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:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2014/05/Tol2-1024x952.png from the article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/23/the-gremlins-did-it-iffy-curve-fit-drives-strong-policy-conclusions/

BTW the graph comes from the paper, which I published a link to before: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.28.2.221

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.

Raff,

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

Nial

any historical temperature 'adjustment' where older temperatures [end] up colder and recent ones warmer

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

*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)

IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY IRONY

Raff:

http://memecrunch.com/meme/5LDZ5/comical-ali/image.jpg

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".