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

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 0.7783 -0.0050 -0.64%
AUD 0.8851 -0.0022 -0.25%
EUR 0.6219 0.0005 0.08%
GBP 0.4869 -0.0028 -0.57%
HKD 6.0419 -0.0327 -0.54%
JPY 87.4330 1.8660 2.18%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1171.1 -27.000 2014-10-31T00:
Oil Brent 85.9 -0.380 2014-10-31T00:
Oil Nymex 80.5 -0.520 2014-10-31T00:
Silver Index 16.1 -0.310 2014-10-31T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5370.2 5405.3 5370.2 0.33%
NASDAQ 4639.4 4641.5 4566.1 1.41%
DAX 9283.4 9339.3 9114.8 2.33%
DJI 17208.8 17395.5 17195.4 1.13%
FTSE 6463.6 6553.4 6463.6 1.28%
HKSE 23913.7 24046.4 23702.0 1.25%
NI225 15817.1 16533.9 15658.2 4.83%