't link to graph #2 is cos it is older , and Brandon said it's also wrong
and that would conflict with @Raff's title Why post graphs that are wrong ?

BTW @Raff said of his gragh #2 "But it is all negative,"
See that dot above the 1C point showing a strong economic positive well that's part of the data, there is another dot from another sample just below the line showing a slight negative.
Of course at 2C it seems to show all negative.

For more see my previous comment.

Nov 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen


any historical temperature 'adjustment' where older temperatures [end] up colder and recent ones warmer
There's lots of reasons why measurements are adjusted and many adjustments might have that cold/warm effect. If you think that anysuch adjustment is evidence of dishonesty, you are deluded.

Mike, where do those organizations say the MWP didn't exist (as opposed, perhaps, to saying that it didn't exist as a global phenomenon)? Complaining about the use of the word 'evidence' applied to models is just a tiresome "skeptic" meme that means nothing to a lay-reader. Ditto your 97% obsession. Richard Tol, who shares your 97% obsession, says the true number is 95% - that distinction is laughable to any normal person.

Give me some real lies, outright untruths, not "skeptical" reinterpretations of words that don't mean anything to the general public.

Nov 19, 2015 at 5:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Stewgreen, yes, your style of comment is confusing and difficult to read, so I usually just skim or ignore it. I know of two graphs with curves fitted, one from Tol 2009 and one from Tol 2014. If there is another (with a curve), link directly to it.

Nov 19, 2015 at 5:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

A lie is a lie whether "the people" understand it or not.
Claiming that computer model output is evidence is a lie.
Mann's hockey stick was a lie.
Sorry if you don't like that.
Persistently adjusting historic temperatures even when the local meteorologists say there is no justification for doing so is a form of lying.
I also mentioned misleadings, exaggerations and distortions. Are you going to justify those next?

Nov 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Computer models are the only reliable way to predict changes in climate.

Has global warming now stopped?
No. The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.

Every action we take to reduce greenhouse gases will make a difference.

(Met Office Publication)

Nov 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Your examples of lying are no more than differences of opinion expressed as accusations. Give me some real lies, outright untruths if you can. I think you cannot. You have been reading "skeptical" sites for so long that you have become brainwashed into seeing lies, deception and conspiracy in every place you look. Your mind has become poisoned. When asked to identify real, solid untruths all you can do is fall back on the nonsense you have been fed. The 'lies' are a mirage created by the Bishop and Watts etc and when you grasp at them to present to me, they dissolve in front of you; there's nothing solid and you fall back on fuzzy language reinterpretations or generalities like global temperature index conspiracies, or fairy-tail wicked wizards like Mann; part of your brain may still be truly skeptical - of your own accumulated nonsense.

I know sites like this have a brainwashing effect because reading the Bishop's constant attacks on his preferred targets affected my reactions to news stories. The diet here is unhealthy.

Nov 19, 2015 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Martin, your examples are even worse than Mike's and others. They come down just to opinion. Give me some real lies, outright untruths.

Nov 19, 2015 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

The only person here who tries to deceive is you Raff, repeatedly.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Show me my deceit, Tiny. You cannot, as there is none.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

You’ve repeatedly tried to make out I think the Bish lied that he didn’t know the label on the graph was wrong, when I wrote nothing of the sort. You made out I thought that other sceptics lie, also not true. I wrote that mistakes are made and since I’m not a mind reader, I can’t tell if they lied or made mistakes, or (since climate science is crap) told the truth.

You say a lie is a lie… well no. You’d not respond the same way if a child took 10p from you and said a burglar did it, than if your bank manager cleaned out your accounts and said a burglar did it. The amount of money involved and the position of responsibility matter. Now I’m sure the Bish is flattered you put him on the same pedestal as NASA, Met Office etc but I think he’s forgive me for not doing the same.

Assuming you practice what you preach, ie correcting mistakes – where was your demand that Obama retract his claims from November 2012 “the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.” He followed that up in May 2013 by saying, “we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” A blog comment would be the least I would expect as evidence you give a damn.

Nov 19, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTiny CO2

By your definition to broadcast something once could be a mistake but to broadcast it twice is a deliberate lie. Obama has countless experts at his fingertips. Surely one of them could have put him right? Couldn’t NASA have dropped him a line? Or the heads of the EPA, who when asked if they would agree with Obama, refused to put their hand up. If they all knew he was wrong, why didn’t they correct him? Where has Obama’s subsequent retraction been? You’re holding the Bish to higher standards that the President of the United States? Again the Bish will be flattered.

And what about the BBC interview with Emma Thompson. Why didn’t they correct her when she said ‘our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030’? Did they get her back on and make her retract? Did they publicly correct what she’d said at a point that would have made the same impact as her mistake? No. Did you add your voice to the protest of such a massive exaggeration? A link to a suitable comment would be good, especially on a BBC web page. Again the Bish will be flattered that you expect higher standards from him than the BBC.

All this is beginning to sound like you’ve had a bit of a man crush on the Bish and you feel he’s let you down. Let it go, he’s a married man. It would never have been you.

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I said nothing about labels on graphs. And if you don't approve of lying what does

mean? As for Obama or Emma Thompson, WTF? They are not climate science organization that you accused of lying:"What, like the IPCC, the Met Office, NOAA, NASA or the Guardian"
Give me some real lies, outright untruths from those organizations.

Nov 20, 2015 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

So you do think the Bish is more significant to climate debate than the BBC or the POTUS. That's ok for them to lie?

What I do or do not approve of, doesn't have any bearing on what is done on others.

Nov 20, 2015 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I think the Bishop is giving you all the answer you deserve.

Nov 20, 2015 at 2:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

@Raff says

If there is another (with a curve), link directly to it.
I already explained the whole point.. with the newer official graph from Tol is that it does NOT have curves

clearly in my first post..and then I repeated that phrase

Is there a newer graph ?
Yes there is but it's not convenient, cos it does not show curves Tol's Blog 2014
The link to that newer graph was in my first post which @Raff says
Stewgreen, yes, your style of comment is confusing and difficult to read, so I usually just skim or ignore it.
Well, the real world is often full colour complex. So it takes a long explanation with a lot of points to mention. To explain quickly and to not take up a lot of space, I keep it to the minimum and don't flesh it out.
- Yes I could have done an even longer more complex explanation, explaining that yes I know there is a correction graph , but since it is "well known" that too partially used WRONG data, there would be no use Bish substituting it for the first graph..To cut is short I just explained the problem with the newest official graph "its not a curve so difficult to interpret"

I could have made it even more complex by explaining says Tol has a new working paper, but that Brandon raises concerns about the way Tol re-interprets some of the data...... blah blah blah

Nov 20, 2015 at 3:12 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

*Action replay *
@Raff starts a thread about :
posting a graph which turned out to have partially used WRONG data.
- blah blah blah
@Stewgreen posts explanation including a link to the newest official graph

@Raff snarls back
..and posts a link to a graph which turned out to have partially used WRONG data.
(and is outdated compared to the graph Stew posted)


Nov 20, 2015 at 3:23 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2


Nov 20, 2015 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterNial


You asked
Where has NASA, NOAA, MO or IPCC done something similar?
Nov 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

I (and others) gave you several examples. (Things at very least the equivalent of showing a graph that was subsequently corrected).

So, moving the goalposts (as they say) you now demand Give me some real lies, outright untruths - even though some of the examples given fall in that category.

But let's not redefine what a lie is, like Martin does.
Nov 19, 2015 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, you are making stuff up. Except perhaps in your imagination, I did not "redefine what a lie is".

Martin, funny you should mention dinosaurs. I was indeed thinking of you last night, sitting in your vest shouting "Dinosaurs, you lying scumbag!" whenever the weatherman talks of record temperatures.

You are making stuff up again, even if it's only about your homoerotic fantasies.

I take it that is your way of conceding that the MO's "first time ever" was untrue and that it was hotter when dinosaurs were munching our ancestors?

As I asked, why the "unaware that the planet started out as a ball of molten rock" bullshit?

Nov 20, 2015 at 10:14 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Tiny, if Emma Thompson, the BBC or the POTUS is lying about climate science then they should be censured. The problem is telling whether they know what they say is false (lying) or not (ignorance). You might say the last two of those three should know better, but that is a long way from proving that they lie. The Bishop (and Ridley) on the other hand knows there was a 2009 graph that showed positive effect up to 2C, peaking at . And he knows there is a 2014 graph that corrects the original and adds extra data, which shows negative impact all the way from zero warming through 2C and onward. Why would anyone show or promote the former over the latter?

Martin, you and others gave no examples comparable to this. Your examples come down to difference of opinion or interpretation. As for the MO's "first time ever", you display a skeptic's normal lack of contextual awareness. If you object to "first time ever" you have to object to any mention of record or unprecedented temperatures, hence my image of you shouting at the weatherman. The weatherman doesn't say unprecedented in modern geological times does he? Why don't you object? As for exactly when the planet has been warmer than this current "first time ever", whether we talk about the Jurassic or the Precambrian seems of little importance, but I'd have though a pedant like you would want to go for the earliest possible to get the real "first time ever".

Nov 20, 2015 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff