The Hockey Stick Illusion has now clocked up 24 five-star reviews on Amazon.co.uk, a number which is rapidly approaching the total number of books I expected to sell when I started writing.
However, on the other side of the pond it's a different story, with two reviewers on Amazon.com now having given me the one-star treatment. Unfortunately, neither of them actually appear to have read the book, one implying that my target is the global warming theory as a whole and the other seeming to think that I have proposed "statistical adjustments". However, I'm sure they enjoyed themselves.
Meanwhile, Bart Vergheggen and one of his commenters have also been setting down their opinions on yours truly.
Bart's commenter Marco talks of my "polemical" writings, which is odd because from where I stand I'm more in the "dull but worthy" category than the "fierce polemic" one. According to a commenter here, in an earlier version of his comments Marco may have mistaken me for Lord Monckton, which is amusing if true - there is a comment about "Monckton's Bishop Hill blog" at Real Climate some time ago from someone called Mark. The comment at Bart's has changed now, so it may be that he has worked it out. Either way, the criticism is misplaced.
Bart, meanwhile, says he thinks Spencer Weart's book is better than mine.
One reason he gives is that Weart's book has "no speculation". Which is odd, because I think I have provided a citation for pretty much every major claim made in my book and most of the lesser ones too. I wonder what parts of the book he thinks are "speculation"?
He also says that Weart has no "conspiratorial thinking", and again I struggle to see what he can be referring to. I don't think I've talked of conspiracies in the book and indeed I've set out my opinions on the idea that global warming is a vast left-wing conspiracy in a posting a few months back - it was called "No conspiracy".
To his credit, Bart is very clear that he hasn't actually read my book either. So, like the commenters on Amazon.com, he has criticised my book based on what he thinks I have said rather than what I have actually written. We might say, in fact, that his hypothesis that I have engaged in speculation is, well, speculative.
Perhaps he thinks it's some kind of conspiracy too?