Thursday
Mar112010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill First print review of HSI
Mar 11, 2010 Climate: HSI Prospect magazine is the first print media outlet to publish a proper review of The Hockey Stick Illusion. Hooray!
Montford’s book is written with grace and flair. Like all the best science writers, he knows that the secret is not to leave out the details (because this just results in platitudes and leaps of faith), but rather to make the details delicious, even to the most unmathematical reader. I never thought I would find myself unable to put a book down because—sad, but true—I wanted to know what happened next in an r-squared calculation. This book deserves to win prizes.
Reader Comments (55)
I'd like to second that.I am only half way through; it's not a book that you can rush.
The detail of the book, and the determination of McIntyre, are outstanding.
If you don't have a copy, buy it now
I have read it twice to take in the full context. An excellent read.
Reading the book review has reminded me of last weeks parliament review. During the Jones interveiw there was a lighthearted mention in the questions of the “lonesome pine” to which someone says it was not “lonesome”. Can anyone explain a little clearer for me please, was it a single tree or was it twelve, what exactly happened with these trees, because I am just a little confused?
My congratulations on an absolutely indispensible addition to the literature. I defy anyone to read it with an open mind and not be shocked by what we all as tax payers have been paying for under the guise of 'science'. And by the implications for policy and the economy which arise from politicians and the media having swallowed the whole hoax.
I have recently finished reading this book and endorse all praise given by others. It should be a compulsory read for every politician, especially those responsible for the environment and energy conservation. As a retired physicist, I was aware for a while of some of the sloppy science practised by 'The Team.' However, this book has exposed not only poor science but disgracefully unprofessional attempts to blacken the reputations of any who moved to expose these poor practices. Both needed exposing in a single work.
Thank you for taking the trouble to produce such a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have read the book a couple of times now.
It is very good.
Are you looking for ideas for the next one?
The IPCC, blog wars etc
[BH adds: There's a few ideas floating round for the next book, but no decisions yet].
At the top of page 62, there is an enigmatic piece of prose relating to the CRU 150-odd years temperature best stab ..... "another question entirely .......but it is not one with which we need concern ourselves as it does not bear directly on THIS story".
Hmmmm.
A very well deserved praise indeed from Matt Ridley and Prospect Magazine. Like other commenters here, I am absolutely astounded and shocked by reaction of of the scientific establishment - the sheer cheek of it - and can only marvel at the determination and perseverance of Steve MacIntyre.
Well done and thank you. I hope it will be a first step towards more widespread acknowledgment and understanding of this scandal.
Charlotte Jackson
The Nature view includes the following : "The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. This needs to be stated again and again, in as many contexts as possible." End quote. The editors have the cheek to continue using the label "deniers" whenever sound scientific scepticism is voiced in the AGW debate. The quote above shows that Nature uses the teachings of Reichspropaganda minister Goebbels to stop sound science. The minister was quoted as saying that a lie repeated often enough would in time become truth. Who are the deniers?
Oscar D. Hillgaar
Just bought a copy, now to wait the 18-32 days for delivery to aus...............
"Chuck"... It's worth the wait. :-)
Bish, it says Web Exclusive - how can you make sure it's included in April's print edition?
It makes sense as a follow-up to my Too Hot To Handle piece in March, as well as in its own right, shall I make that point to Goodhart?
I just ordered my SECOND copy yesterday: OH read the first one, then gave it to a friend before I had a chance to read it! We're doing our bit for anti-AGW evangelism.
Said it before and I'll say it again, it beats the Richard Hannay stories hands down for pace and excitement. As for anyone being persuaded by it, I don't think anyone will read it who doesn't want to be persuaded, and if they did they'd say it was a pack of lies. It's a brilliant book.
I have to confess to finding the book interesting but sometimes as bit technical. On the other hand I lent it to my dad, an 81 yr old retired civil engineer. He finished it within 24hrs. I think he got to the crux when he said the big problem was that nobody could repeat Mann's work and if it's not verifiable why should anyone trust it.
I'll have to read it. The other commenters make you sound like McIntyre's Boswell, Bish.
I'm reading it right now. I feel the same as the reviewer...I forced myself to put it down to get some sleep because like most I have to work. I woke up thinking about it and can't wait to get back to it this evening. Damn good writing!
Your Holiness
Can I just be the first one here to publicly admit that I haven't actually read your book.
My excuse of course, is that as a science denying sceptic on matters relating to sport, hockey in particular, then as one would imagine, I find it rather difficult to read grown up books with long words and, I'm guessing, not many pretty colour pictures. That one on the front cover for example is already a bit too squiggly and random for me.
Congratulations on all the good press nonetheless, and also for providing this platform where we can all discuss and dissect the many interesting topics you and other contributors have brought to our attention.
Thanks also to those folks who've bought two copies, making up somewhat for my abysmal performance. Must do better.
Martyn, from the form of your question it looks as though you are asking about Yamal. Now I don't know if the statement at the hearing about the "lonesome" pine was about Yamal, however I can give you the very basic thing you need to understand about Yamal. The Yamal series that Keith Briffa used had only a total of 12 larch trees in it, and of those 12 larch tress only the one labeled, if memory serves, YA-06 had a hockey stick shape. So from a very small dataset only one lone larch was the "proof" of the Hockey stick, hence why YA-06 became known as the "most influential tree in the world".
See: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/
I have also read twice, it's the book that keeps on giving. It reads like a thriller you just cannot put it down. Can't wait to see the film..who will play Steve?
I also recommend Chris Bookers "The Real Global Warming Disaster" also a great read.
I am still waiting to read my copy. My husband (not previously a skeptic) grabbed it for sth to read and I haven't got it back yet. He went from "It's awfully biased, you know" to "Well, what did you expect, they did it with the hockey stick" when I told him about the most recent goings on.
He's a lot more skeptical now but as an engineer who has to endure an endless amount of quality control procedures and auditing of his work it didn't take much to do that once he realised the future of all of us is decided on the basis of work that has not been independently checked. He did point out though, that having been through the peer review process himself, he wouldn't put his faith into that as independent verification at all.
The AGW application of the precautionary principle still troubles him though - if you could point me towards a good article or two arguing why wasting money and resources on the off-chance AGW is true is not such a great idea, I'd appreciate it.
Yer Grace
It is indeed very very well deserved praise. Treat yourself to some of your finest petticoat tails biscuits.
I have checked online and a major Australian bookseller (A&R), now lists your book for release on 20 May. Hopefully the book will be soon be on the shelves of more retail bookstores as well as airports.
I recall you mentioning a second print run. Is there a third planned?
Your Grace, can we get the book on this side of the pond yet? The last I heard, it wasn't being shipped over here.
Thanks!
Kay
[BH adds: It's certainly available on Amazon as an import. There are ongoing negociations for US rights]
Mae
Application of the precautionary principle (PP) is never cost-free. There is always a risk-reward / cost-benefit calculation that must be applied. It rarely is whenever invoked by its advocates.
If the PP was really useful as a guide for mankind to progress, then surely we should be applying it across the board, as a prime guide on all policy decisions. But we are not. There are true threats to the planet's survival that exist right now, today. Not 100 or 100 years forward. Here's an example.
Our planet will probably be struck some time in the future by a meteor that's big enough to cause devastation on a large scale, maybe worse. The probability that this will happen during the remaining lifetime of our planet is very high. The probability that this will happen tomorrow, or any other particular day is small, but real nonetheless.
Shouldn't we therefore apply the precautionary principle? As far as I know, there is no UN Intl Panel on Meteor Impacts. Why not? Developing a defence mechanism to save the planet is technologically possible, and its cost is probably a fraction of that of global spending on that other probabilistic threat, AGW. That sounds like a wiser investment to me personally, and probably a really good use of PP.
We could of course come up with many more examples of threats to our planet, way of life etc. We could invoke the PP for every one. And if it had been used by our ancestors, we would likely not be discussing it today through the medium of the internet, as mankind and it's technology would not have flourished in an environment of not doing stuff just in case.
This is ultimately the basis on which the PP fails to be a good rule to live by. Mankind doing stuff in spite of what terrible things might happen tends to create better ways of doing things, new technologies that don't exist today, and through progress we overcome problems as they become apparent. Without progress, we diminish our ability to deal with whatever life and the universe throw our way.
Finally, consider the EU's legislation to force up the ratio of bio fuels sold. This is the PP in action today. It is encouraging and causing the growing abuse of a finite resource, namely the earth's arable land on which we rely for the production of absolutely necessary food, to grow fuel for cars that isn't necessary.
So what is the cost here? The answer is the rising cost of food staples globally. Noble EU citizens "fighting" 100 year forward AGW, might not feel much impact, but to the truly poor people of the world, a doubling in the price of grain has huge, life changing significance.
This application of the PP for the good of our 100 year forward descendants has a very real cost for our fellow humans alive today. The question that must be asked is this: Is it worth it?
Belated apologies for the OT nature of my previous post.
Of course, in my haste trying to give Mae some pointers in her argument with her book stealing husband, I forgot to invoke the most powerful and persuasive PP of all.
In the words of Joe Strummer, "the Ice Age is coming" (London Calling, The Clash, late 70s iirc). And as we seem to be in a period of statistically insignificant warming, there's a chance that we're headed for terrible global cooling, and it's probably going to be caused by man restricting his emissions of CO2.
Cold kills more life than hot, so the PP tells us we should therefore follow the basic physics that greenhouse gases warm up the planet, and pump as much CO2 as possible hereon in.
Mae,
2008 document but interesting to consider. There are lots of similar ones. Andrew's book is a great start.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
IF for example those who predict a Dalton Minimum equivalent are correct with perhaps 10 years of colder climate. IF the growing season moves for example 300 Kilometers towards the equator. IF the AGW hypothesis is wrong on CO2.
Should we be trying to reduce CO2 which will increase crop yields. Should we be preparing for famine in the Third World. Should we be making real provision for increased power demands for heating or creating a cottage industry of windmills and solar panels. Should we be building Bio-Fuel processing plants or concentrating on food supply and storage.
Many, many lives are at stake particularly in the Third World if we get it wrong. It is best to pause and re-check the data and theory and get the best answer possible. How we make that happen is the challenge.
Your Grace,
I should like to add my thanks and appreciation to those above.
I have read and enjoyed your book and (as a non-practicing scientist) have been flabbergasted at the sheer impertinence of Mann, Jones and their cohorts and at the apparent betrayal of scientific standards and professionalism exhibited by revered publications like Nature and many of the learned institutions. It is an indictment of those who claim climatology as a legitimate science that the Hockey Stick was accepted and supported as a credible piece of research and the team that perpetrated it has since prospered professionally.
I hope your book gathers plaudits and profits (and had Prospect reviewed similar books in the past and run pieces like Roddy Campbell's, I probably would not have cancelled my subscription last November following their wretched feature on Copenhagan).
With good wishes
TG O'Donnell
Mae,
I would try to pin your husband down on what exactly he means by "the precautionary principle".
Get him to write it down.
If you get stuck then post his definition here.
Great book, BTW.
Please ignore my earlier comment. It is available at Amazon and I just ordered it. Can't wait to read it, although I still have Christopher Booker's book in the pile and haven't gotten around to that yet, either! I might get caught up when my kids go to college. Or when they can drive themselves :-)
I will add my appreciation for your book - and for the persistence of McIntyre, McKintrick and others about which you wrote. It is an excellent read, even for a layman like me. I even recommended it to my MP (a shadow minister). It is a book I intend to read again after browsing the blogosphere some more.
In the meantime do keep an eye on the postings of EMSmith at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
He is going through the released temperature data with a fine tooth comb and is turning up some interesting stuff. By released data, he means the raw temperature data not the homogenised, averaged, gridded, anomalised stuff.
I was also intrigued to read the other day that the IPCC measure of historical CO2 appears to take little or no account of the extensive CO2 readings taken in the late 19thC/early20thC as a result of the various Factory Acts. There was an interesting post about this the other day here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
They indicate that these CO2 readings were higher than those used in the IPCC reports.
Is there another hockey stick waiting to be found?
Bishop,
I agree with Matt Ridley that the book deserves to win prizes. Why not the big one?
The entry details for the Royal Society prize are here: http://royalsociety.org/science-books/how-to-enter/
Closing date is 1st April. (No, I'm not joking!)
Thanks to Mae for the question about the Precautionary Principle and for the various excellent answers. I think with the science increasingly considered suspect Mae's husband isn't alone. But for the perceived power of the PP (ppp-lease forgive the stutter) masses of people would by now be out on the streets decrying the outrageous policies being advanced in the name of mitigating a risk the settled science tells us just might be there of disaster. These are the trigger words that someone has to knock on the head.
I believe that we should all be opposing the policies. The impact of biofuels and doubled food prices on the poor is quite enough for me. Enough already. Unnecessary deaths that is, not marginal and highly arguable impacts in a hundred years.
But I haven't seen a really thorough demolition job of the PP I don't think. Not that I think it stands up to any kind of scrutiny. But as Lindzen reminds us, Lewis Carroll foresaw all this in The Hunting of the Snark: "What I say three times is true." The repetition ad nauseam by otherwise apparently intelligent people can produce almost a mesmeric effect. Perhaps we need a great and witty writer like Carroll or Chesterton to break the spell.
I think this would make a fine topic for the Bishop's next book, without having read his first and not wanting to make the comparisons too invidious.
Does our Astronomer Royal judge the winner?
Dreadnought:
Not this time, as HSI was not published before 31 Dec 2009
Surely Richard, the demolition of the AGW invocation of the PP must be the argument, reductio ad absurdem, viz:
1. assume the PP holds in the case of AGW
2. if it holds, then we must also invoke it in the case of Global Cooling, as it is another statistically probable outcome in the same time frames
3. Global Cooling will likely cause more death and reduction in life quality, expectancy and so on than GW, as evidenced throughout history, and by "the basic biology" and therefore if it's correct to adhere to PP for the case of warming, then it must hold for cooling too
4. in which case we must do what? Simultaneously reduce and increase CO2 emissions? Tax both the emission and suppression of CO2? Or just get over it?
Um, to some this might sound rather good...I can feel an even bigger transfer of private wealth to state scam coming on here.
I forgot to add, that is of course where we find ourselves today. The PP is now invoked against Climate Change.
The "solution": Kyoto Protocols, emissions trading and green taxes, subsidised inefficiency in power creation, none of which actually reduces man made CO2, which after all is just one (small) of many factors of our chaotic weather and climate systems, and about which the smart / big money isn't concerned at all.
Wikipedia says
The difficult bit in this context is what is the action.
If I drive my SUV 100 miles every day then is "driving my SUV" the action - or is a new policy of not driving the action?
You could argue either point. Getting into the car every day is an action. Stopping me from doing what I normally do is also an action.
The "precautionary principle" when you look closely just degenerates into "be careful". It's just a mushy platitude with a dash of circularity. It adds nothing to any debate.
Why not just stay in bed every day in case something bad happens.
Roddy Campbell's point about the possibility of the review not being in the print edition turns out to be correct. Apparently the review may be web-only. Ho hum.
Just bought 2 copies. One for myself and one for my niece, who is soon to undertake a science degree at McGill University. It think The Hockey Stick Illusion will prove more than valuable in her education i.e. how not to do Science. Thanks.
A splendid book, which should be required reading for all academics, politicos, activists and commentators on AGW.
The truly terrifying thing is how easily so many were connned/persauded/gullible about the whole Hockey Shtick illusion, and how little independent scrutiny there was before Mc2 got to work.
It shows a deep vacuum at the heart of 'Climate Science' where real science ought to be. All those who have been willing participants or just 'useful idiots; should be thoroughly ashaemd of themselves and be disqualified from claiming to be scientific in any meaningful sense.
Derek Walton
Oops. I should have checked. Still there's always next year.
Drew
Last year's judges look OK. http://royalsociety.org/2009-Prize-Judges/
For those looking for something on the Precautionary Principle, you might want to read this guest article by Willis Eschenbach on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/31/climate-caution-and-precaution/
Mae:
Easiest way I've found as an engineer is to follow the money and look at the proposals for countering AGW. Many of them are simple profit opportunities rather than practical solutions. So carbon trading is great if you're a carbon trader, or own a trading exchange, but what does it actual achieve other than increasing costs and siphoning off profits? More targetted approaches like tax breaks or government loans to modernise plant or processes to more efficient ones may be far more effective.
Or look at energy proposals. We should be less wasteful with energy, but current proposals don't make any real sense. We saw this recently in the UK and much of N.Europe with the bad weather. No wind to drive wind turbines, and solar panels covered in snow. Yet we've just announced an extremely expensive programme to get more built.
Drew, thanks, but I feel increasingly that it's not just the (il)logic, it's a question of skill in the telling, it's more like breaking an evil spell. (Silver Chair by CS Lewis isn't the best written Narnia tale in my view but has something very relevant at its heart. It's following an ancient pattern in fairy stories. How to combine this with genuinely good science? That's an interesting one.) And thanks for the Willis ref Boballab, which I'd not spotted over the holidays and will look into.
Your Grace,
I dropped you a note via your contact form (I'm afraid I was a pedant and found a typo). Just wondered if you got it.
Absolutely cracking book. I spent a couple days in a bewildered state because of the sheer range of emotion that the story evokes:
- rage at the injustice and calumny?
- astonishment and awe at the patience and dedication of the auditors?
- despair at how our wonderful liberal democracies that ought to be carrying the torch of the enlightment values of rationality and open and free thinking and stuff could be so horribly traduced?
- all of the above? at the same time?
It's just the most astonishing story. And yet we're supposed to be the villains...
Richard, you're bang on the money with regards the skill in getting an argument across, something very few of the non-alarmists who ever get on mainstream TV debates seem capable of when up against emotive AGW investors. I believe we already had this discussion here some weeks back with some interesting comments, although I forget the thread's name.
Dreadnought, it's funny but I spent some time earlier this evening listening to an interview with Martin Rees on issues totally unrelated to his pessimism about the planet and his theory that mankind only has a 50/50 chance of making it to the end of the century.
The impression I got was of someone who had done plenty of real science in his time, and who clearly, at some point at least had understood what good science is, and had been lucky enough to be working around many of the modern day giants of rigorous disciplines such as physics and mathematics.
So I simply can't reconcile that with his utter disregard for the wholesale hijacking and abuse of science in the name of climatology and its politics.
Boballab
Thanks for the link to the Yamal data, it did send me on a bit of a route march but I have a much better understanding now, thanks.
for evidence of the monopoly the CAGW crowd has over the narrative, observe the failure of the MSM, left, right or inbetween, to review such books and the failure of the book publishing world to be fighting over the publishing rights for such books which tackle the HOTTEST scandal in science in our lifetimes.
Mae
Engineers by training and profession are conservatative and cautious and must always consider PP. If a building collapses it is generally the engineer who signed off on the architectural drawings who is at fault. I doubt your engineer partner will be swayed by any articles.
Your comments reminded me of this below, that did the rounds in architectural circles some years back..
"A scene from the movie "A Few Good Structural Engineers"....
Engineer: ( Jack Nicholson ): You want answers?
Architect: (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.
Engineer: You want answers?
Architect: I want the truth!!
Engineer : You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has FLOORS. And those FLOORS have to be SUPPORTED BY COLUMNS. Who's gonna DESIGN THEM? You? You, MR. ARCHITECT? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for LOST FLOOR SPACE and you curse the COLUMNS. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that THOSE COLUMNS, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives... You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that DESIGN TEAM. You need me on that DESIGN TEAM. We use words like DESIGN, STRUCTURAL CODE, ANALYSIS... we use these words as the backbone to a life spent SUPPORTING something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain my DESIGN to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very STRUCTURES I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a STEEL MANUAL and DESIGN a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Architect : Did you SCHEDULE THE COLUMNS?
Engineer : (quietly) I did the job you HIRED me to do.
Architect : Did you SCHEDULE THE COLUMNS?!!
Engineer : You're goddamn right I did!! "