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. The Hockey Stick in Washington -- 10. All good fun, I agree, but serious science? Then we might take you seriously. If he's prepared to publish a review of a book he hasn't read, then he deserves a kicking. Montford does a good job of detailing some of the complex arguments that go into the debate.
There are tens of millions of people out there ripe for such an approach. If you choose not to read it, that's your loss, but that choice also disqualifies you from making any comments or claims about the book or its author. And the 'hockey stick' is just one line of evidence. Others, and Mark Nutley in particular, persisted in insisting that the review failed to meet Wikipedia criteria because, he tried to make out, a the Scottish Review of Books is a one-man self-published show as distinct from being the leading Scottish literary review paper that it is , and b there was, he maintained, no evidence that I was the Alastair McIntosh I appeared to be. So I don't really need your second-hand opinions about me, either.
The book also covers the recent leak of the email archives of the Climatic Research Unit which has led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones, and exposed the degree to which climate scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have hidden and manipulated data to support their claims. There are many bright young PhDs looking to make their name by overturning the status quo. You don't know what I think, other than concerning Mr. It is a perpetrator of obfuscation. Just keep humour and lightness of touch.
It is a trust given you, one that entails a great responsibility. The interpretation people give to the facts Andrew so brilliantly marshals varies greatly. Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly. However, other reviewers criticized the book as providing cover for individuals opposing. The book is well-written and engaging, even to someone with little prior knowledge of the topic.
If the concentrations of these gases increase, everything else being equal, the Earth will warm up. It's a point that I've tried to make many times myself in online debates with those in denial over climate change. Or, go out and get yourself credibly qualified in brain surgery and then publish your ideas in a peer-reviewed journal where it can be fully subjected to research scrutiny. Now, through the capable eyes of A. After Montford saw the hockey stick graph used in a science book manuscript he was reviewing, he decided to expand his article into book form. The book was 's second bestselling environment book of 2010. Instead, I used most of my space to demonstrate that Mr Montford is a non-starter as far as I am concerned because he, and for the mostpart, the people whose blogs he is using as his source material, are not peer reviewed in this area of science.
Adopt a lordly disdain and ignore him. In this case, records maintained for an entirely unrelated purpose can provide evidence of something we were expecting from theory - namely physics. However, scientists are human and will often stick with comfortable theories long after their refutation. Michael Mann, however, will forever have his name associated with a scientific hoax that captured the minds of millions whereas the identity of the forger of Piltdown Man was never discovered. In both senses, Montford argues effectively, but his skeptical, alarmist rhetoric is still hard to ignore. But who is Montford, and what his sources? A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution concluded that McIntyre had overplayed his hand.
I would suggest you have not even read the book! Again, you may find yourself a little surprised. I tried to read this book with an open mind, but it was tough. You only have to beat on one thing. It is, however, fitting for me to say that I am indeed the Alastair McIntosh that your links have identified. This was the only context that I found on the web where both sides of this debate really thrashed it out with each other with the proviso that they are, of course, debating as Wikipedia gatekeepers, and not as experts in climate change. It explains the complex science of this most controversial of temperature reconstructions in layperson's language and lays bare the remarkable extent to which climatologists have been willing to break their own rules in order to defend climate science's most famous finding. In exquisite, excruciating and exacting detail, this one book answered all of my questions regarding the nature of the disagreement between Michael Mann and his colleagues, now collectively known as The Hockey Team, and McIntyre and McKitrick and their band of merry auditors, now referred to as The Climate Auditors.
And of course measurements unambiguously show the concentrations of these gases are rising and have done so since about 1750. Efforts taken by other scientists to verify Mann's work and McIntyre's and others' responses to those efforts are described. This is a blow by blow account on how a few people strong on math and determination brought this travesty down. Good explanation of statistics but overall repetitive and one dimensional. I am disinclined to ignore all that evidence because a popular presentation fails to capture it all.
. Professor Alastair McIntosh, Centre for Human Ecology is very much part of Big Environment he and his eco-chums are in it for the money. Montford states that word of his article caused the traffic to his blog to surge from several hundred hits a day to 30,000 in just three days. It will be years before the effects of the corruption are eliminated. Anyone who claims that the 'hockey stick' is broken has to explain why physics and other lines of empirical evidence are also collectively broken, or are lying through their respective metaphorical teeth. From Steve McIntyre's earliest attempts to reproduce the Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, to the explosive publication of his work and the launch of a congressional inquiry, The Hockey Stick Illusion is a remarkable tale of scientific misconduct and amateur sleuthing. Montford adds that there was also an attempt to use his article as a source in Wikipedia.