Centre of the storm

Colby Cosh profiles the gentle Canadian who has changed the climate science world

by Colby Cosh

The private emails and logs leaked last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia can’t tell us whether industrial activity is really heating the earth’s atmosphere and endangering civilization. But they have settled the identity of the Great Satan of climate science. Torontonian Stephen McIntyre, a gentle, persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003, is mentioned more than 100 times.

In the emails, leading climate researchers dismiss him as a capitalist hireling or a hapless “bozo,” and argue about the relative merits of ignoring him versus counterattacking him, even as others acknowledge that his criticisms have merit and imitate his use of the Web as a venue for hyper-detailed scientific discussion. At one point in 2005, CRU director Phil Jones, now under suspension, ponders the possibility that McIntyre might use U.K. freedom-of-information laws to obtain raw weather-station data compiled by the CRU. He grumbles: “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” The overall impression is that of 100 elephants stampeding in confusion and panic around a mouse.

The political stakes are now so high when it comes to the “Climategate” scandal, and motives are being questioned so loudly on both sides, that few are noticing the remarkable story at the heart of it all: a 62-year-old mining executive and squash enthusiast has, for better or worse, found his way into the centre of a major scientific melée—almost by accident—and been able to make legitimate contributions.

McIntyre first became notorious in 2003 for his statistical critique, co-authored with economist Ross McKitrick, of the “hockey stick graph” that showed global temperatures rocketing upward in the 20th century. The hockey stick, featured in the 2001 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had a profound influence on policy worldwide, and played a starring role in presentations like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The McIntyre-McKitrick critique called attention to uncertainties in its temperature reconstructions dating back before 1600, to certain problems with dendrochronology (the use of tree rings to estimate past temperatures), and to issues with the statistical calculations underlying the hockey stick. Some climatologists insist that the graph tells the same story when you correct for all this, but much of the critique is now accepted, and the hockey stick, whose weaknesses are better understood, has itself become a somewhat inconvenient distraction for climatologists and environmentalists.

Meanwhile, McIntyre, working alone, has gone on to score further critical points. In 2007, he caught a mistake in the reporting of U.S. surface temperatures by NASA’s Goddard Institute that was quickly acknowledged, with thanks, and corrected. (NASA’s gracious manner contrasts sharply with the attitudes displayed behind the scenes at the CRU.)

The truth is that McIntyre, 62, little resembles the caricature of a wild-eyed climate-change “denier.” He is scrupulous about focusing his criticism on statistical procedures and disclosure practices. He is polite to, and about, climate scientists. He refuses to make grand categorical statements of the “Global warming is just commie horse puckey” type, preferring to remain agnostic, and he discourages such talk on his website, Climate Audit.

When reached for an interview, he interrupts briefly to turn down a request to appear on BBC television about the exploding “Climategate” scandal. “Anything I say now would just be piling on,” he remarks, noting that he has no interest in helping the media stage a drama of personalities. Given the opportunity of a lifetime to gloat over those who referred to him as a “moron” and “Mr. I’m Not Entirely There In The Head,” he demurs.

Close observers of the climate wars recognize that the small group of scientists who first advanced the case for urgent concern over global warming were ill-prepared for the appearance of a critic like McIntyre. Spanish paleoclimatologist Eduardo Zorita of Germany’s GKSS Research Centre, who has clashed at times with both McIntyre and the climate-research elite, says that “in the realm of science, it doesn’t really matter by whom and why a study is criticized. It only counts whether or not the criticism is reasonably well-founded, is logical, and relevant for the final results.”

McIntyre’s machine-gun “auditing” of scientific results from outside the traditional structure of peer review creates practical problems for researchers, Zorita admits, but in the aftermath of the CRU email leak “we now know that a team of gatekeepers have tried to scupper studies that contradict their own previous publications.” McIntyre “has brought up interesting points from time to time,” but his most important contribution may be to the culture of climate science.

“Years ago, very few people, me included, thought to make data available to other researchers for confirmation or refutation. Such inquiries were very rare in climate research.” Now, Zorita says, reviewers are more aggressive about asking for raw data and confirming that statistical calculations can be replicated.

Until 2003, nothing in McIntyre’s life suggested that he would assume a central role in one of history’s great scientific debates—yet that life, in retrospect, seems to have been equipping him for the role. The son of a surgeon, McIntyre had an impressive record of performance in math competitions as a young student attending the University of Toronto Schools. He is still proud of having once beaten older classmate Michael Spence—“he was a bit of a hero of mine”—who would eventually snag the Nobel memorial prize in economics (2001). McIntyre went on to obtain a math degree at the University of Toronto, where his social circle overlapped with that of Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Graduating in 1969, he moved on to the philosophy, politics, and economics program at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

In short, climatology’s ultimate outsider had the upbringing of a privileged Canadian insider. By 1971, he had been offered the proverbial keys to the kingdom—a graduate scholarship to work on mathematical economics at MIT, where Paul Samuelson, a giant of 20th-century economics, was the presiding intellect. But McIntyre’s path took an unexpected turn when his parents went through what he calls “an ugly divorce.” “I was the oldest of six kids,” he says. “The youngest was just five years old. This was back when divorce was still all but unknown.” Feeling that he was needed at home, he turned MIT down and decided to seek a career in business.

McIntyre went to work for Noranda when the mining giant was in its heyday, and went on to perform in a hodgepodge of jobs for smaller resource exploration companies: property buyer, accounting overseer, director, executive. He occasionally left the private sector to serve as a government policy analyst; in the mid-’70s, for instance, he took leave from Noranda to work for ex-classmate Edmund Clark at the federal Anti-Inflation Board. McIntyre’s association with “Red Ed” (now the CEO of the Toronto-Dominion Bank) will surprise those who assume that a climate skeptic must be a rabid Republican, but as he puts it, “I live in downtown Toronto, and I have the politics of downtown Toronto.”

The world of mining is one in which everyone is constantly aware of how engineering results can be tampered with or misrepresented to rip off investors. And in 2003, when McIntyre first saw the hockey stick graph, it reminded him uncomfortably of some stock promoter’s over-optimistic revenue projection. McIntyre asked lead “hockey stick” author Michael Mann for the underlying data and was startled when Mann had trouble remembering where he had posted the files to the Internet. “That was when the penny dropped for me,” McIntyre says. “I had the sense that Mann was pulling together the data for the first time—that nobody had ever bothered to inquire independently into the hockey stick before.”

To McIntyre, a scientist’s data and code stand in the same relationship to a finished paper that drilling cores do to a mining company press release. “If you’re offering securities to the public,” McIntyre observed in a May 2008 talk at Ohio State University, “there are complicated and expensive processes of due diligence, involving audits of financial statements, independent engineering reports, opinions from securities lawyers and so on. There are laws requiring the disclosure of adverse results.” Peer review in scientific journals is good, he suggested, but it is limited and vulnerable to compromise. “There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”

His surprise and indignation seem sincere. In the CRU emails Mann speculates wildly about how McIntyre is “funded,” but his work has required little more than free time, effort, knowledge of statistics and linear algebra, and some software. Indeed, McIntyre says his climate-research activities—which quickly snowballed from an idle interest into a virtual second career—cost him the chance to ride a boom period in mining. “A lot of my friends made out very well,” he says, “but I just didn’t have any chips on the table. The opportunity cost to me has been horrendous.”

Nevertheless, it doesn’t sound as though McIntyre has many regrets. He grows positively garrulous when he talks of how his efforts let him reconnect with his youthful interest in hard-core math. He is not the sort of person whose inquisitiveness stops at the doorstep, either. In October 2007 he led an excursion into the mountains near Colorado Springs, where he was able to find many of the bristlecone pines whose rings were core-sampled in the 1980s by key paleoclimate researcher Donald Graybill. McIntyre and a few friends even took their own core samples, undermining critics who argue that dendrochronology is an esoteric, equipment-intensive activity whose results are hard to reproduce or double-check.

McIntyre does admit, however, that the expedition presented unexpected difficulties. “We had a borrowed four-wheeler, which wasn’t really the right kind of vehicle for those roads: quads or a Jeep would have been better,” he adds. “We ended up doing a bit of damage, so that cost me a couple thousand dollars.” If it wasn’t already obvious, McIntyre is the sort of fellow who will go to an awful lot of trouble to make a point.




Browse

Centre of the storm

  1. Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism should go to McIntyre!
    The world owes him an unimaginable debt.

    • I second that motion!

    • Order of Canada as a minimum.
      http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2009/12/canadia
      The Order of Canada is the centrepiece of Canada's honours system and recognizes a lifetime of outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation. The Order recognizes people in all sectors of Canadian society. Their contributions are varied, yet they have all enriched the lives of others and made a difference to this country. The Order of Canada's motto is DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM (They desire a better country).

      Recognition for the significance of his work in breaking the HOAX with real science.

    • Pulitzer Prize? Nope. I don't think he's doing journalism.

      I think he's doing science. I would put him down for a Nobel. There can be few people who have contributed as much to retrieve the good name of science and the scientific method as McIntyre. And in 100 years I think this will be recognised…

    • Just for you , Robert .

    • And yet, according to this article, the climate science world has accepted his critiques of the "hockey stick" graph and NASA graciously corrected its surface temperature data after Mr. McIntyre pointed out its errors. Is that "irrelevant" and "outright fraud" to you?

      Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would recognize that. You, on the other hand, are bold enough to taunt your intelligence for the world to see.

        • You sir are irrelevant. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking… is an example of how the data is being massaged by the "experts" and only when it is reviewed is it being brought into question.

          We can quote blogs all day, what is relevant is that politicians and special interest groups are now trying to make economic policy based on what could be bad or fraudulent science. Since you are such a supporter I recommend you find a willing country and emigrate, you will therefore be able to contribute "your fair share" while we can go about our day to day lives without that interference from the government.

          • Watts is an even bigger charlatan than McIntyre. How many times does it need to be proven that these guys lie and distort the truth before you climate change deniers will accept that.

          • Note to the Thermomaniacs: it's over. You're losing.

          • If McIntyre is a "fraud" as you claim, then why not go to his website and expose his "frauds" in the comments section? The comments are open to everyone, and if McIntyre is as egregiously wrong as you claim, it should be a simple matter for you to come to his website and blow him out of the water.

            Yet, you won't do it. I've seen many people like you, McClelland, who are willing to fling insults at Steve from afar, but haven't the guts to confront him directly with evidence supporting your claims. That tells me that you know full well your claims are baseless and false.

          • Michael – well said…it's mere child's play to post something (or almost anything online) at such a venue as this, it's another thing entirely to go intellectually toe-to-toe with an opponent. Maybe that's why Al Gore refuses to engage anyone in public debate on his "inconvenient truths".

          • If McIntyre is a "fraud" as you claim, then why not go to his website and expose his "frauds" in the comments section?

            Point the way and I'll be more than happy to expose his frauds to his face.

          • Using the face I'm looking at to the left of your name,
            in a face to face with McIntyre, Robert McClelland?

            Will McIntyre be able to keep a straight face?

          • Go to:

            http://www.climateskeptic.com

            Have at it. McIntyre's debunking of the hockey stick is universally accepted.

            Also when you get done with McIntyre, explain to us all the faulty programing code of the Climate model used at the CRU lab. Also explain to us what the comments written next to lines of code mean. We lay people need to understand the lingo of all these Climate scientists.

          • Robert McClelland,
            In less than Five (5) years, YOU will deny that you EVER believed in Global Warming.

            What's worse, … YOU will believe it (i.e., your own lie of never having believed)

          • Ah, so you confess that you have not actually been to his website and read his analysis first-hand. Why am I not surprised?

            His website is ClimateAudit.org. I'll expect to see you there shortly.

          • How many times does it need to be proven that these guys lie and distort the truth

            That is the question that we are asking you, of your team.

          • hahahaha

          • Dear Mr Ad Hominem,

            You ask "How many times does it need to be proven that. . . " Well, just once if you would actually read their work and if you actually understood it.

        • Yes, that may be true, Robert. But it doesn't change the fact that they were errors and that nobody else bothered to look in sufficient detail to discover them. I'm not firmly on either side of the fence regarding climate change (I end up on the side that says we should do something about it, but only because its the prudent choice) but science is science is science. If science can't stand up to peer review, duplication of results, etc. then it isn't science. And if peer review turns out to mean acceptance of a study without proper due diligence, then a hearty bravo to McIntyre for discovering that very real problem.

          It is deeply disturbing that our science community has let us down in this way. Especially because the underlying truth hasn't changed.

          Good article, Mr. Cosh.

        • Robert, you obviously relish the role of playing the "useful idiot" don't you?

    • I see you make a claim but don't back it up…must be a WARMER

    • We must act now!!! New York Times, May 21, 1975 "A major cooling of the planet is widely considered inevitable because it is well established that the Northern Hemisphere's climate has been getting cooler since about 1950". Science News, March 1, 1975 "Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age". Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976 "Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation". Global Ecology, 1971 "The continued rapid cooling of the Earth means that a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery". International Wildlife, July 1975. "The world's climatologists are agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age". Newsweek cover story, April 28th 1975 "The Cooling World: Armadillos are fleeing south from Nebraska, and heat-seeking snails are retreating from Central European forests." Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974 "The North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool. Glaciers have begun to advance and growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter.

      • Excellent quotes from headlines. It is just to show what the climate science is worth for predicting the future. We might well use the services of palm readers or astrologers. What we need is Prof, Man and Jones showing that the concentration of CO2 dropped then and that was the cause of global cooling

    • So full of artless jealousy is guilt, It spills itself in fearing to be spilt.
      William Shakespeare

    • Would you please change your picture? You may think that's cute, but it isn't. Unless, of course, that's how you really speak. What comes out of your other end, if that's the case?

      • No that shows the location of his brain

    • Robert, please explain how the proposed Copenhagen treaty will reduce pollution.

      Chinese industry pollutes more than ours does.
      Chinese industry won't see it's costs go up as a result of the treaty but Canadian industry will see their costs go up dramatically.
      So more production will move from the clean factories here to the much more polluting factories in China, which means more pollution, not less.

    • The world owes McIntyre a debt of gratitude. He looked at the data when no one else would, or should have. You're just mad and frustrated that the jig is finally up and your dreams of wealth distribution based on a hoax are over.

      • "…wealth distribution based on a hoax are over." That's it exactly.
        Finally someone who really understands what this is all about.
        Thanks.

    • Seems that the real "deniers" are the ALARMISTS trying to tell everyone we are all going to burn up with MM "Global warming" that has now been exposed as made up data so that the so called "scientists" can get BILLIONS of dollars in grants. You are right . . . the so called MM GW "climate science" range from irrelevant at best to outright fraud at worst." JAIL TIME for the fraudsters! Along with Gore for pushing the FRAUD.

    • I think your avatar says it all.

    • is that your real face?????????????????????????

  2. Stephen McIntyre is my hero! Too bad he's Canadian…I would have liked to see him run for POTUS…..

    • So, in other words, McIntrye is a bright guy with a gift for math who didn't train as a scientist at MIT or anywhere else. He's a curious guy who investigated the efficacy of the hockey stick. Good for him. If this is the best the right wing can produce in terms of establishing a reputable scientists-by-association, however, he, the author or this article, and the desperate editor who published this transparent piece of puffery are pathetic.

      • I have to say, he's much brighter than some. To say global warming…excuse me, I forgot to use the phrase du jour…climate change is:

        a) happening,
        b) caused by man, and
        c) is at a critical point

        without scientific data that has not been "massaged" and relies on data that goes back 150 years, is unbelievably naive. Do climate change fear mongers realize that the earth's climate has been ever changing and the Earth is billions of years old?? To assume that McIntrye is the best that the "right wing" can come up with leads me to believe that you are a narrow thinker who relies on talking points given to you by your ilk.

        And, by the way, why is okay for these elite climate change worshipers to jet all over the world to pound out 'climate deals' when they could easily do a video conference like they expect the rest of us to do? It's a real shame that Copenhagen just out carbon credited in a week what entire countries use in year…go, go climate elitists!

      • So publishing your results, calculations, source code and provenance of your data is a right wing ideology? I thought the right wing was anti science.

        Put it another way. Some guy in his basement has humiliated the brightest lights of their endeavor.

        I think I've heard that story before.

        Derek

  3. Robert McClelland…it must suck to be you right about now…

    Sloppy scientists work for government grants and university ivory tower echo chambers, pushing politicized agendas. Analysts like Mr. McIntyre do the work of the real world. You'll find the same pattern in just about every field…university and government "experts" who never really had it in them to graduate from campus life, and the rest of us who went beyond our degrees and grew up.

    • Robert McClelland…it must suck to be you right about now…

      Why? It's not like future generations will be pissing on my grave.

      • Still waiting for SUBSTANCE McClelland…WHERE IS IT?

        • It would seem that his picture tells the w(hole) story! Rare to see such honesty. One look and the world knows just what this McClelland chap is.

        • Hopefully there will be a full vetting of climate science. The true charlatans have been Professors Mann, Jones and the cabal of scientists that politicized the science of climate change. prince of persia movie download

      • Because no woman will bed you, I assume?

    • Simply Amazing, McClelland admits that he has never been to Stephen McIntyre's web site to check out the data offered, and yet, he is able to debunk all that is there!

      There you have it folks, the alarmists logic in action, " I don't need to see it, I have all the answers already"

      Don't let a little thing like the facts get in your way McClelland……

      ==

  4. "In the emails, leading climate researchers dismiss him as a capitalist hireling or a hapless “bozo,” and argue about the relative merits of ignoring him versus counterattacking him"

    The sad thing is how many ideologue hacks read this sentence without seeing anything wrong with it, as if science has any value whatsoever when conducted like electoral politics.

    People need to understand that science is not a replacement deity for them, a self-evident backdrop for their held views. It is simply a process, a methodology. If not conducted properly and honestly, it is just a word with no meaning.

    • please take your clarity of thought to blogs like http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/ which are blinded by a passion for social engineering .

      Gratefully "Humanatarian"

  5. The most important point of the article is right here:

    <<McIntyre's machine-gun “auditing” of scientific results from outside the traditional structure of peer review creates practical problems for researchers, Zorita admits, but in the aftermath of the CRU email leak “we now know that a team of gatekeepers have tried to scupper studies that contradict their own previous publications.” McIntyre “has brought up interesting points from time to time,” but his most important contribution may be to the culture of climate science.>>

    Hopefully there will be a full vetting of climate science. The true charlatans have been Professors Mann, Jones and the cabal of scientists that politicized the science of climate change.

    • What global warming alarmist call peer review is: You scratch my back and I scratch your back

  6. Very good interview. I have a much better sense of Mr. McIntyre. He is spot on in his observation that "Peer review in scientific journals is good, he suggested, but it is limited and vulnerable to compromise. “There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”"

  7. For all the pols and ideologues in the MSM…and for many of the laymen as well…AGW isn't REALLY about the science. It's about power and money. AGW theories are absoultely PERFECT for advancing the Left's agenda; fear-mongering to justify massive increases in taxes, frightening increases in govt power, and redistribution of wealth from the West to the Third World. Who cares if the actual theories are true? And even if they aren't true, they SHOULD be true, so let's just pretend they are.

  8. Thank you, Macleans…This is the biggest news item of the century and little has been done by MSM in just giving us the facts. We have had endless news reports on the Afganistan detainee issue over e-mails that were 'credible' reports from a whistleblower. Climategate has been treated as an illegal hacking job (which is questionable) not as a serious disclosure by a whistleblower. Whatever, billions/trillions of our dollars, economic stability of the future is being demanded by environmentalists, UN climate gurus and EU leaders and we are to succumb to this by sheer media demands and political expediency? . Over 70 years I have seen Climate changes, we adapt….will billions of $ change us back to what?Right now it is the coldest we've had since the 40's. I have learned much on Mr. McIntyre's website Climate Audit.

  9. Cheers to McIntyre and others who would question a method of results.

    Unfortunately, the scientific community agenda may always be money as long as public grants are haphazardly doled out for one sided research. Scheming politicians and con-artists promote this same science while salivating over the potential power and profit to be had through regulation…but a gullible citizenry we shall not remain forever.

  10. Shouldn't Mr. McIntyre be nominated for the 2009 Canadian Thermomonger Slayer of the Year award?

  11. 1) McI found minor errors in Mann that were corrected. Hockey stick looks the same both before and after.

    2) McI found a minor error in the temp records of the U.S. Record looks the same both before and after.

    3) Looks like this is having very little effect on Copenhagen talks, so it looks like the adults see past this kind of stuff.

    • You mean by using Fear and Propaganda to raise taxes?

      1) Cap & Trade Carbon carbon Exchange "Contracts" Credits.

      I agree the adult lobbyists have a genuine interest in securing more money for Banks, Energy Companies and regulations for controlling the population. Liberals love to cite the China model.

      What is another few trillion amongst friends?

    • 1) The hockey stick does not look the same, it is no longer being used, it has been discredited.
      2) No it doesn't, the error was acknowledged.
      3) That's your opinion, but Copenhagen has a lot more hysterical environuts than it has adults.

    • Bigcitylib and Robert, If you guys really believe that CO2 can change the climate, you might consider leaving your cars running all night and burning your trash. If you are correct, it may be the only way to warm the planet up from this cold spell we are encountering. Think about it, in ten years, Canada and half of the Northern US will be one big glacier. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE! All because people like you will not accept the reality that we need more CO2 to help warm the planet.

      LOL

    • "so it looks like the adults see past this kind of stuff" – Two weeks ago after senators were bombarded with tens of thousands of emails demanding that the proposed Australian Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) be voted down, it was, saving taxpayers approximately $120M. Senators relate that a majority of these emails referred to the Climategate debacle.

      So you are wrong. Adults have not seen past it. They have seen it and stopped and thought about it and what they have seen has influenced their views. Climategate would not have happened without Steve McIntyre and you know it. 22 million Australians are indebted to him.

    • How do you know? From what has been disclosed, the US reporting sites were placed next to heat exhausts and on enclosed facilities surrounded by asphalt. Garbage in, garbage out. It is about the acquisition of power and money as well as the economic enslavement of the developing world.

    • Actually, McI found that even random generated data put into Mann's model produces a hockey stick. Nice try.

  12. I say we follow the money, these people make a killing on the "funding"! Al Gore will be a very rich man and most of these scientist will quite comfortable….why it is recession proof! Name me one prominent study that was not goverment "funded"!….follow the money!!

  13. Perhaps we could ease the tensions around the AGW debate by setting up a database. AGW-skeptics could register their lineages with the database, with the following results:

    a) If, in 100 years, AGW turns out to be a hoax, lineages registered before 2015 will pay no taxes for the rest of time.

    b) If, in 100 years, AGW turns out to be true, and famine has killed a billion people and half the world's cities are underwater, lineages registered before 2015 will be dropped into the Pacific ocean to sleep with the giant squidsies.

    Of course, intermarriage between AGW-skeptics and the rest of us would complicate the database, but fortunately there is very little chance of that happening.

    • There are plenty of AGW "deniers" who believe natural cycles dominate over human-driven effects (and that the planet is in fact warming), though. They wouldn't want to sign a deal that might end up putting their grandchildren in the drink because a solar maximum arrived at the wrong time. The "A" and the "W" (hell, come to think of it, even the "G") depend on distinct scientific justifications.

      • There are plenty of AGW "deniers" who believe natural cycles dominate over human-driven effects (and that the planet is in fact warming), though.

        So what, they're being drowned out by the kooks who won't even look at the evidence and believe in a grand conspiracy with a cast of tens of thousands.

        • Those are the ones that AGW proponesnts chose to highlight, for clear reasons.

          My issue is that the science need to be done the right way. It hasn't. Saying the results are the same misses the point.

          Remember AGW was sold initiially as being a linear function of CO2, it clearly isn't. There are other things going on. So to hear the correction now, well, there have been La Nna's and thats why there hasnt been as much warming…..well doesnt that kind of make the simple point that there are other factors out there that wash out or dominate whatever damage humanity has done to date?

          Ultimately, we do not understand all the factors, and that means we dont really know how much or how little humanity has contributed. So when people are being told there are only 90 days to save the world, do you wonder why the pushback gets created.

          It may not be a conspiracy but it sure aint rational, considered thinking.

          • Those are the ones that AGW proponesnts chose to highlight, for clear reasons.

            Those are the ones that every climate change denier here emulates. Take a look at the comments, most climate change deniers here are calling AGW a hoax.

          • Different than a conspiracy…..

            What I like about McIntyre is his insistence on openness and due diligence. The response from the core AGW team was not appropriate and hasnt been for some time.

            If it really was that obvious then there would have been more openess and sharing of data. That the core group was motivated by either prtectiveness of their baby or pecuniary interest does not speak well for their venture.

            The CRU emails doesnt disprove AGW, just as slated core samples doesnt disprove that the gold isnt there. But it doesnt prove it either. I have said that the people who should be angriest are those who have done things the right way ans have evidence that shows AGW. This little stunt on the CRU's part has set back the issue…..It does need to be done properly. That sthe only way you get people on board, as Fleischman and Ponds found. I think they believed their own results, there was no intent to defraud on their part…..it was just wrong, and their secrecy was ultimately part of the problem.

          • well said

          • Agreed. Those real scientists who have obtained verifiable results showing warming should be the most annoyed with this lot of unscientific activist nuts exposed by the emails.

          • Climate is always changing , AGW is a hoax .

          • AGW and climate change are two very different things, and you know it.

          • Can you provide any proof of this said "hoax"? Anybody can make a comment, not saying I don't believe you…I'm just curious as to the subject and you Sir have pointed me in the right path.

        • 'So what, they're being drowned out by the kooks who won't even look at the evidence'

          Earth to Robert, we are gathered here to look at the evidence,
          and we find the science data has been fudged,
          and programming tricks used to hide the temperature declines ,
          and considerable clout being used to 'shut up' critics that have differing evidence.

          Earths citizen's deserve a triple check on the data before being asked to shell out 100's of billion, 10's of trillions to fix what may or may not be broken.

          • I do believe that there is a big problem in terms of the environment. What we must do is to make a proactive action to protect and to promote clean and healthy living. In my pe teacher course, I have learned that we must also live in a good and healthy environment to improve one’s well-being.

      • Except we're living a solar Maunder minimum that's hotter than the last solar Maunder maximum… I know, it's a brain twister.

        You know Colby I have to congratulate you. You managed to make McIntyre look like anti-AGW. I wonder how he would feel of his new found bias.

    • This seems like a reasonable solution. Robert McLelland suggested in an above reply that future generations will be 'pissing on the graves' of today's climate deniers. If global warming has the effects predicted by real scientists, then pissing on the graves of deniers certainly won't be enough.

      Your solution Jack is quite reasonable: since the stakes are so high, the deniers should pay the ultimate price if their confidence is misplaced. It's simply not fair that the island countries, the poor, and those without food/water security should bear the brunt of the overzealous skeptics and the damage they inflict on humanity while the skeptics themselves will be sitting comfortably saying 'oops. Maybe I was wrong after all'.

      I certainly wish that the deniers could turn out to be correct, some new climate scientist will discover an 'Intelligent Design Carbon Drainhole' that sequesters carbon dioxide to the center of the Earth and win the Nobel prize. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

      • Millions of people are iving in poverty, without food and water right now.
        Ask them if the govt of China getting billions of world dollars to clean up coal plants will put food on their table, water in their buckets and draw them out of poverty.
        No, infact even more people will be impoverished,
        government's coffers will be strained paying 'carbon debts' to other countries at the expense of their own poor.

        So, if I'm living on one of those sealevel little islands,
        I'm applying for immigration to Canada before my sealevel hut floats off to sea,
        rather than betting on science and governments to save me.

      • Condemning the OFFSPRING for the sins of the gambling progenitors strikes you as reasonable? Don't slap your forehead too strongly — the hollow echo will keep the neighbours up all night.

        Failing to properly assess the true and potential costs of ACTION is a major logic fail when all we want to dream up are the potential costs of INaction.

    • Just a quick question Jack.

      To date, which has killed more people. Global warming, or policy that is supposed to counteract it?

      Derek

    • Yummy… sign me up.

      (Obviously if 'Always Wrong' Erlich and his ilk are right, all the squidsies will be poached to a 'T' in a lovely salty fish soup, plus it will be so crowded on the land that you won't be able to move).

      Thanks to Mr McIntyre for making it just a teensy bit harder for tax parasites to give it to us good and hard (yet again). The last load of hovno they used to justify massive tax rape was Communism (you know, the trillion-plus dollar 'Cold War', when we were al lgoing to be subject to massive surveillance, a police state was a bad thing, and so forth).

      Caedite Eos.

      Cheerio

      GT.

  14. I've been reading McIntyre's blog for two weeks now, ever since the CRU story broke. There is no doubt in my mind he's a hero and I applaud his work. I even donated $20 to his cause to help. The science must be taken back from the zealots. Assuming, that is, that all of the raw, non-homogenized hasn't been thrown out, as the CRU's original data has been…

    The planet has been warming and cooling for billions of years. We can afford a few more years to properly examine the current theories in open and transparent ways before we proceed to destroy vast quantities of our economies.

    • I will donate more just don't want to see a big part of my donation money wasted on transaction costs.

  15. Why don't I ask my president to give McIntyre his Noble Peace prize – McIntyre certainly has more right than Obamby.

  16. "A penny dropped" must go down in history.

    A mathematician looked at Bernie Madoff's profit reports, and a penny dropped. An lowly Enron accountant looked at arcane internal financial reports, and a penny dropped. Galileo looked through a telescope, and a penny dropped. Whenever inquisitive, cynical about the numbers, people question pretty print outs, a penny may drop. They will be savaged by people with closed minds. But they point out error. Sometimes.

    To me the penny dropped when the CRU, the tabernacle of global warming, admitted under the pressure of a FOI, that the original data was thrown out due to a lack of storage space. That is not the rigorous scientific conduct of senior level scientists. No one can check their numbers, except their buddies. "Trust me" is the basis for redefining the world's energy policies. This is absurd. It is estimated that $98 billion has been spent of global warming, enough to fund file cabinets and microfiche of original messy data sheets. A penny has dropped, based on facts.

    In science, "Trust but verify" is half right. In a few years, underfunded people like Mr. McIntyre will study the released CRU information, and the world will be different. Until then, our enviro leaders must cease spending our money on private jets, limos, the mass use of prostitutes while attending useless meetings, but spend the money on file cabinets.

    • "To me the penny dropped when the CRU, the tabernacle of global warming, admitted under the pressure of a FOI, that the original data was thrown out due to a lack of storage space."

      I think it is very reasonable that they threw out their original data. Why, back in the 80's, there were no printers with which to record data and paper cost tens of thousands of dollars per ream. Of course they would throw out the raw data upon which trillions of dollars will be won and lost.

      • RUBBISH.

        As a former minion in an economic-modellig outfit, I can declare with P=1 that there would have been PLENTY of space.

        The datasets used in input-output and CGE modelling of the type done at the 'think tank' where I was a minion, are no smaller than those used in climate 'science'.

        And you could get hold of the unexpurgated data with no problem whatsoever (I still have old datasets on this very machine). That's because Dicko (Prof Peter B Dixon, head of the shop) was an honourable man – he was a grad student under Leontief, and i was a PhD student (when I was a minion… and I never finished).

        As an aside – as a modeller I could make ANY model that I understood generate results that changed the sign of the results of endogenous variables at critical points in the expansion path of the model – without deviating parameters from defensible ranges, without shocking exognous variables too much, and without changing the closure of the model in non-defensible ways… I've done it loads of times.

        And if any commenter doesn't understand exogenous/endogenous variable splits ('closure'), parameter sets, information sets and exoVar shocks, then they should shut up. Preferably they should understand tech change twists, fudge factors and how wide the forecast error interval becomes at T=100 in the presence of parameter uncertainty… but that would mean fewer than about 1000 people could comment,

        Climate modelling is RUBBISH. As someone who has borne the slings and arrows that the left directs at Economic Modelling, seeing them genuflect at CLIMATe modelling is maddening.

        CHeerio

        GT
        Loving every minute of ClimateGate even more than I loved the Erlich/Simon bet of the 1980s.
        http://marketmentat.com

  17. Kudos for Mr. McIntyre's wise and diligent research. Perhaps all of the legitimate scientists in America will ferret out their colleagues that only go for the grant gusto and/or have a clear political agenda.

    It is not only this man's reasonable inquiry into the rabid global warming scam that is so important, because in my community, investigation may show that our local board of supervisors treats the local and powerful environmental NPO as their virtual planning department…trampling agriculture and private property rights. For years, landowners have been bullied to 'have a seat at the table', when in reality, landowners ARE the table upon which the NPO gains control over private property and the county's policies of fees, fines and mandates minimize and regulate land use and landowner access to natural resources.
    So, it isn't just the climate scientists that are wanting to steal our money, it's also the entire environmental agenda that is out to steal our land…all under the guise of 'protection'. Let's start looking at the FOIA data EVERYWHERE…

    • "Let's start looking at the FOIA data EVERYWHERE…"

      I intend to do just that.

      This will be McIntyre's greatest legacy: The public stops cowering before the wild claims of scientific experts.

  18. It would be fair to say that fraud is rampant in science. Look at all the science from the most august scientific establishments in the world; CDC, WHO, NIH, the state health agencies of every developed nation and the the great "swine flu" debacle. Only 30 days ago we were all going to die. Canada is sitting on some 35 million unused doses and there is no need for volume buys on body bags..

    That was pretty solid science eh? Look at AIDS, the science from those same agencies predicted the end of mankind. The war on cancer makes progress in Afstan look pretty good by contrast, if you look at observed results relative to money spent.

    How about economics and finance? Well I guess that's not working out so well either. I could go on into virtually any field and show similar deception.

    The common denominator in all of this is human gullibility and our inate or conditioned submission to authority. I think the Milgram experiment pretty much demonstrated how humans react to guys in white coats (or designer suits) in "positions of authority". Throw in Stalin's shrewd observations about "useful idiot" sycophants and we wind up where we are today.

    • Pete, if you could quote any scientist from the last twenty-odd years who was predicting the "end of mankind" due to AIDS, that would be nice. And if you could pause for a moment to reflect that it was science that led to treatments that allowed people to LIVE WITH instead of DIE FROM the HIV, well, then and only then might I bother to read your next two "contd…" blurbs. Thanks.

      • What makes you think that Jones, Mann, And Hansen are Scientists? Well the obvious answer is that others recognize them as such. That in a nutshell is the problem. A Scientists is one who uses the scientific method to conduct research and learn new things about nature and the world we live in. Scientists do not need the approval of other Scientists only thier work does. If thier work is not offered to be double checked by other interested parties then it is not Science and no amount of degrees or scholarship or published articles that do not describe methodoligies will change that. Science is a method and a Scientist is one who follows the method. The whole field of Climate Science is now in question because they did not follow the method. Degrees or Pedigreesw are unimportant. Einstien was not a lettered Scientists when he wrote his first Papers on Special Relativity. He had difficulty getting it published. Did that make him incorrect and the rest of the Scientific Community correct? It did not. Einstien single handedly rewrote physics for all time or at least until a better explanation comes along.

  19. cont…If you honestly "believe" that some A-hole in New York, or Brussels knows better than you what is good for you, you are lost. If on the other hand, you suspect something is amiss believe me, like in the XFiles, the "truth is out there", there's just no money in it for the usual suspects. It doesn't matter who they are, what matters is that they "are" and the one world dream they have had for a long time is a dream of slavery for you and I. A world like Dubai, all glass and steel and wondeful things, where a slave class and sycophant class serve the need sof the idle rich who have no skills others than lucky birth.

    Merry Christmas

  20. cont….
    Some of the most stump stupid people I've ever met are PhDs. One of the smartest and wisest people I've ever met was an illiterate native elder in northern BC…go figure.

    You can take your rapidly depreciating fiat currency to the bank on the truth that unless and until we awaken from our fog we are doomed to a life of slavery and submission to the "banker class" to whom this confusion and public policy of the lowest common denominator is oxygen.

    The reason the ideas about water shortages, global warming, urban design and "rules" about everything has proliferated throughout the world is the UN's Agenda 21. through interlocking fields of study this document sets the agenda on a global basis.

  21. If there is anything that is obvious in the CRU e-mails, it is the fact that the scientists pushing global warming are scared to death of Steve McIntyre.

    They do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent him from gaining access to their data.

    They resist with ALL their might his every effort to discover their statistical methods and manipulations.

    They are willing to DESTROY data rather than let McIntyre get hold of it.

    So, judge for yourself whether or not McIntyre's findings are "trivial" as some claim in these comments.

    Steve McIntyre is a hero and a scientist of the highest integrity.

  22. I'm worried about the next 50 to 100 years if there is no action taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I base this worry on a large body of scientific work that suggests that AGW is real and happening.

    It seems that climate change deniers are worried about that their precious fossil fuel industry (and the economy) might be hurt if action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What do they base this on?

    Which is worse?

    • Read the posts above and below yours. Do you notice that it is the skeptics who are actually reviewing McIntyre's work, and the believers who simply keep reasserting the doomsaying?

      I have no brief for the fossil fuel industry. I'm in finance, which has just damaged the world economy by the imprudent use of flawed models that they believed were real.

      Climate "science" is mostly modeling and speculation, not (as credulous pro-AGW boosters appear to believe), a process of experiment, theory and either confirmation or disproof.

      The essence of real science is that it must be falsifiable. In other words, you must be able to know it to be untrue. There is nothing that the pro-AGW climate establishment will accept as disproof the their models, therefore their models are not scientific.

      Google the term "behavioral economics", and look at the material on pattern-recognition, trend-following and over-confidence. All of these are intrinsic features (bugs?) of the human brain. It you are bright and open-minded, it won't take you long to understand the application to the pseudo-science of GCMs and climate researchers.

    • I have no interest in the Fossil Industry. I simply don't trust the Politicians in EVERY single party to provide all the FACTS.

      How will Cap and Trade and imposing a new tax for the benefits of Banks and large companies help reduce the global temp or reduce Co2?

      I don't buy into FEAR end of the world sales pitch by those who have a vested financial gain.
      Over 25% of our Co2 is from Auto Emmissions.

      Where do the majority of Canadians live? You need to ban the automobile in the Golden Horsehose and every large urban centre (best of luck) The Oil Sand villian is responsible for only 5% of our Canadian Co2.

      As soon as Ontario, Quebec ban the automobile in an effort to curb Co2 I will take the Cap and Trade Scheme serious.

      Otherwise this is a tax grab policy.

      Remembe H1N1 hysteria and how much we spent, one billion to ensure we had 34 million doses. How many are going to get the shot? (40%?)

    • Hey Lobby Canada. I worry that there are people in Canada who actually think like you. Idiots like you scare the hell out of me!

    • climate change deniers

      There is no such thing. The 'deniers' believe that climate changes, and has done so naturally since the beginning of time. They do not believe human activity is the cause of the recent (past 100 years) variations in 'climate' .

      As Ralph Klein put it,
      so what created the Ice Age, dinosaurs farting?

      Gawd I miss Ralph, wish he were in this debage.

    • I worry for my freedom
      The EPA or cap and trade is nothing more than a way to destroy my freedom.
      to tell me how to live my life.
      when all the agw pushers shut down their use of every co2 generator in their lives
      (airplanes, cars, busses, trains, home heat, electric lights and all forms of stoves and ovens, all manufactured products
      and move outdoors and live on the ground then I'll believe they believe.
      until then ….I'll try my best to live as good as al gore.

    • Very powerful, important people in snazzy uniforms told me that the Jews were responsible for our economic woes. That's why I told the nice gentlemen in brown shirts that my neighbors were Jews. They put them on a train and away they went.

    • Please spare us the drivel. The large body of evidence, is slowly being dismantled. If your psyche demands blind faith to an ideal, go to a church of your choosing. Not being skeptical at this point shows a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

      The amount of money being spent to confirm AGW is tens of times higher than the amount spent to refute it. Stop with the name calling and the hair pulling worry and start arguing from the science.

      But sandwich board posts bearing "The World is Coming to and End" missives is tired at best.

      • "The amount of money being spent to confirm AGW is tens of times higher than the amount spent to refute it."

        Only ten times higher? More likely one million times higher. Take all the money of government research grants spent on this , money to all the parasitic activists that are pushing this agenda, and the millions that is spent on all conferences organized by the UN to fly around their honchos in first class seating and hotels, limousines. Not to mention Copenhagen insanity. Mind you the whores of Copenhagen give discount to participants of the conference.

    • Hi I have been following GW for some time now and I have yet to find any scientific evidence showing harm or damage from co2. If you have any, or know where I can find some evidence, not opinions or speculation, please let the rest of us see it. thnx.

    • There is no global warming and I don't own stock in anything.

  23. bigcitylib,

    1) Gee, I guess doing away with both the Little Ice Age and the Med Evil Warming period is good for you. Hey why not? All the climate scientist thought that was just great.

    2) Mr. McIntyre found that 1938 was the hottest year, not 1998. Hansen slipped up on that one. Oh, then there was the little mishap of using the same data for one month for the next month. I agree it was a small number, but how many small numbers does it take before we are all believing in AGW and changing the way we live based on lies and mistakes.

    3) It is the vast numbers of free people who will decide where we go from here, not those greedy politicians in Copenhagen. You see, bigcitylib, this is just the beginning. Wait until NASA/GISS has to reveal their raw data under the FOI, which they have been stalling for two years. You have to ask yourself, why? Why wouldn’t they just provide the data?

    It’s all falling apart for those of you on the far left.

    • I'm still waiting for NASA to tell the truth about the moon landing. I'm surprised you didn't bring that up too.

      • So it is okay for some Government to withold evidence (AGW temp data) but not our Canadian Government regarding matters of national security?

        A) Canadina Governement is alleged in a cover up by Liberals
        B) other governments organization are not held to same standard by the Liberals…interesting

        • It's the Green Shift…shifting our "spending green" to them.

          • You would expect Liberals to be consistent after the Sponsorship Scandal for more transparency.

            Instead they have allowed China (free ride) and other ogranizations an exemption on human rights or transparency.

            Why are they not holding everyone to the same standard as they hold our Federal Government?

          • Oh, Libs and their media are just having a hard time wrapping their collective heads around Harper being right.

            Our people in the Canadian North are making a presentation at Copenhagen, via satellite,
            they say the sun is higher, and they think the Earth has shifted. (was on CBC, can't find the video)
            Now I find that easier to believe than the CO2 thing.

      • So it's back to the number one tactic of the Left, eh? "marginalize and ridicule" – straight out of Alinski. Too bad it's not working any more.

  24. Lobbycanada is willing to disbelieve those e-mails on the 'idea' that global warming will cause catastrophy? If the earth warms, agricultural production improves, plants grow faster and makes MORE oxygen!
    I think our global leaders are either in on the scam (Obama and Al Gore, here) or have been taken in by the faked science that has been presented to them. A one world government would be the result of nations falling for this scam. Then we could all be slaves and the 'consensus' of the world government could make each one of us eat, live and die however they decide.
    We, the People want proof. Scientific proof. And the climate scientists are digging in their heels because they are either unable or unwilling to provide it. (Talk about deniers!)

  25. I wonder how Lobbycanada gets around. Walking, biking, running? It would be unseemly to use a vehicle that relies on the fossil fuel industry that is responsible for the AGW. However, vehicles are a very nice thing when the temperature is -35 and the wind is blowing.

    What the evil AGW deniers base their worry about industry can be found in the TATA – Corus Steel affair where TATA can make millions of Euros closing a factory in England and making the steel in India, and shipping it to England.

    Where does this huge ammount of money come from? Euro Carbon Credit trading.

    That is where. And 1,700 British workers are lose thier jobs.

    AGW is a long shot guess at best, a total fraud at worst, but do we destroy our economies based on guesses and frauds?

    The belief in AGW has become a religion, true believers rabildy want the West to send huge money transers to the developing world as if this will somehow stop the natural warming and cooling cylce of the planet.

    • "AGW is a long shot guess at best, a total fraud at worst, but do we destroy our economies based on guesses and frauds? "
      Sorry to say Wes, I am afraid that that has already happened. The staggering debts held by the EU and the USA, combined with their unfunded pension and medical services/drug coverge is, in my opinion, what is behind the whole AGW circus. If we all bucky up to "fight climate change" perhaps we won't notice the "three card monte" game of global finance and we will roll over and accept financial rape because we (the people) caused the economy to collapse, not the snakes in suits in "The City" and Wall St. and Basel (and I suspect they are just the troops not the generals). Let's call it AGS Anthropogenic Global Stupidity. Sadly it looks like the snakes are gonna' prevail.

    • Well said. The Carbon Exchange markets are going to trade Carbon contracts audited by local governments.

  26. Hmmm. A Canadian off the rez. Aren't the Mounties supposed to be controlling this?

  27. It's not rocket science. The Medieval Warm Period happened, the Little Ice Age happened. What part of reality is hard to deal with. Is it that reality flies in the face of Global Warming models? That it got really warm with no human input? That it got really cold with high co2 levels? This is not a religion, although it seems to be turning into one. Is the problem with reality that it flies in the face of "Lets transfer wealth in the name of saving the planet? Follow the money is the answer to this scam.

    • Perfect.

  28. Its amazing that those promoting the disaster view of Global Warming , and claim to be scientists, aren't willing to share the raw data and submit their data to the entire scientific community including sceptics. Provable repeatable results is the bases of the scientific method. Real scientists would welcome hard questions and tough review. Yet the Global Warming Cult doesn't. Should we be asking why and insisting on true science before we spend trillions upon trillion and reduce the living standards of the entire planet?

    • They keep repeating their demands on our Federal Government to release memos but won't hold other organizations to the same standards. What is up with the double standard?

      Are they shills for China, Big Energy companies, Banks who stand to make millions?

      • McIntyre and McKitrick should be immediately summoned to the enviro committee!

        Canadians deserve answers…..forget the committee, we need a public inquiry into Climategate!!

  29. Hey bigcitylib, I have an idea, why don't you hold your breath while your waiting? Just think, you won't be exhaling any CO2 during your long wait.

  30. Carbon Footprints in the Sand (part 1)
    One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with Al Gore. Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky. For the first forty or so years of my life there were two sets of footprints in the sand. But later on there were one set of footprints. This bothered me because I noticed that during the low periods of my life, when I was older and I was suffering from anguish, sorrow or defeat, and I was really worried about losing my Medicare and Social Security benefits, and not being able to find a job, I could see only one set of footprints.

  31. Carbon Footprints in the Sand (part 2)

    So I said to Al Gore, "You promised me Al, that if I worshipped the environment, and pretended to believe in Global Warming you would hang out with me always. But I have noticed that as I got older,
    during the most trying periods of my life, there has only been one
    set of footprints in the sand. Why, when I needed you most, have you not been there for me, Al?" Al Gore replied, "The times when you have seen only one set of footprints in the sand, is when I killed you. You see, your carbon footprint had become too large for the Earth to possibly support you and me and my forty-seven room mansion, and my private jets, and my fleet of cars, and my… well you get the picture. Don't You?”

    • ha! Suzuki does not live the life of a pauper either.

  32. McIntyre has no central role, and the real debate (how much warming, how soon) he adds nothing to it. Another Cosh fluffer

    • Well if he could get the data he's been asking for , McIntyre and others could have answered your how much, how soon questions.
      But, now the data has been deleted….oops, we moved and lost it.

      • The data is out there. There's tonnes of it. This canard has been answered several times.

        • Actually, no. Even in cases where the raw data is, in fact, available, what usually happens is that some other needed piece of data is left out. For instance, perhaps the raw data for 100 stations is published, but the official studies were done using on a subset of 20 stations taken from the 100. Without a definition of which 20 were chosen, the raw data is useless. Another common ploy is that the raw data is not given, but rather a "value added" set of data is given, i.e. the data given has already been modified or "adjusted." Without clear explaination of what "adjustments" were done to the raw data, the information cannot be evaluated.

          For a very good analysis of what games have been played with the data, look at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

        • Really. I have asked this question a few places.

          If some data was lost by Jones et. al, wouldn't it be kicking around in the closets of those who peer reviewed his findings?

          Derek

    • "how much warming, how soon"

      That's easy. The sensitivity to a doubling of co2 is 1.3C +/- .3C. In 2000 the co2 concentration was 370ppm. Assuming BAU, we'll be around 600ppm in 2100. So the 21st century warming will be:

      ln(600/370) * 1.3 / ln(2) = 0.91C give or take a bit.

      However, this warming won't happen in a straight line. Expect it to be flat for the next few decades, jump mid century, then flat again.

      Your welcome, AJ

      • And this equation was derived based on what data?

        • Simple regression analysis. To get the sensitivity, take your temperature dataset of choice as the dependant variable and regress against the ln(co2), the NINO3.4 index, and the AMO index. Multiply your ln(co2) coefficient by ln(2) to get the climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2. For the surface based datasets, such as Hadcrut v3, you get a relatively stable ln(co2) coefficient between the periods 1950-1980, 1950-2008. It oscillates somewhat, but comes in at 1.85C +/- .15C. Do the same with the satellite datasets and you get about 1.0C. Then it just boils down to which dataset you have faith in. My range (1.3C +/- 0.3C ) allows for local warming effects showing up in the surface record and collinearities/future revisions in the satellite record.

          Projecting where co2 will be at 2100 is less certain, but if you assume BAU co2 emissions growth and model the negative feedback in the carbon cycle you get about 600ppm +/-50ppm. Doing straight polynomial regressions also give you similar results.

          It puzzles me why complicated climate models are used to estimate sensitivity. If co2 is such a strong forcing, then it should pop out of post-1950 regression analysis (and it does).

  33. AGW = Dutch Tulips.
    Kudos to Mr. Mc Intyre.
    Truth will set us free.

  34. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics and have made a career in modelling and simulation in the communications electronics industry. I have also published dozens of articles in peer reviewed engineering and mathematics journals such as the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
    The analysis behind the "hockey stick" has nothing intrinsically to do with climate. The analysis is a purely statistical method of predicting one unknown random variable (global temperature) using a bunch of "proxy" random variables (such as tree ring density, Greenland ice core density, and so on). Any competently trained statistician or mathematician can understand the analysis as deeply as (and probably more deeply than) any of the "climate scientists" at East Anglia University.
    If you have a little background in statistics, engineering, or math, please see Iowahawk's
    treatment as an antidote to the usual silly appeals to scientific authority.

  35. I am a raging fiscal conservative, but I would just like to to know what is "actually" going on in the world. If man is causing the temps to rise or not, let's find out. The leading scientists of the AGW Cult have an obvious agenda and interest in pushing "their side" of this issue. These emails have just confirmed what many have been thinking – there is an ongoing attempt to mute any deviation from the "truth" (as they want it to be).

    Before the western world agrees to destroy their economies with prohibitive and punitive taxation and regulation, perhaps we should have someone else besides the vested interests in the echo chamber that is "climate science" right now double check their results? Most honest versions of science welcome examination of data and confirmation of a theory. AGW does not for some reason. I wonder why? Thank goodness there are people like Mr. McIntyre around to pull back the curtains and show what is really going on. If these AGW are so sure about their theories and data, why are they so reluctant to open it all up?

  36. McIntyre for Order of Canada….. as a start

  37. An expose that should blow the lid off this Globalist, NWO, funded hoax to enslave the peoples of the world. A lot of people are about to lose theire precious belief system. Tune in to truTV @10:PM est. next Wednesday…
    http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/epis

  38. Excellent article. What I want to see come from the climategate scandal is for the same level of scrutiny, objectivity, due dilligence, transparency and accountability that would be expected for any financial security to be imposed on climate science. After all, the stakes are much much higher, amounting to trillions of dollars from the global economy, not to mention other other non-monetary aspects which have massive implications on how we and our children will live our lives in the future. The more the AGW community vehemently opposes this the more I believe they have something to hide. The world owes Steve McIntyre a debt for his role in exposing this.

  39. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people and especially scientists are not skeptical as they should be, about any theory or claims with regard to climate change or anything else. To be real science it must be repeatable and reproducible, and predictions made must come true. The "warmers" fulfill none of those conditions. Kudos to Mr. McIntyre who has shown he has more claim to scientific spirit and methodology (and accuracy) than his many detractors who continue to push a political agenda and not a skeptical science agenda seeking truth.

  40. I don't disagree with the overriding point, that the CRU scientists had an unwarranted level of antagonism towards McIntyre, but on the subject of AGW, it's all beside the point.

    This is horserace reporting, plain and simple. Rather than discussing the science, the statistics, or even the economics, as Coyne recently did, Cosh is discussing the people. Ironically, in this very article, Cosh mentions the very flaw in logic he falls victim to, that it doesn't matter who's making the criticisms of science if those criticism are valid. It doesn't matter if McIntyre is a scientist or not, but it also doesn't matter if he's the humble saint Cosh is making him out to be – it's all irrelevant. McIntyre has some valid criticisms of climate science – even though I disagree with some of his ultimate conclusions, those crticisms are worth exploring. So why isn't Cosh exploring them?

    Horserace reporting such as this is disturbingly common but quite sinister, largely because it has the air of neutrality and investigative journalism, without requiring either. Again, McIntyre's persona is irrelevant to the debate, because it's the argument, not the person that matters. However, since he's being presented in a positive light and others in a negative light, McIntyre's arguments will be viewed more favourably, which fits with Cosh's established view on the subject. As well, while presenting McIntyre seems to be investigative, it provides no relevant information on the actual climate debate, it's just information about a person in the climate debate.

    I strongly encourage Cosh, if he wants to wade into the climate change debate, to start debating the actual science climate change. Since he's started at Maclean's, I've been pleasantly surprised by Cosh's posts – even the ones I disagreed with – but this is rather low. It's uninformative, disingenuous and lazy. It doesn't matter if McIntyre is a great person, it matters if what he says is true. Start talking about that, please.

    • Danger Colby Cosh danger! Note the sneak attack of circular logic. I thought Craig was a flak but this is a spin on lawyer logic; if you don't have the law argue the facts, if you don't have the facts argue the law…if you have neither the facts nor the law (science) discuss the messenger's short comings and point out their 'failures' to address moot points.

      Sort of a post-modern take of Sartre on crack.

    • It seems the crux of this complaint is that you wanted me to write about X and I wrote about Y. I don't really know how to respond to that. Maybe you should start a magazine and hire me? I'm not expensive. Your characterization of my goals with the article seems accurate, anyway, so to the degree you have a real complaint I must plead guilty.

      • My objection is that climate change is an important issue worthy of detailed discussion, no matter which side of the debate you currently find yourself on. What we do in response to potential climate change will likely be a defining attribute of the next half century. By pushing your point without actually addressing the details of the issue, you influence the debate without advancing it or contributing to it.

        Journalists do this all the time – horserace reporting is about all mainstream news does these days, because it's easy and since it doesn't make any assertions as to what's true or false (only who said what and the light those people are presented in), it has the air of neutrality. But just because it's common doesn't make it acceptable – journalists have a responsibility to do the work the rest of us can't, sort through the available information to determine not just who said what, but whether what those people said has merit.

        So why am I singling this article out? Well, because this is an issue I care about and it's one that is very sensitive to public opinion – action will be taken based on the degree to which people believe that climate change is an issue. When journalists like yourself influence the public's opinion not by discussing the science, economics or social issues (you know, the relevant stuff), but rather by creating a perception of the people at the heart of the debate, you influence how our society responds to a serious issue without ever providing perspective as to how we should logically respond to such an issue.

        I don't care what you write about, but I do care about how you right about it. If you want to write about climate change, write about climate change – this a backdoor way to influence public opinion without talking about the relevant aspects of the debate. Again, it doesn't matter if McIntyre is a nice person (I'm sure he is) or if AGW supporters aren't (Al Gore is, undeniably, a douchebag). What matters is the truth of their statements and we, the general public rely on you, the journalist, to go through the slew of information that we don't have time for, in order to sort fact from fiction.

        • Ahem, Craig. It was *one* article for a general interest news magazine. And an interesting one, at that. And the way he has been treated by the *cough* big names in science *cough* tell us as much or more about the sausage factory at East Anglia.

          So, aside from the fact that you want to be assigning editor at Maclean's, what exactly is your beef? Do you harrumph over every single personal story? The "The End" feature must really have you steamed — all they talk about is one person's life.

          • My beef is that Cosh is advancing his views on an issue without actually discussing the issue. It's a backdoor way to influence public opinion and on issues as vital as this, I take exception to that.

            Cosh's point over the last few weeks with regards to climate change, the way I've interpreted it at least, is that climatologists are being too insular and refusing to discuss the science in a legitimate, open way. Ok, so let's discuss the science! But Cosh doesn't. And he doesn't seem to be inclined to. Instead, he discusses the people, discrediting those he disagrees with and, in this piece, casting those he agrees with in a positive light. He's falling victim to the same flaw in reasoning that the CRU scientists did – attacking the person rather than the argument, thereby stiffling a real debate.

            I have no problems with personal stories. It's only when those personal stories are used to advance a position on an issue as a means of avoiding an actual discussion of the issue that I start to object.

          • Colby Cosh — math geek and AGW skeptic — interviews another one much more deeply involved as the ClimateGate emails bounce in and out of mainstream media consciousness. And your scandal is…?

          • There is no scandal – as I said, this type of reporting is incredibly common.

            My point is that when criticizing others for not openly debating climate change science in good faith and attacking opponents, it is hypocritical to follow that criticism by attacking opponents, presenting allies in a positive manner and not discussing climate change science.

            Furthermore, it is simply poor journalism to cover a debate without weighing in on the factual accuracy of the statements of each side, as it provides no new or meaningful information and the context is entirely dependent on the manner of presentation, often subject to the bias of the reporter – in Cosh's case, to advance his viewpoint on climate change science by presenting an admiring picture of a skeptic.

            There's nothing uniquely wrong with this article – it's well written, no real inaccuracies, and the phenonmenon of horserace reporting is widespread. However, after reading Cosh for the last month or so, I've found him to be interesting, intelligent and responsive, so I'm a bit disappointed to see an article such as this that falls into the same traps of journalistic integrity that plague so many other reporters – doubly so since Cosh falls on a different point in the ideological spectrum than I do, as I love articles that challenge my worldview in a meaningful way. Put simply, I expect more from him than this.

  41. " In order to continue to receive funding, data needs to be able to produce results." -hosertohoosier

    Look at the world we live in today compared to twenty years ago from a freedom perspective. What data do you think is getting results?

    • I should probably have been more clear about the meaning of "getting results". The most successful data-sets are used by many scholars, are widely cited, and may inform policymakers as well. It is possible that they do so without having much of a real-world impact.

      If you mean to ask "what datasets have a measurable and positive impact on the world/human freedom", a few come to mind. Polity attempts to measure the degree of democratization for every country since about 1800. This allows us to study the effects of democratization and (if policymakers think democratization is a good thing) allows us to generalize ways to accelerate democratization. Alternately if you are interested in economic freedom, the Fraser institute has a dataset on that.

      Data tends not to directly influence policymakers. Rather, data drives academic debates, academics make theories, and policy entrepreneurs turn academic theories into policy (or at least inject them into the public debate). For instance, the data in support of democratic peace theory (a theory that predicts democracies will never go to war with each other) is fairly strong (I still have my doubts). While not a consensus, there are a lot of fans of democratic peace within international relations. This has real policy implications – if democracies never go to war with each other, then it makes sense for the US to spread democracy. Both Clinton and Bush II drew on this idea in part, though Bush was more willing to spread freedom by force. Indeed, policy entrepreneurs can sometimes take the exact opposite lessons from the same theory.

      Is there a dataset that has led to good policy? Economics probably scores better on this than political science. Perhaps the best example comes from Bob Solow. Solow collected data on economic growth and growth in labour and capital. He found that – contrary to economic theory, these two factors were not close to explaining everything that drives growth. He hypothesized that the missing piece was technology. Since then others have done a great deal to try to model how technology fits into the growth story. Policymakers have increasingly tried to craft explicit innovation policies in order to stimulate growth. So I am willing to say that Solow has made us better off.

  42. Environmental scientists should be investigated as well. If the Endangered Species Act is reviewed, we would all see that it has been the vehicle to erode private property rights and through 'easements' global environmental groups are obtaining land use control of private lands.
    If the ESA was really about protecting species and restoring those species whose numbers are down, our nation's farmers and ranchers would propagate every endangered plant and animal to abundance! California farmers used to feed America, but the environmentalists are going to shut off agricultural water deliveries so that we'll have to rely more on imports and shut down grazing times. Read David Sterling's book "Green Gone Wild" for the species statistics…We're being duped and manipulated by junk science.
    It's not too late to stop this train…We, the People must demand transparency and truth.

    • If I ever find an "endangered species" on my property I will promptly kill it to protect my rights.

      Not exactly the result the greenie weenies were going for with the ESA, but it will be their own damn fault.

  43. I would say give him the order of Canada but its been cheapened by successive Liberal awards. Give the man a Nobel, no wait. Pulitzer? Something! The man deserves something BIG for what he has done. Ho about 1% of the Trillions he could potentially save us if the government follows his sage advice!

  44. It is too funny watching these man-made climate change hypocrites squirm, cower and lie to try to cover their own behinds. The same ones claiming that the skeptics have been "in the tank" with big oil, etc., are "in the tank" with Big Government funding and grants for the BIG taxpayer dollars and doing everything in their power, including fraudulent science, to keep the public food floating down to the bottom where they feed. Well, the jig is up thanks to people like McIntyre, who have risked their personal reputations and careers to speak the truth. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

  45. The sad truth of most government work is that it is sloppy, insular, and deceptive. To my mind, the problem is that for the customers (the politicians) the product they are buying is continued electability. That doesn't require sound science, just science that sounds good enough to the voters who look at it.

    That's true of pretty much everything the government buys; all it has to do is convince the voters that it is good, but there is no requirement that it actually be any good for real, just convincing. If the politicians could get away with making freeway overpasses out of cardboard, and keeping "Don't Drive on" signs on them, they would.

  46. I started reading Steve's blog as soon as he created it (with the help of John A at the time). To me his biggest contribution is the fact that He is forcing almost single handedly the climate 'science' to be open and transparent. This until today has been untrue. Neither the IPCC nor any of the so called 'leading' scientists in the domain abide by the simple rules that would allow a real science discussion to happen. At this point nobody knows if the world is warming or cooling because of this lack of transparency. The only thing Steve can improve is evolving politically from the current bigcitylib hate politics into a more realistic viewpoint which his career in mining should help him embrace. He deserves more than any Nobel prize – He deserves mell earned money from governments who will have to stop funding nonsense – 1% would be OK

  47. Great article, thank you MacLeans.

  48. BAAAAA BAAAAAAAAA
    Robert McClelland is another one of enviro whacko sheep that will mindlessly attack anyone that debunks their stupid religion. Global Warming is the new religion, Al Gore is their prophet, CO2 is the new sin, and carbon credits is how they get absolution.

  49. I'd like to throw out a question to the AGW-skeptics out there. I'm not a scientist; I don't read peer-reviewed science journals; I have only my sense of ambiance and my intuition to go on. My intuition tells me that you can't pump an unlimited amount of carbon into the atmosphere and have there be no effect. So, on that basis, here's my question:

    How much carbon would we have to be pumping into the atmosphere for the AGW-skeptics to think there will be no AGW? Suppose humanity quintupled its emissions: would that make a difference over the medium-to-long term? Suppose our emissions rose by 10 times? By 100 times? By 500 times? Would that make a difference?

    And the mandatory follow-up: how do you know? Also: how do you know there is a major difference in the effect of 500 times current emissions levels vs. current emissions levels? How do you know when to say, "Whoa, maybe we should cut back a bit?"

    • What do you know! By your own admission you have not read the science, so shut up until you have!

      • You haven't read the science either, bucko, so STFU.

    • Identify the largest CO2 emitter on earth and suggest how we deal with it .

      • Good idea, but it doesn't really address my question.

        • Sure it does Jack . I wouldn't want that trident stuck up my ass either though .

          • I wouldn't want that trident stuck up my ass either though.

            Ouch! Masterful riposte there, Bill…

          • Just trying to make a point .

          • Cows, right? Took me a second there. But it really doesn't answer my question. Assuming you're an AGW-skeptic, why would 500x the cattle we've now got burping and farting away affect your skepticism?

          • Oceans , Jack .
            500X the oceans could be a problem though .

            How the hell did you get from trident to cows ?

          • Oceans, right. Cows or oceans, I said to myself. Oceans or cows. I won't mention how the cows come in, it's actually kind of gory.

          • Cows and gore ….. two of my favourite subjects , please , do tell .

          • Quit yer beefin'.

          • You guys should look into the contributions of the small but numerous as well…termites, huge CO2 production

        • Jack, you have more patience than I do. The climate change questions brings out the most over the top wackos out there. Krugman had a great post on his blog the other day about he can write about whatever and the hate mail stays pretty constant, except when he writes about climate issues… it then spikes incredibly.

    • We actually do have data for this. CO2 was ten times its current abundance during the early Eocene. Climates were generally tropical and there is evidence for extinctions possibly because of acidification in shallow seas. CO2 was at nearly twice its current abundance for nearly 18 million years during the Miocene, when climates were generally temperate, and cooling, and life flourished quite wonderfully. Nowhere in Earth's geological history do we see evidence of "runaway" increases in temperature (although we do observe the opposite; forests being covered by ten meters of ice in a century). The reality is that we could burn every last drop of petroleum without reaching Miocene levels, so don't fret. There are many good reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels but planetary climate control has never been one of them.

      • This.

        Also, where did all that carbon come from that we're dumping into the atmosphere?

        Let's see… .Plants grew, sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere. Plants died. Repeat for millions of years. Sediments were laid on dead plants, plates moved, rock subducted, heat + pressure and plants turned into coal, gas and oil. We dig them up and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

        Sounds like we're returning to the atmosphere what was once there. OMG CRISIS WTF LOL here's my wallet.

    • Fantastic questions, all, Mr. Mitchell. How much is too much? Is it even a relevant question? What are the actual "impacts" to the biosphere? Are there actual impacts to the dynamic global climate system?

      Which is the exact point that makes Mr. McIntyre's identification of "scientific" shennanigans and buffoonery so important. If they are not truly conducting work which can actually give us valid answers to such questions (as opposed to what anyone may wish the answers to be), then it's not much better than reading tea leaves, or contemplating the entrails of a chicken for answers.

      In this respect, the mob mentality insisting we (as in everyone on the planet) commit to a course of action quite likely to have serious negative economic consequences for all but a relative few sound increasingly like villagers howling for the chief's daughter to be thrown into the volcano to avert the possibility of a drought next growing season.

    • Excellent questions, Jack. And excellent choice of words ("skeptic'). In theology and in climatology, I am more skeptical agnostic than anyone else, with a fierce streak of disbelief for anyone who dares tell me they know the absolute truth.

      So here's my take. CO2 continues to rise this decade, they tell us, and the temp isn't, they tell us (plateau at "record-breaking heights," except for the very next sentence in this comment). Temps have been much hotter centuries back, they tell us, when we weren't running dinosaur guts through V8 engines to go visit Grandma.

      I CAN tell you we are not pumping out an unlimited amount of carbon dioxide, so please allay your intuition on that one. The planet's had more in its atmosphere (they tell us). The climate's always changing. Humans will adapt. Ever since Adam and Eve had a hankerin' for apples (or so some "they" tell us), humans always have.

      I'd like to throw out a question to the true believers out there. How much prosperity shall we sacrifice on your maybes? How many people have to suffer discomfort, malnutrition and death because we are busy scrubbing smokestacks and pumping CO2 deep into the earth instead of discovering the next drought-resistant grain, or a vaccine against malaria, or accepting thousands more desperate refugees into Canada, or…?

      I am all for efficiency, and reducing inputs. Less fossil fuel use in favour of ECONOMICAL alternatives are superb. Clean air is an obvious and proven (and pressing!) issue. Trading carbon credits among organized-crime infested weasels — no thanks.

    • When you consider the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect could very well be negligible. Or it could be counteracted by other forces. Or it could cause increased cloud cover, thus cooling the planet.
      The simple assumption that increased CO2 means increased temps is not even borne out in the historical record. It could very well have little effect on the climate, no matter whether we double or triple the current concentrations. There could very well be any number of additional forces that make the effect of CO2 effects negligible. The science of climate is very complex.

    • Let me try. Five hundred million years ago, C02 was 20 times higher than today. During the Jurassic period CO2 was 4-5 times higher than today. We obviously made it out of both periods, so lets say that 4-5 times the present level would be "survivable". The atmosphere is 0.0373% CO2, which is equivalent to 3.306×10^12 tons of CO2. Five times that amount would leave the atmosphere 0.1865% CO2. (Note that is just less than 2/10th of 1%, not 18.65%.)

      Now the total amount of atmosphere is 8.8633×10^15 tons and man-made CO2 emmisions are about 27×10^9 tons per year. If we doubled our emissions that would leave the atmosphere 0.0376% CO2. Quintupled (400% increase) would leave the atmosphere 0.0385% C02. A 10 fold increase (1000%) would leave the atmosphere 0.04035% CO2. A hundred fold increase (10,000%) would leave the atmosphere 0.06776% CO2. A 500 fold increase (50,000%) would put the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere at 0.18961%. This would be just higher than the percentage CO2 during the Jurassic period.

    • Part II

      There is probably some sort of relationship between world GDP and the emission of CO2. Assuming it is anywhere near linear, a 50,000% increase in GDP seems pretty unlikely anytime in the near future. In fact, increasing GDP may have a poor coorelation with C02 emission in the future because of a more than linear rise in efficiency for combustion engines.

      Using this year as a baseline year, I would say that we need to cutback if there is ever a one years rise in GDP over 50,000%.

  50. Great, well done piece Macleans. Here in the states the MSM ABC< NBC< CBS, who are thoroughly invested in the AGW hoax, are still trying to downplay the story.

    2008/2009 – the year(s) the MSM AND AGW died.

  51. I had no idea who McIntyre was, his background or why he began his skeptic's journey. Thank yo for this enlightening, well-written piece.

    We owe him a great deal.

  52. Stuff you'll never see on TV .

  53. I've been following McIntyre's climate audit site for five years and have been continually in awe of his civility and dogged persistence. I'd suggest he be awarded a Nobel but he deserves to be in better company.

  54. Wrong Bucko so up yours!

  55. What Don said, and this:

    To say "it must be having SOME effect" is one thing. To say it's causing an increase in the temperature is quite another.

    But we don't have to speculate. The theory has been tested with observable facts. The temps were supposed to be skyrocketing by now, according to the models.

    They are not.

  56. God Bless this man! If it weren't for him our fool of a president here in the US might already have a signed document from his European Betters denegrating us to third world status in order to appease the so-called science of climate change. Look at the Libs posting here still defending the thousands of emails, documents and even the source code that proves there is no global warming. The whole thing was a money-driven lie. Now we have the proof for all to see.

  57. Well, he certainly isn't alone. He may be outnumbered, but he has them out gunned.

  58. Now see here. There's a larch in the Yamal that says the Medieval Warm Period never existed.

    • Yamal Akhbar!

  59. Best post I've read in a very long time, and I completely agree.

    Oh, except for the part about labs testing gravity – entire branches of theoretical physics and astrophysics are devoted to understanding the exact nature of gravity and the mechanisms by which it functions.

    • I liked it too, and Craig O's point is good: physicists are always working to push accuracy to ever more decimal places in search of residuals that might reveal flaws in even the best-established theories. The canonical example being quantum electrodynamics:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_Q

      I would add that in growth theory, as I understand it, Solow's specific conclusions have been supplanted but his questions, approach, and modeling instruments are still crucial.

      • Ask Fleishamn and Pons about academic freedom in physics Colby. Look at the real stories about MIT types slagging them as mere chemists and rigging experiments to disprove the cold fusion theory . The jury is still out but they did get repeatable results and as yet there is no explanation in physics to account for it.

        As to economics, come on! In the modern world it is all Keynes all the time. Ask around at any faculty how many Austrian economists are tenured or on track. Good grief look at the botch job the "boys" in Ottawa are making of it right now. Do we see any sign of the boom and bust Andrew Jackson complained of when he excised the parasites from the US economy in the 1830s? They weasled their way back in under Wilson in 1913 and do a quick google on who backed him.

  60. There is a far more frightening truth behind the goals of the AGW crowd. Almost all of the "progressive" changes for our society are based upon Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb.

    The elites believe that there are too many people striving for too few resources and that the planet is approaching a breaking point beyond which they (most of whom are the most fabulously wealthy and pampered people this world has ever produced) are going to see their wonderful lifestyles affected.

    The problem is that there are at least 4 billion people on this planet that aren't needed to serve their needs and sustain their economics. Many of these people are highly "superstitious", prone to violence (and heavily armed), and do not properly submit to the elites.

    The worst of these are the Americans, but there are billions more who are seeking to emulate these people. The …. peasants think they have the right to get better lives – approaching the lives of the elites.

    This can not be allowed. Those people have to be stopped – stopped from breeding, stopped from consuming, stopped from thinking, stopped from talking, stopped from hoping, and eventually stopped from breathing (which is a big chunk of the CO2 being admitted).

    Its the only way to save Gaia for those who deserve her best.

    • The problem is that there are at least 4 billion people on this planet [who]…do not properly submit to the elites…The worst of these are the Americans, but there are billions more who… think they have the right to get better lives – approaching the lives of the elites.

      Yep. There's nothing more American than defining "progress" as the process of coveting and emulating the lifestyles of the "élites" we're supposed to fear, loathe, and depose.

  61. Stephen McIntyre is a bonafide hero.

    He should receive both Gore's and Obama's Nobel Peace Prizes. It might lend some credibility to the disgraced organization.

  62. Good work, Macleans. McIntyre deserves more recognition for his efforts. Like most people here, I am not a scientist nor can I say with any confidence who makes a more scientifically compelling case in this debate. But I do know that alarm bells go off when FOI requests are denied and data is either lost or deleted. Something stinks here and it has to be addressed ASAP. While I tend to think that AGW is real, I would not support any govt initiatives to fix this "problem" until the corrupt practices of the scientific community have been fully investigated. We need transparency right now.

  63. Thank you Macleans, we've been waiting, Us bloggers had the story weeks ago when it broke, and wondered where on earth the MSM was. This man is a hero. See the Finish Documentary below featuring McCintyre, saw it weeks ago even before Climategate. Great source of info is Climate Depot , Big Government, and for hilarity Moonbattery, the best in anti left snark on the web.
    here is the film of Mccintyre:
    http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a9

  64. My degree is in geology, and this comment by Eduado Zorita baffled me: “Years ago, very few people, me included, thought to make data available to other researchers for confirmation or refutation. Such inquiries were very rare in climate research.”

    This way of thinking is completely alien to the scientific training I received. Why would any scientist not be willing and eager to share his research with others in the field? Sure, one wants to make sure one gets credit for first publication, but afterward there's no excuse not to. Where would astronomy have been if Tycho Brahe hadn't shared his observations with Kepler and others?

  65. Ok, let's just closely examine the supporting data for AGW.

    Oh, wait! The "scientists" destroyed the data!

    Why would scientists destroy data that supports their claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming???

    Answer: They wouldn't. They destroyed the data precisely because it undermined their claims about AGW! If the data supported AGW, they would have smeared our faces in it.

    AGW is the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind. The effects range from the starvation of poverty stricken people around the world (corn-ethanol swindle) to an attempt to completely bankrupt the world economy.

    These criminal cockroaches should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity.

  66. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are true Canadian heroes.

    Even before Climategate, I had a strong feeling that the wheels of the "CO2 causes global-warming bandwagon" were somewhat wobbly.

    When Climategate broke, I wondered about the deafening silence from the cadre of co-opted "science" journalists. Then, when they could ignore it no more (probably thanks to the Internet), their bias became blatantly obvious.

    And now that at least one of the bandwagon wheels has fallen off, but why is it that – with the notable exception of Rex Murphy – the CBC just doesn't seem to get it?

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/does-cbc-c

  67. So, let me see…of all those who think that CO2 emissions don't matter one iota, how many would have no problem if someone were to open a belching coal-fire plant by their neighborhood?

    Not so appealing? Why not?

    • Probably because coal smoke is stinky. Like your pits.

      • Quite the ignorant question. If all a coal fired plant spit out was CO2, few except the alarmists would have a real problem. It's the other pollutants that are the issue.

    • it's not the CO2 that make the plant undesirable. It's the inevitable greenpeace demonstrations.

    • Nobody wants a coal-fire (or, more likely gas-fired) plant in their neighbourhood. But by the same token, nobody wants to freeze in the dark either. Given my druthers, I'll take the modern coal-fired plant versus living in a dark, unheated Canadian home in winter any day. When you come back to me and tell me one of the 'green' recommended methods of heating and lighting homes (not to mention businesses) in Canada is reliable enough to power every Canadian home when necessary, I'll be listening to you.

      My farming family did such a thing up until the mid-1960's in Alberta, but we had a section of land to provide wood for heating yet we still woke up in the morning to frozen, well-water supplied water buckets (the ones used for morning cooking and washing) and we had 12 humans working hard to keep the place warm enough to survive the winter. "Buying local" wasn't a handy 'green' catchphrase. It was a financial reality. We grew and preserved our own everything and still barely eked out an existence.

      But ya know, if we had to go back to that, we'd be far more prepared to do it than the vast majority of romantic 'greenies' living in our urban cores. They would have absolutely no idea how to cope with such a change.

  68. Let's utilize a famous AGW tactic…

    The debate is over! The REAL science is in and AGW is a proven fraud!

    As is so often the case in fraud, all one needs to do is follow the interests of money and power.

    This world is at the precipice of an explosion in the arena of energy technology. From the science of incredible battery technology to cheap carbon fiber and hybrid cars that will achieve 150+ miles per gallon, we will soon be seeing these advances. We are not looking at 20 years down the road; not ten years and likely less than five years.

    So why are so many people in positions of wealth and power pushing AGW so hard? Well, follow the money and the interests of power!!! We are being played like violins by socialist cockroaches.

    We were taught in the schools and by the government and by the media that the Soviet Union was ruled by Communists. In reality, they were actual existing socialists. They told their slaves that communism was their GOAL; their PROMISE – "heaven on earth."

    Instead, these socialists delivered a horrific toll of about 63 million murders.

    Today, socialists are masquerading under the mantle of "progressivism." Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." This is not a communist speaking. He is a socialist. Or should I say he is an old and yet undefined ‘progressive?”

    Now we have a true "progressive" in the White House.

    Welcome to reality…

    • " From the science of incredible battery technology to cheap carbon fiber and hybrid cars that will achieve 150+ miles per gallon, we will soon be seeing these advances. We are not looking at 20 years down the road; not ten years and likely less than five years."

      There exists technology that could have replaced (or at least increased the efficiency of by orders of magnitude) the ICE 50 years ago, but it has been supressed. I am very relieved that the AGW movement seems to now be on the decline, but its a safe bet that as a result, this technology will remain supressed.

  69. Godspeed, McIntyre, yew olde Scots git!

  70. I thought the only mathmeticians involved in this fraud were like the simpleton Knutson who just keeps sucking on the teed of AGW funding and irritating conferences with banal monologue of tripe.

    Nice to know there are McIntyre is out there as an example for the profession. I too have experience in industry dealing with badly used statistics, 'compare by graph' idiocy, and ridiculously constructed models. In an industrial process, the truth comes to bear more quickly however but AGW is a century plus old project that has been shown to be fundamentally flawed and wrong by Niels Bohr and many others. Revelle, most of his life a quack on the fringe, managed to get a good student to push the agenda and happened upon the 'black box' of 'ad hoc' modelling where GIGO is disguised in puffery. Revelle apologized for his success before he died.

  71. … and then there is the other mathmetician, gatekeeper to pile on the BS of fellow 'black box' operators like Knutson.

    The infamous William Connolly, the overloard of Wikipedia, who makes sure the only badly researched articles that exist on wiki are to his favor. Don't try to expound on anyone like Landscheidt or note that there is no suggestion on the rerouted Climategate link about it being a leak. It is in big and bold that the Emails were stolen. No mention there either of the badly written code that shows 'adjustment'.

  72. Remember:
    The issue is never the issue.
    The issue is control.

  73. "……….…To McIntyre, a scientist's data and code stand in the same relationship to a finished paper that drilling cores do to a mining company press release. “If you're offering securities to the public,” McIntyre observed in a May 2008 talk at Ohio State University, “there are complicated and expensive processes of due diligence, involving audits of financial statements, independent engineering reports, opinions from securities lawyers and so on. There are laws requiring the disclosure of adverse results.”………."

    It is significant that McIntyre has a technical background in a field that requires due diligence required by law.

    My background is Aeronautical Engineering and having a career working on critical aircraft components, it would be inconceivable to fake engineering data or to ‘Trick' the data to get a desired result. The laws of Physics exist and no amount of playing with the data is allowed.

    People (and my family) fly in these aircraft and their lives are at stake. Never, in over 40 years did I ever see or hear of anyone trying to modify or conceal test results. It would be illegal, immoral and would likely to ultimately be revealed in any accident investigation.

    • Well, I'm not an engineer (although my father is!), nor a scientist, mathematician or statistician. But I certainly know about due diligence – and it's crucial role when others, who do not know the science, are depending on integrity and honesty behind any recommendations made by those who supposedly are the "experts".

      They like to fall back on "peer review" as a way of silencing those who question them. Yet, it's quite obvious that in the field of "climate science", peer review is tainted because neither the reviewers nor the journal editors had access to the data and methods; so they, too, trusted in the integrity and honesty of the "experts" – as did far too many in the coalition of willing "science" journalists.

      It is a trust betrayed. Consequently, we ended up with a "Foggy solution to the climate question."

      http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-foggy-

  74. austinso … No one is preventing you from seeing i.e. "So, let me see…", you're just refusing.

    This may shock you, but one can be in support of cleaner air and water, more environmentally friendly energy policies, less emissions, conservation and the protection of endangered species without being in favor of fake science. So your little (in every sense of the word) "gotcha" question is really a non-sequitur.

    And oh yeah … I'd object to a coal plant next door. Would you object to a sewage treatment plant next door? No? Does that mean they're not necessary?

    • Yes Martin, you are very right. I support and work towards a clean air, water and more thoughtful use of products. I take out one small bag of trash a week, refuse to buy 'stuff' for the sake of buying, etc. etc. The AGW crowd of environmentalists pretty well got their wishes back in the 70s and 80s with laws around clean water, air, lead free gas, etc. , but instead of being happy with their success, they got hooked on all the government money they were used to – now they have the cause of global warming and it is turning into a much bigger cash cow that any of them even imagined. It is sick and deceptive, and I am so glad that the talks in Copenhagen appear to be failing and I hope that the Harper government signs onto NOTHING..

  75. Uniblogger,

    I could not agree more with your statements about hard science. But this is not hard science.

    These fellows are doing modeling, which by its very nature is always going to involve approximations, and rounding, and "guestimates" aimed at filling in a few gaps.

    Even with modern data, if the data in (temperature readings from X number of measurement stations around the globe) is in any way skewed, i.e., if one or more measurement thermometers are located too close to, or in the immediate vicinity of a heat-producing entity, such as a generator, the the error will reverberate down the line, and the picture will be wrong.

    And how about "fraud?" If there is some, shall we euphemistically say, "inexplicable data imprecision" included from one (or perhaps more) locales, the error will be manifested in the overall picture.

    Check this suspicious data from Darwin Airport out, for example.

  76. It does not take too much imagination to figure out that in modeling approximations about what the climate temperature record was for various regions, say, 1,000 years ago, or for 1,500 years ago, or for even 60 or 75 years ago, absolute precision is not a precondition to undertaking such a daunting calculation.

    Yet, these fellows tell us the science is settled! Oooops! They even had one very important little data point about 1998 wrong.

    Why? Well, I presume that it was because that's was what they wanted it to be here in the United States — the hottest year on record. But it wasn't. Let's go back that 75 years. Along came Steve McIntyre in 2007, who noted — based on the data that they had used — that 1934 was actually hotter here in the United States.

  77. Poor Jim Hansen, had to admit his error, and as you can see, he did so in a very sarcastic and defensive manner, claiming it was due to a "mixup" in NOAA data.

    A "mulligan" if you will. In light of the recent revelations from the e-mails, I note with particular interest his one comment from that e-mail back then:

    Said Hansen back then: "Hmm, I am not very good at magic tricks."

    Ha!

  78. Well, Hansen may have claimed he was not good at tricks, but apparently, Michael Mann and Phil Jones thought they were, as the recent e-mails have revealed. Steve has neatly shown what the other members of the inner cabal, meant with regard to that e-mail about the "nature trick" to "hide the decline."

    Just scroll down to Figure 3. to see what Steve McIntyre showed — note the graph the actual raw data produces, next to the "trick" graph.

    And here was what Steve noted way back in 2005.

    Where was the uproar back then, do you suppose?

  79. All that needs to happen now is for the next shoe to drop. One scientist who is a notable believer or more hacked e-mails comes out with even more revelations, the entire game will explode. I can see fraud charges being brought against many people who testified to congress that glabal warming is in fact, a fact…Al Gore could be in a situation that he never would have expected could ever happen to him and if all this is true he should go to jail with many others.

  80. A growing amount of the public knows that the proposed cap and trade is an attempt at redistribution of wealth.

    http://tinyurl.com/capandtraderedistribution

    The huge majority of the UN is made up of third world countries, and they tried this ruse once before but Regan and Thatcher told them to shove it, and to start working.

    Obama was an active communist just 13 years ago and is trying to redistribute wealth in the US – so just imagine how much he'd love to do it on a global scale!

  81. My advice to all of the so called experts would be just like the bumper stickers stated< " ARE YOU AN ENVIRIONMENTALIST, OR DO YOU WORK FOR A LIVING"? with your hands people not you loud voices, thinking you know everything, have all the answers, but never solve the problems, just add to them.

    Nature has always taken care of nature for billions of years without any help from man, you see, GOD is still in control.

  82. Some work that is surfacing now demonstrates that the actual data itself has been messed with, such demonstrated in the recent piece by Willis Eschenbach on Darwin Zero.

    The systematic rounding of sampling data in building models is — whatever else you want to call it — the drawing of indicators or trends based on imprecision. Judgment calls at best; cheerleading in some instances; canting based on an agenda at worse. Throw time and the imprecision increases.

    Fudging with the data, however, is downright fraud.

    The stakes here are so high — laying the groundwork for altering the world's economic foundations — that at a minimum a good disinfectant is needed.

    Steve McIntyre has been persistent in challenging and rooting out the bad or questionable numbers. Here's hoping he'll stay at it and inspire others to follow in his footsteps.

  83. cont… The only Data which influences policy makers is the data they get from their backers which supports their position. If truth would set us free we'd be free. To quote/paraphrase the founder of the Rothschild's dynasty Amschel Rothschild ,"let me control a nation's money supply and I care not who makes their laws." Can you spell "special drawing rights?" Look at the "audit the fed bill" in the US House right now.

  84. Maureen, I second your vote on the Hillbuzz guys. I discovered them during the early days of Obama's appalling handling of the Ft. Hood traitorous terrorist.

  85. thank you Mr McIntyre!! If there was justice-McIntyre would get a Nobel.

  86. Wonderful outstanding article!
    The "silence of conspiracy" is always framed in darkness.
    The "light of truth" may appear, at first, to be just a ray but soon spreads into full blown dayllight disenfecting everything it touches.
    To those who have lied, conspired, and monetarily benefited from "global warming" I wish you accountability and (if warranted) prosecution. To those who have sought the TRUTH I applaud you and always will.
    Nuff said.
    Jeffrey Schrembs, American Citizen

  87. "the original data was thrown out due to a lack of storage space."

    Has anyone demonstrated that the original data was unreasonably large?

    Too large to divide up and have people take it home for safe keeping and future depository in their Nobel libraries?

    Just asking…

  88. Thank-you, McLeans, for being one of the few mainstream mediums covering Climategate. Kudos were being given to the Canadian media by posters on an American website. With apologies upfront to George Orwell for probably mangling his observation, "In a time of universal deception telling the truth is a radical act.". The condemnation the climatists are spitting on Canada will one day be used to show that in spite of coercion and ostracism, Canadians stood for truth and against lies.

    And Steve McIntyre: you have my everlasting gratitude for your perseverance, dedication and courage.

  89. Squash is a great game.

  90. From the article: "in the realm of science, it doesn't really matter by whom and why a study is criticized. It only counts whether or not the criticism is reasonably well-founded, is logical, and relevant for the final results.”

    That is true IF one is talking about REAL SCIENCE. The global warming SCAM is AGENDA-DRIVEN, so the fascists trying to ram this crap down everyone's throats will do whatever it takes to achieve their ONE WORLD goals… and the TRUTH BE DAMNED!!!

  91. We need more people like Mr. McIntyre into this world. He's got all my respect

  92. PS, there is no global warming.

  93. Steve – Keep up the good work.
    You have stirred up a hornets nest here.
    As far as the Mannites are concerned we have to remember – "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 3 scene 2
    Skepticism is healthy is this day and age and it is an antidote for complacency and stupidity.
    Too bad that the uninformed have yet to learn the difference between skepticism and denial when they are jumping up and down. Makes good press and TV but not much for content.
    Are we to believe that Jones et al might have been smoking something but they didn't actually inhale after all…?

  94. I have followed Steve McIntyre's blog the last 2 years and he has never placed himself in the pro or anti camp, except for the small cabal of climatologists who have labeled him as a denier.
    Question: Why do these AGW acolytes compare people who have issues with the data, the code and replicability with holocaust deniers?
    His blog is highly technical and for most people i.e. the ones who do not have this level of understanding of statistics, difficult to follow and I include myself in this catagory. I have been very impressed with his committment to truth. When I read some of the comments on this site and those from the small controlling cabal of climatologists who smear and attack him personally; the things they say are in such stark contrast to the honourable person I have got to know through his blog. And isn't it interesting that major Canadian media organizations have ignored him and worse and that they would miss such an incredible CANADIAN story because it conflicted with their politics.

  95. McIntyre is a clown who is repeatedly bested by actual scientists. He continues to fixate on the hockey stick, even today. His actual contributions have been minimal, at best. The much ado about nothing PCA issue with the original MBH98 had no impact on the reconstruction as proved by others, and by Mann himself through formal peer-review papers. Just what has McIntyre actually contributed? Zippo – nada – nuthin.

    • What has he done? Not much, just restored dignity to Science.
      Of course you don't care about that, you just want to insult him for pointing out that good science depends on being able to duplicate results. That the MMGW people refused to provide their data should have been a warning sign to any half way intelligent person. Of course this may be why you don't understand what he did.

  96. With Colby Cash handling the analytical siide of this global warming scam and Rex Murphy putting it into words everyone can understand
    ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8 ) it seems Canadians are making a huge impact exposing this whole sorry business, and it is a business.

    Let's also not forget the great Mark Steyn for his delightful ability to mock the entire lot of these unconscionable "Warm Mongers".

    They do us proud!

    • At first I thought that this reply was intended to be satirical, but now I'm not so sure. In the strange world of global warming "skeptics" it's hard to tell.

  97. "I support and work towards a clean air, water and more thoughtful use of products".

    I think that's true for most of us, Maureen, but many in the GW crowd will insist that if you are not following their particular agenda you must be ravaging 'the planet'; that anyone who opposes them must be evil and/or ignorant.. They are trying to control the 'dialogue', and of course the power and influence that naturally follows.

  98. Consensus has no place in science.
    A scientist would never destroy data.
    the charlatans are the global warming scammers.

  99. The New Socialism

    What makes it most dangerous is that the ‘environmental movement’ is based on a false premise, that CO 2 is harmful. and man is the sole contributor to AGW. Quite on the contrary. The science of CO 2 does not support what is being perpetrated by the zealots of the climate change and the environmental movement.
    There has been no warming since 1998, This cooling cycle is tied to the solar activity, which was the lowest since 1900 this past year. Man made CO 2 is less than 2% of all the CO 2 in the atmosphere, so changing it by any amount would mean nothing and the fact that man made CO 2 only accounts for about .117% of the green house effect. Also that historically increases in CO 2 follow warming and don’t precede it, and that there is no true correlation to increase of CO 2 and increase in temperatures. I other words co 2 does not creates heat, rather heat creates co 2. The global warming climate models have proved themselves totally flawed!

    CO 2 absorbs only 3% of the light that passes through it. That is confirmed by experiment. That is .03. Then we know from air samples that the atmosphere is about 3% CO 2 at present. That means .0009 or so of the light is absorbed by the CO 2, (.03 X .03) much less than one percent. This too is confirmed by experimental data. So, our expected heat exchange is less than one percent, much less than one percent. If as you say this is the expected result, then it is hardly significant. Next, we know that as much CO 2 as man produces, the oceans produce much more. Animals produce more, volcanic action produces more.

    Human activity produces 3% of annual CO 2 production. CO 2 makes up approximately 3% of greenhouse gases (as measured by it heat retaining capacity) therefore man made greenhouse gas caused mostly by the burning of fossil fuels makes up .09% of the annual total – nature kicks in the rest. So let’s do the math. Canada contributes 2% of man made CO 2 production or .0018 of the total greenhouse gas world wide. Now if we were prepared to destroy our economy and cut back our use of fossil fuels by say 6% we would thereby reduce the total world wide green house annual gas production by .000108%. Such a reduction would not save the world, indeed, it wouldn’t have any measurable effect at all, but apparently it would make us feel better. Feel like we are really doing something important. The new socialism.

    Just a side note, look at the so called CO 2 and other aerosols being expelled from Ontario Hydro coal fired power station Nanticoke located on the north shore of Lake Erie. It is the single most biggest polluter in Canada. (17.6 million tonnes each year). Just pointing out the political and ideological movement from the left always fingering the Alberta Oil Sands Project., but ignoring the monster in their own back yard. Hypocrits!

    I have a comment for all these global warmist proponents. According to medical science the average human being exhales approximate (900 gm’s) 2 lbs of CO 2 daily. With 6 billion people on this planet, you do the math. If you feel that CO 2 is so harmful and you want to save this planet, then I suggest you hold your breath.

  100. As I recall, I had to include ALL of the data in an appendix to my dissertation. Science can only thrive with transparency.

  101. And still the snows of Kilimanjaro disappear . . .

    • Oh my the glacier that formed the Yosemite disappeared 10000 years ago. I am sure that it melted because of the Indian cavemen campfires CO2 and the farting of their buffaloes greenhouse gas was a major contributor for its demise.

  102. Excellent article on a great human being. Giants with integrity who quietly do their work, like Norman Borlaug as well, are the saviors of mankind.

  103. We owe you a lot Mr McIntire and we thank you very much for your sacrifice and dedication to get to the truth ,you missed your calling, we need people like you running the country ,honesty is something you cannot buy and dedication to find the truth at great expense to your self is something to be admired .THANK YOU. and all scientists who stood up to this tyranny .

  104. The notion that Stephen McIntyre did not have “credentials in applied science” is misleading. I understand he had experience applying statistical mathematics in the real world where the financial stakes were high, a skill directly applicable to the complicated arranging of climate data to try to make sense of it. He also has a good mind, which is essential to science, and apparently solid values – something lacking in his CRU opponents.

    There's a tendency for people to look for annointing by an academic institution, yet we know those are political bureaucracies with the widely varying quality inherent in such. Eduardo Zorita's statement “It only counts whether or not the criticism is reasonably well-founded, is logical, and relevant for the final result.” reminds me of the philosopher Ayn Rand who said, when someone tried to pull rank to reduce the quality she was insisting on in a stage presentation, that she'd listen to the elevator boy if he made sense.

    Keith Sketchley, Saanich B.C. 250-216-3966

  105. The world should be scandalized. And here we have Hillary Clinton supporting this fraud by pledging 100 Billion dollars towards it. Thank God for guys like McIntyre who will grab these bastards by the balls and squeeze some sense into them. Every politican who has bought into this world fraud should be given a fiscal enema…. preferrably while their balls are being vise-gripped.

  106. Really good article. Nice to see that people still have some wits and values.
    Thank you,
    Garry Dauron
    New Mexico

  107. Climate change is real, it's just that all those that preach it are "Congeal"!

  108. The fact is most AGW believers are watermelons: green on the outside, but red on the inside

  109. I find it very interesting that Wen Jiaboa Premier of China has qualifications in Geology and engineering. Here is a person who is trained to rely on facts and not be moved by rhetoric. No wonder he stalled at Copenhagen but was too polite embarass Obama and publically call for time out to review the facts.
    CO2 is a very precious molecular gas that feeds all plant life on earth.
    More people = more food

  110. There are two essentially distinct points to consider: Whether there is global warming, and (if so) whether and to what extent it is anthropogenic. We are in an interglacial (warming) period, so I am not surprised that there is some warming…so far quite beneficial. Whether there is any (or how much) contribution by mankind is still an open question. Even the CRU scientists state that they derived the AGW by modeling the global temperature and to the extent they were unable to match changes in other ways the remainder must ..MUST…be anthropogenic.

    Since their model is admittedly incomplete and imprecise (according to the leaked emails) this seems to me to be a bit flaky for science.

    And now we face a decade of COOLING?

    JimB

  111. "The world of mining is one in which everyone is constantly aware of how engineering results can be tampered with or misrepresented to rip off investors"

    As another geologist that works in the mineral exploration industry I can understand why McIntyre became immediately skeptical of the IPCC hockey stick. In our industry many of the "input" assumptions we are required to make to develop our economic models are imprecise due to statistical errors in data (ie ore grade, tonnage, commodity valuations, etc) . These economic models are used for investment decisions and presentations to potential investors. If an author of these models applies a unrealistic bias then the economic picture can be presented as very robust when perhaps the project investment is very risky. Our industry struggles with these risks continuously and we have created economic decision methodologies to address them (i.e Monte Carlo simulations). We have also regulated ourselves to ensure these data assumptions are fully disclosed to enable sophisticated decision makers to evaluate the risks.

    Industry geologists and engineers are therefore very skeptical of slick and flashy presentations (read Gore) that misrepresnt reality and, when questioned, "skeptics" are dismissed as "cranks" uninformed bozos by the authors of those slick presentations. This has all the earmarks of a sleazy mining promoter or snake oil salesman and that is exactly what Al Gore and Phil Jones have become for AGW.

  112. AGW has taken a long walk off a short peer. If there was even an ikling of AGW these socialist frauds would not have had to cook the books.

  113. Austinso, I usually ignore totally childish questions, but I need to deal with the choices you offer: black or white AGW doesn't matter one iota, or we are doomed unless we swallow the hoax hook line and sinker. I would need to get a lobotomy to consder that a question from an informed and adult mind. Global warming may be measureable but inconsenquential; it may be measureable and serious; or it may indeterminate at this point.
    The so-called "scientists" have wasted twenty years answering that question instead by lying, duplicitous behavior, intimidation, incestuous peer review behavior, personal attacks, deliberately lost data and generally language and behavior that is more reminiscent of Animal House than any scientific adult behavior. My position is that NOBODY knows the answer for a panoply of reasons, and the fraudsters' egregious behavior hasn't helped. We need less heat and more light, and the criminals gone permanently.

  114. I have just been made aware of this piece on Macintyre. Is it because he is a Canadian that the Canadian media feels obliged to portray him as some kind of conscience to science.

    The fact is that Macintyre did nothing of what is claimed in the article. His "findings" in everything were nothing but nitpicking. He has been caught in fraudulent claims about tree ring technology – see the Keith Briffa study. He has been shown to be ignorant of the statistics he claims to use for his attack on science: as in his inability to interpret the code in the emails.

    He is a mischief maker who used FOI requests for information he already had, and has admitted he already had.. Then used the response of the CRU to slander great scientists and waste their time. He and his mentor, McKittrick are certainly guilty of conspiring with the Competitive Enterprise Institute to influence an already biased American Senate Committee.

    In short, he is not the gentleman portrayed and he does not appear in debate because he would be exposed for the ignoramus that he is. He is a fraud, a faker, a charlatan.

    He is Canada, shame not a scientific conscience.

  115. I am somehow puzzle by all that's said about warming. As a scientist myself, but not in this area, I think sometimes some people are a bit too sure about what they think… althouh history should have learned that there's no such thing that being totally right…

    Scrabble Cheat

  116. Global warming is still a big deal, its not something we can ignore until it bits us back. Everyone needs to take part in the effort to minimize their footprint. Sure global warming may be inevitable at this point, but we must take care of what we have. Of course if you you truly believe this is a scam then go ahead and follow the money, i will read about it and except that fact.

  117. Really good article. Nice to see that people still have some wits and values. Thank you, M Aydin Granite Colors Expert

  118. We are in an interglacial (warming) period, so I am not surprised that there is some warming…so far quite beneficial.

  119. I'm glad to hear NASA was gracious about their mistake and quickly fixed it, unlike others.

  120. Global warming may be measureable but inconsenquential; it may be measureable and serious; or it may indeterminate at this point.

  121. This looks which Mark is actually creating a 1 hit answer along with Training course and is planning to take away the actual guesswork with regards to setting up and looking after these types of market internet sites. Mark has constantly been capable to teach exactly the best way to generate these internet sites over completely from scratch and it is identified because a great teacher but it seems he really wants to go one action additional as well as actually consider all the uncertainty from making these money producing internet sites.

    Exact particulars are slim on the ground right now because you are able to imagine however stay tuned and check back as I will be updating this page as I buy far more info and closer to the date I shall try AffiloJetpack Bonus and bring you a full scale review. I will indeed also be helping this particular Affilojetpack launch with a full scale extra package deal if i locate that Affilojetpack is actually truly some thing a person ought to possess. I understand I'm fired up to determine what Mark pops up along with and I'm certain you all are too.

  122. It's an interesting approach. I commonly see unexceptional views on the subject but yours it's written in a pretty unusual fashion. Surely, I will revisit your website for additional info.

  123. "A penny dropped" must go down in history.

    A mathematician looked at Bernie Madoff's profit reports, and a penny dropped. An lowly Enron accountant looked at arcane internal financial reports, and a penny dropped. Galileo looked through a telescope, and a penny dropped. Whenever inquisitive, cynical about the numbers, people question pretty print outs, a penny may drop. They will be savaged by people with closed minds. But they point out error. Sometimes.

  124. Thank you, Macleans…This is the biggest news item of the century and little has been done by MSM in just giving us the facts. We have had endless news reports on the Afganistan detainee issue over e-mails that were 'credible' reports from a whistleblower. Climategate has been treated as an illegal hacking job (which is questionable) not as a serious disclosure by a whistleblower.

  125. I would agree global climate change is a better term to describe human impacts on climate.

  126. Very good interview. I have a much better sense of Mr. McIntyre.Why don't I ask my president to give McIntyre his Noble Peace prize – McIntyre certainly has more right than Obamby.

  127. nice blog,but you could have made this blog more cool if you could configure the language changer pluigin but all the same you have done a good job <a html="http://www.van-insurance-cheap.co.uk/">van insurance

  128. Hello, good luck for me I was looking for this information for several months ago. Finally I got it all here. Thanks a lot!
    <a html="http://www.van-insurance-cheap.co.uk/&quot; title="van insurance">Van Insurance

  129. I had no idea who McIntyre was, his background or why he began his skeptic's journey. Thank yo for this enlightening, well-written piece.

    We owe him a great deal.
    Atlanta Data Center

  130. All that needs to happen now is for the next shoe to drop. One scientist who is a notable believer or more hacked e-mails comes out with even more revelations, the entire game will explode. I can see fraud charges being brought against many people who testified to congress that glabal warming is in fact, a fact…Al Gore could be in a situation that he never would have expected could ever happen to him and if all this is true he should go to jail with many others.
    Australian ETA

  131. Science is not like electoral politics, people should understand this. It should be done properly and honestly.

  132. All that needs to happen now is for the next shoe to drop. One scientist who is a notable believer or more hacked e-mails comes out with even more revelations, the entire game will explode. I can see fraud charges being brought against many people who testified to congress that glabal warming is in fact, a fact…Al Gore could be in a situation that he never would have expected could ever happen to him and if all this is true he should go to jail with many others.

  133. I was previously unaware of McIntyre and his work. I'd like to learn more about him and his contributions to society. Thanks for sharing.

  134. This may shock you, but one can be in support of cleaner air and water, more environmentally friendly energy policies, less emissions, conservation and the protection of endangered species without being in favor of fake science. So your little (in every sense of the word) "gotcha" question is really a non-sequitur.

  135. Stephen McIntyre's claims should be studied in an unbiased manner may be he has some genuine points to make.
    Science is not for stubborn and closed minds but it seems that climate scientist are acting like one.
    This is also true that warming and cooling of earth is a natural phenomena and may be "The Green House" gases does not have such a big role to play as is hyped.

  136. Great post!! Im happy you shared it with us.

  137. The saga of Mr. McIntyre’s detective work and statistical critique of the key papers supporting the “hockey stick” hypothesis is extremely well laid out and supported by publicly available references and repositories of data in the book The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford (Stacey International 2010). It would be very difficult to read this objectively and fail to understand the substance of his findings, or to continue to believe that the methods behind “hockey Stick” hypothesis have not been thoroughly discredited by unimpeachable authorities including two congressional panels. Time to start over but this time with true objectivity and rigorous scientific process.
    Yes to the order of Canada for Mr. McIntyre who’s scholarship greatly exceeds that of others already similarly recognized.

  138. Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged that day, Arizona was not repaired. Her wreck still lies at the bottom of Pearl Harbor, and is the final resting place for the remains of most of those who died.
    Granite Countertops Virginia

  139. USS Arizona was a Pennsylvania-class battleship built for the United States Navy in the mid-1910s. Commissioned in 1916, the ship remained stateside during World War I.
    Elektrikli Süpürge Toz Torbaları

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *