Too much hot air about global warming – researcher

Steve McIntyre: too much arm waving

A man who has become the arch-enemy of climate scientists for exposing serious flaws in a United Nations study on global warming believes the issue has been greatly overstated.

Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.

Mr McIntyre, who is a mathematician and former mining company executive, says “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, that the impact is about half of what they are showing.

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

Asked how much damage has been caused to the environment so far from global warming, he said:

“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.

“I view that more as a matter of good luck than good management because we have certainly been increasing carbon dioxide levels without thinking about it.

"But, nonetheless, societies are clearly wealthier and are more active now than they were 50 years ago, so one way or another the impact has not been as much as all that or we’ve coped with it rather well.”

Mr McIntyre’s exclusive interview is in the "new look" NBR Print edition on Friday.

rvaughan@nbr.co.nz

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

Post Comment

159 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

About half is still pretty terrible.

Reply
Share

Did you have a specific temperature target in mind for Planet Earth then?

Reply
Share

one that doesn't threaten human civilisation.

Reply
Share

Do you ?

Reply
Share

About half represents the same warming trend since the planet has been recovering from the 1700's Little Ice Age. That is about .7 degree per century. There were not, as far as I'm aware, any significant amounts of human created CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere during the 1800 and early 1900s. Actually as of today human created CO2 represents only 3% of the total. The fact that during the last 17 years the planet hasn't warmed at all is also rather inconsistent with the CO2 warming meme. Don't you think? Particularly given CO2 PPM is continuing to increase at a regular rate. Go figure!

Reply
Share

James, you are labouring under a bunch of misapprehensions.

Actually, anthropogenic carbon emissions are about 3% of the annual emissions from all sources. The problem is that the other 97% is balanced by carbon sinks (e.g., trees). The additional 3% is not balanced, hence it builds up year on year. That 3% is small, but it's a yearly addition, and it adds up. At this time, anthropogenic carbon emissions are thought to have contributed about 40% of the total carbon in the atmosphere. That is a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2#Anthropogenic_CO2_increase

The so-called "fact" that the planet hasn't warmed at all in 17 years is simply spurious.

In fact, nine of the 10 warmest years on record were in the 21st century, the only exception being 1998, which was warmed by the strongest El Nino of the past century. The hottest year on record was 2010; the second hottest was 2005. Last year (2012) was the 9th or 10th warmest year on record, despite the La Nina at the start of the year.

Reply
Share

WTF, sorry but that's exacly the sort of reaction I have come to expect from the global warming brigade.

For my benefit (because I am one of those ignorant head-in-the-sand folk who is not convinced by the climate change arm wavers) please explain exactly what is "pretty terrible" about it? I mean, do you actually place any credence in the IPCC predictions around this? Bear in mind to date their much touted models do not expain what has actually happened in recent years, and perhaps more importantly that climate change has been a fact of life for this planet for millions of years, more often than not it seems more rapid and significant than any climate change we are presently seeing (we'll put aside for a moment the fact there seems a not unreasonable argument that in the last decade or so there has been no warming, and even possibly some cooling - contary of course to the IPCC doom merchants). Fact is, it's gonna continue too, whether we like it or not!

Don't get me wrong, I want my child and grandchildren to be able to experience the wonders and natural beauty of this world in the same way I have been fortunate to, and I will be gutted if they are not able to do that. I just think the focus (hysterical at times) on man-made CO2 is misguided, missing the real point, counterproductive in many instances (rainforests being cut down for palm oil production for example - nice) and downright deceitful at times (hence data manipulation to suit desired conclusions, hockey sticks etc etc 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. I mean let's pretend just for one moment global warming is human-induced. Then add 50% to the world's population (the timeframe doesn't matter for our present purposes). 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 (presumably the extra 3.5b people will be exhaling CO2 for starters...)? Think about all the good and services those extra 3.5b will want/demand, the food and production requirements etc. Therefore for all you climate change advovates out there, might you want to consider population growth as a major root cause of the increase in CO2 levels you are so concerned about??

Then again, maybe its just easier and less "inconvenient" to essentially target big business, capitalism and 'western greed' as the root causes, rather than tackle some harder issues such as the real root causes, for example population growth.

By the way, my tomatoes are positively awesome this year. I'm putting down to all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere...

Reply
Share

They are all interconnected. Poverty =population explosions=increased green house gases=pollution. Share the wealth.

Reply
Share

Do you know how communist that sounds?
Sharing wealth doesn't work. Just ask Soviet Russa.

Reply
Share

About half may have just brought us out of the little ice, which was the coldest period of the last couple of thousand years, and where up to half of the poulations were starving in parts of Europe, while agriculture in Canada consisted of collection of beaver furs.

Highly beneficial.

Reply
Share

To the person or calls themselves Crowd pleaser. Nice to see you prove everything Steve say correct. The ordinary people of this world have seen through the scam of global warming / climate change / climate disruption but it will take another generation to back out of all the adverse policy decisions that have been taken by our grossly ignorant and opportunist politicians. The age of stupid is entering its death throes.

The age of enlightenment is just beginning and if you Mr or Ms crowd-pleaser were to avail yourself of the current thinking you would note that the real crux of the whole argument, "does the greenhouse effect really exist" is now starting to be debated on both sides of the argument; for there is not one scrap of imperial evidence that supports the notion that Infrared back radiation is amplified by water vapour.

But you carry on with your arm waving Crowd pleaser because I rather suspect we will make more progress on the way to enlightenment without your input.

Reply
Share

No it isn't.

Reply
Share

This is in fact the reverse of the truth. Even the alarmists admit that warming of about half what they claim will happen will be beneficial. Then the carbon dioxide itself is directly beneficial, being a plant nutrient. At the moment we are in a carbon crisis, with lower atmospheric carbon dioxide than at almost any stage in the geological record, meaning plants which tolerate low CO2 thrive.

Reply
Share

According to HADCRUT4 data, global temps are only increasing at 0.03C/decade since January 1997, despite annual emissions increasing 60% over the past 16 years.

The strongest solar cycles in 11,400 yrs took place between 1933-1996. When the strong solar cycles ended, so did the warming trend.

CO2 is a GHG and may have contributed to a portion of 20th century warming, but it certainly isn't the driving force as proposed by CAGW theory; the Sun obviously holds that distinction as empirical evidence is showing.

Scientific theories are ONLY validated by empirical evidence, not by consensus, degrees held, nor the august institutions that may support a particular theory.

Reply
Share

The below climate change deniers should all just get back to milking their cows, buying and selling their shares and currency , bashing beneficiaries, molesting Maoris and hero worshiping Beijing. Keep your heads in the sand. The WEIGHT of EVIDENCE is overwhelming. Read that bit in your bible about Noah.

Reply
Share

Good to see a warming with a fact based input

Reply
Share

A former mining company executive eh?

No surprises there then.

Reply
Share

You show your utter ignorance. Get highly qualified in statistics, study McIntyre's climateaudit.org for a year or two and then get back to us.

Reply
Share

I will take my 5 degrees in various scientific disciplines before anything you have to offer, Wilkinson.

Reply
Share

Didn't learn anything then?
Why is a former mining executive automatically tainted when Al Gore and the various liers and exaggerators who all have investments in Carbon Tax and/or "green technologies" virtuous and honest.
I too have a post graduate science degree and climate change has broken every rule I ever learnt involving experimental rigor and the purity of peer review. Why would that be now?

Reply
Share

Substantially more than you, it would seem.

Strange how the deniers fall back on this claim that peer review has failed them. When you try and publish garbage that's what happens, I am afraid.

Reply
Share

Five different disciplines to have an actual degree in would be unusual in the U.S. system. I don't really understand the British system with its letters and writs and A-levels and all that (I told you I didn't understand it :) )

That said, the climate field is different from the chemistry and biochemistry field (or at least I hope so) in that we don't have as many political activists in the news stories and we don't have people objecting if good science that they happen to disagree with gets published. We don't have people who can somehow get a paper published a few days after one they disagree with and we don't have people avoiding the normal comment and rebuttal in the same journal that is part of the normal scientific process. We don't have people trying to get journal editors fired for no good reason. And finally, we don't have the smoking gun e-mails which show the climate scientists in their own words admitting that they are exaggerating and are less sure of the data than they admit in public and in the IPCC reports. But, the next 10-15 years will tell us a lot about who was correct and who the "deniers" really are. I am perfectly content to wait and be proven right.

Reply
Share

sound like you are denying the possibility that the scientists were wrong in their understanding of what drives climate. The current situation with the sun and the resulting halt in warming has shown that the climate scientists and the IPCC were wrong when they said that the sun was not an important driver of climate. The problem is that the scientists forget to consider the sun's magnetic field as the driver of climate. Both on earth and on the other planets. They only looked at the light from the sun.

Reply
Share

Labeling your opponents "deniers" automatically disqualifies you from the debate. Name-calling is an invalid argument.

Reply
Share

Gore's a phoney.

Reply
Share

Oh really? Let's have your name and qualifications then and we'll match up.

Reply
Share

"5 degrees in various scientific disciplines "

do you have math? Common sense?

A 0.018% change in the volumetric makeup of the atmosphere (of an admittedly weak greenhouse gas) driving the total plantary greenhouse effect by more than 10%?

In my industry we call that 'lack of sanity chacking'

Reply
Share

And your disciplines are in which particular branches of "science"?

Reply
Share

5 degrees! Wow!, crowd pleaser, so you're one of those useless-eater, professional student types, eh? Several notches below "Welfare Queen", you know. Let's see now--5 degrees? Let me try and guess the areas of your PhD expertise. Hmmm....:

"tax-payer rip-offs"

"parasite, trough-hugger rent-seeking"

"smarty-pants credential-flashing"

"dorks and the intractable dating problem therapy"

"party-line, lefty-hack group-think studies"

So how'd I do, crowd pleaser? Warm? Hot? Really Hot?! Catastrophic, Anthropological, Global Warming, fourth-degree flash-burn, right-on! hot?!!

Reply
Share

"Science-related disciplines"?

Is that "creation science"? "Social sciences"? "Scientology"?

Reply
Share

So in the sciences you learnt it is good practice to pull statistics out of thin air is it? Admit it, you just made up the "99%", didn't you?

Reply
Share

Five degrees eh?

Would that be Centigrade or Fahrenheit, clearly they're not academic.

Reply
Share

Why don't you stick to the issues. If you can offer any credible arguments against any of his, let's have it. If you had taken any trouble to look at his web page, you would know that he is a gentleman of impressive intelect. Ad Hominem attacks are the fall back line of those who have nothing to contribute to the debate.

Reply
Share

Arh Crowd Pleaser of 5 scientific degrees and a who hides his real identity. Cite me just one research paper based on empirical evidence (read not IPCC endorsed models) that proves CO2 is causing AGW at any significant level. That is the scientific definition of significant.

Reply
Share

To many people like this Crowd pleaser who thinks that you have to be a climate scientist to know what you are talking about. We see it everyday with people like this person. Ignorant people with one agenda in mind the agenda to vilify people like McIntyre because they are getting to close to the truth of the matter. Go play somewhere else Crowd pleaser you and your ilk have been found out for what you are just warmegedinists who have one thing in common the demise of oil and other fossil fuels and people who's life you would ruin at the drop of a hat. In short Crowd pleaser you are nothing you have had your day and lost.

Reply
Share

"Too many people like this crowd pleaser who think you have to be a climate scientist to know about climate science????" WTF You are an unconscious incompetent. Go back to school. Try English and if somehow you manage to pass that, then morals and business ethics.

Reply
Share

Actually, Crowd pleaser can do something even simpler - come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

The fact of the matter is that the global warming swindle isn't even a scientific endeavor at its core - McIntyre simply showed that the maths coming out of it were dodgy, but honestly, anyone with a basic foundation in the scientific method should've known that was going to be true.

Reply
Share

Alan please share your esteemed knowledge gleaned from the internet.

Reply
Share

A mathematician - more credibility that most of the global warming alarmists

Reply
Share

Yes, but he is a gentleman, sneer and snipe as you may.

You should read up on the crap this guy had to put up with just to get access to the raw climate data and prove how over-blown the whole "hockey-stick finding" was.

Climatologists have a cloistered little group-think going like no other scientific community out there. They have no concept of due diligence, like a court might require from a civil engineer after an earthquake for example, and we as a society have bet billions on the climatologists being 100% correct. There are so many holes in there assumptions and theories it is laughable when subject to an engineering analysis. No surprises there then.

Reply
Share

Wow. A non-specific sneer. That's all you could come up with?

Reply
Share

Why bother say anything if that's the best you can come up with? Have you examined McIntyre's demolition of Mann's spurious Hockey Stick? Or are you simply SO prejudiced that you can't conceive that someone with views other than yours might be right?

I'm guessing you vote Left. Left is where Groupthink thrives. And thinking dies.

Reply
Share

This stream of comments prove you so wrong. Baa.

Reply
Share

Yeah, and the head of the IPCC is a railway Engineer. Steve is also a Mathamatician, why do you ignore that fact, especially since much of the problem with the Alarmist position is the poor quality of their maths and statistical analysis.

Reply
Share

The sun is the biggest driver on all climate conditions on earth. CO2 atmospheric conditions change on a daily basis with concentrations in certain areas rather than spread evenly throughout the globe.

The half life of CO2 means that it's unlikely to be an ongoing effect considering we've been in a cooling cycle since 1998 and sunspot numbers are down - way down - which signifies the slow lurch into another major cooling cycle. In any event, sulfur dioxide is the worst GHG of the lot given that has far more of a reflective ability than CO2.

Frost Fairs on the Thames River anyone? How about rebuilding the Crystal Palace for winter showcases.

At least the Southern Hemisphere will escape with a mild concussion. Not so the North which is already shivering under 20ft high snow drifts across parts of Europe.

Reply
Share

Let me see - should I place any credence on your random collection of observations to shape my view on the causative mechanisms behind climate change or should I listen to the views of 99% of the foremost climatologists from various top ranked institutions around the world?

Not hard is it?

Unless its your ideology that blinds you, in which case it is impossible.

Reply
Share

Not ideology my dear, just a simple appreciation that computer modelling isn't relative to the real world as it simply cannot take in a multitude of factors. After all, modelling never saw Sandy did it.

Maybe you should take off your blinkers and read the other side of the equation.

www.iceagenow.com is a fairly comprehensive aggregate of the global cooling effect.

Reply
Share

Appeal to authority is another invalid argument. Have you got anything substantial?

Reply
Share

Especially models with implicit assumptions programmed in...

Reply
Share

No Crowd pleaser, you should believe a report that was significantly altered such that it did not represent the views of a large number of the purported authors, you should believe the scientists that fabricated and manipulated data to make it fit their desired conclusions, you should believe the intellectual fraudsters who come up with the hockey stick, you should believe the models which don't explain or agree with what we are actually seeing in terms of climate change, you should believe the opinions of so-called experts who actually have no qualifications or expertise of relevance to the study of climate change and the possible causes, and you should believe a media which is by and large more interested in sales/circulation than in real journalism and informing society at large.

Reply
Share

You left out the likes of Al Gore and his error filled awards.
mr

Reply
Share

We don't care who you choose to listen to. We only care that the facts and analysis are reliable and accurate.

On that basis it is unfortunate that some of the self-styled leaders of your "99%" are on record as deliberately lying and exaggerating for political effect as well as hiding and suppressing evidence which doesn't suit their purpose.

Reply
Share

If you only cared the facts and analysis are reliable and accurate you would not be a denialist, would you?

Contradicted yourself there, old chap.

Reply
Share

Crowd pleaser,

Do some research on the "97%" and you will find it is 77 of 79 "respected" climate scientists and the things they agree on are things that most skeptics also agree on. Such as: 1. the planet has warmed over the last 150 years, 2. CO2 should have a warming affect, 3. Some of the warming is due to man affecting the climate. Pretty tame stuff.

Reply
Share

It seems you have things wrong.

You are the denialist (denying the existence of far more than 1% who disagree with you, denying the repeated dishonesty of those that do agree with you, denying the vast funding for climate hysteria, denying the lack of funding for sceptical research, denying the corruption by that huge funding for alarmism). You really are denying a lot in this page. So what is Mr Wilkinson denying?

Reply
Share

It is interesting how true believers like 'crowd pleaser' work so hard to derail conversations by fact-free sniping, accusations and name calling.
This is not dis-similar to religious fanatics using extraneous and ad-hom attacks to de-rail discussions that lead one to doubt their faith of choice.

Reply
Share

...or right wing fundamentalist nutters having an on line convention where facts come second to prejudices and self interest.

Reply
Share

. . . or scientifically challenged commenters who have apparently never heard of falsifiability and the null hypothesis.
But then , such things have never had a place in climate "science".

Reply
Share

Or smog breathing Chinese people saying pollution? What pollution?

Reply
Share

The new generation coal-fired plants being installed in China are very clean; the dirty old ones are being phased out.
Nothing to do with CO2 though ; the exhaust recovery produces much needed nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser.
Isn't science wonderful?

Reply
Share

Let the weight of evidence speak for itself. Strange how you people are in such marked opposition to so many Governments who are acting to reduce human induced climate change. Do you know something they don't??

Reply
Share

I would typically side with 'Crowd Pleaser', until one realises that '99% of the foremost climatologists' are actually more like activist pseduo-scientists who are not, all in all, free of bias, and whose work is sensationalised by MSM, gobbled up and made gospel by the public (note, at this stage, the actual science and theory is out the window; its only the message that matters.).

Top Ranked Institutions? I'm not sure. Weed out the pro-GC activist ones (Greenpeace, IPCC, UN), weed out the anti-GC equivalents (lobby groups); and you end up, largely, with a group of people who say 'we just don't know'.

Certainly, an unbaised, neutral individual would probably come to the conclusion that issue is probably nowhere near as bad as we are told it is.

Reply
Share

Interesting that you should use the word "ideology"...

I didn't expect someone with your obvious scientific credentials would resort to vague and baseless cliches like "99% [at least that bit is nice and precise - won't ask you to provide support for that though) of the foremost (mmm, wonder who gets to decide who the 'foremost' are?) climatologists from various ("various" - hey I use vague terms like that too when I'm clutching at straws) top ranked (wow, who gets to do those rankings? must be a great job that one!) institutions (mental health?) around the world".

You're presumably not counting in your researched 99% the guys that manipulate the data because they can't make it fit the hypotheses they are testing eh?!

Reply
Share

How did this post get past the editor. What is your conspiracy theory for why scientist would want to describe climate change as worse that it is?

Reply
Share

If you really have fie degrees in science as you claim earlier, you should be eminently well qualified to make up your own mind without having to listen to anybody else at all.

Those who need to rely other people's judgements, not on their own assessment of the evidence do not inspire confidence that they have any grasp of the subject.

'Because Joe said so, and Joe is a Very Important Person' is not science. It is faith.

Reply
Share

Its called peer review you fool.

Reply
Share

I guess that you should listen to 100% of the foremost climatologists. Anyway, it is a nonsense to think that 99% of them support IPCC crap which is written by the few best paid ones. McIntyre is one of the most influential persons in the climate science and it is not very clever not to consider what he is saying.

Reply
Share

Here's what you need to know about that claim of a "97%" consensus among experts (which you've called 99%):

http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct

And here's what you need to know to understand what that has to do with the rest of the alarmists' claims:

Luke 16:10

Reply
Share

What makes you think that 99% of climatologists disagree with Mr Thrace? What makes you think that science is a popularity contest? In the words of Einstein, "If I were wrong, they would need only one".

So who is blinded by ideology, or the one who not only uses two logical fallacies, the headcount and the appeal to authority, but is actually wrong as well? Or the one who gives some reasoned argument?

Reply
Share

99% huh? Well, there goes all of your credibility. One of the most ridiculous talking points ever. Next to your five degrees that is.

Reply
Share

Ahhh the old Argument from Authority, you did the Ad Hominen in the first repsonse so you must be working your way through all the logical fallacies.

Ultimately the models will be validated or not by observations, that's how science works after all. At the moment the observation support a trend that indicates low climate sensitivity whilst the majority of the model are programmed with an assumption of high sensitivity.

So to be clear the warming has not stopped, a doubling of CO2 will result in aboit 1.5 deg C of warming without any positive feedbacks, that's what the physics tells us, and that is what current observations are pointing to. As this is the same as the temperature rise in the last 100 years and we are all still here and thriving, I guess that indicates that man's emissions of CO2 are really not a big problem

Reply
Share

Let me see: what does the IPCC say about our abilitiy to predict the future climate?

That's right, the climate is a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system and future states cannot be predicted. It's in the TAR.

Reply
Share

That's nice. BTW, weren't these same group of experts predicting global cooling to the point of an ice age by now just 40 years ago? Before that, weren't they predicting lack of food by the end of the '70's?

Thus far, they have a consistent record of failure in the prediction department. So, go ahead and follow your false prophets into the doom and gloom world of CAGW.

I'm more pragmatic myself,

Reply
Share

Wonderful to see so many here skeptical of the CAGW meme commenting! You must be starting to feel a tad isolated Mr I have 5 degrees and hide behind a pseudonym Crowd Pleaser.

Reply
Share

I'm with him. You guys look ridiculous in your climate -change denying mankinis

Reply
Share

Any movement fronted by someone like Al Gore should be treated with extreme skepticism. He has an agenda, as do all the people whose view he promotes. When dissenters are dismissed as "deniers" and generally treated as heretics people need to start asking some hard questions. The Chinese are busily building coal fueled power stations and the people there are eagerly embracing western consumerism. Are all the alarmists on this board prepared to give up their cars and international air travel and start growing their own vegetables? No. thought not. Hypocrites.

Reply
Share

Now if we did some research and developments into alternatives we eventually wouldn't have to rely on filthy fossil fuels to power travel. How come we haven't? Oh yeah the powerful, vested interest of the oil companies dissuade any development of alternatives. And the smoke keeps pouring out. Moron.

Reply
Share

I think we may have stumbled into the wrong party. Its like a hall full of Borats and we are the only sane ones. Check them out lol.

Reply
Share

crowd pleaser, "mate", and "yang",

Just as a precaution, crowd pleaser (I assume the above pseudonyms all belong to the same individual, so my comment is addressed to you "all"), but could you please state your age? As an adult I feel it my responsibility to ask.

I mean, like, I'm beginning to suspect, crowd pleaser, that you're really just some goofy, "zit"-afflicted, obnoxious kid. And I don't want "things" to end up with your fired-up, over-bearing, excessively-protective, smothering "Mummy", suddenly showing up here to "chew" everyone out for messin' with her misunderstood, social-awkward junior-boy who has enough problems without this blog's badinage adding to them, thank you very much.

Reply
Share

As with most of the conclusions you come to you are wrong about identities. Clearly your mummy issues are transposing themselves onto all you meet. Stick with your conspiracy theory books mike. Your opinions don't matter. The influential ones are acting in spite of cranks like you and these other ignoramuses.

Reply
Share

Yep governments everywhere are binning the whole AGW concept , and all over Europe new coal-fired power plants are springing up.
Yes, the influential ones are definitely acting.

Reply
Share

How about providing the source for you 99% of climatologists statement - so others may check your facts?

Reply
Share

History will show that the global warming, cooling and change hysterical folk are none other than the laughable old loons who walk around with the 'we are all doomed - repent' placards.

Reply
Share

Exactly. I wish Al Gore would grow a beard, wear white robes, and stand on a corner with a sign saying "the end is near" Then it would be clear to even the thickest just who and what he is.
It hasn't gotten warmer in 15 years, even as CO2 has gone up, and there is no explanation. The models are wrong and have no predictive ability. Good recent analysis
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/occams-razor-the-null-hypo...

Reply
Share

Steve McIntyre is an absolutely outstanding individual whose rigour, intelligence and integrity has contributed immensely to the climate change debate, and for which he has done a huge amount of entirely unpaid work and analysis.

Great to see Rod Vaughan exposing his work to the great, gullible brain-washed public and fellow journalists. Congratulations.

Reply
Share

Refer to #1

Reply
Share

Ditto - well done Rod Vaughan and NBR

Reply
Share

Seconded (and Alan's comments above).

Crowd pleaser - you seem to have joined the cult. Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind is it? The emperor has no clothes, mate.

Reply
Share

Sounding a little bitter that the tide of public opinion is flowing swiftly away from denialism by any chance? It was always going to happen as the public start to see with their own eyes the effects of man made climate change.

Reply
Share

Ah, so the climate's warming in your world!! Interesting, it's cooling in this one.

It's sort of looking like some science degrees aren't what they used to be...

Reply
Share

I see you have declined my invitation to expose your real name and qualifications thus confirming your unhappy status as an arrogant ignorant dissembling troll. Apart from that you are no doubt one of the finest specimens of pimply adolescence ever to grace some ghastly religious ghetto of DoC or the People's Democratic University of Waikato. You have our deepest sympathy.

Reply
Share

Crowd pleaser, you are the one his in denial. Opinion surveys show that belief in climate change is declining and so is trust in climate scientists (eg look up the recent LWEC survey in the UK). And you are the one who is bitter - compare your angry abusive tone with the calm rationality of McIntyre. He's twice the scientist you are.

Reply
Share

".... the tide of public opinion is flowing swiftly away from denialism..."

It is. You are simply mistaken about what is denialism. It has nothing to do with CAGW sceptics.

Denial that natural warming and cooling is as rapid as anything recorded. Denial that natural warming has caused temperatures greater than any recorded by modern instruments. Denial that the models are fatally flawed in the one factor in dispute - feedback. Denial that the temperature has been rising since long before man-made carbon dioxide could have had a significant effect. Denial that UHI effect exists. Denial that life without abundant, cheap energy is nasty, brutish and short. Denial that people should live by their own standards (not just Al Gore, but all those in the cult).

So what are sceptics denying?

Reply
Share

On AGW, the final appeal court jury is still out. A year or two ago, CERN announced that the cause of global warming is the effect of the sun on cosmic rays and that such effect accounted for 'somewhere between 50% to 100% of global warming. ' They were cautious to stick to proven science with no deductions, extrapolations, nor fear mongering hysteria.
They have yet to 'prove i.e. not flawed modelled theory, that it is 100% the sun. But within a couple of years, expect it to be proven 100% with CO2 contributing such negligible effect that it is immeasurable.
However the most interesting part of the whole AGW debate is the belief systems of humans which it appears have not advanced much since caveman days or the religious crusades or pick any other flat earth belief. Conquering beliefs is more important than conquering climate.

Reply
Share

Crowd Pleaser you should not get caught up in Groupthink that is why the RC church rubbished heliocentric its and punished the outlier who actually worked it all out
Steve McIntyre is one of the worlds brightest mathematical brains who demolished the hockey stick graph because he understood the algorithm which Michael Mann failed to do.
Great to see how mild the comments of one who is rally informed are against the hate speech we are getting used to from the Al Gore Warmists

Reply
Share

I have no doubt that if you dug deep enough you would find that McIntyre has connections to the fossil fuel industry as so many of the deniers do (the man is an ex-miner lets remember). The only gullible folk are those that listen to the propaganda spouted by the shills and clients of the fossil fuel industry.

Reply
Share

If you were really a scientist you would cite science not propaganda and abuse. And if you knew anything about McIntyre you would know that is exactly what he does. I conclude you know nothing about McIntyre and nothing about how to practice science.

Reply
Share

Alan have you been hitting your own like button again? Your abuse of crowd pleaser is infantile and hypocritical. You are relying on flimsy evidence from which to conclude anything about crowd pleaser. And yet conclude away you do. Is this Indicative of you and all your mates approach to any field of inquiry? I would rather trust the armies of scientists advising numerous governments around the world than obsess over one ex mining industry man's voice in the wilderness. You guys sound like Chamberlain calling for "peace in our time". You are bleating "Coolness in our time" while the CO2 clouds gather.

Reply
Share

What's that CP? "You have no doubt..."? Remember "[he's] an ex-miner"?? Sounds about as robust as the "science" the climate change zealots use. I thought you would be better than that given your science background.

Reply
Share

You have no doubt, but you haven't looked? I thought you claimed to be a scientist? If you were a scientist you would know that scientists approach questions with an open mind and rely on evidence. Go and read some of McIntyre's papers, you might learn something.

Reply
Share

So go ahead - dig deep enough. Produce your evidence that Steve McIntyre is a paid shill/client of the fossil fuel industry.

Reply
Share

That is the old lie, not even an original one. Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?

The fossil fuel industry has given far more money to spread the myth of CAGW than to sceptics. They have funded NGOs, in some cases directly to benefit their own business - like the Sierra Club being funded by middle-eastern oil concerns to oppose US coal and the Keystone Pipeline.

Sceptics have very little funding whatever, indeed many of them are refused funding because of their honesty and belief in real science. On the other hand alarmist research, often of very low quality, and alarmist propaganda has funding literally in the tens of billions of US$. The US federal government alone has spent over US$100 bn on the global warming issue, despite the constitutional ban on state religion.

I have never seen anyone, even the most rabid alarmist, argue that sceptics get even one tenth of 1% of the funding of catastrophists. Yet they all say that the tiny amount of money going to sceptics corrupts them. That implies that alarmists are at least 1000 times as corrupted, doesn't it? They are the ones insisting money corrupts.

Reply
Share

LOL, I knew it was just a matter of time before that tired old ad hominem was dragged out (fossil fuel industry connections). If you don't have facts on your side, sling that mud and hope some sticks, or at least hope your opponent starts wasting their time defending themselves. If you think "fossil fuel industry" spends a lot on climate change, you should look into what the US govt spends:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317

actual paper here:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf

A shorter version is here:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318570.pdf

Interesting excerpt: "OMB [Office of Management and Budget] also reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009...". And that's just for one year.

Fossil fuel industry spending doesn't even come close to government spending, and NONE of that government money would be available if it turned out that we're not really all going to die any day now from global warming/climate change/whatever it is called this week.

Reply
Share

It doesn't really matter what connections he has, or has had. What matters is the science, and so far McIntyre has been 100% correct and the alarmists 100% wrong.

I have no doubt that if we dug deep enough we would find that Crowd pleaser has connections to the green alarmist industry as so many of the warmists do. The only gullible folk are those that listen to the propaganda spouted by the shills and clients of the Greens.

Reply
Share

Dear Mr I have 5 science degrees and hide behind a pseudonym Mr Crowd Pleaser.

Have you actually visited Climate Audit site? A man of your self proclaimed outstanding education would be enthralled by the exacting manner in which Steve completely destroyed Michael Mann's hockey stick and related research.

Actually, reality is you sound just like a left leaning activist who buys each day a fresh PET Pump bottle (made from oil), wears "fleeces" (made from oil), and drives an old beat-up car that blows copious amounts of blue "oil" smoke, smokes dope regularly, has a non-productive job or is on the dole and wants to save Mother Gaia.

Reply
Share

To me these days beliefs regarding global warming, drugs & a host of other topics seem to be filling a void left by religion.
It seems we that people just have an inherent need to believe in something they actually know nothing about.
I have no opinion on global warming because I know nothing about it. It is interesting how many of the comments above are based upon belief as opposed to knowledge, just saying.....

Reply
Share

Very instructive that the "believer" calls himself "Crowd pleaser". He truly believes science is based on consensus and the masses. How sad.

Reply
Share

That's because he's more interested in pleasing the crowds than in facts.

Reply
Share

The average peasant has two simple questions for the likes of Crowd Pleaser :-
1. What would the global av. temp. be if atmospheric CO2 was 300 ppm lower than at present ?

2. How do you know that?

Reply
Share

Actually, if my memory of what I've read in the past hasn't failed me, lowering CO2 by 300 PPM would kill all the plants. They can't exist at levels that low ...

Reply
Share

Nobody will ever know, because we'll all be dead at 100ppm CO2.

Reply
Share

1. the average global temperature would be so much gooder than it is today.

2. I know because AL Gore said so.

Reply
Share

10/10

Reply
Share

CP:

28 degrees in science related disciplines here, so got you beat.

To assuage your guilt in burning fossil fuels, may I suggest you buy many carbon credits? Better yet, send the money directly to Al Gore. It IS rather expensive to fly around the world in a private jet warning of the perils of fossil fuels. Plus the upkeep on 3 palatial mansions must be particularly onerous.

Of course it will do nothing to reduce the imaginary warmig, but you WILL feel better!

Reply
Share

Anyone interested in why climate models don't and don't work will appreciate this discussion and real science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/07/emergent-climate-phenomena/

Reply
Share

Alan don't try and ruin a perfectly good right wing collective mutual w**k with uneccesary pseudo facts.

Reply
Share

Crowdpleaser: You are an ignorant person much like many others who would believe anything the MSM feed them. Mr McIntyre is a very honest and open person who has shown great fortitude when faced with a great many people who derided him before they bothered to check his qualifications or his ethics.

Reply
Share

Once in a while, I have the pleasure of conversing with, or writing to/from, a person of great charm and demonstrated ability. Steve is one such person.
There is a test that is open to all. Study what Steve has written, then study it again because it is written quite precisely; then see if you can find an error. Many people have tried. Occasionally, very rarely, Steve has conceded a point and apologised for not being his usual precise self. These have been minor matters. His major analyses stand.
I know few other people capable of performance like that.

Reply
Share

Seems like a lot of missing the point, especially given the number of science degree-drops above. What "99%" believe is that manmade CO2 is increasing average temperatures. McIntyre believes that as well. There is far more controversy about the appropriate forecast for warming. McIntyre thinks the IPCC published ranges (2-4 degrees C) are high. So do thousands upon thousands of experts (note a recent project in Norway -http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme...). There is far less consensus around sensitivity to CO2. We mustn't confuse "settled science" (all else equal, more CO2 leads to greater heat trapped in atmosphere) with specific forecasts, around which there is far less consensus. Calling McIntyre a "denier" because he's on the cooler side o of this latter point, and provides copious evidence, is ridiculous and unscientific, just as much as saying CO2 doesn't affect climate.

Reply
Share

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

What are the hard numbers that McIntyre considers relevant here? Ie for a doubling of CO2 and accounting for all net feedbacks?

The models themselves come in over a large range of numbers. IPCC has always been in the range 1.5/2.0 - 4.5C. Is McIntyre suggesting roughly half of that?

Reply
Share

Crowdpleaser: As you think of yourself as such a genius, why don´t you
expose your real name and qualifications. Either put up or shut up.

Reply
Share

I am always amused by the alarmist opinion that all “deniers” are in the pay of fossil fuel, yet their sainted protagonists, who have to justify yet more money for their projects from the tax-payer, have no similar conflicts. Just who is in denial, here?

No “denialist” I have conversed (interacted? – most are on t’internet) with do NOT deny that the world is warming; they do NOT deny that CO2 is increasing; they do NOT deny that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas – most will happily concede that it is one of many. What they have reservations about is the <i>categorical</i> link between <b>man-made</b> CO2 and global warming. Should there be incontrovertible scientific evidence of this, then they will accept it; as yet, despite that simple request, all they tend to get is insults and vitriol from the likes of “Crowd pleaser” (a misnomer if ever I heard one!), who deny that there can be any further discussion.

Reply
Share

I wish to echo the comments of Paul Bavestock.
Steve McIntyre is much admired for his integrety and much feared by those whose science lacks rigour. He is scrupulously honest and has a wicked sense of humour.

Reply
Share

I would echo Paul Baverstock`s comments on Mr McIntyre`s honesty. he is primarily a scientist of great integrity, incorruptible and open to the evidence whichever way it may lead. There is nothing shrill in his writing and he has come in for some stick over the years. A true gent in comparison with many on both sides of the debate and always worthy of consideration..

Reply
Share

Steve McIntyre accurately states the problem. Note that ALL four IPCC projections have been systematically higher than subsequent global temperature reality. See Ira Glicksman
<a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-a... animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’ </a>
<blockquote>However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming. . . .

As <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&ytsession=ayce18DjSREITlllDVm... famously pointed out</a>, when <b>actual observations</b> over a period of time <b>contradict predictions </b>based on a given <b>theory</b>, that <b>theory is wrong</b>! </blockquote>

The IPCC projections show sustained SYSTEMATIC (aka “bias”) <a href=http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/TN1297/tn1297s.pdf>Type B Standard Error </a> in global warming models. True objective scientific models would result in be randomly distributed predictions about the mean of the resultant actual temperature trend. This is a massive failure by the IPCC to apply the scientific method to correct these obvious errors.

Compare much simpler models that appear to be much more accurate in predicting global temperature.
Scafetta N., 2012. <a href=http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/ATP3533.pdf>Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.</a> Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 124-137.

<a href=http://climateprediction.eu/>Global Warming Prediction Project</a>

<a href=http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/1/21_What_Drives_Global... Drives Climate</a>

Until the IPCC global temperature models accurately predict temperatures, they are but rhetorical political exercises masquarding as science.

Reply
Share

crowd pleaser sounds like a drinking pal of Stephen Lewandowski.

Reply
Share

Someone please tell me that "crowdpleasr" is not a real person but a compilation of alarmists avatar. No one could possibly be as moronic as this poster seems to be.

Reply
Share

Look at the longer term to assess climate change.

Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth. Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.

So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for all natural life including mankind worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a warming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.

But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.

It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.

See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Reply
Share

Crowd Pleaser:

<b>Please explain why global warming has stopped if atmospheric CO2 concentration is so powerful a forcing that it overcomes natural climate processes which have held the climate within narrow temperature limits throughout the holocene.</b>

Atmospheric CO2 concentration continues its inexorable rise but global warming has stopped according to all metrics. Using http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php to determine how long it has been that the global temperature trend is not different from zero at 95% confidence one obtains the following values from the different data sets.

RSS
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 23 years .
Trend: +0.126 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

UAH
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 19 years .
Trend: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Hacrut3
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 19 years .
Trend: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Hacrut4
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 18 years .
Trend: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

GISS
Warming is NOT significant for over the most recent 17 years .
Trend: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

The times to the nearest month when warming is not significant for each set are:
RSS since September 1989;
UAH since April 1993;
Hadcrut3 since September 1993;
Hadcrut4 since August 1994 and
GISS since October 1995

I await your answer to – but anticipate your evasion of – my request.

Richard

Reply
Share

All are warming trends. Add a few more years to your data-set and they will be statistically significant. Near-term trends have been affected by the mega El Nino event of 1998 and the dominance of La Nina events thereafter. I suspect that you know this already.

Reply
Share

@crowd pleaser

You can't even get your deceptive figures right. It's not 99% of climate scientists who supposedly believe in AGW. It's 97%. Supposedly. For the full story on the origin of this number, read:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-s...

Of course this will not convince you of anything, but it will show how shallow the basis of your belief is. Typical warmist.

I am impressed by the intelligence of most people who have posted here There is some hope for NZ. (I am in Canada and we are fighting exactly the same battle here. I am often reminded of the saying attributed to Goethe: "There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.")

IanM

Reply
Share

Given a choice between total ice melt with its concomitant sea level rise and a repeat of the Last Glacial Maximum, I would take the melt. There would certainly be more arable land available. But I fear not even CO2 can save us from a return to the colder 90% of Pleistocene history. Call me faithless. --AGF

Reply
Share

Crowdbomber,

That's for reminding us that he is a former mining exec.

However, is that supposed to be some secret alarmist's code for something. Because you forgot to explain how that means something.

How is it any more meaningful than If McIntyre were a former cab driver, rancher, zoology professor, grocery clerk, prime minister or
crocodile wrestler?

I've been reading and engaging the climate wars for over ten years here in the USA and your low brow attempt to tarnish the messenger is the auto-default ploy used over and over again as a means to avoid substance and authentic debate.

It always has and will be forever a tactic of the most ignorant and deceitful.
Your believing that this sort of mention is in anyway helpful to the salvation of your AGW belief system only underscores your dependence upon the wholesale and purposeful mendacity which marches it all forward.

In short, you lose mate.

Reply
Share

Umm maybe its something to do with vested interest. The rest of your rant I didn't understand. Obviously way to clever for the likes of simple folk like crowd pleaser and me. Plain English would be good. Unless you feel like your compensating for something and trying to prove how brainy you are.

Reply
Share

Crowd pleaser. From the majority of comments made hear, it would seem that the name you have assigned yourself describes your attributes just about as accurately as the work done by a typical climate scientist.

Reply
Share

People who want to dismiss McIntrye should take the time to read his website. Then go ahead and read the rebuttals from RealClimate.org and other prominent climate website, followed by McIntrye's responses and so on. It will take awhile as the debate has been going on for some time. If you have a decent understanding of statistical analysis you should be able to follow it.

As a person with a relatively sophisticated background in statistics, it is my view that McIntrye runs circles around the prominent climate scientists whose work he criticizes. Climate scientists may know something about climate, but it soon becomes clear that they are way out of their element when it comes to statistical analysis.

I don't really care how many degrees McIntrye's critics have. If you haven't read his work thoroughly and remarkably weak rebuttals of his work from certain elements of the climate science community, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Reply
Share

Anyone who has followed Steve McIntyre's writings knows that he is in agreement with the often cited 99% who believe (1) average global temperatures are rising, and (2) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have had some effect on that increase. The real question is how much have temperatures actually risen, and how much of the increase can be blamed on CO2.

Not to speak for Steve, but his website mainly focuses on the shoddy and often near fraudulent (my words, not Steve's) work produced at public expense by a close knit cadre of AGW zealots. Steve merely tries to reproduce the conclusions and results published by these climatologists as fact, by using their data sets and the methods disclosed in their peer reviewed works, and in the process Steve tries to discover where they "hid the decline," where they programmed bias into their models, why inconvenient data was excluded, and in particular, how they misuse statistical analysis to arrive at invalid conclusions.

Reply
Share

Anyone who has followed Steve McIntyre's writings knows that he is in agreement with the often cited 99% who believe (1) average global temperatures are rising, and (2) CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have had some effect on that increase. The real question is how much have temperatures actually risen, and how much of the increase can be blamed on CO2.

Not to speak for Steve, but his website mainly focuses on the shoddy and often near fraudulent (my words, not Steve's) work produced at public expense by a close knit cadre of AGW zealots. Steve merely tries to reproduce the conclusions and results published by these climatologists as fact, by using their data sets and the methods disclosed in their peer reviewed works, and in the process Steve tries to discover where they "hid the decline," where they programmed bias into their models, why inconvenient data was excluded, and in particular, how they misuse statistical analysis to arrive at invalid conclusions.

Reply
Share

Crowdpleaser:
You say that, "...McIntyre has connections to the fossil fuel industry..."
So what? It seems it's alright for the Big Green Machine to accept fossil fuel money, so why not others. For instance:

1) The Environmental Defense Fund, which has a policy of not accepting corporate donations [nevertheless] joined with BP, Shell International and other major corporations [in 2007] to form the Partnership for Climate Action.

2) Between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from…Chesapeake Energy – one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.

3) Rajendra Pachauri (he of the IPCC) has held many annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summits. In both 2003 and 2004 the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. were among its sponsors. The 2005 summit was similarly supported by two oil companies – one of which was Shell. In its turn, BP was a sponsor in 2006 and 2007.

4) BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years.

5) BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”.

6) ExxonMobil has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”.

7) Phil Jones and the Warmist Gang at UEA are sponsored by, among others: British Petroleum, Shell, and the Sultanate of Oman.

See it all at:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-f... http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/a...
(I hope the links work!)

Reply
Share

Anyone who has taken the time to follow and understand the valuable work that Steve McIntyre has done can only applaud the man for his rigour and integrity, and for no reward. History will show that his valuable contribution to the application of appropriate statistical analysis will have been one of the turning points in the debate.

As an engineer myself, used to the exacting standards which we are required to apply to statistical analysis, I have been incredulous at the shoddy work of the vast majority of analysis in the climate science papers I have read. In fact much of it is of a standard I would expect to get fired for if I had produced it in an engineering context.

I suspect my own beliefs on warming are much in line with many others. Yes there is some small warming from additional co2 from fossil fuel burning but certainly nothing to warrant any action and definately nothing dangerous. Quite probably even beneficial on the whole.

Reply
Share

It was gracious of Steve to consent to an interview. I understand he was back in NZ after a summer vacation here to assist his daughter seriously hurt in an accident here. Best wishes to both of them.
His contribution to climate science (along with his colleague Ross McKitrick) is immense, achieved in the face of considerable reluctance to release data for peer review, and hs work has successfully survived the scrutiny of, and challenge from, the "team"..

Reply
Share

I don't know Steve McIntyre but I would very much like to meet him. From what I have read about him he seems like a top man who just wanted access to scientific data. His goal was just to replicate peer reviewed and published results. Why should that have been so hard? Isn't reproducibility at the heart of science?

Reply
Share

It seems to me that part of the problem in this dispute is that the two sides tend to talk past each other. Those who are sceptical about the alarmism over climate change are labelled "Climate Change Deniers." Since non of these people actually deny that the climate changes, it seems to me that this is either a straw man attack, or a deliberate insult.

The alarmists also seem to believe that 98% of scientists are on their side. The truth is that the actual science is much more circumspect and full of caviats than the IPCC and the mainstream media would have them believe.

The hallmark of good science is that it can make predictions. Climate science has a specacular record of failure in this respect.

Reply
Share

It seems many of the environmental 'scientist' don't even bother with the pretence of scientific rigour any more. Look at the interview with Prof Ralph Sims in the latest Listener 'Science' column. It might as well have been talking points from a Greenpeace or WWF activist. I wrote the Listener a letter in response, however I don't expect that lefty rag will publish it..

Reply
Share

Steve McIntyre stayed with me for a night on his return trip to Canada. His integrity is absolute. He bends over backwards to be strictly fair and not to make any statement which could possibly be regarded as exaggeration.

He told me that his interest in climate change has lost him $000's in income. I believe him. His mining interests are in gold, not oil.

He is, indeed, a remarkable character. We are all obliged to him for the logical analysis and plain common sense he has brought to a very confused an often unscientific "science".

Reply
Share

Come on, guys - McIntyre is a mining exec and amateur statistician with no training in climate science. His reputation rests on a peripheral error he picked up in one paper, plus lots of boosterism from the fossil-fuelled pollutocracy, for whom he is a "useful idiot".

Forget him - the evidence for global warming is all about us, backed by 150 years of scientific observation and experiment.

What are you going to tell your children - and their children - when they ask what YOU did to try to reduce the misery and uncertainty of their lives?

http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre

Reply
Share

Should be easy to refute his findings then, eh Brandoch. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.

If you think there is misery and uncertainty today, you do not know your history.

If you reference Desmog, you do not know anything at all. You are a sock puppet.

Reply
Share

Brandoch old chap,
I'm going to tell my children that there will be no "misery and uncertainty" in their lives and advise the teachers to sod off with this cr+p science....
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef0154321c3271970c-popup

Reply
Share

SM's qualifications re mathematical modeling are proven by his success as a mining consultant. If he wasn't good he'd be unemployed. Failure modeling mineral deposits means loss of $millions.

Climate Scientologists whom he has mathematically destroyed continue to be lavishly funded and celebrated despite producing nothing of scientific value but with large pollitical value.

Reply
Share

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?

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nbr-interviews-steve-mcintyre-hard-hitting-busine...

Reply
Share

I just love the "Fossil Fuel Shill" attack. It is so weak it is laughable. Makes you look like a lazy propagandist who uses the easiest possible approach to smear someone so he doesn't actually have to actually take the time to refute the opponents findings.
Brandoch, starting tomorrow, you need eliminate all things in your life that are connected to fossil fuels. Period. If you do not do this, your credibility will be zero. Begin by selling your computer. It's a gas guzzler.

Reply
Share

(1) Salaries and benefits include director fees. The directors of the company do not have employment or consulting contracts with the company except for Steve McIntyre, in his role as chairman, and Gregory Gibson, in his role as chief executive officer and president.

Who has time to piddle around in the "pal reviewed" academic sandbox other than tax-funded climate scientologists?

SM is now a "former mining executive" because Trelawney was bought by Lamgold in June 2012 for roughly $600m, a rarity for a junior explorer. Convincing "model" of a mining deposit, though.

Reply
Share

Brandoch sends us over to Hot Topic to a site run by a truffle farmer from Nth Canterbury who writes children's stories and considers himself a voice of the "experts" of this world who believe Man is warming the planet.
Yeah , a truffle farmer, Aahahaha... honest.
This guy points to us and calls us cranks but doesn't realise that three fingers are pointing back at him.
Now Brandoch here is a dairy farmer from Taranaki and considers himself right up there in the knowledge stakes of climate science with the truffle farmer Gareth Renowden of Hot Topic.
This might be too much for your feeble old brain to cope with, Brandoch, but here is some real science for you to read, ...see if you can handle it.....
http://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/

Reply
Share

Mack, I am as much of a dairy farmer as McIntyre is a credible commentator on climate science...

How gullible you deniers are; desperate to accept any old "sciency'-sounding half-truth or outright lie, as long as it fits your do-nothing, know-nothing ideology.

You are yesterday's men, afraid to face the uncomfortable truths that tomorrow will bring.

Well, here's something to rattle your cage:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html

Reply
Share

Now Brandoch trys to divert us and "rattle my cage" with some imaginary garbage about peak oil by brainwashed AGW scientist youngsters in Nature. I would take as much notice of stuff in Nature as the tripe blathered by the people at Real Climate.
We've been putting up with this alarmism for decades. I would have thought a person your age Brandoch, would have realised by now you're being conned and have come to your senses.

Reply
Share

The engineering quality report rears its head once more. Bob Grumbine, a reasonable fellow had a <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/17/the-smug-loop/#comment-264199">deligh... time</a> getting Mr McIntyre to tell him what was meant by that. Quite the thread.

Reply
Share

Yeah, but all your IPPC pseudoscience is rubber-stamped by a traindriver bunnybrain. Howszat for engineering.
Btw, how are you Aussies enjoying the carbon tax?

Reply
Share

Clearly, Mack, some idiots are more useful than others.

Reply
Share

Yes Brandoch, You've proved to be very useful here.

Reply
Share

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

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7887 0.0011 0.14%
AUD 0.9202 -0.0027 -0.29%
EUR 0.6320 0.0022 0.35%
GBP 0.5004 0.0016 0.32%
HKD 6.1147 0.0091 0.15%
JPY 92.6560 0.0090 0.01%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1196.6 -0.500 2014-11-26T00:
Oil Brent 79.4 -0.640 2014-11-26T00:
Oil Nymex 73.7 -0.400 2014-11-26T00:
Silver Index 16.6 0.000 2014-11-26T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5457.4 5462.1 5457.4 -0.04%
NASDAQ 4760.2 4788.0 4758.3 0.61%
DAX 9934.8 9992.7 9915.6 0.48%
DJI 17812.2 17833.8 17814.9 0.07%
FTSE 6729.2 6749.9 6729.2 0.15%
HKSE 24169.8 24228.1 24112.0 -0.45%
NI225 17310.5 17346.8 17383.6 -0.78%