Reviews

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars by Michael Mann

jeremypmeyers's review against another edition

5.0

A surprisingly compelling read. Mann does a good job of explaining the intricacies of climate science and an overview of the statistics used to discern the trends. He also recounts the trials of being a scientist who is gradually dragged into the public sphere to debate the science with both fellow scientists with genuine differences of opinion and, more frequently, partisans who seek to undermine conclusions drawn from his work without fairly going through the peer review system.

neilrcoulter's review against another edition

5.0

I first heard of [a:Michael E. Mann|3364898|Michael E. Mann|https://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-e89fc14c32a41c0eb4298dfafe929b65.png]'s [b:The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars|13158321|The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars Dispatches from the Front Lines|Michael E. Mann|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1347747421s/13158321.jpg|18336798] in a review in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The review said, essentially, that if you only read one book about climate change, it should be this one. As it happens, I was indeed looking for "the one book" to read about climate change, so I ordered Mann's book right away. I've just finished reading the book, and I feel that my perspective on science and the world has changed a lot (for the better).

I would first recommend Mann's book as a fantastic inside look at how science really works. I was raised in a fundamentalist-influenced environment (and I still live and work within that kind of a context) that taught me to be skeptical of what science tells us, especially when science proposes conclusions that are challenging to the way the world works (for middle- to upper-class Americans) or to doctrinal or theological understanding of the Christian faith. It's a perspective that also assumes the possibility of a monolithic Science which acts almost as a conspiracy, perhaps deliberately contrary to good, traditional American values and lifestyle. In this viewpoint, scientists cannot be trusted to monitor each other and hold each other accountable, because they might all be in on the conspiracy. Even as I type that I feel silly, but it is honestly how I was raised, and how some churches I've attended continue to respond to the world around them. What Mann patiently shows in his book is the behind-the-scenes workings of science. He explains what motivates a scientist, what kind of life and work a research scientist idealizes and strives for, and how the processes of science (such as peer-review) do indeed ensure solid, trustworthy conclusions. Mann suggests that what I inherited as "skepticism" is actually not a valid viewpoint at all. Skepticism is more than merely finding the holes in someone's theory and then refusing to believe anything that person says. Rather, healthy scientific debate happens when someone finds the holes and then proposes an alternate theory that moves the thinking forward to the next step. Mann also says that science will never prove something beyond the shadow of all doubt. So people who are waiting for ultimate, absolute proof are not listening to science for what it is. We can only ever get increasingly closer to absolute truth through observation of the natural world; we can never prove anything with total certainty. That's not reason for fear or non-engagement; rather, it's a motivation to continue learning, to accept what scientists present as most reliable, most probable.

I've heard so much of this false skepticism that I was genuinely (and to my shame) surprised to learn how much consensus has existed about the issue of climate change and the anthropogenic contributions to global warming. I really honestly thought it was still kind of up in the air (so to speak). I'm grateful to Mann for educating me and bringing me up to the present on this topic. I now completely accept what scientists have been recommending for the past two decades, and I am ready to find ways to do my part in stabilizing and reducing the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. Now that I feel I understand the recent research, I am excited to dig deeper into the current issues, including activism (which Mann really doesn't touch on in the book).

Because Mann has been so personally involved (often against his preferences) in the debate surrounding climate change, he has a difficult task in writing objectively about it. I think he does a very good job in maintaining an objective, cool tone, even when describing people who attacked him through legal threats, hate mail, and other avenues. There are a few times when he used just a bit of sarcasm or snarkiness that, while fully justified, would not be helpful in the debate. But generally he did an admirable job of presenting his side of the story. It's a thoroughly fascinating story, and I appreciate how he brought his personal feelings into it at various points. The story could have been told by an outsider, relating just "the facts," but the picture we have in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is much richer for the personal connection that Mann provides. Some of his personal story I could relate to, having been through a Ph.D. program myself and knowing the struggles inherent in the life of an academic. Other elements of his story are, of course, unique to him, and quite gripping to read.

This is a "general readers" book, so at some points Mann has to explain his and others' research in terms that are understandable to a non-scientist reader (like me). That's always a difficult thing, and it's a rare specialist who can communicate the intricacies of his research in ways that anyone can understand. How does Mann do? Not bad. There are certainly times in the book when I have to accept that what he's explaining is accurate and makes sense to someone who can read and understand the whole article that Mann is summarizing. There are some paragraphs that I mostly skimmed and I'm sure I missed the finer details. But for the most part I think Mann does a good job of condensing some thick research into understandable digest form for the layman.

hannahbananagram's review against another edition

4.0

The book is good and it’s well-written, but I felt like I was dragging my heels through reading this the whole time. I think because I’ve read Dr. Mann’s other books, along with other books/paper/articles about climate science, climate change, climate change + politics, I see stuff about climate change everyday on twitter, etc. that this just felt like a rehashing of stuff I’ve already read. It’s a good book, but felt repetitive for me because I’ve read bits and pieces of what Dr. Mann wrote about over the years, and that made it a bit harder/boring for me to read. But again, it’s a good, well-written book, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about climate change research.

msgtdameron's review against another edition

5.0

A much better read than Hansens "Storms". Mann is a better writer and does not spend page after page beating himself up for not getting the message across. He does go into thwe science that is continually under attack and shows why the attacks are wrong or have already been debunked. Mann also shows where various deniers have used questionable statements, personal attacks when they have no facts, and criminal actions; the Hacking attack on East Anglia.

An update on that actually. The same reporters that crucified Mann and others over the e-mails hacked Parliament and the Royal Family. The British Government took exception to those hacks, found the hackers and prosecuted them. The reporters who used the hacked Royal e-mails were the same "News of the World" reporters who broke Climate Gate. They are now in released but did serve three to five years in Dartmore Prison. Sometimes a little justice gets done.

Also after reading how people threatened Mann and his colleagues I wonder, Did big oil and the Climate Deniers kill Seymore Laxon, Katherine Giles and Tim Boyd. These three were the leading ice loss scientists in the world at the time of their deaths. Laxon fell down his stairs New Years Day. March of the same year Giles was hit by a truck while cycling to work. Boyd was struck by lighting three months later. One is happenstance, two is coincidence, three is enemy action. If the enemy, Big Carbon, is desperate enough could they stoop to that level?