This is a review of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines by Michael Mann.
by Chris Mooney, via Desmogblog
I first became familiar with the name Michael Mann in the year 2003. I was working on what would become my book The Republican War on Science, and had learned of two related events: The controversy over the Soon and Baliunas paper in Climate Research, purporting to refute Mann and his colleagues’ famous 1998 “hockey stick” study; and a congressional hearing convened by Senator James Inhofe, at which Mann testified. Inhofe tried to wheel out the Soon and Baliunas work as if they’d dealt some sort of killer blow against climate science. In fact, just before the hearing, several editors of Climate Research had resigned over the paper.
I went on to stand up for Mann, and his work, in Republican War. Little did I know, at the time, that he himself would become the leading defender of his scientific field against political attacks.
Recently, Mann came out with a new book about his travails entitled The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines, detailing his decade long battle against political attacks and misrepresentations. The response has been all too predictable. For months, conservatives have been giving it one star reviews on Amazon.com, some of which suggest that they probably haven’t read it.
What is most fascinating to me is that the science the right is attacking Mann over—principally, the 1998 hockey stick study and its 1999 extension, as prominently exhibited in 2001 by the IPCC—is relatively old news. Indeed, and as Mann himself explains in the book, “attacks against the hockey stick …were not really about the work itself.” That work has been supported by other researchers—there is now a veritable “hockey team,” Mann notes—and anyways, the case for human caused global warming never depended on the validity of the hockey stick alone. It was always just one part of a far broader body of evidence.
Thus, conservatives who fixated on Mann, and continue to do so, tell us through their own actions that this is not really about scientific inquiry at all. If it was, then they’d be doing something quite different from giving Mann one star Amazon reviews.
But of course, climate researchers have been making observations like these for years. It hasn’t mattered nearly as much as it should, though, because they’ve often lacked the communication skills to get their point across. If anything, their scientific training has tended to hobble them in a brass knuckles fight such as this one. And that, to me, is where Mann’s new book matters the most: It shows that he has developed the communication skills to match his unquestionable scientific talent—and moreover, that he has done so because the right forced him to.
That’s why Mann is such an inspiring example for all who care about the climate issue—and why his book is required reading. From the early “hockey stick” battles all the way up through “ClimateGate” and the Ken Cuccinelli inquiry, Mann didn’t give an inch. He didn’t back down; to the contrary, he showed what toughness actually means. And in the process, from the founding of RealClimate.org in 2004 up through the publication of this book, he evolved into a passionate communicator and advocate. Having had him on my podcast Point of Inquiry and heard him lecture, I can assure you that many scientists should take a lesson from him.
Through all this, Mann emerged as a charismatic example of what we should all strive for in the face of ideological adversity and unfair attacks. Mann himself has a powerful analogy for all of this in the book, one that shows just how much he has developed as a communicator and an advocate. He calls it the “Serengeti Strategy,” based on what he saw on a vacation in Africa:
Among the most striking and curious scenes I saw that day were groups of zebras standing back to back, forming a continuous wall of vertical stripes. “Why do they do this?” an IPCC colleague asked the tour guide. “To confuse the lions,” he explained. Predators, in what I call the “Serengeti strategy,” look for the most vulnerable animals at the edge of a herd. But they have difficulty picking out an individual zebra to attack when it is seamlessly incorporated into the larger group, lost in this case in a continuous wall of stripes. Only later would I understand the profound lesson this scene from nature had to offer me and my fellow climate scientists in the years to come.
To be sure, the book is not simply about how Mann was forced to fight back against misrepresentations, and even congressional and legal inquiries. It’s also his personal story. He started out as a math geek trying to program a computer to play tic-tac-toe, like in the movie War Games (ah, the Eighties!). He ended up pursuing paleoclimatology out of intellectual interest and fascination; he never imagined he would end up as much a political combatant as a researcher.
Despite my praise for Mann and his book—and I even gave it a cover blurb—I do have some differences with him. For instance, I think that here and in his public comments, Mann tends to focus too heavily on the idea that resistance to climate science, and his research, is corporate driven. Or as he puts it in the book: “well organized, well-funded, and orchestrated.” In contrast, I have increasingly come to think it is primarily ideological—driven by libertarian individualism, and those who embrace this view and its associated emotions—and the corporate connection is secondary (though often real). I thus think that focusing on it too much misleads us as to the nature of the opposition, which has grown so ideological at this point—and so driven by gut emotion—that it does the traditionally pragmatic business community no favors. If anything, it is out of synch with its own presumptive allies.
But this difference doesn’t matter when it comes to defending scientific reality. There, I stand with Mann, because he taught me through his own example how to do so. And you should as well.
How? Start by buying his book; and after you’ve read it, go refute the one-star Amazon commenters and add your own informed take. And throughout it all, remember the Serengeti analogy—although really, I must say that I think it doesn’t do Mann justice. This guy is no zebra. For climate researchers, and researchers anywhere who fall under political attack, he’s something much more important: A leader.
Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist. He also writes for the Center for American Progress’ Science Progress blog. This piece was originally published by Desmogblog and was reprinted with permission.
Related Posts:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Mann is an inspiring figure and a Hero of mine. In the climate science community he is down to earth, friendly- plus one of the smartest people in the country. To all he is easily accessible and willing to answer questions. I wish him the best.
And yes buy the book- its very well done.
He is also a hero!
Regarding the resistance to climate science, denialism resonates with many people because of two easily exploitable fears:
1) that “they” want to take away my car, incandescent lights, AC, etc. AND want to raise my gas and electricity prices (and take my money);
2) that “they” are accusing me of being bad or evil just by living an ordinary life.
These fears are easy to ramp up, and hard to quell. You can hear the fear mongering at Fox, AM radio, and repeatedly in the comments on skeptical sites.
(“They” being any of: climate scientists, environmentalists, government, liberals, or Democrats.)
No-one is really living an ‘ordinary’ life any longer in the West. In the USA median wages have stagnated for forty years, and median household wealth has fallen 40% in the last five years. Work is ever more precarious and contingent, unions are busted, workers mere chattels. House values are still falling, household debt is still sky-high and the share of GNP going to labour has dropped by around 10% over the last thirty years. And almost all the ‘wealth’ produced since 2000 has gone to the top 1%, most to the 0.01%.
So, with most people teetering on the edge of poverty, and ruthless, evil, MSM brainwashers stirring their fear and hatred, is it any wonder that ecological doom is simply denied? When the truth is clear even to the Dunning-Krugerites, before 2020 for certain, (barring a miracle)there will be such an outburst of rage as will shake the heavens. Not what is required, and almost certain to be diverted from those responsible onto some patsies set up for the purpose. It looks like the poor world and their teeming millions have been selected for the purpose, as Rightwing thugs on the net never tire of blaming their miserable, subsistence consumption for the ecological crisis, never the over-consumption of the West, let alone-God forbid-the conspicuous luxury consumption of the global parasite elite.
” . . . almost certain to be diverted from those responsible onto some patsies . . . ”
A thorny problem indeed. Somehow they will blame climate scientists etc. A pessimistic view, but foreseeable.
Pessimistic, but realistic, I would say. I’d love to see evidence that would make me change my mind, but all I see are Rightwingers growing more deranged, belligerent and threatening, day by day.
As well as climate scientists, the rage of those who’ve been conned will be deflected on to the usual suspects. The political left, the unemployed, ethnic, religious, sexual, linguistic, etc. minorities, assertive women, poor, sick and disabled people – in other words anyone who can be kicked while they’re down.
I often think “This must be how it would have felt to live in Europe in the mid to late 1930′s”. And Rio+20 is our München – a pointless talking shop. Just waiting for the barbarians. I’m glad we don’t have any children. I’m 61 so although I’ll probably see some hard times, thank God I’ll be dead before the worst.
Just going to watch a video of Mozart’s “Die Zauberflöte” on YouTube to cheer myself up.
It may sound trivial and pathetic, but what saddens me most at the moment is that the plutocrat-engineered collapse will result in the loss of all the spiritually uplifting artistic achievements of centuries.
They picked Michal Mann as a week link and got it very wrong. Unfortunately the herd did not stand with him, so much he had to withstand.
Many lesser men would have crumbled under the onslaught. Michael Mann came back stronger.
So not just a brilliant scientist, but a great leader, a fighter and a very decent human as well. A rare combination.
I really am sick to death of reading about the scientists’ lack of communication skills – it may be true of some but certainly not all or even most. Also, this is not, for most people, an ‘information’ problem. Recognize it for what it is.
Our Climate Commission has been touring the country holding public meetings in local communities, speaking and answering questions in everyday Aussie-speak. They recently held one in Western Sydney and answered questions about the latest predictions for the area. There is nothing esoteric about ‘drought’ and ‘fire’.
You should have heard the screams: there was a noticeable rise in decibels. A statement was made in Parliament about the shameful actions of scaring the good burghers of W Sydney to death. This is organized denial with wealthy backing, not a ‘communication problem’. Stop blaming the scientists, ME
Fascinating. Kudos to your Climate Commission and your efforts.
We’d love to hear more about what the Commission does, the range of reactions, and how many people are persuadable. Would before and after surveys help?
Sounds like you are right in the lions’ den!
Mark, just type in climatecommission.gov.au. ‘A year in review’ gives you a flavour of their 2011. I am not associated with the Commission in any way but its events are well publicized and climate change continues to be a red hot topic, particularly now in the run up to 1st July when the price on carbon finally comes in, ME
“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
Bertrand Russell
We are lucky to have Michael Mann, and I wish we had more men and women like him.
Libertarianism itself is corporate driven.
I agree. If you look at who’s funding the libertarian think-tanks and meetings you’ll see a who’s-who of various corporate interests. Often they are fossil fuel or tobacco related. In the libertarian magazines (also often funded by corporations) they tend to try and steer other libertarians towards a pro-corporation agenda.
The corporations have been funding think-tanks for decades to “plant the seeds” of such ideology because it helps them frame the debate and still up astro-turfed movements to support their agenda. It’s been part of a long term strategy of them to get the public to vote against their own interests.
I think it is difficult to underplay the corporatism concern.
Well funded, modern marketing strategies have a powerful influence on human beliefs and behaviors. If you have doubts, consider the decades long battle to counter cigarette advertising and get a handle on the dangers of tobacco use. This in spite of the incredible morbidity and mortality!
It helps that cigarrettes are addictive…but so is fossil fuel use.
Grease the palms of a cadre of reasonably articulate science types and set up a media echo chamber that bounces those messages around in a ‘balanced’ environment. Richard Lindzen is a pretty good icon for this paradigm. (An especially good choice since he himself spoke out against the concerns about the effects of tobacco on human health and for the tobacco companies.)
Put enough of these kinds of messages into the cultural mileau and they will be profoundly and naturally amplified by the power of denial. Not as in ‘climate change deniers’, but rather in the simple human tendency not to want to recognize really painful, difficult problems that will simply have to be addressed if you allow them to be recognized.
Add to that the fact that our primate neurological equipment is, quite simply, not very well designed for dealing with problems that evolve over periods of decades and longer.
Who wants to have to worrry about destroying the futures of our children and grandchildren, anyway?
Hey, those guys over there say this isn’t a problem! Look at that intelligent, svelte, professional looking woman in the pinstripe pants-suit telling us how safe and important fracking is. Now that is a message that is easy to take! There is the patriotism of energy independence. There are all those billions in oil corporation spending we are told about that is supporting uncountable numbers of small businesses–what could be wrong with that?
Listen to someone like James Hansen? He just doesn’t have very much production value, you know? That is sweet about his grandchildren, but he reads his presentations. He is hard to understand, he is boring and he’s OLD.
No wonder the public begins to develop what comes to be a self-perpetuating, ever strengthining ideology against climate change!
Hell, why do I even bother with this stuff? Maybe if I changed my tune and got with the program I could hook up with a beautiful, articulate and well-heeled female oil company representative!
At the very least, I could successfully repress all of this stressfull concern about climate change.
My own life could be a beach!
My kids and grandkids can deal with it (if it is actually happening).
I enjoyed the book very much, it was a very interesting look into how scientists do research and get it reviewed, in addition to the important issue of global warming and the wall street denial machine.
I believe that it is both the corporations and libertarians who are pushing the denial effort, or to be specific, the corporate wealth is giving the libertarians the “free speech” they need to impose their message on everyone (free speech costs alot of money in america!).
Why do many americans ideologically support the rich and powerful, against their own interests? The answers are long, it is probably related to a lack of self respect, they feel they are inferior, the rich and powerful deserve to be that way, while most of them are losers because of their own doing.
Remember that when the average southern white fought and died for the right of rich plantation owners to outsource labor to slavery, those southern whites were de-valueing their own labor. America has not changed much since the 60′s (1860′s, that is!), only the neuances are different now.
I agree with Peter M at the very start, Michael Mann has become an inspirational figure. It is fabulous to see him make more TV apprearances and write more op-eds.
When (if?), the controversies of these years is written up, Mann will be the central Galileo figure.
I agree with Mann that it is plutocratic corporate interests that really oppose him, with their bought politicians. Libertarianism isn’t a real philosophy amongst these people, except for the little people. Corporates have a welfare state sbservient to them.
Well, *they* aren’t done with him yet. The Koch bros do not like Dr Mann, no they do not. Their man Va Attny Gen Ken Cuccinelli went after UVa for all of his records so that he could ‘climategate’ them or something, UVa president Teresa Sullivan fights back and wins. Good job. So, their other man, Va Gov Bob McDonnell stacks the UVa Board of Visitors, who in turn just today tossed President Sullivan out. Cuccinelli is the heir apparent for the Va govenor’s seat. Think he won’t have his way with UVa then?