Steyn’s book on Mann surges in Amazon rankings, leaving climate alarmism books in the dust

Readers surely recall the review I gave of Mark Steyn’s new book A Disgrace To The Profession on Michael E. Mann’s science as told by other climate scientists around the world.

On August 11th, when I ran my review, this was the ranking for the book in Amazon – #12,246:

steyn-book-rank-8-11-15

Today, two days later, the ranking is #539, an over 22 fold increase!

steyn-book-rank-8-13-15

And this is without the paperback even being able to ship yet! It is due to ship on August 15th. You can check the number yourself, here midway down the page. Lower numbers are better, i.e. the best selling book is #1.

Compare that to Mann’s recent book release Dire Predictions, 2nd edition: Understanding Climate Change at #6,579:
mann-dire-pred-amazon-rank-8-13-15

Or Dana Nuccitelli’s Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics at #849,477:

nuccitelli-book-amazon-rank-8-13-15

It seems they aren’t getting much traction.

You can pre-order Steyn’s book A Disgrace To The Profession  on Amazon here, Shipping starts August 15th. Note that it is now available on Kindle for immediate reading as well as paperback.

amazon-disgrace-styen

click to pre-order

Maybe if enough people pre-order, it will hit the best-sellers list before it even ships. That would be something, wouldn’t it?

UPDATE: Steyn writes about our favorite climate wackadoodle, “Sou” aka Miriam O’Brien and her fanboying the flames:


It all sounds quite exciting from that opening. But, alas, Sou is one almighty snoozeroo. Still, she does lay it on with a trowel. I enjoyed this bit:

Unlike the other defendents, Mark Steyn seems intent on adding to his own destruction. He is undoubtedly adding ammunition for Michael Mann’s lawyers to fire. Even the title of his book shrieks of unfettered malice toward Professor Mann and could be viewed as explicitly libelous: “A Disgrace to the Profession: the world’s scientists in their own words on Michael Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science.”

Actually, it’s A Disgrace to the Profession: the world’s scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science. Volume One. But close enough. At any rate, Sou now urges Doctor Fraudpants to sue again, and this time not just me and not just our illustrator Josh but, in a spectacular reverse class-action suit (as Anthony Watts called it), all the scientists I quote in the book:

What would be great would be to see some of the other defamers sued. Now that Josh has involved himself formally, will he also be sued? Anthony Watts has highlighted a section in Mark Steyn’s book where he quotes Judith Curry – who appears to have a personal grudge against Professor Mann. Is she happy to open up the possibility of her being sued? She is a supporter of Mark Steyn so probably yes. I doubt she’d get the support of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. She’d be on her own.

No, she wouldn’t. She’d be one of hundreds of “defamers” – because Sioux City Sou says sue ’em all, Mikey. Sue everyone! And then sue ’em again! Sue early, sue often. Because “scientist” is, as everyone knows, a derivation of the Olde English word for plaintiff (“suentist”). Which reminds me: that “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” that’s backing Mann is somewhat misnamed. He’s never the defendant; he’s always the guy that sues. So it ought to be the Climate Science Serial Litigants’ Fund.

As for Steyn:

He’s also setting out to make himself an enemy of the court and the entire US judicial system, calling it a “septic tank”.

Actually I think I called it a “choked septic tank“. A non-choked one would be a great improvement.

But fortunately even the grimmest tale has a hero:

The personal cost to Professor Mann is great. He is undeterred. He knows that he is not just standing up for himself, he has become a symbol of climate scientists and science everywhere. A true hero.

Did you ever know that you’re her he-e-e-e-e-ro? Brings a tear to your eye. Meanwhile, back in the real world: Opposing Mann and his attempt to slice’n’dice the First Amendment are, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union and almost every major media organization from The Washington Post to NBC News. Whereas not a single amicus brief was filed in support of Mann by any scientist or any scientific body. As I say in the book, Mann claims to be taking a stand for science, but science is disinclined to take a stand for him. A handful of impressionable rubes like Sou may regard Mann as “a symbol of climate scientists and science everywhere”, but most scientists want to steer well clear.

Advertisements

192 thoughts on “Steyn’s book on Mann surges in Amazon rankings, leaving climate alarmism books in the dust

  1. Of course, even if it did become a best seller, the NY Times would find a way to keep it off their list.

    And, to pick nits, I don’t see how moving up from 12,000th place to 539th is a 22-fold increase. Yes, if you divide 12,000 by 539 you get 22, but rankings don’t work that way, IMHO.

    Thanks!

  2. getting 20 copies of the paper back for all my friends in Madison and Ann Arbor, wow, this made Christmas Shopping so easy this year, thank you Mr. Steyn.

  3. Might be a daft question, but if I buy the kindle edition does it help the ranking?
    I’m off to Scotland on a diving trip and a kindle fits in my rucksack rather more easily than 5 paperbacks!
    Mind you, I might not be able to actually get in the water, what with it being so acidic and all that hidden heat waiting to boil me alive when I dive down to the depths…

      • I lived in Thurso for 3 years. My kitchen window looked out over Scapa Flow. I’m familiar with the area. So take care, those are dangerous seas with very fast tides. But it is very nice this time of year.

      • Not Scapa, I’m diving off the shores of Oban in the West of Scotland. Superb wildlife and outstanding wrecks, not to mention a manic drift dive at the Falls of Lora that has you whisked quickly down to 30m and pumelled by the current as it pushes you along at 8 knots. You often see fish somersaulting past you. All done in a cosy dry-suit of course, as I haven’t found Trenberth’s missing heat yet.
        When I’m diving in those waters and watching the tides rise and fall so quickly, it makes me realise how ridiculous the Greenies are when they get their knickers in a twist about a 3mm/year sea level rise. I’d love to take them out on a boat, stick some scuba kit on them, chuck them over the side and say, “go on, tell me you can feel the sea level rising, I dare ya!”

      • Visited both Scapa Flow and the Falls of Lora many times, you must be mad to dive in the Falls of Lora. I understand Scapa Flow is an interesting place to dive.

      • Piper Paul,

        Not a welder (I’d be a liability with the torch!).
        I’m a teacher. Maths and Science and a sceptic to boot – a rare breed

      • Those wrecks you mention, didn’t just decide to sink there of their own free will.

        Be careful. Keep in contact and keep your dives rational. But have a great time!

        While you’re down in the deeps, be sure to name the sharks after your favorite climate alarmists; at least name the aft end of the sharks after them.

      • My Dad and his mates dived Scapa and other Scottish areas back in the 70’s when there were no special gas mixes etc for hobby divers and dry suits were only for commercial outfits. They went out with some local divers from Orkney who a few of years later found some bits of the German torpedoes that sank the battleship Royal Oak, thus confirming that U47 had done what many said was impossible.
        I remember camping among the abandoned earthworks and blockhouses of the old seaplane base and looking out over the Flow where a salvage ship was working at blowing some of the old grand fleet wrecks to get the condensers out.

        James Bull

    • I imagine you realise that even in Summer the North Sea is so cold that your survival time without suitable protective clothing is measured in minutes, and rather few at that. Anyway, have a good trip, you should have some great diving.

  4. To be fair, Mann’s book ‘Dire Predictions’ is 7th. in Books | Science and Math | Earth Sciences | Climatology.

  5. I know it’s not nice to gloat, but I can’t help it:

    Hey, Warren! How do you like the ranking? It seems a lot of people are learning about Mann’s awful non-science. Perhaps you should read a copy and get yourself edumacated!

    • I’ve only read the cover, and it made me laugh. I’m afraid, like the Monty Python sketch of the World’s Most Dangerous Joke (kids, just google it…) that I’ll wind up literally killing myself if I read too much, too soon.

  6. It cost more to ship the paperback than it does to buy the ebook, but if the money buys just one rotten tomatoe for Nobel Mike, it is worth it.

    • Craig,
      Sound, but do cut us real Laureates a bit of slack.
      Me, and my mates, and others (several), were in the 500,000,000 or so EU citizens who won the prize a few years ago.
      I can’t remember what is was for.
      I don’t remember seeing my Eurocent prize money.
      Maybe a little French red wine that day?
      We don’t make a fuss about it, unless non-laureates are mentioned – as you did.

      Have a great weekend.

      Auto

  7. I watched Michael Mann interviewed on Real Time by Bill Maher last night. (Running through the channels to see what was on and found Manns face poking out of the screen). Maher gave him the “pass” with a sickening lack of serious questions and gave him the floor to tell his sickening “consensus” lies, same the other old BS. Mann said that Germany is doing GREAT with solar and wind and actually getting 30% of it’s energy from renewables… without any mention of the problems they are having. “We still have time to save the earth” says Mann. Mann claimed that 34 serious scientific organizations are on board with the “Consensus”. What gives this pompous ass permission to presume his superior authority about the climate when so much is “NOT Settled?” Where does his authority come from? It is completely irrational for one “Scientist” to completely ignore any evidence (with or without merit) which runs contrary to his own understanding of the facts. Is he getting paid as a servant of the green agenda or is he simply a delusional idiot who cannot bring himself to admit that there are many who disagree with him and many of them who are standing on reasonably firm scientific ground. What gives him the authority or superiority to put fear of catastrophic global warming into peoples minds and lives without a real consensus when he knows the “consensus” is a lie…That the science is not settled? He is a real piece of human waste for his lack of objectivity and his drive to change the world into his image of it, while disregarding the harm it will have on so many, financially and physically. I suppose the “Authority” of Mann has spoken and he isn’t able, emotionally or rationally, to deal with rejection or legitimate questions about his scientific guesses. He acts like a child.

    • He’s getting paid, in the form of grants from the government and other highly biased institutions.

    • In 2003 Germany sourced just over 25% of its electricity generation from brown coal. After a decade of committing hundred’s of billions to the expansion of renewables it now sources just over 25% of it’s electricity generation from brown coal. Some acheivement.
      Maybe Mann has been fooled by facebook and twitter memes that declare that Germany sources half it’s electricity from solar.
      It doesn’t. in 2013 solar PV provided approx 5%. And an expensive and intermittent 5%, at that.
      Historically, the Germans have shown themselves to have a capacity for committing to vastly ambitious but ultimately self-defeating schemes based on ideological obsessions.
      Some people never learn…
      http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar

    • D
      Our Mann of the Sheeple claims 34 serious scientific organisations support him.
      My area has at least seven scientific organisations.
      By a first order guess, therefore, the UK has not less than 17000 scientific organisations [error bar plus 17000; minus 8500]
      It may be otiose to extend this into the EU [with about 7 or 8 times the population of the UK], but if we do, allowing lower estimates, this will approximate 34000 scientific organisations.

      Now possible our Mann of the Century is dissing 99% as not serious.
      Has he done the research?
      Or, perhaps, he is on a 97% (plus) disapproval.

      P.S. – I haven’t figured outside Europe.
      That might make our Mann of the For the People, of the People, by the people, a little less positively received.

      Auto.
      Just enquiring, but not holding my breath for Manian openness . . . . .

  8. I ordered the book, and applaud both Steyn and Watts.
    Nevertheless, I think Anthony’s phrase “22 fold increase” [in ranking] is somewhat meaningless. Ranks are cannot be compared. Consider: the 2nd place runner cannot be said to have run “five times faster” than the 10th place runner.
    Nevertheless, great writing by Steyn, and a welcome boost in sales due, apparently, to our host Anthony.

  9. “The personal cost to Professor Mann is great.”

    I get the impression that Mann is on auto-pilot in this litigation. Probably checks up on it now and then see how it’s going. He’s happy to let the lawyers do the work and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund pick up the tab. It doesn’t even matter if he wins or loses — he has caused Steyn enormous vexation, and that is the entire point.

      • |Yes but Stein has counter sued for more than is in the CliSciDefense Fund. When the smoke clears they’ll be insolvent and they will put rules in place that it is a defense fund not an offence fund. I think Steyn should apply for funds from them – he is the one in defense – he might be able to get a judgement to that effect, depending on how the charter is written up.

    • Nothing will happen re: Steyn vs. “The Stick” until after The Paris 2015 (December) freak show.
      If it went forward before that, it would rain on their parade. The DC Circuit has been quietly given the “wink and nod” to wait on this. There is no other explanation as even by their standards, this has gone one too bizarrely long….

      • I think you’ve put your finger on the clog in the septic tank.

        (I’d go wash that finger now if I were you)

    • He may have stopped several dozen others from speaking out. And that is the entire point of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

    • After looking at Climate Science Legal Defense Fund financials http://www.lcatrust.org/wp-content/uploads/LCAT-2010-990-EZ.pdf at $16,158.23 income for 2010 and expenses of $15,160.68 for printing, publications, postage and shipping, the organisation appears to be genuinely ineffective or a front for some below the radar activity. I suspect though that Mr Mann my need to dip into his own pocket in future.

      Cheers

      Roger
      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • The point, as Mark Steyn puts it, is that the process IS the punishment. The defendants get to spend all kinds of money on lawyers while Dr. Fraudpants (might as well stay in Steyn mode) hasn’t a worry in the world.

      Too bad theres no chance of Dr. Fraudpants getting slapped with his targets lawyer fees, like the couple who filed a frivolous lawsuit against gun and ammo manufacturers. Love to see the Legal Defense Fund choke down that horse…in almost 4 years we’re talking millions I would suspect.

  10. What would be great would be to see some of the other defamers sued.
    ====
    Would this be like fining the banks?….where the shareholders are the ones that pay

    • Mann has said construably libellous things about most of them. For example what Judith Curry said about Mann was a restrained and responsible response compared to the very nasty things that Mann first said about her. Most of those people would promptly countersue and would have a very good case to win. The only reason they haven’t all sued him for libel already is because sensible people try to stay out of the US courts. It is that whole ‘choked cesspit’ thing.

      Mann suing for libel is a joke. He is the biggest sinner in climate science in that regard.

  11. If Mann is such “a true hero” to Sou, why didn’t she file an amicus brief in his behalf, or persuade a real climate scientist to do so?

    • …or persuade a real climate scientist to do so?

      Because there are no real climate scientists on her side.
      The real ones are a little bit more skeptic…

  12. The title of that second book of warm-mongering is a tad confusing: “Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics”.

    ‘Global warming’ ‘sceptics’ for the most part seem to eschew prediction – excepting the reasonable one that the warm-mongers predictions won’t pan out. Based on the latter’s failure rate it would seem they’re the ones indulging in pseudoscience.

  13. Sometimes I think people of this ilk should be sent to environmental reeducation camp and made to build roads for the oil companies on the north slope of Alaska. See how friendly and endangered they think the polar bears are then.

    • Polar bears are polar had doing well.

      If you mean, should WUWT focus on and post comments timely as they have become little more than a USA today blog of snippets- you’ve got a solid point. Stupid is as….

    • I’ve always said people who are over concerned about the plight of polar bears/lions/grizzlies and other such large predators might benefit from a real up-close and personal look at one in hunting mode.

  14. Steyn wrote,

    ” . . . our favorite climate wackadoodle, “Sou” aka Miriam O’Brien and her fanboying the flames . . .”

    Dear Miriam O’Brien ,

    It appears to me that Steyn is an eloquent judge of your blogging demeanor and personal character.

    But, I have a question. Why do you (Miriam) scream that there is a broad con$piracy against Michael E. Mann (Penn State Univ) by all the many scientists who have been writing things that are significantly and severely critical of virtually all of his work product?

    My answer to that question is that I think you (Miriam) scream con$piracy by scientific critics of Michael E. Mann because emotionally you have irrational impulses to do professional harm to people who do not accept your climate religion belief in Michael E. Mann.

    John

  15. We can only wish Steyn the very best, as Mann deserves everything he gets. As a supposed scientist he is a joke, as a serial litigator he shows us exactly what he is, namely a sad deceitful individual desperate to hide the facts from scrutiny by a sceptical world.

    My order for the book is going in now.

    • I’m hoping the court rules as it should and Steyn is held to account for his poorly worded comments.

      • So you’re saying “poorly worded comments” justifies the wrath of a crooked DC judiciary?

        Funny how Mann thought he was going to come out of this the winner and the public gets a dose of the truth instead.

        Maybe he’d like a little sweet relish on that hockey stick. That’s how I’m enjoying it.

  16. Well, I picked up both the “Disgrace..” and “Climate Change…” from Mark’s website. I thought I’d better hurry before a paper shortage develops. Mark is a national treasure in a number of countries for his jousting for freedom of speech, one of the cornerstones of our civilization that is being stamped out by the left directly and through their corruption of education. The latter is most evident in much of the stuff of detractors on this site who, true to plan, have no idea they’ve been processed by their masters. Anthony, thank you for creating a place where thinking individuals can go and unthinking individuals can hopefully be freed from the plan.

  17. Just “pre-ordered” the kindle version…Amazon says it will send it out on September 1st…..
    Anthony may want to correct that…..(not immediately available)

  18. I like Steyn. Quick-minded, intelligent, fearless, and clever. He stumbled into this fight by almost accident – and it IS a fight – and has proven to be a quite valuable combatant.

  19. I am still waiting for delivery of Steyn’s book and I wish it and your Climate Change the Facts all the success in the world.

    I knew my book would not be a big seller, but I must say I am tickled to see that I have outsold alarmists’ books like Dana Nuccitelli’s by 3 fold. Nutacelli ranks 849,477 vs my 290,000. However those numbers do change by the hour and by as much as 2 fold. Still I take great pride in knowing my book exposing bad climate/ecological science has outsold Dana Nuccitelli’s attempt to undermine skeptics.

    http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189

    • Jim, yours was the first one I read in my quest to find out the truth about climate change; opening the doors to many, many more. Almost inconceivable the degree to which educated, worldly people have been utterly hoodwinked by this hysteria. An excellent book, which I’ve shared with friends. MANY eyes opened!

  20. Meanwhile, out there in lala land, America’s brainwashed children are suing Obama for ‘failing to stop climate change’. I suppose kids in the US are taught neither critical thinking nor any hard science, so they are unable to judge whether they are being fooled by propaganda. What a cynical stunt.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/future-generations-sue-obama-administration-over-climate-change

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/youth-obama-climate-change-lawsuit_55cbc451e4b064d5910a7183

  21. I was pleasantly surprised to find that if you order both the Kindle version and the paperback, you get a $7 discount on the Kindle version. Pretty cool. I like having books on my phone since I usually read when on the bus to and from work. Anyway, looking forward to the book!

  22. Ya gotta agree with Sou’s comment that Mann is “a symbol of climate scientists and science everywhere”. And that is the sad part.

  23. Anthony notes in the post: “Dana Nuccitelli’s Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics at #849,477”.

    Wow. Nuccitelli’s book is only 5 months old and it’s that low.

  24. Mark Steyn should consider sending 9 signed copies to SCOTUS so they can read and consider their “opinion” in Mass V EPA that CO2 as a pollutant falls under the control of the Clean Air Act…my copy is already pre-ordered.

  25. I just preordered the Kindle version. Spread the word! Order yourself and have others do it too!
    Esilex Montagrius

  26. If we were to plot a chart of order volume on Amazon for this book, what would it look like? there is a sports related word for the shape, but it eludes me at this moment, could someone help?

  27. Aside from M. Mann, I’m starting to notice a whole new sector of enviro reporters/consultants/media experts in news stories, including stories not about their profession. Just how vast is this cadre or money takers and opinion shapers? And where are the pod farms they are coming from, as in replicants?

  28. There can be little doubt that a large number of the buyers of both “A Disgrace…” and “Climate Change….”, both surprise best sellers, are the proponents of CAGW. They will change a few of the minds not fully steeped and scleroticized among those near edge of the consensus and the “peer review” that Mann has received will encourage more boldness dissent among the long suffering faint-hearted who have been bullied into the consensus by the ‘Mastodons’ of climate science.

  29. I was going to include the following line in my Amazon review, as I have (and have now read) the book courtesy of having ordered from Steyn:

    “This book could well have been subtitled ‘The case for why a reasonable person could conclude that Dr Michael Mann is a (what’s that word the unjustifiably credentialed Doctor likes to litigate)’.”

  30. Pre-ordered in June, I received it today in France. A fabulous, easy to read collection of statements of eminent scientists, completely debunking climate alarmism.

  31. Just bought the Kindle version. It says it’ll be delivered Sept. 1. Looking forward to reading it.

  32. Hmm, I tried to post this at Greg Laden’s page on Mark’s book, but it seems to be offensive!?
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

    (the page is worht checking out, so far the strongest response to Mark’s list of citations, however bear in mind that this is an older article about an older list of citations)

    Here is what I was trying to post:

    Hello there,

    I would like to contrast two citations on some proxies in Finnland:
    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/
    “Matti Saarnisto: In that article [Science], my group’s research material from Korttajärvi, near Jyväskylä, was used in such a way that the Medieval Warm Period was shown as a mirror image. The graph was flipped upside-down. In this email I received yesterday from one of the authors of the article, my good friend Professor Ray Bradley …says there was a large group of researchers who had been handling an extremely large amount of research material, and at some point it happened that this graph was turned upside-down. But then this happened yet another time in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake anymore. But how it is possible that this type of material is repeatedly published in these top science journals? There is a small circle going round and around, relatively few people are reviewing each other’s papers, and that is in my opinion the worrying aspect.”
    vs
    http://boards.fool.com/manns-use-of-tiljander-data-upside-down-28033799.aspx
    “The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
    Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”

    I actually dont know which is more worrysome, that Mann seems to fail to be willing to correct his mistake or the claim that his algorithm would use data with the wrong sign to increase the certainty of a trend..

    Last not least I would recommend that you should look up the statements about the censored directory (which seems directly relevant to the Mann-Steyn lawsuit):
    For a skeptical opinion look chapter 5 here:
    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf
    These are two examples where the facts seems to strongly disagree with Mann’s versions.

  33. Amazon ratings do not matter. Our elected politicians are in to climate change alarmism hook, line and sinker. It’s too late to put a pause on the gravy train sadly.

  34. ***meanwhile, cool dudes who got all the MSM praise imaginable for their anti- “climate change denial” documentary, failed spectacularly at the box office.

    Wikipedia: The Yes Men Are Revolting
    The Yes Men Are Revolting is a 2014 documentary film directed by Laura Nix and The Yes Men, a culture jamming duo who use the aliases Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno…
    The film follows their exploits as they prank various organizations and corporations who engage in ***climate change denial…
    It was released theatrically on June 12, 2015, in the US. As of July 30, 2015, it has grossed $50,190…
    Harvey of Variety called it “another entertaining mix of agitpop, pranksterism and autobiography”…
    Sheri Linden of the Los Angeles Times wrote that “fans will find fewer of the elaborate deadpan stunts than they might have hoped for”, but the ones included “highlight corporate greed and governmental shortsightedness as shrewdly as ever”…
    Stephen Holden of The New York Times made it a NYT Critics’ Pick and wrote that it “has a personal poignancy that is missing in the forerunners”…
    Clarke of The Village Voice wrote, “Their globetrotting easy conversation, nitpicking, and laughter despite anger and environmental upset create an unusual space for the viewer to do the same.”…
    Michael O’Sullivan of The Washington Post rated it 3.5/5 stars …
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men_Are_Revolting

    Mojo Box Office: The Yes Men are Revolting
    Domestic Total as of Jul. 30, 2015: $50,190
    Widest Release: 20 theaters
    In Release:49 days / 7 weeks
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=theyesmenarerevolting.htm

  35. Michael Mann looked really nervous on the real time interview. When Maher asked, “This is super duper settled science right?” Man paused, blushed and looked a little quesy for a minute. I get the feeling guys like Maher are going to slowly back of this climate change thing. I believe all the main American news channels have. The damage control part of this movement has been going on for a few years now and I believe he finally caught the stench of it. When the gig is up whenever that happens guys like Maher will most likely blame the scientific establishment and take no credit for their hysteria and misjudgment for themselves. The victim mentality.Pass the puck

  36. Who again was this comic/”news” guy that had his last show a what? 2 weeks ago? His departure from MSM? john somebody or another, I just can’t remember his name , you know the guy that had the ear of Obama? Was it Michael Mann ??

  37. ‘The personal cost to Professor Mann is great. He is undeterred.’

    Under what? Are you sure of the spelling?

  38. M-I-C-K-E-Y M-A-N-N
    Mickey Mann!
    Mickey Mann!
    Forever let us hold our hockey sticks high,
    High, high, high!

    (Yes I know the syllables don’t align with the music, but his whole shtick is so juvenile, I couldn’t resist.)

  39. Great news. Love to see the surge in the rankings!
    I’ve just placed my order with Amazon.com for both this and “Climate Change The Facts”, in hard copy.

  40. Does anyone care to compare what the readers think of either Styne’s or Mann’s. Styne’s book is pure trash. Full of innuendo and anecdotal nonsense. He makes a nice living from fools who want to believe in the tooth fairy. All of you need a course in probabilities. Then you just might be able to figure out why Climate Change is worth studying.

    • Climate change has always been worth studying as it has affected human civilization since homo sapiens emerged from Africa. Without climate change there would be little life in North America or Northern Europe as it its hard eking out a living under miles of ice sheets. Until a few years ago the standard description used for the Mediaeval warm period was The Mediaeval Climate Optimum. In modern times we are just starting to get back there.

      The trouble is the Michael Mann’s of this world want us to believe that climate change only started when humans started burning coal and that any and all change occurs because of human action. This is of course provably incorrect.

      Steyn is an able and rather controversial writer who’s views I don’t fully support but like Voltaire I defend to the death his right to express them. You may have heard of the idea, its called free speech.

      • Keith, I didn’t say anything about smothering free speech. I agree, all of us are entitled to express our opinions, as you and I have done. I can still criticize who I disagree with, and I certainly disagree with Mr. Styne. I still recommend a course in probabilities. Then right and wrong fade into the distance. Really, what are the odds of one thing or another happening and what are the consequences of inaction.

    • all of you need a course in probabilities

      Most people here know that the probability of the very small temp rise over the last 125 years being the harbinger of thermaggedon is next to 0.

      Calm down Bob. Enjoy the warmth while it lasts.

      • David,

        You’re being too kind. BobTheBore is full of shit, and quite possibly a complete innumerate.

        You correctly quoted him as saying: “All of you need a course in probabilities.

        But just look at that quote. In particular, note “probabilities” and not “probability“. And it’s no typo — he goes on to repeat the same thing in his response to Keith Willshaw: “I still recommend a course in probabilities.

        Now I’ve read that you teach mathematics, so doesn’t that quote tell you something?

        It spoke volumes to me. And I bet it did to you too, at least at a subconscious level.

        QED ;)

    • First of all, it is very fair minded of you to buy and read a book with which you so strongly disagree. You did didn’t you? Because you seem familiar enough with it’s contents to pass a fairly scathing judgement.

      I have not read it yet. My kindle version will be delivered on 1st September, then I will tell you whether my opinion is similar to yours.

      Good question about why climate change is worth studying. Especially as the science is unquestionably settled, probably. Perhaps we need to follow the money. And the power.

      • Thank you for your comment.
        Follow the money and power. Just like in the 70’s; if one followed the money and power, the cigarette companies were the criminals. An amusing incident at the time was Boehner went to floor of the House of Representatives and gave out $5,000 checks to everyone. The checks were from Marlboro (Phillip Morris). Very similar to what the oil and coal companies are doing now. I believe that they’ve spent $62,000,000 so far in this 2016 race. BTW, the cigarette lobby had plenty of paid scientists to write papers that said cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. Hummm.

      • bobthebear
        August 14, 2015 at 11:08 am

        Thank you for your comment.
        Follow the money and power. Just like in the 70’s; if one followed the money and power, the cigarette companies were the criminals. An amusing incident at the time was Boehner went to floor of the House of Representatives and gave out $5,000 checks to everyone. The checks were from Marlboro (Phillip Morris). Very similar to what the oil and coal companies are doing now. I believe that they’ve spent $62,000,000 so far in this 2016 race. BTW, the cigarette lobby had plenty of paid scientists to write papers that said cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. Hummm.

        Seems to be the words of someone who didn’t even get a lousy sou and is really frustrated about it. But when you think that slander helps you with the issues you have, Sou is said to have a large skirt you can seek refuge under.

  41. From Muslims to Mann, Mark Steyn knows wear to rub his words.
    I’ll grab a copy at my local bookstore this weekend.
    I stopped using Amazon after they refused to post a product review; Amazon’s “mods” are not interested in truthful reviews.

  42. ‘he has become a symbol of climate scientists’ oddly the this is true , he does typify the poor professional and personal pratice that seems to be required to succeed in climate ‘science’ this however ‘and science everywhere’.’ is still thankfully untrue although there is danger that through silence it may become true, the last part and the idea of him being ‘A true hero’ is simply delusion .

    Frankly when he falls I think we will see the true value of the Mann , in the number and type of people who line up to throw him under the bus to try and save themselves, and that cannot come soon enough .

      • Nice to see you supporting knr in what he said

        Full Definition of AMEN
        —used to express solemn ratification (as of an expression of faith) or hearty approval (as of an assertion)

        That’s according to Merriam-Webster.
        You ought to know that if you had been attentive in sunday school, but I suppose you spent too much time in Dunce’s corner.

  43. Climate Science Serial Litigants’ Fund.

    Legally yes a much more representative name for the “Climate Science Defend Fund”. But in this era where your free speech rights stop where someones feelings are nudged, what they are doing is defending the feelings of climate scientists. Maybe Mann is as sensitive to criticism as apparently climate is to CO2. In that case the name should be,

    “Climate Science Shut-Up I Don’t Like What You Are Saying Fund”.

    In reality though Mann is a narcissistic bully and so the organization I think should be called the

    “Climate Science Bully Fund”

  44. There’s no way I’m going to read Steyn’s book, but one can make an educated guess as to the content – a hit piece worked up from mined quotes shorn of all context. As noted above Greg Laden has already eviscerated the three quotes Steyn used for promotional purposes.

    Steyn says his book is the view of ‘the world’s scientists’. He seems to have excluded the scientists of the European Geophysical Union who in 2014 honoured Dr Mann with the Hans Oeschger medal for

    “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”

    You may hate him, his peers don’t. Oh, and the Mann’s book you’re using for comparison is a second edition. Most of the target audience will already own the first edition. Apples and Oranges.

    Keep it up! :-)

    • “There’s no way I’m going to read Steyn’s book…”

      Of course not, your mind is already made up. But we already knew that.

      Keep it closed! :-)

    • “…You may hate him, his peers don’t…”

      In public, they don’t usually say such things. In private, the so-called Climategate emails revealed otherwise.

      This is the entire email, so there’s nothing to take out of context. This is just one of many examples…you can use the first few paragraphs for context, then focus on the final paragraph. “Serious enemy,” “vindictive,” “crazy”…yeah, I can just feel the love.

      cc: k.briffa@uea.xx.xx
      date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:56:46 -0500
      from: “drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu”
      subject: RE: CCDD
      to: p.jones@uea.xx.xx

      Hi Phil,

      Thanks for the added info. If Mike said that my calibration procedure is
      “flawed”, I will be extremely pissed off. His grad student just submitted a
      paper to The Holocene, with Mike and I as co-authors, that compares my
      point-by-point method with his RegEM method (Keith should have received the
      paper by now). There are “modest” improvements in some areas using RegEM,
      but overall the two methods produce statistically identical results on a
      regional basis.

      Indeed, it is mentioned in the paper that the P-B-P method
      could be improved by adding a dynamic search radius for each grid point,
      thus making it even closer to RegEM and maybe even better. Indeed, the
      P-B-P method produces classical calibration period information and
      estimates that are very useful in understanding the fitted models. In
      contrast, RegEM does not produce any such useful information and thus
      operates much more as a “black box”.

      Re standardization and low-frequency stuff, the vast majority of the
      tree-ring chronologies have been standardized to preserve variance at least
      up to 100 years (and generally more). I also agree with you that PDSI ought
      not to have a great deal of multi-centennial variability because it is
      dominated by precipitation, which is dominated by high-frequency, nearly
      white, variance. I am surprised that Tom Karl does not seem to understand
      that.

      In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way
      that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when
      describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
      vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
      recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
      another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
      so.

      Cheers,

      Ed

      • If you’ve ever worked in a University environment you’ll know that this is mild compared to some of the fallings-out, grudges and feuds that go on in academia. I note that Cook and Mann both collaborated on the PAGES 2 Consortium, so (a) they were able to resolve their differences to the extent of working together and (b) the Hockey Stick was vindicated (again).

        Cheers.

      • Phil Clarke says:

        … the Hockey Stick was vindicated (again).

        Phil, you’re no different from one of the Rev. Harold Camping’s followers. Despite being proven 100% wrong time after time, they just double down on their belief system. Reality doesn’t matter, only their belief matters to them.

        This was explained in the 1950’s by Dr. Leon Festinger, who wrote his famous paper on the ‘Seekers’. After being proven flat wrong, instead of accepting reality, Mrs. Keech’s followers doubled down on their belief that the flying saucer was still coming to save them. It had only been delayed, just like Camping’s end of the world was merely ‘delayed’.

        Dr. Festinger writes:

        “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”

        That’s you, Phil. Mann’s Hockey Stick was never “vindicated”. Rather, it has been thoroughly debunked. The IPCC cannot even publish it any more, because it has been so discredited. But after telling people for many years that it was correct, you have such a large investment in your belief that you are doubling down, trying to keep your belief on track. But it’s only that; your belief. It has no connection with reality.

      • That was just one example, Phil. I worked in a University environment for 5 years and never came across such things.

        Of course, if that is so “mild” when it comes to academia, which is full of fallings-out, grudges, and fueds, then why is Mann so thin-skinned when it comes to people like Steyn and suing him?

        So Cook and Mann collaborated on the PAGES 2…big whoop. I’ve collaborated with people I didn’t like or think highly of as well.

      • Loehle and McCulloch, Energy and Environment, Volume 19, 93-100, 2008, using non-tree ring proxies from all over the world, shows the MWP from 820 to 1040, and the LIA from 1440 to 1740, quite clearly, while Mann denies their existence.

      • You don’t need late 20th. century data to confirm the existence of the MWP and the LIA, which Mann denies.

      • So Mann’s reconstruction of the MWP and the LIA is not supported by Loehle, who shows a range of +0.558 C in AD 858 to -0.605 C in 1591. That’s a range of 1.163 degrees.

      • If your six sources that support Mann’s denial of the MWP an the LIA are those given in your graph, then two are by Mann, and two don’t go back far enough to show the MWP and LIA, and one only covers the NH.

      • Vinther et al, Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet, Nature 461, 385-388, 17th. September 2009.

      • Nevertheless it’s interesting that it also shows the range of warming and cooling that Mann denies. That’s the point. We see these warming and cooling periods wherever we look. There is nothing unusual about them.

      • Well, I’m sure you will appreciate that it will take me some time to get data for all (or any) of these; remember that it took years for McIntyre and McKitrick to get the data that Mann used to deny the MWP and LIA.

  45. Like others I’ve ordered both the paperback and Kindle versions as a modest gesture of support for Mark from a pensioner.

  46. On pre-ordering the Kindle edition just now was presented with:

    Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #871 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #1 in Books > Science & Nature > Popular Science > Weather
    #1 in Books > Science & Nature > Earth Sciences & Geography > Meteorology
    #1 in Kindle Store > Books > Biography & True Accounts > Professionals & Academics > Scientists

    No idea how these are calculated but for a title only available (on Kindle) on 1st September doesn’t seem too bad.

  47. “Of course, if that is so “mild” when it comes to academia, which is full of fallings-out, grudges, and fueds, then why is Mann so thin-skinned when it comes to people like Steyn and suing him?”

    Dr Mann has been on the receiving end of so many smears and ad hominem attacks over the years a better question would be …. Why has he launched so few actions? You think he should allow people publicly to liken him to a child molester and describe his work as fraudulent? That’s Ok?

    Freaky.

    • Mann has also been the originator of so many smears and ad hominem attacks over the years a better question would be…why do you keep defending him?

      Steyn didn’t liken him to a child molester. Commenting on the quote (by Rand Simberg), “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet,” Steyn said, “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does” and “Whether or not he’s ‘the Jerry Sandusky of climate change’, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his ‘investigation’ by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”

      Yes, Steyn referenced the hockey stick as being “fraudulent.” I think quite the case can be made for that. You and I know that Mann has made many claims that are “fraudulent.” The shoe fits.

  48. Interesting to note that Mann’s book has had 54 reviews and rates a 9 out of 10 (4.5 stars). Must be a good read.

    • I liked the review that called Mann a “weather scientist.” He may have enjoyed reading the book, but he clearly didn’t gain much understanding.

  49. Throughout the whole ghastly climate wars, it seems to me that the warmist/alarmist ad hominem attacks are marginally nastier than the coolists. It pays to be polite, guys.

  50. Bonjour! Excuses my french. J’ai commencé à lire attentivement ce livre. Il est fascinant, très instructf et rigoueusement documenté – plus documenté que ça tu meur!. M. Mann n’a qu’à bien se tenir. A+

  51. Correction : Bonjour! Excuses my french. J’ai commencé à lire attentivement ce livre. Il est fascinant, très instructf et rigoureusement documenté – plus documenté que ça tu meurt!. M. Mann n’a qu’à bien se tenir. A+

Comments are closed.