Carrick alerted me to this fascinating goings on at Judy Curry’s post on Donna LaFramboise’s new book available for $5:
petergleick | October 19, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Reply
Indeed. I’m rarely moved to spend the time to write a review on Amazon unless the book is so egregiously bad that readers need to be warned.
Interesting policy.
Peter might want to reconsider his policy, which at least in this case, might have consequences he would consider a bit counter productive. I notice the book now ranks #1 in “conservation”,
ranks #2 in paid downloads for science issues,
and ranks #62 in the rather competitive category of non-fiction:
I suspect the vigorous discussion between petergleick and others at Judy’s will result in additional sales, broadening the demographic for the book to include people with $5 to spare who just want to see whether Gleick’s review is really as disconnected from the content as Judy indicates.
So is Gleick’s review totally disconnected from the book content? Beats me. I will freely admit: I haven’t read the book. I’ve only looked at what’s available for free at Amazon.
The title itself “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”, suggests that Gleick’s statement that “This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change. “ is a bizarre mischaracterization of the contents. The title just doesn’t seem like the title of something “about the fundamental science of climate change.”
Flipping to the first chapter we find the topic is evidently an “expose of the International Panel on Climate Change”– that’s not the same as “the fundamental science of climate change”.
The table of contents suggests the book is, indeed an expose of the IPCC and not any sort of discussion of “the fundamental science of climate change”. And finally, clicking from the table of contents to available chapters, we find discussions of this sort:
Once again: whether accurate or inaccurate, good bad or indifferent, the book doesn’t seem to be “about” “the fundamental science of climate change”.
Mind you, it’s possible the subject of the book changes nature after the AMAZON “read inside” bit ends. Also, since the book is about the IPCC and the IPCC is supposed to be presenting material about climate science, I would be surprised if the book doesn’t contain some discussions of claims about “the fundamental science of climate change”. If so, I’m sure we can get Nick Stokes to find them, tell us where they are. 🙂
But, I admit I haven’t read it, so I don’t know.
Now, I suspect people are going to know if I’m going to read the book. I don’t know.
The spat motivated me to download the “Kindle app” for my Mac. Unfortunately, the app requires OSX 10.6; my system is OS X 10.5.8. Clearly, I’m going to need to upgrade.
For now, instead of reading the book, I’m going to spend the afternoon looking at how to efficiently deal with multiple regressions in R so I can “correct” for ONI etc. With respect to the book, I’m going to procrastinate and let people tell me where all the juicy bits are! 🙂
Lucia,
It is available as a pdf download. I downloaded the kindle version and read it. My take was that Peter Gleik’s statement had nothing to do with any of the content of the book.
The book is almost entirely addressed to the staffing and process of AR generation and its misrepresentation by Pachauri and others.
I do have this niggling apprehension that the abuses Donna reports do not preclude an honest work representing the most reliable science. They do seem to make it unlikely that there isn’t a bias in the assembled references, in some of the sections, and most particularly in the Summary for Policy Makers which Donna reports is developed through three drafts by technical authors(sometimes scientists) and then final-edited by 100 government representatives sitting in a closed plenary session watching the words unfold on a large projection screen – maybe without further scientific influence.
She demonstrates that significant portions of some of the chapters are derived from grey literature, that many of the chapter authors are “junior” pre-doc or fresh post-docs, and that some lack experience in the disciplines they are authoring.
I didn’t find this surprising. I think it unlikely that the sort of staff, program, and process that would not have these characteristics is possible given the UN parentage of this process. It would be interesting to know if anyone can identify a UN program similar to this that would not have these shortcomings.
My concern reduces to:
1. Is there sufficient scientific work out there to form the basis of a report such as the IPCC effort?
2. Have the IPCC working groups no matter how constituted and led, sifted that work and synthesized a balanced portrayal of its conclusions?
3. Does the Summary for Policy Makers (likely the only product that is widely read) accurately report the findings of the working groups?
Can the answers to the above questions be comfortably known without an audit of the entire process including all the reference documents as well as those not referenced? This would be a much more ambitious undertaking (likely completely impractical) than what Donna has done?
Maybe Steven Mosher can give us some insights into the practicality of doing tightly controlled technical development with the folks available and with their likely working circumstances – which is what the IPCC operation looks like.
I would have to say that getting anything technical done with a thrown-together team and having the results meet a very high standard of quality, given the influence which personalities can have, and given in this case that the subject is both technical and political seems unlikely.
On the bright side, OS 10.6 (Snow Leopard) seems to be a pretty stable operating system (at least for a desktop unit).
Re: Peter Gleick, he takes great offense in the linked Curry thread [edit: here] to her and others claiming he hasn’t read the book… or hadn’t read the book prior to penning his amazon review of it.
That’s not a charge I’d wish to make, as it’s effectively unprovable. Especially given the elastic possible definition of “to read” in this context (glance at, browse, scan, study, pore over…).
On the other hand, it seems fair to say that his review is written as if he hadn’t read the book. Though I haven’t either. (Nor have I posted a review of it at amazon.)
And in the vein of “no such thing as bad publicity,” it does seem that LaFramboise owes Gleick some thanks for driving sales. So perhaps all will be forgiven.
Yep, another nail in the IPCC coffin 😉
This part makes me feel all warm and fuzzy:
From Laframboise’s Citizen Audit: “Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed.â€
“It would appear that the relationship the IPCC has with its expert reviewers borders on the abusive. FIrst it asks these people to volunteer their time in good faith. Then it gives its authors the right to dismiss their input with nothing more than a single word: â€rejected.†While expert reviewers are expected to comply with the IPCC’s deadlines, this organization feels no need to respect such deadlines itself. Instead, it nonchalantly adds in, after the fact, arguments and source materials these reviewers had no opportunity to asses.â€
I am about half way through the book (my commuting read du jour).
As an AGW blog junkie with Compulsive Googling Disorder, I was already cognizant of many of the incidents and deficiencies she catalogs. It is a pretty thorough indictment though a bit conclusory in places and in need of some trimming in others. Overall, certainly well worth the $4.99.
The Peter Gliek review on Amazon was Pachauri-esque: When anyone criticizes the IPCC always claim in response that it is an attack on (insert angelic chorus here) The Science. The Nick Stokes/bugs corollary of the Pachauri Principle is that since the IPCC generates the official, canonical holiest documents of The Science, and The Science is beyond reproach, any criticism of the IPCC is tantamount to the heresy of denialism and unworthy of a response other than censure, social excommunication, and comparisons to Bush, H*tler–or even worse–Steve McIntyre.
The Kindle screen is a little bit on the small side, the letters could be a bit darker, and one should be able to adjust the fonts to ones eyes (as in Win7), but it runs a week without charging, it takes a minute to download a book (easier with the help of a PC), book are cheaper and take less room (the classics are often free), you hold it in one hand (and in daylight) like a real book, and it starts at $ 79.
The problem: One spends too much time reading. And not for books with illustrations and color.
I downloaded the non-DRM’ed PDF and read it over 2 days on a Sony eReader.
Although I’d seen most of these criticisms levelled before, she does make a very compelling case that they aren’t unrelated incidents, but systemic / structural problems.
One disadvantage is that I couldn’t click through to the references so I’ll give it a second pass to follow up – trust but verify.
WRT #84165 I’d agree that it doesn’t preclude honest and accurate work being done (and I’m certain the majority of people are honestly engaged in worthwhile scientific effort).
The problem is that given the level at which the lack of rigour, transparency and accountability occurs, *everything* is thrown into doubt. Honest contributors are done a great disservice by the lack of standards and accountability.
Alexej #84170 – I’d echo that restriction – italics didn’t travel well, and a few diagrams would have clarified things. Still well worth $4 or so of anybody’s money.
Even as we speak, Peter is making himself look untrustworthy on Twitter by commenting on a book he hasn’t read (or at least has failed to read in any reasonable depth) for the second time.
Amac: On the other hand, it seems fair to say that his review is written as if he hadn’t read the book.
.
Actually it doesn’t seem fair to say that, since he refers (disapprovingly) to a ‘section trying to discredit the “hockey stick”‘. If he hadn’t read the book, he wouldn’t know there is such a section.
.
So the review is very much written as if he had read (and thoroughly disliked) the book.
.
I haven’t read the book either, but what I take from the excerpts is that Ms Laframboise doesn’t like Greenpeace very much. 🙂
toto (Comment #84172) October 20th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Actually it doesn’t seem fair to say that, since he refers (disapprovingly) to a ‘section trying to discredit the “hockey stickâ€â€˜.
How could a book critical of the IPCC not have a section on the hockey stick?
I don’t have to open the hood of my car to know there is an engine there.
“If he hadn’t read the book, he wouldn’t know there is such a section.”
Not necessarily true. He could have learned the section existed thru second-hand information, e.g. a little bird landed on his shoulder and told him.
Andrew
Chapter 32 is entitled “The Hockey Stick”
Peter *may* have read it of course, but nothing in his behaviour suggests that this is the case.
There is now evidence to support the contention that he’s read the freely available Table of Contents; small victories.
Maybe Peter was just confused: “This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change.”
Since the book was about the politicized IPCC process and not the fundamental science of climate change his review does seem… misinformed.
Re: toto (Oct 20 10:37),
Well, YMMV, as they say. Here’s a link to all of amazon.com’s 1-star reviews. Of the four (at this count), Scott Mandia’s and Nick Bowles’ mention specifics. That adds substance to their claims that they’d read (parts of) Laframboise’s book.
I doubt I’d enjoy it. Sounds over-the-top in terms of polemics.
Meanwhile, Gleick’s review has itself attracted 46 comments, making it more popular than some Blackboard threads. Another Rorschach test.
toto
This is totally false. I haven’t read the book, but I clicked “peak inside” thing at Amazon read the chapters titles and saw the title of chapter 32 is “The Hockey Stick”.
Mind you if Gleick wrote anything discussing the actual substance in that section, it might suggest he must have read it. But the only thing Gleick writes is “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.”
I notice he doesn’t mention any specific “bugaboo”– nor provide even the teensiest-beensiest indication that he’s read the actual content of the section. He knows it’s there–as would anyone who read the table of contents on line. I don’t consider glancing at the table of contents to mean I read the book. Maybe Gleick does?
Scott Mandia has now responded with some actual substance. I am unimpressed with his responses, but it’s something, and will respond in turn.
Whether Dr.Gleick has read the actual contents or not doesn’t really make a difference here. If Dr.Gleick has read the contents probably it was with a red haze before his eyes, at least that is what I can make up from the contents of his comment. LaF. did not adressed the climate science and I’m curious which lies Dr.Gleick is referring to.
In all his comments on the mentioned thread of Dr.Curry’s blog he did not made any attempt to answer questions related this his strong claims. Dr.Gleick chickened out from offers from various sides (Watts and Tol) to adress this issue with feeble excuses. Methinks Dr.Gleick has done himself (and IPCC) not any favor.
Amac–
Did you see specifics in Mandia’s review?
I don’t see anything in his Mandia’s review that mentions something specific written in the book. The rebuttal seems to consist of a series of ‘rhetorical questions’. I imagine we could obtain a range of answers to the question “If the science behind the IPCC reports is untrue, why have the same conclusions been reported by nearly every scientific body on the planet?”
What I can’t imagine is that anyone needed to read Donna’s book to write the series of rhetorical questions Scott wrote.
Scott penultimate sentence is “Trust the evidence and the experts – not libelous diatribes such as this book.” Scott doesn’t seem to quote a single specific “libelous diatribe”. Mind you , for all I know the boodk contains a “libelous diatribe”. (In which case, someone should sue for libel!) I haven’t read the book so I can’t say.
But I think his review reads like one written by someone who skimmed while angry and didn’t want to bother to include specifics in his review. Scott actually admits he only read 50 pages and struggled to get himself to read those.
Nick Bowles at least does mention a specific point in the book– the notion that climate models can’t work because economic models don’t.
CVShorey’s is short and vague. He doesn’t like it.
BTW: It’s risen from 62 in non-fiction to 60.
#84183
Scott has now reviewed up to page 14 – the point at which the free preview runs out.
Re: lucia (Oct 20 12:59),
> Did you see specifics in Mandia’s review?
Er, less than I thought when I breezed through it. Perhaps belatedly, here is evidence Mandia got through page 14, at least.
AMac–
Yes. Today, Oct 20, following the appearance of several comments by Amazon customers who think Mandia likely did not read the book, we see Mandia comments that demonstrate some familiarity with the contents of the book. However, the review written on Oct. 15 appears to be something that could have been written without reading the book. That said: Mandia does admit he struggled to read as much as he read and says he only read to page 50.
I’d suggest that Mandia has not made the Climate Science Rapid Response Team look good. I don’t think their goal is to respond rapidly with poorly supported knee-jerk reactions.
Actually as far as I can tell the goal of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team is precisely to respond rapidly with poorly supported knee-jerk reactions.
Why they think this is a good idea is, however, more mysterious.
Well, I had to post a question at Amazon. First time…
I will be purchasing the hard copy version because, although I ahve all the requisie smart phones, laptops and iPads, I actually like reading a book.
But I know of Laframboise’s work, and heartily approve of this publication. The wanking deniers of reason, AKA the Warmistas, can go puke in a bucket as far as I am concerned.
Jonathan Jones wrote:
The turn of phrase in the last sentence is startlingly Lucia-esque.
The turn of phrase in the last sentence is startlingly Lucia-esque.
That’s the nicest thing anybody has said to me all week!
My guess is that Donna L.’s book would benefit in more sales if more of the IPCC supporting scientists and activists did a detailed critique. That would pull in more critical readers.
Now there are only 4 one star reviews and only one of those attempts (poorly) any detailed criticism.
John
The word “ilk” has now been used in comments on the Mandia review (See page 2; audrey http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2ATPOF4MVIJ4U/ref=cm_cr_rev_detpdp ).
Not surprisingly given Mandia’s first comment the discussion is going all “ad hom”.
Also, besides resorting to ad hom, Mandia doesn’t seem to have interpreted the claim “almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.” as “nothing the IPCC says about the science is true”.
At least that’s my take of his ‘response’ to the bit he quoted:
“You are asking us all to believe the world’s experts are either stupid or liars. Which is it?”
I believe they are both at the same time.
Andrew
Jonathon Jones,
I can think of one reason they think responding with poorly supported knee-jerk reactions is a good idea. Many of these people probably spend a lot of time in mutually supportive, heavily moderated/censored sandboxes for the CAGW faithful. Poorly supported assertions at realclimate, for example, receive nothing but slaps on the back, so long as they support the party line. That sceptical comment which is allowed tends to be only the weakest points from the least thoughful sceptics, which then serve as strawmen to be demolished, to more mutual back slapping and high fives. People used to such an environment are totally unprepared for the critical reception they receive when they try their usual tricks in a truly open forum, like Amazon. These people have convinced themselves that there is no such thing as a smart or logical sceptic. This explains why they end up looking like the proverbial rabbit in a spotlight when they find themselves suddenly and publically pilloried by numerous sceptics who are better informed and often more intelligent that they are.
lucia,
I see you have engaged in the Mandia review discussion at Amazon.com.
Nice, but there is no equivalent to reading Donna’s book.
John
John–
Of course it’s not equivalent. But by the same token, Scott has made a claim about expertise using All CAP. I assume he can tell us whether Donna was mistaken about those 5 individuals. After that, we could discuss issues like balance and so forth–but first, I want to know if Donna is just making an argument based on mistaken facts about people’s qualifications.
I’lll admit that my general sense skimming the table of contents and the sections is that Donna’s account isn’t balanced. For example: while I think Panchuri greatly overstates “expertise”– using soundbites that make it sound like ever single person involved in the process is the absolute tops expert in the world, I also think that many of the people involved have quite a bit of expertise. Specifically, there are quite a few subject matter experts who really are expert in their subjects. Even limiting my skimming to the 14 pages I’d say that the tenor of Donna’s book doesn’t admit the later.
But by the same token, Scott’s review is equally unbalanced. Panchuri like in it’s overstatement.
I suspect but do not know that Donna’s description of the “trainees” and “graduate students” on the authors list will turn out to be substantively correct. That the reality is that at least some of the authors aren’t particularly expert. The IPCC- defenders official line about expertise is overblown to a level that many would consider deceptive.
Given the contents of the free pages, if I read the whole book, I would do so with a grain of salt. I’ll likely read it– but only after upgrading my mac operating system.
Lucia,
it’s available as a non-DRMed PDF, a bit cheaper than the Kindle version and wouldn’t need any OS upgrade in that format (and isn’t tied to any particular device) – none of which conjures up any more hours in the day to actually read it
S
lucia,
With grains of salt or splashes of soy sauce, the book reads exactly the same.
Good luck with the MAC stuff.
John
Lucia,
I think you are right about the tenor of the book. If anything claimed about the IPCC’s program isn’t substantially true, then that aspect of the thing is unreliable; and if there are enough of these issues, which she adequately demonstrates, then the whole thing is unreliable. This seems to me the drift of the book.
Some of the IPCC PR problems she reports are the wholesale misrepresentations of the quality and credentials of the IPCC team, some are misrepresentations of the provenance of the science (grey literature), and others, summary misrepresentations (distortions) of the science itself.
Is the book balanced? A book like Donna’s isn’t intended to be balanced. It is an alert to a serious problem
I take this alert seriously but also do not think the likely truth of her assertions destroys the entire credibility of the AR.
What it does do is suggest strongly that nothing contained in the AR be taken to be totally reliable without checking. I guess I don’t think that is devastating.
The problem for Gleick is if he admits he reviewed the book before he read it, then he loses face.
If anyone who reads the book reads his review and believes he read it before he commented, then there is another set of problems:
How could someone who seems to be intelligent have such poor reading comprehension?
A reasonable followup question that would be, “what other areas has Dr. Gleick made significant misrepresentations in, beside this review?”
His touchy bluster and misuse of the accusation ‘liar’ over at Climate Etc. did not help resolve the issue favorably towards Dr. Gleick.
Lucia
do not…repeat not…get a Kindle !!!
You will find your life ruined !!!
Being able to download books instantly becomes more addictive than crack.
And the cost !! $80 !! the horror of it all !!
All joking aside, I only recently bought one and have found it quite useful. Still spend time in the bookstores, but that is social now, not required to fill my weekly fix. I can not recommend a Kindle highly enough. I bought a black and white ver for $80 and love it. Works very well in both low light and bright sun light.
Ed-
I have to admit that if I just want to read a book, I like to get them from the library. Otherwise, they clutter up the house. I have some sort of psychological thing that makes it difficult to just throwaway hardback and paperbacks– yet many really ought to be pitched after reading and enjoying.
The main issue with spending on a kindle is that there are so few books that I feel need to be read instantly. Usually, if they are worth reading, it’s still not an urgent issue. I can wait to get them at the library. But a kindle might be nice to use at the gym.
hunter
I can think of no way to interpret that loony review that reflects well on Gleick. I’ve tried hard to think of hypotheticals, but it ends up a choice between things like:
a) his reading comprehension is abysmal,
b) he understood the book but willfully posted a very misleading review
c) he posted a review of a book he did not read
d) he is such a poor writer that he thinks “the fundamental science” conveys the notion of “the IPCC process”
e) etc.
Maybe hypothetical “etc.” involves a process that doesn’t impugn Gleick’s reading comprehension, honesty or writing skills, but I haven’t been able to imagine one. Gleick knows what he did and how he came to write such an idiotic review. If he wants to share it, I guess he can, then we’ll know how it came about. So far, all he’s really shared is that he read the book. But as far as I can tell, he hasn’t really even said whether he read it before or after writing the book.
lucia:
Your denialist attack on Gleik is off the mark. Rejection of a “denier” does not require logical consistency.
(1) All the very best sort of people pledge allegiance to the authority of the IPCC and the political agenda for which it stands.
(2) The fact of making a criticism of the IPCC means, by definition, the putative critic is not one of the better sort of persons and therefore has no standing to make such a criticism.
(3) Therefore, the substance or grounds of the of the criticism offered is at all times irrelevant, immaterial and/or inadmissible.
This is an issue of standing, status and PoMo notions of higher truth. The merits of the allegation are never reached. You don’t have to read the book if you just know it does not serve the higher truth. Ask bugs, for example.
Note to Mosher: This post contains sarcasm –please do not refute at length.
Lucia
I understand about “book clutter”. I had to move several years ago and had to pare my book collection and reference library down.
I now am down to “only” 40 running feet or so of full size book shelves. I had to get rid of about 50 running feet of shelves. I came very close to crying over some of the reference material I had to give away to the local library.
The main advantage to the Kindle for me is that it allows me put together a very large general reading list and carry it with me easily.
Two quotes from the book from Mandia’s review (via AMac):
“(Pg. 5) Let us be sensible for a moment. Planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old. During that time it has endured all sorts of perfectly natural climate transformations. …………….To suggest that the climate has ever been within human control is surely a bit silly.”
“(Pg. 14) …. Scientists believe carbon dioxide used to comprise less than 0.03% of the atmosphere – 280 parts per million – prior to the industrial revolution. Currently, at 390 parts per million, it’s approaching 0.04%. Barring emissions reductions, by the year 2100 that number could reach 0.06%. All this fuss is based on a hypothesis that says our planet is so unstable a slight increase in one particular trace gas will trigger disaster. ”
Looney Tunes. Don’t want to read any more.
For Owen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/
lucia (Comment #84228)
But a kindle might be nice to use at the gym.
No. Things electronic break and do not like water. You can read it sitting in a chair or on the bed, and it is superb for vacations. You can take 1000 books with you, you can delete them from the Kindle if you want to – but they stay in the cloud (or on your computer).
If I had mine last August in Skagway I would have downloaded “Smoke Bellew”; and yes, Jack London comes for free.
Lucia,
It is, I think, worth noting that Donna is quite upfront (albeit towards the back, in the Acknowledgements) about the objectives of The Delinquent Teenager …:
As will be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the book (with an open mind and a modicum of comprehension), it is not about “the science”.
Bearing this in mind, one can only conclude that the “reviews” of both Gleick and Mandia strongly suggest that either they are abysmally deficient in the “open mind” and “reading comprehension” departments or they have failed to read the book before putting knee-jerk fingers to their respective keyboards.
ED Forbes. I have 50 feet and only because I make my chidren get their own 50 feet. I feel your pain!
Lucia, get the insurance for drops, tubs, etc. My daughter went through 2 in 6 months from tub drops. Another daughter went through 3 cell phones in a year. Thank goodness we made her get insurance after the second mishap. Who knows what my other children did or do, they have their own accounts.
Actually, Donna made an observation in passing which she didn’t follow up in any detail which I think would be worth some enterprising journalist to enquire into, and that is that, especially in Europe, the branches of government which were and are responsible for liaison with the IPCC are their “Ministries of the Environment”, howsoever actually named, and it is these organs of government that are most likely to have been ceded to the Green Parties which are minority partners in those governments. So it is actually not at all far fetched to suspect that the IPCC has largely been captured, if not actually created, by the international environmental movement. It would be very interesting to see a list of names and affiliations of each person who has participated in governmental oversight and administration of the IPCC.
In re JT’s comment 84275 (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/laframboise-gleick-curry/#comment-84275 ) I think it is not just green parties but greener individuals within other parties. For example, the UK currently has Chris Huhne as Environment Minister and, while he’s not in the Green party, he’s certainly someone who has a strong belief in the core green tenets.
It would not surprise me in the least to find out that the majority of governmental members of the IPCC were devout greenies.
Lucia,
Spend the five-bucks already. Buy the PDF, you don’t need to upgrade your MAC (I’m on MAC too) 🙂 This is devastating for the IPCC. It does not in any way suggest that there has been no warming. It merely says that the IPCC’s credibility is in question; which speaks more to policy and politics than science. Whatever agenda you may ascribe to Donna, I don’t think she’s been unfair in her execution of the book.
SteveE–
I already know the IPCC has credibility “issues”.
Lucia,
If you know about these “issues” why are you asking for balance? Donna, somewhat like yourself, is accepting IPCC statements at face value and challenging them as you are challenging Scott’s statements. She isn’t questioning the bona fides of those who have them she is proving that not everyone associated with the IPCC has them (bona fides). I’m pretty sure you get this I’m just not sure why you need some balance. I’m with j ferguson (Comment #84211) on this except I think this is “devastating” for IPCC credibility.
I just crossed the 50% mark (no page number in Kindle) reading. A lot of facts are mentioned (that should be questioned), so it takes time.
Up to now I have not found any obvious errors (by the author).
Since the discussion on the Blackboard is already more or less finished, one had 3 possibilities to participate:
1) Speedread like JFK
2) Notread and admit it
3) Notread and lie about it
SteveE:
Maybe having it conclusively demonstrated, as Donna has done, is devastating to the credibility of the IPCC Reports, but i think I was wobbling on whether the part of science chosen and expressed in the WG sections was biased by inclusion/exclusion choices made by “lesser and/or biased light” authors or necessarily misrepresented in all of the summaries.
One of the great joys of blog commenting, for me, is that I’ve been forced to improve the quality of what I write, lest it not communicate what i had in mind, or that in trying to write on something, I, or others, discover that I didn’t actually have anything in mind.
It’s very kind of Lucia and you burdened readers to tolerate these ruminations.
SteveE–
Where do I ask for balance? I observed that her book is not balanced. That’s not asking for anything. I could observed that the cover art is what appears to be a teen smoking a cigarette. That’s not a request for different cover art, nor a statement of admiration. It’s just an observation.
Same with the observation the book is not balanced.
It doesn’t seem to me that a book like this requires balance. Balance would be to say that the IPCC team included some real, acknowledged, experienced, published senior scientists, that not all the reference literature was grey, and that not everyone involved had conflicted interests or visible bias, or that not everything that Pachauri has said in public misrepresents something or other.
i would have thought that was obvious.
j ferguson (Comment #84341
Sorry for the late reply. It’s been a very busy day with two kids in different bands. I too struggle with communicating what I’m trying to say. I think here that we’re saying similar things.
lucia (Comment #84342)
I apologize if I have been mis-reading between the lines. From my point of view it seemed that you were saying there isn’t balance therefore there should be balance. I don’t think and, correct me if I’m wrong, you don’t necessarily think there needs to be balance in this book either. I think Donna is presenting facts as she and her volunteers have discovered them and presented them in the context of statements (some very forceful, some just forceful) made by ranking IPCC officials. I don’t think that, within that context, balance is even an issue.
Sorry for the late reply. As I said to J. Ferguson. I’ve got two kids in bands and it has been a busy weekend. Cheers
Steve E–
I think many people assume certain traits are always good and some always bad. But somethings are just “features”. I don’t think everything ever written needs to be balanced.
I have no particular problems with books that that are in the genre of “the dark side of X”. If that’s Donna’s intention, I don’t have a problem with that. If a reviewer noted that Donna’s book was unbalanced, that would be fair. That doesn’t happen to be what Gleick or Mandia said though.
Still, I also think someone who wants to learn everything about the IPCC would need additional sources. A review should likely say that.
lucia (Comment #84369)
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm
“If that’s Donna’s intention, I don’t have a problem with that.”
What Donna’s intentions were, Donna writes in her book (after the 70% mark, where the main text ends).
So get yourself a decent desktop PC (that’s where you get your money’s worth), read, and then inform us instead of speculating.
Alex–
Someone already quoted the text that reveals Donna’s intentions.
I’m not going to pay to download the book in a substandard format that doesn’t allow me to do things like take notes as I could with a Kindle. I’m not going to buy a desktop PC merely because that’s your preference.
Lucia,
I have had a Kindle for a couple of years now and have used it to download and read 18th and 19th century classics which had been recommended to me in the distant past.
But there are several downsides. It is almost impossible to find something as you would in a paper book by remembering it was about 2/3 back and then riffling through the pages until you find it. You can “dog-ear” pages you would return to, but then you need to realize you might want to do this when you are reading that section.
It does have a search feature but what happens when the words of the passage you are seeking are not uncommon – too many hits?
It is pretty neat to be able to decide you want to read something and be able to download it and start reading on the spot.
The public library we support now has loanable Kindle books, but ours, except for “… Garden of the Beasts” seems to concentrate on Bodice Rippers for reasons which I can’t begin to imagine.
Our Kindle 2 does pdf’s but if they start as 8.5X11, you cannot read them, but it does do camera manuals (4X5?) quite well. I understand that the larger kindle does pdfs quite well.
All said, though, I would never have read Hume, Adam Smith, Macaulay, Rousseau, or Jane Austen without it. I would have bought Donna’s book in whatever form it came, but it was composed with the Kindle in mind and is very readable in that form – best, I’ve seen to-date. Montford’s book also fits well.
I suspect that if you like to make notes in books you read, you may be frustrated by it.
j ferguson
I know the reason. My sister is a librarian. Different libraries exist for different reasons. Lending libraries exist to provide books people want to read– they are not intended as archives of the “best” or “everything”. They exist to lend. So, they stock books people want to borrow.
I worked in a bookstore in high school. It was even a good bookstore. Bodice Rippers sell. They sell because people like to read them. Lending libraries stock these because borrowers want to check them out. (Many of the borrowers are wise enough not to want to buy these books to throw in the trash. )
Hmmm…. well, the free mac download made it sound like I could make notes. That’s why I was planning to upgrade to Leopard (though not in a hurry.)
These political type books are precisely the sort I want to mark up. This is especially so if I want to be able to provide a review or comment from them.
lucia (Comment #84407)
October 24th, 2011 at 8:30 am
“I’m not going to pay to download the book in a substandard format that doesn’t allow me to do things like take notes as I could with a Kindle.”
You can set electronic marks in the Kindle text, but yes, you preferably have to write notes on a paper. If the paper book is from a library, you should not write in it anyhow. If you buy this one it will be 4 times as expensive.You can have the same book for the same price on your computer, too. You can go to any reference directly, which you could not do with the paper version. If you buy this one it will be 4 times as expensive.
As musicians do, any author deserves some compensation for his work (I would even include blogs). So I pay for music downloads, and I pay for book downloads (at least if the author is still alive).
And I find it annoying that there are hundreds of comments on this book on the net, and the majority of those are Gleicking it.
Lucia,
you can make notes with the Kindle. i don’t know how the one with the touch-screen works, might be easier to type with, but the kindle 2 has tiny keys that are not easy – good for ordering books, but not much else.
I find that reading with a computer screen is much harder on the eyes, but on the other hand, making notes on a pdf file is a breeze because of having a real keyboard.
On Libraries, your sister’s experience matches mine. Libraries want to have what circulates. it’s true that they seem to be able to get anything for you no matter how off the wall, but if for some reason, you want to read a biography of Oliver Cromwell, of which there appear to be at least three, you would have to order all three to produce the one which is most readable. With the Kindle, you can download all three for free from Gutenburg.org and then delete the two that don’t make the cut.
I bought a modern basic statistics text with the thought that it would be nice to know a bit more than nothing on this subject. It worked fine until it got to the third chapter and the equations started. In this book, the equations were small graphic files and almost impossible to read. the author was aware of the problem, (a good guy withal) and had a downloadable pdf file with all the equations. So if you have thoughts of using it for the technical things, you might want to have a look at a more modern Kindle and check for legibility of formulae.
Alex–
My post isn’t a review of the book. It’s a discussion of Gleick.
If I were to download the book, I would pay for it. I’m not suggesting Donna send me one for free and so on. But obviously, whether you are frustrated or not, I don’t have sufficient interest to download it just to be able to tell you I downloaded it, and I don’t feel any compulsion to read any more than is available for free.
I wish Donna well — more than well. I met her at Heartland and I think she is a very nice, charming, friendly woman. I hope those people who are interested in the IPCC process do buy her book. But I am not all that interested in the process. I rarely blog on that issue. I rarely visit blogs on that issue. I don’t feel I am some how required to buy the book simply because it was published.
What I have to say about Gleick’s review I could say without getting the book. The question I posed Scott I could pose without gettying the book.
Lucia –
I have to admit that if I just want to read a book, I like to get them from the library. Otherwise, they clutter up the house. I have some sort of psychological thing that makes it difficult to just throwaway hardback and paperbacks– yet many really ought to be pitched after reading and enjoying.
and Ed Forbes –
I understand about “book clutterâ€. I had to move several years ago and had to pare my book collection and reference library down.
I’m trying to find a lot of my books good homes. I have five bookcases 7+ feet high which are packed (some even two books deep). The books are the worst thing about moving. I’m waiting for a book with paper thin LED pages or something similar where the content can be changed. A book is a book is a book. A computer screen is a computer screen is computer screen. But mutable pages… that would be great. I would much prefer turning the page instead of the hitting page down. And with a .pdf file, page down doesn’t get the second column.
Still, even with such a device, some old school books are worth having in one’s library due to their beauty.
Alexej Buergin: I find it annoying that there are hundreds of comments on this book on the net, and the majority of those are Gleicking it.
I love it..doing a Gleick becomes part of the lexicon 🙂
Well Freeman Dyson still doesn’t have a doctorate.
Klein is an interesting case as you can see by his CV (on line). If you look too busy doing stuff to do the coursework/write up. He and Tol wrote a lot about adaptation in coastal areas in the 1990s, which appears to be his area of expertise.
If you want an opinion ask Tol.
Eli:
Which is the cooling fractoid I’ve learned today.
(The fractoid is the smallest divisible unit of a factoid. Eli is a “fractoider”. Nothing wrong with that of course.)