Andrew Bolt falls into Steve McIntyre's error trap

Back in January, Steve McIntyre used some erroneous data of satellite-measured temperatures from RSS to argue that Hansen's 1988 temperature projections were too high. A week later he posted a corrected graph, blaming RSS for not making the error clear:

The fact that users are "falling into the RSS error trap" is one more good reason why RSS should have issued a clear error notice, rather than the obscure readme. They should issue a proper notice of the error in their public webpages and wherever else appropriate.

But McIntyre did not follow his advice to RSS, and failed to make a correction to his original post, thus creating an error trap for readers of his blog. And look who has fallen right in: Andrew Bolt.


More like this

McIntyre's point being, of course, that denialists grasp at whatever straw presents itself to them, in a constant search for the smoking gun that will "disprove" everything we know of climate science.

And, when he leaps of the cliff and the data is wrong, and quickly corrected, it's the provider of data, not McIntyre in his endless pursuit to topple established science, that is at fault for McIntyre's all-too-public problem.

Of course.

"... RSS should have issued a clear error notice, ... a proper notice of the error in their public webpages and wherever else appropriate."


"They're not catching my mistakes! I catch theirs! Not fair!"

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 28 Jul 2008 #permalink

RSS should have issued a clear error notice, rather than the obscure readme.

They call 'em readmes for a reason, you know.

"Read Me" is a trick, just like "Drink Me!" or "Eat Me!*" only instead of growing larger or smaller, as you read, the spell words hidden in the text attack your subconscious you become ensorceled into accepting climate socialist Gaia worship. It's witchcraft. Call it wicca if you want, but you're now Satan's lapdog.

Plus, RSS data is an attractive nuisance to a scientific pedestrian like McIntyre. Surprised someone hasn't sued them for it already.

*I have actually heard global warming alarmists use this phrase when responding to climate skeptics.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 28 Jul 2008 #permalink

Stevie Mac fights back with a good whine about Gavin Schmidt. WTF?!?!

Funniest of all is Bolty.

"Steve McIntyre has now updated the graphic I used yesterday in rebuttal to Professor Barry Brook. It shows an even sharper divergence between the waming that Hansen famously predicted in 1988 and the warming that has in fact occured, as measured by satellites and even Hansen's own controversial GISS surface measurements."

Do you think by 'sharper divergence' Dumb-arse means 'less of a divergence'? Or is he really as stupid as his update implies?

Nexus 6, only stupid if your target is scientists.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 28 Jul 2008 #permalink

This is what Nexus6 is referring to when posting "WTF??":

No single topic seems to arouse as much blog animosity as any discussion of Hansen's projections. Although NASA employees are not permitted to do private work for their bosses off-hours (a currying favor prohibition, I suppose) - for example, secretaries are not supposed to do typing, over at realclimate, Gavin Schmidt, in his "private time", which flexibly includes 9 to 5, has provided bulldog services on behalf of his boss, James Hansen, on a number of occasions.

Nexus6 - Climate Audit claims that Gavin blogs at Real Climate on government time.

Therefore, his posts should be scrutinized as though they are official announcements of NASA, i.e. undergo review for accuracy, and, well ...

Actually what CA (McIntyre) suggests is tantamount to "Gavin should not be allowed to blog at Real Climate".

Note that in the quote that caused your "WTF" reaction, he's saying that Gavin shouldn't be allowed to post on anything related to Hansen's work on his OWN time, while simultaneously swiping at Gavin's supposed 9-5 devotion to Real Climate, which derives from his claim that Gavin blogs on government time.

If you're forbidden to blog while at work, and forbidden to blog on your own time, that pretty much wraps it up, no? Note how denialists like to claim that the scientific establishment quashes "proof" that climate science is a "fraud", yet it's McIntyre who, at CA, has argued that Gavin, a climate scientist, should be forbidden a public pulpit.

McIntyre seems extremely unaware of the fact that federal employees are free to express their own opinions on their own time, and that this is settled law (in response to suits attempting to force scientists and other federal employees to STFU over conservation, defense, and other issues). When you become a federal employee, you do not cede your First Amendment rights as a private citizen.

Or perhaps McIntyre is aware of this, thus the snarky implication that Gavin's posts at Real Climate pertaining to work done by Hansen are written at Hansen's specific direction as part of Gavin's job.

Whatever, I've gone on too long. Sorter post: "It's bullshit".

Oh, just one more thing ... it's shit like this that quickly convinced me that McIntyre is a very unattractive person on a personal level. Ethically challenged is a polite way to put it. There's a reason that venomous claims of scientific fraud and dishonesty upon the part of leading climate scientists dominate the discussion at CA, and that reason is McIntyre himself. The less he's listened to, the more shrill, bitter, and accusatory he seems to become.

While I agree with your comments Dhogaza , I think that McIntyre's dishonesty is evidence of something else at play rather than just his personality.

By Bill O'Slatter (not verified) on 29 Jul 2008 #permalink

Nexus 6, even more amusing is that Bolt didn't even manage to present the right graphic to demonstrate his "sharper decline". Instead of McIntyre's updated analysis with data to May-June, he used the January 23 version that corrected the RSS error. So the only things his use of that graphic demonstrated were (i) he couldn't figure out which chart was relevant to his point and (ii) his original post was based on erroneous data and the corrected data fails to fit his argument as well (although he is still yet to issue a correction or even acknowledge his error).

Whichever way you cut it, the world is cooling, something the climate modelers emphatically did not predict. The sceptics did.

can't seem to find a link to that "skeptics predicted the world cooling" thing, maybe you could lend us yours. unless you mean that time article in 1974 you guys all ike to speak of, whch quotes two scientists who predict global cooling, both of whom went on to become global warming skeptics.

z, what's the opposite of warming?

A: cooling (or no change)

so, z: if I am sceptical about global warming, do I not by definition predict cooling (or at least predict a reversion to the mean which is what has happened)?

Think about it a while. You'll get there....

"Whichever way you cut it, the world is cooling"...

Sorry, that is just winter.

By mikesmith (not verified) on 30 Jul 2008 #permalink

The whole thing was so ingrown toenail like that although Eli had actually worked through what happened and wrote it down, looking at what I wrote now confuses me no end. Do not read without a large glass of something terribly alcoholic.

"Back in January, Steve McIntyre used some erroneous data of satellite-measured temperatures from RSS to argue that Hansen's 1988 temperature projections were too high."

Hansen's own computer models predict the troposphere warming from 20% to 50% faster than the surface. The satellites prove Hansen is way too high in his fudged GISS temperature graph. That, or the models are wrong. Take your pick.

Nitpicking on McIntyre's work won't change this.