“Steve McIntyre – one of the top 50 people who matter“. Surprise, surprise. The Daily Telegraph’s resident denialist James Delingpole notes that although the New Statesman says that Steven McIntyre’s “influence might not be positive” he’s still had an ‘impact’.
Delingpole, and of course Anthony Watts, thinks that McIntyre’s one hell of a dude. Delingpole is sure the entire world agrees because the online comments at the New Statesman article almost universally declare McIntyre to be saintly. Apparently Delingpole has never seen a forum swarmed by denialists…
McIntyre’s real contribution seems to be showing how harassing scientists whose evidence you wish you could discard, trying mightily to magnify inconsequential errors, fixating on perceived slights and generally complaining can be turned into a decade of attention.
I spotted an amusing comment on Anthony’s blog: “What’s great about Steve is that he has absolutely no stake in the matter, save the desire to see something done correctly.” If Steven has “no stake in the matter” why has he never, ever, criticized any of the swarm of poorly argued and statistically flawed papers that the denialists keep hoping will suddenly defeat the AGW evidence?
Wott's Up With That? 
I think that the NS BTL comments section has plenty of opportunities for those who have valid criticisms of McIntyre to air their views there.
Surely your opinion would get the wider readership you would like if you added to it. Judging by the lack of comments here, this blog is not a fulcrum of debate, even if it has a purpose at all.
[Scroll to the end, when the astroturfers moved on to their next target. – Ben]
If it wasn’t fo r the efforts of people like S M then the rest of us would be sold down the river by your brand off science.
It goes something like this
We have a consensus
no ,you can’t see the evidence you just got to believe us because we are right.
Climate scientists have trashed the way proper science operates.
Get into politics as all you people are are schemers and chancers, get out whilst you still have some sort of reputation to protect fella
[You’re banned here, but this was too funny not to let through. Thanks! – Ben]
Wow, that was truly incoherent!
Hey – Phil Jones is in denial but has the name of Phil Jones (you know, the arch-evil scientist who isn’t as worshipped as SM is by his followers – obviously because he’s not as right as him. Or something); perhaps as some sort of satirical comment on, um, the rationality of non-denial ?
Don’t worry, that will all make sense to Phil Jones – this one, not the rational one…
I suspect most of Watts’ readership find Pee-Wee Herman’s humor intellectually challenging.
‘Shaping the debate’ hasn’t resulted in any changes in the shape of the hockey stick graphs.
But we should be grateful, because his efforts have resulted in a fun book about the Wegman Report.
[The forensics on the Wegman Report have been fascinating. – Ben]