Newsweek spins a heart-warming yarn about the “granddaddy of the global warming “denial” movement”, Steven McIntyre. You would be forgiven for adopting his point of view, he has such a homestead glow :-
“…he says, people tend to use hockey-stick graphs when they are trying to pull one over on you. “Reality usually isn’t so tidy.”…”
Er, no. Nobody could rightly assert that Climate scientists have been trying to trick anybody. Why does Newsweek not decline his argument ?
And another thing. In point of fact, nobody, not even Steven McIntyre, who does a good impression of conniving with any ignorant, mealy-mouthed, cynics he can find, has managed to unseat the Hockey Stick :-
A year of so back, you could trust “shoddy research” Melanie Phillips to be on the wrong side of nasty about it though – and she still seems to know nothing about Climate Change science even though she seems to know a lot about the emotive use of language to push her apparently jaded opinion :-
And of course, James Delingpole, another non-scientist, doesn’t know how to interpret the facts emerging from Climate science either, nor recognise the authority of the data, and instead bangs on about a methodological mindspace called “post-normal science” as a ruse in order to avoid looking at the facts :-
Post-Normal Science enquiry was proposed to increase engagement with science and navigate safely around risks and uncertainties, so it is a supreme irony that James Delingpole has not been able to use this method to dodge his personal fact-free conclusion icebergs.
The minor headline of the Newsweek article repeats a recent viral phrase that has absolutely no basis :-
“Iceberg Ahead : Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.”
Let me repeat : there is absolutely no evidence that Climate scientists have “played fast and loose with the data”.
That accusation must have originated in the mouth of Steve McIntyre, or one of his little cohort of email analysts, and like most of their pronouncements on the motivations, agenda and modus operandi of Climate scientists, it is pure bilge.
There is evidence of minor issues in the gathering, sampling and processing of Climate data, that much has been admitted – it’s a global job and you can’t be everywhere at the same time – it was bound to be problematic.
However, the analysis of Climate data is still sound, and Steve McIntyre should back away from the charts. His seemingly closed mind makes him unqualified to contribute helpfully. I think that most people studying his involvement in Climate science would conclude that his agenda is to deliberately create setbacks. This is unacceptable interference.
We’re still going to get the same outcomes, even if we get there a few years late thanks to the bad attitude of Climate deniers, who increasingly have to rely on the techniques of mind-control psychologists to create false impressions and insecurities that keep the general public from accepting reality.
The world is warming. It’s caused by humans burning Fossil Fuels and cutting down trees and making chemicals and cement. Admit it, Steven McIntyre.
I want to pose a general question to Climate denier-sceptics : you want us to believe that you have a reasonable position from which to critique Climate science, but your input seems to consist mostly of personal smears, unfounded accusations and false assertions. How can you be such brazen myth-tellers ? Who sanctions you to create such a divisive mess ?
Steve McIntyre, as a retired mining geologist probably relies on the profits from his mining investments to keep him into his potentially feebleminded, delusional old age. He could be living on the proceeds of the strong share price of such things as Petroleum Oil and Natural Gas. Can he be relied on to be fair with the facts and the figures ? Why does anyone believe him and his ilk ?
As one of the key people responsible for the mass movement of anti-science hysteria known as “Climate scepticism”, can Steve McIntyre be successfully and finally challenged to quit stirring up suppositions ?