From Amazon’s list of Gleick book reviews here
Must read — for the real history of the climate debate and the war by deniers,
Michael Mann — a world class scientist and communicator about the seriousness of climate change — has finally put all of the recent history (sordid, indeed) about climate denial, attacks on climate scientists, and serial and intentional efforts by climate “skeptics” and “deniers” (a word many of them self-apply) into a book. As the title suggests, there IS a war on. That war is not really about the science, as Mann shows, but about efforts to confuse the public and policymakers by pretending the science is wrong (it isn’t) and by attacking the scientists who are willing to speak about it publicly.
Much of the contents of the book is old news: we know about the efforts to slander/libel the work of Mann, which led to seven public formal independent reviews, each of which confirmed the accuracy of his work (described well in the book); we know about the efforts of serial deniers to confuse policy makers and the public (in fact, take a look at how the trolls are being marshalled to insult and criticize the book here at Amazon!).
If you are up in the air about the science of climate change; if you are interested in the true history of the battles between scientists on one side and often-paid skeptics on the other hand, get this book. Toward the end, Mann talks about the misinterpreted, out-of-context emails stolen from a university in the UK, with the observation and famous quote “If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.” This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked piece of information to argue against climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science. Mann carefully and clearly describes that episode in a way that — if you had previously been confused by the rhetoric — will convince you that the science is stronger than ever.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wonder if he actually read this on?
The man has no shame.
Gleick – “All’s fair in love and climate wars.”
I wonder if he read it?
“If you give me dozens of pages written by the most honest man, an award-winning genius will have to – erm – disseminate an extra fake page to hang himself.”
In the immortal words of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon (The Simpson’s Shopkeep), “Why don’t you just shut-up. I cannot believe you are still talking. Please shut-up.”
Just shows to goes ya – there’s no recovery from stoooppid
Ha ha ha ha …Look at this
http://www.real-science.com/complete-list-forged-climategate-mails
I can’t believe Gleick wrote this. It’s actually more or less literate.
Maybe some anonymous person sent it to him to use as a review, and …. Nahhh. That’s too far-fetched.
I politely request again that people vote with their Amazon buttons: http://amzn.to/xam4iF (Kindle version here as well)
Thank you.
Emails stolen from a back-up server? I don’t see it – it was an inside job by somebody who was unhappy with the lies.
When I heard that the UAE had started deleting emails I phoned them, as it’s kind of on my doorstep. They said it was to do with copyright. If such incriminating stuff was left on, one can only wonder: what the hell was in the deleted documents?
The man evidently has no capacity for objective thought. That should disqualify him from any scientific role but, in the climate game, the reverse is true: objective, dispassionate analysis is frowned upon.
How very sad.
“This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked piece of information to argue against climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science.”
_________________________________________________________________________
An excellent summary of the “Hockey Stick Illusion.” Well done Peter!
Oh. Wait……….
How painfully ironic. Everything Gleick says is exactly what he and his ilk do: use bad science and mislead the public. Oddly enough, skeptics are not often paid, but the alarmists are given billions of dollars. If they science truly was settled, this whole “war” wouldn’t be going on.
I am sick of these pseudo-scientists trying to defend their case while lying horribly while doing so. And now Gleick is getting a taste of his own medicine.
“Mann carefully and clearly describes that episode in a way that — if you had previously been confused by the rhetoric — will convince you that the
sciencestench is stronger than ever.”There. Fixed it.
Mr Gleick also plans to publish Notes from the Gallows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Fu%C4%8D%C3%ADk_(journalist)#Notes_from_the_Gallows
Don’t forget, the debate is over. He is a board member of the Heartland Institute and man-made climate change is real.
Gixxxerboy
It’s not so much that he has no capacity for objective thought, it’s that he seemingly lacks all self-awareness that he’s not objective. It’s actually stunning. I can’t quite bring myself to believe it.
I plan on never reading Mann’s book, and therefore would never CONSIDER posting a review of same. I hope other CAGW cynics don’t pull a “Peter Gleick” by posting reviews to books they haven’t read.
They could solve this dilemma by engaging in public debates. However, they run so fast the dust has settled before a sceptic can refute one of their outrageous claims.
They admit stacking the peer review, IPCC, committees of review and journal processes with their own people.
They have lost every court case decisively when they have had to present facts.
They love court for its blocking of genuine and properly submitted FOI permission.
Their much vaunted ETS schemes have collapsed one after the other or on the brink of it. Fraudulent certificates have stripped hundreds of millions if not billions from their schemes, without affecting emmissions or global temperatures 1 iota.
They set back the case for computer modelling and mathematics enormously by refusing to follow necessary set procedures.
They have diminished science by pretending post normal science was the new wave.
They do not have 1 shred of integrity.
Simple question:
Why has Gleick not been arrested yet? Do you Americans only go for foreigners or something?
How many posts have you made now in defence of Heartland, Anthony?
“Fakegate”? If I didn’t know better, I’d be led to believe that is an assertion that all the documents were fake. Isn’t that a deception? At the least it is a blatant propaganda tool. A sceptical person would certainly be wondering and questioning.
Got to hand it to you – a very effective smokescreen has been created for HI.
What about when the smoke clears?
It’s funny to watch people who are involved in “war”. Those of us watching on the outside are left wondering what has possessed people to become so unaware of their own behavior in their belief that they are on the “right” side and therefore, anything they do is justified.
I’m sure you’ve got the self-justification on the EA emails versus the HI docs nicely settled in your mind. Thats the main thing as you go about your obsessively vindictive campaign against Gleick.
Living by the sword? Although, I’d say swordplay was a lot more honorable.
It took a while, but I think it is now correct:
Michael Mann — a world class pseudo-scientist and communicator about the supposed seriousness of climate change — has finally put all of the recent history (sordid, indeed) about: i) the clear and obvious logic of climate sceptics, ii) the justified attacks on the lack of integrity of “climate scientists”, and iii) the serial and intentional machinations to deceive of the CAGW cult, regularly exposed by climate “skeptics” and “deniers” (a word many of them never self-apply) into a book. As the title suggests, there IS a war on. That war is about the science, a subject in which Mann claims to be an expert, about efforts by establishment “climate scientists” to confuse the public and policymakers by pretending the “science” is correct (it isn’t), and of sceptic attacks on “scientists” who refuse to debate the subject in public for obvious reasons.
Much of the contents of the book is old news: we know about the efforts to expose the work of Mann, along with his own unique interpretation of mathematics and tree rings, which led to seven public pal reviews, each of which confirmed the accuracy of his work in its ability to distort and torture the facts (described well in the book); we know about the efforts of serial sceptics to confuse policy makers and the public by presenting them with the real facts, not fiction, of climate change (in fact, take a look at how the trolls are being marshalled to praise and idolize the book here at Amazon!).
If you are up in the air about the science of climate change; if you are interested in the true history of the battles between scientists on one side and exceptionally well-paid proponents of CAGW fantasy (warmists) on the other hand, then you need to ignore this book. Towards the end, Mann talks about the sceptics’ correct interpretion of emails stolen from a university in the UK, with the observation and famous quote “If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.” This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked pieces of information to argue for man made climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science. Mann carefully and clearly describes that episode in a way that — if you had previously been confused by the rhetoric — that will convince you that the funding given to the practioners of CAGW “climate science” is greater than ever before, one fact agreed by both warmists and sceptics..
Setting aside the defamatory material about scientists, you don’t see just a hint of inconsistency in your argument:
” sceptic attacks on “scientists” who refuse to debate the subject in public for obvious reasons.”
and:
“If you are up in the air about the science of climate change; if you are interested in the true history of the battles between scientists on one side and exceptionally well-paid proponents of CAGW fantasy (warmists) on the other hand, then *you need to ignore this book*.”
Then:
“pretending the “science” is correct (it isn’t)”
Ah, yes, you sound like someone worth debating with. You just self-confirmed you’re not a sceptic.
“Last few dispatches from the Bunker” would be a better sub-title!
Right now Mann is ordering non existent Divisions into Attack and being defended by old men and school children!
wte9
Yes, that’s very perceptive. Thank you. No self awareness of his own lack of objectivity.
It’s a tough one, and I try to pinch myself regularly, plunge into Tamino or Realclimate or others, and see the other side of the fence. Once or twice that has raised questions in my mind but mostly I felt like taking a shower.
Its not just blinkers or groupthink. I recognise it as the same spittle-flecked ideological fascism I encountered at (UK) University in late 70s/early 80s. Skillful infiltration by the Socialist Workers’ Party (via Socialist Workers/ Student Organisation – SWSO – at one time the largest grouping on campus) and British Communist Party.
This is not to back up the Watermelon theory. I am not saying all warmists are leftists. But they do follow the same MO; the same ideological blinkers.
Exp.
Walking on mirrors.