Climategate: The CRUtape Letters now online at

If you tried earlier and could not purchase this great book, it is online now at Amazon and ready for purchase.

UPDATE : Kindle version now available for purchase online at click here

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (Volume 1) (Paperback)

~ Steven Mosher (Author), Thomas W. Fuller (Author)

Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1) Sales Rank: #72,392 #1,041 in Books – let’s see if we can make that go up. Already, just out of the gate it’s beating Joe Romm’s “Hell and High Water” book which is at Sales Rank: #235,474 in Books (as of 1/18/09)

See my review and excerpts below.

Electronic publishing has revolutionized the art of writing, now less than two months since it happened, we have the very first book about Climategate. My first story on Climategate appeared on November 19th, 2009: Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

I’ve read the book, and it appears to be an accurate and detailed portrayal of the history not only of the Climategate events and the players, but also of the events leading up to it. I’m flattered that this book mentions me and my surfacestations project several times. I was interviewed for the book, and this website is featured prominently–and they borrowed liberally from both the posts and the comments.

For those of you that want to follow a detective story, this one has as the twists and turns of Mickey Spillane with a Hardy Boys approach to a matter of fact story line. I highly recommend it.

This book is being published in electronic downloadable form, and is available for purchase online. You’ll recognize the authors as regulars here and at Climate Audit. Please consider purchasing this book, as it will provide funds to get Mosh out of the flat in San Francisco he shares with Charles The Moderator, who are becoming the climatic odd couple of our time.

Here are excerpts of the book:

In October of 2004 McIntyre and his criticism was on the radar of climate scientists. Tom Wigley writes Phil Jones about McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s work ( MM03) which is making its way around the internet. Wigley is not as dismissive of McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s work as is Michael Mann. In fact, Wigley calls Mann’s paper a very sloppy piece of work…

At 20:46 21/10/2004, [Tom Wigley]


I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.  At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? — or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful.


As Wigley notes M & M (McIntyre and McKitrick) have some valid points in their criticism of MBH ( Mann and his co authors 1998 paper). What Mann viewed as a stunt others found merit in. Wigley asks Jones about his reconstruction work with colleague Keith Briffa. Briffa, as the Climategate mails show and as his studies show was less certain about reconstructions of the MWP than Mann was. Jones, of course, is stuck between supporting Briffa or Mann, both co-authors. Most importantly Wigley recognizes that Mann is too deep in this to be helpful. Mann has too much at stake to be objective. Jones replies, by this time taking on some of Mann’s attitudes toward McIntyre and McKitrick:

From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxx

To: Tom Wigley wigley@xxxxxx


The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in virtually everything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were used in the Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doing this –  only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wrong year/decade.  I wasted a few hours checking what I’d done and got no thanks for pointing their mistake out to them. If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site

Point I’m trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. ….

Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the  last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean.  This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.



Jones’ “gut feeling” is at stake and he is clearly agitated by his encounters with McIntyre, a marked difference from their exchange in 2002. In 2002, McIntyre was merely a researcher asking for data, but by 2003 McIntyre was a published author leveling criticisms at Jones’ co author Michael Mann. Jones also refers Wigley to a web site that discussed M&M. The fight over MM03 was largely taking place on the web as McIntyre had started to write about his findings on a blog called  For independent researchers like McIntyre, posting articles on the internet was far more expedient than publishing in page limited journals. And just as citizen-journalists had transformed print journalism with the advent of blogs, climate science looked ripe to be transformed by the internet. McIntyre and McKitrick also adopted a publication model used by econometricians: they posted their data and their code so that anyone could check their work, find errors and suggest improvements. This gave them the moral high ground of transparency as opposed to Mann’s and Bradley’s shadowy world of “independent scientists,” although Mann and Bradley would certainly argue with some legitimacy that they were only following a century-old practice.”

Steve McIntyre struggle for years to get accurate data out of the hands of an elite team of scientists in England and the U.S., only to be stymied by continued refusals and runarounds.   At the beginning the data concerned work highlighted by your host, Anthony Watts, about the fidelity of the temperature records here in the United States. Later, it revolved around the data used in construction of proxy temperature records, such as the Hockey Stick Chart, now infamous for shoddy analysis and poor sample selection.   Climategate, written by Steve Mosher and Tom Fuller, is an account of the events leading up to the leaking of over 1,000 emails and assorted files that exposes the unethical and perhaps illegal practices used by the Hockey Stick Team to protect their turf as well as their information.   These rock star scientists dined with the elite and feasted on government grants, but it was all predicated on ‘hiding the decline:’ Making sure no-one saw how shaky their data, analysis and conclusions actually were.   Hide the decline didn’t refer to temperatures–it was worse. It was a decline in the quality of their data  they were trying to hide. This book puts it all into context–and in context it is worse.   Mosher actually played a small part in bringing the details to light (although your zany moderator Charles the First was more instrumental), and Fuller covered the story for from day one of the scandal.   Here’s an excerpt: “In Chapter 6 we introduce the Army of Davids that will start the laborious process of documenting all the surface stations in the US. McIntyre starts dissecting the Jones 1990 paper and his intense focus on individual cases finds a sympathetic ear in Anthony Watts, who launches an even more detailed look at individual cases in the US. Discussions about UHI and data and code turn from a focus on Jones 1990 to a focus on NASA and their GISSTEMP code, which is eventually released.

At the start of May, McIntyre links to a blogger named Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist who was convinced that temperature monitoring stations in the United States were in dire shape and could not be trusted to create a temperature record, especially one that the world would use as a reference point for dealing with climate change. During the summer, Watts would launch a nationwide volunteer effort to document the weather collection stations used by NOAA, NASA, CRU and Jones. The effort that Trenberth thought too large for any one individual would be handled under Watts’ generalship by a true army of Davids across the nation, using the tools of the internet. The goal very simply was to document the status of the temperature collection stations. Many hands made light work of the job scientists thought too large to attempt.

Tom Karl of NOAA takes notice of Watts but is not sure how it will turn out.

From: “Thomas.R.Karl” <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxx>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxx>

Subject: Re: FW: retraction request

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400

Thanks Phil,  We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site  of 40 of the USHCN stations  showing less than ideal exposure.  He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.  We are writing a response for our Public Affairs.  Not sure how it will play out.    Regards, Tom

That effort, ridiculed at first by bloggers in the warmist faction, would in the end garner Watts a visit to NCDC to discuss his work. Moreover, in the end NOAA would engage in an effort to bring the climate network up to better quality standards. As of July 2009 the volunteer effort, hosted at had surveyed 1,003 of the 1,221 stations used by NOAA and corrected mistakes in the official metadata.:

Readers from this site can finish that part of the story.

Buy the book here:

Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Glenn Beck just bashed the Danny Glover comment about global warming causing the earthquake in Haiti.

Leo G

Hmmm, Volume one? Is Mosher not telling us something…….?

Hans Moleman

Nice to see someone making money off that which was stolen from others.
Look for my book on the out-of-context emails of Steve Mosher, coming soon!
REPLY: Actually, the CRU documents and emails are considered by many to be public property and subject to FOIA requests in the UK – Anthony


Volume 1! Does that mean there is more to come?


Not yet on Amazon UK we only have – on a Climategate search
The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford (Paperback – 15 Jan 2010)
Climategate: A Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman (Hardcover – April 2010)

Just ordered copy through CreateSpace instead of Amazon. Authors get a larger %.


Is there an electronic edition anywhere?

Nice. All that’s missing now is the same on Barnes & Noble so I can use my PayPal account…. 🙂
I guess this book is required in my shelf.

Dave Wendt

OT, but just saw this from KJL at The Corner at National Review. The State of the World Forum has postponed their planned climate summit in Washington D.C.
Dear Friends,
I want to inform you that we have decided to postpone indefinitely the Washington conference Feb. 28 – Mar. 3. I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause you. There is simply not a critical mass of receptivity at this time for the kind of “Climate Summit” we have designed, which has emphasized an integral approach to climate change and the need for an “urgency coalition” to come together to take immediate and decisive action to resolve the climate crisis
As disappointed as we are that the conference will not take place, the considered opinion of all our conference partners has been that this is simply not the right time to convene a major conference of this kind in the nation’s capitol. It would have virtually no impact on either the thinking or the agenda with which the U.S. Congress and the president are now engaged, such is the paralysis to which Washington has succumbed with regard to any action on global warming. In due course, this situation will no doubt change, probably induced by a sufficiently strong climate related catastrophe, but this is the stark reality we face at the moment. As a result, raising funds and registering sufficient numbers have been extremely challenging.
They see the lack of ” a critical mass of receptivity” for an “urgency coalition” in D.C. Perhaps there is hope available after all.

Mike Bryant

Hmmmm… Can I get a signed copy?
Reply: I’ll see what I can do for our all time comments in a day winner. ~ ctm

Hans Moleman

If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.


Our Gav has got his nutty mate to come and see us. Whats occurring I says, Hansen tells me us why its all so hot when we all feel so could. I said to our Gav look see he must be on something? Maybe an ego trip?
So I tries to help me mates at UnReal Climate
What a dreadful article from someone who not only fiddles the temperature data but also fiddles the scales on his graphs.
The weather conditions we are experiencing presently and in the last thousands of years area what is expected in a Holocene climate optimum. Even a dullard would know that.
Gav, Hansen and the other self named Climate Scientists have been shown to be at best incompetent and at worst out and out fraudsters.
Trick or Cheat

My wage comes in in a few days; I might get that…

Ckn Litl

I asked kindly before.
Now I am pleading (DON’T MAKE ME BEG)!
How do I get this autographed by CTM and Steve Mosher?
I have purchased this through Createspace and would happily pay shipping both ways!!


Re: Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :

Nice to see someone making money off that which was stolen from others.

And with a single comment you condemn a whole genre of literature – True crime.


Love the title.
C. S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters” was a set of letters written by a senior demon to a junior demon, giving advice on how to lure humans to perdition.


@hans trollman (15:07:56)
I would have like to have seen the original CRU data in context before it was eaten by the dog. But I can’t.
FOI requests were made for the data and the e-mails and nothing was released. Some public spirited individual cut out the middle man and released these anyway.
It is lucky these e-mails are in the public domain before the cat buried them or something.
Why do you not want these e-mails out in the public domain? Have you read them all? Or have you just read the spin put on them by your chums at fakeclimate?

JB Williamson

The reviews on Amazon have started: like…
“1.0 out of 5 stars Comically Recycled Delusions, January 18, 2010
By Ben Lawson “Ben” (Toronto, Canada) – See all my reviews
Someone stole some climatologist’s e-mails. Someone else carefully selected some phrases out of context and tried to claim that this proved the climatologists were engaged in skullduggery. (The B.S. quotes are all right there on the cover!) Indignant fingers were pointed.
The secrets and “tricks” and conspiracies were found to perfectly match the public record.
And now it’s all nicely packaged, “spun” and self-published by the accusers themselves.
This looks like a perfect book for someone who KNOWS that scientists are lying to them and needs some mental crutches to support their paranoia.”
I have already marked it as unhelpful, but others may wish to add their reviews after they have read the book.


Old Jim:
The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford (Paperback – 15 Jan 2010)
See the BishopHill blog at … Montford’s book is well worth getting, tho he has not been able to get it published in the US yet. He is asking for some help on this.
For those interested in the politicization of climate science, it is sure to be a must add addition to your library.

charles the moderator hour later and it’s jumped to 20,128th

Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :

If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.

Oh yeah, that’ll work well. Check the book, I’m sure there are plenty of references to UEA and CRU dismissing several FOIA requests. Very possibly one for which the .ZIP archive was created for.
While there has been too much discussion at WUWT about thing taken out of context, I never found them hard to spot. Anyone who has been around here for a while and followed the interaction between the major players knows a lot of the context.
For example, the “Nature Trick” was not something to trick the journal Nature with, but something that may have covered up some effects of increased plant growth due to rising CO2. (Note – that’s speculation on my part!) Jones et al jumped on defending the “trick” but studiously ignored the “hiding the decline.” The assumption that the decline was temperature was wrong and out of context – really referred to wood density, but that’s related to temperature. In the end, context is available and I’m sure is a signifcant part of the book. We shall see.
Why are you assuming that the book perpetuates the out-of-context discussion? Perhaps it would make sense to read the book before criticizing it.
Bummer – does this mean the book downloaders will get their copy before me? And I bought two. I was thinking of giving my brother one for last Christmas, but he bought a copy already.


I think that this book and the misrepresentation of the content of the e-mails will be the legacy of the anti-scientist crowd.

Mike Bryant

Wow… Wanted to let you know I wouldn’t mind paying extra for a signed first edition!! Thanks… Mike


Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
“If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.”
You do realise that you are being absurd.
Given the readiness of CRU and friends to render prompt co-operation with FOI requests that should mean that we will be waiting until sometime in the next century.
Given the sheer volume of material leaked there can rarely have been any correspondence ever made public which has more context.


I hope that SMosh can sell enough copies to get his own place before Gavin brings out his prize-winning “RealClimate, the best years of my life or so I thought”
CTM, I truly hope that Mr S delays the release of his memoirs to date until you can get your space back!


Dave Wendt (15:02:43) :
OT, but just saw this from KJL at The Corner at National Review. The State of the World Forum has postponed their planned climate summit in Washington D.C.
It’s all on the backs of Californians now.
“For those in the United States, it seems time to work, as Governor Schwarzenegger urges, at the sub national level as he has done so effectively in California. The fact that Washington seems incapable of action is actually an opportunity for traction locally in specific cities, states and regions. This is where the 2020 Campaign in the U.S. will focus its energy – supporting local initiatives and strategies. There is very significant work being done which inexorably will turn the tide.”
In other words, the high priests of AGW realize they cannot convince the voting public of the US to support their unaffordable religion, so the entire senseless burden of eliminating CO2 emissions is now on the backs of the citizens of the bankrupt state of California. Our governator has already committed us to this insane cause.

Gary Hladik

Ckn Litl (15:23:56) : “How do I get this autographed by CTM and Steve Mosher?”
Perhaps you could send them a stamped, self-addressed envelope and they can send back a signed post-it you can affix to the book? (Sending the actual book for signing would generate more CO2 dont-ya-know) 🙂

Kevin Stamey

Anthony wrote:
This book is being published in electronic downloadable form, and is available for purchase online.
I believe the book is only being offered in paperback form from Amazon and CreateSpace – not in an electronic downloadable format.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Kevin Stamey
Reply: Kindle format to come soon. eBook is under evaluation. ~ ctm

Amazon US: one rubbish review. Always the rubbish reviewers have only ever done one review; always the good reviewers have done a fair handful at least. Amazon UK: nothing. Bishop Hill on Amazon US: claimed to be out of print. Bishop Hill on Amazon UK: claimed to have only one book copy.
This is not the first time I’ve seen Amazon backward re skeptics climate material.


Hard talk on bbc2 just now has yet another compliant BBC stooge, SS, talking to a GreenPeace activist about CarbonHage failure.
The Science is, apparently, settled whereas the Fraud is unrecognised!
SS does sound a tad more adversial than hitherto but as it’s the BBC I struggle to expect that we will find out that us evil first worldwers are, once again, the kitten stroking child killers.
BTW, the more I listen, the more I’m starting to believe that Aunties kids are turning into Screptics!


This is strange. Watching Hard Talk on BBC2 just now this is my impression. The Beeb is now Sceptical!
Darn it Auntie, I thought you were lost to logic, now even Steven Sachur may be an Honest man’
Cheers SS!


Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
“If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.”
If ‘The Team’ or its dwindling band of sycophants really believes that they would be helped by providing more context around the Climategate information than that already in the public domain, why don’t they provide it? Go ahead – make our day. I think that you are all bluff and bluster.

photon without a Higgs

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (Volume 1)
Volume 1, more volumes to come. I like it!
Fill my library boys!


The carbon credit trading pushers fully intend to implement their plans despite the Climategate and the man-made global warming fraud. More news stories need to be published on this subject.
Global carbon emissions market could reach $1.4 trillion in 2020, Report Says


The emails were leaked and maybe I have an alter ego
There was an article by Dr Tim Ball speculating about who might have leaked the emails. In the comments section I posted my reasons for suspecting Mike Hulme. The next day someone else posted a comment beginning “Good call on Brifa”. Later the name of the author of that comment was changed to Thomas but I definately didn’t write that second comment. I’m not sure what to make of it. Maybe the moderator made a mistake or maybe I’m going mad. Anyway here’s my comment followed by the link.
How about former CRU and IPCC man and climate Professor Mike Hulme who teaches at the University of East Anglia. Originally he was very pro post normal science. His objectives were: To trade truth for influence. To make climate science post-normal (source: small dead animals website, article: post normal science) 2007.
Then he seemed to change his mind and maybe could see something coming:
“Hulme believes that this dependence of politics on science expects too much of science’s ability to explain and to predict, and that this is a burden that science cannot carry. Science is exposing its vulnerabilities, he says. And in overselling itself, the risks are very substantial.”
and “To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgments is undermining both politics and science” “time to ditch climate consensus” Hulme May 2009.
Then came climategate: Headline: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist. That was Hulme too.
Posted by Thomas on 12/23 at 11:01 PM | #

Peter B

Maybe Hans Moleman, JohnP and whoever else who agrees with them could then be so kind as to “contextualize” the e-mails? I’ve seen the phrase “out of context” being repeated like a mantra, as if it explained everything (or anything). Well then, what *is* the context? And If you don’t know, how do you know that they’re out of context? That position makes no sense whatsoever.


mmmm. well, I’ve just bought a copy to help Mosh out of his flat (heh!) and begin a climate sceptic section in my library. Amazon bloody stupid reviewer clearly hasn’t even read it, so I rated it unhelpful (current rating “0 out of 27 people found this review unhelpful”). Love the C S Lewis allusion in the title! Will reserve judgment till I’ve read it. Which is as it should be.


John Christy interview on ieee spectrum:

Spectrum: I’m sure you don’t want to speak for whoever hacked into East Anglia’s e-mail, but is it a fair guess that East Anglia was picked precisely because of its key role in establishing the consensus temperature record?
JC: Actually, the mail may not have been hacked. Evidently, it was compiled to comply with a Freedom of Information request, and that folder may have been released as an inside job or inadvertently.

Really interesting point, which Anthony Watts pointed out somewhere also.
A highlight from the interview:

Spectrum: We often hear the religious-minded speak about our responsibility to be stewards of the earth. What do you think about that?
JC: It sounds like you’re on the side of the angels when you say you want to save the planet. But if you’re talking about preventing energy from expanding in the Third World, you’re condemning people to perpetual poverty. What’s more, it’s economic development that creates the cleanest environments we have. You don’t find clean rivers or clean air in the poorest countries.

“Without energy, life is brutal and short.”

Graeme From Melbourne

The so-called scientists within “the team” are perfectly positioned to be turned into scapegoats and “thrown under the bus” by nervous politicians seeking to jump on the growing trend of public scepticism of MMGW.
Politicians being lagging indicators of public popularity will be amongst the last to make the shift.


I want an autographed copy too. I hope the authors don’t take this personally, but I would rather have my copy autographed by Phil Jones.


First review from realclimate
That first review on amazon entitled ‘Comically Recycled Delusions’ is from Ben Lawson who posts his propaganda on realclimate, desmogblog and any other place where climategate is mentioned including on this site. Not a surprise really.

photon without a Higgs

Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
I didn’t know it was proven the CRU file was stolen. Would you tell me where I can read about this?

Graeme From Melbourne

JohnP (15:56:57) :
I think that this book and the misrepresentation of the content of the e-mails will be the legacy of the anti-scientist crowd.

I am pro science and I don’t accept the current politicised advocacy parading itself as climate science to actually be science.
Last time I looked, real science involved an open, transparent, and serious dialogue between theory and empirical evidence that could be independently replicated by others. None of those descriptors can be applied to the activities occuring at the Hadley CRU, NOAA, GISS, et al…
MMGW is little more than a trumped up superstitious belief in the power of man to control climate that appeals to insecure personalities that can’t cope with the actual irrelevance and insignificance of humanity in the face of the awesome power of the natural world.
The lasting legacy of the MMGW movement will be as a sharp and distinct lesson in the madness of crowds, the gullibility of the ill-educated and the duplicity of the conmen who have sought to dupe the world in the quest for Wealth, Fame and Power.

Graeme From Melbourne

photon without a Higgs (17:37:46) :
Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
I didn’t know it was proven the CRU file was stolen. Would you tell me where I can read about this?

An excellent point Photon. – So Hans, you are able to rule out the options of (1) Internal whistleblower/leaker, and (2) Accidental placement of the file on the FTP server where it was thence downloaded by a third party.
Both options do not involve theft. I would be interested to know how you have ruled these possibilities out…
I await to marvel at your response.

photon without a Higgs

Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.
It’s a good idea.
Please contact CRU and all the people involved in ClimateGate and ask for a complete record. Do you think they will be open to that? Many people would like to have it.


Not trying to start a stampeded but other people can put their reviews in there along with that deluded nut, who posted the “unhelpful” review. The title was “Comically Recycled Delusions”. What would that apply to, to you guys? LOL
Last I checked it was #5,139 in sales. Go Steve Go!

photon without a Higgs

Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
Nice to see someone making money off that which was stolen from others.
Almost all news media, TV, radio, and internet, in the US, and all around the world, have reported on ClimateGate. You could make a case that all of these have, in some way, made money from those reports.


Crazy California CO2 Law:
“On August 31 [2006], the California legislature passed a bill establishing the most extensive carbon dioxide (CO2) emission controls yet in the United States. The law requires a 25 percent reduction in state CO2 emissions by 2020, with the first major controls taking effect in 2012. The California Air Resources Board, the agency that enforces the state’s air pollution controls, will be the main authority in establishing emission targets and noncompliance penalties for the law, which also allows for business incentives to reach the goals.”
“Several northeastern U.S. states signed a regional agreement to reduce CO2 emissions in December of 2005 but their target would reduce emissions by only some 24 million tons. The California mandate, which aims to cut emissions to their 1990 level, will result in cuts of some 174 million tons.”
“Opponents worry the new law will hurt California businesses and actually contribute to global warming by raising compliance costs to prohibitive levels. “If our manufacturers leave, whether for North Carolina or China, and they take their greenhouse gases with them, we might not have solved the problem but exacerbated it instead, warns Allan Zaremberg of the California Chamber of Commerce.”


Just bought it, added my “unhelpful” to Lawson’s infantile review and posted the following:
“The secrets and “tricks” and conspiracies were found to perfectly match the public record.”
…. and that’s a good thing ??


I reported Ben lawson’s review as inappropriate. I wasn’t given the option of explaining why but given that the reviewer hadn’t read the book and given the number of review critics and ‘unhelpful’ votes who knows Amazon might remove it.