We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Bishop Hill has written another book

When historians get around to describing the late twentieth and early twenty first century hysteria about climate, Andrew Montford will get a big mention as one of the individuals who particularly contributed to turning back this bizarre tide of irrationality.

He blogged. Then he started blogging in particular about climate. Then Climategate happened. He had meanwhile written a book about it all. He blogged some more. And now he has written another book:


Whenever I write about how blogging has made the world a significantly different and better place, the words “Bishop”, “Hill”, “Andrew” and “Montford” always seem to be included in what I put.

Says a Bishop Hill commenter:

Will buy.

Me too.

6 comments to Bishop Hill has written another book

  • Frank S

    Well said! I agree.

  • veryretired

    Big article in my local rag, probably from the AP, though I didn’t bother to check specifically, about the increase of ice around Antarctica and the south pole.

    Turns out that’s also a result of global warming.

    It’s warming when the ice melts in the arctic, and it’s warming again when the ice expands in the antarctic.

    They even dragged in the old “hole in the ozone” chestnut, although I distinctly recall reading a few years ago that it had mysteriously closed up, much to the consternation of all the scientists who had planned on making a career out of all the grants they could get to study it.

    Once again, I will state clearly that it is entirely normal for the earth to be warming in this phase, as it emerges from the centuries long little ice age, which lasted from the 14th to the 19th centuries, and I don’t doubt one bit that some warming is occurring.

    My disagreement is with policies, not some nebulous and ill-defined, and oh-so-scary, warming trend. After all, it’s only happened about a gazillion times in the earth’s history.

    But, really, these guys make agw out to be just like Homer Simpson’s donuts—“Is there anything they can’t do?”

  • Ian Laidlaw

    You folk seem well intentioned and I will come back to see what sort of stuff you get up to.

    For this visit I simply wish to acknowledge your helpful promotion of Andrew Montford’s new book.

    Best wishes,

    Ian Laidlaw

  • justice4rinka

    We can expect the ecofascists to astroturf this book with negative reviews from the outset, and just as with THSI, we can be sure none of them will have read it.

    Could I suggest, therefore, that any review posted by any sceptic should be prefaced with something along the lines of this?

    Statement evidencing that I own this book: the fourth word of the third sentence of chapter six is ‘serial’.

    Obviously everything in italics you would change for your own review, using something other than what others have used.

    I’d further propose that any ecofascist who fails to do this should be challenged repeatedly in the comments to do so in order to prove they have actually read the book.

    It should be further pointed out to them that if they had read the book, which is about fakery and manipulation of data, they would have absorbed the importance of honest evidence; and therefore refusal to prove they own the book effectively furnishes still further proof that they haven’t and that they don’t understand it.

    The effect should be to trash instantly the credibility of anyone who claims to have read the book but doesn’t own a copy. This needs to be done at the time in case, any of them says they had a copy previously but have since disposed of it, or whatever. Whenever an ecofascist fails this test, then the next step is to report their reviews to Amazon and get them removed as abusive of the review facility.

    I have no problem debating these arsepigeons where they have any actual arguments to deploy, but mendacious reviews where they haven’t read the book should be booted off.

  • korblimee

    I have noticed a lot of AGW on the TV News lately film reports from the Arctic and the recent weather etc.. It appears they are still pushing the same old line come hell or high water