Revision as of 17:48, 20 April 2006 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,011 edits No reason to single out Mann; point out why its not true.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:27, 20 April 2006 edit undoTimLambert (talk | contribs)426 edits CA actually started in Feb 2005 - older posts were copied from previous websiteNext edit → | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Beginning in 2003, with ], he published a study in ''Energy & Environment'', a low circulation social science journal, that was critical of the ] et al. ]. However, it has been reported in news section of ''Environmental Science & Technology'' that ''Energy and Environment'' has become a forum for skeptic papers. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” the journal's editor told ''ES&T''. McIntyre subsequently published further analysis on this topic in ], a scientific journal published by the ], which was nominated as a journal highlight. This work, which he described as "auditing", attracted international attention for its claims to expose key flaws in the reconstructions of past climate. While acknowledging that some flaws did exist in past work, the authors of the work being criticized have generally disputed that McIntyre and McKitrick's findings require qualitative changes in their conclusions. | Beginning in 2003, with ], he published a study in ''Energy & Environment'', a low circulation social science journal, that was critical of the ] et al. ]. However, it has been reported in news section of ''Environmental Science & Technology'' that ''Energy and Environment'' has become a forum for skeptic papers. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” the journal's editor told ''ES&T''. McIntyre subsequently published further analysis on this topic in ], a scientific journal published by the ], which was nominated as a journal highlight. This work, which he described as "auditing", attracted international attention for its claims to expose key flaws in the reconstructions of past climate. While acknowledging that some flaws did exist in past work, the authors of the work being criticized have generally disputed that McIntyre and McKitrick's findings require qualitative changes in their conclusions. | ||
McIntyre is the primary author of ], a ] devoted to the analysis of paleo climate data and frequently critical of positions of established scientists in the paleo climate community. McIntyre has stated that he started ''Climate Audit'' so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at ], a blog run by climate scientists. |
McIntyre is the primary author of ], a ] devoted to the analysis of paleo climate data and frequently critical of positions of established scientists in the paleo climate community. McIntyre has stated that he started ''Climate Audit'' so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at ], a blog run by climate scientists. | ||
== External links == | == External links == |
Revision as of 18:27, 20 April 2006
Stephen McIntyre has worked in hard-rock mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada .
Beginning in 2003, with Ross McKitrick, he published a study in Energy & Environment, a low circulation social science journal, that was critical of the Mann et al. temperature record of the past 1000 years. However, it has been reported in news section of Environmental Science & Technology that Energy and Environment has become a forum for skeptic papers. “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” the journal's editor told ES&T. McIntyre subsequently published further analysis on this topic in Geophysical Research Letters, a scientific journal published by the American Geophysical Union, which was nominated as a journal highlight. This work, which he described as "auditing", attracted international attention for its claims to expose key flaws in the reconstructions of past climate. While acknowledging that some flaws did exist in past work, the authors of the work being criticized have generally disputed that McIntyre and McKitrick's findings require qualitative changes in their conclusions.
McIntyre is the primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis of paleo climate data and frequently critical of positions of established scientists in the paleo climate community. McIntyre has stated that he started Climate Audit so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at RealClimate, a blog run by climate scientists.
External links
- ClimateAudit, McIntyre's climate blog
- McIntyre bio at Ross McKitrick's website (.doc)
- http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98
- http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=188
- http://www.climate2003.com
- Environmental Science & Technology, August 31, 2005, Skeptics get a journal: Climate skeptics and conservative politicians find all the science they need in the journal Energy & Environment
- Paul D. Thacker, Environmental Science & Technology, 31 August 2005, "How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic: The untold story of how a front-page article and powerful U.S. politicians morphed former mining executive Stephen McIntyre into a scientific superstar"
This Canadian biographical article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |