Monday
Jul262010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill HSI in Quadrant magazine
Jul 26, 2010 Books Climate: HSI John Dawson reviews The Hockey Stick Illusion in Australia's Quadrant magazine.
The Hockey Stick Illusion is the shocking story of a graph called the Hockey Stick. It is also a textbook of tree ring analysis, a code-breaking adventure, an intriguing detective story, an exposé of a scientific and political travesty, and the tale of a herculean struggle between a self-funded sceptic and a publicly funded hydra, all presented in the measured style of an analytical treatise.
Reader Comments (64)
Wow, I'd frame that review....
When is it going to 'tip' in the media.....
Looking at Judith Curry's recent comments at Real Climate, basically calling Gavin out, she would be called a deniar, by all the usual suspect..
Any guesses when are all the scientists the rest of physics, science etc are going to get a bit of courage up? RealClimate claims to speak for all 'climates cience'
My post at the BBC... got a little interest.
-------------------------------------------
Tamino (a RC regular) has written a review of the Hockey Stick Illusion..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
Judith Curry has signed of with:
"Once you'e in a hole, you can try to climb out or keep digging. Well keep digging, Gavin. My final words: read the book. "
Judith Curry:
"I can see that RC isn't the place, people elsewhere are already describing their posts not making it through moderation."
(Gavin Schmit RC editor, Nasa employe, Jim Hansen his boss)
He won't read a book - isn't that shocking?)
RealClimate are trashing 'The Hockey Stick Illusion, and all comers, (including Judith, in their comments section..
Because many people were having comments, not apearing at RealClimate, they have been posting them at Bishop Hill. in a thread reviewing the review..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/22/tamino-on-the-hockey-stick-illusion.html?currentPage=4#comments
Quite surreal watching how, RC is even editing people comments, to misrepresent them..
I think this makes it clear, far from RealClimate representing 'climate scientists everywhere.
It is in fact just a PR website, set up for Michael Mann, and the core 'team' to get their message across to the world.. It's connections with EMS, Fenton Communications and Al Gore are on the record.
It is worth reading All of the Bishop HIll comments section. There are some obviously some very intelligent (older than me ) people pulling apart RC, anbd Gavins repsonses, some appear at RC, if they fail they appear at Bishop Hill. You and I may not follow the statitics completly, but we can surely recognise the 'human behaviour at RealClimate.
I have noticed in Richard Black's blogs, many references to RealClimate, yet very few, none? to Climate Audit or Watts up, or Bishop Hill
Watts up being number one science blog, Real Climate and Climate Audit, eigth and ninths respectively.... Balance?
Judith Curry's initial response at RC (looks like she is increasingly sceptical)
"I just posted this to RC:
JC's grade for the review: C-
pros: well written, persuasive
cons: numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book
If anyone is seriously interested in a discussion on this book, I can see that RC isn't the place, people elsewhere are already describing their posts not making it through moderation.
-------
unfortunately i don't have much time for blogging at the moment. hopefully the RC post will motivate more people to read the book, then we can have a more interesting discussion at a more neutral site"
July 23, 2010 | Judith Curry
Thanks for that Dr Curry. It's good that RC have acknowledged the existence of the book and I guess I am pleased that this is the best they can come up with.
July 23, 2010 | Bishop Hill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/un_climate_talks_mire.html#comments
Good morning Bishop, I have just started reading John Dawson's review of the HSI (which I bought from Amazon back in February). It is just marvellous to see such a brilliantly written narrative which starts off with your book and then passes on to Steve McIntyre's work. Along the way the "so called" scientists of the Hockey Team are shown for the charlatans they are. I am going to print the review, go sit in a quiet corner and enjoy it all over again. Well done once again to you, & the 2Ms. Peter Walsh, Dublin.
Steve Mc has issued a challenge to Tamino in a new post and takes him apart in his usual incisive way.
The review was very nearly as entertaining as the book. And it did as good a job summarising the salient points of the book as the book did summarising the events themselves.
As an Australian, and without looking at the Quadrant articles, I have to caution that Quadrant is a 'right wing' journal - whatever that means - and that support from it may not necessarily mean the substance has value, rather that the meme being expressed is useful at this point in time.
Admittedly, Quadrant is reasonably moderate, but it does have an audience with a point of view.
Far better is good reviews from centrist news outlets - perhaps Fairfax press in Australia and whatever passes as centrist in the UK.
Your real coup would be a kind review in the Washington Post or the Grauniad.
It is heartening to see that the Amazon.com book review recent outbreak of 1-star troll reviews from individuals who have not read it are attracting more and more ridicule in their respective comment trails.
@jerry
' support from it may not necessarily mean the substance has value, rather that the meme being expressed is useful at this point in time'
Sorry guv, lost me there.
Jerry:
Jerry, the review is about a book, not about birds.
I think Dawson's is the best review I have read so far.
Re previous comments:
Quadrant is 'right wing'. Presently the major political force against CAGW is 'right wing' - not arguing here, just stating facts.
If you say something that supports the 'right wing' and especially something that is against CAGW then you will get a cheer.
What is more important is that science is the basis for comment. not politics.
Quadrant is not scientific, nor representative of majority public opinion.
I'm probably a leftie, certainly scientifically trained.. But that doesn't stop me being objective and using a scientific approach. As a scientist I object to politicisation and I really object to riding on political points of view to further a cause that just happens to coincide with the objective truth.
@jerry
Still lost me matey.
A book review is published in a journal. You consider the journal not to be to your taste, being 'right wing' and arguing lack of scientificness in other topics covered by the journal. OK...a weak point, but at least I understand it. I don't agree with it, but it is relatively clear.
But then I am lost. What point were you trying to make please?
Latimer Alder said
The point is that relying on reviewers that have clearly political objectives does not help the core cause.
It's a case of "they would say that wouldn't they"
Far better is a mainstream organisation acceptance that looks at the arguments objectively rather than a political organization looking for any old mud to sling.
If nothing else, support from the 'wrong types' taints the cause.
Bishop Hill is pleasantly moderate. Relying on harder edged supporters will not help.
Jerry is the one who is lost, Latimer Alder.
Having read the Bishop's encyclical, I agree with every word of Mr Dawson's review. The fact that it was published in a conservative magazine such as Quadrant is relevant only because such a favourable review of a book running so far contrary to Australian media group-think would almost certainly never be published in the Australian MSM.
More fools them.
@Jerry,
I take your point - we can agree with an opinion, but the motivation behind expressing that opinion may or may not be to our liking.
I'd broadly agree with the general point that it would be preferable to disentangle science and politics, but I think it's hopelessly optimistic to believe that this approach is sufficient at the moment. Discussion of the science is confounded by other influences that just cannot be ignored.
At this stage, although i admire the even-handed way you make your points, I'd suggest that reading the review (and the book if you haven't already) would be a good way to proceed.
Jerry
The HSI is reviewed in many diverse publications. A search through the Bishop's previous threads demonstrates this. But what could be more potent and hit the market target harder than reviews up front as you are in the act of actually clicking the 'buy now' button, as my Amazon post above implies?
The quadrant review is not the usual book review however. It is more like a technical paper abstract, or the management summary of a lengthy technical report.
Jerry
Discounting effect of a review in a "biased" publication same as objecting to Luther's choice of doors to nail his theses to.
Jerry
You that you dont want to see science politicised then you say it is not good to get support from the wrong types because it taints the cause
The cause is the truth and it does not matter who or where it comes from.
As said above; a brilliant review of a brilliant book.
I rather incline to Jerry's view which is, if I read it aright is not a comment on the merits of the review itself (which I find a little too long and detailed, though very well written) but expressing the wish that more 'mainstream' (or do we mean more politically in favour with the powers that be) publications would take the cue and actually read/review THSI rather than assume they know what it says.
Calm down, guys.
Jerry has made a valid point: that a favourable review in a "right wing" mag may only be read by the already-onside and is less powerful than a favourable review in a more centrist or mass-market magazine would be.
We hear so much from the biggest 2 quadrants of opinion:
1) Rightwing and skeptical
2) Leftwing alarmist
It's also interesting hearing from the other 2 quadrants:
3) Left-wing and skeptical (eg Jerry)
4) Right-wing alarmist.
Sitting on the libertarian/individualist end of the spectrum I sometimes wonder what we should do if a real global emergency comes along - like an asteroid.
I also ponder what to do with the wreckage of "climate science". Probably a clear-out with a lifetime ban on anyone who has worked in this field and a 5 year moratorium before the new people start again.
Jerry,
"Your real coup would be a kind review in the Washington Post or the Grauniad."
July 26, 2010
But with sweeping changes and trillions being spent on the basis of the idea that human contributed CO2, it's an intensely political matter. Even the conduct of science has been politicised and I'd say corrupted. To a large extent it is a left and right question.
The right wing generally believe that markets and the climate sort themselves out and whatever governments meddle with is made worse at vast expense.
The left wing generally believe that governments can and should do everything, and if that doesn't work it's because they haven't meddled enough.
Dunno about the WP, but the Grauniad is definitely one of the more committed factions. I suggest a favourable review of THSI in The Graun would mean that the debate was over. More likely, I think they'd ignore it and move onto something else.
Great review! There's this underlying feeling of momentum building lately, and with the pressure mounting for RC to come up with some answers, could be time to get the popcorn ready!
Hi Bish read thé book about six weeks ago. The way Tamino tried the destruction and the rebuttal of that by Supermac will be the best thing against the hockey team and for the book that you and your publisher could wish for. I would like to say my regard for Judith Curry has grown with every post she has made. I do not agree with everything she says but her reasoning as a scientist is first class and her integrity shines like a beacon for others.
Cosmic is absolutely right.
If this was a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin then it would perhaps be interesting to theologians but of limited relevance to most people.
But we are now legally compelled bound to invest Trillions in constructing new pins allegedly optimised to maximise the number of angels able to dance there and to rigidly enforce their universal and exclusive use. And as the resources we intend frittering away on this quest will directly and extremely adversely affect the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, whilst enriching those who invented the "problems" associated with the pins we use already, then I say this isn't primarily a "theological" debate (or in this case a "climate science" debate).
It is a debate which hinges on power and money. Which is to say:- politics.
So whether Quadrant is or isn't "right wing" doesn't allow you to just dismiss their excellent review of an excellent book.
And the fact that the Grauniad hasn't published a positive review can also not be used to dismiss Andrew's book. It would, in any case, be as surprising to see a positive review in the Grauniad as it would be to see the Pope advertising condoms.
And the politicans are still oblivious......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/25/green-tax-add-cost-home#start-of-comments
Green tax could add £850 to cost of buying a homeProperty industry slates plan,
being considered by Coalition, to increase stamp duty for homes with poor energy rating
The green tax would apply to homes sold with F and G ratings, giving buyers the incentive to bring them up to E or better. It would be part of a government programme to cut greenhouse (CO2) emissions by 34% from their 1990 levels, by 2020.
I generally agree with Jack Hughes. I for one would like to hear more from Jerry. He is clearly intelligent and speaking his own mind. I see some of his points, but I do have two questions:
First, Jerry, you make the following statement, which I assume is about AGW.
a cause that just happens to coincide with the objective truth.
Just what is that "objective truth" evidence do you have to back it up that does not have the obvious stigma of coming out of IPCC, Penn State, UEA or NASA? I for one would like to see it.
As for my statement about the "obvious stigma" regarding several sources of "evidence", I think the debate that raged for the last year is sufficient to call it all in question. Particularly "data" from Hansen, Jones and Mann.
Second, you say you are scientifically trained. In what discipline?
While I have been know to snarl at trolls and such, I am not with you. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, as is Jack Hughes, who is a very, very sharp knife indeed.
Jack Hughes may indeed be a very sharp knife and I an extremely blunt one but Jack did not summarise Jerrys post correctly at all.
Jack says:
"Jerry has made a valid point: that a favourable review in a "right wing" mag may only be read by the already-onside and is less powerful than a favourable review in a more centrist or mass-market magazine would be."
Jerry actually says:
"Far better is a mainstream organisation acceptance that looks at the arguments objectively rather than a political organization looking for any old mud to sling.
If nothing else, support from the 'wrong types' taints the cause."
The implication is clear: Right wing = "looking for any old mud to sling"
Mainstream (leftwing in Australia) = "looks at the arguments objectively "
Right wing = "Wrong types"
and Jerry does not want to get politics involved??
Dung
As you well know, I do not suffer trolls for long. And when they piss me off, they know it. However, that does not mean I am disinterested to hearing other viewpoints if they have supporting evidence.
Jerry seems to have some viewpoints I would like him to express. I say, let him speak and then we judge him.
Let us not fall into the same cesspool with Tamino and Galvin. Let the informed speak. We might learn something.
Don Pablo
I have great respect for you, I have no problem with Jerry expressing his views on the climate debate here and I have no problem with Jack Hughes.
However I think Jerry made some comments that WERE political and we dont need that in our discussions.
Hoping this blunt knife still retains your approval :)
Dung out
Dung
Oh, about politics. It is all about politics. I've been saying that for weeks. And I happen to agree with Jack Hughes.
And you are not a dull knife at all. Self-effacing, but not dull.
Don Pablo
Yes the debate sadly has been usurped by politicians. We are fighting politicians when we argue against AGW. However WE are not political in our discussions. I dont care whether you are Republican or Democrat (well maybe a little hehe) or none of the above. I read what you say about the debate and your politics make no diference.
I do not need to know if Atomic Hairdryer is Labour, Liberal or Conservative or indeed none of the above, I read what he says about the debate and judge that and nothing else.
Jerry appeared to say that if you were right wing then your opinion would not be worth anything.
I repeat that I dont think that should be part of our discussion.
Dung out :)
did seem a bit like 'right wing politics' = bad. 'Left wing' politics = good...
ie ignore one, the other is 'truth'
Don Pablo
"Objective Truth" - I'm probably skating on thin ice, but for me the objective truth in CAGW is one of non-existent, non-proven, or not important.
Scientifically trained? Well, umm, - in atmospheric physics, oceanography and computer modeling of atmospheric processes - but a while ago. I know a lot about computer modeling of atmospheric processes and data reduction, a fair bit about complex statistics and PCA. I'm also very well up on the subtleties of the highly relevant tidal harmonic analysis (unlike Tamino who is severely limited by what his 'R' package supplies)
Politics? I dislike obtrusive government control, but support socialist policies such as free healthcare and education.
Dung
It is pretty clear to me that the whole debate is politicised. And to a large extent it is American politicisation. As you point out, Australian mainstream is American left wing. In America it's Obama == CAGW, Republicans == use more oil and damn the polar bears.
To be frank, I'm not in the least concerned about particular politics. What I am concerned about is the politicisation of an important topic.
A favourable review in Quadrant is not in itself a problem. Nor would a favourable review in Socialist Weekly.
What is a problem is relying on a particular political grouping to support your cause. Then you run the risk of being politicised by implication.
Far better is a general appeal to all sides of politics via an inherent truth.
I really approve of that post Jerry, Like I said I really would rather listen to your (much better informed ) views on climate than your politics (it is soo divisive).
I dont believe Bishop Hill or Climate Audit depends upon any particular political party for support, we simply argue for what we think is the truth in the debate, any support welcome,
Blunt Dung :)
In the UK all parties are green = wrong types hehe
Sean
I'd love to read the book. In fact I have ordered and paid for it, but The Book Depository web form screwed up my address and I'm waiting 12 weeks for it to be returned to sender before I can get it sent out again.
Jerry
if you are willing to e-mail me your address I will send you the book as a peace offering :)
You will get it a whole lot faster ^.^
entium@clara.co.uk <---------- Dung
Jerry
Are you somehow implying that global warming is an important topic?
;)
OK - so Jerry hasn't even read the blasted book yet.
Amazon is full of reviews like that. I somehow expected more of contributors here.
Well, Jerry welcome to our little group. Dung snarls a lot and pretends not to understand, but he is actually quite sharp. The other day he did a nice job of explaining to Fred some of the issues with Mann et al in layman terms. He might not understand the science in detail, but he does understand the issues.
My position is that global warming is not proven. It may be real, or it may be a figment of someone's imagination. I don't know.
However, I do have advanced degrees, and as a Ph. D. in Physiological Psychology, I know my way around linear and non-parametric statistics, the teachings of Freud, Adler, Jung and those sorts, neurology, biochemistry, pharmacology, and computers. I spent 40 years in computers, ranging from IBM mainframes, DEC PDPs, microcomputers, networking, telecommunications, information retrieval (pre-Google) and embedded computing. Since I got out of statistics in the the 1970 timeframe, I am not up on Time Series Analysis, but I did know polynomial and auto correlation. I also spent a good deal of time on signal processing and such things as FFT's. Of late I have been heavy into video compression and things like MP3, and DCTs.
While I may know a lot, I am far from the sharpest knife in the BH drawer. Jack Hughes, Atomic Hairdryer and Thinking Scientist -- just to name three -- all put me to shame. Like Dung I am here to learn. And I have learned a lot from just about everybody who posts here.
I do hope to learn from you. You do not appear to be a troll at all.
Stock-in-trade on other blogs is to cast contributors in an "if you're not for us you're against us" role.
Please let's not slip into that habit here, particularly when there's compelling evidence that Jerry isn't turning up to cheerlead for either side.
In particular, go back and actually read his last post WRT quadrant:
"As a scientist I object to politicisation and I really object to riding on political points of view to further a cause that just happens to coincide with the objective truth."
People seem to be jumping on this as criticism of a particular position. Look at it with disinterested eyes and it certainly isn't. It's been constructed so that it could apply to either "side"'s posturing in the debate.
A very healthy approach.
Jerry,
I apologize for the Luther crack. i know exactly what you are driving at. I do not share the political POV of many of the skeptics - particularly the American ones, nor do I share the views on CAGW of many of the people whose other political views I do share.
It's not fun.
But a good review is a good review even if it's nailed to the wrong door.
Washington Post would be an excellent choice in the US, and I suppose for the benefit of our most strident catastrophists, the New York Times would be even better.
john
I can't see any journalist of the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, or even The Times ever actually reading the book in order to write a proper review, That goes for The Economist as well, unfortunately - some 10 years ago The Economist would probably have given it a proper review, but not anymore.
Peter B
Sadly true. While it would be nice to take politics out of this, as Dung demanded, not all see it that way.
Still, as Sean asks, that is no reason for us to jump into the PC cesspool as well.
I think I just had a really good penny drop moment :) (This can take a hell of a lot of time in old peeps hehe)
I have watched videos where Prof Richard Lindzen talks about how the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not linear.
I read the article over aon WUWT by Daivid Archibald on the logarithmic effect of CO2. Today JOsh twisted my arm up my back and sent me to watch a video by Prof William Nierenberg and he talked about this logarithmic effect.... the penny finally dropped. It answers all the questions I have been asking.
It explains why temp is falling after the mid point of interglacials even though CO2 is going through the roof for 2500 years.
It explains why global temperature could fall between 1940 and 1970 even though CO2 was surging upwards.
It explains why temperature can have stalled since 1998 even though we know we humans are chucking out more CO2 than ever before.
The effect on the atmosphere of more CO2 is now almost none existant.
What a great day hehe
William Briggs has an interesting proposal:
All reporters should be required to suffix a ‘D’ or ‘R’ after their names depending on which president they last voted for (or an ‘N’ in the rare case of no vote).[....]
This proposal returns a modicum of honesty to the reporting process. Journalists would no longer embarrass themselves by declaring their “independence.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1206
Great review b.t.w..
re Barry
This is the kind of nutty policy that cuts across left/right wing viewpoints and is just dumb. The Grauniad gives an example of having to invest £15,000 in upgrades to get an £850 rebate. Let me spend a second doing the business case on that.. Nope, doesn't work. Adds cost to the buyer, provides no incentive to improve energy efficiency. Charging the seller may actually provide more of an incentive though.
Also leaves the problem of EPC's being generally useless and often conducted by people with very little training. Only 'approved' methods are given high ratings, more effective methods may be ignored because they're not in the computer programmes, or on approved lists. A friend had this problem recently, he imported very efficient insulation, had to remove it because it wasn't thick enough to meet UK standards. It's also too bad if you're in a listed building, but then that would become the new buyers problem.
And a pet hate is it's not very forward looking. Electric storage heaters and hot water get a very low rating, yet provide handy sinks for surplus energy. We're proposing an energy policy based on intermittent energy generation, but can't store it. We're proposing a 'smart grid' and 'smart meters', yet they won't be able to dump surplus energy into domestic energy stores where it could actually be useful. On which point, if anyone knows a ceramics manufacturing guru, I'd be interested in having a chat.
Re Jack
That's a bit harsh and probably not needed. To an extent, the science should be self-policing and some of the CAGW cheeleaders have been doing a fine job destroying their own credibility. Hopefully that will mean more scrutiny and more openness, but then from what Doug Keenan's been discovering, perhaps more oversight as well. Climate science just needs to ditch some of the post-normal behaviour and get back to doing things the old fashioned way, following the scientific method as Dr Curry and others have suggested. So picking the good bits out of the wreckage and restoring trust and credibility. It's a bit like the sad death of Dr Schneider. Despite some controversial behaviour, his championing of climate change lead to greater awareness, increased funding, new satellites to observe our planet. That's a great legacy given we're advancing our knowledge, even if people still disagree about what it all means.
Dung
Your theory makes as much sense as any other I have seen. However, I prefer the Don Pablo Mexican Hat Dance model. One step forward and two steps back. Then two forward, one back.
:)
I plan on selling it as a weight and CO2 reduction system. Maybe I will apply for a grant or two.
Mr Don Pablo you are certainly intoxicated!
Whatever the merits of the Mexican Hat Dance model, it has certainly never been peer reviewed and therefore a man of your caliber would never suggest accepting it (unless totally plastered hehe)
Blunt Dung
Mr Bishop Sir?
There is a lot of off topic posting going on at the moment and I know I am at least partly to blame.
I think this detracts from the focus of certain threads (again I admit guilt here) but if one has something to say then there is nowhere to post it other than in an existing thread which may well not be appropriate.
Is it possible to have some kind of persistent thread which it is always possible to post in, maybe called "Off Topic" ?
[BH adds: There is an unthreaded thread - see RH navigation link]