Michael Mann’s new book is out

Tom Nelson reports:

I just bought the Kindle version of Michael Mann’s “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”

I hate the idea of spending $9.99 on a climate hoax book, but I plan to get my money’s worth.

Searching Mann’s book for “denier” yielded 125 hits; “Morano” had 27 hits; “McIntyre” had 166 hits; “Watts” had 16 hits.

Mann’s book currently has 15 reviews on Amazon, all five-star, many by his warmist friends.  I hope some climate realists eventually review the book as well.

=====================================================================

While I realize that many people don’t want to buy this book, please don’t pull a Peter Gleick and do reviews apparently in absentia. (I can’t emphasize this enough – don’t post a review if you have not read it.)

For some balance, may I also recommend Don’t Sell Your Coat by Harold Ambler.

The book is out on Kindle and doing much better, for instance competing successfully with Michael Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. It is now number 3 just ahead of Mann’s new book.

Buy the book here, also now on Kindle here.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book Review and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to Michael Mann’s new book is out

  1. James Sexton says:

    lol, Steve Mac get under his skin?

  2. higley7 says:

    It’s under science fiction, right?

  3. JinOH says:

    Jeez, the ‘reviews’ are a little over the top aren’t they? Some are practically as long as a short story. Gotta love them innerwebs, anyone can claim to be something they are not (open minded).

  4. Vinny says:

    Is is it found on Amazons science or science fiction section?

  5. Peter Miller says:

    “Dispatches from the Front Line”

    What a complete ?@!$^!

  6. Ged says:

    Haha, I am amused by looking at the names for the 5 star reviewers. Stacking the deck much?

  7. Somebody check how many of those reviews come from the same office at Penn U

  8. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Dig, Mikey, dig . . . the faster, the deeper, the better.

    Your gig is up, your 15 minutes of fame you have stretched to an hour, is so over.

  9. jabre says:

    ‘don’t pull a Peter Gleick and do reviews apparently in absentia.’
    Absolutely. It is appropriate to rate the helpfulness of reviews. Those reviews that are obviously placed by a crony should be rated appropriately.

  10. kbray in california says:

    The CAGW ship is taking on even more water…. or maybe ice?

    The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

    There is still some garbage mixed in here, but the cracks are growing….

  11. I’m with Tom on this, folks: No Peter Gleicking. If you don’t read it (I’m not going to), no review is forthcoming. I’ve had enough of Mann’s bitter smirk…so no Kindle for me.

  12. Dickens Goes Metro says:

    Title should read “The Hockey Stick and the Propaganda Wars.”

  13. Kev-in-UK says:

    I’d sooner stick pins in my eyes than have any money of mine making it’s way to Mann’s pockets!

  14. wendellwx02 says:

    Harold Ambler’s “Don’t Sell Your Coat” is amazing. He lays the truth out about the lies of Global Warming in a manner that is simple to understand. I highly recommend it!

  15. Bearing in mind what else is happening in Prof. Mann’s life, I am not certain that subjecting himself to a Global Peer Review is the most sensible thing he has ever done.

  16. Adam Gallon says:

    Peter Gleick’s not revued it! Amazing, I’d have thought he’d be straight in there.

  17. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Here is Dr. Mann (one holding a notebook) and his gang demonstrating the CO2 cause:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm
    This cartoon got me a ‘life ban’ on the Gavin’s Real Climate.
    Obviously not a man with great sense of humour, not to mention that Gavin got his Phd from the same university I got MSc some years earlier.

  18. JustAddWater says:

    Wow, there really IS a consensus, and their 15 views are there for everyone to see…I predict this will backfire bigtime, inflaming the debate to whole new level – but not as Mann might have hoped.

  19. Gary Pearse says:

    The hockey stick on the cover of his latest book looks more like a bent golf club. He’s reinstated the MWP the LIA and the little nubbins on the end is the “putter”. I commented on another thread to watch for a new hockey stick paper after he said that volcanic aerosols have been underestimated as coolants in the tree record. This will allow him to reinstate the LIA and blame it on volcanoes.

  20. Coach Springer says:

    I’ll wait for the reviews. If there’s anything consequential, it will show up (with the nonconsequential) as talking points by warmist trolls. “From the Front Lines” suggests an activist view, not a scientific view. I suspect the book will be revealed to be so.

  21. Jack Cowper says:

    Looking at some of the reviews, it’s beggars belief that they don’t get taken down for the abuse of sceptics. These people just have no morales.

  22. Ursus Augustus says:

    when Stephan Lewandowsky is your hottest fan you know you are at the bottom of the barrel. Prof Lewandowsky is the eco loony Winthrop Professor of Psychology ( yes, psychology !) at University of Western Australia. ( I new I switched from there to the other side of the country for a reason). According to the Prof, all us skeptics/deniers are as mad as hatters. Its a “fact” – we are manifestating of a mental disorder!

    Read his “review” and fall about weeping with laughter.

  23. Gerry, Surrey says:

    Who really wants to waste their time and money on buying and reading his rubbish so they can write a review on it? What you can do is rate any positive reviews as unhelpful and also read the review for any lies within that, such as the usual ‘all deniers are funded by fossil fuel’, he was cleared by the 2 senate enquiries,etc., and also comment about why he refused requests to share his data and code, and what does he have to hide regarding the release of his emails.

  24. kbray in california says:

    I browsed the 5 star reviews on Amazon and want to hurl.
    They certainly have “an agenda” to protect.

    Indeed ! they need some reality check reviews !
    I hope I see those 1 star reviews on the chart become “bottom heavy”.
    Mann and all men deserve to know the truth.

  25. Al Gored says:

    “Searching Mann’s book for “denier” yielded 125 hits; “Morano” had 27 hits; “McIntyre” had 166 hits; “Watts” had 16 hits.”

    I’m thinking that Mann’s “denier” designations will soon become a badge of honour – sort of like Stalin’s list of subversives, now recognized as heroes – though I think Anthony did not get his fair share.

    Funny the way Mann’s book happened to finally pop out now, just as the German book is rocking his crumbling world (The Mayans were right about Mann’s world). I think I know which one will have more impact.

    And if I was in the publishing business, I would definitely start promoting Crichton’s book ‘State of Fear’ again. It was too far ahead of its time when first published, and would have a great run now. Maybe even a movie version in a few years if the Hollywood types ever come to their senses.

  26. sHx says:

    Bishop Hill has a chapter from Harold Ambler’s book. It is excellent read.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/8/dont-sell-your-coat.html

    Direct link to the extract:
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Extract from Ambler.pdf

    [The link to the extract isn't working due - you need to access it though the first link ~jove, mod]

  27. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “McIntyre” had 166 hits..”

    I thought his name could not be mentioned…?

  28. manicbeancounter says:

    Stephen Lewandowsky’s 5 star review is revealing.

    “This is a partisan book. It does not attempt to be “balanced” by adding a lie to the truth and dividing by two.”

    Lewandowsky assumes the essential truth of the hockey stick, and whatever Mann says as gospel. It goes a lot into attacking Congressman Barton, and detailing the support for the hockey stick from academic bodies.

    Read it and wonder why 50 out of 69 people found this helpful.

  29. dtbronzich says:

    I have now read both sets of reviews, and it does not seem as though any reviewer, positive or negative has actually read the book. I would guess that’s where “politically charged” comes in.

  30. Scott says:

    So are you going to do what the CAGWers side does and wait to post a complete review as soon as we hear about a crisis in Mann’s hometown, death in the family, personal emergency, etc? I’d be very disappointed if you sunk that low.

    -Scott

  31. sHx says:

    Also, what’s up with the first reviews of Michael Mann’s book?

    The first one has the date stamp of 28 January.

    On 29 January, eight more 5-star, mostly extended, reviews have been posted. One can only speculate that these are his family, friends and close colleagues who had advance copy of the book. Some of them call him just ‘Mike’ in the review.

    Those ‘Mike’ supporters who didn’t bother to write a review must have just clicked ‘helpful’ for the earlier reviews. The numbers look inflated like a stuffed ballot booth. ‘Vote early, vote often!’ as the saying goes.

    Hopefully WUWT can help bring greater numbers and more negative reviews to bear on the book’s Amazon page.

    How long before Mann starts whining about this ‘review-war’ that he and his supporters ignited?

  32. manicbeancounter says:

    Dana A. Nuccitelli (Dana1981 on John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog) gives an interesting, polemical review.

    He views Mann as the upholder of truth, against the Climate D…… people.

    Nothing about the structure of the book or the context of Mann’s work. So 5 stars for a book he has not read.

  33. Mike Spilligan says:

    I hope Anthony isn’t disappointed with only 16 “hits”.

    REPLY: As far as I know, Mann has never publicly acknowledged my existence, so I doubt he’d start now. Those are probably “watts per square meter” hits. – Anthony

  34. Rob Crawford says:

    The important question is: is it printed on two-ply? Quilted?

  35. Keith W. says:

    Since I do not have an Amazon account, and do not wish to start one, I cannot tell them my opinion of the reviews.

  36. UK John says:

    Just remember in Manns own (paraphrased) words.

    McIntrye and McKittrick have misunderstood our statistical methods, the statistical methods we use take no account of the sign of the proxy predictor.

    If you have a statistical method that does this, the answer this method gives is not really an answer at all.

  37. 1DandyTroll says:

    What is the psychological make up of a person who calls critique and debate for wars?

  38. kbray in california says:

    Mann must have a team monitoring the reviews,
    ” The team” is posting immediate negative comments underneath any negative review.

    Foxes are sitting in the hen house.

    ! Prepare to be ambushed if you post a review !!

  39. Lorne50 says:

    Humm the first review on the page was well we say not to good for this Mannspin

  40. Frank K. says:

    I welcome Mike Mann’s exercising of his free speech rights (hooray!). Fortunately, no one (from “big oil” – heh) is plotting to try to get rid of the editor or publisher of his book – after all, this is NOT climate science journal peer review…

    BTW, I do NOT plan to buy the book…or even read it.

  41. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Hit from
    Location: University Park, Pennsylvania, United States
    IP Address: The Pennsylvania State University (128.118.111.120)
    Referring URL: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/michael-manns-new-book-is-out/
    Visit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm

    Dr. Mann on line?
    Hi Michael, life is to short to take it too seriously.

  42. RockyRoad says:

    Kev-in-UK says:
    February 8, 2012 at 11:48 am

    I’d sooner stick pins in my eyes than have any money of mine making it’s way to Mann’s pockets!

    Just wait until disappointed readers re-sell the book for a buck two-fifty (which range will still be far higher than the actual value of the book), so at least you can revel in the fact it cost more to ship than to buy it.

    Then after a perfunctory perusal, turn around and throw darts at it or burn it, as it would cost far more in shipping that what you’d get by returning and re-selling such a tome. Or keep it to show your grandkids as an example of science run amok.

  43. Brian H says:

    Heh. Did Judith C. get any mentions? How about “apostate”?

  44. Bernie says:

    I cannot decide whether to purchase the book or wait until it shows up at my local library. I am certainly looking forward to reviews and comments from Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford, Steve Mosher and others who are intimately familiar with the details of this topic. I did look at the reviews at Amazon. Apart from a couple of reviews, one of which is by Arthur Smith, both the positive and negative reviews are unhelpful to say the least. Many have been written without any evidence that the reviewer has actually read the book. A surprising number of the positive reviews are first time reviewers which always makes me suspicious. Scott Mandia, who wrote a totally irrelevant and negative review of Donna Laframboise’s book, fills his self-appointed(?) role as Mann’s personal PR flack at great length if nothing else. I do suspect that a concerted PR effort is underway to promote Mann and his book.
    I would urge regular readers here to keep the high ground and base their reviews on the actual content of Mann’s latest offering.

  45. jaymam says:

    Wow, 24 reviews already.
    Will this be one of the most reviewed books around?

  46. KnR says:

    I would like to pay it , but even if it nice and smooth its far to expensive for toilet paper , a use its contents perhaps will best match.

  47. Jarryd Beck says:

    The top ranked reviews all trash the book.

  48. Kev-in-UK says:

    just a thought – which perhaps Tom Nelson will elaborate on when he has read the book – and that is I wonder if the book will contain any pre-emptive references to climategate emails and/or the potentially exposing FOIA emails from his university?

  49. Tom Murphy says:

    kbray in california says:

    “The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
    “http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains”

    And here’s the enlightening part of that article, “The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the ‘third pole’ – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.”

    Amazing, isn’t it? The scientists have just discovered the process of glaciation – ablation and calving at the terminus and accumulation at the head. When ablation equals accumulation, you get a stable glacier (well, from a mass balance perspective and not necessarily area). However and according to the scientists, “glaciers… are definitely melting.”

    Given that a natural variability already exists in the average altitude of glaciers in the Himalayan range (i.e., east vs. west), it’s disingenuous for the scientists to assert that “careful” attention be focused on the melting of the lower-level glaciers along the western half. This implies that either less attention or a dismissal be made of the acknowledged thickening or positive balance of glaciers along the eastern half – http://www.activeremedy.org.uk/pages/files/other/icimod_glaciers.pdf .

    Wisely so, the article quotes a learned scientist who states reassuring, “The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought.” This may be translated to the lay person as, “We need more grant money to excuse this troubling increase in the error bars associated with our otherwise accurate glacial melt models.”

    And CAGW proponents (like Dr. Mann) wonder why “their” messaging is seemingly going astray – especially along the front lines…?

  50. From the comments section:
    Michael Ashley says:
    For those readers who are confused by the polarization of the reviews for Mann’s book the reason is simple: the anti-science website WUWT has invited its readers to add reviews. It is pretty clear that the +5 reviews are coherent and the +1 reviews (like the one above) are rambling, barely literate, nonsense. Read the book and make up your own mind.

  51. Anything is possible says:

    12 subsequent reviews – presumably by non-”warmist freinds” :

    2 x 5-star, 1 x 2-star, 9 x 1-star.

    Average rating now down to 3.6, if this trend continues…………..

  52. Loran Blood says:

    One of the Amazon reviewers, and ostensibly a climatist himself, gives away the game:

    “The most disturbing sections of this book detail the personal attack on Mike Mann and his family as well as attacks on other prominent scientists such as Ben Santer Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Herbert Needleman, Stephen Schneider, James Hansen, Eric Steig, and Wei-Chyung Wang.”

    There’s no doubt that government grant money is, to a great extent, driving the AGW gravy train, but I’ve long suspected that, for some significant subset of the “team,” and its fellow travelors, the real aphrodisiac here is ideology. One notes here some of the past kings of politicized junk science, at least one of which, it can be substantively argued, is to some degree responsible for the needless death and misery of tens of millions of people in the tropics due to completely groundless social hysteria regarding DDT that set the tone for most of the environmental movement/media created eco-scares of the next 30 years.

    Without having read the book, the negative reviewers seem to be homing in on a core set of themes, the fundamental one of which I would catagorize as the sheer defensiveness and sense of being cornered Mann expresses throughout the work. Mann sees demons, devils, and boogeymen everywhere, and never sincere, principled disagreement with his views. Like the communists of old, it couldn’t be that his theories are faulty, so it must be “wreckers” “saboteurs” and “deviationists” under every bed.

    When this individual finially slinks away into obscurity, it will not have been too soon.

  53. DRE says:

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #21,260

  54. Chris B says:

    One of the 5star reviewers, Aaron C. Huertas, claims to be the press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    Comments on his review are as follows.

    Florida Computer Guy says:
    Quote:
    ((Full disclosure: I’m a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the group has publicly weighed in many times to defend Mann against attacks from climate contrarians.)

    Yeah, but did you actually read the book?
    …….
    In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 1:10:59 PM PST
    Aaron C. Huertas says:
    Indeed, I did. Thanks for asking.
    ………..
    Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 2:01:12 PM PST
    Chris B says:
    “Full disclosure: I’m a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the group has…….”

    The “group” is more a hodge-podge of concerned activists rather than concerned scientists, if your actually going to fully disclose.

    I suppose using the “Climate Contrarian” perjorative in the name-calling game is better than “Climate denier”. Although, as a press secretary for a so-called “Scientists” organization you ought to have better communication skills than having to resort to name-calling rather than deal with the arguments.

    EOM

  55. jono says:

    bought the book, read the book, nice easy style (easier than Mr plimmers style)
    make a lot of sense and gives scope for following up with own research (for a layman like me)
    just had to import the
    “climate conspiracy”
    from america for a good read as well but the best book for me is my
    “the history of a candle”
    written in1886 by Faraday now this was written my a scientist and its where the carbon dioxide thing started, and was put to bed the same day !

  56. Jeff Norman says:

    ““Watts” had 16 hits.”

    Was that as Watts/meter, you know 0.00033 Anthonys/Thermometer?

  57. Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars says:

    It is safe to assume, of course, that Mann filed all the necessary environmental impact statements and purchased a surfeit of climate offset credits prior to launching his magnum opus. Isn’t it?

  58. ecoGuy says:

    I really hope this is the book by which Mr Mann’s career to date is judged and recorded for ever more.

    If the reviews are anything to go by it sounds like a classic case to point of NOT how to act as a scientist:
    – hurl abuse and names at those on the other side of the debate – check !
    – wallow in my own self importance – check !
    – hardly bother to describe or prove my science – check !

    All nicely put together in one easy to read volume!

    I do hope that those above him at his place of employment do indeed read this and come to the realization that this guy is a complete liability. Also how could anybody else in academia surely employ someone with this world view and public ego?? I really hope this is his last gasp before he disappears in the sea of total irrelevance..

  59. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Michael Mann’s new book is out

    Which will be appropriately printed on homogenized tree rings.

    I’d be wary of the electronic versions. Given the way certain (C)AGW-pushing sites operate, let alone the record of “peer”-reviewed publications, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a built-in auto-update for corrections and “clarifications” that’ll change things months and years later after the stated publication date, without notification nor notation of the occurrences. Which will allow the faithful to continually point to the “original” electronic text as proof Mann was right all along.

  60. Jack Savage says:

    Goodness, I hope no one gets the idea of buying the ebook …and then putting it on Pirate Bay as a bittorrent. That would be truly awful!
    I try very hard not to take any personal issue with any of the warmist climate scientists but Michael Mann’s behaviour and attitude has rendered me incapable of being objective in his case.

  61. jonathan frodsham says:

    I was not sure if I could read this book. I mean the anger would start to boil in me. But as a true realist (sceptic/denier) I know I should as it is critical that I know the enemy. They call us deniers to link us to revisionist historians and holocaust deniers; in defence I call them watermelons and have done for some years now. I will read it, oh the pain! But I will grit my teeth and try and laugh.

  62. David L says:

    Hopefully this book is the “jump the sharks” episode.

  63. Manfred says:

    “Climate Wars” – so this is Mann’s interpretation of the scientific method ?

  64. EternalOptimist says:

    Once I put it down, I couldn’t pick it up

  65. slow to follow says:

    For Rob Crawford, February 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm –

    This looks a better intellectual investment

    :-)

  66. Dave Wendt says:

    Mr. Nelson

    Thanks for “taking one for the team” on this one! I hope you’ll report back after completing your onerous duty. I have no intention of partaking of this offering in any way, but one thing I would be interested to know is whether Mr. Mann exhibits the same overwhelming arrogance and condescension when writing for the mass market as he seems to in all his other communications?

  67. MrV says:

    I might buy it if I see it in a sling out bin for 50c.

  68. Mandia’s review is quite lengthy…perhaps detailed enough to avoid having to read the book?

  69. John from CA says:

    I think I’ll wait for the remake.

    By the way, Apple’s new iBooks Author program is free but requires OS X Lion. It allows anyone to publish and distribute free books and to post them to the Apple Bookshelf for sale.

    Amazon has a lending library of thousands of books one can checkout for free and keep as long as you like with their premium service; $79/year. I’m guessing books are a loss leader for the Amazon membership service.

    There really isn’t any reason not to publish a variety of ibooks for education presenting the truth and exposing the fiction. WUWT is a wonderful repository of information.

    Let me know if you need a volunteer to format WUWT books to give proper balance to works like The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

  70. IAmDigitap says:

    LoL.

    Look fellas since Anthony’s going to provide the dime, and since we’re all being stolen from by this pseudo-science trash, I wanna explain to ya how you stop a global warming argument, in one,

    fell, swoop: simply say this:

    WHY DIDN’T you KNOW Mike Mann’s gear SPITS HOCKEY STICKS?

    WHY DIDN’T you KNOW Mike Mann’s TREES can’t be “T.R.E.E.M.O.M.E.T.E.R.S”?

    Why DIDN’T MICHAEL MANN, and E.V.E.R.Y. O.T.H.ER. P.E.R.S.O.N ENDORSING THIS SCAM,

    KNOW THESE THINGS?

    Until you give CRYSTAL CLEAR ANSWERS to WHY YOU ALL DIDN’T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE TWO S.I.M.P.L.E. QUESTIONS, this conversation has you: D.I.S.M.I.S.S.E.D. back to AREA 51/BIGFOOT/C.A.G.W.
    science violation
    country.

    _____________
    N.e.v.e.r. fails.

    Some more questions you can pop them with rapid fire, and say “get back with me when you’ve got full answers to this”

    WHY didn’t your scammers KNOW all they had to DO was CHECK with the INFRARED ASTRONOMY FIELD to SEE if THEY WERE RECORDING MORE, or L.E.S.S. INFRARED DOWNWELLING at NIGHT to SEE if their MAGIC GAS HYPOTHESIS was REAL?

    WHY didn’t your scammers KNOW all they had to DO was CHECK with the OPTICAL ASTRONOMY FIELD to SEE if THEY WERE RECORDING MORE, or L.E.S.S. of the EFFECT called
    ATMOSPHERIC SCINTILLATION – the T.W.I.N.K.L.I.N.G. of the S.T.A.R.S. over their ignorant HEADS: TO VERIFY RISING HEAT in ATMOSPHERIC AIR around us?

    Because HEAT in the ATMOSPHER is T.H.E. R.E.A.S.O.N. the S.T.A.R.S. TWINKLE at NIGHT, and if the ATMOSPHERE is HOTTER, T.H.E.R.E. M.U.S.T. B.E. B.Y. DEFINITION MORE MOTION in the GAS CONTAINING that HEAT: an INCREASE in the PERCEPTIBLE TWINKLING of the STARS overhead.

    There’s about a DOZEN ‘no need to even crack a book to shut this H.i.c.K. up” questions like this, that s.i.m.p.l.y. makes warmers G.O. A.W.A.Y.

  71. PSU-EMS-Alum says:

    Hit from
    Location: University Park, Pennsylvania, United States
    IP Address: The Pennsylvania State University (128.118.111.120)
    Referring URL: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/michael-manns-new-book-is-out/
    Visit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm

    Dr. Mann on line?
    Hi Michael, life is to short to take it too seriously.

    That address is from the Energy Institute. While this shares the same parent organization (College of Earth and Mineral Sciences) with ESSC, they are on opposite ends of the campus and probably wouldn’t share an IP block.

  72. johanna says:

    Florida Computer Guy says:
    Quote:
    ((Full disclosure: I’m a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the group has publicly weighed in many times to defend Mann against attacks from climate contrarians.)
    —————————————————————–
    I look forward to UCS member K. Watts’ review. It would provide a valuable counterweight.

  73. Tom Gray says:

    As I looked now on Amazon, there are 17 5 star reviews and 11 1 star reviews. Isn’t that the problem. People are just yelling slogans at one another. I realize that the RealClimate crowd are a lost cause but could someone rise above slogans so that we could have a discussion about this.

    Steve McIntyre seems to be able to put aside, [for] the most part, any personal feelings in his analysis. That is why he is so successful. The RealClimate group has done great damage to the cause that they think they are fighting for. Perhaps we can put them where they belong as irrelevant players and move ahead.

  74. More Soylent Green! says:

    Judging from the reviews at Amazon.com, Dr. Mann has reached the tipping point that separates scientists from deities.

  75. R. Shearer says:

    I’d rather go to war with a smart bomb than a hockey stick.

  76. Michael Palmer says:

    I can’t wait to see Josh’s take on this book title.

  77. Russ Steele says:

    If you want some insight to the reviewers, just google all those that wrote over the top reviews. For example Rob Honeycutt: Rob Honeycutt, Skeptical Science, March 12, 2011

  78. William McClenney says:

    An attorney friend of mine and I are going to the UCLA Mann talk and book signing on the 13th. Not even sure why I am going.

  79. John from CA says:

    Tom Gray says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    As I looked now on Amazon, there are 17 5 star reviews and 11 1 star reviews. Isn’t that the problem. People are just yelling slogans at one another….
    ==========
    I agree, though I found the top rated review to be the most insightful comment so far.

    There is also 1-2 star review now. I haven’t read the book but I seriously doubt it deserves either 5 or 1 star ratings.

    I’m also uncertain where the Best Seller Rating of 4 is coming from. In the Math and Science category, “Raising Chickens for Dummies” has a higher rank.

  80. sceptical says:

    Mr. Watts, is the only point of this post to get your viewers to go over to Amazon and give poor reviews or am I missing something?

    [REPLY: What part of "While I realize that many people don’t want to buy this book, please don’t pull a Peter Gleick" do you fail to understand? -REP]

  81. Jeff says:

    Maybe review it as though it was one of David Hasselhoff’s vocal offerings……

  82. Nenndul says:

    I noticed that they are starting to use the standard “debunked long ago” form of argument in those reviews. Why do people think that because they have argued against a position (or read someone else arguing) that that makes that position “debunked”.

    Anybody who uses the word “debunked” in a scientific context should be banned from publishing in that field for no less five years.

  83. Russ Steele says:

    Oh My, from reviewer Scott Mandia on his blog: Global Warming: Man or Myth?

    Scientists can also wear their citizen hats. Anthony Watts’ Minions Attack Mike Mann and Make Mockery of Amazon Review Process

    Sigh. I knew it was going to happen eventually. It is a shame that the science deniers are much better organized than the rational people. As of 8 AM this morning, Dr. Michael E. Mann’s latest book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines had 15 reviews, all of which were 5 stars. My review (posted below) had 58 out of 59 votes for being helpful.

    Enter climate science denier Anthony Watts whose blog has never missed an opportunity to smear a climate scientist. This morning, Watts posted about Mike Mann’s new book and within hours the Amazon reviews turned ugly. Of course, Watts tells his readers “While I realize that many people don’t want to buy this book, please don’t pull a Peter Gleick and do reviews apparently in absentia.” referring to his false claim that National Academy of Sciences member Dr. Peter Gleick posted a 1 star review of Donna Laframboise’s book without reading it. I also read that book and it deserved the 1 star.

    As of 7 PM EST tonight there are now eleven 1 star reviews and all of the 5 star reviews are being sabotaged by vote downs and negative comments. My detailed review is suddenly not helpful – only favored by 87/172 people.

    Anthony’s Army is having an impact. let the whining begin!

  84. Smokey says:

    Nenndul says:

    “Anybody who uses the word “debunked” in a scientific context should be banned from publishing in that field for no less five years.”

    Same goes for “robust”.

  85. sceptical says:

    REP, that wasn’t an answer to my question. What is the point to this post? The author hasn’t read the book yet and so no informative critique was offered. Is there any reason for a post like this except to get people over to Amazon to write reviews or click the helpful button? Doesn’t that strike as a bit childish for a science blog?

    [REPLY: So, you think the arrival of Dr. Mann's much anticipated book is not news? Anthony has announced it's arrival, directed interested parties to the site, and has cautioned against commenting on something that hasn't been read. What is the substance of your complaint? If Anthony had done anything else you'd be complaining that he was trying to prevent people from reading it. -REP]

  86. Frank K. says:

    Jeff says:
    February 8, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    “Maybe review it as though it was one of David Hasselhoff’s vocal offerings……”

    Awww..now you’ve done it! You have me thinking of the NEW Sponge Bob Movie – “It’s a Sponge Bob Climate!”.

    The Plot: Bikini Bottom experiences unprecedented warming, so Sponge Bob and Patrick set out for the North Pole on their carbon-free jelly fish to warn the polar bears that their home will be melting away (just like Squidward and Mr. Crabs said it would)! Will they get there in time? Or will the evil Plankton (who is bought and paid for by big oil!) hypnotize them and make them into skeptics?!

    Here is the all star cast:

    Mike Mann – Sponge Bob
    Gavin Schmidt – Patrick
    Jim Hansen – Squidward
    Kevin Trenberth – Mr. Crabs
    David Hasselhoff – himself

    And starring Plankton as Plankton.

    Special 3-D scenes shot in New York at NASA-GISS! Watch Sponge Bob and Patrick speed through the streets in their special solar-powered electric car trying to keep Plankton from stealing the secret-formula climate models!

  87. Camburn says:

    sceptical says:
    February 8, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    I actually learned about this over at SkS. So…..I went to the Amazon site to see what all the fuss was about. In reading the reviews, I read the same old tired arguements that Mr. Mann is correct in his theories, and everyone else is wrong.

    Sir: Sorry to tell you this, but you are wrong in your assessement. Just the proxy data from the Sargasso Sea along with other proxy data shows how wrong Dr. Mann is and how poorly tree rings correlate to temperatures. Mr. Mann is wrong, and isn’t man enough to admit it and move on.

  88. R. Craigen says:

    LOVE Ambler’s title! I’d lay out $9.99 just for the title.

  89. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Jeff said on February 8, 2012 at 5:54 pm:

    Maybe review it as though it was one of David Hasselhoff’s vocal offerings……

    If you’re German you’ll likely think Mann is great, but in America… Mann just can’t get respect?

    Somehow thy analogy hath failed, me thinks…

  90. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, to sum it up, if I get this right, firstly, Amazon’s supposed to be an important global market in US and secondly reviews given by, supposedly, Amazon’s global US customers are supposed to be important?

    I’m sorry but it kind of reads like the World Champion Ship in baseball, only US teams allowed.

  91. rossbrisbane says:

    Read the book – it is a compelling other side of the fence argument not often heard by mobs shouting it down.

  92. sceptical says:

    Camburn, what are you talking about? How does data from the Sargasso or any other sea show me wrong about the reason why Mr. Watts would post an article like this on his site?

  93. Smokey says:

    sceptical,

    Anthony’s mast head says WUWT is about “Commentary on puzzling things in life…”.

    You don’t think Mann’s book qualifies??☺

  94. sceptical says:

    Smokey, maybe there could have been some type of commentary on it. A critique of the book perhaps. A post by someone who has actually read the book. But this wasn’t offered.

  95. Smokey says:

    sceptical, you’re hopeless. There was commentary. FYI, “commentary” does not require reading the book [that's called a "book review"], and it is not a synonym for “critique”. For example, check out the commentary at Bishop Hill.

    You know, I could comment ["commentary", see?] on the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or on the Koran without reading them. I trust you understand that. But I’m not too hopeful.

  96. Poptech says:

    LMAO, Rob Honeycut’s Amazon review is sickening, just as sickening as the lies I exposed about him when he desperately attacked my list,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

  97. Poptech says:

    Why is no one mentioning the excellent true story book of the Hockey Stick?

    The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science

  98. Mickey Reno says:

    Now, where have I seen this kind of absolute polarization in an Amazon book review, with one side fawning and gushing, and the other side choking down a gag reflex. Oh yeah, I remember now:
    http://www.amazon.com/Dianetics-Modern-Science-Mental-English/product-reviews/140314446X/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_38?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=38

  99. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Editorial Reviews section:

    Very few people have sounded more important alarms about our climate future, and very few people have paid a higher price for doing so.
    (Bill McKibben, author of Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet 1/20/2012)

    Although not initially of his own choosing, Michael Mann has been the most important, resilient, and outspoken warrior in the climate battle–responding to threats and persecution with courage and resolve every step of the way.
    (Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future)

    Reviews:

    First they came for the scientists. . ., February 8, 2012
    By Robert S.

    A Frenzy of Hate, February 8, 2012
    By Gregory T. Laden (Minneapolis, MN, USA)

    And of course we “deniers” are a united well-funded front of right-wing fundamentalist anti-science creationist types who proudly wear the “twisted cross” on our sleeves. And there’s poor old Michael E. Mann, chosen by Destiny, against his will, to be the Leader of the hopelessly-outspent hopelessly-out-organized hopelessly-out-unified Climate Resistance!

    This is the point where Spock and Scotty fix the transporter malfunction and we can send these reviewers back to their Bizarro parallel universe, right?

  100. Mark T says:

    He who shall not be named… indeed.
    Mark

  101. Anthony Watts says:

    I’ve purchased Mann’s book tonight on Kindle, which was pretty tough to do since I don’t normally pay to read insulting things about myself.

    I’ve read portions, made some notes, and maybe tomorrow or the next I’ll have some review comments along with some fair use excerpts. Yes, finally, Dr. Mann has acknowledged my existence and that of WUWT. I’ve gone from “he who must not be named” to “reviled in print with references”.

    My first takeaway impression is that Dr. Mann can do no wrong, which seems to be a self image bolstered by an ego so large that surely the State Department of Transportation has to put orange road cones out ahead of him when he travels.

  102. Wherethereishope says:

    When Tony Blair, UK ex PM, put his autobiography on sale. A lot of people were moving it from the Biography section in the shops and putting it under “crime” or “fantasy”. Where should this one go?

  103. Keith Minto says:

    Smokey says:
    February 8, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    sceptical,

    Anthony’s mast head says WUWT is about “Commentary on puzzling things in life…”.

    You don’t think Mann’s book qualifies??☺

    Touche, Smokey.

  104. jonathan frodsham says:

    I have just 60 min ago bought the Kindle version of Michael Mann’s “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines” So far, spit and spew, and massive bouts of uncontrollable laughter from me :” The climate change deniers isolate individual scientists just as predators on the Serengeti Plain of Africa hunt their prey: picking off individuals from the rest of the herd.” Riveting stuff. I have never been called a science hunter before. Good one. Mann is an idiot.

    REPLY: Yeah, read that. The first page is really quite something, isn’t it? – Anthony

  105. jaymam says:

    Negative (i.e. 1 star) reviews by the following people have been deleted:

    59 of 86 A. Blue
    42 of 71 R. Hooper
    35 of 62 Chris B
    17 of 32 Peter

    The warmists are adding new reviews and getting other warmists to quickly voting for them, to get those at the top (Most Helpful First) order. So if 3 of 4 people like a review, it will be at the top.

  106. Truthseeker says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    February 8, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    My first takeaway impression is that Dr. Mann can do no wrong, which seems to be a self image bolstered by an ego so large that surely the State Department of Transportation has to put orange road cones out ahead of him when he travels.
    ________________

    Anthony wins the funniest comment award for this thread!

  107. Dave Wendt says:

    Wherethereishope says:
    February 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm
    When Tony Blair, UK ex PM, put his autobiography on sale. A lot of people were moving it from the Biography section in the shops and putting it under “crime” or “fantasy”. Where should this one go?

    Abnormal Psychology?

  108. Bad Manners says:

    Reviewer Robert says of Mann’s book:

    “This book is exactly like a turd. It’s small, it stinks, and it’s disgusting. Just like Mann.”

    Pretty accurate

    REPLY: WUWT readers should vote that one down and click on the “report abuse” button. That’s uncalled for – Anthony

  109. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Anthony Watts on February 8, 2012 at 9:08 pm:

    My first takeaway impression is that Dr. Mann can do no wrong, which is a self image bolstered by an ego so large that surely the State Department of Transportation has to put orange road cones out ahead of him when he travels.

    Here in Pennsylvania? Flashing lights on the hauling vehicle, large black-on-yellow signs front and back proclaiming “WIDE LOAD”, with Certified Escort Vehicles (at least one in front) having the same. For “smaller” loads like a prefab home that arguably occupies just over one lane, they stick to a lane and other vehicles slip around them in the passing lane. If larger then the load occupies two lanes and there are more escort vehicles to keep everyone going in that direction away. If the entire road is only two lanes wide and going both ways, then the State Troopers get involved and the cones come out. They also get involved with extra-long loads like concrete bridge beams that need extra room to turn corners.

    Like when in nearby Danville in 2009 a tractor-trailer hauling a 150-ft 100-ton wind turbine tower chunk to West Virginia went to make the turn onto a bridge over the Susquehanna River, an axle broke, and it sat there waiting for parts ordered from Alabama to fix it.
    http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x546125233/Grounded-load-in-Danville-waits-for-parts

    When the back of the trailer hit a tree and a curb on Front Street on Monday while trying to turn onto the Danville-Riverside bridge, a tire blew and the axle was damaged.

    The rig and base sat there, resulting in the bridge being closed for six hours before the base and trailer could be lifted and slid.

    Because of damage to the trailer, it couldn’t be moved, so the crane that lifted it was reactivated to move the trailer and base farther back on Front Street so the bridge could be reopened at 5:45 p.m. Monday.

    The big load was the second to go through Danville. The first made it across the bridge, but its engine reportedly blew later Monday at All Saints Cemetery in the Elysburg area. The trailer also was reported to have cracked. That base was the same size as the one remaining in Danville.

    The wide loads began their trip in Toronto, Canada.

    For some reason people think wind turbines are only both funny and annoying after they’re erected and often not running. Go figure.

    Those chunks are that heavy, that hard to move, and clearly being moved with equipment that’s marginal for the task. So of course the “civic-minded” people are grousing about road damage from too-heavy natural gas drilling and fracking equipment while giving those turbine chunks a free pass. Oh well, something else to blame Mann and his fellow still-unindicted co-conspirators for bringing about. ;-)

  110. jonathan frodsham says:

    I have just 60 min ago bought the Kindle version of Michael Mann’s “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines” So far, spit and spew, and massive bouts of uncontrollable laughter from me :” The climate change deniers isolate individual scientists just as predators on the Serengeti Plain of Africa hunt their prey: picking off individuals from the rest of the herd.” Riveting stuff. I have never been called a science hunter before. Good one. Mann is an idiot.

    REPLY: Yeah, read that. The first page is really quite something, isn’t it? – Anthony

    Yes Mann gets off to a flying start, I have not seen the word shill yet. But on the first page (Prologue)” fossil fuel industry”, “a cartoon video “hiding the decline” ” and he was “horrified by what they had now stooped too” I assure Mr Mann that I am even more horrified than him, I just spent over 10 dollars on a book written by someone I despise. Beat that!

  111. kbray in california says:

    I copied a few of Amazon policies for anyone who was affected. To be deleted, one must have been reported under “Report Abuse”. See the link for full details. I suggest that Mann’s book violates the Amazon Policy on many counts. On that basis, it should be pulled from being sold.

    Amazon Customer Discussions

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/forum/content/db-guidelines.html

    What shouldn’t I post?
    Behave as if you were a guest at a friend’s dinner party. Please treat the Amazon.com community with respect. Do not post:

    • Profane or obscene, inflammatory or spiteful comments
    • Messages that abuse, denigrate or threaten others
    • Text or articles written by someone else, even with attribution for the author, except for brief quotations from a book, article or other product related to the discussion
    • Any personal information about children under 13
    • Descriptions that intrude on the privacy of another person, including revealing personally identifiable information such as their name or address
    • Text that promotes illegal or immoral conduct
    • Repeated posts that make the same point excessively
    • Repeated unwelcome messages that harass or embarrass other customers or participants
    • Repeated posts that promote an item in the Amazon.com catalog
    • Any form of “spam,” including advertisements, contests, or other solicitations for other websites or companies; or any URL link that includes a “referrer” tag or affiliate code.
    Do not impersonate another person, including an Amazon.com employee.
    We recommend that you do not post your phone number or e-mail address.

    How do I edit or delete my post?
    Click “Edit” on any message that you have posted. (You need to be signed in with the same account you used to write the post.) You can then change the text or delete the post.

    What if I find an inappropriate post, or one that detracts from the discussion?
    If you find a post that you feel is obscene, threatening, pornographic, another person’s words, or otherwise violates Amazon.com’s guidelines outlined here or in the Conditions of Use, please click “Report abuse” and submit the report.

    If you think that a post just doesn’t help further the discussion, vote “No” on the right edge of the post. On the other hand, if you believe that a post, whether you agree with it or not, contributes well to a constructive conversation, you can vote “Yes” on the right edge of the post. When the customers voting on a post collectively don’t think it adds to the discussion, the post may be hidden by default. You can still view these posts by clicking “Show post anyway.”

    What do I do if my message was deleted?
    We regularly investigate messages that have been reported to Amazon.com as violating our guidelines. If you feel your message was removed inappropriately, contact us.

  112. Anthony Watts says:

    The Michael Tobis comment about me on Amazon is a total fabrication, and he has no citation to back up his false claim that “But well-followed “skeptic” Anthony Watts has called out his troops and urged them to vote the thing down sight unseen. ”

    I’ve emailed him about this, using the email he gives here at WUWT in his comments, no response.

    This is what the “report abuse” button is for on Amazon.

  113. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/books/hockeystick/index.php

    The Hockey Stick became a central icon in the “climate wars,” and well-funded science deniers immediately attacked the chart and the scientists responsible for it. Yet the controversy has had little to do with the depicted temperature rise and much more with the perceived threat the graph posed to those who oppose governmental regulation and other restraints to protect our environment and planet. (…) Throughout, Mann reveals the role of science deniers, abetted by an uninformed media, in once again diverting attention away from one of the central scientific and policy issues of our time.

    Kevin Trenberth advocates reversing the climate ‘null hypothesis’. Now Michael Mann tries to show who is the real Big Dog of Climate Science™, by inverting reality itself!

    Report web page issues to: smiller at psu dot edu

    Issues like offensive language and unsubstantiated allegations being promulgated on a state-funded website? Maybe Governor Tom Corbett should cut Penn State’s funding even further, since apparently good old PSU is happy enough with Mann’s grant money that they’ll willingly put up such dreck without worrying about financial shortfalls from alienating donors and losing funding due to violating any relevant laws and regulations.

    For the benefit of fellow Pennsylvania residents, even people passing through who’ve paid PA sales tax, smiller@psu.edu will hopefully be an easy-to-click link (provided the moderators don’t snip it, which they have the right to do) for voicing your complaints about the abuse of your tax money.

  114. Gerard says:

    Wait a week or two and it will be remaindered and be 50c a copy

  115. stumpy says:

    the cover of Mann’s book looks like it was put together by a 10 your old who has just learnt to use Windows Paint – I am sorry but it looks sooo tacky and unprofessional versus the sleek cover of Harold Amblars book – no wonder they cant sell the science to the public!

  116. rossbrisbane says:

    Hi Anthony,

    It is obvious what has happened. I am well aware that anyone doing a review on Amazon should READ the book which YOU REQUESTED all do so. Unfortunately many of your posters have not heeded your request to do so at all. I have read and some of the reviews to be quite frank are disgusting. The simmering hate for him is palpable – please bring them into line and don’t encourage them to flame.

    It is quite an embarrassment to your side – and anyone can read the stuff a mile off – it is smelly and darn awful what’s happening. This will go nowhere, mate.

    As for polls many keep wrongly thinking somehow one side is winning this “war”. The latest poll would seem to indicate the reverse is true.

    Ross J.

  117. John Trigge says:

    An early 5 star review by Rob Honeycutt states:
    “In fact it was Mann himself who coined the term AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)…”

    According to Wiki (maybe not an infallible source) “The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) was identified by Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994.” and refers to Schlesinger, M.E. and Navin Ramankutty (1994): An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, 367, Issue 6465, pp. 723-726, DOI: 10.1038/367723a0. NCAR also refers to the 1994 Schlesinger et al paper, though (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/AMO.html).

    Is this an attempt to give more credence to Mann than he is entitled to? If not, what is the value of the reviewers remarks if he is making basic attribution errors like this.

  118. Dale says:

    As typical of SkS I posted a comment (not insulting, but a summary of Mandia’s review to prove to the dolts I’d actually read the reviews) and it was deleted by John Cook. Asking if my deleted post breached comment policy also got deleted. I also notice my original comment was “amended”. I’d originally said:
    “The book looks to be more about Mann’s sob story than any real science.”
    It now reads:
    “But since the book looks to be more about Mann’s sob story than any real science, I wouldn’t have read it regardless.”

    SkS at its finest.

  119. Patrick Davis says:

    “IAmDigitap says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:17 pm”

    Agreed. I have yet to see an alarmist take up this challenge. I guess it is easy to prove this is an actual science fact, rather than a computer simulation/prediction/projection or just some outright lie.

  120. Patrick Davis says:

    “Dale says:
    February 9, 2012 at 1:19 am”

    The Sks Facebook page is just a good.

    /sarc off

  121. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From John Trigge on February 9, 2012 at 12:42 am:

    An early 5 star review by Rob Honeycutt states:
    “In fact it was Mann himself who coined the term AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)…”
    (…)
    Is this an attempt to give more credence to Mann than he is entitled to? If not, what is the value of the reviewers remarks if he is making basic attribution errors like this.

    That’s a very carefully worded attribution. I noticed the Wikipedia entry before when a certain common sewer rat claimed Mann was a co-author of the paper that “found” the AMO. Bill Illis later clarified the issue:

    Regarding Mann and naming the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. He only claims he came up with the name for it in 2000 in an interview he gave to Richard Kerr (the editor of Nature at the time). Schlesinger and Ramankutty did not name it in their 1994 paper.

    Richard Kerr also wrote an editorial about the Oscillation in Nature in 2000 which coincided with Mann and Delworth’s paper which outlined the oscillation pattern over a few centuries. An interview Kerr had with Mann was published in a few newspapers and that is where the name AMO first came up.

    As stated in the mentioned book review, “in fact” is a bit of stretch. At least merely saying he coined the term, that he put a name on something someone else had found but didn’t bother to name, is better than the blatant falsehood of outright stating he was a co-discoverer of the AMO. (Although why it wasn’t simply named the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation, the natural complementary term to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, would be interesting to know.)

  122. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    PSU-EMS-Alum says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:25 pm
    That address is from the Energy Institute.
    Hi there , whoever it is I hope had a good chuckle. The cartoon
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm
    had just under 1000 hits from this web-page alone, or in total well around 2.3 k, including numerous ones from various NASA locations (including the New York’s).

  123. CodeTech says:

    rossbrisbane:

    Unlike the leftist mind-locked drones you seem to be used to dealing with, we independent thinkers don’t take marching orders from anyone.

    Mr. Watts alerted us to the presence of this disgusting, loathsome man’s newest smear campaign against “deniers” and showcase of self-aggrandizing fluff, and a few of us apparently wandered over and vented a bit, in a place that the perpetrator is likely to actually look.

    Anyone who steps into the limelight had better be able to handle both cheers AND boos. And the occasional hiss, overripe produce and even – GASP – the Hook.

    Over time, I’m sure that the Amazon review section will represent the same overwhelming dismissal and mocking of AGW alarmism that pretty much every unedited news item comment section on the same topic now displays.

    The fact is, the “Science” of AGW only works if you cook data, falsify observation, ignore what is outside your own window, conjure up “projections” in a model, and ignore history. Contrary to Mann et al’s belief, the average person is more than capable of seeing through the cheap tawdry charade.

  124. John says:

    “Mann’s book currently has 15 reviews on Amazon, all five-star, many by his warmist friends. I hope some climate realists eventually review the book as well.”

    Subtle!

  125. John Marshall says:

    I have just written a review and I hope they print it because I slated it. Amazon did not ask if I had read it which seemed a little strange but there you are. It seems anyone can review it so go ahead and add another slating.

  126. Charles.U.Farley says:

    higley7 says:
    February 8, 2012 at 11:24 am

    It’s under science fiction, right?
    ———————————————-
    Its actually in the Crime section next to “How to commit a fraud and get away with it”.

  127. John Marshall says:

    Just heard from Amazon. My slating has been published. Surprise surprise.

    This is Mann getting back some of his.

  128. dorlomin says:

    What a great thread. Has inspired me to buy this book.

  129. KNR says:

    Ross J. do you think all those pouring blind adoration on Mann have read the book to , given some make mention of its content that would seem not to be the case . But oddly that causing you no concern , funny how that works.

  130. rossbrisbane says:

    Dale,

    Hate to rope you a bit. Its a bit rich you coming here and crying bad bad SKS. I did rerad your posts there.

    You poor boy! What do you expect – a heroes welcome there on an AGW site.

    You were allowed your opinion. This is not a sob story – sorry. This tells the other side – it is a great pity many will not even take the time to even listen in just little bit.

    I think somewhere that equates to bigotry which is just plain opinionated.

  131. Dave says:

    4.0 out of 5 stars – Useful and Thoughtful, February 8, 2012
    By Michael Tobis (Austin TX) (REAL NAME)
    This review is from: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Kindle Edition)

    “I have only read a quarter of the book and ordinarily would not review it under the circumstances. But well-followed “skeptic” Anthony Watts has called out his troops and urged them to vote the thing down sight unseen. Casual shoppers should be aware of this.”

    What is it about warmists and libel?

  132. jonathan frodsham says:

    John Trigge says:
    February 9, 2012 at 12:42 am
    An early 5 star review by Rob Honeycutt states:
    “In fact it was Mann himself who coined the term AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)…”
    According to Wiki (maybe not an infallible source)

    JF. Please John do not mention Wiki for reference as every time I see the word “Wiki” I spit coffee or red wine all over my keyboard. I have already been through 4 in the last 12 months.

  133. jonathan frodsham says:

    Talking about amazon. There is a thread there called “Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic” There are 9000 posts, looks like it has mainly watermelons on site. I was occasionally participating. There is a guy there called TruthSeeker, he gives them stick all the time. I have seen him here as well. Good guy. Why don’t you drop in and have a few posts.

    Meanwhile the Watermelons from the South sustained considerable damage due to heavy shelling from the Realists of the North.

  134. David A. Evans says:

    Throughout, Mann reveals the role of science deniers, abetted by an uninformed media,

    Given that the MSM have been trying to shove AGW down our throats for years, I found that a bit rich.

    I will be neither reading this book nor writing a review for it. Apart from his work, the only experience I have of Mann is a few TV interviews where he came across as a whining, wheedling little child.

    DaveE.

  135. DavidA says:

    The first 2 chapters can be read at Amazon. Apparently Mann is a zebra and skeptics are lions. The zebras protect their week by bunching together creating a mesh of indistinguishable stripes. Perhaps that’s the IPCC?

  136. Michael Jankowski says:

    So much for “we’ve moved on.”

  137. greenman3610 says:

    ““This book is exactly like a turd.”
    “REPLY: WUWT readers should vote that one down and click on the “report abuse” button. That’s uncalled for – Anthony”

    Anthony, why be coy. You called for it. The response is so reflexive, so automatic, so impressively lemming-like in its consistency.
    Also impressive how many commenters plowed through the the 300+ page book in an afternoon.
    Good speed reading, but apparently low comprehension.

  138. John from CA says:

    John from CA says:
    February 8, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    I agree, though I found the top rated review to be the most insightful comment so far.
    =========
    Its no longer the top rated review:

    194 of 349 people found the following review helpful:
    assumptions are not fact., February 8, 2012
    By JrF “Jonny old boy”

  139. beng says:

    ****
    rossbrisbane says:
    February 9, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Hi Anthony,

    It is obvious what has happened. I am well aware that anyone doing a review on Amazon should READ the book which YOU REQUESTED all do so. Unfortunately many of your posters have not heeded your request to do so at all. I have read and some of the reviews to be quite frank are disgusting. The simmering hate for him is palpable – please bring them into line and don’t encourage them to flame.
    ****

    Anthony’s disclaimers are already more than sufficient. Stop shooting the messenger.

  140. JPeden says:

    dorlomin says:
    February 9, 2012 at 2:48 am

    What a great thread. Has inspired me to buy this book.

    But, me, I’m a little dubious of the implication that, according to his own assertions and unbeknownst to the rest of the world, Mann has proven the existence of enough of his “identical Earths” so as to be able to finally make “mainstream” CO2 = CAGW Climate Science falsifiable; or that this book presents the so far completely absent evidence on this Earth of the existence of even one correct relevant empirical prediction deriving from the idea that CO2 is the driver of climate.

    A real science and a real scientist certainly wouldn’t make anyone pay extra for such findings.

  141. Smokey says:

    greenman3610 says:

    ““This book is exactly like a turd.”
    “REPLY: WUWT readers should vote that one down and click on the “report abuse” button. That’s uncalled for – Anthony”

    “Anthony, why be coy. You called for it.”

    greenie, you are a mendacious fool. Anthony specifically did not ‘call for it.’ He strongly repudiated it.

    As I’ve pointed out countless times, if it were not for psychological projection, the alarmist crowd would have little to say.

  142. John from CA says:

    Smokey says:
    February 9, 2012 at 9:24 am

    As I’ve pointed out countless times, if it were not for psychological projection, the alarmist crowd would have little to say.
    ==========
    Isn’t that the point Smokey? Mann didn’t take the “high road” to reinstall trust, he took the “low road” to perpetuate the foolish diatribe.

    If he’s representative of the IPCC, the best course of action is to retire the entire mess and start over with a solid set of governance rules.

    The entire mess makes me sick, this is the only issue that brings all world powers together and they BLEW IT!!!

    Scientists, give us a break — they need a Nanny!!!!

  143. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    The Amazon UK hardcover listing:

    44% off with free shipping!
    (I tried looking at the Kindle listing. It tells me “Kindle titles for your country are not available at Amazon.co.uk.” and won’t give me the UK price. Awwww…)

    Only 2 reviews so far. If you’ve read it, feel free to submit a review on Amazon UK!

  144. Chris B says:

    Wherethereishope says:
    February 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm
    When Tony Blair, UK ex PM, put his autobiography on sale. A lot of people were moving it from the Biography section in the shops and putting it under “crime” or “fantasy”. Where should this one go?

    _______________

    Science Fiction of course.

  145. Chris B says:

    jaymam says:
    February 8, 2012 at 9:29 pm
    Negative (i.e. 1 star) reviews by the following people have been deleted:

    59 of 86 A. Blue
    42 of 71 R. Hooper
    35 of 62 Chris B
    17 of 32 Peter

    ______________________

    I’ve had two reviews deleted. I think it simple requires a few “report abuse” button pushes from Mann’s best friends.

  146. Tim Clark says:

    I don’t read children’s fables anymore.

  147. Johnnythelowery says:

    It’s sales will look like an inverse Hockey Stick!

  148. Bernie says:

    I have no problem with Amazon deleting reviews where the reviewer has not read the book. If this had happened to the negative reviews of Donna Laframboise’s book then by my count the negative reviews would have shrunk from 17 to 3 or 4, with the infamous Peter Gleick’s being one of those that was removed. On the other hand, Gleick and similar reviews have been very helpful in demonstrating the lack of integrity of these reviewers. It is a shame that some readers of this site felt compelled to write reviews without reading the book, despite Anthony’s urging not to.
    I look forward to the reviews of the book by McIntyre, McKitrick, Mosher, Fuller and/or Montford.

  149. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Bernie on February 9, 2012 at 1:36 pm:

    I look forward to the reviews of the book by McIntyre, McKitrick, Mosher, Fuller and/or Montford.

    I look forward to when a Kindle version can be passed among people like a dead tree version, so the group only has to buy one copy. Besides, unlike the print version, when everyone’s done reading the digital edition and all agree it’s not worth keeping, it doesn’t even have the residual utility value of material for the fireplace nor for the outhouse.

    Although for the latter I myself might consider printing off a few pages from an electronic version that wandered into my possession. I think I’ve seen “TP” as a selectable paper size with the one program…

  150. Chris B says:

    Rob Honeycutt says:
    “I read the book weeks ago. I received a prerelease copy. I don’t find anything in the book that sounds like what clickz4 says.”
    __________________________________________________
    I guess that’s how you get your book to hit the market with 15 glowing 5 star reviews.

    It’s kinda like the big box bookstores buying huge quantities of a particular book and then putting that book at the top of the best seller list in order to promote and offload the product.

    I’m guilty of commenting via a book review, although I stated up front that I had not read the book. I wrote that I would not read Mann’s book because i did not think someone who was involved in the production and dissemination of the hockey stick graph, and was hiding emails and data, could be considered credible.

    Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

  151. John Norris says:

    Didn’t take him long to tell a whopper. Sentence #2:
    “… Words and phrases had been cherry-picked from the thousands of e-mail messages,removed from their original context, and strung together in ways designed to malign me, my colleagues, and climate research itself. …”
    Okay, the full e-mail exchanges are there to read. Pretty much every time I saw someone quote a juicy sound bite from a climate-gate e-mail, they provided a link to the specific e-mail – because it is so easy, and they had no fear of full context negating their sound bite. There is plenty of context. Especially if you are familiar with the McIntyre / Mann dispute leading up to the first climate-gate release. It was incredible how much climate-gate emails support McIntyre’s side of the story. Somehow Mann chose not to explain that though in the opening pages. He could only whine that the release is part of the vast big oil conspiracy. QQ

  152. John Brookes says:

    Sounds like a good book. Will probably buy a copy. Thanks for putting the ad here Anthony.

  153. Mr. Watts contacted me at 11:40 PM my time last night regarding my Amazon review. I responded this morning upon reading my email at 9:23 AM as follows “Fair enough. You are correct. My apologies.” Six minutes later I informed him that I had updated the comment. Further exchanges led to another amendment.

    The call to review the book appeared on the front page. The call to read it before reviewing it appeared in the body of the article, “below the fold” as blogger parlance has it. I am not interested in misrepresenting anything or anybody. I think this is yet another case of you guys making a molehill into a mountain, but at least in this case there actually was a molehill to start with.

    While there is much to be gained from Mann’s book, it is far from polished.

    I have to admit that I found the Serengetti thing a bit stretched and not really that effectively presented. Don’t y’all be getting big heads about you being lions and us being zebras.

    mt

    [Thank you for the reply. Robt]

  154. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    Anthony, please note the following: I have no idea if this is true, but a comment over on Scott Mandia’s “minion” blog post article claims that Amazon has DELETED a number of one star reviews. The guy making the claim, no surprise, seems to think that censorship is a good thing (why am I not surprised). Actually, if pressure was brought to bear against Amazon to force them to remove a number of negative reviews (a la’ typical Mann & “CRU Team” tactics), it’s worse than censorship and moves into the realm of turning the comments into a highly biased propaganda tool. The comment was as follows:

    from: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/anthony-watts-minions-attack-mike-mann-and-make-mockery-of-amazon-review-process/

    I think it’s been sorted now, Scott. It looks like Amazon has deleted the short, ’1 star’, spoilers. What remains demonstrates the polarisation of the subject and I think will actually intrigue potential readers.

    John Russell (@JohnRussell40) February 9, 2012 at 4:52 am

    p.s., heh, never been a “minion” before, but I suppose since I read WUWT regularly, now apparently I am! :0)

  155. geronimo says:

    “dorlomin says:
    February 9, 2012 at 2:48 am
    What a great thread. Has inspired me to buy this book.2

    I guess you’ve found the Guardian comments page a little dull lately given the ongoing reverses in the CAGW scare, so you’ve come here to ply your trade in snide remarks. Go ahead, unless you address the substance here you’ll be ignored, as you generally are in the Guardian.

    Michael Tobis, well said, no doubt some people here may be rubbishing the book out of malice, but no one has recommended it. I have to ask you though Michael, that Serengeti bit, y’know where we, well organised, well funded, denying bastards separate the zebra from the herd and hunt it down as a pack. Does Michael really understand who we are? I appreciate it that as part of the life of a climate scientist activist it is de rigeur to visit the most exotic places on the planet so Michael will probably have been to the Serengeti and seen the lions at work. But I wonder did he see any of them chasing zebras on zimmers, because he should be aware that his enemies are mostly old retired mathematicians, scientists and engineers, and I doubt any of us could could hunt anything down as a pack without a portable toilet.

  156. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    Mann probably ought to be thanking Anthony – with this one post on WUWT, I’d be willing to bet Mann got far more sales than he would have otherwise (even if many were by folks who know enough of the issues involved to be poorly disposed towards the content and claims).

    I’m also intrigued by the folks who are clearly omnipotent, and know that any negative reviews of Mann’s book are made by Anthony’s eeee-vil minion horde, or by folks who didn’t bother to read the book. While, of course, all the five star reviews are by folks who thoroughly read and comprehended the book, or couldn’t possibly have heard about and purchased the book after first hearing about it on WUWT. /sarc

  157. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    Good on Michael Tobis for saying he’s corrected the errors in his Amazon review once they were pointed out to him.

    But oh the irony that he would post such a review with grossly incorrect claims, ostensibly about how Anthony extolled folks to post reviews without actually reading the book, when clearly he never bothered to read Anthony’s full post, or Mann’s book either!!!

    Pot, meet mirror.

  158. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re post by: John from CA says: February 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    … Apple’s new iBooks Author program is free but requires OS X Lion. It allows anyone to publish and distribute free books and to post them to the Apple Bookshelf for sale….

    There really isn’t any reason not to publish a variety of ibooks for education presenting the truth and exposing the fiction. WUWT is a wonderful repository of information.

    Let me know if you need a volunteer to format WUWT books to give proper balance to works like The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

    John, on reading your post it occurred to me that Jo Nova’s skeptic’s handbook (http://tinyurl.com/nocc9j), and the summary of peer reviewed science by the petition project (http://petitionproject.org/review_article.php) would both be ideal for this sort of treatment. If they were amenable, of course. Probably other excellent similar online documents also, but those two came to mind right off the bat as ones that would, I’d think, be relatively easy to turn into an ibook as you’ve suggested, if you had any interest in working with those…

  159. John from CA says:

    Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:
    February 10, 2012 at 12:28 am

    John, on reading your post it occurred to me that Jo Nova’s skeptic’s handbook (http://tinyurl.com/nocc9j), and the summary of peer reviewed science by the petition project (http://petitionproject.org/review_article.php) would both be ideal for this sort of treatment.
    ==========
    Great idea Rational Db8
    There’s only one sticking point for authors. The iBooks, which can be exported to PDF versions and auto-formatted for iPad etc. using iBooks Author, can be distributed freely as long as they are free. If the application is used for books for sale, the iBooks must be distributed on the Apple Bookshelf and a contract negotiated with Apple for distribution.

    I’m eager to design a few to test the limits of the application. The application allows for live links and embedded media which could extend interactivity but complicates rights and permissions for art etc.

    I’ll check with JoNova and see if she’s interested in trying it out and I’ll check the petition project out; thanks.

  160. More Soylent Green! says:

    A few years ago there was a rather controversial book about presidential candidate John Kerry and his exploits in Viet Nam. (BTW: Did you know John Kerry served two tours in Viet Nam?) At that time, Amazon affirmed its policy of not requiring reviewers to have actually read that book, or any other book, before publishing a review.

    That has always seemed to be a questionable policy to me. However, how would enforce a requirement that a reviewer reads the book first? Add a “I certify I have read this book” button?

  161. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re post by: John from CA says: February 10, 2012 at 7:06 am

    Great, I’m glad you like the idea! If it works out with either of them, please do me a favor and drop me an email letting me know they’re available, and I’ll add to the Apple statistics for them by picking them up thru the Apple Bookshelf! Or if you’d like an extra eye to give feedback before the final is published, I’d be happy to take a run thru them if that would be of any use. My email is: RationalDebate “at” gmail “dot” com

    Regardless I hope it works out – the more widely that sort of information is available, the better.

  162. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re post by: re post by: John from CA says: February 10, 2012 at 7:06 am

    Shoot, for that matter, I bet Anthony would be willing to consider a front page post notifying folks if you put together any ibooks like this with others.

  163. Louise says:

    I downloaded the book onto my kindle two days ago via the UK Amazon site (so yes it was avaialble to us over here on 8th Feb) but I waited until today and I had read the book to write a review. It’s a shame that many didn’t seem to feel the same need. Some even started their review by saying things like “I haven’t read this book and don’t intend to because…”

    What sort of ‘book review’ is that?

  164. deke says:

    I cant wait to pick up a copy at a goodwill or ARC next year.

  165. johanna says:

    geronimo says:
    February 9, 2012 at 11:21 pm
    (snip)
    Michael Tobis, well said, no doubt some people here may be rubbishing the book out of malice, but no one has recommended it. I have to ask you though Michael, that Serengeti bit, y’know where we, well organised, well funded, denying bastards separate the zebra from the herd and hunt it down as a pack. Does Michael really understand who we are? I appreciate it that as part of the life of a climate scientist activist it is de rigeur to visit the most exotic places on the planet so Michael will probably have been to the Serengeti and seen the lions at work. But I wonder did he see any of them chasing zebras on zimmers, because he should be aware that enemies are mostly old retired mathematicians, scientists and engineers, and I doubt any of us could could hunt anything down as a pack without a portable toilet.
    ———————————————————————–
    Heh heh. I now have an indelible mental image of a bunch of Grandpa Simpsons blindly plunging through the African bush on their zimmer frames, wildly waving their walking sticks, and yelling “Come back here Mann, you varmint!”

  166. kadaka, y’all don’t seem to understand the purpose of a unviersity.

    You going to go after this guy, too, for instance?

    http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m950.htm

    He’s on the naysayer side on the climate question, by the way.

  167. Hugh J. says:

    Gerry, Surrey says: “Who really wants to waste their time and money on buying and reading his rubbish so they can write a review on it? What you can do is rate any positive reviews as unhelpful and also read the review for any lies within”

    That is essentially the same thing as writing a review without reading the book. You are assuming you know what is in the book without reading it.

  168. phinniethewoo says:

    i was looking in the bathroom section

    warmism is about why we should shower less right?
    maybe some other bathroom activities are relevant as well re the irrefutable science

Comments are closed.