Steve McIntyre – one of the top 50 people who matter

I wish to add my congratulations to the chorus of them. Steve has been an inspiration to many climate skeptics, yours truly included. I’m honored to call him a friend. – Anthony

A man for all (climate) seasons? Source:  UK Telegraph

by James Delingpole

Stephen McIntyre: total bloody hero.

Steve McIntyre has been named one of the 50 People Who Matter by the left-wing journal New Statesman. He comes in at number 32. (Below a motley crew including Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, David Cameron, Julian Assange, Barack Obama, and the like). (H/T Roddy Campbell)

Here’s what his entry says:

When the mining expert Stephen McIntyre challenged the basis of climate science on his blog, he became a figurehead for many climate-change sceptics.

His subsequent involvement in the 2009 “Climategate” controversy at the University of East Anglia (he was referred to in the hacked emails over 100 times) emboldened the sceptics further and changed global opinion: the number of people who believe man is responsible for global warming has fallen.

The influence might not be positive, but there’s no doubt he has shaped the debate.

But what’s much more interesting than the entry – because, let’s be honest, who really gives a toss what some dreary, ailing left-wing rag thinks  – is the response to that stupid, priggish suggestion at the end that “the influence might not be positive.”

I hope the moron who wrote it is now squirming with embarrassment. He/she/it certainly should be after reading the thoroughly disgusted comments below.

Says the first:

“The influence might not be positive…”

So, McIntyre is wrong? May I ask for your evidence? Oh do tell. Put your money where your mouth is. Put your reputation on the line.

And the second:

If, by challenging the basis of climate change science, Stephen McIntyre has been influential in changing global opinion on the HYPOTHESIS of anthropogenic global warming, then it is a very certain positive influence. For policy makers to take drastic action based on an unproven hypothesis is absurd and Stephen has shown, by auditing or attempting to audit the climate scientists’ work, that the science is not at the level of accuracy, repeatability, and certainty required as the bases for taking such actions.

And the third:

We all owe Steve a debt of gratitude for shining some light on the obfuscations of climate science, before even more millions are wasted on what may well be a non-problem.

On and on the comments go – all of them positive. If these are regular New Statesman readers – and presumably at least some of them must be – then it affords yet another fascinating insight into how even those on the left are decreasingly convinced by the case for Man-Made Global Warming theory.

Full story at A man for all (climate) seasons?