What do you think?
Rate this book
A Disgrace to the Profession
The "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN's transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation.
And yet what it purports to "prove" is disputed and denied by many of the world's most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world's scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.
And yet what it purports to "prove" is disputed and denied by many of the world's most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world's scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.
320 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2015
142 people are currently reading
329 people want to read
About the author
Mark Steyn
160 books219 followersMark Steyn is a Canadian author and cultural commentator. He has written numerous books, including the New York Times bestsellers America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. Steyn has been published by magazines and newspapers around the world, and is a regular guest host of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show. He also guest hosts Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, on which he regularly appears as a guest.
Steyn lives and works mainly in Woodsville, New Hampshire. He is married, and has three children.
Steyn lives and works mainly in Woodsville, New Hampshire. He is married, and has three children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
January 19, 2016
This is a reference book rather than a book to be read. It's a definitive refutation of the claim that most scientists believe in the dangers of global warning. One hundred and twenty eminent scientists here, some Nobel laureates and all with impressive credentials, denounce Michael Mann (who is described by the title) and his "hockey stick" chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based. Mann based the hockey stick projection on 2 (two) shaky pieces of evidence, tree rings that depend on many factors besides temperature. He falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate himself. Virtually all of the scientists who are heard from in this book call him a fraud and his projections "pseudoscience." Editor Mark Steyn plans volume 2 to follow this one, and says he will try to limit the second book to 100 scientists, as he intended to do with the first one. This volume should end the argument once and for all, but of course true believers (as opposed to "deniers") will ignore it, because anthropogenic global warning is a faith, not science.
October 13, 2015
I don't give out 5 stars lightly, but I think this book deserves it. It reveals the reprehensible behavior of Michael Mann and others at the IPCC after they produced the famous hockey stick graph and then adopted an all-out, no-holds-barred approach to defending it against scientific and statistical criticisms for the next 10+ years. In the process they co-opted the scientific peer review process to ensure alternative views were not published, pressed (often successfully) for people to lose their jobs, destroyed data to avoid releasing it under Britain's equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act, and turned the field of climate science into something like a Mafia-controlled syndicate. I consider it must-read material.
February 24, 2016
This is a book that needed to be written - to tell the truth. Whether you are a proponent of man-made global warming or not, the evidence presented by Mark Steyn that refutes the validity of the hockey stick graft is absolutely overwhelming. The author himself does not present arguments that undermine this standard upon which society has been told we are the warmest century on the planet ever to exist because people have made it that way.
No, it is a string of climate and earth scientists who are at the top of their field world wide who in articles, testimony before investigative committees, and personal e-mails, who give us the facts.
The facts are the science was flawed to begin with, it wasn't researched properly, it was promoted by individuals who wanted it to be true - including Al Gore - there were no control models, and anyone who questioned what became the mantra of the beginning of the 21st century was threatened, vilified, and usually sued.
There is very strong evidence the globe has been this warm before, about a thousand years ago, in fact.
Many reputable men and women with a string of initials and awards behind their names who believe in global warming still refute Michael Mann's hockey stick and are appalled at what they see has been a blight upon the field of science.
It is Steyn's satire and sense of humor that keep the flow in what is chapter after chapter of quotes and testimonies of individuals who want the truth to be known - and some who don't.
Of course it is very hard to get rid of a line of thinking that has influenced legislation, school curriculums, made many people very rich, and is now becoming a global embarrassment.
Climate change is on going all the time, and always has been. Are human beings how contributing to a warming trend on the planet? If so, let's use good science to verify it, or have the courage to admit Michael Mann conned us.
No, it is a string of climate and earth scientists who are at the top of their field world wide who in articles, testimony before investigative committees, and personal e-mails, who give us the facts.
The facts are the science was flawed to begin with, it wasn't researched properly, it was promoted by individuals who wanted it to be true - including Al Gore - there were no control models, and anyone who questioned what became the mantra of the beginning of the 21st century was threatened, vilified, and usually sued.
There is very strong evidence the globe has been this warm before, about a thousand years ago, in fact.
Many reputable men and women with a string of initials and awards behind their names who believe in global warming still refute Michael Mann's hockey stick and are appalled at what they see has been a blight upon the field of science.
It is Steyn's satire and sense of humor that keep the flow in what is chapter after chapter of quotes and testimonies of individuals who want the truth to be known - and some who don't.
Of course it is very hard to get rid of a line of thinking that has influenced legislation, school curriculums, made many people very rich, and is now becoming a global embarrassment.
Climate change is on going all the time, and always has been. Are human beings how contributing to a warming trend on the planet? If so, let's use good science to verify it, or have the courage to admit Michael Mann conned us.
January 19, 2016
A Disgrace To The Profession. The World’s Scientists in Their Own Words On Michael E. Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science.
Compiled and Edited by Mark Steyn
Just as the subtitle says, this book is full of quotes from eminent scientists (from all disciplines and points of view) punctuated with Mr. Steyn’s inimitable witty comments. Though the discrediting of Mann’s theory is obvious, amazingly some policy makers continue to use this bogus science. A quote from page 80 sums it all up: “The hockey stick was no longer science, it was an icon of the new millennium’s new religion.”
Compiled and Edited by Mark Steyn
Just as the subtitle says, this book is full of quotes from eminent scientists (from all disciplines and points of view) punctuated with Mr. Steyn’s inimitable witty comments. Though the discrediting of Mann’s theory is obvious, amazingly some policy makers continue to use this bogus science. A quote from page 80 sums it all up: “The hockey stick was no longer science, it was an icon of the new millennium’s new religion.”
February 9, 2016
I have a mild interest in climate studies since my degree was in Oceanography. This book tackles the prominent inclusion of the "hockey stick graph" from the IPCC report. The Graph is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpc...) What I found very surprising in this book was the format. Over 100 separations of two to three page segments with just the words of scientists. It was a bit overkill (you could prob read a quarter of the book and understand just how poorly the hocky stick graph was done) but the point Mark Steyn was trying to make seems very clear: that the idea of a scientific consensus on climate is a fiction. There seems little evidence that we can accurately measure the past temperatures and I was honestly shocked how sloppy the work of Mann was in producing his graph. Most impressive in the book is the introduction Steve McIntyre, a laymen who proved how wrong headed Mann's work was [his webpage here- . The book in no way disproves global warming or that Humans are not impacting the environment. It does show the lengths that science can be twisted to try to force "the truth" onto us for the greater good.
October 30, 2015
It's a nice collection of what a bunch of respected scientists think of Mann's weasel methods, proving that it's not the supposed Koch-funded, right-wing nut-jobs out there who have a problem with him, but rather a large chunk of the scientific community.
If you want a good description of Mann's FRAUD, read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford. The only reason Mann got away with fudging the numbers is because it was decided that other "independent" studies (many using the same data and methods) came to a similar overall conclusion, never minding the fact that his PC analysis will always result in a hockey stick figure or the fact that he used the same data from a single tree in multiple categories. Statisticians see through it.
If you want a good description of Mann's FRAUD, read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford. The only reason Mann got away with fudging the numbers is because it was decided that other "independent" studies (many using the same data and methods) came to a similar overall conclusion, never minding the fact that his PC analysis will always result in a hockey stick figure or the fact that he used the same data from a single tree in multiple categories. Statisticians see through it.
September 17, 2015
The hockey stick and the damage done! While it is a 100 daggers to the heart of Mann, the big picture is the extent to which these pierce through to the heart of the IPCC in its willingness to promote this junk. An important takedown given the extent to which this fraudulent symbol shaped popular perception of climate - one that seems hard to budge. Serious stuff but the laughs make it enjoyable. My favourite line (from McIntyre) when Mann was caught casually transposing weather data from Paris to New England (a minor scam in context): "The rain in Maine falls mainly on the Seine."
October 27, 2015
I strongly support Mark Stein in his legal battle with Michael Mann. Michael Mann sued Mark Stein for defamation after Stein called his hockey stick graph on global warming a scientific fraud. Since fraud has a common, non-technical meaning and since Stein clearly wasn't accusing Mann of a violation of criminal law, the kind of accusation that might be libelous, the case really should have been dismissed quickly. Instead, Mann and his backers found a sympathetic judge to let the case go forward in an attempt to use the process to punish and bankrupt Stein. The case is literally about freedom of speech. Mann wants to make criticism of "experts" into legally actionable claims if not crimes, and we all have a duty to stand up to his bullying. Buy the book.
The book itself isn't my tastes. I've read other books by Stein, and this book is different because it has no narrative glue. It's chapters are brief, one or two-page accounts of the reactions of scientists to Mann's hockey stick and the state of climate science. The reactions are interesting in themselves, but I'd have actually preferred the book to be longer and narrated like his other works.
The book itself isn't my tastes. I've read other books by Stein, and this book is different because it has no narrative glue. It's chapters are brief, one or two-page accounts of the reactions of scientists to Mann's hockey stick and the state of climate science. The reactions are interesting in themselves, but I'd have actually preferred the book to be longer and narrated like his other works.
September 22, 2015
Doubling Down
Steyn and MacLean's Magazine beat the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This time he takes on climate scientist Michael Mann, who sued him for defamation.
It is hard to believe Mann bothered except that seems to be his style. On legal grounds, Steyn wins on points. On political grounds, he is a mad dog, digging up more than 100 scientists who are more than willing to dispute Mann's "the science is settled" trope.
Mann will continue to claim the upper hand but he has lost. Too bad he took so many earnest and rational "warmists" with him.
Steyn and MacLean's Magazine beat the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This time he takes on climate scientist Michael Mann, who sued him for defamation.
It is hard to believe Mann bothered except that seems to be his style. On legal grounds, Steyn wins on points. On political grounds, he is a mad dog, digging up more than 100 scientists who are more than willing to dispute Mann's "the science is settled" trope.
Mann will continue to claim the upper hand but he has lost. Too bad he took so many earnest and rational "warmists" with him.
April 2, 2016
This is told in a style that is emphatic and could have been done within a much shorter fashion.
Regardless, it is instructive to a perfect example for one scientific proof that is neither science nor is it proof. And it rather proves a Lincoln refrain.
You CAN fool some of the people all the time.
Regardless, it is instructive to a perfect example for one scientific proof that is neither science nor is it proof. And it rather proves a Lincoln refrain.
You CAN fool some of the people all the time.
March 18, 2016
One can't deny there's a hoax concerning man-made global change after reading these "climate-gate" emails. Unless you're a 'denier-denier.' Heh. My only issue was the format. It seemed unorganized and repetitive...but I guess repetition is the nature of coraborating evidence. 3.5 stars.
May 5, 2016
Terrific validation via 100+ climate professionals that Mann is a self centered failure in his profession who only seeks self glorification. Outstanding coverage of every issues in the fraud called man-made global warming.
October 15, 2023
A great Science book is one which explains the science to its readers without wandering from the subject or adding politics. This books subject was charged with politics because its about the liars in climate science and what their legitimate science colleagues say about their Bad Science. Those who still believe we should be Alarmed by manmade climate change caused by human CO2 emission Need to read this book and find out that Many of them Discount Mann's Hockey Stick and the "science" that supports it And the Censorship and Manipulation of those who would Publicly Write/Speak Against it If they were Allowed by the Powerful Control Mechanism of mainsteam science. This is a great book for those who say there are no legitimate scientists who disagree with Consensus that manmade climate will soon end our planet (or fill-in your own scary scenario).
January 19, 2016
"A new version of The Emperor's New Clothes, the little boy points out His Majesty is naked, and the enraged courtiers and the more fevered members of the crowd club him to a pulp yelling, 'Don't you know? The clothing is settled!'"
The work excessively pours over raw data, it can be hard to consume and at times even down right repulsive- but it important for society to understand how this issue was astroturfed then bifurcated for the sole benefit of special interest groups- which involves a wide range of complicit groups around the world from school teachers, regulators, politicians, scientist, journalist and academics.
"The core alarmist proponents only comprise a few dozen, mostly third-rate academics whose scientific reputations are minimal outside of climate alarmism. They co-opted the niche, little known interdisciplinary field of climatology, proclaimed themselves to be the world authorities, declared a global crisis, received lavish funding to research it and gained global attention."
The corruption must be realized, data identified and discarded with an honest apology made to the public that begins and can only be achieved through a slow process of rebuilding trust in these institutions. Until this is identified we are doomed to violent, and extremely radical splits in our country stoked by those who benefit at the top while continuing to compound this problem in order to grow their group- so far none of these "honest" public debates have taken place- industry remains corrupted, and public distrusting.
The hockey stick test is an issue that exposes how bias creates its own fantasy that must override all facts, right down to personal experience.
It is a modern Orwellian practice of persecuting "thought crimes" based on their damage to the gospel truth even when that dogma is contrary to empirical observations.
A small radical low ranking group managed to take over and pervert not only an industry but the entire integrity of the scientific discipline.
Not sure who is more destructive to modern civilization; the IPCC or APA. Either way the IPCC really out did the APA in this conspiracy.
Understanding this is like learning how Democrats supported slavery and pushed the nation into a civil war.. it's unsavory, the past has been covered up, and the guilty parties remain in power and continue to abuse it
"After reading the history of the 'hockey stick' no one could ever again trust the IPCC or the scientists and environmental extremists who author the climate assessments. The IPCC has encouraged a collapse of rigour, objectivity, and honesty that were once the hallmarks of the scientific community."
How can the public ever trust us again? I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able to retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientist, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.
"All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom. The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior."
The work excessively pours over raw data, it can be hard to consume and at times even down right repulsive- but it important for society to understand how this issue was astroturfed then bifurcated for the sole benefit of special interest groups- which involves a wide range of complicit groups around the world from school teachers, regulators, politicians, scientist, journalist and academics.
"The core alarmist proponents only comprise a few dozen, mostly third-rate academics whose scientific reputations are minimal outside of climate alarmism. They co-opted the niche, little known interdisciplinary field of climatology, proclaimed themselves to be the world authorities, declared a global crisis, received lavish funding to research it and gained global attention."
The corruption must be realized, data identified and discarded with an honest apology made to the public that begins and can only be achieved through a slow process of rebuilding trust in these institutions. Until this is identified we are doomed to violent, and extremely radical splits in our country stoked by those who benefit at the top while continuing to compound this problem in order to grow their group- so far none of these "honest" public debates have taken place- industry remains corrupted, and public distrusting.
The hockey stick test is an issue that exposes how bias creates its own fantasy that must override all facts, right down to personal experience.
It is a modern Orwellian practice of persecuting "thought crimes" based on their damage to the gospel truth even when that dogma is contrary to empirical observations.
A small radical low ranking group managed to take over and pervert not only an industry but the entire integrity of the scientific discipline.
Not sure who is more destructive to modern civilization; the IPCC or APA. Either way the IPCC really out did the APA in this conspiracy.
Understanding this is like learning how Democrats supported slavery and pushed the nation into a civil war.. it's unsavory, the past has been covered up, and the guilty parties remain in power and continue to abuse it
"After reading the history of the 'hockey stick' no one could ever again trust the IPCC or the scientists and environmental extremists who author the climate assessments. The IPCC has encouraged a collapse of rigour, objectivity, and honesty that were once the hallmarks of the scientific community."
How can the public ever trust us again? I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able to retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientist, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.
"All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom. The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior."
January 2, 2016
One of the most spectacularly bitchy and gratifyingly righteous books you could ever read about actually-existing climate scientists. It's too long and the core fact (the shameless creation and deployment of the "hockey stick" by its venal inventors) is old news. But the fact that Mann and his ilk still enjoy a good press is reason enough for it to exist.
January 24, 2017
I'm done with Mark Steyn's books. The summaries are deceptive not revealing that, like this one, the book is a collection of emails and letters by scientists or like the previous book, Lights Out, a collection of his op-ed pieces. That seems like a lazy man's way of writing a book and is not enjoyable to read as far as I'm concerned
January 4, 2016
I've seen this hockey stick before, ie...in Al Gore's movie and all over in terms of global warming. However, it's interesting seeing exactly what was used in the making of the graph and the sketchy science behind it.
January 18, 2016
One hundred twenty small chapters (plus postscript) that, although largely overlapping, expose both Michael Mann and the Hockey Team as frauds and hugely detrimental to the integrity of science.
May 5, 2016
Withering, witty attack on climate change poster boy Mann. I chuckled.
January 25, 2017
A " Must-Read" book for the new climate policy administrators within the Trump Administration.
June 10, 2020
As of late there has been a growing perception that science is not a wide selection of theories that are constantly disproven and debunked by each other but instead absolute truths. Truths that, if questioned, ought to be proven by heaping ridicule on whoever as much as asks about them. Michael Mann might be charismatic, and the nature of social media has done him well.
This has led to the likes of Michael Mann and his followers becoming fiercely vehement towards all opposing theories. Who needs to read about any other sets of information - hell, even consider where the data was drawn from - than just believe that it's right? Scientists who agree with Mann *know* things. Not by performing experiments and observations on the natural world. The absolute truth they espouse is so obvious that all rational, able-minded humans know this from the day they are born!
And if you don't understand the climate denier's, they're deliberately trying to confuse you by going against your preconceived notions and cognitive dissonances. Or they're just trying to hurt you. In which they are no longer a bunch of deluded fools but a savage horde of maniacs who want to tear you limb from limb. Quick, an opportunity! The more sympathy you get, the more people will listen! To The Guardian!
As per usual, they immediately dismiss any other scientists as Koch-funded right-wingers. They have created a strawman that Michael Mann has done his very best to maintain and vilify with the help of the press. Remember: you can either frame your enemies as an overwhelming scourge or an measly puddle of whiners. Not both!
The trouble is, it has yet to occur to them that there exist detractors beyond that narrow umbrella which they've set out to stereotype them.
A Disgrace to the Profession is a living testament to this. Read it for yourself, and make your own conclusions.
Because what do I know, i'm just a seventeen year old boy who only got Merits in chemistry.
This has led to the likes of Michael Mann and his followers becoming fiercely vehement towards all opposing theories. Who needs to read about any other sets of information - hell, even consider where the data was drawn from - than just believe that it's right? Scientists who agree with Mann *know* things. Not by performing experiments and observations on the natural world. The absolute truth they espouse is so obvious that all rational, able-minded humans know this from the day they are born!
And if you don't understand the climate denier's, they're deliberately trying to confuse you by going against your preconceived notions and cognitive dissonances. Or they're just trying to hurt you. In which they are no longer a bunch of deluded fools but a savage horde of maniacs who want to tear you limb from limb. Quick, an opportunity! The more sympathy you get, the more people will listen! To The Guardian!
As per usual, they immediately dismiss any other scientists as Koch-funded right-wingers. They have created a strawman that Michael Mann has done his very best to maintain and vilify with the help of the press. Remember: you can either frame your enemies as an overwhelming scourge or an measly puddle of whiners. Not both!
The trouble is, it has yet to occur to them that there exist detractors beyond that narrow umbrella which they've set out to stereotype them.
A Disgrace to the Profession is a living testament to this. Read it for yourself, and make your own conclusions.
Because what do I know, i'm just a seventeen year old boy who only got Merits in chemistry.
February 19, 2026
On being sued for writing that Michael Mann was a hack, I’m not sure my first response would be to right a book highlighting all of the scientists—most of whom support the claim that global warming is something that can and should be counteracted by legislation—who also think Michael Mann is a hack, and were willing to say so. Some of them publicly, some of them in the leaked ClimateGate documents.
But that’s what Mark Steyn did, and the result is fascinating and profoundly disappointing. Not in the book, but in what the sources in the book reveal about modern science.
One of the things that scientists across the spectrum were flabbergasted about is how reliant Mann’s hockey stick statistics were on a very, very small number of especially unreliable tree ring sources. And how willing he was to abandon those sources when they refused to continue showing signs of a temperature increase. That is apparently what Mann’s desire to “hide the decline” was in reference to: needing to hide the decline that modern tree-ring data showed.
The only real flaws of this book are that it is (a) very dense, not in the sense of lots of text but in presenting sources without any fluff, in very short chapters, and (b) because of that it requires careful reading to be certain of who is saying what, whether it’s Steyn’s introduction or commentary on a source, the person titled in the chapter heading, or someone responding to that person.
But that’s what Mark Steyn did, and the result is fascinating and profoundly disappointing. Not in the book, but in what the sources in the book reveal about modern science.
The most disturbing aspect of Climategate was the revelation that the Big Climate establishment largely held the “deniers” view of Mann’s appalling science—but they kept it to themselves.
One of the things that scientists across the spectrum were flabbergasted about is how reliant Mann’s hockey stick statistics were on a very, very small number of especially unreliable tree ring sources. And how willing he was to abandon those sources when they refused to continue showing signs of a temperature increase. That is apparently what Mann’s desire to “hide the decline” was in reference to: needing to hide the decline that modern tree-ring data showed.
The only real flaws of this book are that it is (a) very dense, not in the sense of lots of text but in presenting sources without any fluff, in very short chapters, and (b) because of that it requires careful reading to be certain of who is saying what, whether it’s Steyn’s introduction or commentary on a source, the person titled in the chapter heading, or someone responding to that person.
I was utterly disgusted… Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational… They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn… They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.—Professor James Lovelock
December 30, 2018
Many of the reviewers on this site seem to have an overreaction to Michael Mann, almost considering him the devil incarnate.
I'm not an expert in this science, having read just this book, as well as Mann's "Climate Wars." I would encourage all readers interested in this topic to read books from both sides of the argument.
After reading both, I'm not convinced as to who is correct. Steyn's book seems to focus on discrediting Mann and his work. I'm not entirely sure why, other than to an effort to ensure that the public is being accurately informed on the issue of climate science.
However, Steyn's tactics are not what I would call fair and balanced. And most likely not informed, either. Steyn is not himself a climatologist. (And neither am I.)
But the format of this book is one which promotes ________. It is hurried, brusk, and shallow. It permits only two pages to each of 100 or so quotes from individual scientists. I laud the breadth of quotes from around the scientific community but this Facebook/Twitter format of treating arguments is not one which belongs in a books devoted to science. It's curious that his formatting conveniently allots exactly two pages to each quote from a scientist. How well can you understand an argument if you only allow two pages. (And really, this is more like one page, on average, thanks tho his insertion of individuals' CVs, as well as a large-point font quote at the top of every other page.) This is not a fair treatment of any of these comments.
I think that this format is one suited to the flash, distraction, and redirection of modern society. Best not to spend too much time in any one direction...better to throw a lot of things at people so they can't get a deep understanding of what's happening.
I believe that this is intended for non-critical thinkers.
It's
I'm not an expert in this science, having read just this book, as well as Mann's "Climate Wars." I would encourage all readers interested in this topic to read books from both sides of the argument.
After reading both, I'm not convinced as to who is correct. Steyn's book seems to focus on discrediting Mann and his work. I'm not entirely sure why, other than to an effort to ensure that the public is being accurately informed on the issue of climate science.
However, Steyn's tactics are not what I would call fair and balanced. And most likely not informed, either. Steyn is not himself a climatologist. (And neither am I.)
But the format of this book is one which promotes ________. It is hurried, brusk, and shallow. It permits only two pages to each of 100 or so quotes from individual scientists. I laud the breadth of quotes from around the scientific community but this Facebook/Twitter format of treating arguments is not one which belongs in a books devoted to science. It's curious that his formatting conveniently allots exactly two pages to each quote from a scientist. How well can you understand an argument if you only allow two pages. (And really, this is more like one page, on average, thanks tho his insertion of individuals' CVs, as well as a large-point font quote at the top of every other page.) This is not a fair treatment of any of these comments.
I think that this format is one suited to the flash, distraction, and redirection of modern society. Best not to spend too much time in any one direction...better to throw a lot of things at people so they can't get a deep understanding of what's happening.
I believe that this is intended for non-critical thinkers.
It's
April 22, 2021
Take this hockey stick and shove it... I absolutely love this book. Mr. Steyn is hilarious and points out the outrageous science that is spit out of the mouths of frauds such as Michael Mann. The incomprehensible manipulation of data to support a narrative is spotlighted by Steyn in a hilarious way. But the book is also serious and reviews over 100 scientists in exposing the unrelenting pursuit of a narrative by so called climate scientists. Steyn notes a serious law suite that Mann has on Steyn and in a reverse fashion, Steyn has on Mann. The implications of the results of these trials could have serious and long standing ramifications for free speech in America and may have long lasting affects on scientific declarations. Fantastic read...and so, so entertaining. Loved it... May the science be with you.
December 14, 2019
To be blunt it was a one sided hit piece against Dr. Michael Mann. With that said the 'hits' were very much warranted and the hitters are fellow climate scientists some of which are proponents of the idea of AGW including some from East Anglia. Yes the book is heavily biased, but it is also footnoted with external references to back it up. Very much worth a read regardless of which side of the climate change debate you find yourself.
September 5, 2023
At last! The demolition of the charlatan Michael Mann in glorious technicolour! The hockey stick debunked by some eminent scientists from all fields. The explanation of the 97% agreement explained and totally debunked. This book should be required reading for all primary and secondary teachers and pupils in the UK!
January 14, 2024
This was almost overwhelming in the breath of genuine scientific opinions it compiled. I wish all those I know who still scream out in climate alarm would take the time to read this. “Consensus” my a**! It gave me hope that there are still true scientists of integrity willing to stand up for the facts.
June 20, 2017
What do real scientists think of Michael Mann and his climate predictions? How do real scientists feel about the "hockey stick" graph that Mann and Al Gore still promote? Get those answers here in Mark Steyn's book.
Great job, Mark! Hope you win your law suit against that idiot!!
Great job, Mark! Hope you win your law suit against that idiot!!
August 8, 2019
Clearly demonstrates and shows enough evidence that Michael Mann is in science for Michael Mann. Such a shame that an important topic like this is kidnapped by shady 'scientists' whose own ego and personal interests are the main reason why they are in.
April 24, 2023
Fascinating
A readable debunking of a self-proclaimed "icon" and associated self-serving politicians who's blinkered religious zeal allows no criticism, probably to the cost of us all.
A readable debunking of a self-proclaimed "icon" and associated self-serving politicians who's blinkered religious zeal allows no criticism, probably to the cost of us all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews