By John A
A shout-out for a review of Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Matt Ridley in Prospect Magazine.
Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph.
I can remember when I first paid attention to the “hockey stick” graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true.
I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. “It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,” said the BBC. The hockey stick is to global warming what St Paul was to Christianity.
The rest of the review is here.
Most tasty quote (my emphasis):
Well, it happens. People make mistakes in science. Corrections get made. That’s how it works, is it not? Few papers get such scrutiny as this had. But that is an even more worrying thought: how much dodgy science is being published without the benefit of an audit by Mcintyre’s ilk? As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial.
R Squared Suspense!
===========
I am currently reading this book. It is a brilliant account of the Hockey Stick story.
I believe it has 21 five star reviews on Amazon UK
It should by now be evident to both alarmists and sceptics that this entire business has never been truly a “scientific” determination. So either our respective governments know something too sensitive for public knowledge (unwashed masses) or they are all complicit in a massive global economic restructuring programme. Either way I take strong offence to their determination that I am too ignorant to be advised accordingly. Further I feel that their underhanded and scam –like attempts to frighten populations into irrational mindsets is treasonable to the populations they are entrusted to serve. It is a travesty of justice that these “leaders” are not held personally responsible.
A simple test for anybody would be to answer truthfully whether anyone of us would place the live of one of our children in the hands of a surgeon, knowing full well that the proposed procedure is based on “science” as unpredictable, suspect and unknown as climate science. I think not.
Bought it already, to be read, shared if I can find some willing readers (or perhaps unwilling students in a captive audience), and then proudly shelved beside Mosher and Fuller’s engrossing and wonderful “Climategate: The Crutape Letters”. I’m glad that someone who has been following this from the beginning has documented McIntyre’s brave and persistent contest against the global warming oligopoly. Both Bishop Hill and McIntyre are true Davids.
Sounds like a good read. Unfortunately, unless it can be Twittersized, very few of the general public ( the electorate ) will ever hear about it, much less take the time to read it. And forget about them understanding one word of it. I doubt it will ever be included in any school curriculum or show up on a best seller list dominated by Romance novels. Might get some traction if it were programmed as a first person shooter video game.
Nothing summarizes how the whole ClimateGate saga should offend all objective scientists and engineers better, than these words from thread start:
”I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial.”
And not only shut-eyed denial:
Extended, intransigent, and unbending denial; even in the face of (and long after) the obviously substantive and reputable work done by McIntyre and McKitrick.
Just for reference and to remind all readers:
Major red flags were raised about MM’s hockey stick fantasy for all to see over FIVE YEARS ago.
For example (and still one of the best initial pieces on the hockey stick fiasco), an execellent article by Technology Review was published way back on 15 October 2004:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f
At the end of above linked article is another gem:
”A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one — if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.”
The refusal by the politically-correct AGW industry (IMO a fair characterization) to even consider doing the right thing as per above, in the face of what was clearly substantive and substantial evidence debunking MM’s hockey stick, raises the question:
What additional mistakes, exaggerations, and flat-out frauds that would properly fit under the ClimateGate umbrella have even now NOT been turned up yet, but still need to be ??
The world wonders.
Bravo Your Grace!!!!!
I just ordered it. If it lives up to my expectations I will probably buy a “loaner copy” to share with others.
Larry
Since global temperatures have been rising since 2009(even to the point that Roy Spencer readjusted his formula yet again to reduce the rise we saw in the last couple of months), it seems that there’s not much to write about here except old saws. This subject has been thoroughly vetted several years ago by the National Research Council, which found that Mann’s statistical approach was suboptimal, but his overall conclusion was justified;
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years The National Academies Press
I saw a good idea on another thread, get your local Library(s) to order a copy, someone might just read it there.
I have an acquaintance who is profiting – massively – from the climate scare . . . if only . . . if only I could get this book to him anonymously. His wife and I are friends and I don’t want to make waves.
A year ago when I queried him (a scientist) about his level of certitude regarding AGW – he pegged his confidence it at 120 %. He was on board with that hockey stick – big time.
I love the term “shut-eyed denial.” It certainly describes the reaction of the scientific community. Too much money is at stake.
The subject I would like to see explored more is how climate science became so anti-science. I think it started with Mann refusing McIntyre data. Mann supplied some data at first, but when McIntyre showed he understood what was going on and the data he had only raised more questions, Mann stopped cooperating. This was a frontal attack on the openness and transparency of science.
Phil Jones refused data to Warwick Hughes saying he had 25 years invested in the data and he wouldn’t provide it to someone who just wanted to find something wrong with it. Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if people refuse to provide data.
Here are my questions: Who refused to supply data first? Was it Mann or Jones? How did they know they should refuse to supply the data? Did they already know their science was screwed up? Mann knew his reconstruction failed one verification statistic but failed to report that. What errors did Jones know about regarding the surface temp record?
To refuse to share data is a great scientific evil. Dogbert, one of the stars of the Dilbert comic strip, says “evil is the cure for incompetence.”
What, no Amazon Associate link so we can send a few cents to WUWT when we buy it?
It is a travesty!
I think I’ll be ordering the book when the wage comes in. In the meantime, I’m listening to Aled Jones’ Good Morning Sunday, which is generally good: but he’s given some time to eejits who are telling everybody to switch their lights off for “earth hour”. I wonder if presenters really believe this guff, or if their jobs depend on giving it air-time…
I have ordered these 3 books, and sendt mail-recomendations to all my friends;
(And asked them to forward the recomendation to their friends again, and so on)
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=reg_hu-wl_mrai-recs
http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true.
DOH!
I’ll be getting it for my birthday next month, and I can hardly wait.
This to me sounds like the book scientists ought to be reading if they want a case study on how not to do science.
I also plan to buy a couple of copies to give out as graduation presents.
James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. “It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,” said the BBC. The hockey stick is to global warming what St Paul was to Christianity.
DOH! Again!
….the benefit of an audit by Mcintyre’s ilk?
Paging James Hansen…..paging James Hansen……James Hansen, come to the front desk please.
Buy it today, I’ve just read it and can say that it’s as exciting as any Richard Hannay (remember “The 39 Steps”?) adventure, fantastic and a homage to the McNemesis’ who unmasked this piece of scientific skulduggery.
KPO (09:44:32) :
A simple test for anybody would be to answer truthfully whether anyone of us would place the live of one of our children in the hands of a surgeon, knowing full well that the proposed procedure is based on “science” as unpredictable, suspect and unknown as climate science. I think not.
People have been doing that for millennia.
McIntyre quickly found errors: mislocated series, infilled gaps, truncated records, old data extrapolated forwards where new was available, and so on.
These are ‘standard practice’ that is ‘widely accepted in the climate community’. Why is this blog being so ‘unfair’?
(/sarcoff/—in case you didn’t know)
1. Book Ordered
2. Plastic Melted
3. Awaiting Delivery
Andrew
This was bad enough; worse was to come. Mann soon stopped cooperating
Hey, hey, watch it there! That is ‘standard practice’! You’re making it look like something funny is going on!
That’s it! I’m running strait to Monboit, Connolley, and David Roberts at Grist. They’ll listen me!
The reviewer Matt Ridley has written several superb poplar science books, like Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, and Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human. This is a powerful review by someone who is a highly respected award winning author and very science-minded.