Tuesday
Aug112015
by 
Josh
Josh "A Disgrace to the Profession" by Mark Steyn - now available
Aug 11, 2015 Josh Mark Steyn 
In the US you can order Mark Steyn's book here and orders can be shipped to the UK, if not from Amazon then try Mark's own bookstore.
It has cartoons by me and was a fun project to be involved in. It is also a hugely entertaining and informative read and, although I might be slightly biased, I think this is going to be this summer's must-read climate tome!
Posted by Josh
Update on Aug 11, 2015 by
Josh
Josh
Reader Comments (81)
After the solar super-storms of 1859 (Carrington global event), 1989 (Quebec black-out), 2003 (Sweden black-out), 2005 (GPS black-out), and the near-miss EXTINCTION event from all nukes's explosion by 9 hours in July 2012*, shouldn’t we show UN that in view of the next super-storm, the ongoing human sacrifices-depopulation-boomerang will save NONE from extinction, as a Laser Plasma Shield, by two powerful beams over equator will do??? Just to REPEL the excessive fraction of the space storm! http://www.science20.com/news_articles/worldlargest_petawatt_laser_completed_delivering_2000_trillion_watts_output-156782
BOEING PATENTED a Laser Plasma Shield! http://www.sciencealert.com/boeing-has-patented-a-plasma-force-field-to-protect-against-shock-waves *NEAR-miss EXTINCTION EVENT: The Solar Superstorm of July 2012 http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm AND: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/final_shibata_SWW_2015.pdf
How awful and desperate must Mann's situation be when the only "person" that stands up for him is an abettor of sexual predators.
Russell
Way back you said this;
'A synchronized dating of three Greenland ice cores throughout the Holocene.'
I have tried to find out for years-and asked arctic ice specialists along the way-just how time accurate the cores are, how reliable the extracted temperature data and why they should be seen as a global proxy?
Perhaps you can give your answers as well?
Thank you
Tonyb
I believe Russel has also posted a review of the book on Amazon, probably not even read the book. Very, very silly and a little bit sad to be honest.
Mark Steyn, a bloke who reports the truth and how cool is that?
Would that you were still writing over this side of the pond Mark, all power to your pen mate. Along with Donna, yer the best!
Russell (Aug 11, 2015 at 9:59 PM) mentions a number of papers “… corroberatng [sic] the tree ring record with ever better gephys [sic] results …” including M. Sigl, M. Winstrup, J.R. McConnell, K.C. Welte etc., although he does not specify Mann’s hockey stick or what he means by “better”.
This … http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/images_article/nature14565-f3.jpg … is not a hockey stick, this … http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg … is a hockey stick.
I think, that Russell's reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest.
His "review" is hilarious. Josh may be amused by the false claim that he lives in "England's grim north".
Briffa and Wigley et al may be concerned to be referred to as "non-entities with few real connections to climate science".
There's an excellent review from Foxgoose, who has the distinct advantage of having read the book. He points out that quotes are from
"... even colleagues and co-workers of Mann, who are the most outspoken on his alarming character traits"
Paul Matthews
I would stand corrected, but it does seem likely that Russell wrote an Amazon review of a book he had not read (tut tut). Here on BH, he accuses Steyn of recycling old stuff - referring to a Kos article. The fact he got the Kos date wrong, completely removed the force of that criticism (Steyn points this out). However, if you bother to read the Kos article, it references criticism of the book by Greg Laden. In fact, it is Laden's pungent criticisms that are recycled here by Russell (further tut tut). Note however, Laden writes with reference to the book, "I haven't seen it yet .." One would almost think Russell doesn't want us to read it. Curious ...
Anyway, on the strength of all this vapid nonsense I ordered a copy.
There used to be (and perhaps still is) an entertaining interlude on Radio 5's Saturday morning sports programme called "defending the indefensible". Perhaps in view of Mann's friends' observations as documented by Paul Matthews, they should invite Russell onto the programme. It might be good practice for his explanation of his reasons for reviewing a book he has not read.
"Apparently, this is Steyn’s attempt to bolster his case by showing that it is not just conservative pundits and paid spokespeople who think poorly of Dr. Mann and his hockey stick." Greg Laden.
Not the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer our Greg. There will be no "case" for Steyn, our Mikey will never enter a court of law where he can be questioned under oath. Mikey's way of punishing his critics is to keep them in legal battles, which he believes will silence their criticisms. Mark Steyn has found a way round that, he's letting other people criticise the great Mann, I daresay in the hope that the "case" does come to court.
Not a single amicus cuirae brief has been admitted on behalf of Mann in his suit against Mark Steyn, while Mark has the following amici: the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record.
All of whom recognise the dangers in* free speech from little menn with thin skins, big egos and deep pockets from environmental organisations.
Read Greg Laden's "review" he doesn't pretend to have read the book, and thinks Jonathan Jones has some sort of "teaching post" at Oxford and hasn't published much.
[* "To free speech".surely? BH]
Are Laden and Russell paid publicity agents for Steyn? They must be ramping up sales with every comment they make. Keep up the good work chaps!
To be fair to Greg Laden, Oxford academic titles can be a bit confusing to the uninitiated.
My original post (from 2003) was "University Lecturer in Atomic and Laser Physics and Official Fellow and Tutor in Physics at Brasenose College, Oxford", generally abbreviated to ULTF. A ULTF position at Oxford was considered to be equivalent to a Senior Lecturer position at other UK universities. Being "Official Fellow and Tutor in Physics" means that I do much of my teaching stint for one of the colleges (Brasenose), and as an Official Fellow I am a member of the Governing Body which acts for most practical purposes as the Charity Trustees of the College (when I was first appointed Oxford colleges were exempt charities, but the position was much the same). In 2006 I was made a "Titular Professor of Physics" under the "Recognition of Distinction" provisions.
More recently Oxford has chosen to align its positions with the US system, so my position is now "Associate Professor of Physics in the University of Oxford and Official Fellow and Tutor in Physics at Brasenose College, Oxford", sometimes abbreviated as APTF. However I have retained my Titular Professorship, which is now a formal statement by the University that my professional distinction is equivalent to a US "Full Professor".
Greg Laden may be confused by the post of "College Lecturer", which despite the very similar name is a much more junior position, similar to an Adjunct Professor in US terms.
Thank you Professor Jonathan Jones. When I was at university in the UK (definitely not Oxbridge) the system went like this: Lecturer; Senior Lecturer; Reader; Professor.
In the US, Professor=Lecturer. Laden is too willfully ignorant to acqaint himself of the differences between UK and US university systems. This comes as no surprise.
"When every one is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody!"
(Gilbert & Sullivan, The Gondoliers)
Jonathan Jones, thank you for the brief cv, and explanation.
Unfortunately Laden's ignorance more than qualifies him to be an expert in global warming, as many of his peers demonstrate.
Many of his peers are peer reviewers, which is how you came to be involved in the first place.
There is an incredible amount, of dubious credibility at stake here.
Hector Pascal,
"When every one is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody!"
(Gilbert & Sullivan, The Gondoliers)
If..............yes we can!
"I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"
Time moves on, etched, everything remains the same.
But statistically, idiots are abounding and with equality and diversity, in public service or, even climate science we trawl at the bottom. Garbage in, what can you expect to egress?
"There is an incredible amount, of dubious credibility at stake here."
Steyn, is a one man siege machine but forces join his battle day by day, digging beneath the fortress of climate pseudo-science and laying the charges. It'll be a big bang, loud enough [hopefully] - for people around the world to hear its booming resonation.
I think the point is that you can quibble a bit with Steyn's occasionally snarky style, maybe you can argue that he's cherry-picking his remarks, but in the end Dr Michael Mann is the kind of pseudoscientific blight that leaves a substantial crop of cherries to be picked.
This is the MUST gift for your Christmas shopping list!!! Now you do not have to worry what to get everyone for Christmas.
Josh's cartoons are the tinsel on the Yamal evergreen tree.
Tonyb:
Read the new papers provided earlier in the thread ;
MarkS
Sorry to report that two more of your prime witnesses have been rumbled as PR flaks from lignite land:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html
I'm a bit late to this but when the hard copies of this come out, is it worth raising some money and sending copies of it to suitable people like Amber Rudd? Josh's excellent cartoons might hook people where a straight climate book might not.
Once again the false misleading and blindingly obvious vvussell appears to post nonsense attempting to divert the topic.
Meanwhile he reviewed a book he had not read pretending to be a qualified 'reviewer' on Amazon. vvussell also took the time to try and rebut comments with his own ad hominem version of comments without merit.
vvussell's polemic comments were deleted by Amazon. Nice touch, the normally hands off Amazon team erases vvussell.
Choking through vvussell's comment, not only is it obvious that vvussell didn't read the book, way off base criticism coupled with just plain false statements; but, vvussell went and copied from other reviewers, (as mentioned by others above) and book reviews. This last part is obvious because of the blatant errors of cost and book comparison, (college climate text books).
Now, given vvussell's absurd comment above, vvussell wants people to accept sks silliness about scientists.
sks, where the unfunniest, (to borrow a word from vvussell), comic artist in the world collects the worst anti-science imaginable.
sks, whose sad list of fanatical readers envision a totalitarian world of anti-science consensus; and they draw militant pictures of themselves to glorify that fact.
vvussell, did y'all choose a snappy salute too?
vvussell, surely you have better things to do, like honestly work for a living?
ATheoK Talking of SkS, Judith Curry has a blog post about the book. Includes a number of comments by colleagues re. Mann and the Stick, Includes a couple from SkS people.
From http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/
Neal King: My impression is that Mann and buddies have sometimes gone out on a limb when that was unnecessary and ill-advised. Mann, for all his technical ability, is sometimes his own worst enemy. Similarly, with regard to “hiding the decline” in Climategate, I am left with the impression that the real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn’t work properly in the 1990s? Mann et al spent too much time defending what was incorrect, and allowed the totality of the argument to become “infected” by the fight.
Robert Way: I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc2 brought up some very good points about the original hockey stick. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. Mann et al stood by after their original HS and let others treat it with the confidence that they themselves couldn’t assign to it. The original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. They then let this HS be used in every way possible despite knowing the stats behind it weren’t rock solid.
People read Amazon comments ?
Who knew?
Thanks to all for evdencing the continuity of the three principle schools of climate skepticism:
Lignitic, Bitumenous, and too thick to pipe without a steam jacket.
take your pension before it is withdrawn from you, vvussell
lol at vvussell...how much are they going to charge you for your anal replacement?
The ones who follow science and the scientific method do. Comes from reading the actual unadjusted data not over homogenized and modeled data.
Strange though that may seem to you vvussell, who doesn't bother to honestly read books.
Russell: you should also have to accept that skeptical science [sic] are PR flaks from la-la land. Does that make them unreliable as witnesses? I suspect not, in your book.
A quick word of advice – you are deep, deep in a hole, now. You should stop digging.
The most interesting thing about Mr. Russell, as his post makes excruciatingly clear, is that he doesn't know what to defend and what not to defend if he wants to establish a position with at least some surface plausibility. Thus, with the aforementioned goal in mind, one does not defend something that is not only questionable but outlandish like the hockey stick. (Just a few for-instances: if the hockey stick is true, then why didn't a cruise liner make its maiden voyage through the northwest passage this year? And why is the North Atlantic so cold (so that people where I am have been wearing sweaters in July and August)? And why has Australia had such a cold winter? Etc.)
I received the book a couple of day ago, having bought it via Mark Steyn's own website. It arrived to Europe in about a week - apparently hand signed.
From the little I know of Steyn's politics, I probably wouldn't agree with him on most things. But having already established from other sources what an unpleasent person Mann is, I can agree with him on that.
Its certainly an entertaing read. With 2 pages to each scientist's views on Mann, its a book you can dip in and out of. It is reassuring and very enjoyable to see how much genunine criticsm of Mann and his work exists, often from those who should be on his side.
I don't see this as a book about the rights and wrongs of the case for manmade climate change. It clearly demonstrates how much damage Mann has done to the credibility of climate science. And it shows that those who continue to support him will only help rolong the lost credibility.
I hope this book will go some way to encouraging the climate science establishment to finally come out and drop him - explicitly rather than quietly, which some, like the IPCC, have done so far. That will then let us get back to a proper, honest and ethical scientific debate. However, I suspect that Steyn's wider reputation for strongly US-conservative political views will limit its impact.
All the same - as I've already said - its an entertaining read for those who enjoy the fall of Mann.
My favourite quote? Perhaps this tweet from Mann to Tamsin Edwards. Not a criticism of Mann, but one which really shows his character and tactics. This was after Edwards suggested Mann directly address criticisms from Rob Wilson instead of just calling him a 'denier':
"Tamsin, I don't need to be lectured on 'tone' by you, of all people. Uninterested in a profile-raising twitter debate w/ you"