This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit. My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy. - Marine Corps Rifleman's Creed.
So assuming arguendo that RealClimate is incorrect in its 2005 description of McIntyre as “old news” and not a climate scientist, then in the interests of full disclosure and to prevent any subsequent cognitive dissonence when readers start to read the actual science, what are enquiring minds to make of THIS piece?
RealClimate, a group of honest-to-goodness climate scientists with multiple publications to their credit (for one scientist alone I count nearly 60 pieces), notes credibly that (1) McIntyre is a businessman and a former officer or director of several mining companies (pro-environment? giggle)–not a scientist (query: does that matter?); (2) McIntyre wrote the same information you’re citing here in a submission to “Nature” magazine, which submission was rejected due to negative reviews by reviewers and editors, and (3) McIntyre’s claims are simply wrong that (a) use of non-centered Principal Components Analysis is invalid, and (b) the “Hockey Stick” pattern arises only from non-centered PCA, vice McIntyre’s proposed centered PCA (it arises in both). These latter two were the comments by the mining company executive rejected by the publication “Nature.”
If climate scientists seem to think that there is global warming occurring, and mining company executives and electrical engineers (Singer, for example), disagree . . . then shouldn’t we be changing Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703 to allow laypeople, also, to testify as experts in fields they know nothing about?
After all, McIntyre’s short auto-biography not only admits RealClimate’s charges of complete lack of expertise in scientific matters, but states explicitly: “My research on climate topics has not been supported by any company, but has been carried out entirely for personal interest and actually at the expense of business opportunities.” Yeah, riiiight. A dabbler. Dude is in the mining industry, source of all sorts of coal and gloppity-glop. C’mon!
I mean, just wondering.
Lime
A PhD, let’s say Michael E. Mann for example, who makes statistical errors, or perhaps worse yet lies with statistics, is wrong. A person with statistical analysis capability doesn’t need a PhD to find errors. Obviously McIntyre has some degree of expertise in scientific matters. What else could an honest person conclude, when NASA finds his analysis credible? If someone sees continuing benefits from extracting energy from coal, does that (in and of itself) disqualify him or her from involvement in climate change analyzes? C’mon!
Sorry, NASA did not and would not give credence to this quack. Read the actual science bud. First off, the temperature difference was always within the standard deviation and the 2001 reporting explicitly stated that the difference between the 1934 US temp and the more recent US temp could be explained by a standard deviation error. And second off the GLOBAL trends remain the same, despite this mountain McIntyre is trying to make out of a molehill. The so-called hockeystick is still there in the charts, even with the revised 1934 US figure. The world doesn’t end at the Canadian-Mexican borders, Yanks.
P Dill-Hobbs
Global warming has long time a go become as religion not science. There are so much attitudes to controll business and get new good jobs for enviromental fans. And when science has silenced pure propaganda and fear has come in front of this ridiculous climate change bandwagon.
Problem is not science – problem is this red and green fanatism.
‘Sorry, NASA did not and would not give credence to this quack. ‘
And from the NASA webpage:
‘We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.’
So the quack figured out something that NASA didn’t over the last 7 years…..what does that make NASA?
Pointing out a typo on page 5 of a 500 page murder mystery is no mean skill, much less a stroke of brilliance, particularly when it doesn’t change whodunnit, how the culprit was caught, or the overall plot. It’s no different for non-scientist “commentators” (and ones who make no bones about commenting without even figuring out the basics of the science) who latch onto the minutiae of climate change, but are at pains to describe the statistical significance of how those minutiae fit into the global and local averages.
For those of you who lean toward the side of thinking anthropomorphic climate change a “religion,” but shy away from the hard science, perhaps the shameless self-promotion that landed McIntyre thanks by NASA would be put in better perspective by taking a look at some charts (incidentally, McIntyre’s own area of expertise–since he has no degreed scientific qualifications) of the difference made by the error correction on the monthly and yearly trending. Check it out HERE.
Lime
Lets set aside for a moment the “science” behind the greenhouse effect, and the carbon cycle, and global climate change, and just assume for a sec thats all true. Now, why is government spending tax dollars forcing inefficient alternatives (bio diesel/E85 actually require more energy to produce than they put out)? Why are gas prices so high? why are food prices so high? why cant i but a regular damn lightbulb? How come we as a country are bending over backwards for eco-alarmists, all the while Al Gore gallivants around in a lear jet, and we’re buying all our products from a country who burns enough coal to produce the carbon equivalent of FIVE BILLION ford excursions driving 24/7/365. If were serious about global climate change, why make so many sacrifices domestically (which in the big picture is just small potatoes) then turn around and give all our money to the most prolific atmospheric carbon producing country in the world?
[...] light on the greenhouse gas debate. We weren’t building flatscreen TV sets in 1934, which has now been revealed to be the warmest year on record, so this would be some sturdy evidence that the “greenhouse [...]
[...] light on the greenhouse gas debate. We weren’t building flat screen TV sets in 1934, which has now been revealed to be the warmest year on record, so this would be some sturdy evidence that the “greenhouse [...]