Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More discussion of me | Main | Judy blogs! »

Quote of the day

Judith Curry

[The Hockey Stick Illusion] has almost become a litmus test for seeing who has an open mind, open enough to at least read the book and ponder the actual issues that it raises.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (22)

That's if you can buy it. See Booker in the telegraph;

Sep 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Or, instead of Amazon & it's agenda, you could take your business elsewhere and get free delivery from here.

Sep 11, 2010 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

I sent a copy to my son several days ago via Barnes and Noble at:

Sep 11, 2010 at 8:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDrCrinum

The Book Depositary looks a good site and with free delivery even better ^.^
I think I will send my son a copy of HSI via this site (just to keep up with DrCrinum hehe)

Sep 11, 2010 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

You can buy it at Guardian Books at £2 off (guaranteed unread)

Sep 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Well, as of now, a search on Amazon UK books for "global warming" brings up Booker at #1 and HSI at #16. Is this a result?

I hope so, otherwise Amazon have already received my last order.

Sep 11, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottie

Yes it seems to work using the search box for global warming, but not if you use the sidebar menus.

Sep 11, 2010 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

There's still something funny with their calculations.
Lawson's Appeal to Reason is at 2 on the global warming best sellers list page, but at 7 on the book's own page, with overall standing of 41,182;
Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth stands at No 9, with sales rank of 49,158, and no book page rank,
whereas, HSI is at 16 on the GW list, has no book page rank, but has an overall standing of 14,174.

Sep 11, 2010 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

My admiration for Judith Curry just keeps growing. It's easy to post blog comments when they don't come home to roost, but to stand up to the Consensus and face the backlash from your peers? A hard and lonely furrow to plough. Especially as she is not exactly a 'sceptic'.

Sep 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Having spent the last couple of days reading the HSI, I have to agree that this book is a litmus test. Or at least the reaction to it is. So far, there has been no real attempt to dispute the factual nature of the book, at least none that I have seen. True there have been some snarky reviews that pass over the facts and deliver unkind adjectives. On that basis it stands as a full and complete rebuttal of the Team and something of a tribute and vindication of McIntyre and McKittrick. The combination of the bulldogged determination of M&M and the engaging and effortless storytelling of our blog host is very forceful. Judith is very right to call people to account for themselves in relation to this book.

Sep 12, 2010 at 2:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterCoalsoffire

One reason no rebuttal of HSI exists (The Hockey Stick Illusion Illusion?) is that HSI is an essentially rational work by a rational author, and committed Warmists are principally emotion-driven people.

Which is a different way of putting what Curry said.

Positive reviews of the book will be rational and fact-based; negative reviews will be emotional outbursts aimed at the author, his motives and credentials, rather than the details of his work.

Sep 12, 2010 at 2:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Anyone have a link to the quote by Dr Curry?

Sep 12, 2010 at 4:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterPJB253

@ PJB253

See the link provided by the Bishop at the top of this posting. The link doesn't hit the quote exactly, but on that page search for "HSI" and you'll find her quote in reply on 11 Sep to Barry Woods.


Sep 12, 2010 at 4:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Schneider

How does this quote do in comparison to an earlier quote from Curry:
"Joe Romm brings a unique combination of expertises in climate science and energy technologies and policies to address the challenges of enabling a clean energy future and reducing our addition to oil. HELL AND HIGH WATER is an important and timely contribution that deserves careful consideration in the dialogue and debate on U.S. energy and climate policy."
- Judith Curry, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
I believe that quote outs her in the same category as this quote
"Joe Romm knows what he is talking about. His message is urgent, reasoned and informative--he delivers it with surprising clarity. America had better listen up--this may be our last chance to stop global warming."
- James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
From here:
Regarding this statement from Joe
"Global warming has been thrust into the national spotlight as never before. From devastating hurricanes to near daily headlines of dramatic changes to the climate, the threat of super hurricanes, mega-droughts, and sea levels rising 20 to 80 feet is looming larger than ever."

But as renowned physicist and energy technology expert Joseph Romm argues, many people still don't get it. Fed a steady diet of misinformation by pundits, ideologues, and conservative politicians, most Americans don't believe-or don't realize-that climate change is, perhaps, the most serious issues of our time. Yet, as Romm attests, we have, at most, a decade to reverse course. If we fail to act, global warming will profoundly and irreversibly remake every aspect of our lives."

Sep 12, 2010 at 5:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Davis

Rick above, has it, rational vs emotional

"Our audiences are
emotional rather
than rational."

A gem of a quote.. from Futera. (latests buzz word)

A media company since 2001 specilaising in climate change:

From Futerra.
"Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005.
The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it.
The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy."

Now we have: " Sell the Sizzle" – Futerra. Media PR communication.

and to complemnet Rules of the Game, to change peoples behaviour

New Rules;New Game

Not forgeting - Words that Sell -
Where did 'Carbon Footprint come from, these guys focuss grouped it.

Nice business to be in...
Client list, includes BBC, UK Gov, UN Environment Program, etc

CAGW, is NOT a hoax, scam, con, conspiracy....

It is MARKETING ;) !

Sep 12, 2010 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Mike Davis has it completely wrong. I am not specifically interested in Curry's 'position' in any specific policy discussion, I am interested in the fact that she is a respected academic who is prepared to read arguments which disagree with those of her peers. Obviously she will have formed one opinion in the past, what she is now saying is that if the people who believe that warming is a serious problem are right, they should have no real difficulty in presenting convincing arguments to defend their case. I think this means she is also prepared to retract or update the conclusions of some of her previous published work _provided_she_sees_enough_evidence_ (without suggesting she yet believes this is the case).

Sep 12, 2010 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterSean Houlihane

The true sign of an open mind in the climate debate is whether the individual is willing to contemplate that all the data may be crap. Open minds embrace the scientific method and acknowledge that studies need to be replicated by critics. That models need to meet the basic requirements of forecasting. That thermometers need to meet the basic scientific standards for siting and need to be calibrated regularly.

It's called "Real Science".

Sep 12, 2010 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan

Here's a test for Mike Davis, in two parts. Part one, have you read The Hockey Stick Illusion?

Sep 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterCoalsoffire

Sadly, Judith is correct. It says so much that is left unsaid.

Sep 12, 2010 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterRomeo

How about Quote of the Month:


this SHOULD go down in history
(ref Briffa and the fact that not even Briffa/CRU could reproduce his OWN results)

MP Graham Stringer in full…
He is important, a member of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee questioning Lord Oxburgh (Oxburgh Climategate enquiry)

The Register:
Stringer says the practices exposed at CRU undermine the scientific value of paleoclimatology, in which CRU is a world leader.

“When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn’t.

“That just isn’t science. It’s literature. If somebody can’t reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?”
Some comments and analysis of the above at Harmless Sky blog.

Lord Oxburgh caught in the headlights

Sep 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry Woods

I very much disagree. Literature is good fiction; stuff that you will read again. What the AGW crowd produced is random noise, much like a bad punk rocker band with a massive hangover.

As noted, I much prefer the reality of fiction to the fiction of reality. What they produced is not even fiction, but outright lies.

Sep 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

that is my point...

Graham Stringer is pointing out that CRU's work is NOT science but literature (opinion, fiction, subjective, etc)

So a brilliant quote..

MP on the select commitee, says CRU's work is NOT science.....

Sep 13, 2010 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>