jump to navigation

The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick February 20, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick

By Rich Trzupek
FrontPageMag, February 19th, 2010

When the infamous hockey-stick graph that purported to prove that human activities are causing runaway global warming was finally broken, there is some irony in the fact that a couple of Canadians did the breaking. Retired mining engineer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, have been a thorn in the side of global warming alarmists for years. McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym “M&M” to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November.

Reading the e-mails, it quickly becomes clear that leading alarmist scientists, like Michael Mann at Penn State and Phil Jones at the CRU, seemed positively obsessed – almost to the point of appearing deranged at times – with discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick. For example, when the pair published their first hockey stick busting paper in 2003, Mann sent an angry e-mail to his colleagues, telling them how to deal with MM: “The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.”

Raymond Bradley, a climatologist with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), went even farther, suggesting that CRU should provide the “independent” voice that would discredit McIntyre and McKitrick: “…if an “independent group” such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an “audit”, and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue… If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments.”

What did McIntyre and McKitrick do to put these climatologists on the defensive? To understand the significance of their work, we have to delve into global warming theory a bit. The disaster scenarios that alarmists predict can not be proven in real time. These scenarios are based on computer models that are horrendously complex and, even if modeling results match up with actual data during this year or that, it still proves nothing in terms of long-term trends.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. Oliver K. Manuel - February 21, 2010

I will be forever grateful to McIntyre and McKitrick for having the courage to speak out on the global warming scam.

Beneath the visible tip of the Climategate iceberg are decades of deceit and data manipulation by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and federal research agencies whose budgets are reviewed by NAS – NASA, DOE, etc.

NASA sponsored studies misrepresented data from lunar soils and breccias that show why the top of the solar atmosphere is 91% H (the lightest of all elements) and 9% He (the next lightest of all elements).

DOE sponsored studies claimed that the “Solar Neutrino Puzzle” was solved: Solar neutrinos magically oscillate away before reaching the detectors.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo

2. Bush bunny - February 22, 2010

I wonder Prof Manuel, if Messrs. McIntyre and McKitric will be awarded
the Nobel Prize for peace too?

Until the media start shouting about this global/climate change scam
and the implications involved only those interested and haven’t invested
in Carbon Credits Trading Investments will remain in the background.

3. Oliver K. Manuel - February 23, 2010

Until the contributions of McIntyre and McKitric are recognized, we will live in the dark shadow of an international alliance of politicians, publishers, research agencies, and news media that are now using science as a propaganda tool to control the world.

I am not a social scientist, but this seems to be the only viable explanation for the involvement of:

a.) Al Gore, George Bush, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, etc.,
b.) The UN’s IPCC, the US’s NAS, NASA, DOE, etc.,
c.) Our news media – BBC, PBS, CBS, NBC, etc., and
d.) Leading research journals – Nature, Science, etc.

That’s how it looks from here.

Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel

4. Bush bunny - February 25, 2010

Thank you Prof.Manuel. I would like to add one more example of how
the AGW hypothesis is favored. By Carbon Credit Investments shares
I heard over $200 billion has been invested, however, these seem
to have dropped in value. Again money is driving the climate challengers, and can you imagine the poor people who have been
conned and have invested their money in CCT’s. I believe
the BBC has invested their pension fund in them? Al Gore has of course too. Shades of the millennium bug scam to me, but worse in fact.

The political/social/economics of this climate change fraud could come back to haunt those who thought they had fooled the world.

As I see it, the big industrial polluters may have already invested in
these CCT investments, that would if Cap and Trade, or ETS schemes
had or will be installed in developing countries or developed countries
done nothing to cut down pollution. And as CO2 is not the cause of
global warming then we are back to square one, except a lot of
people might lose money.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: