Yesterday, I received my advance copy of this book, and after spending about an hour with it, I Tweeted this:
Just received advance copy of book “A Disgrace to the Profession” from
@MarkSteynOnline all I can say is: Mann, that’s gonna leave a mark!
And today, after spending a full day with it, that statement still holds true.
I remember when Mann decided to sue NRO and Steyn for defamation, and despite all the laughing at the time there was this prescient thought from Dr. Judith Curry:
“Mark Steyn is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”
Well, Part 1, or should I say, Volume 1 of that prediction is now in press. It’s a scorcher, hilarity, and a tale of science and politics gone awry all in one.
Steyn realized the word of a political pundit like himself can only travel so far in certain circles, and in a brilliant move, he has gathered a compendium of what other scientists have to say about Mann’s work on the “hockey stick”. And of course, he’s had it illustrated by Josh. My favorite is Mann as Yoda, wielding a hockey stick rather than a light saber, seen in this collage below:
The book has twelve chapters plus an introduction, prologue, and a postscript. In it. You’ll find quotes from scientists like this one:
and this one:
And there are many, many, more even harsher than that. Such as this one:
The final word of the last chapter goes to Dr. Judith Curry:
And there’s even a final chapter called:
…where you can read what the IPCC has to say about it. I’ll give Steyn credit, he strives for some balance here, but there’s just so few positive reviews that he could barely fill that chapter, much like there were no amicus curiae briefs filed with the DC Circuit Court on Mann’s behalf. I suspect many science professionals know what they are dealing with here, but fear coming forward. After all, who wants to be sued by Dr. Mann, and have discovery drag on for years?
I do like the chapter “Mann Overboard!” taken from one of our WUWT headlines by that name.
I quipped at the time this silliness with lawsuits all got started that “a Mann’s got to know his limitations” (With apologies to Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan). We’ll know soon if any of this has sunk in to Dr. Mann’s understanding of what he is really up against.
So far, Mann’s predictable supporters haven’t weighed in, except for the borderline Harvard man, Dr. Russell Seitz, who didn’t bother to buy the book (Amazon notes “Verifed Purchaser” in such reviews), but has plenty to say about it on Amazon (see below). Like the hockey stick itself, Seitz’s review is done by proxy, not by actually reading it. It’s sad and yet hilarious that this sycophant posted a review for a book that not only he apparently didn’t read, but wasn’t even available yet for shipping!
That right there symbolizes the whole problem of climate zealotry in a nutshell: it’s what they believe is there, and they won’t look beyond their own beliefs to form rational opinions, and so cling to the irrational tribalism that has polarized the climate issue.
I recommend Steyn’s book highly, because it really gets to the heart of the matter about that lack of scientific rigor in climate science that has become a poster child for “noble cause corruption”.
You can pre-order it on Amazon here, shipping starts August 14 15th.
The text from Amazon says:
The “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN’s transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation.
And yet what it purports to “prove” is disputed and denied by many of the world’s most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world’s scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.
After you buy it and receive it, I recommend posting an Amazon review based on what you’ve read, unlike the irascible Dr. Russell Seitz, who apparently posts fake reviews by proxy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
from BH
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate-2
warrenlb sez: “Steyn used three quotes by Scientists to promote his book: (for full text from my
source, see link at the end)”
I think there are somewhat more than three such quotes within the book itself. Do you plan on addressing each one in similar detail?
And, what difference, at this point, does it make? The point is that Mann sued Steyn for libel. To prevail he must show Steyn knew, or should have known, that Mann was a Nobel-caliber scientist beloved by (nearly all.) On the other hand, for STEYN to prevail, he must merely show that, as a reasonably well-informed layman, Mann as a scientist was NOT beloved by all, and that Mann’s famous graph had come under some criticism. Steyn does not have to prove the graph wrong, he simply has to prove that a reasonable layman may have reasonable grounds to exercise a constitutionally protected right to speak his mind. A list of quotes by scientists about Mann and the graph — an appeal to authorities — is not logical or scientific BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Steyn is exposing his mind. Perhaps it can be argued that Steyn has filled his mind with trash. Fine. Such an argument doesn’t prove malice, or reckless disregard for the truth, or negligence. Steyn summarized what not only he, but many other layman, believe (however correctly) about Mann and the graph.
The outcome of the lawsuit will not settle the science. But the public IMAGE of the science will be seriously degraded as a result of this trial. And it is Mann’s fault.
The outcome definitely will affect the ability of us all to challenge or otherwise to jeer at the orthodox government and government-promoted university sock-puppet line in this antihuman endeavor to make us all poorer and to seek to prevent the (truly) poor from rising on nothing more than speculation and deep propaganda.
My best wishes for Mark Steyn, “A Disgrace To The Profession” is wish-listed, ready to order.
Thanks, Anthony.
Ordered mine from Steyn’s website. He’ll autograph, too. Congrats to Josh! He’s got the haughty goateed Mann down perfectly, I love to hate his drawings. Judith Curry’s note that Mann may not realize what he’s getting into is bearing fruit indeed.
This is the authentic Brian.
This is the book I wish that I had written.
I had written to the Director of BES of DOE to reject any support for Mann ten years ago. Michael Mann has disgraced science for an hundred years. Mann is nothing but a stain that will be bleached out and unforgiven
Luckily so.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html#comment16080991
No one would find “climate” particularly interesting, since it has been the same everywhere since a hominoid has been able to perceive it.
Climate has been a good money making venture, however, I would advise selling short.
I grieve for science, which will withstand the sickening filth of a “Michael Mann” or anyone else who stand in it’s way
bgvalentine@verizon.net
I was about to order a signed copy, but Steyn has a text box that says
Hmm. I need a short, pithy comment, but what? Help!
The Tipping Point is coming sooner than they expect.
A Hockey Stick makes a lousy foundation.
The taller the pedestal, the harder the fall.
Don’t wait too long. Mark Steyn’s fingers are due for extended rehabilitation after signing so many.
Just tell Mark you’d love a Dr. fraudpants witticism.
Mark chose a good one for my advance copy – “What a piece of work is Mann” 🙂
Received mine a few days ago. Came priority mail with Mark Steyn’s autograph plus a one line Manny joke.
Just reading through the foreword and contents gets one smiling and laughing.
The text reads easily and yes it is hard to stop; as one sentence leads so naturally into the next sentence that choosing where to actually stop is hard.
warrenlb August 11, 2015 at 7:18 pm
As you well know, there are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers published with all the evidence needed for every scientific academy on Earth to conclude AGW.
This is the kind of stuff that really irks me.
I suspect the majority of either scientists or layman that frequent this site would agree that when all of the possible actions of humanity are considered, they will show a net warming of the atmosphere, and by extension, the climate.
However, the total amount of that warming is not an agreed upon amount – agreement is not even close.
Moreover, the claim that human CO2 emissions are causing atmospheric warming is addressed cautiously. While the physics says it should, actual measurements and observation have not shown it conclusively. The possible amount – around 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 – may be so overwhelmed by other, natural, processes as to not register by any measuring process, at least, not so far.
The CAGW by CO2 concept has not been shown to be a conclusion of “10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers published”.
And that is the ball upon which we should keep an eye, not on warrenlb’s, as the British would say, “rubbish” AGW proclaimation.
Actually, all we need to do is keep an eye on the thermometer on my deck here in the outskirts of Melbourne.
Each of the past four summers, and each of the past four winters, has been successively colder than the previous one. This winter, so far, has been miserably damp and cold. Both of my cats refuse to go outside, and my kitty litter bill has gone through the roof!
Despite this our totally corrupt Bureau of Meteorology periodically issues press releases proclaiming “the hottest since…..”
So what do we believe: our lying eyes or our lying governments?
Have your thermometer adjusted.
Keep in mind “the physics” really only address a container with a fixed vo!ume. Beyond that, “the physics” get exceedingly difficult to evaluate.
Mark
Mark – The “Berthold-Klein Mylar Balloon (pdf) experiment” was really quite conclusive. I don’t know of any successful refutation.
I think you are too charitable …
Anyone trying the ‘ten thousands of papers have shown […]’-gambit reveals himself as an uninformed waffler. It’s just an appeal to (believed, and of course false) authority and majority/large numbers.
Firstly, no one has read ten thousands of papers somehow labelled as ‘climate science’ so he could make such an assertion. And secondly, and far more importantly, only i tiny tiny fraction of all those ‘climate science’ publications do actively address and scientifically the function of the atmospheric system, and also try to attribute the change in temperatures to GHG:s. Som put out this as a hypothesis, yes, But they are having a very very hard time getting support for it past flailing arm waving. And for CAGW, there is no scientific support at all.
All that ‘ten thousand papers’ meme does, is to prove how clueless the claimant is.
It’s as revealing as using any variety of the ‘denialist’-meme in one’s argument.
You say ‘rubbish”? Then lets get more specific:
Every Institution of Science on Planet Earth concludes, and publishes, “Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative.’ Or equivalent. No exceptions.
Find ONE Academy, Scientific Professional Society, or major University that maintains a published contrary position. ONE.
Above post addressed to JohnWho
“Every Institution of Every Institution of Science on Planet Earth concludes, and publishes, “Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative.’ Or equivalent. No exceptions.
Find ONE Academy, Scientific Professional Society, or major University that maintains a published contrary position. ONE.Science on Planet Earth concludes, and publishes, “Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative.’ Or equivalent. No exceptions.
Find ONE Academy, Scientific Professional Society, or major University that maintains a published contrary position. ONE.”
Capitalizing words inappropriately, and repeating yourself tediously does not make your statements credible. The fact that it doesn’t scare/shock you that all these supposedly credible institutions would do such a thing without ANY SOLID EVIDENCE to support such claims only proves that you value “authority” more than facts. You good little sheep you! So, by default, you must still believe that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, there is no such thing as plate tectonics, and Einstein was right about a static universe! (Since “Science on planet Earth” pretty much all concluded and published those things in the past)
One group of politicians agree with the politicians that are paying their bills.
And this impresses you?
PS: The Russian Academy of Science disagrees.
So once again warrenlb is shown to be a pathetic liar.
@MarkW
You lose: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
warrenlb’s link says right in the first line:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
Really? Climate change is real? Why hasn’t anyone told me??
The guy in the link above is more credible than the co-signers in warrenlb’s self-serving link.
The guy says he wants to “save the earth from climate change” — while warrenlb’s rent-seekers simply want to line their pockets with taxpayer loot, using the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ hoax as their preferred scam.
I’m still waiting for warrenlb (or anyone else) to post a verifiable, testable measurement, quantifying the specific fraction of global warming putatively caused by human CO2 emissions. I suppose I’ll have to wait just about forever for that kind of real world evidence, since global warming has stopped. In the mean time, all we have are Mr. lb’s baseless assertions.
OK, we now return you to warrenlb’s usual logical fallacy: his measurement-free appeal to corrupted, bought-and-paid-for international ‘authorities’… ☺
dbstealey: ” to post a verifiable, testable measurement, quantifying the specific fraction of global warming putatively caused by human CO2 emissions.”
…
Classic strawman.
..
Can’t you do better?
Jerzy S says:
“Classic strawman.”
Since you’re weak in English I’ll give you a pass, and explain: someone asking for a simple, verifiable measurement is asking a very reasonable, straightforward question. It is not a “strawman” argument, it is a reasonable question. If you don’t have such a measurement just admit it, instead of playing word games. But if you have verifiable measurements, post them here. You will be the first.
Measuring supposed ‘man-made global warming’ (MMGW) goes straight to the heart of the entire debate. The assertion is constantly being made that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable for scientific skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists) to say, “Prove it.”
So either post verifiable measurements quantifying the amount of MMGW, out of total global warming — or admit that your belief in MMGW is a baseless conjecture.
A great day for Mr. Steyn. Reprisals are often just and satisfying. Congratulation!
Thanks for the preview and review, Anth*ny … as I patiently wait for the virtual version to come online. One thing that particularly amused me about your review and intro above, was your observation that:
So Seitz is echoing/emulating Peter Gleick who succeeded in making a name for himself** by writing a “review” of a book he clearly hadn’t read, either!
** Mileage of others may vary, but I certainly hadn’t heard of Gleick prior to his fact-free – and indefensible – “review” of Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager …. Clearly Seitz was emulating a trick™ first perfected by Gleick! [See: <a href="https://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/odes-for-peter-gleick/" title="Odes for Peter Gleick" target="_blank"]
Can't help wondering if – for his next act – Seitz will follow the yellow-mud road to even greater notoriety subsequently paved by Gleick, when he fraudulently obtained documents from Heartland which he then flogged to his unnamed pals (including the smoggies and the non-fact-checking crowd in the MSM) for circulation during a 2012 Valentine’s Day massacre!
Oh, well … never let it be said that these notorious sycophantic third-raters haven’t figured out how to … well … recycle, eh?;-)
You forgot Gleick ‘creating an document trick ‘ and yet he is still held in high regard within climate ‘science’ so Mann acting unprofessionally , sorry not in the area he works given that Gleick’s behaviour caused this profession no trouble at all.
He fraudualently obtained some documents, but others he made up whole cloth when the ones he stole weren’t damning.
Mods/Anthony: re my post in moderation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/a-review-of-steyns-scathing-new-book-about-michael-mann-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/#comment-2005791
… I know that I did not mess up that URL with an ‘"’ – because I had tested the whole thing locally, before hitting post here:-(
So, trying again: … Last sentence of para beginning “** Mileage of others may vary …” should read:
[See: here]
Thanks,
Hilary
Is Mann’s case against Tim Ball resolved yet? How long has that been dragging on?
+1
Have purchased the book
And am waiting to read it,
From what I can see
We definitely need it;
The pseudo-science
Is getting out of hand,
Real science forever defamed
If we don’t make a stand!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/climate-science-is-surely-building-its-own-funeral-pyre/
Russel Seitz desperately needs the world to believe in catastrophic global warming.
This so that he can present himself as saviour, with his entirely bonkers idea of reflecting the sun’s rays by turning the sea into white froth.
Yes, that’s Russel Seitz’s masterplan for the salvation of all the people of planet earth.
He makes Steyn look like Einstein.
Here is his big idea: http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/29/new-geoengineering-proposal-br
Russel used to bless National Review with his presence. Insulting everyone who didn’t agree with him.
He finally left in a huff when he determined that we were never going to take him a seriously as he took himself.
Kindle version , please…
Received my copy yesterday 11th Aug in New Zealand from Steyn’s Bookstore. Guess what I have been doing today. Very good read, full of scathing comments from a range of scientists. Well worth the price.
Nice. But a book on WUWT will do nothing. This needs a concerted campaign. And campaigns do work.
Write to every national and local newspaper, and every editor in that newspaper. But not just yourself, get everyone else to do so too. Assemble all the email addresses into a list, and pass them on to friends, family and colleagues, to make it easy for them.
Write to all your political representatives, both national and local. And again pass on those email addresses. Remember many of these stupid AGW rules are being made at the local level. Those at the bottom of the food-chain are influence by those higher up, of course, but the policy is still being devised at the local level. So email all those councillors who are making those stupid decisions.
And this book will be had for them to reject.
Anything from WUWT results in: “follow the science, not a blog” or “97% of scientists agree” etc: etc:. But this is a book about quotes from real scientists. The lower food-chain administrators cannot dismiss this one quite so easily.
This book needs to be in the Amazon top 100. Not the Amazon top science 100, but the Amazon top 100.
Ralph
I can make a prediction about this book, which will demonstrate the political polarisation created by this whole AGW phenomina.
The Amazon reviews will all be 1-star or 5-star, with almost nothing in between. That is what AGW has become – a battle between believers with faith and rationalists who question. And precious little room left in the middle for doubt.
Ralph
At home, in my childhood, we had book of Dutch art and some of the pics were by a painter called Avercamp. They depict the extremely cold winters in the Low Countries in the Little Ice Age.
When I read the original hockstick paper I realized that the LIA was not to be seen in it. I knew there and then that it was a nonsense, if not a fraud. Now I know that not only his work is, but also the man himself.
Ed_B
August 11, 2015 at 7:05 pm
” In other words, imo Warren is posting trash talk here, and he is likely being paid to do it.”
—————-
You’re right, Ed, it’s very likely that warrenlb is indeed one of the propagandists paid to post his trash talk here and elsewhere.
Please consider the following example:
warrenlb
August 11, 2015 at 7:18 pm
“As you well know, there are 10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers published with all the evidence needed for every scientific academy on Earth to conclude AGW. Your inability, or refusal, to consider that evidence is a deeper problem than I , or any mere mortal can solve. Perhaps a long vacation, to view the vanishing arctic sea ice or glaciers. would help.”
—————————-
It’s been argued in this thread that warrenlb and Russell Seitz are the same person and Russell Seitz has claimed to be a paid “science book reviewer for the WSJ”. Their writing style is exactly the same, i;e. again, as in this example, warrenlb uses Russell Seitz’s tactic of employing unverifiable scientific red herrings and meaningless logical fallacies of “appeal to authority” and “ad hominem attack” to make his case, with no scientific merit to his words, whatsoever.
As dbstealey pointed out, from warrenlb’s “10s of thousands of peer reviewed research papers published”, not a single one of them can show a clear CO2 signal in any temperature record.
note: Russell S’s admission of being a paid book reviewer has disappeared from Amazon comment section, at this time.
Alan –
If you mean Russell S’s statement regarding a “Wall Street Journal science book reviewer”, it is still there, under “[Customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]” as a “reply to your (my) post on Aug 11, 2015 2:23:23 PM PDT.
I have one question. In an age of neo-liberalism why has the world media and most right wing governments the vatican and other organisations support the idea of climate change which in my view is directly opposed to their agenda. WHY?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for them.
Does that answer your question?
.
.
P.S. “[…] world media and most right wing governments the vatican and other organisations […]”
That’s the short list.
H.R. is correct AND to the impressionable, low information types, it paints them all as benevolent, earth caring saviors who can be trusted to protect and defend humanity against whomever they choose to vilify. “Trust us! Now send money, tithes, votes…”
Sometimes I can’t help but comment before reading the entire post. This is one of those days. Michael Mann is a hack. This has been proven again and again. Okay. Back to the essay. It really is a very good read. But feeding upon M. Mann seems like easy picking these days 😉 KEEP IT UP!
No Kindle version? This is 2015. All books should be published with a Kindle version. I hope the Kindle version is just not ready.
There are many people like me who find it hard to read a digital book, think dyslexia, glasses and bright computer screens. I always prefer a paper copy that has a slight dull finish on the page. But, after all, we are taking nasty and dangerous CO2 out of the air in the form of re-processed trees (Paper) and putting it to good use.
Bright screen is definitely NOT an issue with a Kindle. They are designed to be easy-to-read, black letters on a dull white screen, no gloss.
To Marv’s benefit, he did say “with a Kindle version” not “only in a Kindle version”. As C.J. pointed out, Kindle IS designed to be easy on the eyes and easy to read. But I still prefer actual books. I want to hold them and dog ear the pages and write notes in the margins. I’ve also never had to plug in and recharge a book, or dropped one and had it stop working, or had to track down my 10 year old to get my book back because he’s reading another story on it. *grin*
Actually, I have the opposite problem. I need glasses for reading and I can no longer read books comfortably due to a combination of the curve of the page and my progressive bifocals. The Kindle offers a completely flat page, so the focus point is the same across the page. With a book, I have to constantly move my head or the book to get it to be the exact same distance from my eyes. In other words, I can only see about 1/3 of the page in focus at any given time.
The Kindle or even the Kindle on my tablet make reading possible and enjoyable. Also, many people who try to read Kindle on tablets have issues with brightness because their screen is not adjusted properly. Two things help, turning down the brightness and reversing the print. (white on black). Also the Kindle allows font size to be changed on the fly, which is also very helpful.
As a bonus, I got a paperback book once that was printed on paper that was a bit yellow and the ink was some soy based stuff that wasn’t exactly black. The end result was a very low contract print. I found it almost impossible to read without very bright lights. I basically stopped reading after that book as it was simply too difficult. It wasn’t until the Kindle came out that I started enjoying reading again.
>>No Kindle version? This is 2015. All books
>>should be published with a Kindle version.
The ePub format was a disaster from day one, with nobody thinking of how this would be achieved.
The result is that most ePubbing is done in India, because it is labour intensive and Indian labour is cheap. But there are so many books needing epubbing, there is a backlog of orders for epub books. Amazon does offer instant computerised Kindle translation, but it is absolute Carp.
The result is probably that the Kindle version of this book is still in a queue.
On the UK Amazon site, the Kindle edition will be available from 1 September, price £4.80. Mine is pre-ordered.
On the US site, the release date is the same, the price $7.48.