Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre ou numéro de téléphone mobile.

Prix Kindle : EUR 7,21

Économisez
EUR 10,20 (59%)

TVA incluse

Ces promotions seront appliquées à cet article :

Certaines promotions sont cumulables avec d'autres offres promotionnelles, d'autres non. Pour en savoir plus, veuillez vous référer aux conditions générales de ces promotions.

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

The Hockey Stick Illusion par [Montford, Andrew]
Publicité sur l'appli Kindle

The Hockey Stick Illusion Format Kindle

4.7 étoiles sur 5 3 commentaires client

Voir les formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon
Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 7,21
Broché
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 17,41

Longueur : 489 pages Word Wise: Activé Langue : Anglais

Concours KDP Salon du Livre


Descriptions du produit

Revue de presse

A rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing. --Matt Ridley, The Spectator

....one of the best science books in years....deserves to win prizes --Prospect Magazine

In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all - the notorious 'hockey stick' graph......For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph

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

  • Format : Format Kindle
  • Taille du fichier : 2979 KB
  • Nombre de pages de l'édition imprimée : 489 pages
  • Pagination - ISBN de l'édition imprimée de référence : 1906768358
  • Editeur : Stacey International (6 juin 2011)
  • Vendu par : Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ASIN: B005A54KEM
  • Synthèse vocale : Activée
  • X-Ray :
  • Word Wise: Activé
  • Composition améliorée: Non activé
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : 4.7 étoiles sur 5 3 commentaires client
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: n°543.040 dans la Boutique Kindle (Voir le Top 100 dans la Boutique Kindle)
  •  Voulez-vous faire un commentaire sur des images ou nous signaler un prix inférieur ?

click to open popover

Commentaires en ligne

4.7 étoiles sur 5
5 étoiles
2
4 étoiles
1
3 étoiles
0
2 étoiles
0
1 étoile
0
Voir les 3 commentaires client
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients

Meilleurs commentaires des clients

Par RAS TOP 500 COMMENTATEURS le 14 mai 2014
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 ›
Remarque sur ce commentaire Une personne a trouvé cela utile. Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ? Oui Non Commentaire en cours d'envoi...
Merci pour votre commentaire.
Désolé, nous n'avons pas réussi à enregistrer votre vote. Veuillez réessayer
Signaler un abus
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.
Remarque sur ce commentaire 2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile. Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ? Oui Non Commentaire en cours d'envoi...
Merci pour votre commentaire.
Désolé, nous n'avons pas réussi à enregistrer votre vote. Veuillez réessayer
Signaler un abus
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
Remarque sur ce commentaire 2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile. Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ? Oui Non Commentaire en cours d'envoi...
Merci pour votre commentaire.
Désolé, nous n'avons pas réussi à enregistrer votre vote. Veuillez réessayer
Signaler un abus

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: HASH(0x8b75999c) étoiles sur 5 109 commentaires
280 internautes sur 367 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x8b58be58) étoiles sur 5 hockey story 25 janvier 2010
Par Amazon Customer - 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.
3 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x8b58beac) étoiles sur 5 Lifting the lid on a global conspiracy - a brave attempt. 16 avril 2015
Par Bruce Rapley - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
One of the most important books of modern times. A very erudite, well-read commentator on science and society, Montford demolishes the global warming scam, one lie at a time. This is one of the most important books to read if you are the least bit concerned about maintaining life on this planet. A very brave man, Monford stands agains the plethora of commentators who have been bought by governments and big industry to promote the myth of global warming as a thinly-veiled initiative to generate new income tax streams. This is book that is a MUST-READ.
HASH(0x8b5deba4) étoiles sur 5 Best understood if one has a degree in statistics 31 octobre 2015
Par George MC Clellan - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
Best understood if one has a degree in statistics, but very enlightening at any rate. Montford details the actions and arguments of all
players, exposing the unethical tactics that the originators of the hockey stick theory used to foist their scam on the public and, most harmfully, presented it to politicians for their misuse. You can read transcripts of some of the email exchanges among the players, further illuminating the development of the con job of the century.Complex story,. Excellent book.
3 internautes sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x8b5dea9c) étoiles sur 5 An Important book on Bad Science 10 février 2015
Par rickzz - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
There's ample historical and temperature proxy evidence the world was warmer during the Medieval Warming period (1000-1300s) than today. Then, temperatures declined from 1300-1800s ("little ice age") before warming again in the late 19th century. This all happened at a time when CO2 levels were flat and much lower than today.

In the past century, global temperatures rose by ~1C (0.5C from the 1970s to 1990s) during a time when CO2 levels significantly increased due to industrialization. By itself, CO2 should warm the earth by ~1C per doubling of CO2 ("climate sensitivity"). Alarmists, though,hypothesize positive feedback will also kick in and magnify the sensitivity to 3-10C due to increased water vapor, which is the most powerful greenhouse gas. But this has never been proven and the real-world evidence is shaky at best (computer models don't count as real evidence). Since 1998, temperatures have been flat with slight random fluctuations. So it's both true that recent temperatures have been "flat" and also at "record" highs- unless you include the Medieval warming period. The MWP is significant then because it casts doubt on the notion that CO2 has high climate sensitivity. The simpler null hypothesis is that we're well within natural variation and that most of the 20th century warming was not due to CO2.

In 1998, Michael Mann et al published a temperature reconstruction of the past 1000 years with a "hockey stick" shape, which claimed to prove that the MWP wasn't that warm (or global) after all and that late 20th century temperatures were at unprecedented levels. The hockey stick became the face of AGW and convinced the public (myself included) that AGW was a dire threat.

In 2002, Steve McIntyre, a semi-retired Canadian mining consultant with extensive statistical expertise tried to reproduce the Hockey Stick. Montford's book is a blow-by-blow account of his and economist Ross McKitrick's long struggle to obtain the source code and data used for the hockey stick. Other reviews cover the details of this- the important fact is that McIntyre and McKitrick eventually proved the Hockey stick and other "independent" temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC are completely invalid. Along the way, we get a tutorial on "how NOT to do science"- it turns out that alarmist climate scientists were determined to eliminate the MWP so they cherry-picked data and "tortured" the statistics in order to get their desired outcome. Also, peer review of papers is often a rubber stamp- very few if any reviewers actually try to replicate the paper. And nearly all climate scientists refuse to divulge their source code and data- which makes independent replication near-impossible. (These revelations are disappointing but hardly unique- these practices are also quite common in the pharmaceutical industry where billions of dollars are also at stake.)

Montford's superb and exhaustively researched book is essential reading for those interested in the climate debate and its neglect by mainstream media is shameful. I regret not reading it sooner. (I had no interest in reading it back in 2010 because I figured it was written by a right-wing nut*. Since then, I've done my homework and I realize now- like most people who dig into it- that the "climate emperor has no clothes").

Also highly recommended is "Neglected Sun"(2013) by the same publisher, which focuses on the sun as a driver of climate change. It's certainly true the sun hasn't been proven (yet) to be a major factor in climate change- but that applies more so to CO2.

*Note: Montford is on record of saying he doesn't necessarily think AGW is wrong- only that the evidence for it doesn't exist yet.
9 internautes sur 12 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x8bb8009c) étoiles sur 5 5 stars because of the utter deception by the low reviews and lack of integrity 20 avril 2015
Par DB - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
I would normally post 4 for this, for it to be about an approximation of my entire feeling on the book. The book is well researched and thoughtfully laid out. What is most disconcerting about this book is the amount of people who lie in their one star reviews with obvious agendas. They all have tendencies to review only things on partisan basis, and never be verified Amazon purchasers (they never read what they review, which is intellectually dishonest at best to begin with), and literally seem to get their kicks from lying day to day about reviewing products (which the vast majority never review), they virtually never post anything of substance, but instead regurgitate googled crap from their favorite blogs about the books, without even having the honesty to look at it yourself. So an honest review, read this book, and make up your mind for yourself. There is a lot of information in this book you will find to be thought-provoking.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous