BOOK REVIEW: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars

by Scott Mandia, via the Amazon website, with permission

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 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 by 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?

UPDATE: Our friend and contributor Ugo Bardi also has a review of Mike’s book.

UPDATE: Some responses in the Borehole. Some pretty characteristic climate paranoia among them. Feel free to respond there, but the discussion will not show up among “recent postings”. It is the intent of this site to discuss science and society, not to indulge paranoia.


  1. Pingback: BOOK REVIEW: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars | Planet3.0 | Pulplit Magazine

  2. Michael Mann is being mendacious when he describes the 2009 paper of which I was lead author as "bad science". The criticism of our paper was seriously flawed. It focussed on the Analysis, rather than either the Discussion and Conclusions; it falsely accused us of saying that the IPCC 4AR did not say something when our paper actually cited the 4AR and described what it said; and it deceitfully tried to claim that a Figure was flawed. The criticism was an artful piece of misdirection whose abstract was contradicted by its own Introduction. When we tried to respond the peer review of our response was devoid of any integrity whatsoever, reflecting badly on the reviewers and the journal itself. To deny us the right of reply on such an important matter was unconscionable. We told our point of view in "Censorship at the AGU: Scientists denied right of reply" (see Unlike Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick", we described exactly what we did and how we did it, rather than withhold information for years. Mann's claim that our paper was "bad science" is a claim without any substance whatsoever.

  3. It is the policy of this site to minimize the distraction from discussions of actual sustainability issues with irrelevant accusations and distractions aimed at serious workers in the relevant fields. Especially, we wish to avoid the mean-spirited and pointless arguments that are so common on other sites.

    We stipulate that the early harassments by opponents of facing the facts were handled badly, and that there are signs of that in the stolen emails. We also agree with many of our critics that an effort to make science more open and transparent is a good idea in general, and especially so when there are policy impacts. And we acknowledge that there are complex issues involved in public communication, so that sometimes the spin is excessively alarmist or excessively complacent. It's a delicate enough balance that as nonspecialists we are bound to get it wrong on occasion.

    The infamous case of the Briffa proxy "divergence" being hidden is certainly an arguable one. (Mike Mann had essentially nothing to do with that, it's worth noting.) But that's been argued to death already.

    All that said, along with all the investigatory committees, we see no signs of actual scientific misconduct among the group working on recent-paleo reconstructions. In particular, no selective destruction of data occurred, despite what many have been led to believe. Talk about dishonest spin - where did this belief come from?

    We do not believe that the efforts of the recent-paleo group, however admirable, form the core of the scientific or practical issues at stake. The endless focus on these matters is unhealthy.

    We would like to be open to discussions of how the scientific enterprise can be more effectively constructed and how perverse motivations do interfere with its progress. We would also like to carefully consider serious arguments against rapid decarbonization, if any actually remain.

    But we are definitely not interested in baseless accusations and innuendo about financial and/or political corruption. Such vicious slander is especially toxic coming from people who have no professional experience within science and are simply guessing based on some malicious caricatures of the participants. We do have real problems, but that sort of thing is, as Shrek put it, "the opposite of helping".

    And in particular, we are not interested in discussing cherry-picked, context-free, stolen correspondence.

    It is also the policy of this site to publish all comments other than obvious spam. Following a suggestion by John Mashey, we manage this balance by moving the correspondence which is not conducive to a serious conversation to a special page for comments moderated out of the main stream. (Unfortunately this is a somewhat tedious manual process at present and sometimes is less than immediate.) Your comment is there.

    If we attain the level of traffic we aspire to, a more complex scheme will be necessary. But the core of the policy will remain, i.e., all non-spam will be visible on the site. Comments more conducive to calm discussion rather than angry recriminations will be more immediately visible.

  4. It's always the same zombie talking points from the 'skeptics', isn't it? The same zombie attempts to spin a total lack of a scandal into a huge 'scandal'?

    The real scandal is that people such as Cuccinelli can somehow get away with smearing an harassing climatologists based on a complete lack of actual evidence of wrongdoing.

    -- frank

  5. (In anticipation of the obligatory 'Jim Karlock probably means well' comment: well, maybe he has good intentions, but that doesn't mean much when he's mindlessly parroting memes.)

    -- frank

    [ Who knows what these people tell themselves? But Frank, you're always at the edge of excessively confrontational yourself. I have more sympathy for your point of view, but I am always just on the edge of purging your comments and removing your mod-free status. I mean, you could have just sent me an attaboy on this one, rather than piling on, right? -mt ]

  6. Pingback: Week in review 2/11/12 | Climate Etc.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.