Bishop Hill Did he read it?
Aug 17, 2010 Books Climate: HSI My publisher wonders if I am going to write to the Scottish Review of Books and ask to respond to Alastair McIntosh's review. School is back tomorrow and there is something of a backlog of real work to complete. But I thought I would set down a few thoughts anyway and see if I can bring myself to write anything.
The premise of the review is that the reader shouldn't believe me. In essence that is all Alastair has to say. We should be quite clear about this - he has not pointed out anything that is incorrect about the book. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Factually he cannot lay a finger on me and in the absence of anything solid with which to attack me, McIntosh appears to have decided to base his review on ad-hominems or, more intriguingly, on lines of argument that are already rebutted in the book. Take this for instance:
...McIntyre’s attack on Mann is strongly contested. A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution concluded that McIntyre had overplayed his hand. A German appraisal picked up “a glitch” but “found this glitch to be of very minor significance”. An investigation by the US National Academy of Sciences, according to a report in Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”.
The WHOI paper (better known to those who have read the book as the Huybers comment on MM05), the German appraisal (von Storch and Zorita's comment on the same paper), and the NAS report are of course all discussed in some detail in HSI and their flaws are outlined for the reader. This must be clear to anyone who has read the book. By raising the comments and the NAS report and then failing to mention that I have discussed them, McIntosh rather sneakily implies to the reader that I have missed important facts out from the book. The only alternative explanation is that he hasn't read it at all. Either way it's not pretty and reflects badly both on McIntosh and on the Scottish Review of Books.
There's more of the same too:
Even if Mann were guilty as charged by the climate change contrarians, the hockey stick has been replicated by at least a dozen other studies.
That's discussed...
Above all, the MWP is probably a red herring. Its warming effect was probably more regional than global.
... and that too. And then there's this:
Montford’s analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. Credibility counts.
OK, it's ad hominem, but even disregarding the logical fallacy, I can only point out that inside the front cover are several endorsements from prominent experts in the area. These are hard to miss, being situated just inside the front cover. So the question we must ask once again is this: did McIntosh fail to read the book or did he deliberately mislead his readers?
Reader Comments (96)
Bishop, I read your comments with interest about the possibility of replying to the McIntosh "review" of the HSI. Off the top of my head, I so far have this to say, excuse the length, I will try to keep it short. I worked with BA in New Zealand for 20 years. In the early days, the mid 1970s, our inflight service was pretty poor and we in sales had an uphill struggle. One day, an unhappy passenger managed to get details of his inflight experience written up in a major Wellington newspaper, The Evening Post. It was rather nasty to say the least. Our New Zealand manager, based in Auckland decided to reply to the article in the paper and sent a pretty good and fair response.
The paper cherrypicked a very few lines from this letter and just used it to repeat in full the passenger's complaint. So we were hit with a double whammy.
I can't advise you on what to do but just be careful that you don't give McIntosh more space to further compound his rubbishy article. You know what the press is like. Regards,
Peter Walsh
Yer Grace
Just go for them, show no quarter none will be given
Well I do not know Mr McIntosh but having read the above there are only two possible explanations and you have already nailed one of them.
The only other explanation for his comments is that he is an imbecile of the highest order.
However you now have the high standards of deniars to uphold and probably should answer his points one by one (while swearing profusely and then doing three hail Maries :P)
Do not forget Judy Curry challange, yet unanswered I believe.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/6/19/a-challenge.html
Ah, Strathclyde's CHE! Second only to Leeds Uni's School of Geography as a source of state-funded anti-state statist codswallop.
Frankly, don't waste your time. The guy is a space cadet. Read his website. Anybody who uses the word epistomology is immediately suspect. He indulges in spiritual activism and shares with the Lothian and Borders police - his straitjacket presumably. Another one of these weird Highlanders who seem to dominate Scotland. Sane rational people find his type a joke because he cannot connect with "ordinary" folk. No doubt he will be colsely advising the Scottish government on how to create paradise on earth. He is an enemy of the people and the state and is declared anathema. Adopt a lordly disdain and ignore him. The whole world may praise you but don't expect any sense from inclusive, sustainable green Scotland.
Agreed with RETEPHSLAW.
Request that any reply be printed in full or not at all. Every attempt will be made to portray whatever you write as a petulant whinge.
Surely your primary complaint ( if complaint it is) is that the book should have been given to such an obvious "true believer" for review. The result could never have been anything other than a hatchet job.
A perfect example, in a way , of the spiderweb that is the "climate change" industry. He did not need to read the book because RealClimate had already debunked it, see? No need for him to waste his precious time.
Spelling - epistEmology. Take a hundred lines. But then I never use the word.
Thankfully, I visited his website before venturing an opinion..
Not worth your time Bish.
Just shout 'BOO' very loudly if you ever have the misfortune to be in the same room.
Given undoubted mustard cutting intellectual credibility, a letter is in order.
The more people that become aware of the discussion, the more people that take to the internet to determine for themselves what is going on, the more people post a question on real climate, and the more people will become aware of climatic shenanigans. There is no such thing as bad publicity...(except in the case of poor customer service for captive high paying victims).
The man is clearly a 'merchant banker' so ignore him.
At him, obviously.
Not to any random person - that would be wrong. And a little wierd.
wierd[sic] :(
The spelling on this thread is apauling.
;-)
I would ignore him.
Regards and keep up the good work!
You could always return the favour by reviewing his book
http://amzn.to/anY0KA
From the description:
"Climate change is the greatest challenge that the world has ever faced. In this groundbreaking new book, Alastair McIntosh summarises the science of what is happening to the planet - both globally and using Scotland as a local case study. He moves on, controversially, to suggest that politics alone is not enough to tackle the scale and depth of the problem. At root is our addictive consumer mentality. Wants have replaced needs and consumption drives our very identity. In a fascinating journey through early texts that speak to climate change - including the ancient Sumerian Epic of "Gilgamesh", Plato's myth of "Atlantis", and Shakespeare's "Macbeth" - McIntosh reveals the psychohistory of modern consumerism"
You get the picture...
Do you want to see a spookily similar personal website?
David Brin
Take a look at the discussion on the talk page of the wiki article on the HSI before doing anything; there's quite a detailed statement from McIntosh.
If you do decide to send a rebuttal, I would include copies of reviews accomplished elsewhere and make note that the latter reviewers actually read the book as evident by the content of the reviews ... something which cannot be said of McIntosh as he does not provide any information to verify that he actually read the book.
Of course there is another consideration: the Editor, Colin Waters, may possibly be an environmental wacko and purposely selected a reviewer who would guarantee a hack job. Waters wrote a recent article about his trip to Melbourne, Australia and mentioned global warming -- you can judge for yourself:
http://www.booksfromscotland.com/assets_spa/srb/SRB-Vol6Num1.pdf
Page 7
I think McIntosh both failed to read the book and is deliberately misleading his readers.
His beliefs are threatened by the cogent facts in your book and he doesn't want anyone to read it.
“My publisher wonders if I am going to write…..”
They obviously think you should. Whilst their motive might be seen as “there is no bad publicity”, but what the hell, wasn’t the whole point of the book to relate a true story?
In which case I think it is only right to take Alastair McIntosh to task. You never know it might ensure that he reads and reviews your next book?
Please keep up the good work,
Thank you Shub, that hurt my eyes first, then my brain.
In future, please tag your links with some sort of warning.. ;)
"Epistemology"?-- try "terminological inexactitude". Or better, deploy heavy ad hominem artillery to characterize the estimable Alistaire McIntosh, b'gosh, as a "coprophagic proctocranial." What ho, when they lifted the lid!
I agree with FredB above - look at the long Wiki discussion first. Alastair McIntosh himself has weighed in there, claiming he spent a week reading HSI and writing the review. (Hardly worth the small fee ?)
Some of the Warmists at Wiki are trying to replace the current entry on HSI with a "synopsis" drawn from the McIntosh review - essentially casting Your Grace as a conspiracy-theory nutter.
Perhaps it would make sense to take McIntosh's slapdash review apart - and to challenge the editor of the Scottish Review of Books not to publish.
Do not waste your time, I concur with many so advising. When you publish a book, you expect bad and good reviews, and cannot go about responding to bad ones. Other people may send letters to the Editor of that Scots newspaper and complain about the lack of rigor in the review. You'd better stand by your book, and respond only to specific rational critiques touching on factual issues of any faulty reasoning attributed to you, and that only in a cool matteroffactly way. That's the most effective way. "Love your enemies: nothing will they dislike more" (Oscar Wilde, quoted from memory).
I also feel this is best left to others, and was just as inevitable as the RC cavalry charge, given the book's success. The climate sceptic's burden.
Hmm I am usually Mr angry, however I still think a point by point response is the best way. Otherwise we become like RC.
I think you should do it Bishop - in fact, you've already started, and good. Good thinking and reasoning will prevail at last.
Since this is an online site, would you be able to link to your blog? Maybe that could be a good, er, Trick?
And some say that all PR is good PR.
I looked at his webiste "this is not a blog" - after scrolling down a gazillion pages I got bored !
Andrew:
First size the problem. How important is a negative review in this particular outlet? If it is important in terms of sales then go ahead, full broadside, no holds bar - but get the OK of the editor and pitch something that might ensure and assure your response gets full exposure. If it is a left leaning, knee jerk organ for CAGW types - forget it. There is no way it is worth the effort. Better a piece in a friendlier outlet that brings attention to the unprofessional, hatchet job done by those who are so entrenched that they cannot be objective.
A long time ago a very wise man said "Know what hills to climb and what hills to walk around."
Reviewers are not reviewed by the reviewed. That is done by others -- the readers.
Alistair is an ignoramus, who believes his opinions are God's gift to man. That much is clear. Those who believe him are as bad as he and are not worth the effort, so why bother?
Walk away and let others such as McShane and Wyner make your case. Alistair will destroy himself with is arrogance. Time will be the arbiter, not verbal conflict.
To engage him would only lower yourself to his pathetic level.
I'm sure Macintosh would like nothing more than to drag you into a tit-for-tat you-said-he-said squabble -- the review looks like a deliberate attempt to provoke just such a response.
Why? First, it would establish him as a player in a debate where he is currently marginal; second, petty bickering and endless minor point-scoring are the lifeblood of the green mentality.
If he has made a demonstrable factual error, you might call him on it; otherwise, stay away and don't play his game.
I agree completely with Rick Bradford
Agree on the "publish all or none" caveat.
You might point out that a recently published paper completely demolishes the hockey stick, and that if 2,000 monkeys apply the same methodology to analysing the same data, they may well churn out strikingly similar results.
When real scientists apply real scientific analysis which is intellectually defensible, the hockey stick is shown to be a figment of appropriate analysis.
Rick and Don make a good argument. Remember the famous proverb:
"Never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty, and the pig will love it."
Yer Grace:
Fer what it's worth... yes he read the book and he attempted the best rebuttal he could muster. It was pathertic. I'm convinced that people are not nearly as dim and dumb as the elitists imagine and that readers of the Scottish Review will recognize a hit job when they see it. The comments on the page were ALL about HSI and the overwhelming majority were favorable. Resist the temptation to respond. If anything, the review will make people more curious and they'll buy the book to see for themselves. McIntosh went a bridge too far and I think people will recognize that.
The Spanish Don and others are right. Let Macintosh languish in his own incompetence and arrogant ignorance. I would prefer the good Bishop to spend his time on continuing to expose faults in the science rather than retaliate against a fool.
Andrew:
I just read the McIntosh review. I agree with Rick. It is so lightweight that I would not bother.
Hate to sound like DeepClimate, but I think it would be more interesting to figure out where Alistair got that review.
Suggest you merely send him an autographed copy of your book inscribed with your hope that he can find the time to read it before maligning your work again. (You might also include a copy of the new McShane and Wyner paper destroying the statistical credibility of Mann's reconstruction.)
David44 has an excellent suggestion. Add a polite little note along the lines, of
"Alastair, I thought you might find this enlightening."
Really what you have here is a Hockey Stick REVIEW Illusion. Its just - more of the same ! The same shenanigans that framed the science frame the Review.
Its a 'teachable moment' for the Readers.
The parallels are astounding - Editor hostile to the book ensures the 'right' review by passing to a Pal for a 'hatchet job' - even if he has to redefine what a Book Review is meant to do (if you catch my drift).
I first thought that you should rebut the Reviewer, THEN thought you should address Editor - but your readers posting (above) have documented their bias quite well.
So - I would address the Readers of the review - who are only there because they're inquiring types who want to sort it all for themselves - and use the Review as a way to illuminate the depth of the deception all around them....
They really need to know - why would an Editor go out of his way to ensure a biased review? Something a book publisher needs to understand and appreciate anyway.
Just a thought. The book was amazing btw.
Alastair McIntosh (about his own review):
"my review .. does not attempt to be a comprehensive summary of his arguments. Instead, I .. demonstrate that Mr Montford .. and .. the people whose blogs he is using as his source material, are not peer reviewed in this area of science."
Exactly! And after he (claims to have) read the book, this review is all what he manages to conjure up!?
How would somebody without a clue know what a clue looks like?
Alastair McIntosh left a comment in the comments section of Wiki HSI.
FWIW.
From his wiki comments:
" Instead, I used most of my space to demonstrate that Mr Montford is a non-starter as far as I am concerned because he, and for the mostpart, the people whose blogs he is using as his source material, are not peer reviewed in this area of science. My review is therefore more about what constitutes science than it is about what Montford actually says. It's bottom line is that while the book might represent Mr Montford's opinion, it does not represent science, and therefore I'm not interested in engaging very deeply with his arguments even if I were suitably qualified so to do, which, as a human ecologist, I am not."
Paraphrasing, bascially he is saying the only people who can confirm 2+2=4 are peer reviewed "scientists". Nobody else is qualified. He will not even look at the equation if it comes from you. He probably did not read the book (in fact my educated guess is he certainly did not.) His "review" is certainly no such thing.But it has served its purpose because they want to use it to alter the synopsis. Clever.
The guy is not worth the effort. Choose your place of battle carefully. The opposing infantry want you off your horse. What you really need is a positive review by an equivalent journal. That is where your efforts perhaps should go.
M'lud
Never tackle a man with a "PhD by published works in liberation theology, land reform and community empowerment from the Academy of Irish Cultural Heritages, University of Ulster"
Heed my advice
And would it not be sweet justice to use the existence of this review to lobby other similar journals pointing out "look see this book is important/controversial/enlightening, just look at these comments etc. It is certainly worth a review."
Remember an attack review only makes true believers happy (like sucking on a security blanket.) Those who are not might just ask the question, "is this book worth reading?". I mean if the book is so bad/poor/etc then why is it being reviewed? It is not as if it is on the best sellers section. It is mainly about science and statistics. Raising the profile of the book takes attacks as well as endorsements.
Use his review for your own purpose and not his... make him regret that he wrote it.
Go for a walk on Bishop Hill and mull it over. But at least question why the Scottish Book Review selected a self-certified barmpot to review your book.
I wouldn't bother, its the first negative review.
I'd rather see a Volume 2 expanded to look at the 'investigations' and why they weren't any good.
A suggestion:
Rather than BH offering a rebuttal of this 'review' of HSI, which will come across as a bit of a tit-for-tat exchange, why can't someone from here with some scientific credibility offer an alternative review to the Scottish Review of Books, based on what is actually included in the book rather than being straw man based.
I would offer to do this myself, but:
1) Have too much normal (commercial) work on
2) am about to move house
3) have a peer-reviewed paper to revise and a book review to write
4) Haven't yet read HSI
5) am overly addicted to BH, CA, WUWT etc to have time to do at least #1, #3 and #4 above (although I suspect #2 will happen...) ;-)