Steve McIntyre a retired statistician became suspicious of the Hockey Stick Graph that the IPCC have widely cited as unimpeachable evidence that mankind was damaging the planet - an impact that would require drastic measures to reverse. At considerable personal expense McIntyre has finally exposed the scandal.

 

The Briffa temperature graphs appear to be based on a very carefully selected set of data where 12 samples were used to arrive at his version of the hockey stick. For years Briffa “refused” to provide his data for peer review. McIntyre finally got hold of it, and looked at the 34 samples left out of the graphs, a stark message was displayed that McIntyre describes it as one of the most disquieting images he’s ever presented.

 

The whole saga reveals the inadequacies of peer review particularly when the peer reviewers form a clique of colleagues and co-authors. Steve McIntyre has clearly demonstrated the importance of replication, which means the release of all data and methods, something that has been resisted by the climate community for far too long.

 

In science, getting the stamp of “peer review” has become like a free pass to credibility. This unwillingness to allow open examination of methods and data sources is rather common for some in the climate studies field. Despite that, we still have those who claim the “science is settled” and that we need to do whatever it takes to avoid climate catastrophe.

 

Science publishing by press release has resulted in a politicising of the science of global warming with fortunes to be made or lost based on how elected officials’ vote on a bill. We have ended up with science being used to support political consensus rather than finding the truth.