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)
Ian B
I can't see them publishing a second review on the same book.
I agree with Ian B - leave well alone yourself. Any rebuttal of the review should come from a third party.
Nah just let it ride Bish. The guy obviously doesn’t keep up with events and it’s only a supplement published 4 times a year, its already fish and chip paper.
I think almost every journalist would say "don't respond". You get good reviews; you get bad reviews; you got honest reviews; you get dishonest reviews.
This is a dishonest review as McIntosh himself admits in his wiki comments. He appears to pride himself on not having reviewed the book but on simply toeing an increasingly threadbare party line.
His style of writing reminds me of a regular (Scottish) contributor to a variety of blogs when the subject of global warming (but never anything else) is under discussion. If he is the same person then he has nothing useful to contribute to the debate and will only take any response from you as cause for further polemicism, probably accompanied by ad hominem attacks and disparaging comments on your common sense, upbringing, and general intelligence.
If your readers are not happy then it is up to them to take the editor of the Review to task concentrating on McIntosh's failure properly to write a review of the book rather than take issue with his views on the subject matter.
It's bottom line is that while the book might represent Mr Montford's opinion, it does not represent science
Does a historian need to be an expert practitioner in their subject? The material covered in the book is already published and mostly peer-reviewed.
It's like saying Winston Churchill was unqualified to write A History of the English Speaking Peoples because he was an out-of-work politician at the time with no formal higher education and had never published a peer reviewed paper in his life.
I'm not saying the Bishop is like Winston, but you get my drift that lots of people can and do write authorative works in many different fields.
Know who you are dealing with (see below). Professor Alastair McIntosh, Centre for Human Ecology is very much part of Big Environment (he and his eco-chums are in it for the money).
Anything that undermines that prospect is bound to be attacked. This review of HSI in the Scottish Review of Books was deliberate.
Alastair McIntosh is playing Prof. Moriarty to BH's Sherlock Holmes.
"Letter to 3rd G-20 Summit, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 24-25 September 2009
The "Green Economy Coalition" acknowledges commitments made in the G20 Communiqué, the G8 Declaration “Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future” and the OECD “Declaration on Green Growth”, which recognize the opportunities for tackling global financial, environmental and social crises together in transparent and accountable ways.
In our letter to the G20 in April 2009 we urged governments to invest $750 billion of the $2.5 trillion stimulus package (about 1% of global GDP) towards building a green economy that reduces carbon dependency, creates good quality/decent jobs, addresses poverty, and helps maintain and restore our natural ecosystems.
We note that some progress has been made in stimulating a low carbon economy through investments in a range of initiatives such as improved rail transportation, water infrastructure, grid expansion and improved building efficiency.
However, there are large gaps between government declarations and practice. Most G20 members have failed to include sufficient green investments in their overall stimulus packages, and the effectiveness of the green stimulus is being compromised by delays in the allocation of funds.
At the end of the first half of 2009, only around 3% of committed green funds were disbursed.
Overall, the amount allocated to renewable energy falls short of the investment needed to reduce carbon emissions and to keep the rise in global average temperature under two degrees Celsius.
Some incentives, such as subsidies to the production and consumption of fossil fuel, are working against efforts to build a sustainable future. Furthermore, while developing countries did not cause the economic and financial crisis, they have been severely affected by it.
Development assistance to poor countries has fallen in real terms over the past decade, and millions more vulnerable people will be trapped in poverty this year because of the recession and the effects of climate change, undermining efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
The global economy is rooted in the natural world. Biodiversity provides essential goods and services to the economy such as timber, clean water, the pollination of crops and the storage of carbon. Investing in the restoration and maintenance of the Earth’s ecosystems – from forests and mangroves to wetlands and river basins – is essential to help counter climate change and climate-proof vulnerable economies.
We need targeted investments to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create vibrant new markets, promote decent job growth, sustainable consumption, and enable developing countries to leapfrog to a new 21st Century economy that addresses poverty and reflects the value of healthy ecosystems to sustainable livelihoods.
The Green Economy Coalition therefore calls upon the G20 to follow through on its commitment to accelerate the transition to the green economy, with urgent and decisive action to:
(1) invest considerably more in clean energy and energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to create new green jobs and a fair transition for transforming traditional jobs into sustainable ones, and to generate secure and sustainable access to energy;
(2) honour existing ODA commitments, and mobilize new funds for developing countries through innovative financial mechanisms, and ensure that all financial resources contribute to an inclusive and sustainable recovery in accordance with the priorities of developing countries;
(3) support ongoing efforts to quantify environmental values such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative, and invest in ecosystem-based measures such as financing Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) which can assist in combating climate change and be a key anti-poverty and adaptation measure.
(4) encourage transparency, and achieve a robust and visionary deal on climate change in Copenhagen later this year, by integrating environment and development as well as business and labour issues, to lay the foundations for a fair and green economy for the 21st Century.
The Green Economy Coalition was founded in March 2009 in Switzerland and consists of members from the environment, development, business, labour and consumer sectors. It is hosted by IIED, with support from UNEP, WWF International and IUCN. The first Coalition letter was sent to the G20 Summit in London in March 2009.
Signed by:
Ola Engelmark, Chair, Bellagio Forum for Sustainable Development
John Evans, General Secretary of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC)
Mark Halle, Executive Director, IISD-Europe
R. Andreas Kraemer, Director, Ecologic Institute
James P. Leape, Director General, WWF International
Ernst Ligteringen, Chief Executive of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Joost Martens, Director General, Consumers International (CI)
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, Director General, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Professor Alastair McIntosh, Centre for Human Ecology, Scotland
Guy Ryder, General Secretary of The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
Pavan Sukhdev, Study Leader: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), & Project Leader: Green Economy Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Camilla Toulmin, Director, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Jan-Olaf Willums, Chair, Inspire Foundation for Business and Society"
I would defo write to the Editor, all publicity is good publicity, if you get published and then he rebuts, you get two more mentions. Rightness is irrelevant. Just keep humour and lightness of touch.
Mac (The knife?) wrote
You give McIntosh far too much due. Moriarty was brilliant and very well educated scientifically and mathematically. Not an accusation I'd fling at McIntosh.
Moriarty wrote treatises on Binomials, and On the Dynamics of Asteroids The latter being a very difficult subject even today. This is also the reason why Milankovich cycles are quite ephemeral over any long time period.
The members of the Green Economy Coalition hope to benefit financially from a whole range of markets and investments from trading carbon credits based on natural resources, like the Amazon rain forest, to such things as the sales of electric cars.
These eco-business types of Big Environment are simply in it for the money so if I was BH I would take it as a compliment that one of its members was worried enough about HSI to attack it. That was a PR blunder on Alastair McIntosh's part.
REDD turns out to be a $multi-billion rip off.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html
It is little wonder that eco-business coalitions like the Green Economy Coalition feel threatened by the written word.
I agree with not responding. The guy is an eco-nut with his own agenda. Don't get drawn into an argument with a natural climate change denialist and contrarian!
Shub Niggurath on David Brin - you may have misjudged the man.
He has at least membership of the "Center for Responsible Nanotechnology". Irresponsible nanotechnologists should be wary.
A bit late chipping in, and there is excellent advice above (even if a tad contradictory at times!). Concentrate on what has strategic advantage, and don't worry about tactical skirmishes. If a response would help out on the wiki front, then it may be worthwhile. If not, it's just a minor distraction.
My experience is that detailed rebuttals do not work very well, so I suggest that any response should be short and confined to pointing out major misrepresentations. I am sure that the Scottish Review of Books is receiving appropriate feedback from those who have read HSI on Alastair McIntosh's lazy efforts .
In light of the signatories to letter show above, I think the fact the review was published is positive.
It means they take the book seriously. They could have ignored it. It shows they are not worried about the sales figures, but the content. Someone decided that they needed to create a negative review, a few phonecalls/emails and few favours called-in and they found their forum.
I just hope it gives you some leverage somewhere else. Use their own energy against them.
I would classify that review as a tactical mistake from their point of view.
Alastair McIntosh has written a review of the extreme ecofascist journal Dark Mountain on his website.
http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2010-Dark-Mountain-Review.pdf
Dark Mountain is a project of Paul Kingsnorth, a former employee of Edward Goldsmith who even Monbiot called a 'black shirt in green trousers'. He wants to see the end of modern civilisation.
He wrote
Take a civilisation built on the myth of human exceptionalism and a deeply embedded cultural attitude to "nature"; add a blind belief in technological and material progress; then fuel the whole thing with a power source that is discovered to be disastrously destructive only after we have used it to inflate our numbers and appetites beyond the point of no return.
The challenge is not how to shore up a crumbling empire with wave machines and global summits, but to start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall, and what we can learn from its collapse.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change
Compare that with the very similar
"When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall."
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
An interesting article by Julie Burchill in the Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-so-the-prince-of-green-hypocrites-is-going-on-tour-thank-god-ill-be-abroad-2055351.html
Quote, "Green is the first socio-political movement in which every single leader and spokesperson is filthy rich."
It would seem people like Alastair McIntosh are only too keen to climb the greasy eco-pole of success.
As ever with such matters it is always about the money.
Johnin London - The Wiki discussion is indeed fascinating. As is this statement from Alastair McIntosh himself on that discussion page -
"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."
So-
1. His "review" is not about what Montford actually says in the book
2. His "review" consists of his view that the arguments in the book do not represent science, although as a human ecologist he is not suitably qualified to engage in the argument.
I think the Bishop should ignore this clown, but keep a link to the "Discussion" page on Wiki just in case some fly-by pundit brings his effort up.
Respond to McIntosh's review? Why bother? He's got a BSc in geography from Aberdeen and a PhD in liberation theology - enough said.
I notice this 'ChrisO' character getting involved at Wiki talk page. He was the one who posted a supportive comment on the book review site. Who is he ?
I would write to the publishers, but only to point out that they should be paying McIntosh to review books he's actually read.
PhD in liberation theology?
How does one square being part of socio-political movement in which every single leader and spokesperson is filthy rich and interpreting faith through the eyes of the suffering poor?
That is rank arrogance and hypocrisy.
I wonder which god Alastair McIntosh prays to thank him/her for not being poor.
McIntosh is not the first bitter AGW believer relying on distraction and deception to mislead his readers.
In this day and age people who buy books or read reviews are not guilable. They know how and where to find information if the subject is of interest to them. A review simply draws ones attention to the book as a possible source of information. Few are niave enough to belive or trust anothers judgement without further investigation.
""My review is therefore more about what constitutes science than it is about what Montford actually says.""
And there was me thinking it was supposed to be a book review.
Unable or unwilling to deal with the substance, McIntosh retreats to the core leftist position of questioning AM's right to engage in this debate and to be heard; classic ad hominem attack.
I doubt even his friends take him seriously. Plus, he's hanging himself with every new utterance.
Rick Bradford said:
"I doubt even his friends take him seriously."
Friends? Do you really believe such a **** have friends?
After visiting his web site I now have to shave my 2 month old berad off, thanks.
And I'd ignore him, you'll never win with a true believer who has agreed to give his first born to the high priests or should that be scientific integrity.
""Friends? Do you really believe such a **** have friends?""
Perhaps I should have said "Comrades in the Great Noble Struggle Against Big Oil and the Evil Well-Funded Denialist Machine"....
Well, I can see that you all had a fun Wednesday over on the East side of the pond. Lots of excellent suggestions, insights, opinions and such.
As I sit here watching the sun rise over the Sierras, with my second cup of coffee, there is one suggestion -- well sorta -- that caught my eye. It really wasn't a suggestion but an insightful insight.
Oxonpool
I am sure that the Scottish Review of Books is receiving appropriate feedback from those who have read HSI on Alastair McIntosh's lazy efforts .
My suggestion is that you all make sure that they do "receiving appropriate feedback". And make sure you point out that Alastair even admits he doesn't know what the feck he is talking about, but is arguing that BH is not competent even though a number of respected and REAL scientists say that he does. Do include the following quote:
The Scottish Book Review is an imprint of the Argyll Publishing. They are a real business, probably as small as my own publishing house, but they do care about cash flow. As such their credibility has to be important to them. Point out that hack reviews such as the own Alastair wrote severely undermines their credibility.
And end by demanding a repudiation of the review. But do be polite about it. Indignant is okay, angry is not.
You can get your point across at the Editors Blog. HERE
Andrew,
Your comment at the head of this thread seems to say enough. You have already challenged McIntosh to demonstrate that he has read or understood the book. There is nothing in the review to suggest that he has. Why not leave it at that until he - or the SRB - comes up with a serious comment which warrants an answer?
Sorry about the email address.
If you want to write to the editor of The Scottish Review of Books" you have to go to the "about us" page. Do be polite.
The Editor is Alan Taylor aftaylor2000@aol.com
This McIntosh is funded by us taxpayers. With a PhD in liberation theology, he is no doubt good value for our taxes. We obviously couldn't survive without someone with such vital skills; he is no doubt doing us a great service. Perhaps he'll condescend to grace this blog with his opinions and tell us why he knows much more about the book than those of us who have read it thoroughly. Some of us have read it more than once.
From his website he appears to be a new-agey lefty crank, there is nothing to suggest that he is a competent person to review a book on science.
As per his own description, the "review" is the very definition of ad hominem: do not address the argument, attack the person who is making it. "Credibility counts". Yes, it "counts" for those who lack the intellectual capacity to address the argument without needing the help of "credible" others.
People who do not see the feebleness of McIntosh's ad hominem are beyond help and nothing that Andrew or anyone wrote would make the slightest difference for them.
People who can see it will ignore the review but might get curious enough to look at reviews in Amazon.
My suggestion is - it's not worth the bother; responding is just a waste of time.
RealClimate have noticed the McIntosh review. No comments as yet.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
Dreadnought,
Oh yes, there were comments allright, but they didn't make it past the 'RC-filter' ...
Someone should forward McIntosh's Wiki comments to Scottish Review of Books, and ask if that is their standard for a book review? Not commenting on the content of a book about science if it doesn't pass thru peer-review?
I have always understood that engaging in a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed is the height of bad manners!
And as a PS to my post above I have read the book, and it's a great piece of research and detective work. Well worth reading (and understanding!)
biodanza
WUWT?
I spy a Weirdie Beardie.
Not sure where to post this so it goes here: I would welcome comments)
email to Chris Huhne today:
On the 15th of July The Guardian hosted a debate on the Climate gate emails. I was fortunate enough to attend and even more fortunate to be able to ask a question.
At 63 minutes 30 seconds into the Guardian audio record Bob Watson states "You put greenhouse gas into the atmosphere it must warm, the question is when and how much".
At 75 minutes I asked the following question:
"Mr Watson states that if you put CO2 in the atmosphere you get warming, the ice core records show that at the end of each of the interglacials in the current ice age, CO2 rose for up to 2500 years after the hot point of the interglacial and the Earth cooled during the whole of that time. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that CO2 put into the atmosphere causes some warming but often the natural cycles will completely drown what it is doing?"
Mr Watson's answer contained the following:
The physics of the radiation transfer is quite straightforward, it is quite simple physics." ( This area of the science is the LEAST well understood of all the climate science).
He then says:
"even the most ardent sceptics like Dick Lindzen do agree that that the greenhouse effect is real and do agree the temperature will warm, the question is whether it is on the low end like Dick says or whether it is on the higher end like many other scientists (say)"
Prof Watson does not dispute the ice core records of temp v CO2 during the ice age and the change from ice age to interglacial and back again, he simply says it is complicated.
What the ice core records show is that once the hottest point of the interglacial has passed, CO2 continues to rise for as much as 2500 years and the Earth cools for all of that time.
Mr Watson states that because of this increase in CO2 the Earth "must warm".
However not only does the Earth not warm during this period of rising CO2, it continues to cool all the way back to the ice age and the next warming takes place over 100,000 years later.
I suggest that you pass my comments on to Mr Watson and suggest that either he considers a liable action against me or alternatively he explains himself to you.
Colin Brooks
@ Dung
He then says:
"even the most ardent sceptics like Dick Lindzen do agree that that the greenhouse effect is real and do agree the temperature will warm, the question is whether it is on the low end like Dick says or whether it is on the higher end like many other scientists (say)"
In fact I don't believe that this represents Dick Lindzen's position even approximately. Whilst acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that some warming will result from some level of CO2, he states that he doesn't consider himself as a sceptic on cAGW, as you need a plausible hypothesis to be sceptical about something and he doesn't consider cAGW to be in any way plausible.
Sorry I can't link to the video link for this but someone will have it.
So Watson is once again barefacedly distorting facts. He's always been good at that.
Thank you Mr Brumby and I have found it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/may/19/richard-lindzen-climate-sceptics
Also my email to Chris Huhne was titled "Prof Bob Watson lied to conceal the truth about CO2". Therefore the Liable action is a possibilty ^.^ .
It's a fairly common tactic in reviewing a book whose premise the reviewer doesn't like to pick on one or two errors (or things the reviewer thinks are errors) and fail to recognize the many facts that the book has right. That's what McIntosh has done. And, yes, no one reading his website can fail to conclude that he is, as noted above, a space cadet.
I think, though, it's worthwhile responding to these facile reviews. Less informed readers taken in by the reviewer's arguments might, with further reading, get a broader perspective.
"Remember the famous proverb: "Never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty, and the pig will love it."
Or, as my grandpappy used to say, "Don't argue with an idiot, son, because first they'll bring you down to their level, and then they'll beat you on experience".