Commencez à lire The Hockey Stick Illusion sur votre Kindle dans moins d'une minute. Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici Ou commencez à lire dès maintenant avec l'une de nos applications de lecture Kindle gratuites.

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

 
 
 

Essai gratuit

Découvrez gratuitement un extrait de ce titre

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Tout le monde peut lire les livres Kindle, même sans un appareil Kindle, grâce à l'appli Kindle GRATUITE pour les smartphones, les tablettes et les ordinateurs.
The Hockey Stick Illusion
 
Agrandissez cette image
 

The Hockey Stick Illusion [Format Kindle]

Andrew Montford
4.7 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (3 commentaires client)

Prix conseillé : EUR 10,05 De quoi s'agit-il ?
Prix éditeur - format imprimé : EUR 14,61
Prix Kindle : EUR 7,04 TTC & envoi gratuit via réseau sans fil par Amazon Whispernet
Économisez : EUR 7,57 (52%)

Formats

Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle EUR 7,04  
Broché EUR 14,46  
-40%, -50%, -60%... Découvrez les Soldes Amazon jusqu'au 5 août 2014 inclus. Profitez-en !





Descriptions du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

Here is the definitive exposé of the distorted science behind the iconic global warming graph centrally responsible for the global panic about climate change.

From Steve McIntyre's earliest attempts to reproduce Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, to the explosive publication of his work and the launch of a congressional inquiry, The Hockey Stick Illusion is a remarkable tale of scientific misconduct and amateur sleuthing. It explains the complex science of this most controversial of temperature reconstructions in layperson's language and lays bare the remarkable extent to which climatologists have been willing to break their own rules in order to defend climate science's most famous finding.

The book also covers the recent leak of the email archives of the Climatic Research Unit which has led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones, and exposed the degree to which climate scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have hidden and manipulated data to support their claims.

Détails sur le produit


En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Commentaires en ligne 

3 étoiles
0
2 étoiles
0
1 étoiles
0
4.7 étoiles sur 5
4.7 étoiles sur 5
Commentaires client les plus utiles
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 un débat souvent occulté ou déformé. 23 novembre 2011
Format:Broché
Le débat sur le changement climatique est souvent biaisé ou falsifié. Le débat reste ouvert. Il est donc mensonger de faire comme s'il était tranché, ce que font certains journalistes et hommes politiques.
Le livre de Montford est une contribution à ce débat. Elle est honnête. Souhaitons qu'elle soit reçue honnêtement.
Elle est aussi un remarquable travail de divulgation scientifique, accessible à un large public.
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Une histoire détaillée de la crosse de hockey 6 avril 2011
Par GM
Format:Broché
Ce livre détaille l'histoire de cette corruption de la science avec son démantelement progressif par McIntyre et McKitrick de 2003 jusqu'à nos jours.
Tous les courriers échangés par tous les protagonistes pour une chute du GIEC de son piedestal.
Edifiant
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Edifiant 14 mai 2014
Par RAS TOP 1000 COMMENTATEURS
Format:Broché
Cet ouvrage est un des meilleurs livres de science que j'ai lu. Il montre par le détail les controverses autour de la célèbre courbe en forme de crosse de Hockey de Michael Mann, censée montrer que les dernières années du 20e siècle étaient les plus chaudes du millénaire. Celle qui est également entrée dans le 3e, puis le 4e rapport du GIEC. Ceci dit, comme montre l'auteur, ce n'était pas difficile, pour le 3e rapport c'est Mann qui était le principal auteur du chapitre en question et pour le 4e c'était un de ses associés les plus proches ...
Montford a fait une brillante démonstration de la corruption de la science climatologique par une multitude de procédés: falsification des données, utilisations de tests statistiques inappropriés, utilisation de mesures "proxy" de la température qui n'en sont pas, détournement du processus de peer-review dans les revues sympathisantes, pressions politiques, difficulté extrême ou impossibilité pour les collègues "non-croyants" d'avoir accès aux données originales (pourtant une procédure standard dans les revues d'autres domaines qui refusent même de faire expertiser les articles par des pairs si les données ne sont pas mis à disposition), complaisance de certaines revues scientifiques, etc.
Lire la suite ›
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.3 étoiles sur 5  78 commentaires
257 internautes sur 329 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 hockey story 25 janvier 2010
Par M. PHELPS - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
This is a superb review of the story of the hockeystick, the temperature reconstruction which was supposed to show that late 20th century temperatures were unprecedented for at least 1,000 years and which was highlighted in the third IPCC report in 2001. What Montford does in this book is take us through Steven McIntyre's attempt to reproduce the original result of Michael Mann and the controversy that followed. His account is very well written and it reads like a detective story. The technical details of the debate are clearly explained even though there is no heavy mathematics or statistics. He tells the story chronologically and gives a good feel of what people on both sides of the debate actually said at the time (and there are plenty of references as well as judicious quotes from all sides). I have been following this debate for the past five years or so. To my mind this gives as clear an account of the debate as we are likely to see. What is now clear is that the Mann conclusions, far from being based on coherent evidence across a geographical widespread range of proxies all showing similar patterns across the Northern hemisphere, were based on a tiny subset of proxies, bristlecone and foxtail pines, from California whose anomalous 20th century growth was almost certainly not caused by high temperature. The apparently broad evidence was an illusion created by an eccentric implementation of a standard statistical technique called principal components analysis. Mann's version of this (which appears to be his own creation) effectively mined his hundred plus proxies for any which had hockeystick shapes and then gave them huge weight in the analysis. What is worrying about all this is not so much the fact that a paper is wrong. It is the failure to admit this when it is perfectly clear that it is wrong. Montford documents the evasions of debate and the consistent misrepresentation of what McIntyre and McKitrick actually said, as well as multiple refusals of access to data and clear descriptions of what had actually been done. By the time of the 2006 Wegman report it was clear that the hockeystick was broken, but it seems too much had been invested in it for people in paleoclimate to admit outright that it was just wrong. Montford tells this story too and documents the shenanigans surrounding the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. But rather than me attempting to condense the book into a paragraph I urge people to buy and read this excellent account. Note that it was largely written before the emails from CRU became public, though there is a final chapter dealing quickly with them. What is remarkable is how much of the story was already known to people who had been following the debate, but also the lengths people were prepared to go to try and stifle proper debate. For me the cover-up of the story has been a bigger influence in turning me sceptical than the mere fact of the hockey stick being wrong.
122 internautes sur 176 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 500 Wonderful Pages of "Caspar" from the Bishop! 7 février 2010
Par B. Hutchins - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
The "Bishop Hill" blog was well-respected, but not particularly remarkable until the posting of "Caspar and the Jesus paper" in August 2008. With this posting, we learned that the esteemed Bishop (now also revealed as Andrew Montford), the author of this new book, had a talent for putting scattered bits and pieces of information into a highly coherent presentation. It was remarkable enough that he was able to take myriad blog postings and figure out what they all added up to, and further remarkable that he was able to map this understanding into writing. Would it be possible to achieve this Casper-style in a more encompassing work? Too much to ask for? Well, HERE it is!

The narrative is highly readable, not mathematical, except that Montford does specifically give the official names of things. Instead of saying something like "they blew the math" he tells you how data were improperly normalized, or the use of SVD, and the consequences. In addition to describing the ill-advised technical issues, he describes appearance of the poor science (seeing what you want to see), other more common human foibles such as possible (or likely) "cherry-picking", and the suppression of contradicting evidence, all of which are not supposed to be in science.

While it would not be difficult, based on his blog perhaps, to discern the Bishop's views on AGW and its politics, the current book is basically impartial, except as it relates to the poor science and the overriding political motives of the AGW advocates. It deals rationally and fair-mindedly with the (illusion of the) Hockey stick graph. People commenting on the book are advised to direct criticisms, if any, on the basis of what he writes rather than what "camp" they perceive the author to belong to. This does involve actually reading the book however. Expect the usual reflex one star submissions from those who review just the title - and then go on to a few stock comment about the decline in the penguin population at the North Pole.

So, by the way, how DO you get to read the book. As of this writing, it does not appear to be widely available on Amazon in the US, and let's hope that will be directly available soon. I got mine from Amazon.UK, which was surprisingly easy - pretty much like this Amazon site. Shipping was about as much as the book, but I think it was only $26 with the shipping, and it arrived in 8 days by "Royal Mail". And it's a beefy book of almost 500 page-turning pages.
39 internautes sur 56 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 How Climatologists erased the Medieval Warm Period 6 novembre 2010
Par Gaetan Lion - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
This is among the best books I have read on this topic. It is more technical. Yet, it is very easy to read. I knew a lot about Steve McIntyre's investigative work by reading the excellent Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. But, I learned much more.

The Global Warming hypothesis advances that current temperature levels are unprecedented over the past millennium and are caused by the rise in CO2 concentration. Global temperature records go back only to 1850. So, climatologists have reconstructed temperatures over the past millennium using mainly tree rings (lead by Michael Mann). One other scientist, Lonnie Thomson, did it using ice core. They all confirmed the Hockey Stick picture with temperatures remaining flat during the majority of the past millennium (handle of hockey stick) only to spike upward at a sharp angle (blade of hockey stick) during the past century. Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It refers to the very high correlation between the reconstructed temperature histories based on ice cores vs tree rings as irrefutable evidence of Global Warming. He will receive a Nobel Prize and an Oscar Award for his work. So what is wrong with this picture? Sadly, just about everything.

Montford demonstrates through the work of Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, that the scientific method within the climatology community has completely broken down. McIntyre shows that Michael Mann's original Hockey Stick was just the result of flawed decisions Mann made. McIntyre will be able to duplicate Mann's result (a sharp hockey stick) when making the same mistakes. But, when correcting for those mistakes he will get a very different result. Now, the hockey stick disappears. And, the Warm Medieval Period reappears with higher temperatures than at the present.

Mann's mistakes included his short-centring Principal Component Analysis (PCA) methodology. The short-centring resulted in over-weighting any tree ring proxy with a hockey stick shape by a factor of several hundreds to 1 vs other proxies. His repeated PCA methodology generated coefficients going in opposite direction in the 15th century vs the 20th century. Thus, a widening of tree rings corresponded to a decline in temperature in the 15th century but an increase in the 20th! Mann also truncated certain series to 1980 when the current data suggested a downtrend in temperature. He also truncated other series that suggested high temperature level in the 15th century. He also arbitrarily used the most hockey stick like series several times.

Reknown statisticians will confirm Mann's work is flawed. Ian Jolliffe, a statistics professor and reknown expert in PCA confirms that Mann's short-centring repeated PCA methodology is unfit for long term temperature reconstruction. Edward Wegman, a well established statistician, in his Wegman Report written for Congress will confirm that Mann's methodology was statistically inadequate and that Mann's rejection of the R Square validation measure was wrong. Mann did it because the related measure (R Square close to 0) would have rejected his model validity.

The climatology community will react to those rebuttals by hurrying to replicate Mann's Hockey Stick every which way they can. And, their work is as flawed as Mann's. McIntyre will uncover extensive cherry picking, truncating, slicing, infilling, and making up of data. But, none of that is made obvious to the Media or policymakers. Additonally, McIntyre relying on other scientists also documents how both tree rings and ice cores can give temperature signals in opposite direction depending on the era. Yet, the IPCC will vindicate Mann's work as having been replicated independently numerous times by other teams of reputable climatologists.

Edward Wegman in his report shows how insular the climatology community is. It is dominated by 12 climatologists who are all colleagues and co-authors on various hockey stick papers. They peer-review each other's work. On the IPCC they lead the reviews on the chapters that cover their very own work. Wegman even documented that their hockey stick models even share the same main tree ring proxies. Even stranger, the one that could be deemed somewhat independent, Lonnie Thomson, as he used mainly ice cores and not tree rings, let external communication mistakenly replicate Michael Mann's hockey stick and claim it as his own ice core based hockey stick. He never corrected this. As a result, there was an excellent reason why Al Gore found the ice core graph highly correlated with Mann. It was Mann's hockey stick!

The existence of the Warm Medieval Period around 1000 to 1400 AD, when temperatures were warmer than now, is associated with a convergence of evidence. It was corroborated with the historical records including the Vikings colonizing Greenland (called that way because you could grow stuff there back then) around 1000 AD. This warm period was followed by the "Little Ice Age" that was equally well established. This period saw the Vikings leaving Greenland in the 15th century, and the freezing of the Golden Horn in the 17th century. All those temperature patterns were also confirmed by several geoscientists using borehole studies. McIntyre showed those were also confirmed by a good deal of the data sets the climatologists advocating Global Warming used. But, they invariably cherry-picked the data until their models could flatten the problematic Warm Medieval Period.

The most troubling aspect of this story is the behavior of the climatology community. Climatologists don't believe their models should be submitted to replication. They don't willingly share any data or computer code to facilitate replication. They don't defer to statisticians on statistics issues. Surprisingly, their behavior is tolerated by the National Academy of Sciences and encouraged by the IPCC. The IPCC had even threatened to fire McIntyre as a reviewer if he kept asking for data. Stephen Schneider, who passed away recently, was an eminent climatologist. In his book: Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate he depicts Michael Mann, who essentially committed scientific fraud, as a victim of harassment. And, he describes McIntyre as a villain worthy of the Spanish Inquisition.

The last section on the hacked emails is a confirmation of the lead climatologists bad behavior. Michael Mann is most frequently quoted. His emails documents his efforts to censor McIntyre papers and get editors of journals fired for publishing such papers. He also states to his colleagues that certain journals such as 'Climate Research' and 'Energy and Environment' should be boycotted and not mentioned in scientific references due to their publishing contrarian papers. Mann and Briffa share how to get rid of the troublesome Medieval Warm Period. In another email, Jones pleads the editors of 'Climate Change' not to cause Mann to release his data as requested by McIntyre because it would set a "VERY dangerous precedent."
70 internautes sur 101 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Chilling case study of scientific corruption 6 février 2010
Par Humaine Optomist - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché
This excellent book operates on two levels. First, it details the tangled web of deception that made "the hockey stick illusion" the iconic image of the monstrous "Anthropogenic Global Warming" fraud.
Montford makes generally understandable the arcane issues of statistical manipulation that lie at the heart of the false "science." He does so in a narrative that is clear, riveting and horrifying. As a result of the duplicity of the Hockey Team and the IPCC, billions have been spent and we have no idea whether or how human beings may affect climate change. We are at square one.
Second, Montford uses this saga as a case study for the need to require transparency and access to all data and code that underpin scientific claims, especially the research that is used to support government policies.
Clearly so many people were fooled for so long by this particular statistical legerdemain because, without access to the underlying data and code, the effort required to replicate and find the flaws in Mann's Hockey Stick was almost impossible.
Thank Heaven for a retired mathematician - Steve McIntyre - who undertook the thousands of hours (and dollars) required to find and prove the flaws in this duplicitous artifact of NOT Science.
What is needed is a very intense investigation of how the public interest can be protected from such frauds - whether in climate science, financial derivatives, medical policies, etc. To err is human - but to really mess up, it takes a computer! Bravo to A.W. Montford who made the whole story understandable to a mathematically impaired reader like me.
48 internautes sur 69 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 The Fraud In The Scientific Consensus 18 mars 2010
Par Amazon Customer - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Broché|Achat vérifié
Author A W Montford is one of those painstakingly patient people with a passion for the truth, and the intellectual and organizational tools to put together the story of the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown Man.

Strong words? Yes! As Montford takes you through the emails, blog posts, and official records tracing the history of the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, you start to see how we have been led astray by some of the world's foremost climate scientists as they use sloppy mathematics, felonious tree ring data, and a public relations effort rivaled only in political campaigns. They managed to convince the populace and political establishment that the warming of the earth in the 20th century was unprecedented, and the world was in great danger of catastrophic weather events and rising sea levels which would kill millions or cause massive destruction.

Montford does not present new data. His value is in telling the story of a world-wide scientific conspiracy in a style which keeps you turning page, after page, after page.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous
Rechercher des commentaires
Rechercher uniquement parmi les commentaires portant sur ce produit

Passages les plus surlignés

 (Qu'est-ce que c'est ?)
&quote;
that no effective independent review of Manns work was likely (see Figure 9.2) and where mistakes were made, it was difficult for climatologists to correct their work: &quote;
Marqué par 7 utilisateurs Kindle
&quote;
If tree rings didnt pick up the warming now, how could anyone be sure that they had picked up earlier warmings like the disputed Medieval Warm Period? &quote;
Marqué par 6 utilisateurs Kindle
&quote;
They had concluded that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact a real, significant feature of climate history. &quote;
Marqué par 5 utilisateurs Kindle

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Thème:
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier
 

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon
   


Les clients qui ont surligné cet ebook ont également surligné


Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique