Reviewer Peter Gleick makes a number of assertions about the contents of "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert"; however, readers will notice that he has failed to substantiate a single one of them. Gleick's failure to support his claims suggests very strongly that he has failed to actually read the book.

Peter Gleick offers no evidence for his unsubstantiated claims. This book is not really about science. It is entirely about the IPCC process: for example, several of the lead authors of the IPCC reports lacked experience, qualifications and appear to be chosen for their connections to WWF, EDF, Greenpeace and other environmental NGO's - all of which is exposed in this book including names, dates and full references. Furthermore, the book confirms that over 5,000 references (including some of the strongest high impact claims of the IPCC showing evidence of the dangerousness of man-made Global Warming) are to "grey literature" - i.e. to reports that were NEVER verified by peer review - all this despite assurances from the head of the IPCC that the IPCC ONLY use peer-reviewed science in their "climate bible" report. Worse the book also provides conclusive evidence that some influential people within the IPCC were well aware of deficiencies and yet took no action to correct inadequacies in these processes (the book includes explicit examples where IPCC authors elevated their concerns about the poor quality and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus by the IPCC process ...but these concerns were simply swept aside!)

If you respect science (as Peter Gleick states and presumably aspires to) then be absolutely sure that you read the entire book because it is a real eye opener! What you may have believed was an IPCC authoritative synopsis of "settled climate science", according to the august IPCC, will start to smell like the most rotten, disgusting and corrupt fraud of the last century! In short,this book by Donna Laframboise, is an investigative journalistic shocker that is to our modern era as Watergate was to the Nixon era!

To put things in perspective, regarding Peter Gleick's motives for attacking this book with unsubstantiated claims (it is just lies), Peter Gleick wrote this open letter to Forbes magazine online on 10/04/2011:

<quote>

An Open Letter to Climate Change Deniers and Skeptics: The Final [Chocolate] Straw

To the few of you left,

OK, you have fought hard to deny or challenge the realities of climate change, perhaps because you are afraid of the policies that might have to be put in place; or are afraid of the possibilities of increased government intervention; or you don't think it will be that bad; or you think it will be too expensive to do anything about; or you don't understand the science; or you don't trust scientists, including, by the way, every national academy of sciences and every professional scientific organization in the geosciences (see the list attached to this Congressional testimony); or whatever.

You may not think the expected consequences of climate change are bad enough to do anything, despite what researchers have been telling us for years about higher temperatures, worsening frequency and intensity of storms and droughts, rising sea levels, altered water quality and availability, growing health risks from pests and heat, and much more.

Fine. But you are dragging the rest of us, who still believe in science and think that things can and should be done quickly, down into what increasingly seems like a future hell. You need to get on board. Why? Here is the final straw.

It now appears that on top of all of the other potentially catastrophic, costly, damaging, or dangerous impacts of human-caused climate change, there is a very serious risk that it will threaten the production of chocolate.

Yes, chocolate. A new scientific study from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, a research center of the world-renowned Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has just published a new analysis that says the world will suffer a massive loss of area suitable for growing cocoa as temperatures continue to rise and rainfall patterns shift.

Figure 1, below, shows the drastic potential decrease in the viable chocolate-growing areas of Ghana and the Ivory Coast by 2050 due to climate change. These two countries produce 60 percent of global cocoa, but by 2050 cocoa production by these two leading global producers will be crippled. The authors note that smart farmers will certainly try hard to adapt and modify where and how they grow cocoa and that there may be opportunities to avoid the worst damages if farmers shift to other crops, like cashews.

I'm sorry, but cashews are no substitute for chocolate. It should now be clear, even to the few remaining climate change deniers, that the risks of accelerating climate change are just too high. Our policymakers must act immediately.

Sincerely,

All who truly love chocolate.

P.S. To those climate deniers and skeptics who don't like chocolate and hence don't care: please stop imposing your distorted sensibilities on the rest of us.

<end Quote>

The above suggests that Peter Gelick may describe Donna's new book as "lies" simply because the facts presented in Donna's book cast considerable doubt over the robustness of the conclusions of every IPCC report. Donna's book throws into question the whole "tizzy" that the entire globe has gotten into over unproven claims of catastrophic man-made global warming. Donna's book certainly goes against someone, like Peter Gleick, who adamantly believes that man-made climate change is dragging us into "what increasingly seems like a future hell"! (A belief which I respect and which Peter has every right to hold - no matter how ridiculous it may sound). Donna's book also undermines any alarmists who rely heavily on the taxpayer funded Environmental gravy train (is there another possible motive here?). You be the judge as to what other ulterior motives might exist for attacking this book so completely as "lies and misrepresentation": "Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. His research and writing address the critical connections between water and human health, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and international conflicts over water resources."

P Gleick writes: "See, especially, the section trying to discredit the "hockey stick" -- long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd. Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it, but you won't find out about that in this book."

Oh yes you WILL find out about it in the book, at Kindle location 2099 in Ch. 32. Here's what it says:

"Depending on whether you're talking to a climate skeptic or a climate activist (people in the second camp control the Wikipedia page on this and many other topics related to global warming), the hockey stick graph has either been totally discredited or remains a sound piece of science whose findings have been confirmed by several independent studies. (footnote 32-2). As Montford's book explains, such claims of independent corroboration are suspect, since these studies were conducted by many of the same small clique of researchers, use similarly flawed statistical techniques, and/or rely on the same dubious sources of data."
---------

PGleick: "This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change."

I notice that PG isn't listed as having purchased the book. This gives him an "out" for his misleading statement above. The book isn't primarily about "the science." It's about the IPCC's claim, trumpeted by its Chairman, to be an impartial collection of the best experts on the topic, to rely on peer-reviewed science only, to have rules in place to ensure that proper procedures are followed, to intensively peer-review its draft documents, to be above the fray as far as policy prescriptions are concerned, etc., etc. This focus on the misbehavior of the IPCC (not its scientific claims) is apparent in the next paragraph from the book (after the one just quoted above):

"For the purposes of this discussion THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE IPCC PERFORMED NO DUE DILIGENCE before according the hockey stick graph such prominence.
.................. [27 paragraphs on the topic follow, and then this summing-up:]

"The essential point here is that the IPCC aggressively promoted a graph that had been produced by a young scientist who'd just been awarded his PhD. Even though the graph overturned decades of scholarship, even though it negated a widespread consensus about what the temperature record of the past 1000 years looked like, the IPCC didn't bother to verify its [statistical] accuracy. What has been described as 'one of the most rigorous scientific review bodies in existence' felt no need to ensure that its case wasn't being built on quicksand."
---------

PGleick writes: "It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ...."
And:
"Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don't need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you."

Wrong again. The book stresses (in Chs. 33 & 34, primarily) the report of the InterAcademy Council (IAC), presented in August 2010, which is recent (and unrefuted). And this book contains important NEW material from its inquiry into the IPCC. Here, starting at Location 2557 in the Acknowledgments, are the relevant passages:

"Hilary [Ostrov] single-handedly shook loose 678 pages [footnote link] of material on which this book relies. During its 2010 investigation of the IPCC, the IAC committee posted an online questionnaire. We were told the responses would be made public, but months after the report was released that still hadn't occurred. Hilary tirelessly pursued the matter until some (but not all) of these responses were divulged.

"From a journalist's perspective, they are solid gold--being the equivalent of interviews with dozens of people about their IPCC experience. Until I read that material the IPCC was still a remote and confusing organization."

Lots of hysterical, defensive rhetoric with no reference to the book's content - has he even read it?

I believe Gleick claims to be a "climate scientist". People will draw their own conclusions from his fact-free rant.

Sound like one of the activists from under the stone that Donna Laframboise has just turned over.

Looks like Mr Gleick must be a climate scientist - he's ignored the details and gone straight to the required conclusions - a lot of blah blah blah but no hard facts or alternative arguments.
Maybe he's holding out for some funding from tax payers so that he can do a peer/pal reviewed analysis of the book along with some shoddy statistics and cheery picked data.
Overall - this was less of a review and more of set of baseless biased comments ... must try harder sir!

Peter,

It might be wise of you to withdraw your "review" now, before you suffer further humiliation. You have sadly misjudged the calibre of the sceptics , and commited the cardinal sin of reviewing a book you clearly have not read. Perhaps you were mislead in this by frequenting warmist websites like realclimate where only the worst sceptical arguments make it through moderation, to serve as strawmen. In an open forum like this, you will be called out and receive the ridicule you so richly deserve. Retreat now, while only a few of us have preserved your inane commentary for future reference. It is not something to try and brazen out. Just ask Dana1981 how his similar attempted deception in "reviewing" the Hockey Stick Illusion panned out.

Thank you Peter.
I will certainly buy the book (which will mean at least one of us will read it).

Well done Peter. In your fact free monologue you've demonstrated precisely the characteristics that have come to define the IPCC and "scientists" associated with it that Donna details in her book that you haven't read.

"This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change"

Right on Peter . . a perfect description of the IPCC and all the reports that publishes.

Peter Gleick's review is the perfect example of a Believer in Global Warming. He has no facts about a book that he has probably not read so he uses innuendo and smear to try and derail the sales if what is a fascinating, meticulously researched, footnoted and documented book about the massive corruption and deception of the "leading" source of hysterical global warming alarmism. Leading as in leading society astray.

Peter Gleick should be ashamed to have his name associated with the IPCC but instead he degenerates into ludicrous claims

The book clearly, factually and truthfully makes the case the UN's IPCC is corrupt, fraudulent and has been designed from the get-go to mislead public opinion in order to advance the political environmental agenda.

Mr. Gleick's tawdry review of this book is so IPCC like . . no facts, just smears.

And he wonders why society is turning against the Warmists . . . we do not like being lied to, being manipulated by greedy scientists scamming their next research grant, being the play toy of a multi-billion dollar greenie public relations scheme.