Bishop Hill Sensitivity analysis
Oct 23, 2011 Climate: other Hilary Ostrov is taking some potshots at poor old Peter Gleick, who seems to have made himself look a bit foolish by jumping up and down accusing Donna LaF of lying and then failing to provide any evidence of such lies.
I have my own little anecdote on this subject too. You will recall that it was suggested some time ago that Gleick had written his review of the Delinquent Teenager without actually having read the book. At the time I thought I'd ask if this was true, so I sent him a tweet. This is the subseqent exchange.
Bishop Hill: @PeterGleick Did you really review Donna's book without reading it?
Peter Gleick: I've read it. Ugh. If I could have given it 0 stars on Amazon, i would have.
Bishop Hill: Are you disputing the facts or the interpetation?
Peter Gleick: Yes.
At this point, Barry Woods joined in.
Barry Woods: Bit puzzled by that…@Adissentient asked if you dispute facts OR interpretation of Donna's book? Facts seem factual 2 me?
Peter Gleick: No, spending more time reviewing this piece of crap is a waste of MY time and electrons.
At this point he appears to have blocked me from following him on Twitter - I know there are glitches in the system, but I'm still blocked three days later, so I'm pretty sure that he has genuinely put a block in place.
He does seem like a sensitive soul.
Reader Comments (61)
His actions only add more weight to what Donna repeatedly outlines in her book.
There is a MO under which many of the CAGW faithful seem to conform.
Gleick is a prime example - uninformed and biased to the max.
"He does seem like a sensitive soul."
Andrew Montford
Or maybe he regrets the time he feels is wasted on reviewing that book, and feels roughly the same way about time spent interacting with you?
Your chief modus operandus is nit-picking and claiming it's significant. This is a very clear and identifiable technique, which could easily be seen as a form of attack to hide a lack of defence.
Some people simply can't be bothered with engagement down that route. Shutting you out, and refusing to play your game, doesn't mean he was thinking about you more than 1 second after the block was set up.
His a naughty child that been caught out lying and is to stubborn to admit to it , at least that is how he is behavior. Best idea ignore, as his making a fool of himself.
Z. Peter is very suivk to use media like Twitter and blogs, like Forbes and huff to put out a public message.. yet appears unwilling to do much besides preach..
His comments at Climate Etc are particularly enlightening, especially his failure to respond to Richard Tol.
I don't quite agree with that analysis.
Gleick is one of those sad inadequates who has a major emotional commitment to the success of the Green/Left viewpoint, and does all his reading and writing with that imperative driving him on.
It doesn't make him uninformed, just that all the information gets slanted through that rage-filled Green/Left prism, and thus is fatally biased.
"Gleick is one of those sad inadequates"
Oct 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM | Rick Bradford
Rick. In your mind, is this somehow not abusive?
You may wish to grow a pair and apologise.
I'm disputing facts. Reiter and Morner have served on IPCC . Donna says they havent . Donna is wrong.
As I recall Reiter, a world class dual-hat expert on both bugs and tropical infectious disease, quit the IPCC in disgust because they severely exaggerated the forecast of effects from warming.
I, like some people named Peter, have not read the book. I don't know Donna's claim. But that Reiter served, behaved maturely, and left, seems to me to endorse not refute the "teenager" claim.
"Some people simply can't be bothered with engagement down that route. Shutting you out, and refusing to play your game, doesn't mean he was thinking about you more than 1 second after the block was set up."
Your interjections are rarely worth thinking about for a second, but BH doesn't feel the need to block you.
If Gleick is willing to give substance to his 'review', then we can decide for ourselves whether he is justified.
His review revealed no indication that he even bothered to read the book in the first place.
What an embarrassment to science he really is!!!!!
"If Gleick is willing to give substance to his 'review', then we can decide for ourselves whether he is justified."
Oct 23, 2011 at 1:06 PM | DaveS
The guy is trying to increase global water access. He has to decide how to use his time.
He could quite feasibly make a trade off of 'respond to fringe blog/save someone's life'.
I know which decision I'd make. Doesn't mean he's throwing a hissy fit though.
"When the intent is to 'Save The World' facts matter for naught. It is also a waste of one's valuable and very limited time on the planet to engage with anyone who even slightly disagrees with you. Always remember. Time is Money!, Money Talks!, Nobody Walks! Save The Planet! Run! Run! Run!" (An extract of 'Marx And Climate - 101', V.I. Lemon Jr. PhD, MD, GP, PM, CPL,OBWe) ((SarcOff))
I don't think he thinks we can be 'saved'.
Gleick is a piece of work. This is an exchange I had with him last year. Comments seem to have been bansihed though.
Running and hiding seems to be his modus operandi.
http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2010/12/30/the-2010-climate-b-s-of-the-year-award/
See Zed is back after the recent kicking at the DM. Made her quite aggressive too.
Always funny to see them projecting all over the place. In fact it seems to have become quite a popular method lately to accuse us "deniers" of pretty much all their failings. Best one is that we have all the money of course.
Got to go, BP money truck just pulling into the drive, and I don't want him to hit any of the peacocks....
@ZedsDeadBed Oct 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Well, in his very laudable efforts in “trying to increase global water access”, he still found time to, apparently, read Donna’s book. He still managed to find the time to write and submit a review of said book onto the Amazon web-site. He then even managed to find the time to both read and subsequently enter the debate at Judy’s place, including finding the time to call Judy a liar and insist on her changing her headpost. Yet, he doesn’t seem able to find the time to justify his review of Donna’s book or answer anyone’s quite reasonable questions, including those of our host, on how he managed to arrive at such an opinion on it. Hmmm…….
Oct 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM | LC
All valid points. I'm not saying it's definitely the way I paint it. I'm certainly saying that Andrew is not in a position to draw the conclusions he does from the blocking. Doing so, exposes a disconnect between evidence available, and conclusions drawn, a mile wide.
Notice how my comments include mature, realistic words like 'feasibly', 'could' 'maybe' etc. Most of the commentors here, and seemingly the host, extrapolate from scant facts to full-blown black and white positions. This is normally a hallmark of desperation and insecurity, which might reflect the lack of science or evidence to support the views generally held here.
Strange that their site doesn't mention him and his site doesn't mention them.
Or is it?
It was a bad week for Peter Gleick. He also got clobbered by David Whitehouse (GWPF) for his article in Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/10/20/breaking-news-the-earth-still-goes-around-the-sun-and-its-still-warming-up/
" The guy is trying to increase global water access.
So are WaterAid. They're out there building pipelines and sinking wells and installing sanitary facilities and saving lives. I am a great supporter.
Strange that their site doesn't mention him and his site doesn't mention them.
Or is it?"
Oct 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM | Mike Jackson
As so often with you, your comment seems to lack a point.
Are you claiming he's not trying to combat water scarcity?
Are you claiming that people not working with Water Aid are somehow wasting their time?
What's strange about the lack of interaction between the two?
@ZDB "modus operandus" Not carelessness this time, just ignorance of the genitive.
"realistic words like 'feasibly', 'could' 'maybe' etc. Most of the commentors here, and seemingly the host, extrapolate from scant facts to full-blown black and white positions. "
hmm I am confused about this...aren't the 'deniers' the ones who want these words to be seen in respect to the claims by the warminista's.. Isn't there a debate going on out there about the lack of the prominance of such words in so called 'peer reviewed' scientific papers..and if so Isn't the science settled then ?
Are you saying that the theory of human caused global warming is not open to doubt since these words don't appear very often in the outpourings of the warminista's?
Zeds - 'Notice how my comments include mature, realistic words like 'feasibly', 'could' 'maybe' etc'.
And Gleick uses 'liar' and 'lies' etc
Not quite the 'mature, realistic words' you would use (and that we have come to expect from you).
Your own restraint in using such words does rather highlight the usage by others.
Regards
@ZedsDeadBed Oct 23, 2011 at 1:58 PM
Try reading what the Bish said again:
“At this point he appears to have blocked me from following him on Twitter - I know there are glitches in the system, but I'm still blocked three days later, so I'm pretty sure that he has genuinely put a block in place.”
I don’t read that comment as a black and white statement at all and I fail to see how you can suggest that it is. Notice the “mature, realistic words like” “appears” and “pretty sure”, as well as the added rider of “I know there are glitches in the system”. As for what other commenters say, you need to bear in mind that most, if not all, don’t rely on this site alone when forming their opinions. They do exactly the same as me and, hopefully, you and use a variety of other blogs, sites, articles and papers to garner their information. In this particular case, when all available information is taken into consideration, there seems to be little alternative but to arrive at the same conclusions regarding Dr Gleick’s part in all this as many of those here have. If Dr Gleick is unhappy with those conclusions and feels they are unfair or wrong, then maybe he should just make time for five more minutes to put the record straight.
Try reading what the Bish said again:
“At this point he appears to have blocked me from following him on Twitter - I know there are glitches in the system, but I'm still blocked three days later, so I'm pretty sure that he has genuinely put a block in place.”.
Oct 23, 2011 at 2:52 PM | LC
Andrew then goes on to say "He does seem like a sensitive soul.", which is deduction with insufficient evidence. And I guess that's why you missed that bit out when you were C and P'ing.
Did you really think I wouldn't go back up and check what Andrew wrote?
Gleick seems to have a very bad case of tiny penis syndrome that causes him to be terminally angry and act stupidly.
We should pity the poor lad as he trashes his own reputation in public and repeatedly makes a tragic fool of himself.
Self inflicted damage is always the longest lasting.
"Gleick seems to have a very bad case of tiny penis syndrome"
Oct 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM | Fred from Canuckistan
And to think there are people that try and kid themselves that this blog is some form of scientific exchange of views. It's often nothing more than an abusive hate-tract.
I was also blocked by Gleick for what I assume are the same reasons.
It's not the first time I've challenged him to demonstrate that he's read what he's criicising.
He could either say he hasnt read something and that it isnt worth his time - his time and a perfectly reasonable position.
Or he could read it, criticise and expect to be engaged on that criticism.
But criticising without apparently reading is a disingenuous strategy and one that should rightly backfire.
zed: Gleick was challenged to show which facts that Donna presented were false. Gleick has ignored all requests.
ergo, he can't produce such refutations, and his allegations are false.
Who you like to step in, and perhaps point out Donna's falsehoods?
ps - the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegations (Gleick)
@Oct 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM | Hengist
"I'm disputing facts. Reiter and Morner have served on IPCC . Donna says they havent . Donna is wrong."
I'm disputing facts too. Exactly where did Donna say they haven't served on IPCC? Certainly not anywhere in Delinquent Teenager.
Did you just make this up or can't you understand plain English?
Vote Green, go blue:
http://www.maxfarquar.com/2011/10/green-policies-green-tax-cold-related-deaths/
An alarmist refusing to, or unable to, support anything they say with any facts and depending on rudeness and censorship. Who would have expected that, again. ;-)
@Zed'sDeadHead
"Or maybe he regrets the time he feels is wasted on reviewing that book, and feels roughly the same way about time spent interacting with you?"
It is a matter of huge regret that (despite your regular protestations to the contrary) you don't feel that your "time spent interacting" here is a waste of your time and resolve to buzz off and never return; which would be most welcome to me and many others who are bored of your vapid and inane troll comments.
As you apparently consider that this is "often nothing more than an abusive hate-tract" it does beg the question why you are continually drawn to return. And it is clear that anything short of the euphoric and uncritical adulation of your "Team" heroes (in the manner that the X-Factor audience pays tribute to the latest pimpled crooner) is painful to you. If uncritical adulation of the 'modelers' and their apologists is what you want, you'll not find it here.
But, in fact I've seen little evidence of hate. Contempt, certainly. Nothing as grand as hate.
Some folk are doing it again. Please don't feed the troll. Any time I come across more than one comment from ZDB in a post I just have to go to that little white X in a red box up there and click it. It means I miss some proper comments and opportunities to learn, more's the pity.
Martin Brumby
Chapter Three
I believe Hengist that you aren't reading Ms. Laframboise correctly, you'll find that she describes them as "outsiders". While you could certainly be forgiven for believing, at first blush, that she has said they've not done work for the IPCC, she doesn't actually say that.
Do NOT feed ZDB.
@ZedsDeadBed Oct 23, 2011 at 2:59 PM
“Did you really think I wouldn't go back up and check what Andrew wrote?”
Umm, I actually invited you to go back up and re-read what he had written. I, therefore, assumed that you would.
“Andrew then goes on to say "He does seem like a sensitive soul.", which is deduction with insufficient evidence.”
No, that is not a definitive statement either. Note the word “seem”. The Bish doesn’t state that Dr Gleick is a sensitive soul, he suggests that he might be one. A perfectly reasonable suggestion based on the knowledge the Bish has at this point.
“And I guess that's why you missed that bit out when you were C and P'ing.”
Now who’s making deductions with insufficient evidence? I highlighted the passage I thought you were referring to. If I had realised there was more, I would have C and P’d the whole post. Please stop trying to infer dishonesty or ulterior motives where none exist. I could have just written you off as a troll and ignored you, but, because you actually seemed to be trying to engage for once, I thought it might be good to try to encourage that. I still think that, so relax a little, cut out the mild little insults and just enjoy the conversation.
C and P'ing
Carping and Prevaricating?
@Oct 23, 2011 at 4:08 PM | Hengist
As I though, you can't understand plain English. Nowhere in Chapter 3 does she state they haven't served on the IPCC.
See also Geronimo's comment.
Will you now apologise?
@fred thrung
If that is what is happening then you are allowing the troll to win.
@Those others who, somewhat understandably, wish to exclude Zed from the conversations here on the basis that she is a troll.
What we really don't want here is a glorified echo chamber. Whilst Zed often acts in a troll-like manner, underneath that behaviour she does seem to actually have some real views of her own. I think it's incumbent upon us to try to tease those views out, even though the process will often be painfully slow and, even more often, very. very trying. Who knows? If we are able to make her feel relaxed enough to stop with all the silly, often defensive, insults, both her and us might be able learn a little from each other.
I have been very busy in real life lately and haven’t had much time for comment, though I have popped in as often as possible for a read. One thing I’ve noticed is that the blog generally has become a little more intolerant lately. I’ve even seen it suggested that people like BBD are now to be regarded as trolls. I mean BBD fgs. One of the things that first attracted me to this blog (apart from the brilliant Caspar and the Jesus Paper) was the wide range of views presented. If we’re not careful, we will become the mirror image of all those “warmist” sites we so despise.
@golf charley
Things are warming up nicely for December 18th aren't they? :) Can't wait. Will you be there?
LC if this site were to take the approach of Realcimate and sites Zed likes then they would long ago been band or their comments gone into a sink hole . Let them post by all means it does no harm, but don't feed the troll all that gets you is more trolls.
Outsiders would mean they aren't part of the process or it means the same thing as they haven't served on the IPCC. I'm not going to argue semantics with you . Geronimo last week you set up a straw man over Richard Lindzen , I don't believe you completed the knockdown !
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/14/speaking-of-books.html?currentPage=3#comments
Hi Hengist
Your claim about Reiter has been debunked.
Here is a quote from an interview with Gray which suggests that he is not exactly at the heart of the IPCC:
. "I could assemble fifty of my colleagues who are very skeptical about global warming," he says. "The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] never talks to us, but I have a bit of an obligation, at my age -- I was trained to tell the truth. There's a lot of hogwash in this. If I don't speak up, I'm not doing my job." http://www.westword.com/2006-06-29/news/the-skeptic/full
And as for Morner, here is an interview with him http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf He says that he has worked as a reviewer on the IPCC reports but is incredibly critical of them. This again suggests that he is not at the heart of the IPCC - unless you are also going to claim that, says, Steve McIntyre is at the heart of the IPCC. My favourite quote is this:
"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something, but
they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original data which
they suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,” which they took from the tide gauge.
So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from
outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences
meeting in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from
outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from
the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they
answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would
not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the
data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you
come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we
are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists;
they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is
rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from
observations. The observations don’t find it!"
""I'm disputing facts. Reiter and Morner have served on IPCC . Donna says they havent . Donna is wrong."
I just searched.pdf version of the book . . . Using the Acrobat search function on each name reveals ZERO instances where it is said Reiter and Morner haven't served on the IPCC.
None.
Nada.
Someone is channeling their inner Gleick.
Re: Hengist
From the thefreedictionary.com:
You can be part of a sports team and still be an outsider. You can be part of a class and still be an outsider. You can be part of community commenting on Bishop Hill's blog and still be an outsider. You can part of the IPCC and still be an outsider.
Let's suppose Gleick belongs to the so-called 'Climate Science Rapid Response Team' along with the likes of John Abraham and Scott A. Mandia.
Based on that supposition, then we have a reasonably simple possible explanation of why Gleick did a knee-jerk content free review of Donna Laframboise's IPCC expose and then did not provide subsequently any content (to this date) at amazon.com. That explanation is, after his obligatory smearing drive by review, the 'Climate Science Rapid Response Team' wasn't available to tell Gleick what to think wrt to the book's content. He has had to wait for the team to prop him up intellectually. He apparently is still waiting for someone on the team to tell him what to think.
The cause of his apparent anger at Climate Etc may be a consequent of his anger at 'Climate Science Rapid Response Team' for not backing him up with content. : )
So much for the rapid in 'Climate Science Rapid Response Team'.
John
All: On Reiter and Morner, both sides may be right.
On page 7, Donna talks of Gray being an outsider, then seques into Reiter and Morner, also calling them outsiders.
While she doesn't say they were NOT part of the IPCC proces, she does say that the IPCC did not recruit someone like Reiter.
The impresssion left, from previous context with Gray, is that they were not part of the IPCC. But she never states that directly, as in Gray's case.
I think its just a little muddied writing, and could have been clearer, but we would need Donna to confirm or not. She probably should have prefaced the section on Morner and Reiter with "outsiders did not have to be outside the IPCC. They could be inside too, as in Reiter and Morner".
Personally, with the research she did on this, I would be surprised if she didn't know that Reiter and Morner were part of the IPCC at one time. But, again, we would need her take on this.
In Peter's mind, Donna is lying. See Bertolt Brecht's play, "The Measures Taken."
All: what Les Johnson said.
Everybody is getting far too hung up on this.