Global warming debate reaches boiling point

Steve McIntyre: too much arm waving

Climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre is a withdrawn and quietly spoken individual who doesn’t go out of his way to offend people.

But when the Canadian mathematician and former mining company executive clinically debunked a landmark UN report on global warming known as the “hockey stick graph” he was vilified by climate scientists all over the world.

Climate change, he soon found out, is an explosive topic and sceptics like him can expect no mercy – as he has once again discovered after featuring in an NBR ONLINE story last week.

The article, Too Much Hot Air About Global Warming, generated an unprecedented response from readers worldwide who posted an avalanche of comments.

Some savaged him for intellectual incompetence while others lauded him for exposing scientific chicanery.

There was very little middle ground.

Typical of the condemnation was this post: “McIntyre’s credibility is equal to the number of papers he has published in scientific journals, which is precisely zero.

“He is nothing more than a propagandist for the fossil fuel and mining industries which publishes his 'research' on industry-funded sites frequented by bewildered chumps such as yourselves and reporters.

“Anyone who can say that 'on balance there’s been no serious impact' is either a fool, a liar or living on a different planet from the rest of us – Planet Denial, perhaps?”

Much different tack

Other commenters took a much different tack.

“I just think the focus (hysterical at times) on man-made CO2 is misguided, missing the real point, counterproductive in many instances and downright deceitful at times, hence data manipulation to suit desired conclusions, hockey sticks, etc.

“Maybe a bigger issue for the planet, which the climate change arm wavers are very quiet about (perhaps there’s no funding in it for them), is population growth in general.

“Don’t you think population growth and the increasing demand on resources of all kinds is likely to lead to greater man-made CO2 production?”

Mr McIntyre is sanguine about the huge response to the NBR ONLINE story, in which he pointed out that the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half of what current scientific models are showing”.

“The onus is on the people arguing it’s a big problem to really show in an engineering quality report why it’s a big problem.

“There’s too much arm waving in the reports and in all the years I’ve been doing this you get scientific models which have inherent assumptions in them.

“The observations indicate to me that the models are probably running hot, and that the impact is about half of what they are showing.

“I do view that as a black mark against the models.”

Despite the tirade against him Mr McIntyre does not resile from what he told NBR ONLINE, including his assessment of the damage that has been caused to the environment so far from global warming.

“That’s a good question and is the acid test between the broad group of sceptics who are not very hardline and activists.

“Activists will tend to say that carbon dioxide emissions in the last 50 years have caused serious negative impacts.

“But from my point of view, I would say I don’t know what they are and certainly on balance there’s been no serious impact.

“One way or another the impact has not been as much as all that or we’ve coped with it rather well.”

Keen to scotch claims

Mr McIntyre is also keen to scotch claims that he is in the pocket of the fossil fuels industry and that none of his work has appeared in scientific journals.

“I wouldn’t describe myself as having a huge inventory of articles in academic journals but the list is not zero.

“I’ve also made presentations at the American Geophysical Union, to a National Academy of Sciences workshop and other venues.

“I don’t publish on 'industry funded' websites but do write many articles at ClimateAudit (, to which readers make some contributions, but the contributions are negligible compared to what I could be earning in the mining business.

“My mining interests are in gold exploration, which has no connection to the climate debate.

“I’ve tried to keep things separate because the companies have no connection to my climate work.”

More than a decade after exposing serious flaws in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hockey stick graph, which showed global temperatures rocketing upwards in the 20th century, 65-year-old Mr McIntyre is in no mood to walk away from the international firefight that he and his collaborator, economist Ross McKitrick, accidentally ignited.

He still thinks it is vital to get our understanding of the earth’s climate right.

“We are trying to model something far more complicated than an oil rig or a Boeing 747, feasibility studies for which would be minutely detailed.

“Even in the mining industry, a feasibility study for a single project might be 2000 pages long and cost $20 million to produce.

“By contrast, IPCC reports are merely literature reviews, daisy-chains of journal articles, none of which is examined to the standard of a feasibility study.”

Mr McIntyre believes a truly independent audit of current climate models is mandatory to build the “broad social consensus needed to take appropriate action on climate change”.

“Somebody should be doing one.”

And no doubt such an audit would look at three other issues associated with climate change – extreme weather events, melting polar ice caps and population growth.

On two of these matters Mr McIntyre has firm views.

“Extreme (weather) events occurred in the past – e.g., mega-droughts beyond the scale of any in the 20th century.

“When you look closely at each class of extreme event, tornados, floods, cyclones, heatwaves, drought, there is evidence of extremes in the past – in most classes (there is) no association with warming.

“Even the IPCC special report on extremes made very muted findings on the topic."

Mr McIntyre says with regard to melting polar ice caps the “Antarctic and Arctic have different trends”.

“Antarctic sea ice has been increasing over the past 30 years. Sea levels have been rising throughout the Holocene (the last 12,000 years).

“For example, barrier islands along the US Atlantic east coast have migrated landward and upward throughout the Holocene.

“Preparing for and adapting to continued sea level rise merely seems prudent to me, especially given the high probability that China, India and other developing countries have dramatically increased CO2 emissions in the past 15 years and are likely to continue to do so.”

Asked whether he agreed with those who claim the biggest issue facing the Earth is population explosion and not global warming he said:

“Trying to decide which is the more 'important' is outside any technical studies that I’ve carried out.”

So, on some matters Mr McIntyre is not afraid to admit a lack of knowledge but on others, like hockey sticks, he has a formidable grasp of the facts.

“If I felt that I was ever going down the wrong course I would resolve to concede. But I also resolved that I would never be bullied.

“This work has been catastrophic financially, but I enjoy doing it: this is what I do.” 

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

14 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

That such an intelligent and reasonable man as Steve McIntyre can cause so much angst for the warmists is an indication in itself of weakness of their catastrophic warming claims
I have yet to hear of any substantive damage to the planet thus far from CO2 induced warming but am certainly well aware of the many advantages


I don't suppose it will matter to this audience, but McIntyre's "discrediting" of the IPCC was discredited years ago:

Did you bother to talk to a real scientist for another opinion?


Long may journalists of Mr Vaughan's calibre continue to report the facts in such a measured and sensible tone. Mr McIntyre has credibility which this balanced article reveals.


I would ride in an jet aircraft analysed by Steve McIntyre, however I'd steer well clear anything James Hansen (Nasa) or Michael Mann had been involved with.

Also, as to population "explosion" being a huge issue. The most recent billion souls added on Earth took longer to arrive than the previous billion, which mathematically means rate of growth is slowing. I.e. not an explosion but an levelling-off, or S-curve growth.


" ... the the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today."


How do you write an "engineering quality report" on a chaotic system with feedback loops?
While M&M did find some problems in some tree ring data-sets, it did not affect the "hockey stick" curve shape.
This is the current unbiased state of climate prediction. Make your own minds up.


Best to err on side of caution. Too late if severe global warming effects happen.


Caution would be to adapt, not bankrupt the Western economies.
The costs are more than twice the benefits.
That said, more CO2 means better plant growth to feed a growing population. Far more people die from cold,
Sounds more like wealth redistribution.


Iso - McIntyre discredited very carefully the hockey stick graph of Man, not the IPCC although they too do not not come to the table with clean handz


A well balanced article. Most of what the IPCC uses is exaggerated sensationalism because it is not at all scientific but Political.
Mr McIntyre on the other hand appears only to correct the IPCC exaggerations with scientific fact. Thank You.
Just remember that there has been no global warming since 1997 and that temperatures have only risen 0.8C since 1850. 1850 marks the end of the Little Ice Age; surprise? Further, Man made CO2 represents only around 16 parts per million. You tell me how that will make a catastrophic difference and where will I find the evidence not replicated in previous decades?


I'm with Mr McIntyre. The geological facts are the Earth has been seriously warmer and considerably colder at various times over the past many millions of years, irrespective of mankind's presence or absence.
Climate change is a continual occurance - climate has never been in a "steady state" and for those in mankind to believe we can hold it in a "steady state" are just a few deluded individual's souls who believe they near gods. Or are they working in self-interest?
Remember, scientists survive at the behest of financial benefactors, be they government, corporations or other "do good" funds.

Current historical climate change science is created by scientists to fund scientists.

The real issue here is how to adapt to the inevitable change to survive as we will not stop what mother earth has been doing through out her considerable life: changing!!


All of the heat and political passion surrounding the subject of climate tends to obscure the fact that the disputed area is quite narrow – will human-caused warming amount to >1°C or <3°C during the next hundred years?

This issue, known as "climate sensitivity", is hardly ever discussed or analysed in the mainstream media. Some newspapers devote hundreds of column inches each year to climate threats, without ever focusing on the nexus of the argument.


McIntyre has done the world a service by checking claims made by scientists at his own cost.

In addition to the issues around the Mann hockey stick, Steve wrote a paper debunking claims of widespread warming in the Antarctic, and also did work that resulted in the withdrawal of a southern hemisphere "hockey stick" reconstruction (Gergis et al) Prof David Karoly, one of the co-authors of this paper, actually had the good grace to publicly thank McIntyre for his efforts.

Steve also publishes his source code and workings on his blog for others to use and critique.


There is only one viable model of the climate and it is presented each day by the weather forecasters. Because of the unpredictable "chaos" of air and ocean movements it is only capable of limited forecasting.
The IPCC model is simply absurd. There is no evidence that it is capable of forecasting anything. The results are merely the "opinions" of well-paid pseudo scientists with a huge conflict of interest. It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface and the concoction presented as doing so is a fraudulent concoction of miscelleaneous unstandardised readings. Carbon dioxide measurements are also concocted to avoid the actual true "chaos" which they call "noise".

When will the world come to its senses?


For those who do not know already, Realclimate was set up by Michael Mann's friends specifically to defend Mann against Steve. The various defences of the Hockey stick that they have produced do not fully respond to Steve's criticisms. They still flatly refuse to release all their data and workings so it is usually impossible to try and replicate their work. They have evaded many freedom of information requests. And so on. The severe criticism of their statistical analysis from a top authority (Wegman) still stands.

Climateaudit has a link to realclimate. Realclimate does not have a link to climateaudit and has no links to the main skeptic blogs. Go figure!


Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7740 -0.0003 -0.04%
AUD 0.9511 0.0005 0.05%
EUR 0.6324 -0.0002 -0.03%
GBP 0.4954 0.0001 0.02%
HKD 6.0039 0.0001 0.00%
JPY 92.5100 -0.0050 -0.01%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1195.4 -2.890 2014-12-19T00:
Oil Brent 61.4 1.580 2014-12-19T00:
Oil Nymex 57.1 2.910 2014-12-19T00:
Silver Index 16.0 0.096 2014-12-19T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5518.5 5545.0 5539.3 -0.21%
NASDAQ 4752.6 4782.1 4748.4 0.36%
DAX 9901.3 9901.3 9811.1 -0.25%
DJI 17778.0 17874.0 17778.2 0.15%
FTSE 6466.0 6566.9 6466.0 1.23%
HKSE 23158.3 23189.6 22832.2 1.25%
NI225 17511.0 17621.4 17210.0 2.39%