Bishop Hill Prospect on the Hockey Stick (again)
Aug 24, 2010 Books Climate: HSI There's a new review of the Hockey Stick Illusion at Prospect Magazine's blog. Two reviews from the same magazine!
This one is a critique, by Professor Richard Joyner of Nottingham Trent University. He hasn't really got anything to say apart from saying he doesn't like it. It's good though to see that he has no issues with the facts as presented, just like several of the other critiques. I think we can probably say that there is now a "consensus" that the facts are accurately presented in the book.
This bit is good:
The real wickedness of Montford’s book is his use of innuendo.
In a week where I have been referred to as a "denialist machine lackey", having my book called wicked is fairly mild. I imagine the next review will refer to me as a "capitalist running dog" or some such.
As for innuendo, Prof Joyner actually turns out to be something of an adept at this himself, closing his review off with lots of references to politicians and big business trying to misrepresent scientific results.
Anyway, what Prof Joyner calls "innuendo" may well be what others refer to as "letting the facts speak for themselves". It's hard to tell because the Prof is not actually able to provide any examples of this alleged innuendo. (His review doesn't contain any quotes from the book). All he says to support this particular criticism is this:
Consistently and without evidence he queries the actions and motives of those with whom he disagrees.
This is most peculiar. I mean, there are 270 references in the book. That's really quite a lot of evidence. And Prof Joyner may have heard of the Climategate emails, heavily sourced in Chapter 17. What are these if not evidence?
What else is there? Well, he says I should have referred to Steve M's failure to publish his tree ring research. In a book in which one of the themes is the difficulty sceptics have in getting published, this seems a rather bizarre position for Prof Joyner to take. And it's actually even odder than that, since the data has been freely available since it came out of the dendro lab.
They're still struggling aren't they?
Reader Comments (39)
Not heard of the chappie myself, but assumed that he'd have a valid take on the books content. I made it throughthe first paragraph and realised it was another angry diatribe, rather than a review. Pretty weak really, no comment on the facts of the matter.
No mention of PC analysis, centering the data or infilling?
It's much more effective for skeptics to publish books than scientific papers...easier,too.
Can you say there has been two reviews from Prospect? I am all for seeing a review from someone coming from a more "anti" stance, but it looks like we are still waiting for it - (maybe Tamino qualifies). This review cmoes across as another brief kneejerk emotive hissy fit, again with no real evidence that the reviewer has done more than just skim through the book just enough to help inflame his already huge prejudice. His focussing on the "hockey team" term seems a giveaway, since the origin and explanation of how both sides consider this phrase is fairly explained in HSI. A bit of a driveby review that was probably included by Prospect to fit some misguided concept of "balance".
Dick Joyner?
Too porno for me!
On the topic of innuendo, could I just note that he works at Nottingham Trent University!?
See the rejoinder from Roddy Campbell, who wrote the first Prospect review, in the comments to the Joyner article. And add your comments at Prospect, which has largely replaced the Guardian and New Statesman as a source of intelligent leftwing comment. There your comments will reach many uncommitted people who have probably never questioned the manmade global warming story.
Like with the McIntosh review, the emotional bile spills out very early; 'mean-spirited' in the headline, 'McCarthyite' in the first sentence.
I don't think that subsequent attacks are going to use the phrase 'capitalist running dog'; there's only one step after 'McCarthyite', and that is the one posited for similar situations by Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).
To be vilified by these people is a compliment to your book.
"McIntyre is a climate change sceptic ..."
Obviously Joyner knows nothing about McIntyre and Climate Audit and statistics -- McIntyre is not a skeptic.
"Two things will strike any professional research scientist as serious flaws in Montford’s conspiracy theory. Most importantly, researchers live by proving that their ideas, their data, their experiments, their conclusions, are better than those previously published. Those many scientists who have supported Mann and the hockey stick gain little thereby. By contrast, if they did produce a temperature graph that is different from the hockey stick, but better justified, their reputation would rise. Secondly, Montford never explains why supporting an accepted idea will generate research funding, when the opposite is true. Once a scientific problem is regarded as solved, funding invariably moves elsewhere."
Sorry, but Joyner has no concept about how Climatology has become politicized, and consequently how the funding game is currently being played by members of the AGW crowd. Nor does he understand how Climatology publishing and peer review have been corrupted. To anyone familiar with the Climategate e-mails and their associated fallout, Joyner comes across as somebody playing ping pong by himself.
Added my two penn'orth, although you'll have to excuse my complete inability to type the word reference.
Not so much a review as an attempt to reinforce the reviewer's existing viewpoint.
Check out young Bill's Wiki contributions here .
I haven't bothered to count all he's done since 2003. Nevertheless, 42 edits on 23 August 2010 alone from 1025 hrs to 2240 hrs. Average one every 18 minutes or so.
A wonderful example of sheer guts and determination
Innuendo?
Is that one of those irregular verbs?
"I let the facts speak for themselves"
"You use innuendo"
"He is a flaming slanderer"
?
Further to the above, 131 contributions in a week from 17 - 23 August.
The man needs counselling.
Apologies, both the above are meant to be on the Wiki thread.
Time to cork the red and go to bed.
When will we see the review of the reviews Mr Bish?
The comments on the Prospect Magazine site make interesting reading.
I trust someone has brought them to Prof. Joyner's attention.
"His review doesn't contain any quotes from the book"
Quelle surprise! I wonder why...
That's an amazing sentence about Steve's tree-ring research and 'passing without comment'. 'Not even wrong' rings through the wilderness. I suspect the reviewer wishes his comment had not passed in such a crowded room.
===============
Wicked?
WICKED?
Isn't that the sort of language aimed at sinners from a pulpit???
.
.
.
.
.
Oh yeah!
Silly me - I tend to forget the religious zeal of some of the Alarmist believers.
You have to laugh really.
A bit OT, but I think Young William's conduct as a moderator of RC and editor of Wikipedia (and source of income) will get drawn into the Cuccinelli investigation. For those interested, here's a legal blog that is covering the case: http://vaquitamlaw.com/2010/07/06/is-uva-allowing-a-political-bias-to-inhibit-cooperation-with-the-virginia-attorney-general.aspx
Ooops, my prior comment was meant for the Wiki thread -- clearly OT here.
With such misdirected "pot shots" from the good professor, you might have titled this thread, "Enemy At The Climate Gates". lol
Sundance:
One of my favorite movies!!
I dropped my own 2Cents on the Professors head. He should have a headache by now.
A degree from "Nottingham Trent" (Polytechnic) must rate as a "three year gap year". What a waste of money. Professor Joyner and his peers must know that their career is finished if they concedes a single word of the sceptic case. No University Department dares appoint anyone of a sceptical viewpoint, or allow sceptical teaching, as it will not attract any research funds from HMG or the EU. Cui Bono - follow the real money: Big Green.
If one of your kids said they wanted to study Environmental Sciences at Nottingham Trent, Id suggest they follow an alternative vocation, such as prostitution. Its more honest.
Joyner is a highly political leftie prof who founded the "Save British Science" (now CASE) pressure group 1n 1986 to campaign against "Tory cuts" -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/dec/21/highereducation.comment
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=193927§ioncode=26
Now they mainly seem to agitate for higher academic salaries -
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=189896§ioncode=26
In other words - just one of the "usual suspects" trying to keep the green gravy train on the rails.
The comments on this review are priceless - possibly the most comprehensive demolition of alarmist dross I've seen for a long while, and (so far) unanimous - what gives? Maybe the tide IS turning...
Joyner’s lead-in tells it all:
Hmm…
I read the book quite thoroughly and was unable to detect anything that I could describe as “McCarthyite”. Nor did I find “ the full range of smear tactics to peddle climate change denial”.
My question: Did Joyner really read the book?
I sort of doubt that he did.
Max
Perhaps Professor Joyner's mum will join the debate. I don't see anyone else leaping to his defence!
London Calling:
When I did my (engineering) degree in the 1980s, it was received wisdom was that those who took environmental science degrees were those who couldn't get a place on a 'real' science course. How many climate scientists started out in environmental science, I wonder?
FWIW, I would still love to see HSI in ebook form here in the US! Can't wait to read it.
bish -
congrats on the newsnight appearance. every bit helps. as for the so-called joyner review, ignore it as it's not worth contemplating and the commenters are doing a good job.
as for whether or not bbc is changing, see:
24 Aug: BBC: Katia Moskvitch: Geoengineering 'not a solution' to sea-level rise
New research proposes that as many as 150 million people could be affected as ocean levels increases by 30cm to 70cm by the end of this century.
This could result in flooding of low-lying coastal areas, including some of the world's largest cities.
The team published the study in the journal PNAS.
Scientists led by John Moore from Beijing Normal University, China, write that to combat global warming, people need to concentrate on sharply curbing greenhouse gas emissions and not rely too much on proposed geoengineering methods.
"Substituting geoengineering for greenhouse emission control would be to burden future generations with enormous risk," said Svetlana Jevrejeva of the UK's National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, a co-author of the study...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11076786
naturally, this is already over all the CAGW sites:
23 Aug: Nature: Richard Lovett: Geoengineering won't curb sea-level rise
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/full/news.2010.426.html
23 Aug: New Scientist: Michael Marshall: Geoengineering won't undo sea level rises
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19353-geoengineering-wont-undo-sea-level-rises.html
24 Aug: Science Mag: Mason Inman: Can Geoengineering Halt Sea-Level Rise?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/08/can-geoengineering-halt-sea-leve.html
more modelling, more madness.
Maybe Joyner was chosen by the other members of his struggle meeting to do a hatchet job on HSI, but the hatchet rebounded and caught him square between the eyes.
I have never seen a review or reviewer cop such a flogging in a comments section as this one has.
Looking forward to the second edition of HSI, with “’this book is really wicked’ - Professor Joyner” featured prominently on the cover.
DaveS
UEA was always a third rate university that attracted third rate students. For that reason it lost its physics department, but has a thriving environmental school where third rate environmental students are churned out and become third rate climate scientists like Phil Jones.
Wasn't Trent University once upon a time Trent Poly, and following the change, teachers were suddenly elevated to professors. Just joking.
Manny thanks Geof!!!
"Looking forward to the second edition of HSI, with “’this book is really wicked’ - Professor Joyner” featured prominently on the cover.
Aug 25, 2010 at 5:54 AM | geoffchambers "
Just sprayed my keyboard with tea and laughter!! ;0)
Priceless.
I emailed Prospect's editors suggesting they might like to look for themselves at the extraordinary rift between review and all comments, encapsulated in this comment
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/08/mean-spirited-scepticism-montford-hockey-stic/comment-page-1/#comment-60359
Pat
"whether or not bbc is changing"
This is coming up - will it be another Harrabin snow job, I wonder?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525
I was amused to read that one of Joyner's supporters (I have to use the plural, as there were two of them) had confused Exxon with Enron, thus rather spoiling his attempt to link the sceptics to Big Oil...
Nothing like a few facts to get the socialists reaching for the crucifix and the garlic.