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?

In his post Misconceptions and mislabellings, the Bishop presents a graph from Richard Tol's 2009 paper that is well known - and well known to be false, incorporating mistakes that Richard corrected in 2014. The Bishop makes no mention of the graph being wrong or of the corrected version. But he has presented this graph before and been told that it is incorrect before.

The Bishop's famously "skeptical" readers have no problem with being fed this rubbish and leave it to ATTP and Brandon Schollenberger to question what they are being told. Pretty disturbing behaviour from a group that claims to be interested in seeing science done properly. Can someone justify it?

Nov 18, 2015 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

How nice to see you back Ratt. Two points 1. Do you have a link to Dr. Tol's correction. 2. "Skeptical"?

Nov 18, 2015 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

And a 3rd point. You love to generalize don't you Raff? I didn't even read the thread (being completely not interested in meta-studies based on dodgy IPCC output) so does that make me one of the disturbing ones?

Raff must have received his next cheque from Exxon, to be starting discussion threads outside the actual thread he is talking about. #bigoilraff

Nov 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Here's the update:

And here's a discussion by Gelman:

This is all old stuff. The corrections to Tols paper were very public, thanks in part to Bob Ward, along with his error after error (there's even an error message in the linked paper above). I remember mentioning it last time I saw the Bishop using the original figure from the 2009 paper. And Brandon has discussed it. So the Bishop will be aware of it, as will Ridley. You may not be, because the Bishop hasn't shown you.

TBYJ, if you didn't read it, then you would not have been disturbed by it. But now you are aware of it. Why do you read and contribute to a site that deliberately publishes incorrect data?

Nov 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

And also, TBYJ, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

Nov 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

"Why do you read and contribute to a site that deliberately publishes incorrect data?" Raff

What, like the IPCC, the Met Office, NOAA, NASA or the Guardian? You point me to perfection and I'll read it. When sceptics gets a fraction of the money those places get I'll demand less mistakes. In the meanwhile I'm sure you and your truth deficient buddies will point out anything wrong. A pity you rarely cast your critical eyes over your own side.

Nov 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

You think the Bishop just made a simple mistake? I can just imagine him, "Oh look at me, butterfingers. I've gone and written an article using a six year old graph that everyone knows is wrong when I should have used last year's update. Oh silly me!". Do you think we might get a withdrawal or a correction sometime then?

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

Nov 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

What's with the sudden return Raff? Scared that Paris is going to be another flop? (Although they will claim that everyone made huge promises to curb their emissions at some indeterminable point in the future). That if this El Nino doesn't provide a massive step up to the global temps then everyone is going to go off the boil? That a series of massive terrorist attacks have put a bit of warming into perspective? THat our impending blackouts are causing even brain washed ministers to realise we need fossil fuels for some considerable time to come and the unilateral economic suicide is a bad idea? Go witter at those who don't even know there is ANOTHER climate conference in Paris. They might be impressed by your idols.

Nov 18, 2015 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

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

9 November 2015 - Met Office data for 2015 so far shows that, for the first time, global mean temperature at the Earth's surface is set to reach 1 °C above pre-industrial levels

Nov 18, 2015 at 2:46 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin, yes I see your point. It is possible that people reading MO press releases have no basic education and are unaware that the planet started out as a ball of molten rock that took millions of years to cool sufficiently for life to emerge. Those people would doubtless be misled by that sentence into thinking that the earth is hotter than it has ever been. The context of the statement would lead a knowledgeable person to assume they were talking about temperatures since pre-industrial times, but it is disgraceful that the MO does not explicitly tie down exactly what they mean. I suggest you write to Ms Slingo in the strongest terms.

Don't be surprised though if your letter gets filed under 'nutters'.

Nov 18, 2015 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

As Raff ably demonstrates, the warmists’ preferred form of lying is by omission and misdirection.

The Met regularly reminds people to wrap up warm or take an umbrella but suddenly they think the public know that 'first time' refers to measurements that started half way past the last warm period which was considerably more recent than his clumsy bit of birth of the planet bluster suggests? We have film makers that have confused people into thinking that mammoths, dinosaurs and continental drift are all roughly contemporary with each other. They’re not going to know about the last 10 thousand years of warming (common) and cooling (rare).

Nov 18, 2015 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

So that is what "skepticism" has come to (or was it always this way). Accusing people who don't always give the whole context of "lying". It is rather pathetic. And it is apparently enough of a sin to excuse a Bishop of deliberately using an erroneous graph that everyone (apart from his followers who are too ignorant) knows has long since been corrected by its author.

Nov 18, 2015 at 7:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff


Nov 18, 2015 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

So why do you care so much when you detect "lies" from NASA, NOAA, MO or IPCC and yet don't care when your Bishop lies?

Nov 18, 2015 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

"Why do you read and contribute to a site that deliberately publishes incorrect data?" Raff

What, like the IPCC, the Met Office, NOAA, NASA or the Guardian?
Nov 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Umm, and the BBC?
In the BBC's defense, I will first say that at least when they allow comments at all on their apalling green puff-pieces, they will not usually delete comments that take issue with their political stance on global warming. Even though their political stance on global warming trangresses the terms of the BBC charter.

In defense of the Guardian, I will say that, as a privately owned company, the law of the land rightly gives them free rein to publish all sorts of of political crap and delete comments at will. We don't have to buy the Guardian if we don't want to. The BBC stock price is till plummeting.

Nov 18, 2015 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Well Raff I could explain the difference between a self funded internet blogger and multi billion pound organisations that want society to give up the most energy rich substances in our history, causing us trillions in cost and indisputable pain with no guarantee of success but with that question I'm assuming that you're the guy the MET Office is talking to when they say 'drink plenty of fluids and wear a hat' when it's warm.

Nov 18, 2015 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2


Nov 18, 2015 at 8:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I see, I think. "Self funded" people like the Bishop, Watts, Homewood, Mearns, etc can lie their socks off and you are happy with that. And warmists can come here and lie through their teeth and you'll not complain as long as they are doing it on their own time. A man of principles, after all.

Nov 18, 2015 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Just wondering Raff, fo you care so much when Lewandowski publishes a junk paper, or when Naomi Klein publishes a junk book, or when Paul Ehrlich produces yet another junk forecast? Do you protest when sou produces yet another wrong post? Do you call it to her attention? Why this sudden interest in this site?

Nov 18, 2015 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

I haven't read Lew., Klein or Ehrlich. Psychology research is mostly junk though (as shown by failures to reproduce). Klein is a deep socialist, so not my cup of tea. Ehrlich... don't know. But I have read some of what Sou writes and found it amusing, although I quickly lose interest in her fascination with the writings of the batshit crazy (that is why I won't stay around here too long either). Is Sou sometimes wrong? Probably - show me where she has erred without admitting it and I'll raise it in comments. Does she lie about things? No idea - tell me where she has lied and, again, I'll raise it.

Nov 18, 2015 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

He's got a real track record for using graphs he knows to be wrong, why he's even got one on the front cover of his book, the new edition as well! You'd think that would have been corrected by now.

Nov 19, 2015 at 7:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Raff, you asked for an instance and I gave one.

The Met Office's headline was Global temperatures set to reach 1 °C marker for first time

The Met Office know perfectly well that is untrue - but it gets the right alarmist message across, so who gives a shit.

The reality is that it was warmer when the mediaeval church in my village was built. And in Roman times. And previously during human existence. And during the age of the dinosaurs.

All of which you know perfectly well, so why the "unaware that the planet started out as a ball of molten rock" bullshit?

Nov 19, 2015 at 8:53 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

They all return here, in the end. Usually angry.

Nov 19, 2015 at 9:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

"people like the Bishop, Watts, Homewood, Mearns, etc can lie their socks off and you are happy with that. And warmists can come here and lie through their teeth and you'll not complain as long as they are doing it on their own time."

They could, I never said they did. However if you're owning up to lying through your teeth...? I take everything posted by individuals with a pinch of salt, even the well referenced stuff. People make mistakes and there's no editorial fall bak other than readers. On the whole it works reasonably well. More significantly, I consider the system by which ALL climate science is conducted to be poor, bordering on criminally bad. NOTE the SYSTEM. Individually many parts of climate science are very good but how would I know for sure? The task that sceptics do should be done by a funded, official set of organisations. No credibility should be set by individual papers because they're not rigorously examined or tested. Models have no external auditors. It's guesses built upon guesses. And everyone suspects the same, which is why Paris will be yet another waste of time.

Me? I'm happy to kick climate science any way that works until either it improves or (more likely) the real effects of CO2 are revealed by time. What about you? Think we can risk it?

Nov 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Bottomline that 1C/2C issue came up before in 2013* so Bish probably just used the same material now in 2015.
*( ..and that was before as Raff says "Richard corrected in 2014. ")

Yes there is a new graph, but its not a curve so difficult to interpret.
Tol didn't complain.
Has a major deception taken place ? cos Tol says the "correction do not change the results."

So Bish posts
5 mins later ATTP comments ....Nov 16, 2015 at 9:55 AM
"You do realise that there is a correction to Richard's 2009 paper as some of the data points were incorrect."

After 90 mins The guy who made the graph is here ...Nov 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM Richard Tol
"Wottsywotts: We've been over this before. The correction do not change the results. The new data points do. The new data points also change the specification and, hence, estimation. JEP allowed a correction and minor update, but not a major update."

#1 Did Bish "post graphs he knows to be wrong?" as Raffs says
- It was one graph NOT "graphs"
- The creator of the graph did not complain, but rather said "The correction do not change the results"
.. Yep that is a controversial opinion maybe.
Tol doesn't say "Oh my god that graph is wrong !"
#2 Is that graph convenient for skeptics pushing that AGW is not all gloom and doom? ... yep

Is there a newer graph ?
Yes there is but it's not convenient, cos it does not show curves Tol's Blog 2014
But what is easy is just to go back to the old 2013 post where the same 2C 1C issue came up and just use that for a basis.

#1 Both MR & RT agree that there is a point when negatives outweigh benefits
#1 Ridley gave that 2C, Tol gave that as about 1C
Ridley seems to mean where the net benefit passes the zero point, whereas Tol says cos he is talking about the trend ie when the graph meets the peak and starts heading down.

Is he talking BS ? Maybe
Do I personally believe such prediction models of economic vs climate have much credibility. No, 1C, 2C temperature differences doesn't make that much difference . What does make a SURE difference is before catastrophe tipping point/ after one..but we don't know if there is such a thing.

Am I paid by big oil ? ..No I live like a pauper.
Oh is Tol's work controversial ? ..Brandon has posted extensively

Nov 19, 2015 at 11:43 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen