New Statesman 50

Here’s something that sure surprised my family (and me.)


  1. kuhnkat
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    It is nice to have your efforts recognized, but, they do have you below Angelina Jolie.

    • Johan C
      Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

      There are worse places to be.

    • Brego
      Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

      Yes, but Steve beat out both Oprah and the Australian prime minister. Woo-hoo!

      Hmmm, not a single prominent warmista made the list. Perhaps there is hope.

    • MangoChutney
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:59 AM | Permalink

      I wouldn’t mind being below Angelina Jolie

    • Bill bogg
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

      Delingpole calls you “a total bloody hero”.You’ll get girls throwing their knickers at you next.

      • TimM
        Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

        Girls like Angelina?

  2. Craig Loehle
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    Only 7 comments there at this moment, but 100% strong support (vs the “not all positive” text).

  3. Peter Maddock
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    You are definitely in good company, even if some of the names, through abrupt juxtaposition, make us smile.
    It looks as if your name will outlast all the tree ring phrenologists and data with-holders.
    You peeled back the bark of the climate change tree only to find it was rotten inside.

  4. mpaul
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    Steve, your impact is much larger than you realize. Well done.

  5. John
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    It will take more time, and considerably less biased analysts, to parse out the importance of the various contributions to warming, of which CO2 is undoubtedly one, but not necessarily one that must be dealt with at high and immediate cost. Not to mention where we think temperatures and sea level will be 50 to 100 years out, with all the turmoil in energy markets to come.

    McIntyre’s transparent honesty and analytical brilliance, when compared with important IPCC truth-hiders, is what brought the bandwagon to the pause it currently is in, and needs to be in.

    Let’s please respect scientists who might not be on the bandwagon, let’s please not ostracize them because we don’t like their views…here’s a shout out to Judith Curry while we’re at it. And just because we’ve got the research money that they need, let’s not deny funding to those who might want to research a line that might be “dangerously” contrary to IPCC group think.

    The truth will out — let’s show the same enthusism for its pursuit, as have McIntyre and McKittrick — and yes, Patrick Michaels and others as well.

    • PaddikJ
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

      “. . . what brought the bandwagon to the pause it currently is in . . .”

      From where I sit it looks like more than a pause – I hope it’s more than a pause! – it looks like the tires have shredded off, the knobs & mirrors are dangling by bailing wire, and it’s hissing steam from a dozen places. It will probably clank and wheeze and rattle along on its rims for a few more years, but its days seem def. numbered.

      It will be very interesting to see how this latest mass mania tapers off; It wld be so cool if Steve or some other stats wizz’s would have a look and compare the “tail” on this mass hysteria to some previous ones. Will Climategate, ad inf, have any effect, or do these things play themselves out according to some immutable laws of mass dynamics with very little sensitivity to the occasional perturbation?

  6. ace
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:07 PM | Permalink

    Steve’s Canadian modesty is not surprising.

    What IS surprising is that it takes New Statesman to acknowledge the massive light he has shone on the shaky foundation of the AGW juggernaut.

    Will Canadian media even notice? Probably not.

  7. vivendi
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    Well deserved Steve. I like the comments about your integrity.

  8. highhighhi
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    The Order of Canada seems closer than I though a few years ago.

    Well done. Keep up the good work.

  9. stan
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    Integrity, persistence, courtesy, dedication to truth. Character pays off. Even those who disagree eventually have to recognize your impact.

    A decade from now, your biggest impact may be the work performed by all those who have been inspired by your example.

  10. Anthony Hanwell
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

    The most satisfying aspect, IMHO, of the way in which the debate has shaped up over the three years I have been following it, is that restrained, studied and detailed analysis of the facts has and continues to prevail over a massive wealth of AGW propaganda. This has not been achieved without a great effort and leadership on your part. There is no wonder that you should figure so highly in opinion forming rankings.

  11. ZT
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations to Steve on this very well deserved recognition.

  12. TAG
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    Yes. SMc as a Companion of the Order of Canada. He is certainly well deserving of the honour.

  13. Scott Basinger
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

    Good idea on the Order of Canada. Here’s the nomination form.

    Click to access Nomination_Candidature_OC_2009_06.pdf

  14. Issac Newton from Quebec
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    The intention of the author of this article has obviously failed. I do agree whit all the commentaries up till now. Let’s go Steve! Thank you, sincerely.

  15. Ryan Maue
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    Whew, Steve, you just beat out Moqtada al’Sadr who is at #33, and just behind James Cameron at #30.

    • jim edwards
      Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

      al Sadr’s blog sucks…

      • Jeff C.
        Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

        At least Moqtada’s commenters don’t have to contend with the National Domestic Extremism Team. That’s reserved for those that frequent radical blogs like CA.

        • Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 11:43 PM | Permalink

          The NDE team’s not so bad, a little confused at first, but I think more annoyed with certain assignments than others.

  16. Faustino
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

    25 comments on the NS site, all pro-Steve. This might open the eyes of some NS online readers who are not aware of serious critical analyses of the AGW hypothesis.

  17. MarkB
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

    al’Sadr got a better write-up than Steve did. 😉

  18. Pat Frank
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    The picture doesn’t do justice to your usual good humor, Steve, but at least they don’t show you with a cigarette. 🙂

    Twenty-eight comments so far, and all positive.

  19. Steamboat McGoo
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    You do matter, Steve. A lot! They got that right – even if grudgingly. Keep on with the Good Fight, Sir!

    …and this is positive comment 29 of 29, Pat Frank! 🙂

  20. justbeau
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

    Proud of Steve, proud of Ross too.

  21. Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    Nice picture! That’s the important bit. Very regal-looking 😉 I half expected to see the top of a longbow and a quiver of arrows at your back.

  22. pesadia
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    Up to 33 comments now and counting. The only problem is that:

    You cant reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

    Whoever wrote the final comment is unlikely therefore to understand our indignation.

  23. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

    Delighted for you and your close compatriots, Steve.

    You are managing this so well, with neutrality, good faith, good science. It is so like you to mention your family, for they must have given up much time to allow your considerable output.

  24. pesadia
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    33 comments now and counting.
    The problem is that:

    “You cannot reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into”

    That is why whoever wrote that final comment will never understand our indignation.

  25. Krumhorn
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations! It’s recognition long past due. You’ve made an extraordinarily valuable contribution to “the debate is over”.

  26. JRR Canada
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    Keep up good work sir.Maybe Canadians will realise what they owe you, fat chance of that though you only get recognised in Canada if you are an ex CBC hack like Dave (eco-crusader) Suzuki.True praise sent to tip jar. Thanks again and keep grinding away at the sham investigations.Sarcasm for this winter, Global warming is measured in inches.Inches of sciency papers which used no science in their compliation and or inches of the Gore effect.A nice cartoon by Josh might work.

  27. AntonyIndia
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    Finally some MSM recognition. You have ours since long, teaching us lessons in scrutiny, persistence and due diligence, a real example.

    You have not written much on your blog recently, are you busy with something else, taking a holiday or fed up with this endless ice hockey scrum without referee? (all good reasons on their own)

  28. GTFrank
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations! Well deserved.

  29. Jeff Norman
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve.

    I agree that you should be nominated for the Order of Canada. On average, this would increase the merit of the award.

    • Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

      That would be a hockey stick of enormous magnitude.

    • Mark F
      Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 11:57 PM | Permalink

      Next stop, Nobel. Um, maybe not, that would be a bit of a come-down. congrats!

      • Gilbert K. Arnold
        Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM | Permalink


        Hmmm…. Maybe Mann and Al Gore should have been nominated for the (Ig)Nobel award as given each year by the “Annals of Improbable Research ( I think the Hockey Stick would qualify.

  30. Larry G
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations, Steve. Well deserved.

  31. John Norris
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

    You can slice this a couple of ways:
    5. (-) Steve Jobs
    16. (13) Bill Gates
    19. (25) Warren Buffett
    32. (-) Stephen McIntyre

    3. (-) Mahmoud Ahmedinijad
    10. (44) Hugo Chavez
    21. (8) Osama bin Laden
    32. (-) Stephen McIntyre

    • John Norris
      Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

      Oh, and just to pile on, big time congratulations Steve.

  32. Rob Huber
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

    That’s cool!
    Nice picture too!

  33. hunter
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    Awwwww….now you’re going to go and get a big head. ;^)
    Keep up the good work. Truth is worth the effort.
    Thank you for standing firm.

  34. R DeWitt
    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations that the significance of your work has been recognized. Please keep up the good work.

  35. harvey
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:03 AM | Permalink

    Nah, Steve is just a minor pawn in the grand scheme of things.
    Nothing he has done will matter one iota to the world.
    sad eh?
    all that effort for nothing.
    well, effort on nothing should expect nothing, unless propaganda is the goal.

  36. AusieDan
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:47 AM | Permalink

    harvey – you forgot /sarc. off.

    Steve – congratulations we all owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude.

    The truth is slowly seeping out.
    The truth will prevail.

  37. Ed Waage
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:53 AM | Permalink

    I think they should have shoved Rupert Murdoch aside as #1 and put you there, Steve. Murdoch only reports news. You are the news when it comes to climate studies.

    • Kevin Lohse
      Posted Sep 30, 2010 at 3:51 AM | Permalink

      Be fair Ed. Murdoch does not only report the news, His papers are well known for inventing it as well.

  38. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:25 AM | Permalink

    Not bad, although it’s still mostly a curiosity to be amused by. Congratulations to your family, anyway! 😉

  39. Roger Carr
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:46 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for being there, Steve.

  40. andy
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 2:38 AM | Permalink

    Well done.

  41. Robin Edwards
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:44 AM | Permalink

    Just want to add my thanks to Steve for keeping us all close to the action. You really one of the people who matter!

  42. Alan Bates
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:54 AM | Permalink

    54 comments so far. 53 positive, 1 who says Steve is wrong and we’ll see it in 20 years time …

    Facts, data, evidence, openness, honesty, careful statistical analysis versus … nothing.

  43. Green Sand
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 4:22 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations! well done and well deserved.


    Thank you Mr McIntyre

  44. DougS
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    I’m not surprised that you’re surprised.

    Although you’re held in high regard by sensible people, they’re not the ones that get space in the MSM.

    I hope that you keep up the good work and expose hypocrisy and faulty logic wherever you find it.

  45. IanH
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:31 AM | Permalink

    Truly a great of our times, I had a tear in my eye reading the comments there.


  46. Lewis
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:37 AM | Permalink

    A just tribute, as far as the ephemera of the press are concerned. Though, like others, I don’t understand why it might be ‘negative’ to help to tighten up a very young science by holding it to the ‘benchmark’ of the rigour of the ‘old’ science! You did some good and this recognition, however temporary, is well deserved. No blushes on your modesty.

  47. Lewis
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:24 AM | Permalink

    Just as an aside. I noticed Professor Curry’s interesting selection of ‘recommended reading’, among which was Fred Pearces’ – and, I wondered when, if ever, are the British police going to finish their investigation into an alleged theft of the emails etc, and send on their file to the CPS. It’s an extraordinary long investigation!

  48. Nick
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

    …only you didn’t “…challenge[d] the basis of climate science…” Why would they write that?

  49. John Anderson
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

    While the comments for Steve’s entry are a good place for them, the main article itself has only one comment right now; mine. Feel free to change that if you feel like making the obvious bias of the blurb writer known to all who stop by for the entire list.

  50. E O'Connor
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    As Geoff Sherrington said –

    “You are managing this so well, with neutrality, good faith, good science. It is so like you to mention your family, for they must have given up much time to allow your considerable output.”

  51. Feedback
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

    Absolutely well deserved, but to us your readers you are probably higher up than that…

    BTW I don’t see any Team members on the list, have they been washed off?

  52. Stacey
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    Truth will out

    Thank you Mr McIntyre for the lever and the leverage.

    But please do not accept any offers to enter the Big Brother House.

    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:29 AM | Permalink


    You mentioned “surprise”. For many-many, no surprise at your influence. Congratulations.

    However, the article reads, “[McIntyre] emboldened the [skeptics] further and changed global opinion: the number of people who believe man is responsible for global warming has fallen”.

    Is not the “surprise” also ironic? I have understood you to believe that the planet is warming; it’s just that the degree of the anthropogenic component has not yet been shown by those claiming the “stats are conclusive!”. If my understanding is mistaken, would you kindly clarify your position? Thanks.

  54. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I just spotted this, congratulations!

  55. Phillip Bratby
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    81 positive comments, one negative comment.

    Congratulations Steve. You deserve to be much higher up the list.

    • Sean
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

      My favorite comment was this one:

      “Its interesting to note that the previous 31 people on this list have attracted less than 10 comments between them. My comment is the 22nd. You might like to think about that.”

      And now there are multiples more comments. Clearly Steve has struck a nerve.

  56. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    The list does not include any other climate figures (no Pachauri, Mann, Hansen, Gore, etc.)
    McIntyre leaves ’em eaten dust!

  57. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    Amazing what a humble miner can do with PC and a little maths. So kids, do your homework!

  58. Larry Geiger
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM | Permalink


  59. CJH
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    95 comments and still counting. Will any MSM journos take notice? Still, in the end gratifying, and the links to it must have an impact.

  60. pyromancer76
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations to you and your “surprised” family. We need more people like you to matter in the chosen company of the article. Remember, I once said that you were carrying [the best of] “western civilization” on your shoulders for a while. I agree with John (3:57: “McIntyre’s transparent honesty and analytical brilliance, when compared with important IPCC truth-hiders, is what brought the bandwagon to the pause it currently is in, and needs to be in.”

    It is your steadiness after truth, openness, and accountability that matters most. Thank you.

  61. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    Keep on the good work!

  62. Fred
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    The rating is a testament to your honesty,integrity and openness.

    Now if the Climate Science community had just made their data and methodologies available like real scientists do, your efforts would have been so Herculean.

    The Team and their affiliates and junior leaguers could learn some valuable lessons about how real science is done, not the faux “science” they have invented.

  63. Justice4Rinka
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    There’s a fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square here in London just waiting for a statue of Steve.

    Would the last ecofascist to leave the building please leave on the light?

  64. John Whitman
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:18 PM | Permalink


    You are an inspiration to me. You are empirical evidence that intellectual integrity lives and is well. Thanks.


  65. Wondering Aloud
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations on the recognition. Well deserved though far too low on the list

  66. Hu McCulloch
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

    Posted Sep 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM
    Hmmm, not a single prominent warmista made the list. Perhaps there is hope.

    Actually, Paul Krugman has denounced skeptics as “traitors to the planet” in his NYT column, so he’s right up there with Jim Hansen.

    But at #39, he’s still well below Steve!

    • Faustino
      Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM | Permalink

      Here is the comment I posted at NS on Krugman:

      “Krugman was a world-class, innovative economist, whose work I’ve drawn on to inform my economic policy advice. But he is now a partisan commentator rather than a seeker after truth, and is no longer held in such high esteem by his peers. Influential? Yes, but in his current role not always for the good.”

  67. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    Tamino, Gore, Gavin, Mann, and especially that rabid rabbit guy must be fuming about now.


    • ML
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

      The rabid rabbit deserves recognition itself. I will send the nomination to New Statesmen as soon as they decide to publish “Bottom feeders 50” list

  68. miket
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve; well deserved.

    Strange(or not!) that the writer appears to have no idea where you actually stand in the debate.

  69. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations. Your very own tipping point.

  70. W F Lenihan
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    Based upon your photo in this post I presume you are a mean bastard on the squash court.

    Congratulations for a well-deserved honor.

  71. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations, Steve! You deserve to be on that list and maybe next year you will be top ten?

  72. Ben D.
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations, you deserve even more then this, but for now maybe this is the start of getting what you deserve for all your hard work!

    I also disagree with the last part of the statement made, I still do not see the negative you have added, but shrug, an honor is an honor.

  73. Tom Fuller
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre, congratulations.

    If you ever wanted to make a public statement on either the issues you have covered in your years of hard work or any other environmental subject, I would suggest that this would be a propitious time. I’m not trying to push you, just calling your attention to the fleeting nature of the public spotlight.

    You’ve earned this mention and much more. I, like most who have tried to follow what you have done here, truly feel that you have served the public and the scientific community well.

    • WillR
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

      Re: Tom Fuller (Sep 28 15:00), Yes! A press release might be in order. Good thought.

      Let me say congratulations as well. although I think the glowing comments are the story.

      • Tolz
        Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

        I second the comment about the glowing comments being the story. VERY impressive and well deserved!

  74. Gordon Ford
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations for your hard, careful work.

  75. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations, Steve! Well deserved, yet a big surprise. Very encouraging news for the power of the truth and of the internet as a means to disseminate it.

  76. Dusty
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve and thanks to you and your fellow Canuks for your leadership, scientific rigour and tenacity.

  77. Political Junkie
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM | Permalink


    Your hometown mainstreet media rag “Globe and Mail,” is running a feature on “Transformational Canadians” with requests for nominations from the public.

    Your name has been thrown in the hat and this recognition from the New Statesman has been submitted as evidence try to shame the Globe into granting you the recognition you deserve.

    It’s criminal to have had your accomplishments ignored by the Canadian press while getting well deserved kudos in the U.K.

  78. Mikkel
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations! Very well deserved recognition of your contribution to not only climate analysis but also “climate-methodology” via your open and honest way of presentation and attention to detail.
    And on a lesser scale; thank you for introducing me to R.

  79. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre has provided a small service in shining the light of math and old school science on an area that was previously fairly dimly lit.

    The real service is he has showed us how the scientific method, mathematical rigor, and honesty still have a place in the modern world. It is as strong and beautiful as ever.

    What a relief, thank you Steve.

  80. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations to you – a great encouragement to all your many supporters, and a real testament to the power of the blog!

  81. oneuniverse
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    In the context of the New Statesman’s uncritical promotion of all things AGW, and their blanket disbelief in the possible existence of substance in any criticism of the hypothesis, the article stopped but a little short of saying : “This may be the man that doomed human civilisation and all planetary life”.

    • oneuniverse
      Posted Oct 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

      From the comments on the NS article :

      Patrick Osgood – New Statesman
      06 October 2010 at 22:57

      News for all you commenters here (and I am glad to see there have been so many of you).

      Stephen McIntyre graciously gave me a telephone interview this afternoon for a follow up piece to be posted soon: Watch this space!

  82. pat
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    congrats Steve –
    for fun, i did a search of the archives of New Statesman and found not a single article on you, but now u “matter”. that’s nice.
    perhaps they will contact u for an interview so their readers will get to know who u r and why u r included in the list?

  83. Richard deSousa
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations, Steve! Well earned and deserved honor!

  84. Daniel
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    Next stop IPCC Bureau membership following IAR recommandations ?

    Many thanks anyway from France for your effective work

  85. EdeF
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:28 PM | Permalink


    Well deserved recognition for your spirited effort in auditing the math and methods involved with climate change. Your integrity, good humor and determination have struck a chord with the public. This is a good time to thank your family, friends ans squash partners for allowing you to spend a great deal of your time in this valuable effort.


  86. T G Watkins
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM | Permalink

    Llongyfarchion – iechyd da!

    Congratulations – good health

    A Welsh toast.

  87. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    hearty congratulations! most deserved and the wider implications of your recognition will please you I think as they will be an inspiration for accountability in all areas of science and public policy. Often we are asked “what can one individual do?” — a lot, if they have the courage to stand up and be heard, even when their voice is initially discouraged and disparaged. People who tell the truth let time vindicate them.

  88. ben
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    A quick scan of the comments under that article shows near universal support for you Steve, which you so richly deserve. Perhaps one day there’ll be a Nobel with your name on it. Let us hope.

    • PaddikJ
      Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

      Considering recent awards, a Nobel would be a Dubious Distinction.

  89. David Longinotti
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre

    You turned over the rock of global warming ‘science’ and the creatures underneath are still scurrying to avoid the light. Congratulations on this well-deserved recognition – many thanks for your relentless pursuit of truth and beauty in climate science.

  90. PaddikJ
    Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    Just so there is no misunderstanding, I’ll preface this by stating that I’m a long time admirer of Steve.

    The problem is that most of the other members of this list in whose company Steve finds himself make the honor more than a little dubious. If NS had put him in a “Top Fifty Planetary Villains” list, the appropriate response would have been “High praise, source considered.”

    OTOH, NS’s little editorial snark about “not neccessarily positive influence” brought a skeptical pile-on in the comments section, and I think Steve can claim a lot of credit for that – not only has he generated tons of critical analysis and reliable information, he’s raised the bar for the entire issue by demonstrating dispassionate, critical thinking (a warmista would have probably said “he exampled critical thinking. . .”). I think that is the greater honor.

  91. Posted Sep 28, 2010 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    What I appreciate is the way you’ve inspired the rest of us as to what a fairly ordinary citizen can do, with persistence and dedication to integrity. You have been a welcome oasis, meeting-place, and birthplace of more blogs.

    However, back to the drawing-board. Unfortunately I cannot understand enough of the statistics to appreciate sufficiently the McShane and Wyner debate – I’m longing to hear you put your finger on where Schmidt Mann and Rutherford have set up straw men again. And I’d love to see graphically each separate proxy record, just so one can appreciate visually the way they fit – or don’t fit – the local temperature record – and how much they overlap to justify calibration. Steve, I’m sure there are many others like me who struggle with the statistics, where the visual records of all the proxies might now speak loud enough by themselves, to cut clean through Mann’s ongoing bullying, thimblerig and obfuscation tactics – the latest being the “unsuitability” of the lasso technique, and the inclusion of “bad” proxies by MW.

  92. Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM | Permalink

    Well deserved recognition for rigor and persistence and failure to be cowed down by political correctness.
    The grudging write-up notwithstanding.

  93. Bill Hunter
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

    They can’t ignore you any longer! This should help melt more of that FOIA ice! Congratulations! You indeed have been deserving of recognition and a shining light for sunshine laws and more openness in how science should operate and how science should be open and transparent in political decisions around the world.

  94. Peter Whale
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 3:52 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve.Look at the heights an ordinary man can attain, Steve that isn’t you , you are extraordinary. Many thanks.

  95. Shevva
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 3:57 AM | Permalink

    Cut and pasted my comment from the article:-

    ‘The influence might not be positive, but there’s no doubt he has shaped the debate.’

    I’m guessing the writer of the article didn’t vote for this gentleman of science?

  96. Bob Mount
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM | Permalink

    Well deserved, Steve. There are millions of us out here who are watching this debate with great interest. We (the “silent” majority) need people of your academic standing and objectivity to question the often weak and biased “science” associated with AGW believers. Many thanks for your tireless efforts. Aye, Bob.

    P.S. I wish I were under Angelia Jolie!!!

  97. sdcougar
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    They just had to stick a name they could pronounce between No.’s 31 and 33.

    But certainly, congratulations!

  98. Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

  99. monbigot
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    If you want to see praise and a half for this guy hop over to James Delingpole’s blog. Some superb tributes there too.

    p.s despite obvious benefits of being under Angelina Jolie, as pointed out by several commentators, I still think on top of her would have been preferable.

  100. political junkie
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    As an agnostic on climate change, I believe that the same philosophy is appropriate re Angelina Jolie.

    Above or below is fine: A true agnostic will not insist on a missionary position in this debate.

  101. sky
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    To my mind, your insistence on doing analysis the right way is entirely a positive influence. Now don’t ruin it all by buying a yellow “power” tie.

  102. Faustino
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    OT, but Judith Curry has written a good piece on problems with the IPCC’s consensus approach. She says that “I completely agree with Oppenheimer’s assessment that at this point, a complete characterization of uncertainty is more important than consensus. While I understand the policy makers’ desire for a clear message from the scientists, at this point the consensus approach being used by the IPCC doesn’t seem to be up to [the] challenge of an accurate portrayal of the complexities of the problem and the uncertainties.”

  103. pat
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 9:37 PM | Permalink

    take a bow…

    WUWT: Royal Society blinks – embraces sceptics and uncertainty

  104. Faustino
    Posted Sep 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    The News Statesman has added the following to Steve’s entry:

    “Editor’s Note: The vast majority of New Statesman readers are not impressed by the last sentence, it would appear (see comments section).”

    • JohnH
      Posted Sep 30, 2010 at 5:05 AM | Permalink

      Congrats Steve.

      Editors note has been dropped, tried a refresh but its gone.

      • John G. Bell
        Posted Sep 30, 2010 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

        Try with the string in quotes and pick the cached version.

        I agree with Demetris Koutsoyiannis :).

  105. pesadia
    Posted Sep 30, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    Comments update.

    1) Steve Mcintyre 293 comments
    2) Rupert Murdoch 18 ”
    3) Lady Gaga 17 ”
    4) Stephenie Meyer 5 ”
    5) Julian Assange 5 ”
    6) Pope Benedict XVI 4 ”
    7) Barack Obama 4 ”
    8) Hugo Chavez 4 ”

    A further 14 people have 3 or less and the remaining 28 have not as yet attracted any comments

  106. wien1938
    Posted Sep 30, 2010 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    Add my congratulations to the pile! James Delingpole adds gracious words on his Telegraph blog.

  107. Posted Sep 30, 2010 at 9:45 PM | Permalink


    Yet, this is of really marginal scientific quality compared to the excellent work being done at

  108. juanslayton
    Posted Oct 1, 2010 at 2:03 AM | Permalink

    My take on the last dismissive sentence: The parade goes by and the dogs bark. You’re obviously in the parade.

  109. tty
    Posted Oct 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    446 (!) comments now. I got tired before I found a negative one.

  110. Ted Swart
    Posted Oct 3, 2010 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    I have just posted the 500th comment on the SM discussion in the New Statesman. I found the discussion (if it is worthy of being called that) very revealing. The extent to which the hard line AGW warmists exhibit a form of religious zealotry is quite striking. I found the comments by Ferdinand Engelbeen to be the most helpful with his fair minded and balanced attitude.
    If anyone agrees with New Statesman’s suggestion that SM’s contribution might not have been ‘positive’ the sheer liveliness of the discussion must surely have put that notion to rest

  111. Posted Oct 3, 2010 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

    Keep up the good work Steve, great to see your thoroughly deserved recognition

  112. Dr. Tor Berge S. Gjersvik
    Posted Oct 6, 2010 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    I want to direct attention to the hundred of comments at the New Statesman’s own web site. There you will find the compliments that supports and congratulates the integrity of Steve’s approach and behaviour in this battle.

  113. Derek
    Posted Oct 6, 2010 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    From the write-ups, I’d say the only reason they have you and Rupert Murdoch listed is to help some of their readers form an enemies list. The pleasant surprise is the reaction of their readers in the comments.

2 Trackbacks

  1. By Top Posts — on Sep 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    […] New Statesman 50 Here’s something that sure surprised my family (and me.) […]

  2. […] was reading climate audit and clicked over to New […]

%d bloggers like this: