258 of 416 people found the following review helpful
The Science, Drama, and Politics of Climate Science,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Kindle Edition)
Dr. Michael E. Mann's book is a must-read for those that are relatively new to learning about climate science. This book has it all: science, drama, and politics. How many non-fiction science books can make that claim?
The hockey stick is a famous historical temperature plot that shows for the past 2,000 years global temperatures moved up and down very slightly (hockey shaft) but in the past several decades the temperature has rapidly risen (hockey blade). Although there are multiple lines of evidence and well-understood physics that show humans are dramatically warming the planet, climate science contrarians have seized upon the stick as being the single pillar that holds up the entire climate science edifice. They figure if they can take down the stick and Mike Mann, they can take down all of climate science. I know, sounds foolish, right?
Mike's book takes the reader on a journey beginning with his early interest in math and science as a youngster, his various areas of career research (hockey stick is just one of many), and ends the book detailing the disturbing attacks on him and colleagues - many of which occurred on Capitol Hill!
The early parts of the book describe how he ended up researching climate. Mike, like just about all scientists, is motivated by curiosity. Even as a young boy he was fascinated by science and math and got his greatest adrenalin rushes from discovering elegant solutions he calls "tricks" to solve unique problems. While he was in high school he discovered a trick to program a tic-tac-toe game that used artificial intelligence to improve on itself and at UC Berkeley he worked with superconducting materials and found a neat trick to better model their properties.
While at Yale, Mike wanted to work on something that was big, new, and had many unanswered questions. Climate science was not on his radar at the time but then he met with Barry Saltzman who was using the tools of physics to simulate (model) Earth's climate. Climate modeling was a big and new area of research so naturally Mike wanted to help. Mike's research focused on understanding the importance of natural climate oscillations. In fact, in the early 1990s Mike thought natural causes of change were more important than human causes. However, by the mid-1990s, due to the mounting evidence, it became clear to him that human causes were "rising above the noise" of natural causes. During that time he was oblivious to the attacks on Ben Santer being waged by S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, Patrick Michaels, Global Climate Coalition (a group of fossil fuel interests) and others because Santer's (and others) research showed that humans were in fact causing climate to change (IPCC 2nd Assessment ,1995). Mike explains that by the mid to late 1990s scientists knew that humans were warming the planet and offers five easy steps of understanding.
It was Mike's curiosity about multi-decadal natural climate changes and a serendipitous moment that led him to his research that led to the famous hockey stick temperature reconstruction. Mike's parents happened to be speaking over a glass of wine with Ray Bradley of UMass-Amherst and suggested that their son Mike should meet up. After their first "scientific blind date" a partnership emerged. When Mike began working with Ray Bradley, he was interested in reconstructing the patterns of temperature variation in a way that would provide insight into the workings of the climate system. It was from this landmark research that the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (1998/1999) hockey stick was born. (For the real climate/math geeks there is a lengthy chapter describing principal component analysis [PCA] but I think many readers might quickly skim over this section.)
Mike explains why his plot was highlighted alone by the IPCC TAR (2001) even though there were other reconstructions at that time. "(1) It was the only reconstruction done at the level of individual years rather than decadal or longer-term averages, and (2) it came with error bars, which the other reconstructions didn't. Thus, unlike other studies, it spoke to whether recent years, such as 1998, stood out as unusual against the backdrop of the longer-term reconstruction and its uncertainties."
The most important information in this book is the extensive detail describing climate science denial and the attacks on scientists. Mike is clear to distinguish true skepticism which all scientists possess versus denial which is the refusal to accept facts due to one's political or financial interests. Mike offers to the reader his "six stages of denial".
Mike describes the well-documented tobacco industry "doubt is our product" misinformation strategy that is now being used in climate discussions. This strategy is being funded by industry groups such as Koch Industries and the Scaife Foundations that find climate change science to be inconvenient to their bottom lines. Mike also calls out other groups such as American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Advancement of Sound Science Center, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Hudson Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, Heartland Institute, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Media Research Center, National Center for Policy Analysis, and Citizens for a Sound Economy (better known now as Freedomworks).
As Mike explains, various media outlets often propagate climate change disinformation in their editorial and opinion pages. He mentions newspapers such as the National Post and Financial Post in Canada; the
Daily Telegraph, Times , and Spectator in the United Kingdom; and U.S. newspapers such as the Washington Times and the various outlets of the Murdoch, Scaife, and Anschutz conservative media empires, which include Fox News and the Wall Street Journal , the regional Examiner.com network and Web sites like Newsbusters.
The most disturbing sections of this book detail the personal attack on Mike Mann and his family as well as attacks on other prominent scientists such as Ben Santer Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Herbert Needleman, Stephen Schneider, James Hansen, Eric Steig, and Wei-Chyung Wang. Mike relates these attacks as using "`Serengeti strategy'-- the tried and-true tactic of the climate change denial campaign. The climate change deniers isolate individual scientists just as predators on the Serengeti Plain of Africa hunt their prey: picking off vulnerable individuals from the rest of the herd."
The book also chronicles the dirty politics of climate change denial in Washington, D.C. Mann begins with Philip Cooney. In 2001, Cooney, a lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics and no formal scientific training, was appointed as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). He was previously a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (API). Cooney was instrumental in getting the environmentally friendly Christine Todd Whitman, head of the EPA to resign. Cooney also worked with the Competitive Enterprise Institute to invalidate a climate change report known as the National Assessment. Cooney also removed the hockey stick plot from the EPA's 2003 State of the Environment report and instead placed in a study by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas that was financed by Cooney's former employer, the American Petroleum Institute. The Soon and Baliunas paper was so bad that half of the Climate Research journal editorial staff resigned in protest because the seriously flawed paper should never have passed peer review.
Mike also details the 2003 Senate hearing called by friend of oil, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). In this hearing Inhofe's expert witnesses included Soon, Baliunas, and Michael Chrichton - a novelist! It was in this hearing that Inhofe made his notorious claim that "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
Mike then moves on to Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) who was the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Barton is a household name now for his notorious public apology to British Petroleum in June 2010 when the White House asked BP to pay for the clean-up and lost jobs.) In 2005 Barton sent threatening letters to Mike Mann and several others suggesting that they may have engaged in scientific malpractice. Many major science organizations and the mass media issued loud protests because it was an obvious witch hunt. Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle including Republican Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chair of the Science Committee, and Republican Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told Barton he should immediately retract the letter but Barton refused.
In November 2005, Sen. Boehlert formally commissioned the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to review the science behind paleoclimate reconstructions and the final NAS report fully vindicated Mann.
Barton commissioned his own study by tapping stats professor Edward Wegman of George Mason University - a man with no climate science background. The Wegman Report repeated the debunked McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) claim that the hockey stick was a mathematical artifact of using PCA conventions, while ignoring published peer reviewed papers that refuted M&M's claim. The more authoritative NAS review, for example, dismissed the claim that PCA conventions had any significant impact on the hockey stick results. (Currently, Edward Wegman is being investigated for plagiarism and his 2008 journal article on the subject was retracted Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.) Mike then summarizes the two House hearings on the subject in July 2006 where Barton's witnesses, including Wegman, were embarrassed by their own incompetence. Sadly, Wegman did not even understand the heat-trapping physics of greenhouse gases!
As the book nears the finish Mike describes the value of the peer-review process in rooting out bad science but admits it is not perfect and it is much slower than the immediately available Internet pseudo-science that most in the public read. To show how peer review can allow bad papers to slip through he discusses papers from Craig Loehle (2007), David Douglass, John Christy, Ben Pearson, and S. Fred Singer (2007), and John McLean, Chris de Freitas, and Bob Carter (2009). Each of these were trumpeted as the final nail in the coffin for manmade warming but subsequent analysis has dismissed them because of their many errors. (Of course, Mother Nature does not read these journal articles and the planet keeps on warming.)
Mike then moves on the stolen emails from Climate Research Unit, a well-orchestrated smear job on climate science that the press had unfortunately dubbed Climategate. Mike opens that chapter with this famous line by Cardinal Richelieu: "If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him." In an attempt to sabotage the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, the anti-science crowd loudly proclaimed (yet again) that climate science and its scientists were a sham. They used taken out of context quotes with words such as "trick" and "hide the decline" to smear Mike and many others. Of course, we all know that "trick" is just another word for an elegant solution which Mike has made a career out of. The media coverage was appalling and Koch Industries and the Scaife Foundations played a particularly important role. One report showed that twenty or so organizations funded at least in part by Koch Industries had "repeatedly rebroadcast, referenced and appeared as media spokespeople" in stories about climategate. In time there were many independent investigations and Mike and others were fully vindicated. (Sadly, the vindications received little coverage and I do not recall seeing any formal apologies from the press and certainly not from the ant-science crowd which still today trumpets climategate even while droughts, floods, fires, and sea level rise keep increasing.)
Mike also writes about the failed attempt of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to try to access his private emails and other documents while he was a researcher at University of Virginia. (Although not appearing in the Kindle version of the book, Mike is under attack again by American Tradition Institute, a right-wing astroturf group that has ties to Koch Industries and others. Mike is now fighting a long and expensive legal battle to prevent them from using his and many others' emails to spin up another climategate. It is a shame that so much of his time is being taken away from his research but I must commend him for standing up for climate science on his own dime. I wonder how many others would do what Mike is doing?)
One would think that after all of this bad history, Mike might end the book with sadness or cynicism. Instead, he offers much hope and describes how these attacks on him and others have awakened climate scientists to their responsibility to defend their work and speak out against attempts to stifle the free exchange of science.
To those that still question Mike's research, know this: since the first hockey stick paper of 1998, there have been more than a dozen studies published by many scientists using different methodologies (PCA, CPS, EIV, isotopic analysis, & direct T measurements) that duplicate the hockey stick. To believe Rep. Joe Barton, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and American Tradition Institute, one must also believe in magic. Consider the odds that various international scientists using quite different data and quite different data analysis techniques can all be wrong in the same way. What are the odds that a hockey stick is always the shape of the wrong answer?
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 29 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 29, 2012 8:38:10 PM PST
John Atkeison says:
When I went to a lecture by Dr. Mann at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, I was impressed not only by the scientist, but by the human being who treated challenges from the audience with grace and generosity.
Posted on Feb 8, 2012 11:38:58 AM PST
Amazon Customer says:
"Barton commissioned his own study by tapping stats professor Edward Wegman of George Mason University - a man with no climate science background."
Wegman is a statistician who reviewed statistics. Why does someone need a background in climate science to do raw math?
Posted on Feb 8, 2012 12:30:15 PM PST
dear mom, please stop writing these reviews. its embarrassing.
btw, clever way to protect the word "trick". what about "hiding the decline"? nothing clever to say about that? "hiding the decline" was needed to show that the proxy reconstructions that Mann used were no good. they went down when they should have gone up! no problem, just hide the decline. now that is a real trick!
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 12:48:37 PM PST
Arthur P. Smith says:
"hiding the decline" was something Phil Jones did, Michael Mann had absolutely nothing to do with it. As anybody who has actually read the book, or paid attention to these matters in recent years, would understand. The proxy reconstructions in question (tree ring density measurements used by Briffa) were never used by Mann, and he had no need to ever "hide" anything. This is the sort of nonsense that passes for rational discussion in the denier mind. No wonder this book is so essential - anybody who feels sympathy with Richard U. Mascera here needs to read Mann's book and understand exactly why his claims are so wrong.
Posted on Feb 8, 2012 2:13:12 PM PST
Scott A. Mandia says:
I find it absurd that a review as detailed as mine could be construed as "not helpful". This is an obvious hit job on Dr. Mann's book by Anthony Watts' anti-science minions. The persecution of Mann continues and that is why people need to read this book. This childish attack on the Amazon review system is just the tip of the iceberg for those who find scientific facts to be inconvenient.
BTW, as of 8 AM this morning my review had 57/58 who thought it was helpful. As soon as Watts posted on his blog that this book was available for review that ratio went to 75/136 in fewer than 9 hours. Childish but expected.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 2:42:44 PM PST
M. A. McDonald says:
Scott, the reason people find your review not helpful is because it's obviously a marketing exercise rather than an actual book review.
Posted on Feb 8, 2012 2:51:31 PM PST
Thanks, now I don't need to waste money on the book.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 4:38:32 PM PST
Chris B says:
So, Mann has 58 friends, only one of whom is honest.
I guess you just whipped up that review up without any advanced warning and happened to be the first reviewer? No games played? Churlish but expected.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 5:08:49 PM PST
Kevin Ryan says:
As I start reading through your review I was inclined to give you a thumbs up, but it started sounding like a Hagiography to St. Mike. Calling people you disagree with "minions" is lots of fun, but not really persuasive or "helpful".
I suspect the book is neither 1-star or 5-star, meaning at this moment I disagree with all but one person that has rated the book. Is your 5-star review "childish but expected" ?
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 8, 2012 7:25:53 PM PST
Dr. Edward R. Swart says:
Methinks your contention that the negative reviews of Michael Mann's book on Amazon is a "hit job by Anthony Watts anti-science minions" is hopelessly off the mark. I have followed both Anthony Watts WUWT blog and Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog for many months and to label such sites as anti-science is polemical nonsense, There is a substantial amount of genuine scientific critique on these sites deserving of serious consideration. No matter what you or Michael Mann says there has been no further warming for some 15 years -- despite ever increasing CO2 emissions. And to brush aside scientifically valid critiques of the use of temperature proxies is rather brazen. Time will tell and the truth will out but, at the moment, the future of the CAGW hypothesis seems extremely shaky. Your own review would be much more useful if it was not so overloaded with lop-sided admiration for Michael Mann. The behaviour of both Mann and Jones -- who are two of the chief players, in the Human caused global warming saga -- has been very far from commendable as attested to by the ClimateGate emails I and II. .