Donna Laframboise’s new book causing reviews in absentia amongst some AGW advocates

Dr. Peter Gleick

I had to laugh after reading the reviews on Amazon.com for Donna Laframboise’s book: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate ExpertThere’s some double fun here, because the title reminds me of the language used in the 1 star review given by Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute.

The first fun part: Gleick apparently never read the book before posting a negative review, because if he had, he wouldn’t be intellectually slaughtered by some commenters who challenge his claims by pointing out page and paragraph in the book showing exactly how Gleick is the one posting false claims. You can read the reviews here at Amazon, and if you’ve bought the book and have read it, add your own. If you haven’t bought it yet, here’s the link for the Kindle edition. Best $4.99 you’ll ever spend. If you don’t own a Kindle you can read this book on your iPad or Mac via Amazon’s free Kindle Cloud Reader – or on your desktop or laptop via Kindle for PC  software.

The other fun part? Gleick apparently doesn’t realize he’s up against a seasoned journalist, he thinks Donna is just another “denier”. Another inconvenient truth for Gleick is that she was a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association – serving as a Vice-President from 1998-2001.

=============================================================

Lies, misrepresentations, and a bible for climate change deniers,

October 16, 2011 By Peter Gleick “PGleick”
This review is from: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (Kindle Edition)

This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change.

It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarizes the state of science on climate change. The IPCC reports — the most comprehensive summary of climate science in the world — are so influential and important, that they must be challenged by climate change deniers, who have no other science to stand on. LaFramboise recycles these critiques in a form bound to find favor with those who hate science, fear science, or are afraid that if climate change is real and caused by humans then governments will have to act (and they hate government).

Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don’t need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you.

If you respect science, then you ALSO don’t need this book, since there’s no science in it, and lots of pseudo-science and misrepresentations of science. See, especially, the section trying to discredit the “hockey stick” — long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd. Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it, but you won’t find out about that in this book.

Really: save your money and battery life.

==============================================================

COMMENTS BY READERS IN RESPONSE:

Audrey says:

Peter Gleick offers no evidence for his unsubstantiated claims. This book is not really about science. It is entirely about the IPCC process: for example, several of the lead authors of the IPCC reports lacked experience, qualifications and appear to be chosen for their connections to WWF, EDF, Greenpeace and other environmental NGO’s – all of which is exposed in this book including names, dates and full references. Furthermore, the book confirms that over 5,000 references (including some of the strongest high impact claims of the IPCC showing evidence of the dangerousness of man-made Global Warming) are to “grey literature” – i.e. to reports that were NEVER verified by peer review – all this despite assurances from the head of the IPCC that the IPCC ONLY use peer-reviewed science in their “climate bible” report. Worse the book also provides conclusive evidence that some influential people within the IPCC were well aware of deficiencies and yet took no action to correct inadequacies in these processes (the book includes explicit examples where IPCC authors elevated their concerns about the poor quality and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus by the IPCC process …but these concerns were simply swept aside!)

If you respect science (as Peter Gleick states and presumably aspires to) then be absolutely sure that you read the entire book because it is a real eye opener! What you may have believed was an IPCC authoritative synopsis of “settled climate science”, according to the august IPCC, will start to smell like the most rotten, disgusting and corrupt fraud of the last century! In short,this book by Donna Laframboise, is an investigative journalistic shocker that is to our modern era as Watergate was to the Nixon era!

==============================================================

Roger Knights says:

P Gleick writes: “See, especially, the section trying to discredit the “hockey stick” — long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd. Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it, but you won’t find out about that in this book.”

Oh yes you WILL find out about it in the book, at Kindle location 2099 in Ch. 32. Here’s what it says:

“Depending on whether you’re talking to a climate skeptic or a climate activist (people in the second camp control the Wikipedia page on this and many other topics related to global warming), the hockey stick graph has either been totally discredited or remains a sound piece of science whose findings have been confirmed by several independent studies. (footnote 32-2). As Montford’s book explains, such claims of independent corroboration are suspect, since these studies were conducted by many of the same small clique of researchers, use similarly flawed statistical techniques, and/or rely on the same dubious sources of data.”

———

PGleick: “This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change.”

I notice that PG isn’t listed as having purchased the book. This gives him an “out” for his misleading statement above. The book isn’t primarily about “the science.” It’s about the IPCC’s claim, trumpeted by its Chairman, to be an impartial collection of the best experts on the topic, to rely on peer-reviewed science only, to have rules in place to ensure that proper procedures are followed, to intensively peer-review its draft documents, to be above the fray as far as policy prescriptions are concerned, etc., etc. This focus on the misbehavior of the IPCC (not its scientific claims) is apparent in the next paragraph from the book (after the one just quoted above):

“For the purposes of this discussion THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE IPCC PERFORMED NO DUE DILIGENCE before according the hockey stick graph such prominence.

……………… [27 paragraphs on the topic follow, and then this summing-up:]

“The essential point here is that the IPCC aggressively promoted a graph that had been produced by a young scientist who’d just been awarded his PhD. Even though the graph overturned decades of scholarship, even though it negated a widespread consensus about what the temperature record of the past 1000 years looked like, the IPCC didn’t bother to verify its [statistical] accuracy. What has been described as ‘one of the most rigorous scientific review bodies in existence’ felt no need to ensure that its case wasn’t being built on quicksand.”

———

PGleick writes: “It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ….”

And:

“Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don’t need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you.”

Wrong again. The book stresses (in Chs. 33 & 34, primarily) the report of the InterAcademy Council (IAC), presented in August 2010, which is recent. And this book contains important NEW material from its inquiry into the IPCC. Here, starting at Location 2557 in the Acknowledgments, are the relevant passages:

“Hilary [Ostrov] single-handedly shook loose 678 pages [footnote link] of material on which this book relies. During its 2010 investigation of the IPCC, the IAC committee posted an online questionnaire. We were told the responses would be made public, but months after the report was released that still hadn’t occurred. Hilary tirelessly pursued the matter until some (but not all) of these responses were divulged.

“From a journalists perspective, they are solid gold–being the equivalent of interviews with dozens of people about their IPCC experience. Until I read that material the IPCC was still a remote and confusing organization.”

===============================================================

Buy, but more importantly, READ the book, so you too can be prepared to refute non-readers like Dr. Gleick. Oh and be sure to read the story just above this one (publishing soon) about the next train wreck the IPCC has gotten itself into.

About these ads

123 thoughts on “Donna Laframboise’s new book causing reviews in absentia amongst some AGW advocates

  1. This really is bad — Gleick obviously never read the book before attacking it, or he would have realised that it is mainly about the IPCC’s procedures and not the core science.

    His review is simply more desperate Leftie agit-prop.

  2. Now now, Peter, that’s just plain lazy. I suppose you think that scientific skepticism is like opium, or worse, heroin: addictive, unhealthy and prone to leaving its users in a state of zombie-like torpor. I guess you have only one point of reference, your own…with which to compare, having slept through the revolution.

  3. [snip – over the top – Anthony]. How could anyone take him for anything but an ignorant crank? It’s obvious that he has never read Donna’s book, yet he gives his opinion on it.

  4. The IPCC paradigm is just sooo fundamentally corrupt … and thanks to Donna this truth is clearly made for everybody to see.

    Thankyou, Donna!

  5. NO NO NO, you have it all wrong guys. This is how Pro AGW climate ‘scienctists’ work. They do not need to read anything to know that it is wrong! Didn’t you know that ?

  6. I have bought it, will read it and make a decision on its merits based on it’s robustness in its analysis of the situation and whether it can stay focused on the subject without drifting into left or right wing politics.

  7. Gareth, Gareth, Gareth. /sarc….”it’s merits” It is? Possession is 9/10th….but not in this case!

    [Fixed, thanx. ~Sisyphus, mod.]

  8. If Dr. Peter Gleick says, “Nothing to see here; please move along,” then there is likely something to see and one should stop and take note.

  9. I would point out to British purchasers that the price for them is $7.59 on the link above (VAT can only account for part of the difference). It is £4.99 from Amazon UK and 4.99 Euro in Europe. It would be nice to think that Donna would receive more when I buy it from the UK but I suspect that it goes into Amazon’s pocket.

    Excellent value at any of the above prices, but it does highlight cynical treatment of UK readers.

    As a footnote (sorry it is off-topic) most US items prices at X dollars are made available at £X in UK, with no attempt to allow for exchange rates. The excuse made is often the cost of support in the UK – I fail to see how this argument holds for delivery of a download.

  10. Gleick is making a gigantic strategic mistake coming from a pro-AGW echo chamber. Too many activists have been telling each other how stupid the “deniers” are for too long, and they actually believe it. Now, they are underestimating the enemy. It had to happen.

  11. For those not into Kindl-ing, don’t forget that for the same US$4.99 you can get the .pdf version at TinyUrl.com/ipcc-expose

    And there will be a paper-back version available within the next week.

    But Gleick certainly scored an own goal with his ill-informed screed, didn’t he?!

    Hilary Ostrov

  12. I’m reminded of this unforgettable dialog from the movie Little Big Man:

    General Custer : There are no Indians there, I suppose.
    Jack Crabb : I didn’t say that. There are thousands of Indians down there. And when they get done with you, there won’t be nothing left but a greasy stain. This ain’t the Washite River, General, and them ain’t helpless women and children waiting for you. They’re Cheyenne braves, and Sioux. You go down there, General, if you’ve got the nerve.

  13. Just a bit of information. There is no need to buy a Kindle/Nook or whatever just to read the e-book. There is a free e-book reader available for PC/Mac called Calibre. It also handles PDF files.

    http://calibre-ebook.com/

    I hope this helps.

  14. Gleick is an Ehrlich acolyte, a macrophage who is despatched to the site of any infectious ideas. He cropped up in the assault on Lomborg.

  15. Peter Gleick not liking the book, we know he hasn’t read it, is probably the best reason for buying and reading Donna’s book.

  16. “… the next train wreck the IPCC has gotten itself into.”

    It was inevitable, with Choo-Choo Patchuri in the cab.

  17. You should publish one of the other comments in your main post:

    Posted on Oct 16, 2011 11:56:52 PM PDT
    Foxgoose says:
    Lots of hysterical, defensive rhetoric with no reference to the book’s content – has he even read it?

    I believe Gleick claims to be a “climate scientist”. People will draw their own conclusions from his fact-free rant.

    Sound like one of the activists from under the stone that Donna Laframboise has just turned over.

  18. Gleick has made a total fool of himself in posting that review. I think Dagfinn has nailed the explanation for PG’s foolishness. I wonder how long it will be before he “disappears” his review. Hopefully he’s as slow a learner as Dana1981, so we can all stand around poking him with sticks for a while yet, but I suspect not. Probably should screen dump it now, to preserve such a merry memory.

  19. Here is my 5 star review of Donna L.’s new book.

    Donna L. encourages fellow journalists to part the IPCC veils

    The Kindle edition of this book that I enjoyed reading over the weekend accomplishes two goals.

    First, it informs interested non-expert citizens about the non-scientific fundamentals of the IPCC with its bias of using activist personnel who promote non-scientific agendas driven by the desire to create alarmism. The Kindle edition does so with a great wealth of online linked references.

    Second, it is a manifesto calling for fellow journalists to be what the professional journalist should be . . . . objective and skeptical toward the IPCC. With the significant attention her book is already getting and its promise of going viral, critical journalists that are willing to part the veils of the IPCC will be well leveraged for their own expose of the IPCC.

    Donna L. was clever to set the stage in a human context by showing that the IPCC indeed can be viewed as a malicious pre-adult who has failed to accept reality and is a bully.

    I would like to hear from Dona L. about whether the sales are meeting her expectations.

    John

  20. What do threads on other sites have to say about this book? Maybe someone who regularly visits many sites could provide a handful of links.

  21. I must admit I wasn’t going to bother reading the book, since I read Donna’s blog, but thanks to the good doctor, I think I’ll try to help the book onto the Best Sellers list

    Thanks for the recommendation, Dr. Gleick

    /Mango

  22. For people complaining about the UK price from Amazon – the solution is simple – I live in the eurozone, and bought the PDF version of the book – I paid using Paypal and the Total deducted from my Paypal account was $4.99, which came to approx 3.79 Euros – I could then immediately download the PDF from the website in question – I presume that Sterling would convert to something like £3.40, making it cheaper than the £4.88 Amazon will try to charge you.

    Ms Laframboise’s webstie (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/13/a-book-is-born/) lists the various option for purchase – about the PDF version she says – “Digital option #2 is a PDF – also priced at $4.99. Formatted to save paper, it’s 123 standard, printer-sized pages (the last 20 of which are footnotes). Delivered instantly, it avoids shipping costs and is a comfortable, pleasant read.”

    So don’t reward Amazon for trying to rip you off – just go buy the PDF version from the other website. Buying the PDF version has clear advantages over the Kindle version – Not only will it be cheaper for UK readers to purchase, you can also read it on any computer anywhere, running any operating system

    Direct link for PDF version – https://www.aplusdownload.com/cgi-bin/apluspro/scripts/apluspro.cgi?action=4&item_number=iap0001&iap0001_qty=1&cd=iocmvjwgc

  23. Smokey says: October 17, 2011 at 12:05 am
    Peter Gleick is such an execrable POS. …… It’s obvious that he has never read Donna’s book, yet he gives his opinion on it.

    Donna Laframboise’s publication, The Delinquent Teenager: Who was Exposed as the World’s Top Climate Expert was released to the public this week @ AUS $ 4.99 . It is a descriptive case study of the work and output of the global Intergovernmental Government on Climate Change (IPCC) and the work underpinning this trillion $ global alliance and trade. Laframboise’s book is the literature review, from the 1960s to 2010, the review that should have been conducted by the sciences and academia.

    A freelance journalist, Laframboise delivers a superb read. Packed with two years of rigorous research on the subject, her book is well referenced for the interested and the sceptical reader, this is evidenced by her previous career in investigative journalism. Her volunteer co-workers reviewed and commented both on primary research and the final work.
    Laframboise presents, chapter by chapter, a coterie of international individuals and their unscrupulous activities in science and the media whilst employed in government subsidised academia and public health, some aligned to agencies of the far left green, and some not, mainstream media journalists and of benefits received by employees of the United Nations, and much more.

    The book presents a chronology of the publicly published climate-related data collections, their support from an eminent gaggle, and the calculated chimera of statistical and methodological malpractices. These people; scientists, policy makers and activists) are exposed. Each chapter documents their rorts, their tautology in greed, self-interest and their poor experiments. All collated through pal-review and disseminated through the global governing IPCC and its glossy manuscripts. National and international agencies using computer graphics sold temporal justifications, coloured graphs of hockey schticks and media bites to the public. Laframboise’ juxtaposes this corruption in science and communication providing some explanation of the true scientists, the science and lived experiences of those prepared to speak out against the rorts and loosing their careers and livelihoods.

    Science and applied science as the public would wish applied, for benefit and for the greater public good in policy, domestic and aid expenditure is exposed through Laframboise’s diligent research and humour.
    This global scam with its claw-like grip over science and its communication may well have neglected the suffering and real needs of many millions of children, and their parents.
    Donna Laframboise’s book is a soundly researched exposé of what well may be modernity’s greatest global scam and horror.

  24. If I order from the above link does Anthony get any credit?
    He deserves something for bringing this to us.
    Donna’s book is not listed on the sidebar….will it be later?

  25. It appears Dr. Peter Gleick is a student of the Nancy Pelosi school of book reviewing:

    you know, “we’ve got to review the book so we can read it and see what’s in it”.

  26. Tip:
    If too many people find Gleick’s review unhelpful it will disappear. His review is so bad, it is best to let it stand as a test of the critical thinking skills of the readers. Best to simply reply with biting wit and facts to support your points.
    I have the pdf. It is an amazing litany of problems with the IPCC. It includes some devastating vignettes about key players in this ongoing tragedy for science and is an almost endless source of material for Josh’s pictorial barbs. Most readers here will be familiar with most of the points raised, but having them all in the same place is going to be helpful when AR5 comes out.
    On the other hand, one, two and three sentence paragraphs are tedious and the whole thing could have done with a critical edit. It reads too much like the comments from a blog.

    One prediction is that the CAGW PR machine will swing in to high gear in order to neutralize Donna’s indictment!

  27. Rick Bradford says:
    October 16, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    “His review is simply more desperate Leftie agit-prop.”

    Here’s the really cool part: Donna L. is a self-described social progressive. Think about that. This is someone who is saying “time out” and standing up for principle.

    I keep waiting for the likes of Bill McKibben to step up and go picket the wind farms that are slaughtering birds – some of which are endangered species – but they lack the same intellectual honesty. So instead, they advocate saving the global biosphere by literally thrashing the local biosphere. When one is so selective about upholding one’s principles for political or ideological reasons, one loses the fight.

  28. I have just downloaded Kindle for PC but have been unable to register it to my Amazon account.

    After a bit of searching it seems that Kindle for PC only accepts alpha-numeric characters in its password field.

    If this is true it would require me to change my Amazon password to a less secure version which is completely unacceptable.

    Has anyone else had this problem?

  29. It includes some devastating vignettes about key players in this ongoing tragedy for science and is an almost endless source of material for Josh’s pictorial barbs.

    This book is a major arrow in the elephant–and it has barbs.
    I just hope there’s a sequel. There’s enough material for one. And maybe the first one will shake loose more material.

  30. The first fun part: Gleick apparently never read the book before posting a negative review,
    =================================================
    It had a proper peer review………..

  31. Gleick’s review appears to be every bit as accurate as everything else he produces.

    (Disclosure: I haven’t read his review yet.)

  32. Isn’t writing a “review” of a book one has not read cheating and lying? Isn’t this a classic practice among dishonest high school students, and remarkably consistent with Donna Laframboise’s book title?

    Obviously, the alarmists, who call themselves “real climate scientists,” have no trouble with lying and cheating day in and day out about anything and everything. Do they EVER tell the truth? This man, MALICIOUSLY SETTING OUT TO HARM MS. LAFRAMBOISE WITH A FAKE REVIEW, is beyond contempt. How small and loathsome can a man become?

  33. The other fun part? That some warmist numpty has clearly trawled every review and comment and voted them up or down accordingly. Almost every positive review has something like “25/26 people found this review helpful”, or 38/39, or 24/25. Almost every comment to the negative reviews that points out their spitefulness and brazen ignorance of the actual content of the book has something like “44 of 45 people think this post adds to the discussion”, or 50/51, or 58/59. Likewise, the comments backing up the negative reviews have just 1 vote in support (at least until Joe Romm rallies his troops, whose numbers we’ll be able to count in a very precise way).

    Kind of endearingly pathetic, isn’t it? Confirms something we’ve long known about the CAGW ‘scientists’, activists and proponents: there’s some really diligent minds there, but it’s a shame that diligence is being applied to the detriment of understanding and integrity rather than the benefit.

  34. “This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change”

    Peter has just written the perfect description of the IPCC Reports.

    100% accurate.

  35. hro001 said:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:37 am

    For those not into Kindl-ing, don’t forget that for the same US$4.99 you can get the .pdf version at TinyUrl.com/ipcc-expose
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Thank You Sir!

  36. PS: I should have added: the arrow has hit a vital spot.

    I like to imagine the conformist play-it-safers in the English Establishment reading this and starting to worry that maybe they’ve bet the farm on the wrong horse.

  37. Gleick is just performing this book review according to the policy and principles of current climate researchers. First write the review/paper that you want, then worry about the actual facts… later… much later. GK

  38. Just listened to a conversation at coffee break this afternoon between some of my left-wing colleagues, regarding Johnny Ball (a former UK children’s TV presenter):
    “…I’ve heard him speak, he’s actually quite right-wing.”
    “Really? He seems like such a nice guy too.”
    You have to think quite differently to get into the head of such people, they would not see the IPCC as ‘corrupted’ or ‘infiltrated’ by Greenpeace; rather, why WOULDN’T experts in climate also be Greenpeace members?
    The left is the middle ground, the right is extreme.
    Anyway, must go now, I have some babies to sacrifice to Beelzebub.

  39. And the thing which bugs me most is the fact that the hockey stick plots are crap and anyone claiming PhD should be able to figure it out.

  40. welcome to liberal scientist land. those professors are the worst, eh.
    (i have a similarly awesome review by a professor which is 99.9% fact free malice.)
    the libel is undeniable

  41. Just bought the book, all due to the reviews. But in fact, I probably would have done so anyway at some point, but publicity like this and the fact that the warmists are circling the wagons…yes it was time to buy the book now before the circling reached critical mass and they all went off their meds.

  42. I started reading Donna’s book. It’s deceptively easy to read and is the ideal jumping-off point for anyone who smells something funny about the AGW claim, is a little intimidated by all that consensus piffle that the “science is settled”, and wants to know the myriad ways in which to dismantle the argument.

  43. Ha!! Up yours Peter Gleick! You only served to make me want to download it to my K. (£4.88 UK) And for those as anal as me, I still wonder in amazement that from the time I clicked (on my PC) ‘BUY’ on Amazon, it took a little over 15 seconds to appear on my K. That’s technology I can really appreciate when I recall how I was an early techie in EFT back in the ’80s.

    BTW: Considering how PG has this thing about critiquing a book he hasn’t read, perhaps he is Dana – who has form when it came to writing an Amazon critique on the HSI without reading it.

  44. Anything posted from “Dr.” Gleick is suspect. He’s a contributor at Forbes.com, and I’ve traded insults on some of his ramblings posted there. I had been curious as to his educational background since he claims to be an “internationally recognized climate expert”. So I did a little checking.

    He lists a B.S degree in Engineering and Applied Science from Yale. Impressive, right? Not really, because there are two types of engineering degrees at Yale, the more rigorous types in Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical engineering, which are ABET accredited. And then there are the science “Lite” degrees, you know, the ones with all the “jock” science and math courses. Dr. Gleick’s degree was the latter type.

    So he may have a “Dr.” in front of his name, but so does Dr. Seuss.

  45. Donna has done us all a favor by documenting and summarizing what is wrong with the IPCC. Peter Gleick made himself and the IPCC look even worse by accusing Donna, a serious investigative journalist, of the very things that he and the IPCC science clique have been guilty of for years, namely accusing skeptics of “hating” science, failing to provide adequate backup documentation for their arguments, and complete failure to provide meaningful summaries of all relevant information sources. Donna also makes “journalists” such as Chris Mooney, Seth Boorenstein, George Monbiot and many others look like amateurs.

    This book is a must read for everyone concerned about the current state of science, especially in the U. S. That being said, in my opinion this book has two (minor) weaknesses:
    a). Little or no discussion of the politicization of the IPCC by/during the Clinton Administration, and
    b). The discussion of the IPCC “peer review” process in section 33. As a 38-year veteran of the technical publication/review process, the IPCC inherited a number of problems that were, in turn amplified by a corrupt UN.

  46. Before anyone dismisses Peter Gleick as another crank, please take a look at the organization he leads!

    Far from a fool, Peter has made a living off of environmental scaremongering!! The Pacific Institute is like a who’s who of influential people. Peter has been enjoying the taxpayer funded environmental gray train longer then some people here have been born!

  47. hoojammyflip says: October 17, 2011 at 11:18 am

    @Hu Bris
    “£3.26 – just bought the pdf version too! – Thanks for the heads up :)”

    Dang!
    They just charged me £3.27!! Bloody exchange rates………
    Mind you, looks like a snip if it had been £32.70.
    Certainly more tempting than more of Meltdown Mann’s turgid and dishonest nonsense.

  48. It’s not surprising that Dr Gleick is worried about any leaks appearing in the CAGW trough:

    “Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. His research and writing address the critical connections between water and human health, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and international conflicts over water resources.
    Dr. Gleick is an internationally recognized water expert and was named a MacArthur Fellow in October 2003 for his work. In 2001, Gleick was dubbed a “visionary on the environment” by the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 1999, Gleick was elected an Academician of the International Water Academy, in Oslo, Norway and in 2006, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
    Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. He serves on the boards of numerous journals and organizations, and is the author of many scientific papers and seven books, including the biennial water report, The World’s Water, and the new Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water.”

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/

  49. Dr. Gleick’s “logic” reminds me of famous words uttered by the first Muslim invader of Egypt in answer to those who implored him not to burn the Library of Alexandria.

    “Those books that contradict Koran must be burned; those books that agree with Koran are superfluous, therefore unnecessary, and must be burned also.”

    All religious zealots think alike.

  50. See, especially, the section trying to discredit the “hockey stick”..’Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it’

    Small but important point none of these seven considered the science, in fact at least two of them made it clear that they were not covering the science in any way in their reports, so although they did not undermine the ‘stick’ they also provided no support for it either, let alone ‘verified it’.

  51. Peter Gleick is just an author trying to defend his industry. For the uninitiated that is the industry of unsubstantiated fears.

  52. I enjoy reading Donna LaFramboise blog, so I did not need a recommendation to by her book. But it sure does not hurt! I probably will not get to read it for a while, but it is now on my Computer along with the reader!

  53. So, essentially, Dr. Peter “Troll” Gleick was just out trolling trying to be all the comrade he can be.

  54. Peter is just a member of the climate quick response team. They said they would be quick to respond…..they just never specified that the response would be accurate. In his eyes it is better to say something quick, than to wait and say something correct…….wait, that sounds alot like climate science and even the hockey stick. Sure they could have waited to see if it stood up to scrutiny, but then they wouldn’t be able to use it. It is easier to pretend your right, than to actually have to read a book and check.

  55. I’ve read it and it is a damning indictment of the total incompetence and non-scientific approach you’d expect from a political organisation. I keep saying this must be the end but the train wreck keeps crashing along. A book that should become a best seller and that should form a storm in the world press. Why do I feel that won’t happen.
    And you tight wads, you’re a disgrace, buy the book and give her the reward that she deserves for this masterpiece of destruction

  56. Hmm… I just want to make sure… is there any proof that the review was actually written by Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute? AFAIK any anonymous troll can register with any name in Amazon and write any type of nonsense there.

  57. Just bought the book, when I have some non-work time I will read it as it will give me some more ammunition to use with the Warmists that surround me at my workplace.

  58. Re: Dagin and Custer:

    You might want to avoid further embarrassment by reading books about the Little Big Horn, not quoting from a movie.

    Just sayin’.

  59. gt says:
    October 17, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    Hmm… I just want to make sure… is there any proof that the review was actually written by Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute? AFAIK any anonymous troll can register with any name in Amazon and write any type of nonsense there.
    ————-

    Smokey says:
    October 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    gt,

    The fact that it’s complete nonsense is proof enough that it was written by Gleick.

    Ha-ha! That reminds me of the joke about the congressman who receives an annoying letter and responds by returning it with a note attached, “I thought you should know that some half-wit has been sending out absurd and embarrassing letters under your name.”

    @gt: I’ve just checked the Amazon site by clicking the “read my reviews” link alongside PG’s name. His other review is from June 2001, a one-star trashing of “Why Energy Conservation Fails.” It’s unlikely he’d have allowed a troll to masquerade online as himself for this long.

  60. Peter Gleick. Isn’t he the one claiming that his analysis has since been verified by numerous independent reviews, showing it to be robust to the inclusion of reading or not reading the book ?

  61. Alexander Feht says:

    Dr. Gleick’s “logic” reminds me of famous words uttered by the first Muslim invader of Egypt in answer to those who implored him not to burn the Library of Alexandria.

    “Those books that contradict Koran must be burned; those books that agree with Koran are superfluous, therefore unnecessary, and must be burned also.”

    It’s a lovely story, but it’s probably not true.

    It is at least as likely that the library was burned during Christian religious riots. (There’s been plenty of Christian nutters with that attitude to heresy too, of course.)

  62. This is an amazingly important book. Thank you Mr W for linking to it and thank you Ms L for writing it. We all need to spread the word about it as widely as possible!

  63. This is surprising?

    It has been going on for a long time.I have looked through many book reviews of climate skepticism books that have been on the Amazon website.They are savagely attacked by the AGW believing club.

    The stupid one star reviews are 99% certain to be posted by people who favor the never verified AGW hypothesis.Gosh even their comments after the bogus reviews make it clear that have serious brain problems.Their counter comments are unbelievably stupid.

    Have you read the one star reviews of the last few Dr. Spenser’s books on Amazon.They are so dumb it is funny.The usual personal attacks and big oil funding are the prominent features.

    This is just the latest dishonest empty headed review drivel from a bogus scientist.

  64. I’ll be ordering the book when the paper back version is available. In fact I’ll be ordering four, one for myself and the remaining for the top three Republican candidates. Mitt is a lost cause but Cain and Perry might benefit.

  65. “THE IPCC PERFORMED NO DUE DILIGENCE before according the hockey stick graph such prominence.”

    And Gleick performed no due diligence before writing his review, which serves to make the book’s claims even more credible.

  66. Thank you Donna, I just purchased a PDF copy of your book. I am looking forward to reading about the IPCC.

  67. I must say I am not sure what is Mr. Gleick complaining about. After purchasing the book (Kindle version) and reading the first page it seems to me that Donna is way too generous to the IPCC :

    “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These reports are informally known as the Climate Bible.”

    IPCC’s job and reason for existence is not to decide what it all means but to find “evidence” for man-made global warming, climate change, climate disruption and all the rest.

  68. Went to Amazon.com. Fantastic reviews. Fast growing number of them, 46 to date.

    So why are cross-references to similar books missing? You know, “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” and “What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?” Normally by this time they’d be in place. And they are in place on the amazon.co.uk website.

    This has been a problem all along (to my perception) – skeptics being ring-fenced by a wall of silence in the “normal” outlets, so that one doesn’t even hear of skeptics arguments, often not until one has been thoroughly brainwashed into believing they are not even worth hearing.

    We know from Willis that Joe Ordinary no longer takes AGW seriously (or at least those who give lifts to hitchhikers don’t). But we also know that politicians are still embroiled, and that Donna herself deliberately targeted her book to reach beyond “preaching to the choir”.

    Just observing.

  69. @gt: I’ve just checked the Amazon site by clicking the “read my reviews” link alongside PG’s name. His other review is from June 2001, a one-star trashing of “Why Energy Conservation Fails.” It’s unlikely he’d have allowed a troll to masquerade online as himself for this long.

    And I don’t think he read that book before the review either !!!

  70. Bought this last night. I will most definitely be leaving a review. However unlike Dr Gleick I shall do the author the courtesy of reading the book first.

    For those pointing out that there are alternatives, software wise, to Kindle such as calibre ( which I use for conversion, even handily converts pdf into .mobi or epub book form to read on kindle and other devices. ) It’s worth mentioning that you can also download Kindle for PC or windows / Android / iphone for free and other software such as mobipocket is available for devices. Once you have a title from kindle it appears in your library across devices. For instance this is available for me to read from my Kindle, on my PC and on my Windows 7 phone. So no excuses for not reading. unlike some, it seems.

  71. I just bought Donna’s book. I look forward to reading it. Sounds like a beaut, if it provoked the nonsense spewed by Peter Gleick.

  72. For those that don’t have a Kindle … you don’t need one. Amazon provides FREE Kindle reader programs for the PC, MAC, iPad, etc.

    As Anthony said at the opening of the article:

    “If you don’t own a Kindle you can read this book on your iPad or Mac via Amazon’s free Kindle Cloud Reader – or on your desktop or laptop via Kindle for PC software”

    I have a Kindle and the free iPad / PC Kindle Reader. I prefer the iPad version.

  73. Did anyone here bother to try to contact Dr Gleick and ask if he had actually read the book?

    Anthony? Anyone?

    It seems to me everyone here has made the assumption that is the case without even checking to see if it’s true.

  74. Rob Honeycutt… good point and to your point: I went into the comments attached to said review exactly twice. The first while the ink on the review was barely dry. After just a couple of comments meant to make him uncomfortable about what he’d written, I do believe I saw the good scientist argue his case in two further posts – neither of which laid claim to his reading of the book he was reviewing. So he missed the opportunity to correct the record. The second time I went in, there were more comments from shocked and appalled contributors, however I do believe the two comments from said scientist above had been deleted. Both visits were hasty, and I could be in error. Anyone wish to corroborate or refute?

  75. Choo-Choo Patchuri in the cab…maybe his real name is Casey Jones from “The Grateful Dead”. “Ridin’ that train, high on cocaine…”

  76. Rob Honeycutt says:
    ” October 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm Did anyone here bother to try to contact Dr Gleick and ask if he had actually read the book? ”

    Last I checked, I think there were several replies to his review on Amazon asking this very question but Dr Gleick has, so far, not bothered to enlighten anyone nor has he explained why Donna LaFramboise is a LIAR…..I wonder why?

    You can expect his review to quietly be disappeared (deleted by the author) sometime soon but not too soon as to draw attention to his revisionism (kind of like we see at Skeptical Science and other CAGW blogs where non-believer posts are deleted and where replies have been revised post facto months later – kind of like the IPCC reports where peer reviewed stuff gets added in before it is published or peer reviewed – yo uknow “post-normal science” as it is called)

  77. Well, Dr. Gleick has a couple of companions in the Amazon reviews, one is a Climate modeler from CO, and the other a school teacher from Oban, Scotland.

    None of these hav read the book, and none have anything substantive to say about the content, just the usual personal attacks and lies we have come to expect from these people.

    I *have* read the book. Its well worth the read. Buy a copy.
    You can find my review on Amazon, and also somewhat more easily here:

    http://thoughtsoftheguru.com/2011/10/the-delinquent-teenager/

  78. @Rob Honeycutt: Amazon keeps track of what you have bought, and if you write a review on something you have bought, the fact is annotated. You can suppress that, but it requires extra work.

    Besides, if you read the book, then this piece of garbage posing as a review, its BLOODY OBVIOUS that he has not read one word of it.

  79. Is Dr. Gleick in mental absentia?
    Being dishonest is never good, he should know.
    This book is so interesting, I can’t stop reading it, and taking notes for my Web pages.
    Thanks Donna, and congratulations again!

  80. Rob Honeycutt says:
    October 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm
    “Did anyone here bother to try to contact Dr Gleick and ask if he had actually read the book?
    It seems to me everyone here has made the assumption …”

    Hey Rob, it’s not an assumption, it’s a deduction. Gleick made at least two false assumptions about the content of the book, so he first revealed that he didn’t read it and then verified that he didn’t read it. What more do you want?

  81. Why isn’t James Delingpole covering Donna’s book or this story about Peter Gleick?

    Where is James – I know he reads WUWT religiously – let us hope he is working on something, as I am sure that he catches many readers and bloggers in his highly popular provocative Telegraph blog.

    I don’t get it. I enjoyed his book Watermelons which was a fun and provocative read and I highly recommend it. However, the difference is that Donna’s book tears apart the IPCC with its OWN rhetoric! It is impossible to refute any of Donna’s claims because she simply takes what the IPCC and its promoters say it does and compares it to what it ACTUALLY does.

    I.E. Donna has caught the IPCC with its own rhetoric.

    I guess one might ask why no lamestream media has picked up the buzz around this new book but I can guess why…..thousands of environmental journalists are jealously thinking …..Damn it! Donna just stole the SCOOP of my career right from under my nose and simply because I was a lazy sod!

  82. Philip Peake says:
    October 18, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    @Rob Honeycutt: Amazon keeps track of what you have bought, and if you write a review on something you have bought, the fact is annotated. You can suppress that, but it requires extra work.

    I alluded to this fact in my comment, which was a large part of Anthony’s start-of-the-thread article. I wrote, “I notice that PG isn’t listed as having purchased the book.”

  83. I attempted to reply at length to another Amazon-commenter like P Gleick, one PJ Clark. I spent over two hours composing my reply. But, because it contained numerous quotations, which is against Amazon’s comment-policy, its software wouldn’t let me post it. Rather than let it go unrefuted, I’m posting his comment and my reply here, and providing a link to this over at Amazon.
    —————

    In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2011 3:26:51 PM PDT

    Mr. PJ Clarke says:
    [Customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]

    LOL! Life is too short to waste on books by dishonest authors, especially when hyped as ‘forensic investigative journalism’

    Of Donna’s ‘unjustly ignored’ hurricane expert, William Gray there are two opposing views, Donna thinks he ‘belongs at the ‘heart of an organisation comprised of world-class scientists’.’ while his erstwhile colleague Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Tech writes:

    “”I am not going to critique Gray’s paper, it is beyond rational critcism, I will save technical comments for such an unlikely event as any of this actually ever gets published. Bill Gray is not a player in the scientific debate, his ideas reflected in the paper referred to at RC are so flawed that they are unpublishable”

    http://climateaudit.org/2006/10/11/bill-gray-presentation/#comment-66515

    Anyone detect a pattern emerging ??
    ————

    My reply:

    PJ Clark writes:
    “erstwhile colleague Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Tech writes:

    “”I am not going to critique Gray’s paper, it is beyond rational criticism, …”

    1. This was published five years ago, in Oct. 2006. At that time Dr. Curry was, I believe, a prominent published proponent of the theory that hurricanes were likely to get worse with AGW and that the recent upsurge hurricane activity in the US was evidence of it. Here’s a comment on the CA thread (click down-page after using the link above) by Jean S. documenting this:

    “Did you come accross this REUTERS story:

    “The coastal regions are in jeopardy. The Miami area and the New Orleans area are very much at risk. We have a 10-year window to do something about greenhouse gases,” said Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

    “STUNNING INCREASES”

    Curry said leading scientists with published research have compelling evidence that human-induced global warming is heating the seas from which hurricanes draw their strength. In the North Atlantic — as the Atlantic north of the equator is called — that has increased both the number and intensity of hurricanes in the last decade, she said. “They are stunning increases that are way outside the bounds of natural variability,” she said.”

    Gray was a scornful critic of such views. JC’s remark should be viewed in the context of that conflict. For instance, a comment later in the CA thread, by Jonathan Schaffer, says:

    “Whether Bill Gray is right or not, given the history between the two, I doubt I would use Judith Curry’s comments as a valid critique of Gray’s speech.”

    2. Later in her comment, Dr. Curry approvingly quoted this, from an interview in the Washington Post:

    “Lindzen, he’s a hard guy to deal with,” Gray says. “He doesn’t think he can learn anything from me.” Which is correct. Lindzen says of Gray: “His knowledge of [AGW] theory is frustratingly poor, but he knows more about hurricanes than anyone in the world. I regard him in his own peculiar way as a national resource.”

    Therefore, she would have approved of such a resource’s being asked to provide reviewer-comments on the IPCC’s chapter ON CYCLONES.

    3. When JC wrote, “Bill Gray is not a player in the scientific debate, his ideas reflected in the paper referred to at RC are so flawed that they are unpublishable,” she was referring to a polemical paper that was an all-out, root-and-branch attack on AGW theory. The “scientific debate” she was referring to was one about AGW theory–not hurricanes. His “cred” there was not what she was attacking.

    Later in the thread Curry wrote, “We do not regard Bill Gray as a player in the scientific debate since he hasn’t published anything, and hence we ignore him.”

    This again softens her criticism (from one of substance to one of form).

    Still later in the thread Curry wrote,

    “in hurricane forecasting, the analogue method is arguably still of some use since numerical weather prediction models still do not do a fabulous job with hurricanes. Bill Gray’s unique contribution to all this was to extend the analogue approach (combined with some statistics) to seasonal hurricane forecasting. Gray’s 50 years of experience in watching hurricanes makes his knowledge of hurricane analogues unique in the world. However, I would argue that this particular expertise does not translate into value in the global warming debate, and its value is becoming increasingly questionable in the seasonal forecasts of hurricanes (a post on this to follow).”

    As it turned out, Gray’s non-alarmist prediction of future hurricane activity has turned out to be correct over the past five years.

    (BTW, Curry has subsequently moved much closer to Gray’s position on AGW theory, becoming the first notable semi-apostate from warmist-alarmism, at least to the point of conceding that dioxide dissenters are making a reasonable case in some instances and warmist-alarmists have over-hyped some of their major claims and behaved in unjustifiable ways.)

    4. See the critical responses to Dr. JC in the thread on CA (linked to above) by Dave Dardinger and Willis Eschenbach, here: http://climateaudit.org/2006/10/11/bill-gray-presentation/#comment-66542 . So JC’s was not the last word on the topic of Gray’s rationality about AGW “science.” For instance, Francois Oellette wrote, of Gray’s article:

    “this is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed paper, and it should be judged as such. Whatever Gray’s scientific views would be, they are not stated the way one would do in a journal article. Not enough detail, not enough references, etc. This was meant for the specific audience of the Marshall Institute, whoever they are.”

    Viewed in this context, JC’s critique doesn’t look like the knock-out punch it was presented as. She was judging it, in part, by inappropriate criteria.

    5. PJ Clark: “Life is too short to waste on books by dishonest authors, …”

    That accusation is based on a misinterpretation of Dr. Curry’s criticism as invalidating Gray’s hurricane-related expertise. (Note that I don’t call you (PJ Clark) dishonest for doing so. It’s tactically and strategically unwise (to say no more) to do so. You didn’t do it deliberately, you just got carried away–and so, to a lesser degree, did Donna’s book. That’s only to be expected from time to time in a polemical work.)

    6. I’ve skimmed only about 30% of the way through the lengthy CA thread, so I’ve probably omitted some relevant stuff, both pro and con.

  84. Roger:
    In reference to Judy Curry’s view of Gray, do you think it is worthwhile simply sending her an email and clarifying whether the view alluded to by Phil has materially changed?

    All this, of course, is beside the point. In retrospect I think that Donna should have chosen less controversial ignored experts, like Reiter appears to be, as her examples or been more circumspect on this particular point or done a more thorough job on who was and was not involved as an author/contributor/editor. I imagine the latter would have been a really tough task but might have been doable with input from academics like Lindzen who are more skeptical about the IPCC effort.

  85. And I replied to him at Curry’s, and offered him a guest post here to explain his reasoning for calling Donna’s book “Lies, misrepresentations, and a bible for climate change deniers,”

    He’s complaining he has no voice here, now he has, we’ll see if he’s capable of using it constructively.

  86. That was quite a performance he made over there. What’s the male equivalent of a prima donna? Unbelievable.

  87. Quote “Anthony Watts says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    And I replied to him at Curry’s, and offered him a guest post here to explain his reasoning for calling Donna’s book “Lies, misrepresentations, and a bible for climate change deniers,”

    He’s complaining he has no voice here, now he has, we’ll see if he’s capable of using it constructively.”

    You meany Anthony! I just read the thread at Judith Curry’s blog and could not help having a cruel chuckle as Peter Gleick appears to be manually digging a bigger and even bigger hole and Anthony Watts wants to loan Peter a motorized back hoe! ROFLMAO

  88. ThePhysicsGuy: So he may have a “Dr.” in front of his name, but so does Dr. Seuss.

    It hardly matters, but Dr. Seuss was a dentist: Theodore Seuss Geisel, D.D.S.

  89. Bernie says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    Roger:
    In reference to Judy Curry’s view of Gray, do you think it is worthwhile simply sending her an email and clarifying whether the view alluded to by Phil has materially changed?

    I wouldn’t want to put her on the spot. And she’s awfully busy with other stuff. And I wouldn’t want to enter into a conversation that might quickly get above my head.
    (I have sent her a couple of e-mails in the past, to which she responded positively. One was a correction of her misuse of “comprise.” (I sent a similar e-mail to Donna L. a few days ago.) The other was a suggestion that she put a motto in a banner atop her site, or wear a button, reading, “What, Me Curry?” (Those are the areas where I can make a contribution: copy editing & wordplay.))

    All this, of course, is beside the point. In retrospect I think that Donna should have chosen less controversial ignored experts, like Reiter appears to be, as her examples or been more circumspect on this particular point or done a more thorough job on who was and was not involved as an author/contributor/editor. I imagine the latter would have been a really tough task but might have been doable with input from academics like Lindzen who are more skeptical about the IPCC effort.

    Yes, I agree. In writing a book like Donna’s, it’s important to avoid leaving openings for counterpunches. Otherwise the believers, after scoring a few points, will declare victory and pronounce the work “debunked,” as they did Plimer’s, etc. But, mostly, Donna’s book is impressive in being moderately worded and avoiding overstatement. I was very impressed–it is the work of a professional journalist who’s “been around the block” a few times.

  90. Over at Judy’s blog Gleick has loudly and repeatedly proclaimed that he read the book before writing the review. Now Anthony has politely requested that he provide a dated sales receipt proving his assertion (with personal information blacked out). Mr. Gleick has suddenly vanished. I do hope he’ll be back soon with that receipt.

  91. Roger Knights says: October 19, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    I attempted to reply at length to another Amazon-commenter like P Gleick, one PJ Clark. I spent over two hours composing my reply. But, because it contained numerous quotations, which is against Amazon’s comment-policy, its software wouldn’t let me post it. Rather than let it go unrefuted, I’m posting his comment and my reply here, and providing a link to this over at Amazon.

    Roger, thanks for doing this. I spent a similar amount of time (going through that same thread at CA) last night – picking up much the same context and content as you had, with the same result on Amazon.
    ===
    And …

    Bernie and Roger [re Donna’s choice of Gray and Morner as IPCC outsiders in Ch. 3]

    IMHO, both Gray and Morner are both acknowledged experts in their fields – albeit, as you note, controversial. And that, I believe, was Donna’s point in Chapter 3: the IPCC opted for modellers, rather than experts. Why should one shy away from someone whom both Curry and Lindzen acknowledge “knows more about hurricanes than anyone in the world”?!

    If one is talking about excluded outsiders with expertise, I doubt she could have found any examples that the CAGW committed would not have attempted to knockdown – even it meant hanging an argument off a wiki quote, as Clarke did with Morner.

    Incidentally in my own (non-published!) reply to Clarke, I had included:

    —begin—
    But I’ll match Clarke’s cherry-picked quote from Judith Curry – and raise him (with some that are more timely – and more relevant to the topic at hand):

    “Climate scientists got lazy and thought communicating that there was a consensus among the scientists was sufficient to convince the public. Now they seem annoyed that this didn’t work and are blaming the journalists.”

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/02/19/on-climate-communication/#comment-47094

    And for a good Morner measure:

    “Threatened island nations have often been used as poster children for dangerous AGW. Issues facing island nations are complex mash of geophysical and societal factors. Tying AGW and sea level rise to the current problems facing the island nations is not at all straightforward. Trying to fix the problems of island nations by reducing CO2 emissions would probably be ineffective, even if stabilization targets are met. ”

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/23/threatened-island-nations/

    —–end—-

    FWIW, my response to Clarke’s “pattern emerging” question:

    YMMV, but I see a very clear pattern: the signal that emerges from Clarke’s noise is quite simply … he’s had at least three strikes … and he’s out.

  92. I’m sad to report that Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has yet to respond to requests for any evidence to support his claims on this forum. This is surprising in light of the literally UNBELIEVABLE speed he claims he purchased Donna’s book, read it and then penned his wildly inaccurate poison review on Amazon (which appears to be a thuggish hit job crafted by a fanatical eco-zealot to slander a book he’d never read with blatant falsehoods in a failed attempt to suppress it).

    After his impressive demonstration of diligence and speed in responding to web postings on Amazon and here, why would one of the world’s apparently fastest web “quick responders” suddenly go completely silent right after being asked to produce an anonymized receipt dated before his “review”? I find his stony silence particularly egregious since he rudely and pompously accused our host of besmirching his vaunted honor and DEMANDED a correction and apology – when it appears he was guilty as charged all along.

    A more jaded person than myself might begin to suspect that Peter Gleick has now proven himself to be an unethical and compulsive serial liar. I guess a cynic might find such gross deception to be unsurprising and, in fact, entirely normal behavior for an acolyte of the man-made global warming religious cult. However, it would sadden me because I like to think all my fellow humans possess a moral compass that guides them to act with honor and speak the truth. Perhaps some people have rationalized those quaint old notions about telling lies into a new kind of “post-normal truth” that isn’t a violation of basic human decency if it’s done by very special people who are much smarter than everyone else, who can lie with the purest of intentions – and only when they’re sure those they harm with their lies are all evil. Then, it’s not only OK to lie, it’s actually noble.

    Perhaps I’m just another “pre-normal” skeptic that isn’t smart or pure enough to comprehend the moral relativity of it all because I’m teaching my kid what my parents taught me. That ethics don’t change no matter the cause or the opponent. That even the most noble ends can never justify corrupt means.

  93. Mark says: @ October 22, 2011 at 2:12 am

    “…. I guess a cynic might find such gross deception to be unsurprising and, in fact, entirely normal behavior for an acolyte of the man-made global warming religious cult. However, it would sadden me because I like to think all my fellow humans possess a moral compass that guides them to act with honor and speak the truth. Perhaps some people have rationalized those quaint old notions about telling lies into a new kind of “post-normal truth” that isn’t a violation of basic human decency if it’s done by very special people who are much smarter than everyone else, who can lie with the purest of intentions – and only when they’re sure those they harm with their lies are all evil. Then, it’s not only OK to lie, it’s actually noble.

    Perhaps I’m just another “pre-normal” skeptic that isn’t smart or pure enough to comprehend the moral relativity of it all because I’m teaching my kid what my parents taught me. That ethics don’t change no matter the cause or the opponent. That even the most noble ends can never justify corrupt means.”
    _______________________________________________

    It depends on where you are coming from. To a collectivist lying to advance the “agenda” (Global Governance) is “moral” This type of “logic” has even reached the main stream and “free thinking skeptics” are now considered “Mentally Ill”

    “Is nonconformity and freethinking a mental illness?

    According to the newest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it certainly is. The manual identifies a new mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed…..

    New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases.

    And there are treatments available.

    …. A Washington Post article observed that, if Mozart were born today, he would be diagnosed with ADD and “medicated into barren normality.”

    ……The Soviet Union used new “mental illnesses” for political repression. People who didn’t accept the beliefs of the Communist Party developed a new type of schizophrenia. They suffered from the delusion of believing communism was wrong. They were isolated, forcefully medicated, and put through repressive “therapy” to bring them back to sanity…… “http://www.offthegridnews.com/2010/10/08/is-free-thinking-a-mental-illness/

    CAGW by itself is bad enough but when you add in the “logic” behind the scene it becomes truly frightening. The UN has made no secret that it wants “Global Governance” with the UN itself as the overarching government. One can not separate this goal from anything and everything the UN has its fingers in.

    The migration of the “movers and shakers” in local politics into the UN is a big clue to what is really going on.

    It is no coincidence that ex-PM Tony Blair now works for the UN and JP Morgan Chase.

  94. Anthony,

    Peter Gleick says on Judith Curry’s blog that you censor him here and he cannot reply to your allegations. Is this true?

    [REPLY: No, it is not true. If Peter Gleick cares to respond here, he will be published. -REP]

Comments are closed.