Wednesday
Oct192011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Judy on Donna
Oct 19, 2011 Climate: IPCC Judith Curry's thoughts on Donna Laframboise's book are well worth the read - especially this bit:
In terms of the broader audience, I have to say that I hope that this book leads to the discontinuation of the IPCC after the AR5 report (which is already well underway, and is arguably sufficiently tarnished that it is likely to have much less influence than previous reports.)
Reader Comments (25)
To be frank right now I can't see the political will being there for an AR6 and these are political not science powered reports. So Curry is probable right , as for the IPCC it could gone on for much longer the UN is rather like a super taken its takes a great deal of time to stop and is rubbish at changing directions when it needs to. So in 10 years form now I think the IPCC will still be around, even is its just one person sitting in office somewhere who nobody knows nor cares what they do.
I just finished "Teenager" last night.I am glad to see Judith Curry has similar views to me on this.
the UN is rather like a super (b> tanker
Already downloaded to my Kindle, and will be read as soon as I've finished Bob Carter's excellent book. Watermelons was good, too.
Peter Gleick is digging himself into quite a large hole - not pretty to watch someone making such a fool of themselves
diogenes
That is quite a remarkably exchange, Peter Gleick seems to flatly refuse to justify his review with facts, even when challenged by Richard Tol who reviewed two drafts of the book. Not good.
@diogenes and @Green Sand
Gleick is making an amazing a spectacle of himself! It's almost as if he's trapped in a time-machine that's taken him back to an era in which contrary opinions could be readily dismissed with a delegitmizing hand-wave.
I've seen a lot of slow-learners in my time; but I can honestly say that I've never encountered any who are as challenged as the CAGW committed.
Peter Gleick's hissy fit is indeed a wonder to behold. He's now been offered a guest post on WUWT, presumably so he can dig himself an even deeper hole.
I've been watching Gleick's performance over at JC too.
Maybe he can sequester some CO2 in the hole he's digging? Just a thought.
Has Peter blocked you yet Jonathan on twitter? He has blocked Andrew.
I really cannot quite comprehend Peter's lack of self awareness.
It is almost as if he is not aware that the whole world can see his behaviour. Does he just think it is the people that comment.. Very many scientists, etc just lurk there.. I hope they feel able to join in and comment
posted some stuff on the BMJ conference for anyone who is interested, and now see this on the Beeb:
19 Oct: BBC: Rising energy bills causing fuel poverty deaths
By Damian Kahya
Professor John Hills has called for a new definition of the problem, which focuses on people with low incomes driven into poverty by high fuel bills.
His report found that in 2004, fuel-poor households faced a shortfall of £256 to heat their homes and avoid poverty, but in 2009 it was £402.
Recent bill increases may make the problem worse this year, he warned...
There are 27,000 extra deaths in the UK each winter compared to other times of year, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. The report found most of this was due to cold weather.
That figure is one of the highest in Europe and worse than Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway and France.
The main cause of these deaths is respiratory and cardiovascular illness brought on by the cold, with lower outdoor and indoor temperatures each accounting for about half the total number of deaths.
Prof Hills then drew on a separate recent report, the Marmot review, which found that more than one-fifth of all additional winter deaths were directly attributable to lower indoor temperatures in homes that, on average, are among the coldest 25% in the country.
Not all of these deaths could be directly attributable to fuel poverty as some homes may be cold for other reasons, so Prof Hills and his team estimated that around half of those deaths were for economic reasons...
Low-income households are unable to invest in energy efficiency measures, hindering efforts both to reduce their bills and to lower UK carbon emissions...
The latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate change suggested four million English households fitted into this category in 2009, in a sharp increase from 1.2 million in 2003.
Estimates from the Centre for Sustainable Energy suggest that number has risen to 5.5 million for England and an estimate of 6.6 million for the UK...
Derek Lickorish, chair of the Government's Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (FPAG), called the figures for the number of deaths due to fuel poverty a "disgrace".
"Insulating the homes of the fuel poor is the only long-term and sustainable solution to solving this problem, but they will need financial help to make this happen and this takes time. Urgent action must start today," he said...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15359312
Anything daubed with the 'colours of the UN', is tarnished and by its very substance therefore makes any organisation, committee, or working party affiliated which originates through their [UN] offices: to be venally corrupt.
That's the way the UN 'works'. 'For the greater good' - got a good UN jackboot kicking years ago.
The only reason the UN IPCC panel still exists, is because of a need by western governments to justify their loony green ponzi energy scams but with the realisation in countries [even Britain] that carbon emissions charges, carbon targets and useless palliatives will cause economic suicide, the raison d'etre for the IPCC is slipping from everybody's minds.
What initially started as a reasonably scientific and [not quite] objective panel has descended now into a pantomime farce. The IPCC agenda is overtly political, there is no science worth talking about, it [AGW] has been properly and rightly trashed.
Thus, all the IPCC conferences talk about is how to deliver on a carbon emissions trading scheme which would bang the final nails in the coffin of - a nigh on bankrupt first world.
Fortunately the Japanese [America never signed up - good ole George dubya!] and now the Russians + Chinese have seen the light - with Durban coming up - the last of the great beanfeast jamoborees and idiot-eco-loony-fest is on its last legs. Incredible! The billions wasted on the endless rounds of conferences in exotic locations at the taxpayers expense, is finally [and not before time] reached its very great anti-climax - hip
ferkinhooray.Finally, without any scientific rigour what remains of the IPCC circus - are the clowns; Pachauri chief laughter man, E Mann, Hansen and Jonesy's bunch and in Germany Rahmstorfs loonies - can start to crawl away.
And NEXT .......Wait till the funding fountain dries up, so cool ain't it!
This is a momentous post by Judith. Devastating.
Josh to the colours!
AR6 and AR7 can't see the light of the day.
ps If anybody understands the joke...I'll get my coat!!
BTW Gleick hasn't blocked me but strangely, I did have to click Follow again
I was reading through the extracts that the estimable JC had taken from the book ( I seriously will get theis book for Christmas) and it contained this:
“The claim that 20-30% of the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction has been a hallmark of Pachauri’s speeches . . . [That chapter] depends almost entirely on a single, highly questionable piece of research. . . five out of 10 of this chapter’s most senior personnel have a formal documented link to the World Wildlife Fund. There is no way to know which sections of this IPCC chapter represent the opinions of scientists who’ve jumped into bed with the WWF and which sections are . . . scientifically sound.”
So far its the only thing I take issue with. Sorry folks but almost every species on the planet is destined for extinction including us.
Humans are the only species so far as we know that has the capacity to protect itself. However until it stops investigating its colon from the inside, we are just as much under threat as the rest.
While agree with comments that Dr Gleick seems to be doing himself no favors over at JC, I must admit that I find myself agreeing with the the thrust of his book on bottle water (based on its description on the Pacific Institute's webpage).
Might have to buy it as well as DF's book - I have to wait til the latter comes out in paper format.
Kindle is available for the PC.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000423913
Gleick's entire career is based on being an environmental crusader. His fame and his income depend on it. How can he possibly accept the truths that Donna's book exposes. He never read Donna's book. His self image depends on not knowing what is in it. And he still claims that Mann's work has been vindicated when the entire world now knows that Mann used unreproducable data and upside down data. I hope that he does do a guest post on WUWT. He'll be cut to shreds - not with personal attacks or name calling - but with the facts.
I think Saint Judith's post on Donna Laframboise’s book shows the courage of a leader and an agenda setter. Quite remarkable. Everyone should read it.
Peter Gleick is well and trully out of his comfort zone.
He made that review when nicely snuggled up inside of it. Sipping his cocoa, in his underpants and string vest, Homer Simpson themed slippers on feet warming by the fire, stroking the chihuahua .
He didn't realise his comfort zone wall's were made of glass and the neighbours can see and hear everything.
Not a pretty sight.
@BarryWoods, @MaurizioMorabito, I'm seeing a number of reports of odd errors on twitter to do with the follow system not quite working.
@BarryWoods, I don't think @PeterGleick has blocked me, but I'm not sure I'd know and I certainly wouldn't care. I think people have a right to use the tools twitter provides as they wish. If he wants to block you or me that's his business.
I have been reading the thread on Judy Curry's blog, and the arguments as to whether Gleick had bothered to read the book before criticising it. I found an error. She states, quite categorically, although without references, that the "hat trick" came from ice hockey fans throwing their hats onto the rink when a hockey player scored three goals.
This is blatant misinformation trying to defame the game of cricket and it's many practioners over the years. Everyone knows that the term came about because a chap called Stephenson took three wickets with three consecutive balls. To celebrate his achievement his fellow team mates had a whip round and he bought a hat with the money raised. Hence the derivation of a "hat trick".
So Gleick couldn't have read it, else he would have, in my view rightly, made much of this slur on cricket.
Scott Mandia, of Rapid Response, has written his 'review'. He freely admits that he hasn't read the book fully.
Richard Tol concedes Donna's expose on the IPCC has justification. Calls for Pachauri to go-
http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/