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?

"If Emma Thompson (representing Greenpeace), the BBC or the POTUS is lying about climate science then they should be censured.." But not by you eh Raff? People and organisations that reach millions if not billions make either whopping mistakes or tell lies and you prefer to feign outrage at a small blog on the internet posting the wrong version of an obscure and paywalled graph. Which one us has their priorities right?

If you showed the remotest commitment to telling the truth, I'd start discussing where NASA and NOAA and the Met Office tell porkies.

Nov 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Why is everyone wasting time with this self-important provocateur. The Bishop put a graph up that purported to show something, the person who made the graph had made a mistake, he corrected the mistake but said the results on the first graph still stand.

A deranged Ratt comes on the blog spouting words like "lies", and you engage him en masse. I have no idea what his motivation is for such behaviour, how many of those of you who've engaged with him would go onto skeptical science and start telling those liars they're liars? None, because you know it's a waste of time.

I know it's nice and supports diversity if the village elders engage with the village idiot as if he had anything useful to say but, c'mon, even diversity can be taken too far. He's wasting your time.

Ragg how old are you, 12? If you're older I suggest an immediate course of high strength maturity pills

Nov 20, 2015 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

No Tiny, the graph isn't paywalled. But then of course, you haven't seen it, even though you'll argue till the cows come home about it. That is your schtick, isn't it? You are "happy to kick climate science any way that works". Not a trace of skepticism there. But why should there be, if all you want to do is kick climate science you have no reason to understand whether it is right or wrong.

Nov 20, 2015 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

So, no comment on whether you give a damn about Obama or the BBC telling lies.

Nov 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

The Bish “[Update: In the comments, ATTP says that the figure caption has been amended in a correction to "relative to preindustrial"]”

ATTP wrote “As I said, I can't access the correction,” from which I gathered it was pay walled or was at some point.

Do I care if there is more to it than that… no. I’ve said before that I’ve stopped reading the science from both sides. Most people don’t even bother that much. Paris will demonstrate that nobody cares.

Nov 20, 2015 at 8:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

OK Raff I think I now understand it from your viewpoint.

When the Met Office's headline says Global temperatures set to reach 1 °C marker for first time
and their press release says ... for the first time, global mean temperature at the Earth's surface is set to reach 1 °C above pre-industrial levels... they are simply telling the truth.

Anybody pointing out that it was warmer in the pre-industrial middle ages is just a pedant/nutter (your words). What the Met Office said remains the truth, with no intention of giving the impression that recent warming was without precedent.

Nov 20, 2015 at 11:58 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Perhaps this troll can benefit from a diet?

Nov 21, 2015 at 7:51 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Raff: if you had bothered actually reading the article that offends you so, you would know why that graph was used, as its use was to illustrate a point between the two protagonists, not the veracity or otherwise of the graph. Do keep up.

Nov 21, 2015 at 12:11 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin, much as I like talking to you, you are a nutter. Sorry! The article you object to is clearly discussing the record since pre-industrial times. It gives a nice explanation of some of the factors involved, defines "pre-industrial" for the reader and qualifies the 1C rise with a helpful

This year, with a pronounced El Niño underway that acts to elevate global average surface temperature, it is looking probable that 2015 will be warmer than any other year in the observational record.
It is pretty clear they are not discussing the last 4.5 billion years of earth history.

If you say to our ignorant reader, "it was warmer in the pre-industrial middle ages", you would be saying what seems to be considered is untrue (the MWP was apparently not global). You might of course counter that you know that the MWP was in fact globally warmer and that there is a global conspiracy to pretend it wasn't, but that would just confirm you as a nutter.

If the MO wanted to add some perspective to help those ignorant of the earth's temp history, they could point out that temperatures were much warmer in the Triassic or any number of other periods, but then they'd have to start explaining that solar output was different and the orbit was slightly different and that CO2 levels were different and so on. Soon it wouldn't be a research news release but a climate science primer.

Radical, you are right. Storm in a tea cup. But then again, why would a Bishop want to smooth the differences between a Viscount and a Tol rather than pointing out to his readers that a newer graph from the Tol showed no positive economic effect anywhere from zero upward (and not +ve to 2C). I guess it is the TinyCO2 doctrine - any lie is good enough if it works.

Nov 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Where has NASA, NOAA, MO or IPCC done something similar?

Have you forgotten "97% of Climate Scientists ..." Thoroughly debunked rubbish but still cited as being correct.

Nov 21, 2015 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Nottingham

I guess it is the Obama and BBC doctrine - any lie is good enough if it works. Come on Raff, tell us why you don't give a damn when your side lies.

Nov 21, 2015 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tiny, neither you nor anyone else has identified any lies. To show that Obama or anyone else is lying you have to show that they knew what they said was wrong. Saying that they should have known better is a long way from showing that. I'm amazed that nobody has noted that the Bishop or Ridley just didn't know that a later graph undid the claims of the 2009 graph. It is an obvious defense - unless you think, as I do (seeing as I've brought it up before), that it is absurd that they didn't know.

Nov 21, 2015 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Paul, Richard Tol, who has made it his life's work to "debunk" the 97% says the true figure is around 95%. Some "debunking"!

Nov 21, 2015 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

So why didn't you put them right? One rule for your side, one rule for ours? The BBC had those 28 experts remember. They've made themselves a go to resource on AGW but they didn't know that what Emma Thompson said was massively wrong? Newsnight is their flagship News programme but they never thought to run what she said by their envirnment team? Either they've taken on a role they can't fulfil or they're deliberately lying. Having been put right, they could have delivered an apology with the same impact as the mistake. Point to it. This is not the first time they've promoted lies or 'mistakes'.

Obama has made AGW his number one priority but he didn't know he was wrong? None of his advisors knew he was wrong? None of those who call thmselves experts like NASA thought to put him right after the first time? What is he so boring that nobody, not even you listens?

But you concern yourself with a little graph on Bishop Hill? A graph you haven't attempted to prove was posted with the knowledge it was wrong. You're a liar Raff. You pretend you give a damn about the truth but you only care about your hysterical cult.

Nov 21, 2015 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Raff: sorry to burst your bubble, but all the evidence so far gleaned is that the MWP was, in fact, global. Much as this might go against your own personal preference, it is easily verifiable, though, I suspect, any of the evidence that I may present to you will be summarily dismissed. That you choose to do so is up to your own conscience, not ours. Much as you may wish it to be so, I have yet to find any evidence that TinyCO2 is lying, though there is a lot to suggest that Mr Obama is not being thoroughly honest (which is as good as saying that a politician is lying as could be said).

Nov 21, 2015 at 7:24 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Tiny, you seem now to be preoccupied by media presentation. That may be interesting for a different thread, but I asked, "Why does the Bishop post graphs he knows to be wrong?" You started out saying that the IPCC, the Met Office, NOAA and NASA all do the same, but as yet neither you nor anyone else has provided an example. Yet you all believe it to be true. Prove it, show me some deliberate falsehoods from these organizations.

Radical, do you have a link to a reputable publication that says that?

Nov 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Still no comment on whether you give a damn about Obama or the BBC telling lies. You're not just a liar, you're an evasive liar.

Nov 21, 2015 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tiny, as I said, to show that Obama or anyone else is lying you have to show that they knew what they said was wrong. I don't believe they should lie, but I've seen no evidence from you that they do (as opposed to being fallible). Show me some deliberate falsehoods from the organizations you accused earlier.

Nov 21, 2015 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

"to show that Obama or anyone else is lying you have to show that they knew what they said was wrong" So show that the Bish knew the graph was wrong.

Nov 21, 2015 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tiny, see Nov 21, 2015 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Nov 22, 2015 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

I did - "I'll demand less mistakes. " Nov 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered Commenter TinyCO2.

I just assumed you didn't believe what the Bish had written about not knowing about the update and was automatically assigning all mistakes to evil intentions. It's true to your type.

Nov 22, 2015 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

So back to that question - do you give a damn when Obama or the BBC or any other warmist source make a mistake - deliberate or not?

Nov 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2: much as it might be tempting for you to pursue this, I would suggest that you give up on this dead horse – no matter how much you flog it, it will never give a response of any value, it will just stink more and more.

Nov 22, 2015 at 6:53 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Tiny, I clearly cannot know whether the Bishop knew that the 2009 graph was replaced in 2014. I do find it incredible that he didn't know, as the corrections (and subsequent incorporation of new data) were prompted by Bob Ward, who the Bishop likes to attack, and the new graph was widely discussed (although obviously you wouldn't want to discuss it here). He might have forgotten - maybe he is a forgetful sort. I have posted about it before here, but clearly it suits your purposes better (according to the Tiny doctrine - or should it be the BH doctrine - discussed before) to pretend that the 2009 graph is the most current.

I don't like to see the subject mangled by Obama, the BBC or anyone else. But I don't read or comment on their websites, so I don't feel responsible for what they publish. You, and others here, do read and comment here, so you do have to justify why it is alright to publish deliberate untruths (you have done that in your anything for the cause doctrine) and/or you need to call out untruths. I don't see that happening. In the climate sites I read (ATTP, Arctic Sea Ice, Greg Laden, James' Empty Blog, Moyhu, Open Mind, Rabett Run, Real Climate, SoD, SkS, Variable Variability) I am unaware of there being deliberate untruths, although I might be so brainwashed that I wouldn't see them, I guess. But where there are errors, non-"skeptics" readers comment and the authors acknowledge. Of course you or someone else will tell me the authors I read are "liars" but I fully expect none of you to be able to identify a lie, just like you failed to do so on the NASA, NOAA, MO and IPCC sites you accused of lying earlier.

Radical, do you have a link to a reputable publication that supports your MWP assertion?

Nov 22, 2015 at 7:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

I know RR but it's this or do my tax.

Not caring what Obama or the BBC say is one of the areas where you, those blogs you admire and those alphabet organisations lie. You let ignorant alarmists be spokesmen for your cause, so you have to own what they do. Well if you care, you do. Much as you accuse sceptics of being selective of what they criticise, your side does the same. But a) you want something very difficult to happen and b) your side is the official side which always has the biggest burden of proof. Do you understand that? Do you deny it? Now I could spend hours looking up incidents where NASA etc have lied but you'd wave them away in the same way you dismiss Obama's whopper. You clearly think it's ok for countless experts to turn a deaf ear when their biggest cheer leader goofs. But it doesn't matter what you and your buddies think, it's what your enemies think and what mileage we can make out of your negligence. And that's what I mean about using anything that works. Pointing out how slack you are is fair game. Stop giving us ammunition.

Nov 22, 2015 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2