A New eBook

Hey all. It's been ten days since my last post. I was up in Chicago for the holiday weekend, and I've been a bit sick. Still, the biggest reason for my silence is, and I'm happy to announce this, I've finished my second eBook:


As you may know, I wrote a fairly short (~10,000 word) eBook a few months back discussing the Michael Mann infamous hockey stick. It explained the basic arguments which started the hockey stick debate in a simple manner anyone could follow. In doing so, it showed Michael Mann said a lot of untrue things about the subject in his book. Since he and his book are popular, it seemed important to get that message out there.

But there is a lot of material in the hockey stick debate, and no single book could hope to cover it all. I didn't even try. Instead, I focused my first eBook on a single set of key issues regarding how the hockey stick debate started. I do the same thing in my new eBook. This time, the focus is on how the hockey stick debate still continues.

My hope is anyone who spends a couple hours reading these books will not only be able to understand why so many people reject the hockey stick graph, but understand why this issue has caused so many problems for the global warming movement. The hockey stick was bad science, and until climate scientists acknowledge that, the message they're going to send is, "Any amount of trickery or dishonesty is fine with us if so long as it gets us the desired results."

One thing I should warn readers about is I decided to try something a little different with this eBook. I only charged $0.99 for my last eBook, and I think that was fine. Unfortunately, Amazon only gives authors 35% royalties on books under $2.99. Books sold at $2.99 or more get authors 70% royalties. I'm not trying to make a living off my writing, but it seems a shame to get paid half as much as I could.

So to test things out, I'm going to sell my new eBook at $2.99 for the first month. After that, I'll look at what feedback I get and decide if I want to keep it at that price, drop it to $0.99 or make the book completely free.

Happy reading!


  1. A person on Twitter referred to global warming as the "most massive scientific fraud in human history." This led to a post by Jose Duarte, who you might remember due to his criticisms of the Cook et al consensus paper. I largely agree with his post, but I had to leave a comment because the user on Twitter was talking to Gavin Schmidt when he made his claim. If you've read this new eBook, you know Schmidt receives some attention in this book due to his discussion and defense of Michael Mann's 2008 hockey stick paper. The book doesn't discuss a fraction of the things Schmidt has done over the years, but it shows one case where he acted in a dishonest manner to defend/promote what could be considered fraudulent work.

    My comment didn't go into details, but it referenced that and other things Schmidt has done over the years. It's currently in moderation (I assume due to simple pre-screening or my word choices), but since a user on Twitter asked me for a link to it, I thought I'd copy it here. It's somewhat relevant to the book this post is about, and I hate having to wait for comments to clear moderation when you have no way to know when the blogger may check their moderation queue next. So without further ado, here it what it said:

    While I fully agree climate science as a whole is not a fraud, it has a troubling habit of accepting fraudulent work without question. Michael Mann's hockey stick is the most famous example. If anybody had actually examined it when it were published, they'd have realized there were significant problems with it. If Mann and his co-authors had actually been forced to accurately describe what they had done, everyone would have known there work was bad. If they had been forced to publish all the results of the verification tests they performed rather than just the ones that made their work look good, everyone would have known their work was without merit.

    Instead, Mann was made a leading author of a chapter for his own field in a major IPCC report, a role which resulted in his work getting incredible coverage. Not only that, but he knowingly made the IPCC report exaggerate the merits of his work, again intentionally covering up the fact it failed basic verification tests he himself had performed. That resulted in Mann become hugely popular. Rather than condemn fraud, climate science promoted it to the highest levels and rewarded the person who committed it.

    This is particularly important to this topic because Gavin Schmidt is one of the major enablers of Mann's fraud. He has defended Mann's fraudulent work for over a decade with a multitude of dishonest actions taken to hide the flaws in Mann's work. In other cases, he's used similar dishonesty to downplay or cover up flaws in other work, including NASA's GISS, which he now heads up.

    Given Gavin Schmidt has spent something like the last 15 years using dishonesty to downplay or cover up errors, including ones he knows amount to fraud, it's not completely unreasonable to say he's based his career on fraud. It's unlikely he'd hold his current position if he had been open and honest about the problems within his friends' and colleagues' work.

    Gavin has spent a lot of time helping fraudulent work prosper in the field of climate science. I know that's not what that Twitter user had in mind, and I don't think people should overplay their hands like he did, but still, people like Gavin are the problem. They're the ones who know fraudulent work is fraudulent but defend and promote it anyway.

    And I have to feel a little sympathy for people who call global warming a fraud/hoax. When fraudulent work is freely accepted in a field, it's easy to think of the field as fraudulent.

  2. I just wanted to make a quick note that the user DGH (who had asked for a link to the comment I copied above) found a couple small errors in the eBook. In one case, I applied the quotation format to the wrong paragraph, and in another, I said "its" instead of "it's." When looking at them, I also noticed I said "of" instead of "if" in one case. I just uploaded a new copy of the eBook with those mistakes fixed. I believe the changes should be live for anyone who gets a new copy of the book from here on, but I don't think Amazon will push updates to people who have already downloaded it.

    As always, I appreciate any errors people point out. I do most of my proofreading myself, and it's easy to to miss small mistakes in your own writing. I wish I knew why the menu link to the Table of Contents doesn't work in Kindles right now. I put in the bookmark like Amazon said to, but for some reason, it didn't work. I blame Amazon for having a mediocre format converter.

    Oh well. You can still get to the Table of Contents by jumping to the cover page and going forward two pages. It's not ideal, but at least the Table of Contents is working properly. The last time I published an eBook, Amazon broke my Table of Contents something like seven times.

Comments are closed.