Didn't read the book, eh?

But it is a nice illustration of what Chris Mooney talks about in his book...The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

Joel... Let's see, if the hockey stick is a fraud then why is it that now there are nearly a dozen other multi-proxy reconstructions using different statistical techniques coming up with the same answer as Mann's research? How does that happen? How is it that no one has done a multi-proxy reconstruction showing anything other than a hockey stick. Hey, McIntyre has now had over a decade to attempt to reproduce a reconstruction that shows something different. Where's his reconstruction? OR... maybe he DID attempt to do a reconstruction and he didn't like the results... Hmmm.

Anyone producing a fake review like this clearly has not read the full body of research on this issue.

These are simply assertions. The comment does not give any argument or evidence how and why, ad the commenter-reviewer says, "the Hockey Stick was a delibrate (sic) fraud". Prove to us, oh almighty Snider, that YOU know what you are talking about. I do, and I would enjoy learning here of the specifics of your complaint.

The real fraud is that there is any serious doubt of anthropogenic climate change, or of the basic shape of the hockey stick, or that Mann has committed any "fraud". Careful, you can be sued for such nonsense.

@Joel Snider,

(1) I challenge ANY skeptics regarding Professor Mann's important contributions to a detailed, technical discussion, mathematically based, of how and why they work. Most skeptics regarding his contributions are blindly parroting what they have read or heard elsewhere without any understanding of the techniques involved.

(2) I would recommend minions like Snider to check out responses of others on Amazon regarding this book, including mine, where I have links and arguments showing the power of the techniques which Professor Mann and others introduced to the tree ring and geophysical modeling community. Basic facts are that the tree ring data are so noisy, you need high power statistical techniques to discern information from them. No smaller errors are known in paleomagnetic results, and, after processing, these contributed seriously to the scientific underpinning of plate tectonics, a once controversial, but now very widely accepted geological theory.