119

Oh boy. Here we go.


 

My profile for dead-tree Maclean’s of Steve McIntyre, Canada’s amateur critic of mainstream climate science, has hit the web at a moment when the temperature outside my door is -36°C. I am firmly resisting the temptation to see any providential message in this. The piece was written and edited with the intention that it would be of interest to readers no matter what their beliefs about man-made climate change. It contains a short argument for McIntyre’s importance, but if you are convinced he’s a charlatan or a bungler, think of it as a sincere effort to tell you what kind of charlatan or bungler he is. As far as I am aware, it is the first profile of McIntyre, of even medium length, that anyone in Canada has ventured to write.


 

Oh boy. Here we go.

  1. I thought it was a great piece – well written and it achieved the neutrality you hoped for.

    -36 sucks! (And weather isn't the same thing as climate, etc., etc., blah, blah…)

    • It's Edmonton. It's December. There's a reasonable chance that -36C is 1.5 degrees WARMER than this same date last year…

      And before someone boasts "MYL is a fool" with some link to Environment Canada's records from '08… it was a joke, people! Sheesh!

      • I don't even know why anybody bothers keeping track below -30, to be honest.

  2. And New Zealand ( my friend there called me yesterday,) is also experiencing exceptionally cold weather too.
    So if 2009 is a 'hot' year, where is the heat, at the equator?

    And why is the media echoing that Canada is a corrupt petro country and the globes #1 planet killer?
    We aren't!!!
    Come on media, get the facts out there
    (you can do it without giving Harper any credit…start out with ' 'Despite the incompetence of this denier government, Canada has placed 12th BEST enviro…'':

  3. read…
    Last years ''environmental survey by 'The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and The Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University,
    Canada finished with the world's 12th BEST environmental record out of 192 countries — including almost 50 that don't even compile enough credible data to be assessed.

    Judged on 25 environmental factors, including climate change, Canada achieved an aggregate score of 86.6 out of 100 on the study's Environmental Performance Index,
    ahead of Germany (land of the useless wind turbines) in 13th place, the Moonbat's U.K. in 14th, and,
    oh, look, 14 places ahead of Denmark…

    The U.S., home of Nobel Peace Prize winners and warmists extraordinaire Al Gore and Barack Obama, finished in 39th place, although no doubt Canada's self-loathing chattering classes, now aware there is such a study, will blame it all on George Bush. ''

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorr

    • Repeat after me, Mr Cosh and Ms. Wilson, "climate does not equal weather":

      Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said. The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s and so on,” said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, speaking at a news conference at the climate talks in Copenhagen.

      The international assessment largely meshes with interim analysis by the National Climatic Data Center and NASA in the United States, both of which independently estimate global and regional temperature and other weather trends.

      • Repeat after me Scott_Tribe
        Environmental record is not only climate change

        Canada placed 12th BEST enviro record out of 192 countries!!!
        And that's with having failed Kyoto and with a denier government in charge
        Germany 13
        UK 14
        Denmark 26
        US 39

        • "And that's with having failed Kyoto and with a denier government in charge"

          And if thet were not in charge we'd not doubt be a few rungs higher up that ladder…just kidding, i'm not sure Harper's record is that bad.

      • I am assuming deniers are the 'indolent ideologues' but it's the AGW believers who are actually the lazy ones or else they would be questioning the 'science' much more than they are.

        Please read up about what the climatologists did with info from Darwin, there is good reason why some 'reject all science'.

        "YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don't mess around."

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking

        • Seriously jolyon, you need more sources.

          "it's the AGW believers who are actually the lazy ones or else they would be questioning the 'science' much more than they are."

          The science of global warming is being questioned, grilled, raked over the coals every day by those who understand that the globe is warming. It's called science, and the skepticism is a built-in feature.

          The deniers who "question" the global warming data are almost without exception shallow hacks, interpreting emails, misinterpreting data through sheer amateurism (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick… and generally making asses of themselves in ways that are frequently only apparent to actual scientists.

          You show me one credible, peer-reviewed piece that takes the lynchpin out of global warming and I'll throw a huge party in relief. (Hint: there is no lynchpin, global warming is evident in a wide variety of direct and indirect indications.)

        • By the way, interesting that you should mention Darwin. I watched the Creationists attack evolution for years and I've seen the same pattern of bad-faith, ignorant, cheap Machiavellian arguments from the Creationists as I see from the global warming deniers.

          While it is unacceptable for scientists to refuse to share their data, it is at least understandable when that data will be pissed on and thrown back in their faces by people who are held to no standards of integrity or of good-faith argument whatsoever. Ultimately, one comes to recognize these people and to push back against the idea of giving the ignoramuses any more feces to fling at you.

      • In much the same manner as the Warmmongers discounting "biased" studies funded by oil companies but not minding biased studies funded by environmentalist groups or governments, AGW proponents are quick to point out current weather as a "sign" of climate change whenever it suits them… then quick to discount it when it works the other way.

        Climate does not equal weather. So lets not get worked up about temporary conditions of arctic ice, or severe weather storms, or abnormally hot streaks in the summer.

        • "AGW proponents are quick to point out current weather as a "sign" of climate change whenever it suits them"

          Citation, please.

          • Read every Canadian newspaper's Letters to the Editor section next time there's a hot streak. I have better things to do than read tens of thousands of words to find examples you're deliberately being too ignorant to notice.

  4. I am not going to read article yet because I also subscribe to mag and I don't want to read for free what I have already paid for.

    However, I am glad that you have done profile of Steve McIntyre because he is significant person in global warming debate but for some 'unknown' reason Canadian msm totally ignores him. If McIntyre, and Ross McKitrick, had done as much to prove global warming as they have done to discredit it they would have been appointed to Order Of Canada by now.

    As an aside, I wonder why I am still occasionally amazed by internet. I was reading Wilson's comment about weather in New Zealand and I decided to have a look for myself. Up to the minute weather reports of Christchurch and Auckland have been available for years but it still astonishes me.

      • If McIntyre is laughably amateurish, what are Hansen and Mann, two leading scientists whose work has been corrected by the burger flipper.

        "The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday." AP, Dec 1 '09

        Do you think Jones and Mann will be working at Harvey's or Wendy's?

        • Hansen and Mann are still scientists. McIntyre is still an amateur clown.

          As for Jones, he should absolutely step aside pending investigation. It remains to be seen whether he did anything unethical with respect to sharing of data with climate change deniers.

          The science is not in question. By the way, here's Wikipedia on McIntyre's triumphant take-down of the whole global warming conspiracy:

          "He discovered a small discontinuity in some U.S. records in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data and "thank[ed] Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".[10] The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C; it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies."

          Downright milquetoast. Science responded the way science should, and global warming wasn't cast into doubt.

    • I don't want to read for free what I have already paid for.

      How much Jack Daniels does one need for that statement to make sense?

      • Not much. I like to pretend that mag that I pay for can't be read for free online.

  5. What I find ironic is McGuinty bragging about 800 new (ghg spewing) auto sector jobs,
    while from the other side of his face, insisting that Alberta is a planet killer at Ontario and Quebec's expense……

    What to cars and trucks run on, hydropower?

    • The addition of a second shift at Toyota doesn't bother me – as far as I know Toyota didn't get bailed out or subsidized on their crossover SUVs.

      It was the Ontario gov'ts participation in the return of the Camaro at GM Oshawa that had me scratching my head (I associate the Camaros/Firebirds muscle cars of the 70s with gold chains and open shirts). But, apparently the demand is high, and I thought I saw an ad where they claimed the mileage was reasonable. The CAW has too much influence.

      • As long as the jobs are being created in Ontario and killed in Alberta, there is peace in the land, right?

        If Ontario and Quebec don't like our dirty oil,
        then they should say 'no thanks' to our dirty money too.
        Both are have not's on equalization.

        • yes wilson, you are so right. you are being persecuted.

          • I'm and NEP survivor and am as qualified as any, maybe even more so, than many here on the 'persecution' of the West,
            are you a Rae Days survivor?

  6. As far as I am aware, it is the first profile of McIntyre, of even medium length, that anyone in Canada has ventured to write.

    The Star had one of their sports reporters?!?! write up a puff piece on McIntyre yesterday.

    • Well, them, at least, we beat onto the Toronto newsstands. It's probably unfair, but I imagine Ormsby getting the assignment after a hilariously awkward search of the Star newsroom for anyone who would touch it…

      • I was thinking along same lines but I imagined that entire TorStar staff is in Copenhagen at the moment and sports reporters were the only ones left behind in Canada.

      • Sure. Like *that's* how the editorial process works these days in the quest for yet another thing to shove into our newsholes.

  7. As far as I am aware, it is the first profile of McIntyre, of even medium length, that anyone in Canada has ventured to write.

    The Star had one of their sports reporters?!?! write up a puff piece on McIntyre yesterday.

  8. McIntyre wasn't part of the Deniers series; I think Solomon's goal there was precisely to concentrate on those climate-change dissenters with heavy earth-science credentials.

    • Dammit! Now that I work for a weekly magazine I have to switch back to arguing for the old slow-food virtues, I guess.

      • Kudos to you. Macleans and Canwest and Torstar don't necessarily share readers,
        now your readers know too!

  9. Amateur writers on amateur scientists? I'm gonna take a pass on reading this one.

    • I'll give you the short.
      The hockey stick theory author scientist Mann , was required to publish a retraction due to his poor math and incorrect graphing,
      and NASA's was forced to issue a correction, stating that 1934, not 1998 was the hottest year in US ,
      and the retraction/corrections were made because of 2 very very smart Canadian dudes Steve McIntyre and Ross Mc-Kitrick.

      These 2 Canadian dudes were mentioned in not nice ways, over 100 times in the Climategate e-mails,
      and the GW scientists emailed they would rather delete info than give to them, which it appears they did indeed delete.

      • CC scientists being jealous and immature… how shocking…100 cheap shots in 12 years…WOW! Given the contentious history of science throughout the ages, why are any of us surprised. I'm not making excuses for these guys…maybe the debate will be a little more rational now that we are aware that CC scientists are hman too…but somehoe i doubt it!

    • I'm gonna take a pass on reading this one.

      Of course you will.

      Something that seems to be almost universal when debating the implications of the released info is that "warmists" haven't even read the stuff, or very little of it.

      Much better to be blissful in the self perpetuating state of ignorace I guess. Which is fine, but it sort of precludes one from entering the fray in any legitimate way.

      The first question to any warmist before trying to debate should be: have you seen what is in the data?

      • Hey, when somebody writes an article endorsed by the relevant scientific community, saying that the relevant scientific community rejects global warming, I will be all ears. Until then, since neither you nor I can tell good science from bad, I will rely on the experts.

    • Take a pass? "Amateur writers on amateur scientists" is the very definition of the anti-global warming "movement".

      It's like Perez Hilton covering Sarah Palin.

  10. "think of it as a sincere effort to tell you what kind of charlatan or bungler he is.

    Indeed. It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

  11. As far as I am aware, it is the first profile of McIntyre, of even medium length, that anyone in Canada has ventured to write.

    That tells you something about how the Canadian media has been in bed with the AGW crowd. The majority of the media, for the most part, has bought into one side of the debate, for a long time now, which is a travesty.

    On a similar note, the latest report coming out of the Associated Press was written by a guy that shows up in the CRU emails as a friend of the researchers at east Anglia.

    • I can hardly wait until we get down to the fourth or fifth degree of separation.

    • Perhaps the media was stunned by the revelations via Climategate.
      And it is a huge undertaking to actually now, reverse course, and delve into 'the science not being settled'.
      The unthinkable as CBC runs yet again a tv special,
      'Inconvenient Truth' last week.

      The blogosphere had done the work for them. Now the task will be easy, if the media so choose.
      But that would give validation to Harper's earlier stand, that it's all a socialist plan of wealth redistibution and not a science you can trust.
      So, decisions decisions…..

      • "But that would give validation to Harper's earlier stand, that it's all a socialist plan of wealth redistibution and not a science you can trust"

        That wasn't a stand or considered position…it was mostly self serving hyperpole and conjecture; a public afirmation of how he chooses to look at the world…hardly prophetic.

      • Well, some of the media have had no trouble reversing course. But the media should never have had to reverse course in the first place. Anyway, I agree that has had an impact.

        They should have been objective from the start, instead of buying into a Hollywood movie from an ex vice president.

        It's even more surprising to see how many of the media are on friendly terms with some of the scientists proposing the AGW theory, patting each other on the back, as they both try to get accolades for their work.

  12. No, I worked in the oil patch in Calgary – in fact I was hired after the NEP came into effect as were many,many others, and did economic investment decisions under NEP. Even developed an oilfield/waterflood near Grande Prairie then. Why I know you and others exaggerate things to the extreme – a sort of fear mongering industry in itself.

    • Unemplyment going from 4% to 10%, bankrutcy, forclosures, suicides and the need for Canada's first food bank (see Gerard Kennedy's resume),
      is an exaggeration of the effects of the NEP, eh DOT.

      But then judging by the number of Liberal MPs in Alberta, I'd say many more people agree with me, than do you.

      • s_c_f and I went through your typical talking points a couple of days here – do have a look at the video and the Stats Canada links I provided there. I've learned that idealogues never change their minds – they just cherrypick the "facts" they like, or they make them up

        http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/09/thinking-throu

        • idealogues (sic) never change their minds

          Not sure if you are labelling me an ideologue. But that's simply not true. As the years have passed, I've moved away from my initial "agnostic" position that it might be true, to a position that AGW is very unlikely to be true. The scientists have utterly failed to show anything remotely conclusive, while their climate models have shown to be severely flawed, and their historical records have frequently been debunked. As time goes by, the their case has become weaker. Which is not unusual in science, most theories are flawed and are falsified over time.

      • btw wilson, one thing I didn't mention at the time. I don't discount that there was economic hardship – but the real problem, from my perspective, was that EVERYONE – the Fed gov't, the O&G companies – even the banks whio leant the money were using extremely optimistic oil prices – forecasting they were heading to $100 in mid 80"s dollars. THAT is why there was a stampede into investing into marginal projects, and why the whole bottom fell out when the world oil price collapsed in 86.

  13. Anthony Watts has some very interesting stuff up on his blog right now.

    What is of fundamental importance to the "warmers" is the ad hominem against the skeptics. They dare not wade into the dangerous facts uncovered by the skeptics, lest their belief system be shaken.

    Sites like Steve M's, Anthony Watts contain a plethora of facts an analysis (and free and open comment threads where issues are hashed out by supporters and detractors alike), and Kate at SDA which offers a massive repository of damning facts – with a few lines of skillfully placed snark.

  14. To not be at least mildly skeptical given what is out there now, is to have a faith based belief system.

    Too many of the shaky fundamental tenets of AGW, the unreliable modelling, the actual evidence contradicting the models, the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet left unexplained, the incestuous relationship between the UN, key AGW scientists, and "science reporters" all with highly politicized motives, and not the least of which the emails themselves,

    cry out for skepticism, if not a repudiation of AGW.

    Indeed, that there are so many who lack skepticism at this point, only reifies the concerns that AGW is a politicized and dogmatic belief system that has precious little to do with the objective search for the truth via a dispassionate scientific method.

    • Y'see, odds are that neither of us really understands what's going on. But since I side with the scientists (and I'll change my opinion when they do) my bet is the safer one.

  15. Agree with Biff 100 %.

    Steve McIntyre: is he too late to be named Time's "Man of the Year"?

    • Right after you, jarrid. Right after you.

  16. Last summer I went out side and it was warm. Then the sun went behind a cloud and it was cool.
    Today I went outside and and nearly friggin' froze to death.
    Mc Intyre is a true Canadian hero.

    • I'm highly impressed with your ability to adapt to the ongoing armageddon.

  17. And the last thing Liberals and their media want is to validate ANYTHING Harper says.

    • ·"And the last thing Liberals and their media want is to validate ANYTHING Harper says"

      Right, the Liberal's media hasn't validated anything he has said! I think you have to have some authentic or original ideas before you earn the right to be validated.
      The one sentence just about sums you and some of the wackier cons inAB up…resentful, and thoroughly addicted to paranoid infantile fantasy

  18. hey, no Afghan war crimes post today…..
    I apologize Mr Cosh, but allow me to go o/t for just one post,
    and enlighten your readers on what the evil conservatives are calling Shoe-Gate:
    the Opps proven incident of 'torture' and complicity in war crimes,:

    on the ground version here:

    ''…On June 14, 2006, a Canadian Military Police officer who was working with the Afghan National Police was on the scene when the ANP stopped a van leaving a battle.
    The ANP said one of the three men inside was definitely a Taliban.

    The MP photographed the man and wrote his name down, but agreed to let him travel with the ANP back to Patrol Base Wilson.
    It was a 15-minute trip.

    Back at the base, the MP dutifully checked on the fellow and found the ANP beating him with their shoes. (voila, Shoe-Gate)
    The MP then took the man back and made him an official detainee.

    The event was reported, but was considered by everyone to be a minor, low-level battlefield incident…''

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/our-

    • Only a hyper-partisan would assume it was just one incident, either that or someone who's monumentally stupid…take your pick Wilson.

    • Today in Torturegate:

      http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/

      "OTTAWA–A former governor of Kandahar who is accused of personally torturing Afghans might have been removed from office as far back as 2006 if Canadian officials hadn't defended him, according to diplomatic memos that have never been made public by the Canadian government."

  19. Mr Cosh, you've picked a thoroughly worthwhile subject and handled it admirably . Thank you.

    • Don't you mean establish a Royal commission to determine that GW is bunk?

  20. sigh…they were …no doubt.

  21. McIntyre dissected:
    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provid

    And Maclean's continues to embarrass itself. Hell on the AT Issue panel last week Andrew Coyne pretty much admitted he didn't believe the science either. What a rag this is.

    • We're already seeing changes… the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing
      Al Gore
      That took all of three seconds – and take a look at the fourth thumbnail down on the right-hand side.

      • Ok, I'll try to use small words.

        You say that some people point to the Republican's bad response to Katrina as proof that bad storms are getting more frequent.

        Can you back that up at all? It sounds like you're saying Al Gore was wrong. Was he wrong? Can you provide any evidence at all? Are hurricanes increasing in frequency?

        • It sounds like you're saying Al Gore was wrong. Was he wrong?
          Yes I am, and yes, he was.

          Can you provide any evidence at all? Are hurricanes increasing in frequency?
          No – they are not, and after adjusting for increased population and wealth in affected areas, they are not increasing in <a href:="http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2476-2008.02.pdf">severity:
          while 2004 and 2005 were exceptional from the standpoint of the number of very damaging storms, there is no long-term trend of increasing damage over the time period covered by this analysis. Even Hurricane Katrina is not outside the range of normalized estimates for past storms

          In fact, may <a> href:='"http://www.meteorologynews.com/2008/01/23/global-warming-may-reduce-hurricane-frequency/">be that AGW decreases hurricane frequency, or as seen <a href:="http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/?p=2863"&gt; here not increase it – but such subtleties are beyond Mr Gore, no? Mr Gore has yet to explain how cumulative storm energy <a href:="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/figure3.gif"&gt; dropped from the 50s and 60s through the 70s and 80s (when we were in the grips of early-stage AGW) and then increased in the 90s.again

        • Did you even watch Al Gores movie?

          HE is the one who claims that hurricane seasons will be more fearsome due to AGW.
          I think it was more of a chance for him to bash Bush for his handling of Kitrina (well deserved BTW).

          Of course when the following years showed decreased hurricane activity no-one made a movie about it.

          Blaming every natural disaster (forest fire, drought, famine,etc) on AGW is unsupportable by evidence, and probably a large reason why many people do not trust the climate alarmists to tell them the truth.

          Some of the more extreme rhetoric makes me think that some of these people need an education in fairy tale values.
          Start with "The boy who cried wolf", then move on to "Chicken Little".

  22. He's not a denier – he's a skeptic. Kinda like the difference between an agnostic and an athiest.

  23. Dear Ontarians,

    If you think that just because your Enviro Minister is in Copenhagen bad mouthing the Alberta Tar sands,
    they are serious about it
    check out this October 2009 Ontario Govt website……

    Welcome to Energy Connections –
    Oil Sands Partnerships

    ''…The Ontario government, in partnership with our manufacturing industry, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the Alberta and federal governments, …..''

    http://www.ontariocanada.com/ontcan/1medt/econdev

    Dear Albertans,
    The McGuinty govt bad mouths the 'tar sands' in Copenhagen,
    and at home sings the praises of the 'oilsands' when there is cash to be made.
    Either they want good paying jobs or they don't want , make a decision McGuinty.
    Provinces other than Ontario have manufacturing industries.

  24. Weather and climate are not the same, but nor are they unrelated.

    If the climate is getting warmer, then on average the weather of the earth's respective regions must be getting warmer as well.

    Thus the "warming" in "global warming".

    The fact that the weather has been getting colder in more places than its gotten warmer over the last ten years is a tad of a problem (as seen in the tantrum over than fact by the alleged "leading scientist" in the field).

    As much as the warmist demand us to "pay no attention to the temperature drop behind that curtain", a temperature drop there has been.

    • With the AGW propagandists if the day's weather supports their theory of global warming, they shout it from the roof tops. If it shows the opposite, they screech that there's no link between weather and climate.

      With the AGW crowd it's like debating a Jehovah's Witness or a Marxist and his theory of dialectical materialism. They have their own little self-contained and, in their own eyes, irrefutable assumptions. Evidence and arguments to the contrary are explained away.

      Invariably the suckers for this AGW nonsense are the gullible, left/lib, secular, urban, western types who seek a cause to fill their boring and empty lives. I pine for the days when this crowd would fill the empty void by doing some social work in third world countries. At least they made themselves useful by improving their fellow man's lot and actually making the world a better place.

  25. Which leads us to the greatest inconvenient truths to a long list of them for the warmists:

    ten or so years ago the models forcasted that we'd be cooking right now, since CO2 would be skyrocketing.

    But we aren't.

    The models were/are wrong.

    In the world of science, when the model/experiment does the opposite of what your theory postulates the theory is disproven.

    In the politicized world of AGW, excuses are made, the theory is deemed correct in any event, and MOROVER, the science is considered settled.

    That's right, folks, AGW science works the opposite of the rest of the scientific world. When the model is proven wrong, is the point at which the debate ends…in FAVOUR of that model.

    Funny stuff, if trillions weren't hanging in the balance.

    • "Funny stuff, if trillions weren't hanging in the balance."

      And with this one line Biff inadvertently highlights the real impetus behind denial industry…Fantastic!

      • Richard, the world has finite resources, on that we can all agree. Curing the AGW false problems by tanking the world's economy will cause untold misery to the world's poor.

        The lunacy has to stop. This AGW nonsense is no longer a little luxury that we could afford to indulge. People lives in The Third World hang in the balance.

        Oh well the AGW will no doubt say, innocent lives dying for a good cause, that's life. Why is the AGW crowd packed with the typical leftist crowd? This isn't about science, or should I say, this is no more about science than the scientific economics of the marxists.

        • "Oh well the AGW will no doubt say, innocent lives dying for a good cause, that's life."

          There's this guy in my neighbourhood who thinks the lightpost is a police officer…he makes more sense than you.

          Thanks for the laugh!

          • 'Oh well the AGW will no doubt say, innocent lives dying for a good cause, that's life"

            If i were to call J a fascist on similarly flimsy grounds he'd be righly upset.

            Moonbat loomy!

  26. Mr. Cosh, thank you so much for writing on this important public policy matter. We need more reporters and columnists helping the public understand this issue. The stakes involved are so important.

    Too many media types uncritically accept the AGW theory or claim they're not competent to report on it. The latter is Kady O'Malley's excuse for example. Paul Wells just seems to reflexively accept the AGW claims. I expect a little more from serious political columnist like Wells on issues like this, because this may well turn out to be one of the most contentious and controversial political issue in decades.

    This issue is too important to be left to a few so-called scientists.

    Hat's off to Macleans for getting involved so that Canadians can better understand this issue. I'm just very impressed.

      • Where are all these leaks coming from?
        And the Opps want to see ALL of the documents……..the media rubs their hands with glee

    • "This issue is too important to be left to a few so-called scientists".

      And your solution would be…let me guess, give equal weight to the opinions of bloggers like you. No you say, i just want the issues brought out into the open and reviewed. Who by…since you've just labelled the majority of the world's qualified CC scientists "so called"! It's nicely balanced posts like this one that no doubt gives pros like Wells and O'Malley the willies.

      • O'Malley's at the CBC and comfortably spouting the politically correct party line no doubt so let's leave her out of this.

        Paul Wells on the other hand should wade in to this issue a little more, if only to assess the political ramifications. But he shouldn't do it but reflexively reverting to unexamined left/lib assumptions.

        The claims that with AGW the world is going to hell in a handbasket has never been asserted as scientific fact. There is no way of knowing this. Serious scientists will tell you that kcm.

        • Who's serous scientists? How many are left after you labeled most of them "so called"?

  27. "I am firmly resisting the temptation to see any providential message in this…"

    And yet here you are, pointing to the weather as if it had any direct relevance to the climate. You do understand the difference between weather and climate, don't you Colby?

    So was this a joke?

    • So if it was -30 every day of the year would you say the weather is cold or we live in a cold climate?
      Does global warming mean we will have warmer weather?
      Oh I forgot we no longer have global warming as the term that is used is now climate change.
      Research The Paliser Expedition and that will tell you about the weather/ climate.

    • A "joke"? Oh, lord, Mabel, bar the windows and fetch the holy water. Where are my nitroglycerin pills?

      • Har, har. Your cheesy little joke just happens to be the sort of thing deliberately used to mislead the gullible when it comes to climate change. Witness Fox News, its hosts laughing uproariously a couple of years ago when Al Gore gave a speech on global warming during a snowstorm.

        The general confusion between climate and weather is a major tool of those who would mislead the public about climate change. If you're going to act like a climate change denier, you might be called on it (and need that nitroglycerin).

        • Jokes are sometimes used to mislead, therefore no one can ever make them. Got it.

          • Aren't you precious.

            Put it another way – would you wander into a debate about abortion rights and make a joke about hairy-legged feminist lesbian wiccans?

            No. Because that would be an adoption of one side's stupid language, adding nothing to the debate but making your own stance clear. And make it clear that your own claim of neutrality is simply not true.

            But hey – jokes are sometimes used to mislead or attack, therefore no one can ever make them, right?

          • It would be interesting if Mr. Cosh could explain why he chose to make the joke, in that case. Did he think it was funny? Maybe the first few times in the late 1980s when it was first done. Was he unaware that this type of "argument" is commonly used to attempt to discredit the theory of climate change, and ran the risk of casting aspersions on the ever-so-neutral, ever-so-cautious bent a suspicious subset of the MacLeans audience lauds him for?

            The question hangs. Will we receive an answer?

          • Jokes means we should take you seriously. Got it.

        • The general confusion between climate and weather is a major tool of those who would mislead the public about climate change

          Like the confusion between inept responses to a particular hurricane and the (claimed, but unobserved) increase in the frequency or impact of storms, you mean?

        • And his concerns about the lack of discussion of forced population control as a solution to climate change were a wholehearted attempt at searching for a workable solution to a difficult problem, and in no way an attempt to discredit a movement by bringing one of its more extreme branches to the forefront.

          Un h-huh. Yup. Right. Totally believe him.

  28. Yes, thank you for this piece. It is nice to see a fair-minded critique of the background of such an important player in the current AGW tempest unfolding. The piece by the Associated Press I read last night was as biased as they come in their mention of Steve – no wonder since the lead author of that report is well involved with reporting only "consensus" ideology in the emails from East Anglia that have come to light. What a mockery those at the CRU, and many of the MSM, have made of Science to this point. Kudos to Mr. McIntyre for having the gumption to challenge, and beat, them at their own game. All while doing it with class, honesty and true scientific investigation.

    The man is a hero. Thank you for bringing a honest look at his background and efforts.

  29. OK , look, let's make it easy. As far as I know, the following is true:

    The vast majority of qualified scientists who study the issue say that the theory of climate change exists, is man-made, and is likely to have detrimental consequences. There may be some debate about the details, but most statements to the contrary of this idea are mistaken or taken out of context.

    When this actually changes, will the media please alert us?

    • Not likely.

    • "There may be some debate about the details…"

      Understating things a bit here Mike T. – , or what's the expression, the devil's in the details. In other words, do we completely overhaul our industrial economies and radically change our lives or do we carry on as we're doing because AGW is not the problem it's been made out to be.

      Be honest Mike T., this is an important debate. Let's not pretend otherwise.

      • The other related issue is policy choices and options. The extent of the problem, and its seriousness, obviously affects what we do, and what we ought to to, in respect of policy and legislative options. Yet among the hard-core pro-Kyoto crowd there is this absolutist approach which holds that Kyoto-style cuts to carbon emissions are the only possible policy approach that can even be considered. I don't doubt that there's some anthropogenic element to climate change, and in any event there's also plain old pollution to take into account as well. But to jump from that to say that Kyoto is the only solution — to me that's a leap that hasn't been critically examined enough. There are other ways to address the problem.

  30. Well, Mr. Cosh. It seems you have made about six of the great minds of the
    twentieth century very happy. No small thing.

    • Did you get a couple of words reversed in that paragraph?

        • Oh. And here I just thought you'd accidentally switched "great" and "small".

          It made sense that way.

  31. Oops – sorry about screwing up the links…

    Deaner

  32. "Funny stuff, if trillions weren't hanging in the balance."

    People have to take back control of this gile and not let the AGW lunatics bankrupt the world economy and increase world poverty.

    Responsible governments have to start pushing back – NOW.

    Republicans have to start leaning on Barack Obama who is not be trusted in this matter. Not to trusted at all.

    • "Not to trusted at all."

      And when jarrid says it, you can take that to the bank.

      • That should be "Not to be trusted at all."

        And TJ, by the way, there are absolutely no scientific proof that AGW is causing, or will be causing, runaway global warming putting the world populations at risk. No credible scientist can make that assertion, or has made that assertion. The only people who have are AGW propagandists.

        • See what I mean? When jarrid says it, even if it bears no relation to the world at large, it's gold. Gold!

  33. What I find most interesting is how McIntyre contrasts the unforgiving "peer review" of mining investors against the much softer review of science publications and conferences. The reason for the difference is pretty obvious – money. Mining investors are risking their own money based on the provided evidence and will not tolerate any fuzziness at all. The IPCC is looking to play with other people's money and face no "risk" beyond loss of funding or reputation. Very different frames of mind.

    • Again with the financial risks clause. Where in tarnation is this claim coming from?

    • "The IPCC is looking to play with other people's money and face no "risk" beyond loss of funding or reputation."

      Well, first, I think you mean that the *scientists* who formed/reviewed/signed the IPCC statement on climate change risk loss of funding and reputation.

      Second, funding and reputation are the basic building blocks of a career in science. No scientists would risk these things in a cavalier manner.

      But nice attempt to dismiss all of science as some sort of unserious club to be ignored by Serious People.

      • You're missing the point, which is that peer-review is a whole different animal than commercial due-diligence of a big investment that will be based on the analysis and interpretation of raw data.

        I have a nephew who works for Vale-Inco scoping out new mining operations based on what he thinks of the nickel deposit. He has also written and presented papers at scientific conferences. I know, because he has told me, which activity undergoes the most scrutiny.

        Science evolves slowly. It takes detours wanders off down side-roads; it stops and it starts. No-one frets over this because momentous decisions are not based on that kind of speculative science. Unfortunately, a very new and speculative science (Climatology) has now been put up as "settled" and beyond reproach. This is absurd from any angle.

        So that is I think McIntyre's observation deserves underlining.

        • You and your nephew are comparing apples to oranges. Financial due diligence happens in a focused, intense, usually time-constrained environment. Peer review only begins with the editors of a journal – from there it's open to scrutiny from ubergeeks around the world, essentially forever.

          I've been a research scientist and I'm now a corporate type and I've participated in both peer reviews and financial due diligence analysis. It's not correct to claim that one is more rigorous than the other.

          Also: climatology is neither new nor speculative. And while no one piece of the global warming evidence is beyond reproach, there would have to be a massive collapse of decades' worth of science from around the world and countless different indicators before the overall message (humans are warming the planet) would come into doubt.

Sign in to comment.