As many of you are aware, two remarkable books have been published in the last 10 days, both reporting on the backstory of events covered by this blog.

Andrew Montford is Bishop Hill. Steve Mosher is, of course, Steve Mosher. The focus of the two books is surprisingly complementary. Montford’s book was longer in the making and covers events up to Climategate, while Mosher’s book was prompted by Climategate.

As well as being complementary, the two books are complimentary about the proprietor of this blog. Readers will forgive me a little bias – I enjoyed both of them. It was fun to step back a little and see how the efforts at this blog appear to someone else.

Order from Amazon UK
Order from Amazon US


  1. Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    You are forgiven a little bias. The interesting question for me would be where the spin put on your own story by the authors was most surprising to you.

  2. kim
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    I’ve said for years that there will be dozens of PhD theses in the Philosophy and History of Science that are inspired by this mess. The analogy with Galileo is clear. Though the net effect on man’s understanding of his place in the universe will be less with this episode, the immediate social impact will be much greater.

  3. Jimchip
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    I’m on the ‘slow boat’ delivery for Mosher/Fuller but can someone clarify Amazon UK for delivery to the US. Bishop Hill said there was a glitch and something about no US publisher. Is it that it costs more? (not a minor consideration for me).

  4. geo
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    Still waiting for the .pdf versions on both!

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

      Kindle version is available.

      • Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

        Is the Kindle version pretty good, or does it mess up the graphics and tables to such a degree that I should get the real version instead?

      • Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

        I just checked; the Kindle version doesn’t seem to have show up yet for either book.

      • geo
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

        Ah, I did not realize that there is a “Kindle for PC” application now, but there is. So that will indeed work for me. Off I go. . .

      • MikeN
        Posted Jan 27, 2010 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

        Does Kindle for PC provide the graphics? How much is being lost by buying this version?

  5. Steven Mosher
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    Thanks Steve.

    Reading through the blog from start to finish and trying to connect it to all the mails to tell a coherent story and give context to the mails was a real joy. Most of the readers here will have forgotten how we first met back in 2007, but I won’t.
    It was a life changing event in more ways than one.

  6. Boudu
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    I shall be ordering both books forthwith !

    On a related issue I received the following email from Norfolk Constabulary today:

    I am one of a team of police officers investigating the recent theft of data and emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
    During the enquiry I have become aware that you have previously made requests to the UEA for the release of data under the Freedom of Information Act
    Accordingly, I am keen to discuss the issue further with you if at all possible. I can be contacted on any of the numbers detailed below or by return of email.
    Has anyone else had an invitation to chat or is it just me ?

    • Jimchip
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

      Re: Boudu (Jan 20 12:00),

      Jeff Id got to talk to the NDET on the phone.

    • Chants
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

      I have never had an invitation to chat with the Norfolk Constabulary, and hope I never do.

      I am more than mildly concerned that by exercising your right to information you “accordingly” invited such an invitation. What’s more to the purpose, this invitation MAY indicate that they are not entertaining the possibility of an inside leak.

      Also, I would not accept this invitation if I were you.

      • Boudu
        Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

        I’ve sent an email offering my assistance !

    • David S
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

      Depends how brave you are feeling Boudu. It could be an opportunity to explain to them that it is an alleged theft, rather than an actual one, and to learn something about their avenues of investigation that you could then share with interested parties. It might also be helpful if someone were able to remind them that the emails contain considerable volumes of evidence of misconduct by CRU members, which behaviour may or may not reach the threshold for criminal prosecution.

      • Boudu
        Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

        Good idea. I’ll call them in the morning. I suspect that others will recieve similar requests, they are probably working alphabetically.

        It will be interesting to see what tack they are taking with the investigation.

        • P Gosselin
          Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

          Why don’t you give the investigators a copy of each of the above books? Maybe it would help to put them on the right track.

    • Bernie
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

      I am in the US and I received one as well. Since I guessed that other more well known individuals also received the same email – I checked on what they had done. Simply answering questions appears to be the general response. I responded to the Detective’s email accordingly – but I have yet to speak to anyone. It does not seem to me to be a very useful strategy to determine who leaked the emails but then perhaps they have a different agenda.

      Perhaps Steve Mosher will have material for a second edition of Climategate!!

      • Bernie
        Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

        I did not, however, make an FOIA request. I had merely sent a polite email to a specific person at UEA suggesting that the data be released as a way of ending what was becoming a bit of a circus.

      • Jimchip
        Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

        Re: Bernie (Jan 20 13:29),

        This is still a book topic so, “Perhaps Steve Mosher will have material for a second edition of Climategate!!”

        Climategate II and subtitles,

        The Wrath of Mann or
        The Empire Strikes Phil or
        One Flew Over the CRU Crew’s Nest

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:18 AM | Permalink


          Ya… I have a bunch of things on my plate. So of course I’m dicking around. the first thing on my to do list is… “do your to do list”

        • Tolz
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

          “One Flew Over the CRU Crew’s Nest”


    • Judith Curry
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

      I received an invite before xmas, the phoned me on Dec 27

    • WillR
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

      Re: Boudu (Jan 20 12:00),

      Perhaps they are smart enough to be looking at email headers and hoping an unwary involved person is getting careless. The chance of success is just about zero — but a good investigator might try it.

  7. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    Montford’s book was longer in the making and covers up events up to Climategate, while Mosher’s book was prompted by Climategate.

    Now I’m curious. Just what events was the good Bishop trying to cover up?

    • Dave Dardinger
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

      Re: Dave Dardinger (Jan 20 12:34),

      BTW, I tried nesting bolding “covers up” inside the quote block and it looked good on the preview but the server couldn’t deal with it when I actually tried posting it.

  8. Mike Bryant
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Dave, It seems obvious that the first “up” in the sentence was inadvertant, since its inclusion makes the sentence very awkward…

  9. Jerzy
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    “Montford’s book was longer in the making and covers up events up to Climategate . . .”

    Steve, I don’t think you meant that Montford’s book “covers up events . . .” I think you meant it just covers events . . .

    • bender
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

      Another irony detector in need of recalibration.
      I suppose this is why the Global Mean Irony estimate is out of whack?

      • Craig Loehle
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

        Both irony detection and sense of humor are inversely proportional to the general level of hysteria.

        • AMac
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 8:35 AM | Permalink

          Re: irony detection & sense of humor —

          Hmmm, has this been objectively verified? Can you cite a supporting reference in the peer-reviewed literature?

        • Dave Dardinger
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

          Re: AMac (Jan 22 08:35),

          Try this link

          I googled: “irony detection” +humor

  10. P Gosselin
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    My birthday is coming up soon (again) and I’ve got both on my wishlist. Looking forward to reading them. I think these books will be part of the historical record.

  11. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Please discuss Norfolk police on the NAtional Domestic Extremism Team thread.

  12. Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    I’ve ordered Bishop Hill through Amazon UK which will entitle me to review it there. I’m ordering CRUtape Letters at a Glastonbury bookshop which will (I hope) enable many planet-savers to see this important document.


    • Peter of Sydney
      Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

      You given me an idea. I will buy several copies of the books and distribute them at various coffee shops.

  13. willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 5:31 PM | Permalink

    Dang, here I was the first one to send an FOI request to CRU, and I’ve sent my story to everyone concerned … but I can’t get any respect from the Norfolk Police or anyone else. They didn’t call, they didn’t write …

    Not only that, but I didn’t even make it on to the Rolling Stone top ten axis of evil climate skeptics … time for another beer, looks like …


  14. Mark Williamson
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    I have just ordered Climategate. Unfortunately it is a $10 shipping fee to Oz and a bit of a wait – but I am sure it will be worth it.

  15. Mike Bryant
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, Dave… I am way too literal sometimes…

  16. singer
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    snip- OT

  17. Max
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    Careful now, you guys will be accused of being shills for big publishing.

  18. jae
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

    There should be a serious discount for these books for the loyal followers of ClimateAudit. Where the hell’s my discount?

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:11 AM | Permalink

      I was trying to think of a way to do that. The best I can do right now is this:
      Lucia for example has signed up to the affliate program. That means if you click on the link at her site and buy the book she gets paid.

      Anybody can sign up and throw the link on their blog, etc.

      Ideally, of course, people should be able to cash in quatloos to buy books.

      • bender
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

        Aren’t we all in the red in our quatloo count? And I don’t see any debt forgiveness on the horizon …
        By my count jae should have to pay double.

    • SamG
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 6:47 AM | Permalink

      Why? You have already been converted.
      Consider it a donation.

  19. John A
    Posted Jan 20, 2010 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

    Do I get a discount for being one of the participants?

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

      Send a note to me via Steve and he can pass along my email.

  20. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    Andrew Montford’s book is #297 overall in Amazon UK (#29 in Science category), as compared to a robust 127,981 for Gavin Schmidt and 163,925 for Michael Mann, both advertised at RealClimate.

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 3:07 AM | Permalink

      in the UK the good bishop is #1 in some categories..

      In the US we are #6 in environmental sciences.

      Working on some big reviews and Tom did PJTV yesterday..

      • onlyme
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 5:15 AM | Permalink

        Steven Mosher:

        The good Bishop stated in one of his posts that he was having problems finding a US publisher for the book. Perhaps you could help with that also?

        Having both books offered in one package would be a treat for those who are having problems finding one or the other available. It would also, as a free benefit, increase the blood pressure of some of the Mann-made global warming advocates.

        Such a package might well rise to number one on MANY charts, perhaps globally!

        Imagine seeing such a combination on the NYT best seller list for non-fiction and the effort the MSM would have to go to to keep ignoring the issues.

        crossposted at lucia’s.

      • Kendra
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

        Tom was great on PJTV, I watched the video at home at lunchtime today.

        Still haven’t decided what to do about CRUtape, it’s still not up at (I’m in Switzerland) – I’d like to get a “real” book – but may go with the electronic when that’s available.

        And now that I know the Bishop is Montford, want that too.

        Decisions, decisions….

      • Calvin Ball
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

        Saw the PJTV thing. One thing that jumped out as a real problem is semantics. I don’t know what to do about it, but when Tom said that anyone less alarmed than a Lukewarmer was a skeptic, I realized we have a real problem, and the problem is in what “skeptics” are skeptical toward. His formulation would be correct if the skepticism were toward the greenhouse effect or 20th century warming. But in most contexts, skepticism is skepticism toward the outlandish high climate sensitivity claims of people like Al Gore.

        Again, I don’t know what to do about what amounts to a nomenclature issue, but I think it’s confusing when “skeptic” means one thing to most people, and then Tom comes out and uses it to mean stone-cold denier in front of a general audience like that. Steve Mosh, is that how you’ve been using the terminology?

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

          The think the nomenclature goes part of the way toward a categorization of points of view. What we tried to do was come up with a categorization that would “work” to write the book. Anthony, for example, self defines as a skeptic and lucia self defines as a Lukewarmer. There is no getting it right I suppose. Even with Lukewarmer . The best I can do is self define Lukewarmer.

          1. Dedication to open access. No data; no code = bogus science.
          This INCLUDES people who post or write stuff about sun spots
          and analyses of temperature etc that dont include code. On principle
          I have no time or no rational obligation to even consider it.
          2. Acceptance of radiative physics. So diversionary comments about
          “co2” is just a trace gas.. blah blah blah they get no traction.
          Arguments about feedbacks… heart of the matter
          3. It’s getting warmer. So wholesale denial of the warming record
          ( its a fraud, its a hoax, blah blah blah) is just a waste of focus.
          overstates the case.
          Multiple lines of evidence show a warming: key questions:
          A. WHY: lukewarmer = Natural variation; GHG; UHI in the record.
          B. How much? Dunno Jones and hansen kinda borked up the answer.
          do over.
          4. GCMs. Models are tools. Knee jerk rejection of them is silly; blind acceptance equally silly. Deep mathematical criticism ( se Vonk and dr. Browning) thats a tough one.

        • Calvin Ball
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

          I think “lukewarmer” is a good term. It was the way that Tom used the term “skeptic” that I thought was confusing. In my way of thinking lukewarmers are skeptical of some of the (using Lucia’s terminology) hellfire alarmists. But a lukewarmer is a moderate; in the middle between Lucia’s stone-colders and her hellfirers. That makes you skeptical without being outright in denial.

          So the issue isn’t with “lukewarmer”; that’s a good term, because its meaning is somewhat intuitive. It’s with “skeptic”. To a scientist. “skeptic” shouldn’t be a dirty word.

          BTW, an interesting sidebar: did you notice that in the CRUtape letters, the preferred word was “contrarian”? When they talk publicly, they use the incendiary “denier” word; when they talk among themselves, they use the more respectful and accurate contrarian. Maybe some of the social scientists studying this (I know you’re out there) can develop a theory as to why this is.

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 11:03 PM | Permalink

          I think one of the most poorly used words in the whole debate is skeptic. But then I studied philosophy and I tend to use that term in its epistemological sense. FWIW.

          I’m playing around with a new framework that is more along the lines of FUD. fear, uncertainty and denial. and along the axis
          of action you have: drastic, measured, none.

          But seriously in some what the categorizations always draw batlelines and lead to tribalism. I’m happy if the Lukewarmer tent is big. In fact if you all would agree to be lukewarmers, then would have a devil of a time positioning against it. that just my marketing sense speaking.

        • Jimchip
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

          Re: Steven Mosher (Jan 21 23:03),

          Well, FWIW, Cliff Mass has a book. He was at least a finalist for a book award.

          He has a blog.

          FUD sounds OK. Some people decided FOAD.

          If you’re trying to trying to reach a consensus then I vote for measured. I don’t know about lukewarmers, it sounds sorta tepid. Why do people get put in boxes, engineer’s syndrome-wise?

          Labels, labels, labels. I’m not PR, if that’s what it takes…
          book ad from when?

          meh, just an example, academic-wise.

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

          I put people in boxes to make the damn writing easy, but its also just a natural thing we do. “we” see there..

          Otherwise you get this nominalistic prose that reads like a he said she said.

          McIntyre is the only person I know who refuses to self categorize. He’s his own category.

        • Jimchip
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steven Mosher (Jan 22 12:19),

          Me too, so there. They have to go in my boxes or I can’t think about ’em, at all. I try my best to put them in good boxes, it doesn’t always work. The reason for the refs for Cliff is so you can fire him an email… He could be, sorta, lukewarm. At least, that’s his forecast for my whole winter (Thank you, Cliff).

          Anyway, got a warm pineapple express coming in about 5 days, gotta find those sunglasses.

        • RichieRich
          Posted Jan 23, 2010 at 3:46 PM | Permalink


          Your self-definition of “lukewarmer” is helpful. I would suggest that anyone – skeptic, lukewarmer, or believer – dedicated to proper science would support your point 1 about open access.

          Re your point 2, where is there a good summary of the lukewarmer viewpoint on feedbacks? Do lukewarmers believe that the ippc’s most likely value of 3C for climate sensitivity is too high?

          Re your point 3, you note that lukewarmers believe that UHI accounts for some of the warming that believers hold to be due to AGW. Given this lukewarmer belief, what do lukewarmers hold its implications to be re climate sensitivity?

          Any thoughts, much appreciated.

        • Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

          Re: Calvin Ball (Jan 21 11:36),

          Terminology is hard and I would share some of your misgivings, given this report of how Tom Fuller framed it on PJTV. The approach that amused me most recently was that of Richard Lindzen answering questions after a presentation at the CEI in Washington in October. Having painted a cogent picture of quite how vacuous popular AGW alarmism is, he ended up saying this

          Whenever I am asked whether I am a climate skeptic I say no. To the extent possible I am a climate denier. (Laughter) That’s because skepticism assumes that there is a good a priori case that you have doubts about. There isn’t even a good a priori case. And so by allowing us to be called skeptics they forced us to agree that they had something.

        • Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

          That’s around minute 6 here. I warmly recommend the whole thing.

          <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
        • Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

          Nope, that wasn’t quite it 🙂 Maybe it’s this simple …

        • Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

          Hi all,

          Calvin, I normally lose a few IQ points in front of a camera, so I’m not surprised if I garbled something. What I was trying to convey was that in the opinion of alarmists and warmists, lukewarmers and everybody down the spectrum was a defacto skeptic at best, and probably a denier. How did it actually come out of my mouth?

          At least I think I was speaking English…

  21. Ray Girouard
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 2:53 AM | Permalink

    This is probably OT

    snip –

  22. Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 5:14 AM | Permalink

    Just to update readers here on the US sales details for The Hockey Stick Illusion. I’m still trying to get a US publisher – I have a literary agent looking at it now. I’ll give it a few more weeks until I give up and self-publish. I’m hoping there will be sufficient impact here to interest someone. I’m expecting some press this weekend.

    In the meantime, I’m told that the cheapest way to get hold of the book in North America is direct from the publisher – their freight costs are less than Amazon’s.

    • Dave McK
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 7:02 AM | Permalink

      Remember who made ‘reputable publishers’ reputable in the first place, sir. Content is always king.
      Immediate gratification, though, is god.
      The customer pays for delivery and doesn’t much care who makes the delivery – he wants it now!

    • EdeF
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

      Try contacting Regnery. I would also get some face time on O’Reilly at Fox and
      the Dennis Miller Show on the radio, among other things to get the word out.

      • Steven Mosher
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM | Permalink


        I did the denis miller show I can put you in contact. Also, whatever doors
        I can open for you just let me know. I might be doing some pieces on a very large blog ( we will see ) so I can probably help with a review of your book.

        • P Gosselin
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

          It’s nice seeing Bishop go for it in USA, But what about Mosher and Fuller in Europe?
          I can’t find your book at amazon in Europe. Any links to a European outlet?

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

          argg lemme look into that.

        • Jimchip
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steven Mosher (Jan 21 12:20),

          I heard the Dennis Miller show. Mosh did well. I didn’t like the attitude of whoever & whoever. My breakpoint was when Mosh was trying to say a rational thought and Miller said “We’re going to have to tickle you”. Fine. PR…choose your venue.

          Ah, everybody does OK. I remember that Steve Mc thought he might have looked tired one time. He didn’t look tired to me.

          Recall Bias.

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

          That interview was tough for a lot of reasons and it started a lot of speculation. For me the struggle was I was a link in a chain that
          lead back to my roommate who has always been anonymous ( for real live no shit security reasons). Story couldnt stop with me without making it look like I had more info. At the time of that interview, I was only willing and able to say CTM gave it to me. Charles coming out of anonymity ( as did jeff id eventually) is a tough personal choice.

          For anybody who thouroughly read all the blog posts on the who dunnit theory, the fact that CTM had the files first and read them with his roommate was in plain sight.

        • Jimchip
          Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 10:32 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steven Mosher (Jan 22 12:34),

          I know who my heroes are. To hear Jeff talk, he didn’t like it but he did it anyway, voluntarily. I’m not hiding in spite of ‘my handle’. Really, Really, Neat.

        • EdeF
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

          Just sent a short paragraph to National Review’s Planet Gore blog. And sent for a copy of the Bishops book. Figure by the time it arrives I will have already read Steve and Tom’s book.

    • WillR
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

      Re: Bishop Hill (Jan 21 05:14), Is Lulu practical for publishing?

      I have used them for technical books.

    • WillR
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

      Re: Bishop Hill (Jan 21 05:14),

      Here’s the link to Chapters for Canadian Sales — they don’t have a monopoly — but it’s close…

      I tried to order the books through Chapters — no luck!

  23. Fred
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    “Andrew Montford’s book is #297 overall in Amazon UK (#29 in Science category), as compared to a robust 127,981 for Gavin Schmidt and 163,925 for Michael Mann, both advertised at RealClimate.”

    Ya, but Gavin & Mikey have had their book “peer reviewed”. So there!

    They only way I would buy either of them would be if I was Beer Reviewed.

    Very, very, Beer Reviewed.

    • Bernie
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

      Gavin’s book is beautifully and expensively produced. I wonder how he managed that? The publisher must have invested significantly in it.

  24. Steven Mosher
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    Shameless plug

    #4 in some categories.. broke the top 1000 again

    Product Details
    Paperback: 186 pages
    Publisher: CreateSpace (January 14, 2010)
    Language: English
    ISBN-10: 1450512437
    ISBN-13: 978-1450512435
    Product Dimensions: 10 x 7 x 0.4 inches
    Shipping Weight: 15 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
    Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews) Sales Rank: #796 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
    Popular in these categories: (What’s this?)
    #4 in Books > Outdoors & Nature > Environment > Environmental Science
    #4 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Earth Sciences > Environmental Science
    #9 in Books > Science > Nature & Ecology

    • Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 12:55 PM | Permalink


      • justbeau
        Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

        Global Warming is politics that claims to be correct because it is claimed to be justified by science.
        The politics are advanced by controlling the political message via the United Nations or through supportive newsmedia (like the New York Times).
        The counterforces are two: 1. Better science. 2. Communicating better science to the voting public.

  25. P Gosselin
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    Bishop, Steve
    Here’s an elegantly simple strategy that might get BIG RESULTS:
    Either Bishop or Steve must have a good contact with some journalist.
    1. Get the journalist to do a short write-up highlighting both of your books. Once the blurb is posted…
    2. Get someone to send an anonymous tip to the Drudge Report.
    3. If Matt links to it you’re there, baby!

    Matt Drudge is quite sympathetic to the cause of honest climate science. I think he’d link. We’re talking millions of hits per day.
    Of course Drudge is not going to peddle your books, but he’ll link to a story about them if it’s “news”.

    The journalist only needs to write something short and powerful. Something like: “New Books Rock Climate Science!”
    Some journalist at the American Thinker, like Marc Sheppeard.
    Surely you must know someone really well.
    In the end, the Bishop wins, Mosh wins, the journalist wins and Drudge wins (maybe you’ll have to send Matt Drudge a bottle of fine wine).

    I’ve tipped Drudge before on stories, and seen him link to them an hour later or so. I don’t know if it was becuase of my tip or someone else’s, but that’s how it works.

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

      #1. In the works for both of the books. I plug the bishop every chance I get with the journos.

      #2. better than that, I’ve got his friends ears.

      #3. Tips are already in. FIll his inbox.

      #4. Flood your favorite radio shows with comments.

      One thing we should have learned in all this is the power of the internet.
      Email your librarian. Suggest they buy both books. Post comments on blogs,
      and FB, tweet, etc.

      There is no reason why the Bishop should have to fight to get a US publisher. If people show that there is demand for these types of books, he will get a publisher.

  26. potentilla
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Permalink


    Nice to see someone knows the difference between complementary and complimentary.

    Precision as always!

  27. Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the thoughts everyone. To respond to some of the points made.

    1. The book was originally done on Lulu before I got a publishing deal for the UK. I’ll do Lulu or Createspace if I can’t get a publishing deal Stateside.
    2. I think I’m talking to the same big blog that you are Mosh!
    3. I’m expecting some MSM attention this weekend – emailing link to Drudge is a good idea once that appears.

    • eddy
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 10:03 PM | Permalink

      To Bishop Hill: Publisher has no Kindle etc plans?

      Also, have you given them Australian rights – I guess you probably have, but if not, I’ll point out to a publisher I know here who might want to get in touch.

  28. Judy Sanchez
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Steve Mosher, not sure if you’re around to respond to this, but I recall a post you made on Real Climate where you basically said you’d read through all the emails and that they didn’t really have anything to do with climate science so much as behaviors with regards to FOI. Is this still your position? I see the cover of your book has a few quotes (one of which is in the largest font used for quotes) that suggest something sinister with science.

    Just wanted to know before making a purchase. I’m not all that interested in reading about FOI stuff since I’m already pretty convinced that data was kept from the public.

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

      First good catch. Nobody wondered on the 20th how I had read through 1000 mails. Anyways, there have been two dominate reactions to the mails, both of which are conditioned and informed by the prior positions that people held before reading the mails. To those who believe in “the science” ( whatever that is, who knows) they argue ” Nothing in the mails changes the science!” Again, whatever that is. On the other side I saw early reactions that amount to “the science is a fraud, hoax.” I think it’s prudent to avoid either reaction.

      My position then, and my position now is that nothing in the mails could change “the science.” It’s just words. On my view science journal articles are also JUST WORDS, when data and code is withheld. So, in the areas I’m interested in, areas covered by the mails, there is no science to BEGIN WITH. Absent the code and data for the ACTUAL PAPERS accepted by the IPCC, absent that in other peoples hands.. THERE IS NO SCIENCE. No science to be “changed” by the mails and No science to be proven a fraud or hoax.

      One way to put it is this. The IPCC Ar4 is just an advertisement for the science.
      In some cases, in important cases, that science doesnt even exist AS SCIENCE.
      ( see the recent case on the Himalayian misadventure)
      Our job in the book is to put the mails in context so that you can see where “the Science” is over sold or falsely represented. This pattern of overselling is troubling. Some people look at that pattern and conclude that because it’s oversold, its false. A weight loss product that promises to take pounds off, but only takes ounces off is a good paradigm to use.

      The fact that data has ben kept from people is widely known and acknowledged by the other side. But to date we’ve only had silly excuses ( not logical argument) as to why the data and code could not be shared. For the first time we get to see inside the data hiding code hiding machine and see what is really at play. The tactics they use. why they use them. the length they will go to.

      From this behavior people can and will draw their own conclusions. Or they will suspend judgment and not comment on the motive. In the book We comment on the motives. here at CA, I try to avoid it. Not perfectly of course

      There are some other analogies that may help you see my position. I’m endebted to Steve McIntyre for this one: “Noble cause Corruption”

      That’s when the police break the rules to convict a guy they believe to be guilty.
      Like planting a weapon ( a sharp hockey stick) on a known criminal to help
      convict him.

      The mere fact that the evidence was planted doesnt make him innocent.
      And it clearly should NOT be presented as evidence of his guilt.

      If that evidence has already ben presented to the jury what do you do?
      throw out the case? declare him Innocent? not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
      new trial, punish the police?

      • David S
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

        Steven – if this were a legal case, the answer would probably be “all of the above” under UK or US law.
        BTW thank you for all your work – I hope the book is a great success both to get the public to understand what has been going on, and for you to get some reward. I just bought it off Amazon US – are you going to publish in the UK?

        • Steven Mosher
          Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 PM | Permalink

          I have to ask Tom about the UK, right now I’m focused on some other stuff. Ebook is in the works.

      • Micky C
        Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 7:06 PM | Permalink

        Fair play for taking the time to write something up about the whole Climategate / Milli Vanilli affair. As for your last bit:

        If that evidence has already ben presented to the jury what do you do?
        throw out the case? declare him Innocent? not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
        new trial, punish the police?

        I would advise Richard Feynman’s succinct phrase: DISREGARD

      • Howling Winds
        Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

        I would say throw everything out and have a new trial, if looked at from some type of legal angle.

      • Jimchip
        Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 10:45 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steven Mosher (Jan 21 16:46),

        One comment: Assessment reviews are good. Sorta like audits. IPCC ARblahs have a problem. The train left the station quite awhile ago and, imo, after that, no legitimate assessment occurred. Lot’s of good people tried.

  29. Judy Sanchez
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, I didn’t want to risk having mis-quoted Mr. Mosher so I found a link to the quote I was referring to. It’s post #119 on this page:

  30. ajstrata
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

    Not trying to spam, honest. But those GISS emails Judicial Watch received under FOIA has some amazing stuff. Would you believe GISS admits they have NO evidence of AGW in the US data (even though it is the best on the planet) and don’t expect to detect any evidence for 2-4 decades!

    Steve: THere is much of interest in this material but your last sentence is not a reasonable characterization. I am recording this but do not wish to debate it.

  31. Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 9:12 PM | Permalink

    I haven’t yet seen Steve Mosher’s book, but I have read Bishop Hill’s, and I would like to give it the strongest possible endorsement. Many times since ClimateAudit started people have asked for someone to write the story down in non-technical, book form. Andrew has done just that and the result is an extremely compelling read. To everyone who has wanted to get the real story behind the hockey stick, this is it. I can’t imagine a better treatment of the topic.

    I saw a draft last summer when Andrew sent Steve and I materials as part of his fact-checking. Since I’ve been in the UK since September I had the pleasant opportunity to meet Andrew and offer my encouragements in person. I’m not overly crazy about the title, but that was the publisher’s call. (I like Andrew’s proposal better: Extraordinary Evidence. My suggestion was Red Noise and Twisted Trees.)

    I strongly encourage CA readers not only to buy a copy, but to order several because you are going to want to hand them out.

    • David A
      Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

      Ross McKitrick

      Thasnk you also for your summaries which greatly help explain the isssus to those of us with limited math.

      Now for something a little off topic. Have you ever considered doing a report on the economic benefits of increased C02?

      If not you, it may be an interesting choice for one of your grad students.

  32. Nunavut Polar Bears Curling Team
    Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

    We love it!

  33. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 2:12 AM | Permalink

    Please do not take this the wrong way, but it would be unbecoming to create a cluster of congratulatory material that others might compare with the CRU/Giss mutual admiration society.

    There is too close a parallel to the CRU/Giss mob saying to each other “I’ve received an FOI from Steve too” and “I’ve received an invite to talk to the Norfolk Constabulary”.

    Am I reading too much into this or am I just getting old and snarky? It does not seem necessary to describe oneself with a label describing degree of belief when belief based science is being criticised. Alas, I have form.

    Remember, there is a likelihood of another author comparing the styles and results of scientists who write here whith the scientists who are criticised here.

    Why not just stick to the numbers? BTW, the sales numbers for the books objectively indicate good authors.

  34. Joss
    Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 3:56 AM | Permalink

    Still not on If it gets there or elsewhere in the UK I will buy Steves book. Already have Bishops on order 🙂

  35. Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 4:29 AM | Permalink


    I can do a separate deal in Australia. If you can put me in contact with someone that would be great.

    • eddy
      Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

      Bishop Hill: OK, I’ll point out to the publisher & they may be in touch.

    • Geoff Sherrington
      Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

      Ian Plimer’s publisher might be amenable to approach.
      Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd, PO BOX 1, BALLAN, 3342
      NEW PHONE NUMBER (03) 9005 9167
      Fax (03) 5303-0960. International 61 3 9005 9167

      Ian was very complimentary re “Heaven and Earth”.

  36. Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 4:31 AM | Permalink


    Oh, yes, the Kindle rights are mine still. I’m holding on at the moment in case a US publisher gets interested.

  37. markJ
    Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    I see a wikipedian from (Climategate page) has put in a negative amazon review on the Crutape letters without reading it.

    • Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

      The wiki problems remain and will no doubt take a little while to fix. Let the content of the two books sink in to the many that will read them (happily uneditable by unknown third parties). Then all sorts of things may prove possible.

  38. Posted Jan 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    I’ve just finished the Bishop’s book. It’s very good. I recommend it without reservation.

  39. Craig Loehle
    Posted Jan 23, 2010 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    Bishop: maybe you just need a distributor who will link up with Amazon, not a publisher in the US. All 4 of my books have been published (and printed) in the UK and then they ship by boat to the US for sales here. Weird, huh?

  40. Posted Jan 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    Great to see such books coming out. Also good to be given a kind word in a book. I also had the same experience recently when given a copy of book on cycles and finding myself repeatedly quoted … sometimes even with my name spelled right. 😉

  41. Craig Loehle
    Posted Jan 25, 2010 at 7:56 AM | Permalink

    Amazon just sent me an email ad for ClimateGate!!

  42. deadwood
    Posted Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 PM | Permalink

    Got my copy of the Mosh’s (and Tom’s) book today. Made the classical mistake of opening it up when I got home from work and promptly nodded off.

    This is clearly a good sign as all my best text books do this too. And as we all know, if you nod off reading a good technical book, you will dream in “tech”-nicolor.

  43. Posted Jan 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    I got my copy of “Crutape Letters” last week, and have been diligently working my way through it. I’ve still got about a third of the way to go, but I have to say, I really do appreciate that the authors seem to be genuinely trying to get the material across in a user-friendly fashion. I’m not part of the climate-scenti on this, and hadn’t been to any of “THE” websites until the climategate scandal broke. Before that happened, I pretty much ignored much of the global warming hype, just because I am old enough to remember how the Ice Age was due to Cometh in the seventies- I lived through that, and the “hole in the ozone layer, we’re all gonna die!” crap that deprived me of good A/C and hairspray that holds. So what I’m saying is, I wasn’t “not worried” about global warming out of some deeply investigated, well-educated opinion, but mostly out of surly cynicism. Now that I’ve read further into the material, I find myself shocked that we’ve reached this point- that we’ve been so horridly misled and manipulated. Our everyday lives are being impacted, our liberties infringed upon, based on “science” that is basically unproven and, at this point, probably unprovable. I wish I had paid more attention earlier on, and I am grateful for the education I’m receiving in the subject, due to CA and WUWT and the like. The Crutape Letters book is even better for that work, as it is very easy to read and understand, putting the emails in context in simple language. When I finish it, I’ll be passing it along to several friends who’ve already enquired about borrowing it, one of whom is a true believer in AGW who has had her faith severely shaken by this whole scandal.

  44. MikeN
    Posted Jan 27, 2010 at 1:19 AM | Permalink

    Amazon is listing Hockey Stick Illusion at $16.12 including shipping.

  45. geo
    Posted Jan 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM | Permalink

    I just finished Mosh’s book.

    It reminded me of the Yamal thing again. Briffa and his Magic Tree.

    It also reminded me that Steve has been very careful to not throw the Dendros under the bus entirely. . at least theoretically. More a general disdain for efforts so far than a flat theoretical dismissal.

    Steve, have you considered designing your own “thought experiment” for what might pass muster on a dendro study as to rigour and (man, I’ve been recently hating this word) robustness?

    I am convinced that one tree –or ten trees– are not suitable “treemometers”. I haven’t been convinced yet that, say, 500 trees in a suitably homogenous geographical location, of an appropriate geographical size of area, with stringent statisical analysis and safeguards against outliers biasing the results, can’t be valid.

    I make the suggestion diffidently, because I know and sympathize with your attitude towards people making work for you not of your choosing (and pixieish, I note you and Phil Jones could have a beer over that subject). . .

    But then I also think of how resistant the Dendros and Paleos have been to explicitly inviting statisticians into their midst.

    I guess what I’m suggesting is. . . “Build it and they might come”.

One Trackback

  1. By Top Posts — on Jan 21, 2010 at 7:12 PM

    […] Books As many of you are aware, two remarkable books have been published in the last 10 days, both reporting on the backstory […] […]

%d bloggers like this: