In case you missed it, here is a link to Stephen McIntrye’s submission to Parliament regarding CRU’s work on climate change. In case you do not recall, McKitrick and McIntyre (M&M) have been found to be correct in their criticism of work on climate change. Some are surprised to learn that a lot of the work done allegedly proving the AGW hypothesis was based more on statistical analysis than climatology. As you probably know, a lot of highly trained professionals prove to be not very good at statistical analysis. I used to do some statistical analysis, but I knew my limitations, and got input from real statisticians. The UN IPCC workers appear to have been unaware of their limitations.

By the way, the technical problems with work of the CRU and the UN IPCC do not disprove the cataclysmic AGW hypothesis. They just prove that the UN IPCC work does not prove the cataclysmic AGW hypothesis is valid. Of course, as in the movie The Treasure of Sierra Madre, politicians don’t need no stinking proof.