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.
Exp says:
February 26, 2012 at 12:17 am
Many of us skeptics enjoy “slapstick” humour. We find it amusing to see a self-righteous foaming at the mouth pseudo scientist trip over his own ego and do a full face plant in pig manure. Anthony has endured endless insult and disparagement from the anointed since founding his blog so a bit of schadenfreude may be balm to his blistered hide. Glieck’s swan dive into the empty pool is just too delicious not to savour.
Robin Hewitt says:
February 26, 2012 at 3:22 am
“Hard not to revel in a little schaden froh I suppose, but if you’re having fun it isn’t war, it’s sport.”
May I help you: schadenfroh adj. schadenfreude noun ;^)
Btw. Gleick might be the yiddish form of german “glück” meaning luck …
Terry says:
February 26, 2012 at 1:29 am
—————————————————————————————————–
Kudos!!!
Your post is a reminder to us all that this issue isn’t about the dueling claims of scientists. It centers upon the impact of overbearing governmental policies and edicts on real peoples’ lives and the near-blind faith that many governments are placing in one set of data. You put that forth in spades, Terry!
I think FakeGate is deceptive, but has a better ring to it than the more accurate Peter Gleick’s lies and crimes.
In reply to DirkH.
Hi Dirk,
I think we are mostly in agreement as to what is the problem. The solution to this problem requires education and a discussion of the facts. Almost all people how are interested in a discussion of the issues and the facts and who support practical and effective government, will find common ground.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/25/gleick-declares-in-manns-book-review-after-phishing-heartland-there-is-a-war-on/#comment-904829
”William Astley says:
February 26, 2012 at 3:19 am
“Enough is enough. This is not a right vs left issue. This is war for the truth. Insanity is insanity. ”
DirkH says:
“I disagree. You will find more people on the right than on the left who will tell you that optimal resource allocation needs a price signal to work, and more on the left who insist on price-fixing schemes to create their desired dream world. You mentioned the squandered trillions, and that is the inevitable result of large scale price fixing; it always ends like that. At the German electricity exchange, spot market prices go negative when the wind is blowing strongly. This is a worse result than Soviet-style planned economy; it’s an unmitigated legislative desaster produced by a Red-Green government and not stopped by a later conservative government.
The Left has by definition a greater talent of wrecking stuff that used to work. When was the last time activists have done something productive? They thrive on destruction.”
William says:
Dirk, I do not disagree with your observation that there are environmental extremists who believe in a fantasy where people live in communes, washing clothes by hand, and growing their own food. A policy to force that type of change would most certainly lead to complete economic collapse, starvation, and will not be supported by voters. It is a ludicrous fantasy.
The public does not understand, however, that the wind farm type policy is also a fantasy. They believe that it is practical and being stopped by big industry rather than by engineering and accounting reality.
The wind farm type policy will also lead to economic collapse turning Western countries into versions of Greece. It is important that people understand that well meaning green schemes are not viable for engineering and economic reasons. Governments have limited funds. There are no magic wands available to change engineering and economic reality.
An energy scheme that does work for engineering and economic reasons should not be supported by either the Democrats or the Republicans. The problem is communication of the truth. The strategy to fight and to win the war against the AGW and Environmental fantasy is with the truth. The truth is on the side of the so called sceptics. The term “sceptics” is inappropriate as the truth does not belong to any group.
I completely agree with your comments concerning wind farms. There are wind farm after wind farm that were constructed in Europe in central continental areas where there is insufficient wind for an economic wind farm. The wind farms have been constructed using subsides. That is a complete waste of public funds.
Wind farms require energy storage. There is no economic energy storage. Those advocating wind farms suggest a fantasy “smart energy” grid that can magically move electric power thousands of miles without energy loss. That is not impossible. Super high voltage lines costs billions of dollars and requires massive movement of power from region to region to be justified. There is insufficient power to justify the super high voltage power lines.
Scientific America has a fantasy article written in this month’s issue that at least acknowledges that storage is required. The fantasy article notes Denmark gets 20% of their power from wind farms and then explains Denmarks sells all of their wind power to Norway which produces power from hydro which can be turned off and on. This limited hydro electric power in Europe, in the US, Asia, and in Africa.
The article notes that the Danes have the most expensive electric power in Europe. Ironically oil revenue rich Denmark can use their surplus oil revenue to pay for a power scheme that does not make economic sense. In addition Denmark has a population of 5.5 million people and has one of the best locations in Europe for wind generation.
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary “greenhouse” gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.
A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, “Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?,” July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark’s wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark’s glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation’s electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark’s total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-power-in-denmark/turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.
Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe.
Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of “conventional” capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable.
Windfarms provide no useful electricity
Richard S Courtney
This paper is the explanation provided by Richard S Courtney of why it is not possible for electricity from windfarms to be useful to the UK electricity grid. The explanation was presented at the 2004 Conference of “Groups Opposed to Windfarms in the UK.” It includes explanation of why use of windfarms is expensive and increases pollution from electricity generation.
http://www.aweo.org/windCourtney1.html
[Rather “An energy scheme that does [not] work for engineering and economic reasons..? Robt]
The climate extremists appear to be distorting and manipulating data to push an agenda. If truth is on your side, drive the facts as nails, until the opposing side surrenders.
Attacking the man, with calls of denier and appeals to the science is over is a clear indication that facts are not on the side of the climate extremists.
“Lying is done with words and also with silence.” Adrienne Rich
Seagate
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
…The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites gives a rate of 0.5 mm/year to 0.6 mm/year (Burton 2010). A better approach, however, is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsided areas (Figure 4). This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change, as discussed above). These sites give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1.0 (± 1.0) mm/year. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry, and the smell of a “sea-levelgate” gets stronger.
When the satellite altimetry group realized that the 1997 rise was an ENSO signal, and they extended the trend up to 2003, they seemed to have faced a problem: There was no sea level rise visible, and therefore a “reinterpretation” needed to be undertaken. (This was orally confirmed at the Global Warming meeting held by the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in 2005, which I attended). Exactly what was done remains unclear, as the satellite altimetry groups do not specify the additional “corrections” they now infer. In 2003, the satellite altimetry record (Aviso 2003) suddenly took a new tilt—away from the quite horizontal record of 1992-2000, seen in Figures 5 and 6—of 2.3 (±0.1) mm/year (Figure 7).
As reported above regarding such adjustments, an IPCC member told me that “We had to do so, otherwise it would not be any trend,” and this seems exactly to be the case. This means that we are facing a very grave, if not to say, unethical, “sea-level-gate.” Therefore, the actual “instrumental record” of satellite altimetry (Figure 10) gives a sea level rise around 0.0 mm/year. This fits the observational facts much better, and we seem to reach a coherent
picture of no, or, at most, a minor (in the order of 0.5 mm/yr), sea level rise over the last 50 years.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PastRecords.pdf
Estimating future sea level changes from past records by Nils-Axel Mörner
In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of + 10 +/- 10 cm (or +5 +/- 5 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.
Hurricane Gate
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
..The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record… Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
William Astley said: “We had rapidly heading towards “green insanity”.
If you leave out the word “green” you are invited to appreciated an even deeper look at contemporary culture that reveals how a successful attack on common sense has allowed AGW theory to be cast out of thin air indeed in a way that is a merely symptomatic of how the nerve is driven out of kids these days.
“In fifty years there will be nothing in Europe but Presidents of Republics, not one King left. And with those four letters K-I-N-G, go the priests and the gentlemen. I can see nothing but candidates paying court to draggletailed majorities.” – Stendhal, 1830 (“The Red And The Black”)
Poor Gleick. He brought a forged document to a gun fight.
Exp:
??
“anything they do is justified” — ?? But what about you? (You’re the ones in the spotlight in this case – or haven’t you noticed?.)
Seriously, are you sure you’re on the right thread? Or has the leftwing tendency to defuse criticism through false equivalences begun to run amuck?
Terry at 1:29 am said it for me. I, too, reside in what was once the ‘scepter’d Isle’ but, alas, no longer. Now I am but a statistic in the EU-designated UKJ24/45UD/45UDHJ/Selsey North/10178750 Local Administrative Unit (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/local_administrative_units), it’s found in this terrifying document: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction
I once was retired but a fixed income is no longer capable of keeping my wife and me alive so I’m going back to work. Petrol here costs US$5.30 per US gallon, diesel costs US$5.51 per US gallon, so driving to work is out, and in April the tax on these fuels is due to rise. Rail fares cannot be believed: from home to London, a journey of 80+ miles would cost me US$421 per week return. Rail fares are going up, too, in April
This winter we can afford to have heating for 4 hours a day, even when the outside temperature drops below zero centigrade. I now keep rabbits and chickens as a food source, contrary to local by-laws. I grow whatever vegetables I can in my now-extended vegetable plot in the garden in an effort to be able to eat adequately. Beef is now US$8 per pound and there’s another food scare raising it’s ugly head (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106685/Virus-kills-lambs-Britain-amid-fears-disease-spread-humans.html) That can only mean higher prices still.
All of this because everything is going up in price because the price of ENERGY of any sort is constantly rising to pay for windmills and other such nonsensical schemes.
‘Green’ is working to drive us back to the Middle Ages but without the benefit of their Warm Period! How do I know? I’m living with the consequences right now and it is NOT pleasant.
[Stephen Brown says:
February 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm]
Sorry to hear of your plight. Unfortunately, with a re-election of comrade obama, we will be joining you in short order.
Terry, Stephen, thank you for the warning and foreshadowing of what’s in store for us here in the US. Amazing isn’t it that AGW is sending us back to a peon/aristocrate social structure. We even have a new high church with its own heirachy (sp?).
BTW: I’d rather read Mann’s UVA e-mails than his book.
The new church may even have its first martyr. (Sorry about the spelling, I’ve temporarily lost my dictionary)
Funny how Peter Gleick or Desmog never attacked Big Oil funding of University of Manitoba here in Canada…
http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/environment/index.html
Clayton H. Riddell, alias Mr. Paramount Resources… $10 million donation and recently another $2.5 million…
Oh and in 2010, the Harper government and its decidely impopular Minister Toews managed to get another $10 million funding:
“News Release: University of Manitoba Home to New Climate Change Dream Team
May 17th, 2010 · No Comments · Environment and Geography, News Release
The University of Manitoba received a $10-million Canada Excellence Research Chair (CERC) in Arctic Geomicrobiology and Climate Change today, transforming its sea ice research group into the world’s most comprehensive and innovative climate change institution. (…)
The Canada Excellence Research Chairs and Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship program are an important part of the Government of Canada’s science and technology strategy,” said the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety. “By helping our universities attract and retain the world’s best and brightest minds, these programs are helping Manitoba develop and apply leading-edge knowledge, grow a world-class workforce, and position Canada as a true destination of choice for the world’s top students and researchers.”
Yes UofM, that’s the home of Dr Barber of rotten ice fame… “Maple Leaf” forever!
Come on Suzuki, Hoggan… denounce the Tories/Big Oil conspiracy… LOL