Nor could I have imagined that, two years hence, I would be playing the role of “midwife” at the birth of the PDF version of a book that I know is going to be a best-seller. Make a note of this title, folks:
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
by Donna Laframboise.
It’s available now in electronic version for Kindle (and, of course .pdf) at a price that anyone can afford: US$4.99, and a paperback version will be available at Amazon within the next week or so. Details and all relevant links are on Donna’s blog.
This is not a book about climate science.
Nor, as Donna notes, is this:
a catalog of every bad thing the IPCC has ever done. Rather, it is an argument. I have chosen my examples with care, selecting ones I thought might be easily digested by the average person who knows little about the climate debate.
In my mind’s eye I am addressing an audience of ordinary citizens and the questions under discussion are: What is the IPCC? and Can it be trusted? I’ve marshaled my evidence and ordered my argument in the way that seemed to me to have the greatest chance of persuading a reasonable person with an open mind that this organization wields an inappropriate level of influence over our lives – and that it has a credibility score of zero.
Donna Laframboise. The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (Kindle Locations 2588-2593). Ivy Avenue Press.
One cannot over-estimate the importance of this book in addressing the shortcomings of far too many so-called science journalists (and other media mavens) who have been content to let the UN’s IPCC rest on its self-anointed laurels for far too many years.
Until this book, far too many questions about the IPCC had been unasked – by far too many influential people. Donna has asked these questions, and meticulously researched the answers, which she presents in an eminently readable (and easily verifiable) fashion.
As Prof. Ross McKitrick observed in his pre-publication review:
“Donna Laframboise shows that the IPCC’s actual operations bear little resemblance to its public reputation … far from being an open network of top experts it has turned itself into a narrow clique of like-minded activists … [The IPCC's] reports have come to be more like agenda-driven propaganda than competent, objective scientific assessments.”
A copy of The Delinquent Teenager … should be placed on the bookshelf (electronic or otherwise) of every scientist, politician and government functionary who has (unwittingly or not) ever relied on the authority of the IPCC’s assessment reports.
U.K. scientist and author of The Rational Optimist, Dr. Matt Ridley is the recipient of the ($50,000) 2011 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research’s Hayak Award. He describes The Delinquent Teenager… as “Blooming brilliant. Devastating”. And in a recent blogpost, in which he includes an excerpt, he observed:
Donna Laframboise is a journalist and civil libertarian in Toronto, who made her name as a fearless investigative reporter in the 1990s. She has recently been investigating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has come up with startling results about how its reports are compiled. For those of us who took the IPCC’s evaluations of climate at face value when they came out — I know I did — and thought that they were based on an impartial and careful process that relied on peer reviewed evidence, these revelations are shocking. Her book The Delinquent Teenager is [...] one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent years. It demolishes the argument that we need the mainstream media because the blogosphere will never do the hard work of investigative journalism. The opposite is true. [emphasis added -hro]
Australia’s Dr. Garth Paltridge, an atmospheric physicist and author of The Climate Caper (cited in The Delinquent Teenager …), recently wrote [correspondence, shared with permission]:
Having just read Donna Laframboise’s new book, I don’t think I would touch the IPCC with a barge pole.
Dr. Judith Curry has weighed in with her review in which she cites several clips from the book. She concludes:
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.)
My personal reaction as a scientist is to be very thankful that I am not involved in the IPCC. I already feel duped by the IPCC (I’ve written about this previously), I am glad that I was not personally used by the IPCC.
Does the problems with the IPCC mean that WG1 science is incorrect? Not necessarily, but I agree that a “new trial” is needed. WG2 and WG3 reports pretty much belong in the dustbin, as far as I can tell.
I regret that so much of our intellectual horsepower and research funding has gone into supporting the IPCC assessments. Donna’s book could provide some impetus for changing this.
If you’ve already bought the book, be sure to follow the many links you’ll find therein … some of which, I’m proud to say, will bring you right back here!