McIntyre speaks: on Mann, sticks, and data mannipulation

I interviewed Steve McIntyre, founder of the blog Climate Audit, about his journey into climate science and debunking the infamous ‘hockey stick.’

This is the most in-depth interview with Steve McIntyre ever to be published, and there’s a bonus secret revealed at the end.

Steve McIntyre, founder and editor of the blog dedicated to analysis of climate data Climate Audit, discusses how he first became interested in climate discussion. He and friend Dr. Ross McKitrick helped debunk one of the most important climate papers: ‘The Hockey Stick.’ Though only a businessman with a little formal knowledge of the climate debate, he had strong mathematical and statistical skills which led him to wonder about how the data and statistical methods worked to create the “hockey stick” shape.

McIntyre reached out to Michael Mann only to be informed that he did not have the data on hand. In fact, when asking another researcher, he was told nobody had ever asked for data in 28 years.

What McIntyre found (and what was denied him in the quest for accurate science) reverberated in the climate science community and eventually paved the way to “Climategate”.

He goes to show that if there truly is a consensus on the issue, there would be no need to hide and obfuscate data. 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 15, 2019 2:05 pm

Thank you, Steve McIntyre!

Greg Goodman
Reply to  ATheoK
October 15, 2019 3:08 pm

Great to hear the voice behind blog.

Thanks for your insightful, expert analysis over the years. You have done a great service to humanity.

October 15, 2019 2:19 pm

Thank you Steve, your work inspired some teenagers to take on Michael Mann. Your ability to inspire future generations of scientists is something to be proud of.

12 Year Olds catch NASA Withholding Data from the Public

steve case
Reply to  CO2isLife
October 15, 2019 7:12 pm

Great You Tube thanks for posting. Hmm 12 yr olds maybe there’s hope.

Reply to  steve case
October 16, 2019 6:36 am

What makes this case even more intriguing is that NASA deleted the data AFTER an article was posted about using Alice Springs as a way to debunk AGW. This article reviews the original posting that inspired those kids to do the experiment.

Original Document of Experiment
The Case of the Disappearing Data

Teenagers catch NASA Concealing Data from Public
NASA Caught Withholding Data from the Public(Short)
NASA caught withholding data! (not a conspiracy theory but a fact)(Long)

Reply to  CO2isLife
October 16, 2019 3:00 am

RE Data Manipulation:

A friend just sent me this recent video by Tony Heller.

Tony’s newer website is

Tony previously used to go by the name Steven Goddard, and here is one of his early posts about NASA’s historical temperature data revisions:
comment image

It shows how NASA ~erased the global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the start of WWII. That fact alone disproves the CAGW hypothesis. “Fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 up, temperatures down for almost 40 years”. NASA’s solution? Change the data!

The vertical and horizontal scales are the same in all three charts – note how the red circles increase the warming from ~1890 to ~1980 with each data revision – 1981, 2002 and 2014. It’s data magic!

Gunga Din
October 16, 2019 5:40 pm

“It shows how NASA ~erased the global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated circa 1940 at the start of WWII.”

Before I read that I had checked the list of past record highs and lows for today (Oct. 16) for my little spot on the globe.
One of the records changed was the record low.
In 2007, the record low was listed as 30* , 1944.
In 2012, the record low was listed as 31*, 1970.

Reply to  CO2isLife
October 16, 2019 6:34 am

Thanks for the link…
It would be really great to see these children get some support from the experts and very knowledgeable people that visit WUWT.
I would happily donate to help them get their point of view over to a wider audience.

Reply to  CO2isLife
October 18, 2019 2:31 am

“12 Year Olds catch NASA Withholding Data from the Public”
The usual dumb stuff. NASA is not withholding data from the public. It provides a convenient interface for viewing NOAA’s GHCN data. It isn’t NASA’a to withhold.

But this is just lazy. Look into it a little more. NASA has shifted from GHCN V3 to V4, as everyone does; there is much more information. All that has happened is that Alice Springs historically had two sites, Post Office and Airport. GHCN V3 made a composite. GHCN V4 has shown the original sites separately, which gives more detail. They show Alice Springs Post Office from 1880 to 1953 and Alice Springs Airport from 1941 to now. NASA has all that, if you only look before crying conspiracy.

Dell Wilson
October 15, 2019 2:22 pm

Why “part 2”. Do you consider the podcast with Dr. McKittrick titled “Taking on the Hockey Stick” to be part 1?

Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Video is over an hour. A transcript would be nice. I can read way faster than people talking. Also, I don’t hear very well. I like videos where the visual element is the important thing. Talk is better in text. Thanks.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 3:09 pm

A transcript is much appreciated, my fluent english listening / understanding is a bit limited 🙁

Christopher Simpson
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 3:11 pm

I hear you (or rather, read you). It takes an hour to listen to an hour tape. It takes about 15 minutes — maybe — to read it. And there are no missed words and it’s easy to go back to something to get it clear without having to wind and rewind the video.

However, that said, getting transcripts costs money (as it should — doing transcription is not an easy job and most are criminally underpaid).

Reply to  Christopher Simpson
October 15, 2019 7:18 pm

“Criminally underpaid?” Sounds like kind of uneconomic trash the Progressives spout about the minimum wage.

I know you’re not a Progressive. But please stop using their hyperbole.

Reply to  Christopher Simpson
October 16, 2019 7:34 am

If they were criminally underpaid, why are they doing that work instead of something else?
I understand that pretty much everybody wishes they were being paid more, but that’s not evidence that they are underpaid.

Reply to  Christopher Simpson
October 16, 2019 11:52 am

Well, since they mostly sit in courtrooms at the feet of the judges, perhaps criminally and underpaid are descriptive of the work environment? 😉

Greg Woods
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 3:16 pm

I second that emotion

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 3:19 pm

And YouTube doesn’t work in China. Is there an accessible platform?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 15, 2019 4:12 pm

and for those with visual impairment, it’s not a video. 😉

It’s true that S.M. is not a very fluid speaker and a transcript would be appreciated on this kind of content.

Hans Henrik Hansen
Reply to  Greg
October 17, 2019 7:34 am

Having listened to the first two minutes only, I disagree!
I am Danish, and I often find it difficult to grasp spoken English on video clips etc. -but in this particular I think that the interviewer as well as Mr. McIntyre are very easy to understand: They both speak slowly and clearly, separate the words and ‘articulate’ their speech in a most admirable way…I look forward to the remaining part of the interview.
PS That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t appreciate a transcription.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 15, 2019 8:16 pm

express VPN dude

John Endicott
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 16, 2019 5:15 am

Crispin, that’s one of the things VPNs are useful for

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 16, 2019 6:37 am

Is Crispin EVER in Waterloo….?


Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 4:52 pm

…show of hands

How many fast forwarded to the end?

” and there’s a bonus secret revealed at the end.”

steve case
Reply to  Latitude
October 15, 2019 7:14 pm

Listened to the whole thing. Give me a gold star.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 5:25 pm

Help the community, prepare one yourself!

Patrick B
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 15, 2019 5:38 pm

My daughters med school lectures were available by video and could be played at higher speed. This saved her a lot of time but I never got used to hearing technical information conveyed with a slight helium accent. Perhaps a similar player could be used for this tape.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Patrick B
October 15, 2019 11:47 pm

I thought they had addressed that by cutting bits out instead of compression (ie increased frequency). I listen to audio books, and in learning Italian I have to slow it down (because italians speak fast. The voices do not get deeper.

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 16, 2019 12:48 am

I’d quite happily spend a couple of hours transcribing it – unless someone is already doing it?

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
October 16, 2019 5:04 am

AMEN JEFF. Steve is one of the finest writers I’ve been privileged to read. Interviews not so much.

Bruce Cobb
October 15, 2019 2:55 pm

As I listen to it, I am reminded once again of how much of a liar Fraudypants LiarMann is. His behavior is truly pathological in nature, and I commend Mr. McIntyre for his persistence in dealing with such a weasel.

Mike McHenry
October 15, 2019 3:02 pm

Thank you Steve. We have an ongoing problem with “high temperature records” from NOAA. Where they report one year or one month as the hottest 2nd hottest etc based 1/100’s of a degree differences. As we all know that diffence isn’t real. It boarders on scientific fraud. I wish I new a republican congressman to point this out to.

steve case
Reply to  Mike McHenry
October 15, 2019 7:18 pm

Here’s a graph that shows the changes that have been made:
comment image

Here’s the changes made to the GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index so far in 2019:

Number of Changes to GISSTEMP’s LOTI for 2019:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
843 370 481 633 1359 566 281 400

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mike McHenry
October 15, 2019 7:28 pm

” It boarders on scientific fraud.”

Probably borders on it, too.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2019 8:56 pm

Probably borders on it, too.

ROFL! The “really” King goes Snarking Spelling Nazi . . . [really] classic!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  sycomputing
October 16, 2019 6:30 am


Javert Chip
October 15, 2019 3:11 pm

Would REALLY appreciate a button to accelerate the speech without distort sound quality

Reply to  Javert Chip
October 15, 2019 3:49 pm

Plays faster out of the box with VLC. Faster slower buttons included.

Media->network streams->paste audio URL->play->playback

Mike Ellwood
Reply to  Javert Chip
October 17, 2019 5:42 pm

As well as VLC, there is also DAUM Potplayer, which also has go-faster/go-slower playability.

Or for gurus, there is Audacity, which has a facility for faster/slower without any change of tone (although it can distort somewhat if you play it really fast).

Steven lonien
October 15, 2019 3:25 pm

1919 physics law oil era Berz limitoil era claims all invention will lose over 1\2 .energy from wind energy losses blowing between the blades 100 years ago despite Einstein’s opposition and nobles for his kinetics works betz continues to enrich oil \nuclear money elected presidents. unanimous undisputed. Prove it when no wind blows between even 1 of unlimited number of blades horizontally deployed. rotated blocking then pivoting open 100%.. Now stonewalled with magnetically controlled electronic bearings. On your watch.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Steven lonien
October 16, 2019 12:50 am

Would you care to provide a translation from Gibberish, to English?

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven lonien
October 16, 2019 5:26 am

Some check the bot’s coding, as it’s producing garbled output.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
October 16, 2019 5:43 am

Speaking of garbled, that should have been “Someone“. I hate when my fingers don’t type everything my mind tells them to!

Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 3:31 pm

Waste of time. Studies subsequent to Mann have duplicated his results using different proxy data and different statistical techniques. That is the gold standard in science.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 3:46 pm

More lies, you mean. Yeah, that’s the “gold standard” in climate fraudscience.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 3:53 pm

If they don’t replicate the MWP and LIA, they are fool’s gold.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  BobM
October 15, 2019 8:18 pm

what LIA
got thermometers to prove it?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 15, 2019 9:47 pm

Mann didn’t have thermometers when he “lost” it in the hockey stick.

Well, he did at the end. Just stuck those readings on the end to hide the decline when his proxy temps took at dive in the mid-20th C.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 15, 2019 11:11 pm

Oh for goodness sake, it’s a matter of historical fact!

Reply to  Andy Mansell
October 16, 2019 7:38 am

Steve’s worried about his pay check going the way of Mann’s reputation.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 16, 2019 2:59 am

Ice cores clearly show the MWP and LIA.
They both show up clearly also in the data used by Mann for his hockeystick. As Steve McIntyre showed, the hockeystick manipulated the data to “get rid of the MWP”. Mann’s hockeystick is probably the most easily proved fraud in climate science – because the output does not correspond with the input data.

It’s obvious why you don’t like the LIA. Recently, while browsing a scientific paper by a concensus scientist, I saw it state that the LIA represented a cooling of one degree.
And how much warming has occurred since 1850? About one degree.
The simplest explanation for the modern warming is that it was simple the planet emerging from the LIA. That warming was of massive benefit to the planet and mankind. You can’t seriously want the world to return to the LIA?

John Endicott
Reply to  Chris Wright
October 16, 2019 5:30 am

Indeed Chris, that’s the nub of the issue. Those claiming “warming is bad” never say what the Optimum temp should be, however if the warming we’ve experiences since 1850 is as bad as they claim than logically the temps of the LIA must have been “good” in their opinion – anyone with a knowledge of history would know better. Apparently that leaves out English majors.

Reply to  Chris Wright
October 16, 2019 7:40 am

They also ignore the fact that the planet is still cooler than it has been for the vast majority of the last 10,000 years.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 16, 2019 5:25 am

Drive-by-troll Mosher apparently is ignorant of an entire field of study: History. Honestly doesn’t say much for what they were teaching English majors at whatever institution he graduated from that history wasn’t part of the curriculum. If he’s education was as equally lacking in science, it would explain a lot about his drive-by-trolling.

John Tillman
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 16, 2019 7:34 am

Yes. The CET and other thermometer readings clearly show the LIA.

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 16, 2019 10:36 am

Mr. Mosher: “got thermometers to prove it?”
Yes, they are located with Mann’s non-conforming tree ring samples. The data from these instruments show a consensus LIA when properly adjusted. It’s the BEST approach for analyzing data, don’t you agree?
And to Mr. “Manley”- anyone surprised Mann chose such a pseudonym?

slow to follow
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:05 pm

Ron Manley:

Please can you share your top three references?

Thank you.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:59 pm

you know….it’s amazing what you can do with a few X and Y axis tweaks….

reality, no one would have noticed >comment image

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 8:51 am

Mr Manley has provided references/

In the past, commenters here have stated that the LIA was NOT regional, as some alarmists state, but, rather, global. Some have even cited studies giving the data showing the LIA happened in other parts of the world. Can anyone provide a list, comparable to the one provided by Mr Manley, giving the references to the papers supporting a global LIA?

paul courtney
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 16, 2019 10:43 am

Jim: Can anyone provide a list, comparable to Mannley’s list? No, because papers supporting a global LIA were not authored by chronically mendacious hacks. There are surely papers, but not comparable.

Rhys Read
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 16, 2019 11:04 am
I believe they cite about 1,000 studies worldwide showing the medieval warm period.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:07 pm

Please cite these studies.

The HS is a pack of blatant lies and stupid tricks.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 5:01 pm

First link of to a bad start.

Crowley, T. J. 2000. Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science 289:270-277

Resource Not Found

The resource at the URL that you requested does not exist. It may have been moved or renamed. You have been brought to the School of GeoSciences Home folder to navigate through the menu hierarchy. Alternatively, you may use your browser back button to return to the previous page. Please advise the owner of the previous page of the broken URL.
URL of requested resource:

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 5:28 pm


may also arise in part from the role of tree-ring series in theirreconstructions22. Tree-ring data are an important resource inpalaeoclimate reconstruction because of their annual resolutionand relatively good spatial and temporal coverage. However, tree-ring analyses generally involve some temporal detrending23,aprocess that is intended to mute long-term growth trends thatmay be present in the data. For this reason, the long-term trendsderived from borehole temperatures may have a role as usefulcomplements to the traditional proxy reconstructions. Whateverthe underlying causes of the differences between the variousreconstructions may be, however, the resolution of these differences,particularly in determining the total temperature change over thefive-century interval, is important. This temperature change has the potential to be a useful empirical constraint on the climate-sensitivity factor of global climate models.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 5:45 pm

I saw lots of familiar names and papers on that list. They are not nearly as independent as you suppose/pretend/claim.

In any case, I thought I’d go to the bottom for the most recent one, and this is what I found jumping-out:

“…The proper response to someone who asserts that the Hockey Stick has been falsified is to ask “Which one?” As for what most of the temperature reconstructions show, the data from Marcott et al. (2013) combined with 30-year smoothed HadCRUT4 data is fairly representative…”

Ok, so that’s the “fairly representative” example. Let’s take a look.

For starters, it is nothing like a hockey stick. It shows historical periods of anomalous warmth comparable to that of today. It directly conflicts with many of Mann’s statements and conclusions. So it did not “duplicate his results” in the least.

McIntyre tore that paper a new one. Marcott et al. were even forced to admit, “The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

Furthermore, Marcott’s PhD thesis using the same proxies showed vastly different results.

So not only did it not duplicate Mann, it doesn’t support Mann’s conclusions or claims.

You’re clearly an ignorant newbie.

Ron Manley
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 15, 2019 6:12 pm

You’re clearly an ignorant newbie.

You crack me up. How about dealing with facts? Like the fact that there is not a single scientific study that disputes Mann’s work.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 15, 2019 6:54 pm

Ron Manley October 15, 2019 at 6:12 pm

… Like the fact that there is not a single scientific study that disputes Mann’s work.

Mann’s hockey stick was purported to prove that the global temperature over a thousand year period did not vary much. It erased the MWP and LIA.

Here’s a link to over a thousand papers which demonstrate that the MWP and LIA existed and were global.

Because of his inexcusable delay, Mann’s case against Ball was pitched out. He said he was going to appeal but did not do so. Thanks to the magic of adverse inference, we can conclude that Mann has admitted that he and his hockey stick are frauds.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 15, 2019 7:40 pm

I just gave you a list of facts relevant to the link you provided and coincidentally discussed a Marcott et al. paper you brought-up in another comment. Despite being advertised as “duplicating” Mann’s hockey stick and validating his claims, it did nothing of the sort. And now you want to move the goalposts while also being spoonfed more facts?

You play the ignorant newbie role very well. It’s a shame you don’t visit alleged opinion, anti-science blogs like WUWT. Except that you do.

slow to follow
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 15, 2019 11:56 pm

Ron Manley -as expected.

Not a single direct citation from you.

You crack me up.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 16, 2019 7:43 am

Looks like Ron consumes the kool-aid by the truck load.
Either that, or like the rest of the trolls he defines science as being whatever he agrees with.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 12:59 am
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:12 pm

Thank you for your comment. You may go now and collect your check at the troll farm. Don’t forget to put the lights out when leaving your mother’s basement. And don’t forget your coat. Have a good day!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:12 pm

“Waste of time.”

You didn’t spend any time listening, then. Toward the end McIntyre said that all those subsequent studies employed post-hoc screening, so they’re invalid.

Ron Manley
Reply to  Roger Knights
October 15, 2019 4:46 pm

When McIntyre goes out, collects data, then presents it in a way that refutes Mann, and all the subsequent studies, I’ll listen. Until then all McIntyre is doing is providing us with his OPINION which we all know is not science.

John M
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 5:29 pm

Mann collected data?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  John M
October 15, 2019 7:16 pm

Hey Ron, so you don’t spend time on opinion blogs, but you clearly spend time on opinion blogs. Keep talking, fool.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 5:38 pm

If you spent any time on Climate Audit you would know McIntyre has reverse engineered Mann’s proxy data sets (through reviewing numerous published papers and obtaining data from actual scientists) and has shown that the subsequent pal reviewed papers used some of the same proxy data which has the built in hockey stick. He has also shown, as stated by Roger above, that the pal reviewed papers removed data sets that did not meet the necessary final shape, and amazingly ended up with hockey sticks. “post-hoc screening”

As BobM stated above, if the stick does not show the medieval warm period or the little ice age it can not be a true representative of historical temperatures. When I first saw the hookey stick, I thought, “that has got to be BS”, since I knew a little about history.

BTW: Scientists don’t hide their data or hide the data they decide not to use because it does not fit their preconceived notions. That is the problem with Climate “Science”, it is not actually science.

Do you, Ron, know anything about history? Can you not falsify the hooey stick with your basic knowledge from US and World history from your K to 12 education, or are you so young your government education didn’t include any legitimate history education?

Ron Manley
Reply to  Drake
October 15, 2019 6:15 pm

“If you spent any time on Climate Audit”

Sorry, I will not spend time on an opinion BLOG. It’s much better to spend your time reviewing actual scientific papers than to waste your time on a opinion blog. Not difference between this blog and Climate Audit. Both are anti-science.

Ron Manley
Reply to  Drake
October 15, 2019 6:17 pm

Tell me Mr. Drake, what scientific study can you cite that refutes the “hockey stick?”

Ed MacAulay
Reply to  Drake
October 15, 2019 7:25 pm

Well Ron time to Man up and admit you are closing your eyes and ears.
Statistics and math are a part of science and that is what McIntyre used to demonstrate Mann’s erroneous and selective manipulation of facts.

You are contradicting yourself: Claim you are unwilling to “waste” time getting yourself informed on a opinion blog. Then waste time posting incorrect information when you could better spend that time getting yourself educated and brought up to speed.

Reply to  Drake
October 15, 2019 7:41 pm

Ron Manley, “Sorry, I will not spend time on an opinion BLOG.” You mean like SKS?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Drake
October 15, 2019 9:15 pm


For your reading pleasure:

Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series
Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
First Published November 1, 2003 Research Article

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Drake
October 15, 2019 9:17 pm

for your reading pleasure:

Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series
Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
First Published November 1, 2003 Research Article


Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
Stephen McIntyre
Ross McKitrick
First published: 12 February 2005

Reply to  Drake
October 16, 2019 7:46 am

Fascinating. Any science that refutes your God, is just opinion.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

paul courtney
Reply to  Drake
October 16, 2019 11:01 am

Mr. Manley: If you don’t read at Climate Audit, what is your basis for concluding it’s just opinion? Please keep commenting, just a bit more rope should do ya.
P.S. 2+2=4 is not opinion, it’s math. Please tell your handlers that you’re not up to this.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 7:13 pm

When someone (SM in this case) shows that a scientific paper, and every other one that he’s looked at, does something in it’s statistics that is equivalent of “forgetting to carry the one” in their math, it’s over.
No new studies are needed to refute it. It’s bad math. Visible to anyone who takes the time to understand.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 2:21 am

Steve went out, collected data and published it. Look up the famous coffee shop expedition. Stop trying to be clever. Stupidity suits you better

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 7:45 am

Ron once again demonstrates that trolls know nothing about science.
You don’t have to come up with an alternative paper in order to prove that a paper is flawed.
All you have to do is demonstrate where the original paper made it’s errors.
McIntyre did that.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 10:01 am

Hi Ron. So you’re the new troll in town? Unfortunately the quality of trolls recently has been very low. You won’t last long.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:16 pm


No, they don’t. They all use approximately the same proxies, nearly the same as Mann’s, and they use Mann’s wonky principal component analysis methodology. No wonder they churn out the same results.

Ron Manley
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 15, 2019 4:48 pm

Mr. Hawkins doesn’t know the difference between “tree rings” (Mann) and “ocean sediments” (Marcott).

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Neither of which are thermometers.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 7:36 pm

Mr. Manley doesn’t understand coarse resolution.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 7:48 am

Ron clearly doesn’t understand the work he worships.
Both papers used way more than one proxy.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 4:50 pm

Re Manley:
They were NOT duplicated. They just changed some proxies but ALWAYS retained at least one bad one which affected the results and showed the same fake hockey stick.
Steve McIntyre also pointed out those “studies”
So Ron go do some real research and read it on Steve’s bog.

Ron Manley
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
October 15, 2019 6:18 pm

Mr. Machnee, can you provide me a link to a scientific study that refutes Mann’s hockey stick?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 7:34 pm

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005.

And I think Mann 2008 refutes MBH1998 pretty thoroughly, though he hoped no one would notice.

George Ellis
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 7:51 pm

Mann’s hockey stick is not science. So you need to keep the same standard. And if it were science, it is a failure. He did not provide the model or the data, so therefore unrepeatable. Models are tools, not science. And even being a tool does not mean it is used right. You can use a hammer to go through a wood 2×4. That does not make it right.

Reply to  George Ellis
October 16, 2019 5:19 am


Mann’s hockey stick was a mathematical contrivance; science had nothing to do with it.

David Yaussy
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 6:08 am

I believe Mark Steyn showed how Mann’s own colleagues rejected his hockey stick in “A Disgrace to the Profession.” You can get the book at Andrew Montford did the same in “the Hockey Stick Illusion. . Both good reads.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 6:02 pm

Well, it’s not a “scientific study” but you might want to check out the “HarryReadme” file.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 6:21 pm

Here’s something else.
I admit it’s not a “scientific study” but, I think it sums things up nicely.
(Sorry I couldn’t fit in Dr. Ross McKitrick’s name.)

Stopping by Yamal One Snowy Evening

What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desperate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.

There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweak my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!

I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

George Ellis
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 15, 2019 7:45 pm

If you had listened to the whole podcast, you would know that that was covered and the duplicates are also false.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 12:51 am

Ummm No. That is the gold standard in confirmation bias. The gold standard is the paper should a least be able to be replicated using the papers conditions. Which no one can. I can claim water evaporates due to fairy magic and heat and others show it evaporates due to heat and produces same graphs as me does not mean I was right.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 12:56 am

All the “Hockey Sticks”, share common features. They all use the same bunch of dodgy proxies. The same processes to produce the desired outcome & the same network of Climate Scientologists. You’ll find plenty of proof of this, at, Climate Audit. Here’s just one.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 4:02 am

The important issue in this is not the actual results but the poor science and dishonesty used to produce the original graph and then to defend it in the teeth of the evidence. That Mann is still pontificating as a ‘prominent climate scientist’ after all this is a judgement on the integrity of the ‘climate science’ community.

Reply to  Ron Manley
October 16, 2019 7:38 am

The problem is that the claim that they used different data and different methods has been refuted.
Much like Mann’s findings.

Reed Coray
October 15, 2019 3:41 pm

Although a transcript would be nice, it can’t convey the honesty and humbleness in Dr. McIntyre’s speech patterns. There are absolutely no “used-car salesman pressure techniques” in Dr. McIntyre’s discussion of the issues. Thank you Anthony and McIntyre for this interview.

Joel O'Bryan
October 15, 2019 3:59 pm


Suggestion: Schedule these hour-long audio-only podcasts to appear in the 0000-0600 PST/PDT time frame.

Posting a 60-minute podcast at 1500 PDT (mid-afternoon West Coast, evening East coast and middle of the night UK) means that by the time most have the time to listen to it, i.e. in the mornings hours over coffee in the background while night’s emails and news are surfed, means it will likely already be buried under several newer textual-read posts and may not get listened to at all.
So, a higher impact time for a podcast post may simply be better to be “fresh” in early morning hours when most WUWT’ers may have more time to listen to it before it gets buried under newer postings.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 15, 2019 4:51 pm

1800 EST is optimal time wise for me. 2300 BST is not the middle of the night.

Breakfast time in much of Australia,

Reply to  clipe
October 15, 2019 5:11 pm

1800 EST EDT

October 15, 2019 4:08 pm

A very nice interview. An hour, or so, well spent.

I much prefer his low key presentations to any of the wild-eyed attacks his critics use. But I guess it’s easy to stay relaxed when you have the facts arguing for you.

October 15, 2019 4:32 pm
Tom Bakewell
October 15, 2019 6:55 pm

What would a transcription cost? Crowdfunding maybe? I would be happy to kick in a bit of seed money to make this happen.

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Tom Bakewell
October 16, 2019 12:52 am

I’d do it in a few hours for free. But would probably find someone else had done it already just when I posted it.

steve case
October 15, 2019 7:22 pm

What cruise were you guys on?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  steve case
October 16, 2019 10:02 am

It was Mark Steyn’s 2nd annual member’s cruise from Seattle to Alaska. Watts, McKittrick and McIntyre were not announced as guests in order to avoid Antifa mischief at the departure port.

Steyn’s 3rd annual cruise is booking now. I believe it will travel from Rome, around the Mediterranean. Guests include Canadian publisher Conrad Black and UK author Douglas Murray.

Andy Mansell
October 15, 2019 10:43 pm

As has been mentioned elsewhere, ( and something Ron seems unable to grasp), anyone in the real world who has spent any time looking at charts or graphs would have had the same reaction upon seeing the hockey stick- SCAM! I work in technical analysis of stocks, etc. and I see it all the time. Nothing works as perfectly as that in the real world- it’s always the result of cherry picking to or similar to show a desired outcome. You generally get the same response when you ask for an explanation too. I’m not nearly as competent as Mr McIntyre or Mr McKitrick and don’t pretend to be able to see what they did, but years of experience mean I generally know a con when I see one.

Ben Vorlich
October 16, 2019 12:34 am

What has puzzled me for a long time is that in this inter glacial there are known and undisputed temperature excursions from the average, even for Medieval Warm Period Deniers. Without going further back than 10-12 k years and there is no correlation with CO2, so why is so much credence put on models with poor predictive and hind casting ability?

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 16, 2019 2:37 am

“…. so why is so much credence put on models with poor predictive and hind casting ability?”

Because it is an easy, never-ending, virtue-signalling, well-paying racket.

Matthew Sykes
October 16, 2019 5:42 am

The guy at the heart of exposing the scandal. Deserves a medal!

October 16, 2019 6:19 am

For those interesting in a more detailed textual account of the hockey debunking, I wrote a synopsis with links to original sources by McKitrick McIntyre and others. Christy summarized it this way:
“Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.” – John Christy, Examining the Process concerning Climate Change Assessments, Testimony 31 March 2011

October 16, 2019 7:28 am

“McIntyre speaks: on Mann, sticks, and data mannipulation”

So is “mannipulation” a typo or a pun? If pun, should be uppercase.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Richie
October 16, 2019 9:34 am

‘mann’ is already over-capitalized.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Steve Keohane
October 16, 2019 6:30 pm


Ian Wilson
October 16, 2019 10:16 pm

Even if Steve Mcintyre is right to claim that the tree-ring widths of Strip Barked (Rock Mountain) Bristle Cone-Pines (Pinus aristata) is not a good proxy for air temperature, he has to explain the following result
[ref 1].

comment image

[Ref 2]

This graph shows that over a period of 2,264-year period (from 266 B.C. to 1997 A.D.), tree-ring widths of Rock Mountain Bristle-Cone Pines seem to know what is happening to the level of solar activity on the Sun and to the lunar tides. Hence, the Bristle-Cone pines may not be measuring air temperature but they certainly measuring something that is related to their external environment.


1. Wilson and Sidorenkov, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate I: Centennial Times Scales, J Earth Sci Clim Change 2018, 9:2 DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000446

2. Salzer MW, Kipfmueller KF (2005) Reconstructed temperature and precipitation on a millennial timescale from tree-rings in the Southern Colorado Plateau, USA. Climatic Change 70: 465–487.

October 16, 2019 10:28 pm

Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick” Book
Amazon Best Sellers Rank (Sales Rank) #433,949 in Book
In Category :
#383 in Rivers in Earth Science
#440 in Environmental Policy
#414 in Weather (Books)
As opposed to Mein Kampf (Hitler)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank (Sales ) : #20,523 in Books

Harry Passfield
October 17, 2019 11:29 am

The head photo bespeaks of a glorious statue/bust that should be erected to the man – SM, that is! He deserves all the plaudits going. And if ever an SM (sceptic medal – see what I dd there?) is ever awarded – and it should – SM’s head should be on it with our host’s on the obverse.

October 17, 2019 10:18 pm

Why buy the stick book ? It’s all covered as “intellectual property ” isn’t it ? Real scientific .
The stick is broken . Always was as it turned out .
Forecasting climate change using a trace gas is absurd .
The IPCC , the much touted “scientific proof ” doesn’t even do it’s own research .
It hides behind volunteers who cherry pick papers the UN wants to use to sell socialism
and one world government .
This way no one is accountable . They think .

%d bloggers like this: