12 von 13 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Rezension bezieht sich auf: Hockey Stick Illusion (Independent Minds) (Taschenbuch)
This book covers an interesting part of recent science history and reads like a thriller. I strongly recommend it to people who are unprejudiced and are interested in all sides of the climate change debate. Clearly, this book only covers the McIntyre & McKitrick side of the story and there would be a different interpretation and focus if friends of Mann et al. were to write their version of the events.
Despite this, the author A. W. Montford does a superb job in telling the story in a rather fair and transparent way, I think. The language always stays on the polite side, contrasting with some excessively aggressive communication styles in several well-known climate blogs. In this book one learns about the history of the hockey stick curve, how it supported the anthropogenic climate warming model, why it was needed and how it was put together. One learns the crucial role of statistics that can change the meaning of a whole dataset. We hear about suspicious tree ring datasets that have been used in the making of the hockeystick curve. Some of these datasets have been used by many authors as temperature proxies, even though these tree ring data might not always record temperature. We hear how hockeystick shapes can be generated out of random data. One wonders why data is not made openly available by the Hockey Team for independent checking of the results (something that normal reviewers cannot do due to time constraints). It might have to do with the fact that the resulting temperature curve failed the R2-statistical test which was considered as unimportant. We are also told that the alleged later "independent" confirmation of the Mann et al. temperature curve was carried out by a former PhD student of one of the original hockeystick authors (Bradley).
The book also describes how complicated it is to publish articles that are critical of the established model in peer-reviewed journals, when most of the editors and reviewers are proponents of the established model. We also learn about the strange way the IPCC has dealt with critical reviewer comments in the report compilation phase. How much independence is there if the key hockeystick curve authors are also made lead authors of IPCC chapters?
Regardless of what affiliation the reader might have, whether it is "sceptic" or "believer", at the end of the book one gets the impression that the climate sciences are in strong need of some new, powerful and independent quality control mechanisms in order to avoid any such conflicts in the future. Openness and transparency are key if the climate sciences want to regain trust. No scientific papers should be accepted if data & code are not archived and freely accessible. This book shows in an impressive manner how international science cooperation should NOT function. We can only hope that after the current scientific storm, a fresh and new start in the climate sciences is to be initiated. How much of the billions of dollars of international climate science funding is currently wasted with accusations and counter-accusations in blogs and emails and elsewhere? It is necessary to put an end to the black-and-white thinking and listen to valid criticism, such as that brought forward by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Sortieren: Ältester zuerst | Neuester zuerst
1-3 von 3 Diskussionsbeiträgen
Ersteintrag: 26.07.2010 16:47:41 GMT+02:00
Antwort auf einen früheren Beitrag vom 29.09.2010 10:15:16 GMT+02:00
Zuletzt vom Autor geändert am 29.09.2010 10:22:31 GMT+02:00
Thomas Ferge meint:
It´s again one of those statistical nightmares you can drown in, if you follow the link, which makes it once more obvious that with help of statistics you can proove everything and nothing...
Do you include one or two or three Principal Components (PCs) into resulting graphs derived by PCA?
They even left out to detail what percentage of variance which one PC can explain... that should be always integral part of such discussions..
sounds like statistics gibberish again? yes, sir, but only shows that the truth is hidden behind numbers and it always depends on what you want to show that defines what is in the analysis or not (and this sadly holds true for both sides....) now the argument over who is right with the methodology, interpretation: this should be a scientific exchange and dialogue that is done in peer-reviewed journals and conferences, where every opinion is heard and discussed....
but sadly enough: follow the link and read the first comment: a guy complaining that McIntyre was able to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal...- plainly stupid statement and unbelievable!
The really frightening stuff is that still this whole discussion is not scientific but ideologic and that the louder you scream, the more you get heard and then politics is doing things which are either pointless, plainly wrong or (by luck) go in the right direction...but in a long-term perspective this is rather lottery....
and that's our biggest problem, not some statistics fights between scientists... but what and how sth. is put into the political agenda based on such grey area results....
sad but true.....
ah, and by the way... there are alternatives for reasonable things to do.... lomborg provides some thoughts...
Veröffentlicht am 12.02.2012 12:50:51 GMT+01:00
Zuletzt vom Autor geändert am 12.02.2012 12:51:42 GMT+01:00
Hans JG meint:
We nee this book urgently in German translated. Since the book of Helmut Böttiger; Klimawandel Gewissheit oder politische Machenschaft? we have no better profound analysis to read. This is stripped off all political wording but scientific. While Böttiger argues with historic data, physico-chemistry and natural laws, Montford starts with detailed investigation of statistic argumentation in Manns PHD work. What is most disturbing after all, that not one jounalist has done such an investigation, when publishing, not any politician. A must read.
‹ Zurück 1 Weiter ›