Global warming’s most dangerous apostate speaks out about the state of climate change science.
By ANNE JOLIS
Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future.
But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang’s Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts.
The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described “auditing” a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, has once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa’s much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists’ posters. Like other so-called “hockey stick” temperature graphs, it’s an easy sell—one look and it seems Gadzooks! We’re burning ourselves up!
“It was the belle of the ball,” Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. “Its dance card was full.”
At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia’s Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears.
Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre’s work as “demonstrably biased” because it uses “a narrower area and range of sample sites.” He says he and his colleagues have now built a new chronology using still more data. Here, as in similar graphs by other researchers, the spike soars once again. Mr. McIntyre’s “work has little implication for our published work or any other work that uses it,” Mr. Briffa concludes.
He and his colleagues may well ignore Mr. McIntyre, but the rest of us shouldn’t. While Mr. McIntyre’s image may use data from fewer sites, it still has nearly three times as many tree cores representing the modern era as Mr. Briffa’s original.
Yet Mr. McIntyre is first to admit his work is no bullet aimed at the heart of the theory of man-made climate change. Rather, his work—chronicled in papers co-written with environmental economist Ross McKitrick and more than 7,000 posts on his Climateaudit.org Weblog—does something much more important: It illustrates the uncertainty of a science presented as so infallible as to justify huge new taxes on rich countries along with bribes to poor ones in order to halt their fossil-fueled climbs to prosperity. Mr. McIntyre offers what many in the field do not: rigor.
It all started in 2002 when—as many might given the time and Mr. McIntyre’s mathematics background—he decided to verify for himself the case for action on climate change.
“It was like a big crossword puzzle,” he told me. “Business was a bit slow at the time, so I started reading up.”
Prior to the Briffa graph revelation, he had also caught a statistical error that undercut another exalted “hockey stick” graph prominently featured by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, this one by Michael Mann, head of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. Alerts about review boards’ seemingly lax standards litter his blog, highlighting in particular the IPCC, which has used both the Mann and Briffa graphs in its reports. In 2007, Mr. McIntyre found a technical gaffe that forced NASA to correct itself and admit that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the continental U.S.
“At the beginning I innocently assumed there would be due diligence for all this stuff. … So often my mouth would drop, when I realized no one had really looked into it.”
Even more innocently, he assumed the billion-dollar climate change industry would welcome his untrained but painstaking work. Instead, Mr. McIntyre is subjected to every kind of venom—that he must be funded by Big Oil, by Big Business, by Some Texan Somewhere. For the record, the 62-year-old declares himself “past my best-by date, operating on my own nickel.”
Read the entire article here: Revenge of the Climate Laymen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Our Gaia, who art in hockey sticks,
Hallowed by thy name.
Global warming come, cap and tax be done,
On Earth, and even in China.
Give us this day our fat research grants,
And distribute our press releases,
As we suppress those we don’t like.
And lead us not to the scientific method,
But deliver us from Steve McIntyre.
Amen.
It’s not only nobodies like Barrie Harrop who behave badly towards good scientists: check out Roger Pielke Jr’s blog:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-climate-scientists-talk-to-each.html#comments
YAMAL peninsula
Latest research into photosynthesis has shown that it is a chemical process with strong electrical undertones. It should not be unexpected that the process is affected by changes in the magnetic field to which it may be exposed.
While the geomagnetic field was declining in the Southern and the western parts of the North hemispheres, Yamal peninsula as well as the wider region of central Siberia is exception in this respect; here the geomagnetic field was on strong rise since 1930s as shown in this graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YamalGmf.gif
Mr Lynn (20:35:41) :
“instead he just keeps repeating the charge that Steve is “a quack,” and citing alarmist propaganda like that from Lord Stern.”
…note: Lord Stern is not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. Although frequently called an economist, he isn’t, and he’s not even an environmentalist. He is actually a banker, and as such is up to his neck in the global warming industry and “green” investments.
That was a superb article, quality worthy of “Caspar and the Jesus Paper” taking into account the readership for whom it was written. At CA, bender explains the seemingly-fair rationale climate scientists use to defend their statement that Steve needs to do a reconstruction himself before they can take him seriously, and Steve explains himself why he has not gone that road, in a statement that I think is a crucial and classic rebuttal to the dendro scientists’ request.
Stupidity and Incompetence or Deliberate Fraud?
For us non-scientists it seems we now have a simple test for any more new climate BS that comes out – Has Steve McIntyre been provided with the raw data? What does he say about it?
If the answer is that the data is hidden or just passed around amongst the usual group of pals then we know we are not dealing with idiocy and incompetence but with a deliberate effort to deceive.
Congratulations to Stephen. It can’t be long before wattsupwiththat gets its just desserts in the MSM, for the wonderful articles it finds and the way it reports them. Long live Barrie Harrop and people like him. Idiots like that do our work for us.
Jeremy (17:28:01) :
I just finished reading Barrie’s comments on the WSJ article.
That is one of most disturbing personalities I have ever seen. He has this ego centric view of the universe assuming his views are correct because he consults with the ‘right’ people and is wired into the coming world order.
His responses defy any logic or coherence at all.
I couldn’t figure the source of his painful insecurity until it became clear he is heavily invested, financially, in the AGW world view. He was quite shy about revealing this, as others on this thread have already pointed out.
There is this mantra he keeps repeating about “peer reviewed articles in leading scientific academic climate change journal” as if this represented the source of all truth. Well, that and the IPCC.
I guess he’s off to Copenhagen. It would be wonderful for his business if billions are sent the way of green industries. However, its not going to happen, at least not in a worldwide fashion. Who knows, his business model might work in Australia where they seem intent on ruining their economy.
But we’ll see the AGW put to the test in the real world. China and India will continue to put CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of what the rest of the world does. It looks like the rest of the world will do the same. It will be business as usual.
We’ll all get to watch the grand experiment unfold.
Gene Nemetz (20:29:39) :
What is Stephen Schneider’s reputation? I’m just wondering.
Gene,
Never mind. I just watched this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvUz0mtrOk
I guess Stephen Schneider just believes something bad is going to happen, he’s just not clear about what form this badness will take.
Jack Simmons (03:12:55) :
What is Stephen Schneider’s reputation? I’m just wondering.
Wonder no more (note – I bolded the most important, often-quoted part of his statement).
Detroit News Editorial, 22 November, 1989
“Loads of Media Coverage”
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous
climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of
course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make
simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to
decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.
–Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover
Magazine, October 1989.”
The ends justify the means to them. Lying is OK, as long as it gives you the desired result. It appears Berry Hairpup is a chip off the ol’ schneider block.
IRT to the smirking of AGW promoters at the mere mention of McIntyre’s name:
Con artists regularly laugh at those who question them and their con. They use the power of social pressure and humiliation in an attempt to silence those who may see through their scam.
There used to be a great video clip on utube showing Professor Schneider, the link was originally was posted here it seems to have been shut down?
Lucy Skywalker (02:20:51) :
That was a superb article, quality worthy of “Caspar and the Jesus Paper” taking into account the readership for whom it was written. At CA, bender explains the seemingly-fair rationale climate scientists use to defend their statement that Steve needs to do a reconstruction himself before they can take him seriously, and Steve explains himself why he has not gone that road, in a statement that I think is a crucial and classic rebuttal to the dendro scientists’ request.
Tsk tsk, now aren’t these Climate Scientists just the fine ones to be making up the rules about what is required to be “taken seriously”?
Too bad they’re not more interested in their own scientific and personal credibility.
John F. Hultquist (22:32:30) : Julian, The Apostate… The story is quite complex.
363 AD. I think that at that time the Roman Warm Period was ending. This drove the Huns west, and the Huns drove the Goths, the Vandals, and all the rest towards Rome. They were after the food baskets. And of course, North Africa was a grain basket for Carthage and other cities there… until the climate changed.
“Gene Nemetz (20:29:39) :
One must consider Stephen Schneider’s reputation when evaluating his viewpoint of Stephen McIntyre.
What is Stephen Schneider’s reputation? I’m just wondering.”
…Reputation? What reputation? As Professor Flip-Flop, perhaps?
Stanford University’s noted global warming alarmist, and Al Gore adviser, Stephen Schneider appeared in a 1978 television program warning Americans of “a coming Ice Age”.
See the Time cover of “The Big Freeze” here
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/Ss0hzF9P1MI/AAAAAAAAWd4/IqRk_SCg0rM/s400/091007-freeze.jpg
For those that have forgotten, “In Search of…” was a televised documentary series from 1976 to 1982 that was normally narrated by Leonard Nimoy.
Global Warming Alarmist Appeared in 1978’s ‘The Coming Ice Age’
In the May 1978 episode “The Coming Ice Age,” Nimoy presented to viewers facts about the previous Ice Age, and discussed how the bitterly cold winters of 1976 and 1977 might be a harbinger of a new one: “Climate experts believe the next one is on its way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected.”
One climate expert cited was Stephen Schneider, a climatologist working for the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the time who was asked to address some of the possible solutions being discussed to stop the coming Ice Age such as using nuclear energy to loosen the polar icecaps.
DR. STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: Can we do these things? Yes. But will they make things better? I’m not sure. We can’t predict with any certainty what’s happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance? You could melt the icecaps. What would that do to the coastal cities? The cure could be worse than the disease. Would that be better or worse than the risk of an ice age?
Imagine that. In 1978, one of today’s leading global warming alarmists not only appeared in a television program warning the world of a coming Ice Age, but he also said: “We can’t predict with any certainty what’s happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance?”
Now, thirty years later, Schneider is indeed predicting what’s happening to our climatic future by using models, and advocates government intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming.
Yet, thirty years ago when he was concerned about a new Ice Age, he worried that the proposed cure could be worse than the disease.
Such concerns have clearly abated, as Schneider is now a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well a close adviser to Gore.
Now that Schneider’s appearance on “In Search of…” has been uncovered, will journalists always concerned about presenting all sides of the story report this video and its implications, or bury it for fear that it might impact pending legislation to cap and tax carbon dioxide emissions?
Stay tuned.
I rather liked this line from Harrop’s linkedin profile:
“…Relationships built on trust and sound skills in communication, sensitivity and intellectual ability….”
I must say that his WSJ comments were a virtuoso demonstration of sound communications skills, sensitivity and intellectual ability. Just gotta trust a man like that. And he’s so SUCCESSFUL!
Oliver Ramsay (21:33:38) :
“It’s being a squash player that does it. If you don’t call your own carries, double bounces, up balls, down balls and contacts, no-one will play with you and you will have to do single drills for the rest of your life.”
Yanno, there’s something to that.
I’m a formerly nationally ranked player (two decades ago), and we all knew the folks who refused to clear, ignored their double bounces and carries. Sometimes, I’d play with them, but, it was really to challenge myself, since I had to win about 2x as many points and keep a cool head to beat them. They thought they were “expert gamesmen”. We thought they were not to be taken seriously.
Kind of like a number of our so-called “climate scientists”.
I think we really owe Steve and Anthony (and a number of other good folks, I’m shamefully leaving out) a deep debt of gratitude. At the very least, we should find out when and where Steve’s playing in tournaments and show up to cheer. 🙂
Mark
Kate (02:10:11) :
” Lord Stern is not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. Although frequently called an economist, he isn’t, and he’s not even an environmentalist. He is actually a banker, and as such is up to his neck in the global warming industry and “green” investments.”
Banker?
I’d be very tempted to substitute the capital letter, however we rise above it.
Lord Stern is a player and I cannot fathom why.
At least when I call the Met Office and the CRU, they have some semblance of quasi credibility. If they had at their collective heart, the pursuit of veritable/verifiable pure science as Mr. McIntyre undoubtedly has, I would give them more credence but the ugly face of politics and government grants/research funds colour their judgements/data.
I congratulate Mr. McIntyre (and this lot here) for their doggedness and objectivity. If it were not for them and notable other sites, the battle for the scientific truth may already have been yielded to the Alarmists, ecofacists and worst of all ‘do gooder’ and sanctimonious self aggrandizing politicians.
Lucy Skywalker (06:34:31) RWP ending 363 AD
What a good pickup on this issue. I missed it.
Just returned from reading over at CA where you pointed in your 2:20:51 comment. I think I’ve now caught up with the reading. Time for morning chores.
Seems like most of you folks don’t read the WSJ online very often . Barrie Harrop posts comments on every climate related article they publish and spouts the same garbage repeatedly . All of your observations are spot on . While some commenters will cite WUWT in their posts , I doubt he ever comes here – he’d wind up leaving with his tail between his legs .
One should not forget that a large number of the supporters of AGW are not scientists, but lawyers. The repugnant behavior they exhibit, while completely unacceptable in scientific circles, is part of the “game” when they go to trial. The law, as currently practiced, isn’t so much about justice, as about winning. They actually think science is the same way, that opinions have the same force as reality. His Goreness is a law school dropout, but he approaches science in the same way as his more “successful” bretheren.
Bruce Cobb (05:07:10) :
Bruce thank you. I had read that quote some time ago but did not get the name of the person speaking.
You’re right, the man is an embarrassment.
wsbriggs (08:53:59) :
One should not forget that a large number of the supporters of AGW are not scientists, but lawyers.
I think you’re analysis is correct. I work in a field where lawyers have convinced the courts that numerical modeling is more acurate than measured reality.
The introduction of the AT (286) computer in the late 1980’s resulted in the proliferation of numerical models to solve groundwater problems. These models have been used by the environmental industry and their lawyers to redefine how the real world operates – more often than I like in opposition to measured data that shows otherwise.
We have a long hard slog ahead of us to educate the courts that they have been snowed and I often suspect it might be a futile battle.
Unfortunately for the AGW supporters the Truth has an annoying little habit.
It simply will not go away. It doesn’t matter how loudly and for how long you may shout, the irritating Truth simply sits there; immobile and incontrovertible and unable to be ignored.
Mr. McIntyre, Mr McKitrick and Mr Watts (plus many others) are to be applauded for providing that pebble in the shoe of the AGW movement which is well on the way to providing a crippling injury. The Truth simply will not be ignored!