Customer Reviews


4 Reviews
5 star:    (0)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (2)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


7 of 14 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Climate Files
After the fuss with the emails from UEA, I wanted to read an independent, balanced review of what it was all about. I actually got the impression this book was quite balanced, criticizing both the scientists and those who question their motives.

The book did not try to say whether man made warming was real, rather it just looks at who said what leading up to...
Published on 17 Aug 2010 by J. Livsey

versus
23 of 36 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Not a objective analysis
I was looking forward to reading this book knowing Fred Pearce's articles from the New Scientist. I hoped this book would be an un-biased, cool, calm clinical analysis of "Climategate" and the various views although I had concerns about the Guardian being the publisher with its pro-AGW bias would require a certain emphasis from the author and also the speed to press might...
Published on 12 Aug 2010 by C. Mould


Most Helpful First | Newest First

23 of 36 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Not a objective analysis, 12 Aug 2010
By 
C. Mould (UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming (Paperback)
I was looking forward to reading this book knowing Fred Pearce's articles from the New Scientist. I hoped this book would be an un-biased, cool, calm clinical analysis of "Climategate" and the various views although I had concerns about the Guardian being the publisher with its pro-AGW bias would require a certain emphasis from the author and also the speed to press might have limited any in depth analysis.

Part 1 overall was generally balanced and set the scene reasonably well dwelling some of the players (MacIntire, Santer, CRU, Briffa, Mann, McKitrick, Jones and others) and thoughts such as the early idea about a possible ice age. Also covered were the doubts many scientists had about the "hockey stick" but which got submerged during the "laagering".

However even then a bias was appearing, one example being that of the respective web sites "scientists" (Real Climate) and "sceptics" (Climate Audit) with paragraphs for Real Climate site putting over their point of view and denigrating the "strident -excitable less fastidious fans" of Climate Audit (Pearce's words).

Part 2 was characterised, in my opinion, by innuendo and digs at those called sceptics or contrarians (once known in earlier times as heretics when the sun went around the earth). Professor Lindzen one of the world's top atmospheric scientist had "disagreeable friends". This might be true but has no part in this book. Any links, however vague, between the so called sceptics or contrarians and "big oil", think tanks (always right wing) and shared careers/campuses were highlighted but the funding, composition, mutual careers/campuses etc of the "hockey team" coterie was not.
Only very briefly covered was the interference by the "hockey team" in blocking journal articles they didn't like, subverting the peer review process, removing journal editors they objected to, writing the IPCC Action Reports and Chapters themselves etc to name but a few of their activities.

Part 3 was a bit more balanced and had some excellent investigations over the hacking timeline and a whodunit but a pro-AGW bias became present as the chapters progressed.
Reference was made to Gore's "hugely popular" film but no mention of the 34 errors found in the US (such as Amanda Bryd's polar bears) or the UK law suit. "Briefly notorious" was the only mention of Deakin's Channel 4 film.
Bloggers (e.g. sceptics) was used mainly as a pejorative and terms like McCarthyism, Barbarians at the Gates and Crowd Pleasers had no place in a reasoned analysis. Why mention that someone's fathers was associated with Northern Rock? The BBC was criticised for being sceptical...incredible for a government mouthpiece.
They the, poor put upon, hounded, "Hockey Team" didn't really do much wrong, apart from silly worded emails, was the overtone it seemed to me.

Overall I was very disappointed in this book, it was promising in many parts but Mr Pearce let his bias override his analysis. I cannot recommend this book to anyone without them having read Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" a far more analytical, although a much heavier read, first. That book gives far more insight into the activities of the team, other players, papers, investigations, data veracity etc and why Climategate had the effect it has on the reputation of science than this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 12 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Limited value, 29 Oct 2010
By 
P. Bartl - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming (Paperback)
The main problem with this book is that it adds very little to the factual information about the affair of the "Climategate" emails - while Fred Pearce's own analysis is superficial.

He does try to address the issues: what the Climategate e-mails were all about; how they came to be made public and their impact; the background of the climate science disputes which were at the heart of the e-mails, especially the "hockey stick graph" and global temperature statistics; the personalities and backgrounds of the main characters: Steve McIntyre, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, etc etc. As he had, apparently, easy access to participants on all sides of the dispute, he provides interesting snapshots of personal information and perspectives. Yet, what becomes clear is that this remains a book by a journalist who's still out of his depth in the technical issues involved - so, as so many journalists in this matter, as per his own narrative - he just lets the judgement of the "climate science community" replace his own - precisely what he seemed to warn his fellow journalists against, at some point.

This is an interesting book for those who already have a good grasp of what the Climategate affair was all about, as it provides the perspective of an obviously well-meaning journalist trying to come to grips with the issue and with his, and most journalists', failures to adequately (1) understand the issues and (2) report them adequately. Those for whom this book will be the first introduction to Climategate will, I'm afraid, end up as bewildered as Mr Pearce still obviously is. I suggest reading the e-mails themselves - freely available online - and then Andrew Montford's excellent "The Hockey Stick Illusion" for an introduction to the technical issues - and then read Mr Pearce's book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 14 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Climate Files, 17 Aug 2010
By 
J. Livsey (Shropshire, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming (Paperback)
After the fuss with the emails from UEA, I wanted to read an independent, balanced review of what it was all about. I actually got the impression this book was quite balanced, criticizing both the scientists and those who question their motives.

The book did not try to say whether man made warming was real, rather it just looks at who said what leading up to the email debacle. The scientists were being swamped by freedom of information requests from the sceptics and appeared to be trying to block access to their data. The sceptics' emails were not published so they didn't come out of it looking too badly (other than that most of them seem to be funded by energy companies - draw your own conclusions), the people who the book really criticizes are the people who cut and pasted the emails out of context to make them sound as bad as possible, and those like Sarah Palin who repeated the made up quotes, without first checking the original emails.

All in all, an interesting read for anyone who doesn't know what to believe when it comes to climate change. If you are a firm sceptic, or take your scientific opinions from the red top newspapers, ignore my review and stick with the person who gave it one star, this book probably isn't for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 21 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Read before commenting, 8 Jan 2011
By 
This review is from: The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming (Paperback)
quote "The scientists were being swamped by freedom of information requests from the sceptics "

About 10 FOI`s came in.
The scientists were/are all paid public servants.The data is owned by the public.
Try and tell them that..!!!

quote"and appeared to be trying to block access to their data. "

"appeared"..surely you jest.
They did, and still do, block most attempts at their data, delete data and encourage science journals to block data.
Thank god the "science is settled".

quote"The sceptics' emails were not published so they didn't come out of it looking too badly (other than that most of them seem to be funded by energy companies"

Yes..we will forget about the billions of dollars that fund the "scientists"/think tanks/commissions etc that promote AGW ..because that is not relevent is it.. LOL
And go for an own goal instead....if you are going to avoid facts and make ad hominems,,,make them relevent.
The main FOI`same from retired mining executives/retired meterologists or tenured scientists.
Read climate audit and do some research..the energy companies did very little.

quote" the people who the book really criticizes are the people who cut and pasted the emails out of context to make them sound as bad as possible"

LOL..you wish..
Out of context..they sound bad..in context..they are terrible.
Read "climategate" the crutape letters by Mosher/fuller.
I love science but this episode was a disgrace.

quote"and those like Sarah Palin who repeated the made up quotes, without first checking the original emails. "

The bitter irony of you writing that escapes you. :) ?
From looking at your "analysis"..you and Sarah are the same..
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming
10.44
In stock
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews