I wasn’t sure whether there would be any interest in these comments, although M&M is getting quite a bit of publicity right now. Yesterday this site got 1426 hits from 819 users – so I guess I’ll keep blogging for a while anyway.

M&M got a couple of references in major publications this week . There was a short reference in the Economist. In Nature yesterday, MM05 (GRL) is cited in "Past climate comes into focus" as follows:

The hockey-stick reconstruction was derived in 1998 by Michael Mann, a climate researcher now at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. A small group of critics, including Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto-based mineral-exploitation consultant, has since attempted to prove that the graph isbased on insufficient data and on flawed statistics.Although McIntyre’s work is controversial, a recent reanalysis by von Storch partly supports his view. And, in hindsight, many climate researchers believe that it was premature of the IPCC to give the visually suggestive curve so much prominence.

I’m not a mineral-"exploitation" consultant by the way. I’ve mostly worked for the past 20 years in organizing and financing mineral exploration. Right now, I’m doing climate research full-time. Contrary to preconceptions, I don’t get paid to do this. I have no economic interest in this; it costs me money to do it and there is a significant opportunity cost since I could be doing other things. But I’m having fun doing it and plan to do it for a while.


  1. John A.
    Posted Feb 10, 2005 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    I’ll translate from weasel into English:

    “A small group of critics” means “they’re probably cranks – noisy minorities usually are”
    “Toronto-based mineral-exploitation consultant” means “you live in Toronto to rape mother Earth, you anti-environmental troll”
    “Although McIntyre’s work is controversial” means “McIntyre is full of it but he might be right”
    “many climate researchers believe that it was premature of the IPCC to give the visually suggestive curve so much prominence” means “don’t look now but we’re about to perform the greatest climbdown since 1953 when Edmund Hilary told Sherpa Tensing to “go fetch the camera””

  2. Peter Hartley
    Posted Feb 10, 2005 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    I sense you were wondering whether anyone was listening since few visitors have left comments. I think I probably speak for many visitors when I say that I am very interested in hearing what you have to say and seeing your analysis. You have done a fantastic job in exposing the shoddy work that went into this particular branch of climatology and have earned the right to have people listen to what else you have to say. I am reluctant to leave a comment, however, since I think one would need to examine the data in detail oneself in order to add anything worthwhile.

  3. Michael Mayson
    Posted Feb 10, 2005 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    I for one am checking your ‘blog’ on a daily basis. I hope you do continue as I am tired of what passes for scientific argument at realclimate and other similarly ‘religious’ sites. I love science and hate to see it exploited for idealogical purposes. Keep up your good work!

  4. Michael Neibel
    Posted Feb 11, 2005 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

    Keep up the great work please. I’m not a scientist so I like the way you make it easy for the layman to understand. The world needs to hear voices like yours.

  5. Knut Witberg, Norway,
    Posted Apr 22, 2009 at 4:00 AM | Permalink

    When you are called “a Toronto-based mineral-exploitation consultant” after having been proved to be right all the time, it’s is in reality a big compliment. When there is no more left than ad hominem arguments, the debate regarding this issue is probably over….

%d bloggers like this: