Bishop Hill Another review
Sep 2, 2010 Climate: HSI Chemistry World is the latest magazine to review the Hockey Stick Illusion. This is another critical one...
Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail, with a focus on the actions and words of its protagonists. Undoubtedly there have been shortcomings in working practises, many a result of the sustained pressure these individuals have been under from a small but determined group of sceptics (most recently in the UK through the repeated use of freedom of information requests), but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book.
Another critic who does not dispute anything I say! Looking good...
Bishop Hill
I haven't stopped laughing since I first read this review. Professor Hewitt should be on the telly.
Reader Comments (44)
Unable to dispute the science, and reality, of climate change, climate deniers (or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) have made sustained attempts to discredit climate scientists and the way they work.
The chance of finding a climate scientist who is willing to engage in discussion would be a good start.
I may not have a degree but if Prof Hewitt would deign to join us here I would gladly blow some holes in his simple physics.
Seems to me that Prof Hewitt has managed to miss the point of the book by a very long way.
"Unable to dispute the science, and reality, of climate change, climate deniers (or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) have made sustained attempts to discredit climate scientists and the way they work."
I was rather of the opinion that the "deniers" were disputing the science by subjecting the data and the calculations to rigorous scrutiny.
Nick Hewitt's research interests in biosphere-atmosphere interactions and atmospheric chemistry
"My main research interests are in understanding how the biosphere and the atmosphere interact: how emissions of trace gases from the biosphere affect the atmosphere, and how the changing atmospheric environment affects the biosphere. This requires a mixture of laboratory and field based experimental work with supporting modelling studies. I am also interested in air pollution and global climate change in general. "
Sounds complicated and involved, especially the modelling studies thingy.
Here is what Nick Hewitt has to say on climate change in a publication on urban trees and air quality;
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is having effects on the earth’s climate."
Is that it, you may say?
Yep, that's all you get!
It would seem Prof Hewitt believes in brevity. No chance then of him fully reading HSI, all 482 pages of it.
The atmosphere isnt part of the biosphere????????
It is interesting that he does not draw our attention to specific areas of the book or for that matter even quote from it. I wonder why? Is it perhaps he is a professor in a Environmental Department? Yes he is. Or that he has some preconceptions prior to the review? His web page states "I am also interested in air pollution and global climate change in general.". What a surprise!
I wonder what grants he gets to investigate the effects of "climate change"?
The term "biosphere" was coined by geologist Eduard Suess in 1875, which he defined as:[2]
"The place on Earth's surface where life dwells."
I dont think there are many people who doubt the Earth has been generally warming since the LIA. This "small part" purports to show that current temperature rises are unprecedented.
Nice of him to acknowledge the abysmal practices of the climate "scientists" although the authors of the paper didn't receive any FOI requests or so called sustained pressure until years after the paper was published. This, therefore, cant be used as an excuse for the shoddy work.
The "pressure" of repeated FOI requests would not have existed if the authors of the papers had released the data and methods used in the paper. Does Nick Hewitt (the reviewer) believe that the authors were correct in withholding data and that those who wished to verify the work should not have asked for it? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
And this has nothing to do with either the HSI or the papers in question. The physics of the Earth system are what they are and one day we might actually understand them.
Perhaps if Nick Hewitt actually wrote a review of the book the readers of Chemistry World might be able to make an informed decision.
Yes another "move along nothing to see" polemic.
He says it is "besides the point" if past or current climate change is even detectable (let alone if its AGW) because "observations of atmospheric composition" tell us mankind must change its behaviour nonetheless. So given that, it seems obvious he isn't going to be interested in a book that details any flaws in the current science of detecting climate change!
Another so-called review by an AGW believer who obviously has not read a single page in the book. Is "misrepresentation" the norm in climatology?
I have never seen any debate which is so much based on each protagonist's emotional beliefs, and which so much colours their subsequent examination of facts.
Skeptics can be guilty of this, but it is overwhelmingly the Warmies who betray their deep psychological need to believe in CAGW through their emotional and contradictory language - how can something be 'pedantic', 'tedious' and simultaneously 'polemic'?
I can only wish the gift of self-awareness on Professor Hewitt and his friends,
My feedback to Chemistry World:
I should like to advise Nick Hewitt, reviewer of AW Montford’s book “The hockey stick illusion: climategate and the corruption of science” that I really cannot agree with him that “Readers of “Chemistry World” will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book”. Although I have not been a member of the RSC for a couple of decades, as one who practised the profession of Chemistry for many a long year, I wholeheartedly recommend AW Montford’s book. I find Nick Hewitt’s use of the word “denier” to be notably unhelpful. Those of us who remain unconvinced that the case that man’s activities produce dangerous global warming has been made have that essential trait of a Scientist: curiosity.
Perhaps Hewitt would like to explain why Hadley has decided there was no warming, or cooling between 1999 and 2008! Where's global warming gone?
And it's very likely we are now on a cooling path.
The HSI definitely does cover "...one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming..." in a lot of detail. So are we getting towards a point where someone is willing to concede that the hockey stick is broken as we seem to be seeing suggestions that it is irrelevant now. It isn't like there isn't lots of evidence around to suggest there have been multiple warm spells in the last 10,000 years since the end of the last age.
I must admit I do find some of the endless discussion on the hockey stick slightly 'tedious' but that is mainly because to me it has huge flaws in the science and statistics that seem obvious to any interested observer.
haha. andrew, stop being so pedantic about their little shortcomings.
To be really pedantic, he may be a professor but he spells "practices" (noun) as "practises" (verb). With the benefit of his education one would think he should know better....
The physics explaining climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide (and other 'radiatively active' gases) in the atmosphere absorb outgoing long-wavelength radiation emitted from the Earth's surface and in doing so warm the Earth system. If the concentrations of these gases increase, everything else being equal, the Earth will warm up. This simplistic model ignores the effects of particles, albedo, feedbacks and other complications, but it is enough to indicate we should be very concerned about rising concentrations of these gases. And of course measurements unambiguously show the concentrations of these gases are rising and have done so since about 1750
Well thats it then, so simple, even I could have worked it out.
There is just one small point though and that is, suppose that not everything else is equal, WHAT THEN?
Do you know anyone who disputes that concentrations of CO2 are rising, neither do I.
Perhaps, if Nick Hewitt had read this brilliant book, then he might have something interesting and unambiguous to say about the science.
This is a sad non-revue from a small minded chemist.
"If the concentrations of these gases increase, everything else being equal, the Earth will warm up."
An absurd oversimplification, for "everything else" is never equal. The positive and negative climate feedbacks are many, and poorly understood by science, much less the public. Turning Hewitt's quote against himself,
"with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better."
Sep 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM Dung :
"The atmosphere isnt part of the biosphere????????"
Well, "biodiversity" includes earthquakes and droughts, so why should the biosphere include the atmosphere?
It's all part of the amazing lexicon of today's "climate scientist."
Well, shame on you for not writing a book capable of "alter(ing) the physics of the Earth system"...
I'd take 'pedantic' as a compliment. I've never yet heard of peer reviewed papers being anything but pedantic. It goes with the scientific style and demands of the reviewers
What is the point in writing a review of a book to say: 'don't read it'? All you do is give it publicity.
If it's really true that
"Our understanding of physics, coupled with our observations of atmospheric composition, tell us mankind must change its behaviour very soon if we wish to limit climate change in the near future..."
then what is the point of Professor Hewitt's current studies?
What is the point of his department?
Why bother if we already know everything we need to know?
This also confirms what I had guessed: because of the poor education and low number of recent scientists in subjects like chemistry, the quality is low.
I think we should remember that the Bishop himself was quite dismissive of the importance of the Hockey Stick towards the end of his book. Surely, he's quite right from the perspective of today and indeed we should probably all push it to the back of our minds now. It'll (probably) not resurface in any meaningful form and its only significance was that it exposed the workings of the team for what all realists now know they are. In that sense M&M and the Bishop are victims of their own success, Just like nobody even thinks about Phlogiston or Alchemy or a host of other discarded illusions, we should probably accept the death of the Hockey Stick and move on, with passing thanks to those who killed it.
"Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book."
Professor Hewitt obviously had. I wonder what they were, and whether they include bringing any scientific rigour to his work on the biosphere. If he thinks THI is pedantic, it might be interesting if McIntyre's forensic skills were brought to bear on his own work.
No offence to chemists, but why does he start by talkng about physics? He should stick to what he knows best, which seems very little as he is a an environmental scientist. We don't have a definition of either a "climate scientist" or an "environmental scientist". I don't think either of them do any real science.
Looking at Hewitt's publication record, he suddenly switched to publishing about CO2 in 2004 and 2005. He obviously jumped on the band wagon. Since 2005, nothing. He must be looking to get more climate change money.
Alexander
"Perhaps Hewitt would like to explain why Hadley has decided there was no warming, or cooling between 1999 and 2008!"
I think he has anticipated your question.
"Whether or not historical observations of the Earth system are detailed and robust enough for past and CURRENT climate change to be detected is more-or-less BESIDE THE POINT."
Another reviewer who has not read the book, I read the book in a day and one half the writing style was great. It could have been a long turgid read like the history of WRII British intelligence deliberate written to remove personalities. The Bishops narrative style and the team actions made it like a detective novel. I would have liked to have seen more on the details of CP analysis I looked it up on Wilki. While Eigen mode analysis is good for some physical problems. In those cases where the Eigen solution have no clear physical meaning, I find such analysis is not that enlightening as to what is going on.
Yes the only real issue is the CO2 feedback strongly positive or neutral or negative perhaps serious scientists should be pushing for better satellite sensors better surface temperature measurements on land (sea already covered) more accurate and numerous balloon sensors. We might then have some data to determine clearly what the feedback is.
Pedantic book?
H. W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage
concludes
"The term ('pedantic'), then, is obviously a relative one: my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education and someone else’s ignorance."—
Rather a compliment from Hewitt then!
Oh Dear! I shall never listen to YOU again.
Who were those guys?
I'd call it another NON-review; one that barely mentions the book itself as a tangent to a rant about why it shouldn't have been written
Hewitt was (is?) Chairman of the RSC's "Environmental Chemistry Group" and has been riding the Big Green Gravy Train since before 1997.
www.rsc.org/images/scaf003_199701_tcm18-25014.pdf
Just another denizen of the enviro-jungle defending his turf.
These belated negative reviews may be a sign that the alarmist climate clique is worried, which is a positive.
How many reviews have there been, so far? Have you categorized and scored them? (since you don't have enough to do.)
There's a link underneath the front cover image on the RHS, although I need to add the recent critiques.
'tedious'. Yes following the story and showing the reviewr's favorite belief is trash is too boring and dreary to bother with- move on!
"[the book] does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system"
Does he think you are God or something? No book is going to alter physics. It is the understanding of the physics that could be altered.
With Hewitt's scientific education one would think he should know better.
Hewitt hasn't been the Chair of the RSC Environmental Chemistry Group for a long time. He is also an academic in a UK Environmental Sciences Department, his career would be worthless if he had not toed the party line.
We do not yet have a working UK academic with the guts of Professor Curry who is prepared to stand up and be counted. The nearest we got is David Bellamy who went from respected green scientist to deluded sceptic in the pay of oil companies within a few days of making his views known.
And be it known, Bishop, the learned professor says unto thee 'Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou doubt not the power that be of Nature, but the honour that be of my brethren.
I reackon the reason none of these so called reviewers actually read the book is because if they did the would be drawn to the Dark Side.
And the Dark Side has no funding !!!!
Bish, I was moved to email the reviewer as follows:
Professor Hewitt,
I read your Hockey Stick Illusion review with interest in Chemistry World.
I am a layman, with an interest in climatology, more on the policy response side than the science.
Your first paragraph is spot on in my view, GHGs exist, ceteris paribus they warm the planet, but it’s complicated due to feedbacks and so on.
Detection and attribution are very important, identifying the impact of GHGs, and subsequently deciding on policy response, whether mitigation or adaptation, what blend, and so on. In the end it’s what we do about it that’s important.
Paleo is, as you rightly say, a small corner of the picture of multiple lines of evidence etc, but is interesting over the last two millennia when we have human records (ie confirming evidence), as unless we have some idea of natural variation over a decently long period detection and attribution of GHE, the human fingerprint, become much more difficult. What is the effect of El Ninos, what is the level of natural ‘noise’, and so on. So reconstructions are important, even though they don’t, can’t, change the reality of the science.
I think there is a ‘political’ misunderstanding here in general – you can criticise, say, paleo reconstructions with no intention of making it an attack on science, the reality of the GHE, or AGW. That paleo criticism might imply criticism of the confidence levels used by the IPCC, to the extent that they rely on paleo, in detection, attribution, and impacts, but you should have no problem with that, any more than the IAC just did?
The world is not just deniers, sceptics, and good guys, and I don’t think Montford expected his ‘polemic ….. to alter the physics of the Earth system’, but I think he did expect it to increase awareness of paleo uncertainty, which is surely fair enough unless you have specific criticisms of the points made in his book. Objecting to the existence of his book, per se, makes little sense to me!
Best regards,
"but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. "
What idiot wrote that? Does he imagine that ANYTHING one can write can alter the physics of the Earth system? Does he believe that the things that climate scientists write could possibly alter the PHYSICS? Forget geoengineering, professor Hewitt believes that earth physics is altered by typing. Why go to the trouble of typing, professor? Perhaps you can just change the laws of physics by using your fertile imagination?
Anyway, this puerile sort of put down reveals a great deal more about the professor than it does about the book. If he behaves in such a childish way, I should take it as a compliment. The professor is clearly swelling the ranks of the self-deluded.
"If the concentrations of these gases increase, everything else being equal, the Earth will warm up."
Here is a classic example of the blind leading the blind, because no-one who has studied the philosophy of science and the problem of induction (and the fallacy of induction) would launch into a defence of climate science using an 'all other things being equal' ceteris paribus argument, as Hewitt does. The possibility that all other things will ever be equal is exactly zero, so here is a conclusion about something that will never happen in this universe, never mind your lifetime. So the professor has just told us what would happen in another universe. Well done professor. Of course, his deduction that "mankind must change its behaviour very soon if we wish to limit climate change in the near future" can therefore only apply to the the men and the climate in his imaginary parallel universe, not our one.
"Unable to dispute the science, and reality, of climate change, climate deniers (or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) have made sustained attempts to discredit climate scientists and the way they work."
The professor has completely missed the point: there is a such a thing as the process of science, and the philosophy of science. There are such things as ethics. None of the aforementioned are the 'reality' of scientific fact. Is the professor really so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference, or the importance of such things?
Moreover, note that he can't find any fault with the book in terms of its facts, so all he's got to go on is his personal opinion that it is pedantic, which is a judgment on the author's manner of working - bluster, in fact. He can't see the delicious irony in that he is dealing with the FACTS and REALITY of what is revealed in Andrew's book in the same way as he is criticizing the so-called deniers. Look in the mirror, professor, and what you have written can equally be read
"Unable to dispute the facts, and reality, in investigations, climate alarmists (or 'climate scientists' as they are disingenuously described in this review) have made sustained attempts to discredit investigators and the way they work."
Increasing absorption of emitted thermal radiation by Earth's atmosphere suggests that temperatures will increase until energy out = energy in. How (place and timescale) this could take place will likely depend on the compex interactions of hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere and geosphere. Were we a small population of nomadic peoples this would not give too much cause for concern. We are a large population tied to place, it may be prudent to be concerned. Regardless, time will tell.