References (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: Bishop Hill has written another bookWhen historians get around to describing the late twentieth and early twenty first century hysteria about climate, Andrew Montford will get a big mention as one of the individuals who particularly contributed to turning back this bizarre tide of irrationality. He blogged. Then he started blogging in particular about climate. Then ...
Reader Comments (72)
Ordered. Looking forward to it!
cheatsout,
Lance Armstrong may have been exposed as the biggest fraud in the history of sport, but that's still a bit harsh on him... (smirk)
I'll certainly read it, but I'll wait for a hard copy.
Looking forward to getting my copy. I like PDF so I can put it on my iPad.
Cheers.
@'bishop phil'
'.. in which an accountant who truly believes the sun shines from the arse of a mining consultant shows climate science to be lies straight from the pit of hell'
C'mon Mikey Mann...we know it's you really. You're scared s*itless and haven't even read THSI. who else could it be?
But thanks for the early preview of your Amazon review. I expected little and was not disappointed.
Sadly Bishop Phil | Mikey is a typical harbinger of Team response.
Never has repeated proof reading been more necessary. Any error - of grammar, spelling or even capitalisation - will be an excuse to write your work off as 'debunked'.
I intend to buy lots of hard copies to spread around my (left-wing university student) daughter's social circle in an attempt to keep them honest.
It's such fun being an embarrassing Dad :-)
Seems a bit odd to me to be willing to invest time in reading it but unwilling to invest the cash to buy it.
Is this is because you are:
- hard pressed financially?
- inherently stingy?
- have some kind of principle precluding you from rewarding the author for his work?
We can expect the ecofascists to astroturf this book with negative reviews from the outset, and just as with THSI, we can be sure none of them will have read it.
Could I suggest, therefore, that any review posted by any sceptic should be prefaced with something along the lines of this?
Statement evidencing that I own this book: the fourth word of the third sentence of chapter six is 'serial'.
Obviously everything in italics you would change for your own review, using something other than what others have used.
I'd further propose that any ecofascist who fails to do this should be challenged repeatedly in the comments to do so in order to prove they have actually read the book.
It should be further pointed out to them that if they had read the book, which is about fakery and manipulation of data, they would have absorbed the importance of honest evidence; and therefore refusal to prove they own the book effectively furnishes still further proof that they haven't and that they don't understand it.
The effect should be to trash instantly the credibility of anyone who claims to have read the book but doesn't own a copy. This needs to be done at the time in case, any of them says they had a copy previously but have since disposed of it, or whatever. Whenever an ecofascist fails this test, then the next step is to report their reviews to Amazon and get them removed as abusive of the review facility.
I have no problem debating these arsepigeons where they have any actual arguments to deploy, but mendacious reviews where they haven't read the book should be booted off.
Gosh - what a peevish comment. I wonder if "Bishop Phill" himself could give a half-hour introductory talk on the mathematical analysis of random processes? I somehow doubt it.
The posting is pure Ad Hominem - to me this says a lot (about "Bishop Phill").
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
But, in any case, his Ad Hom falls flat. Who better to write an account of the Climategate shenanigans than a scientifically trained accountant?
Martin A, I have much more time than money. Also, the only possibility for me here would be a Kindle edition and I object to the general business model of full-price e-books. But more to the point, I would not want to support a cause with which I disagree.
We can only hope that the release of BH's newest book (Congratulations on that) will motivate FOI to release the final tranche of CRU emails.
This is definitely on my to-be-read list.
You know what will happen, though. Just days before it goes to print - Climategate 3!
I still don't get it.
I imagine that Andrew Montford's principal motivation in writing the book would have been so that people could read it, rather than a desire for wealth. (If you are an on-the-ball accountant, there is work waiting that is immensely more lucrative than writing books that are never going to be in the top 100 best sellers.)
Yet you don't consider reading the book as "supporting a cause with which you disagree" , whereas buying a copy would do that.
As I said, I still don't get it.
Martin, would you buy Mann's book?
@Martin A, DNFTT.
Martin, would you buy Mann's book?
No. Even less would I spend time reading it.
But if for some reason I did want to read it - to find extracts that confirmed events, for example, then yes, I'd buy a copy (if I could not find a free download somewhere).
@Martin A, DNFTT.
OK. I've finished.
The fourth word of the third sentence of chapter six of Michael Mann's ridiculous waste of paper is "philosopher".
So you wouldn't read it; unless of course you wanted to! And you might want to inorder to confirm some facts; but then you probably don't believe a word Mann says. Are you a little confused?
And the troll thing... I thought we'd gone through that before. Am I a troll because I disagree with BH? Actually I think you and I might be able to find a fair bit of common ground ;-)
BitBucket is like a friend of mine who is a science teacher.
I bought him the Hockey Stick Illusion.
He said he would not read it because "..it scares me".
Cognitive Dissonance explains a lot of things.
I have books by people like Flannery etc but not by Mann in case you were going to ask. :)
I get my fill of misleading statements, false experts and spurious certainty on BH. I have no need to reads books full of it.
@bitbucket, I see your "review" is already written ;-)
The Mann book was about Mann, a few hundred pages of ego trip.
Whilst BH is a minor actor in this play, he is effectively just a reporter. Whether you think he is good or bad, prejudiced or impartial is a matter of opinion.
One is about "character", the other is about "reportage".
Ps. misleading, false and spurious? Yet you still keep pulling people's tails on BH. Perhaps the book doesn't allow you the fun of that? Maybe it is an interactive thing?
Interactivity? Yes I suppose it is that. But also, I see myself as providing a service; if, despite my tail pulling, people can still manage to believe numerous improbable things both before and after breakfast, then they have clearly earned their spurs amongst their peers as grade-A "skeptics".