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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

lol, Steve Mac get under his skin?


It’s under science fiction, right?

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).


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

Peter Miller

“Dispatches from the Front Line”
What a complete ?@!$^!


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

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

Fred from Canuckistan

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.


‘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.

kbray in california

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

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.

Dickens Goes Metro

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


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

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!

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.

Adam Gallon

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

Here is Dr. Mann (one holding a notebook) and his gang demonstrating the CO2 cause:
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.


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.

Gary Pearse

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.

Coach Springer

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.

Jack Cowper

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.

Ursus Augustus

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.

Gerry, Surrey

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.

kbray in california

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.

Al Gored

“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.


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

Dodgy Geezer

“McIntyre” had 166 hits..”
I thought his name could not be mentioned…?


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.

Mike Spilligan

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

Rob Crawford

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

Keith W.

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

UK John

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.


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

kbray in california

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 !!

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

Frank K.

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.

Hit from
Location: University Park, Pennsylvania, United States
IP Address: The Pennsylvania State University (
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.


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.

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


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.


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


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.

The top ranked reviews all trash the book.


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?

Tom Murphy

kbray in california says:
“The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
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…?

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.