Who's paying for McIntyre's attack on Hockey Stick?

Thu, 2009-10-08 16:35Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Who's paying for McIntyre's attack on Hockey Stick?

In the Canadian tradition, it would be “unparliamentary” to accuse ClimateAudit’s Steve McIntyre of purposefully misrepresenting climate science, but his latest attack on the so-called “hockey stick” suggests that McIntyre is a great deal more interested in scoring distorted debating points than in saying anything that is actually factually correct.

McIntyre, apparently a retired mining stock promoter, has enjoyed a certain degree of fame in the denier community since 2003, when he and an economist named Ross McKitrick launched an attack on a graph (inset) by the highly respected actual scientist, Michael Mann.

In response to the M&M attack, Mann published an amendment to his original work, giving deniers the world over the courage to say that the original graph had been “debunked.” They then extrapolated to say that if there was an error in this single graph, that must mean that climate change wasn’t happening or wasn’t caused by humans - that the whole anthropogenic theory had collapsed in the math of a single published paper. Here is a recent and typically ridiculous example.

The debate has gone back and forth at length and is apparently without end. Most recently, McIntyre has been sniping at a dataset that had been analysed and reported by the U.K. climate scientist Keith Briffa. In his first whack, McIntyre accused Briffa of withholding data, and suggested that Briffa was trying to hide the fact that his climate reconstruction was based on an unforgiveably small number of trees.

Briffa responded. RealClimate scientists weighed in. The deniersphere erupted in ill-informed commentary celebrating this new effort to undermine the climate consensus. And regular DeSmogBlog trolls started posting comments assuring us that the whole complicated web of climate science was unravelling and would soon be dismissed as irrelevant.

Alas for the deniers, it turns out that this was all a little overblown. For example, as Tim Lambert reports at Deltoid, McIntyre has had the data all along; Briffa had quite correctly directed him to the proper source when asked for it originally. And as Deep Climate reports, the other scientists who generated the dataset in the first place have offered their rational for parsing it as they did before passing it to Briffa. Other, related data also support Briffa’s conclusions. It all checks out.

So, what was the point, exactly, of McIntyre’s intervention? He doesn’t seem to be particularly committed to advancing science, or you would think that he would be offering his work up for peer-review and publishing. He certainly isn’t dedicated to advancing public understanding of climate change, or he would have admitted long before now that, with or without Briffa’s Yamal data, there are a host of other hockey stick graphs, based on a huge variety of other source materials, all of which confirm the obvious - that global average temperatures have spiked in the last century and are currently breaking records that have stood for 1,000 years.

McIntyre, however, doesn’t seem interested in broadly based, well-support scientific conclusions. He just wants to play with the smallest part of what he sees as the weakest dataset and score cheap, irrelevant points - confusing the community of deniers yet further and bolstering his weird fame.

That being his goal, his right on his game. The title ClimateAudit, however, makes me wonder if there is another other motive in McIntyre’s madness. What would we learn if we could get our hands on a McIntyreAudit? Who’s paying for this strategic, if not always careful, number crunching?

C’mon Steve, fess up.

 

Comments

Gave it already. Reread my posts.

your evidence is nothing more than claims. You CLAIM it is so. You truly are a prime example of the deniosphere: claim, claim, claim, but don't show the numbers.

You "bet", Paul? You mean you really don't know? I thought so.

Even if Greenpeace spends only 5% of their annual budget on AGW, they still far outspend Exxon.

These narrowing frames are a good strategy for limiting conversations before they get too long. Good job on that.

Now go back and read Jim's post again. It can be done, it was done.

Confusing the masses wasn't done. Impossible with pennies.

LOL. What does that link have to do with anything??

And an Eli Rabett post? Have you no credibility??

Why not? The HIV=AIDS=hoax campaign hardly has a single dollar, and yet it managed to get South Africa to stop HIV treatment, causing hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. There are still millions of people around the world who honestly believe HIV is a hoax created by the pharmaceutical industry. There are millions of people around the world who believe vaccination is another evil concocted by their governments. A ZERO dollar campaign against polio-vaccination by muslim clerics in parts of Africa and Pakistan has kept hundreds of millions at risk of getting the disease.

All you need is to put a few hundred of thousands in the pockets of people who are contrarians (such as Fred Singer), cry "socialism" or "world government", and you'll see a lot of people running like sheep after those that say what fits the ideology of the people.

The HIV=AIDS=hoax was propagated by paranoid anti-Western, anti-business, anti-corporate types Marco. Sort of the same types promoting AGW hysteria now.

This is a pack of lies.

not the science. You won't find any peer reviewed research on the sources of funding -- that's just silly. I repeat, go to the book, check the citations, and if you find them to be bogus, then raise the alarm. At the moment you have no grounds for making this claim.

Mere pennies have been spent on "propaganda", if you even want to call it that. We spend vastly larger sums scaremongering to our children in our schools. Far larger sums of money are being spent there.

I've read much of the "info" on this supposed nefarious funding FEMACK. The people compiling it are squirrelly, not quite as bad as 911 Truthers, but in that ballpark.

who funds desmog? just curious

If that doesn’t answer your questions, hit “contact us” and ask away.
… is and has been from the outset our biggest financial supporter, for which we continue to be deeply grateful. You can read all about him here: http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/john-lefebvre/

I will be giving more as well. He is a credit to Canada, and one day he will be honoured with an Order of Canada.

The ditto heads who post their alarmism here on this blog are pathetic Canadians, who don't know good statistical analysis even when shown it.

And, it is George Soros who likes to fund warmist blogs in Canada and elsewhere. And guess who is going to be a big player in Carbon credits..

While you are badmouthing Steve.. reality is happening..

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/

Figure 2 shows the year-over-year change in the methane concentration of the atmosphere, and indicates not only that the growth rate of methane has been declining, but also that on several occasions during the past decade or so, it has dropped to very near zero (or even below) indicating that no increase in the atmospheric methane concentration (or a even a slight decline) occurred from one year to the next.

According to Exxonsecrets, McIntyre has been linked to the George Marshall Institute, which in-turn received Exxon funding.

Regarding Stephen McIntyre, Richard Littlemore asks:"Who's paying for this strategic, if not always careful, number crunching?"

I have a couple of ideas. Going to...

ExxonSecrets.org: Stephen McIntyre
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1445

... gives us the connection to the George C. Marshall Institute:

"Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada."

George C. Marshall Institute: Stephen McIntyre
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98

Going to SourceWatch.org, we find:"McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a 'strategic advisor.' [4] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. [5]"

SourceWatch.org: Steve McIntyre
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre

The hyperlink for the link to CGX Energy at SourceWatch.org no longer works, but the following is a copy of what they were linking to: "In his biography and in news coverage, McIntyre is reported to be a former director of several small public mineral exploration companies. But in 2003, the annual report of CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, listed McIntyre as a 'strategic advisor'.

"While investigating this story, ES&T contacted CGX Energy and asked to speak with Stephen McIntyre. A secretary responded that she did not think that he worked in the building but that contact information could be left and McIntyre would call back. McIntyre admits to ES&T that he 'occasionally consults' for the company, but he says he is not funded by industry.

'I've earned some money,' he says, 'and I can indulge an eccentric hobby.'"

How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic
By Paul D. Thacker
Environmental Science & Technology -- August 31, 2005
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=5492&Method=Full

sourcewatch is of the left of the political persuasion - which is why they are linked most often by the left - so they too have a blind side

-delete-

Pages

[x]

A psychology journal is said to be preparing to retract a scientific paper that found a link between conspiratorial thinking and the rejection of global warming science after climate sceptics claimed the paper was defamatory.

DeSmogBlog has learned the paper's four authors, led by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, the chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, have signed gagging orders preventing them from discussing the nature of the complaints...

read more