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.
Choo-Choo Patchuri in the cab…maybe his real name is Casey Jones from “The Grateful Dead”. “Ridin’ that train, high on cocaine…”
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)
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/
@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.
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!
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?
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!
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.”
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.
—————
My reply:
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:
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:
2. Later in her comment, Dr. Curry approvingly quoted this, from an interview in the Washington Post:
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.
This again softens her criticism (from one of substance to one of form).
Still later in the thread Curry wrote,
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:
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.
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.
Gleick just showed up at Curry’s denying that he didn’t read the book. FWIW.
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.
That was quite a performance he made over there. What’s the male equivalent of a prima donna? Unbelievable.
I think you’re supposed to say “brava!”.
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
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.
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.))
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.
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.
Roger Knights says: October 19, 2011 at 12:20 pm
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.
Dang. No Nick Stokes stellar book review?
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.
Mark says: @ur momisugly 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.
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]