I am going to post some excerpts...
So the exposure of flawed data is nothing new, or startling. Perhaps it is a pattern?
So why is a retired mining analyst living near Broadview and Danforth Aves. – a squash-playing grandfather who prompted a U.S. congressional hearing by crunching global warming research on his home computer – not invited to the party?
Because Stephen McIntyre is an enemy of climate change believers, a man who, essentially, double-checks the math behind research accepted as green gospel. Though his painstaking "hobby" has exposed flawed data supporting studies like the "hockey stick" graph – it claimed the 1990s was the millennium's hottest decade – he's considered a denier by those who fear the planet is burning up.
Stephen McIntyre is a University of Toronto mathematics grad – who also attended Oxford
McIntyre first questioned the accuracy of the "hockey stick" graph that tracked the earth's temperatures over the last 1,000 years. He said the length of the study conjured images of the Vikings landing in Labrador, and he wondered how lead scientist Michael Mann, head of Penn State's Earth System Science Centre, reconstructed the temperatures to produce such a detailed graph.
He is a stickler for details and he wanted to know how Michael Mann had created this graph.
So he asked Mann for the data in an email – and was stunned by the answer. The climatologist wrote he'd "forgotten" where the data set was but would get an assistant to find it.
Michael Mann had "forgotten" where the data was? Does that seem credible to anyone? Really? It doesn't to me. Apparently Mr. McIntyre is sharp enough to find that odd!
"Here's a guy in his mid-30s, this is his claim to fame, the biggest paper of his life, probably the biggest paper of his career, it's been used on the front page of a UN study and sent to every household in Canada – how the hell could he not know where the data was?" McIntyre said.Makes it kinda tough for people to corroborate his work independently, unless, corroboration is not what one is going for? Real corroboration, that is.
"Nobody had ever checked this stuff with any sort of due diligence,'' he said.
"What I find that is far too prevalent among climate scientists is that if they don't persuade somebody of something, they blame the audience, not the presentation," said McIntyre
In 2007, McIntyre's statistical sleuthing forced NASA to admit it mistakenly claimed 1998 was the warmest year on record on the continental United States – it was actually 1934. And in September, he questioned the data in another famous graph (using rings from 12 trees in Russia) to illustrate rapid 20th century warming. McIntyre, who works with University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick to co-author papers, presented another data graph with 34 tree samples from a nearby Russian site – and the temperature spike vanished. The latter graph has prompted dispute among researchers as biased math. But McIntyre is not finished. As the Copenhagen talks begin their second week, he will continue to watch for intellectual dishonesty.
What, 1934 was actually the hottest year on record??!!!
His website www.climateaudit.org.