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,
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Hu Bris
£3.26 – just bought the pdf version
@Matthew W
More chance of promotion probably
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
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.
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.
I guess he doesn’t need to read the book because he saw the model.
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
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.
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.
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.
More proof that climate skeptics are far more literate than the alarmists.
http://www.desmogblog.com/little-knowledge-why-biggest-problem-climate-skeptics-may-be-their-confidence
Contrary to PGleick and the other alarmists we do read and go through all the peer-reviewed literature to read what actually is in there.
@Hu Bris
£3.26 – just bought the pdf version too! – Thanks for the heads up 🙂
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.
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.
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!
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.
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/
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.
Smokey,
POS = Person of Science?
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’.
Someone better get a screen shot before “Dr. G” pulls his own review. It’s going to happen.
Peter Gleick is just an author trying to defend his industry. For the uninitiated that is the industry of unsubstantiated fears.
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!
So, essentially, Dr. Peter “Troll” Gleick was just out trolling trying to be all the comrade he can be.
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.
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