First print review of 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.

Comments

[James T]

I read the book, thought it was terrific and ordered two more copies and gave them to a couple of intelligent acquaintances who have been reluctant to change their stance on AGW theory mostly, I think, out of reluctance to rethink the nature of who they thought were their allies. I"m going to give them both a month and then see how they are. This should be fun.

Ridley is right that it's a terrific detective story and it makes one marvel at McIntyre's persistence. How lucky we all are that he didn't just go off and do something else, and lucky that our host told his tale.

[James T]

--I'll have to read it. The other commenters make you sound like McIntyre's Boswell, Bish.

March 11, 2010 | dearieme --

And, perhaps, the story teaches us, the next to last refuge of a scoundrel is professional solidarity. At least when Michael Mann's typical fulminations switch to appeals to patriotism it'll be a change.

[oxonmoron]

Regarding the precautionary principle PP. No-one has mentioned the obvious. Evolution by natural selection could not and cannot operate with the PP.

[Drew]

Oxonmoron. Quite. Nature doesn't care about any form of PP. This holds throughout the universe. For example, stars don't power down to conserve their fuel for a longer life, to "leave something for future generations" in the language of AGWists.

Thanks for the entertaining and enlightening drama Engineer O' Connor.

But isn't it a different PP in operation in engineering say, or in medicine, than what is being invoked to demand hugely disruptive global policies with clearly demonstrable negative impacts on life today for perhaps, and without certainty, possible benefit for our descendants?

In building a structure or treating the sick, the basic requirement is to be safe, do no harm. This has clearly demonstrable positive impacts, both today and tomorrow. And the consequences of not observing this principle are demonstrably negative.

There's a big difference, surely?

[Mae]

Thanks for all the answers, and the comedy take on a well known movie, I could really see that! Sorry it took me so long to get back and say thanks, the Kids brought home a virus from school and k.o.'d the family hence the belated reply.

After reading up on the Precautionary Principle it seems that against all expectations (catastrophic) AGW proponents are indeed applying it correctly. The reason for this is stupidly simple: the precautionary principle is one of five principles of German environmental policy adopted in the Eighties, specifically formulated to demand action to prevent environmental damage based on suspicion of said damage, not proof, not firm scientific evidence. This Precautionary Principle was accepted into international environmental policy based on the same demand for action without proof of danger.

As it is applied today: action demanded without proof of danger and without due consideration for the damage possible through any action taken it might well prove counterproductive. But at least I understand now why it makes no sense - it was originally also coupled with a principle demanding proportionality of cost and benefits of any action taken. Specifically ruining companies or indeed national economies by actions taken due to the PP was to be prevented through the limits imposed by the principle of economic feasibility.

see here: Chapter 2 "The Precautionary Principle In Germany - Enabling Government" by Sonja Böhmer Chrisitansen, pp31

in

Interpreting the precautionary principle. Timothy O'Riordan,James Cameron. Earthscan, 1994.

A google book search will yield almost the entire chapter to read