What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science
Here is the definitive exposé of the distorted science behind the iconic global warming graph centrally responsible for the global panic about climate change.
From Steve McIntyre's earliest attempts to reproduce the Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, to the explosive publication of his work and the launch of a congressional inquiry, The Hockey Stick Illusion is a remarkable tale of scientific misconduct and amateur sleuthing. It explains the complex science of this most controversial of temperature reconstructions in layperson's language and lays bare the remarkable extent to which climatologists have been willing to break their own rules in order to defend climate science's most famous finding.
The book also covers the recent leak of the email archives of the Climatic Research Unit which has led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones, and exposed the degree to which climate scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have hidden and manipulated data to support their claims.
From Steve McIntyre's earliest attempts to reproduce the Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, to the explosive publication of his work and the launch of a congressional inquiry, The Hockey Stick Illusion is a remarkable tale of scientific misconduct and amateur sleuthing. It explains the complex science of this most controversial of temperature reconstructions in layperson's language and lays bare the remarkable extent to which climatologists have been willing to break their own rules in order to defend climate science's most famous finding.
The book also covers the recent leak of the email archives of the Climatic Research Unit which has led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones, and exposed the degree to which climate scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have hidden and manipulated data to support their claims.
482 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2010
20 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
About the author
A.W. Montford
8 books4 followersAndrew William Montford is an English writer and editor who is the owner of the Bishop Hill blog for climate-change sceptics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 5, 2011
The politicization of the "Climate Change" has made healthy debate of the issue very difficult. Regardless of which side you are on this book provides a fascinating incite to the challenges of being a critic of the "Climate Experts." The publications of the "Hockey Stick" graph in National Geographic started my own doubts about the "consensus" due to it's total lack of known Climate events like the Little Ice age. As someone who was aware of the Greenhouse effect since reading Cosmos in the 80's and is more aware of historical climate variation due to my love of history I shared with the authors the extreme skepticism that this famous graph brings. This is a blow by blow account on how a few people strong on math and determination brought this travesty down. Does this prove "Climate Change" wrong, no. Does it raise questions, yes.
December 9, 2022
When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground.
—Atte Korhola, Professor of Environmental Change, University of Helsinki
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
—Carl Sagan
History of science in the shape of a compelling thriller.
Still from Beloved Sisters (Dominik Graf, 2014)
April 2, 2012
A careful and thickly documented account concerning the Mann "Hockey Stick" model and statistical criticism of the same. Attention is given to a number of departures from scientific conventions and publisher protocols, and to the shocking flaws in the selection and coding of proxy data. The final chapter, which reproduces UEA emails, is sobering reading.
Read
March 17, 2010Such a strange book. Helpful, in its way, as a complete account of Steve McIntyre's work on the hockey stick and various other things -- but so one sided as to read almost like some weird work of fiction in which only the narrator and mcintyre actually exist.
June 1, 2021
Shocking!
Shocking! The book tells a comprehensive story of the scientific paper used as propaganda for boosting the prospects of alarmists to loot tax payer money for their "researches". Filed with examples of scientific misconduct, written in a compelling, electrified manner.
Shocking! The book tells a comprehensive story of the scientific paper used as propaganda for boosting the prospects of alarmists to loot tax payer money for their "researches". Filed with examples of scientific misconduct, written in a compelling, electrified manner.
August 7, 2019
Quite riveting through the first third of the book. After that it seemed like endless details that didn't much impact the impression given in the first third.
March 22, 2021
This was an exhausting read. The level of detail that this book goes into on all the different types of statistical issues in these scientific papers is dizzying. So much of the detail probably could have just been summarized but maybe for someone out there, this minutia is just their ticket.
I was vaguely familiar with the scandal from 2010 involving the leaked emails of the climate scientists. This book was written almost entirely prior to that event but does cover some in the last chapter.
What did I learn? It sounds like the peer review process for these science journals was all screwed up, coupled with a tight-knit clique of climate scientists, and this leads to some clearly questionable decisions around what was published in these journals. I also learned a lot about tree rings, how they probably aren't great proxies for temperature change and a lot about the bristlecone pine.
The best chapter, by far, is the chapter that the author uses to tie this issue with the hockey stick papers to the larger issues surrounding science review and science policy. The author's voice is strong and he's a clear writer when he is summarizing these topics and drawing connections. I wish the book was more like that.
I was vaguely familiar with the scandal from 2010 involving the leaked emails of the climate scientists. This book was written almost entirely prior to that event but does cover some in the last chapter.
What did I learn? It sounds like the peer review process for these science journals was all screwed up, coupled with a tight-knit clique of climate scientists, and this leads to some clearly questionable decisions around what was published in these journals. I also learned a lot about tree rings, how they probably aren't great proxies for temperature change and a lot about the bristlecone pine.
The best chapter, by far, is the chapter that the author uses to tie this issue with the hockey stick papers to the larger issues surrounding science review and science policy. The author's voice is strong and he's a clear writer when he is summarizing these topics and drawing connections. I wish the book was more like that.
April 28, 2012
A very surprising tale that will leave you flabbergasted, particularly with reported claims of paleoclimatologists that cherry-picking of data, though not appropriate in another field of science, is essential to theirs! This book is not the rantings of a climate change "denier" but rather a very clear and thorough report of the statistical detective story of climate "auditors" seeking only overcome a wall of obfuscation in order to replicate the temperature reconstruction of the famous and highly influential 1998 "hockey stick" paper that I just saw reported on Earth Day last week in my local newspaper along with a current photo of its author, Penn State professor and self-admitted non-statistician Michael Mann. Near the end of the book the author reports that even the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/) agreed "that paleoclimate reconstructions were not particularly important to the scientific case for manmade global warming" and then asks the reader "so why then have you read a whole book about this particular scientific paper?". The answer is that it's not really a book about the case for or against global warming but rather as the subtitle suggests: the corruption of science and the limits of academic peer review. Certainly will make an interesting anecdote when I teach principal component analysis again next spring!
October 2, 2011
Transparency is the new objectivity so let me first state that I believe it is very likely that human activity is significantly affecting the global environment. I read this book with a “let’s see the other side’s best shot” attitude.
The book is clearly not from a neutral POV. Montford is a mouthpiece for Steve McIntyre and the ClimateAudit.org website and omits important facts that would support an opposite view. Still, the book is surprisingly readable considering it is 450 pages about statistical correlations of tree rings. There are no good guys in this. Mann comes across as a petty bully; McIntyre seems an arrogant whiner that makes things less clear rather than more. Most of the parties involved seem to be socially dysfunctional nerds.
It was enlightening as to how political the AGW science has become and how peer review works (or doesn’t). Mostly I thought it is a real shame these smart guys can’t work together.
The book is clearly not from a neutral POV. Montford is a mouthpiece for Steve McIntyre and the ClimateAudit.org website and omits important facts that would support an opposite view. Still, the book is surprisingly readable considering it is 450 pages about statistical correlations of tree rings. There are no good guys in this. Mann comes across as a petty bully; McIntyre seems an arrogant whiner that makes things less clear rather than more. Most of the parties involved seem to be socially dysfunctional nerds.
It was enlightening as to how political the AGW science has become and how peer review works (or doesn’t). Mostly I thought it is a real shame these smart guys can’t work together.
November 18, 2012
Illuminating and insightful, but undoubtedly biased in its treatment of the "Hockey Stick" debate. In my mind, this isn't a book about global warming, but a book about the corruptibility of the scientific process, human fallibility, and the disconnect between scientists, politicians, the media, and the public. In both senses, Montford argues effectively, but his skeptical, alarmist rhetoric is still hard to ignore.
Montford does a good job of detailing some of the complex arguments that go into the debate. Some of the statistics got a little involved, but as a student involved in university-level research, I found it to be an enlightening and necessary part of the story. The book is well-written and engaging, even to someone with little prior knowledge of the topic.
Montford does a good job of detailing some of the complex arguments that go into the debate. Some of the statistics got a little involved, but as a student involved in university-level research, I found it to be an enlightening and necessary part of the story. The book is well-written and engaging, even to someone with little prior knowledge of the topic.
April 10, 2012
I tried to read this book with an open mind, but it was tough. I'm sure there are threads of this story that are true, but the author was really hammering their point a little too hard for it to be anything but off putting. I try to be fair and see both sides of the argument, but when the person writing cannot, that makes it tough.
November 25, 2019
Untold climate change story
Good analysis of the whole hockey stick saga and a revealing expose into how biased the climate sciences have become in late 20th and early 21st century
Good analysis of the whole hockey stick saga and a revealing expose into how biased the climate sciences have become in late 20th and early 21st century
February 16, 2020
It does not appear that history will be kind to “science” in the first quarter of the 21st century.
June 8, 2020
Outstanding and clear
The issues surrounding the climate change debate can be extremely technical and hard to understand, this bookmakes them very clear. I'm amazed and a bit jealous of Andrew Montford's skill. His text is very readable, clear, and accurate. Highly recommended.
The issues surrounding the climate change debate can be extremely technical and hard to understand, this bookmakes them very clear. I'm amazed and a bit jealous of Andrew Montford's skill. His text is very readable, clear, and accurate. Highly recommended.
July 4, 2016
Don't take this book at face value!
A good book about how anti-climate change obfuscation is done. That isn't the goal of this book, though. It is a perpetrator of obfuscation.
I liked that the book delved a little into the technical side of the critique. It did make some valid points that were actually confirmed by Michael Mann, the originator of the Hockey Stick chart.
However, it also gave too much credit to such well-known (and documented) climate deniers and liars, James Inhofe and Joe Barton (of apology to BP fame).
I recommend the book to anyone interested in Climate Change science and politics - and the obfuscation that is occurring just like that perpetrated by the tobacco industry.
A good book about how anti-climate change obfuscation is done. That isn't the goal of this book, though. It is a perpetrator of obfuscation.
I liked that the book delved a little into the technical side of the critique. It did make some valid points that were actually confirmed by Michael Mann, the originator of the Hockey Stick chart.
However, it also gave too much credit to such well-known (and documented) climate deniers and liars, James Inhofe and Joe Barton (of apology to BP fame).
I recommend the book to anyone interested in Climate Change science and politics - and the obfuscation that is occurring just like that perpetrated by the tobacco industry.
September 7, 2016
Interesting to have read this book this 'warm' summer of 2016. Perhaps I missed something but I have the impression that the author, unable to get his full repudiation of Mann's hockey stick model published in a scientific journal, resorted to writing this book. Good explanation of statistics but overall repetitive and one dimensional.
September 18, 2016
A too-long analysis of a single study that never proves its point.
January 27, 2016
Very enlightening.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews