A compendium of coups for The Delinquent Teenager …

As Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) noted the other day, Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is a very important work. Following an excerpt from Peter Foster’s review in the National Post, Montford wrote:

Getting some MSM coverage can make a big difference to a book. The review in the FP is the first time I’ve come across an MSM outlet reviewing a self-published book, and to my mind this shows just how important Donna’s work is.

I agree! And it is worth noting that Dr. Judith Curry also agrees (and has high praise for Montford’s excellent work, as well). As Curry noted in response to one of the comments (in that now very lengthy thread):

[...] I give Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion a full 5 stars. Montford’s book will stand the test of time in terms of a history of science book about this episode, and it is being cited in scholarly papers (check google scholar). It remains to be seen whether Laframboise’s book will achieve the same stature. That said, Laframboise’s book may be more influential politically in the short term.

And here’s an excerpt from one of the more recent reviews on Amazon.com:

A must read, even if you have been following this insanity for the two plus decades it has been propagated, as I have. You will learn something – many somethings. You will be entertained and disappointed in human folly. You will despair at the absolute waste of money which could have been better spent. You will be appalled at how blinded – no, how STUPID – our elected leaders can be.

The one thing you will NOT be is able to stop until you are finished reading. Fear not – it is concise, to the point and has no wasted word – unlike the now too-many iterations of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Assessment Reports]

Those of us who are Earth and Atmospheric scientists but don’t toe the alarmist line need many voices to which the public will listen. Here is one such voice which will resonate with non-subscribers to the dictates of the Inquisitorial Polemicist Climate Church.

Buy one for yourself, one each for your State Senator and Representative, one for your kids’ school library, one for your public library – and most important, distribute them. Commit it to memory. You won’t be able to state any rebuttal to climate craziness better than what’s between the covers of this little bombshell of a book.

Unlike Peter Gleick (or, in fact, any of the 9 lame flaming “one star” reviewers who are far outnumbered by the more reasoned – and evidently more helpful – voices of 74 four- and five-star reviewers), the author of the above review, geologist, T. D. Gillespie has read The Delinquent Teenager ….

Someone who shares Gleick’s apparent deficiency in reading comprehension skills (if one is inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assumes that by now he actually has read it) is the writer of a recent Press Release from the abundantly-funded World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

As Laframboise observed on her blog – and during the course of an excellent interview, yesterday, with SunTV’s Charles Adler – WWF have called the (well documented) charges in her book “ludicrous”. But as anyone who’s read the book knows, and as she reiterates (after putting the WWF writer to further shame, with a summary of <gasp> facts):

That word ludicrous really is apt. The WWF calls my book “a new climate change denial book.” But as the thousands of people who’ve already purchased it know, climate change is discussed only tangentially.

The IPCC as an organization is the real focus of my book. It has been around for 22 years, and has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet this is the first time anyone has taken a sustained, critical look at it.

What I’ve found is not pretty.

Here’s the SunTV interview, btw:

Donna Laframboise interviewed by Charles Adler on SunTV 2011-Oct-24 (click image to view video)

In keeping with theme of my virtual trip down musical memory lane, inspired Gleick, it seems to me that WWF (whose interests, vision ‘n “values” far too cosily coincide with those of the IPCC) just might be, well, Running Scared :-)

 

P.S. If you haven’t yet bought the book, you might want to take a look at the second of two excerpts published by the National Post.

The curious case of the missing “Outside Organizer”: prince of spinners, Neil Wallis

Update 07/22/2011 10:58 PM PDT: My oh-so-lonely (re-posted at 07/15/2011 10:54 AM PDT) comment on the website of Neil Wallis’ former home (pls see below for details) is still in moderation <sigh> Perhaps my comment was not the right kind of “digital noise” from The Outside Organization’s perspective … not to mention that it might have called into question their “strategy” – on behalf of at least one of their clients – of “leaking out rumours to the press”.

Update 09/17/2011 10:17 PM PDT While my above noted comment at OO is still in moderation, I must apologize to readers for my error in attributing to “Music World” [if such an entity exists] that which I should have attributed to Music Week. I have amended this post accordingly.

If you’ve been following the Murdoch-land media frenzy over the past few weeks, you will be aware that one of the individuals arrested for his role in the News of the World (NOTW) dust-up is Neil Wallis. Wallis was deputy editor of NOTW at the time of the phone-hacking events. More recently, Wallis had been contracted by the U.K. Metropolitan Police Commission to provide “public relations” advice; this relationship has resulted in the resignation of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner:

Met’s Stephenson and Yates both resign
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has resigned in the light of the ‘phone hacking scandal – and he took a swipe at the Prime Minister on the way.

His resignation was followed swiftly by that of Assistant Commissioner John Yates after a meeting with the Metropolitan Police Authority. Yates had originally been told he would be suspended pending an inquiry.

Stephenson – whose job will be taken on temporarily by deputy commissioner Tim Godwin – was being reported in the media as allegedly being too close to former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis who the Met appointed as a public relations consultant and who also worked as a public relations consultant for the health spa Champneys where Stephenson spent five weeks recuperating – free of charge. Yates was responsible for checking the credentials of Wallis before the Met took him on. [emphasis added-hro]

It subsequently came to light that Yates was responsible for securing a position with Scotland Yard for Wallis’s daughter. The first I saw of this was in an article in today’s edition of the U.K.’s Mail Online indicating that Seane Hoare has been found dead in his apartment. Hoare was a former NOTW journalist – and more recently a whistleblower regarding the activities of U.K. PM, David Cameron’s former chief of communications, Andy Coulson. Coulson was one of the first to be arrested in this scandal, and he was also Wallis’ boss at NOTW.

Hoare is reported to have made claims to the effect that phone-hacking was rampant in the U.K. press. This is certainly borne out by a 2006 Report from the U.K. Information Commissioner [see p. 9]. But I digress …

Wallis’ involvement with the Police Commission happened to overlap with an assignment he took on as “lead” consultant for a PR and ‘reputation management’ company called The Outside Organization (OO) when OO was called upon by the University of East Anglia, in the days following the November 2009 release of the Climategate emails. This association came to light in a post by Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit on July 14. Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion (a must read, that’s now available on Kindle!) has also highlighted the Wallis-Climategate connection on his Bishop Hill blog. In September 2010, Music World Week magazine paid tribute to OO founder and CEO Alan Edwards:

“We don’t advertise a lot of the things we do,” says Edwards, who was called in by the University of East Anglia when Climategate blew up. “That was really interesting. It’s very high level, and you’re very much in the background on that sort of thing.”

The university’s Climatic Research Unit wanted Outside to fire back some shots on the scientists’ behalf after leaked emails from the unit gave climate change skeptics ammunition and led to an avalanche of negative press [including a U.K. Daily Express front-page story "The Big Climate Change 'Fraud' -hro] about whether global warming was a real possibility.

“They came to us and said, ‘We have a huge problem – we are being completely knocked apart in the press,’” says (OO’s) Sam Bowen. “They needed someone with heavyweight contacts who could come in and sort things out, and next week there was a front-page story telling it from their side.”

Wallis was the designated hitter with “heavyweight contacts”. Again, from the Music World Week spread:

The role of Neil Wallis, formerly editor of The People, deputy editor of The Sun and, most recently, executive editor of the News Of The World, is to lend heavy-hitting tabloid expertise, leading some jobs, following Edwards on others.

“Most of my career has been spent working at the top end of tabloid newspapers, so I know how they work and how they think,” says Wallis. “This is not that different, actually. You have very creative people, you have fastmoving situations, you have to think on your feet.”

Wallis led on the University of East Anglia “climategate” job, when Outside was drafted in to help the university’s Climatic Research Unit defend itself against charges of scientific misconduct.

However, since news of his arrest, Wallis’s role with OO has undergone some rather startling evolutionary changes. On July 14, the U.K. Guardian (which has been providing “live-blogging” of developments) reported that “colleague Marina Hyde” had tweeted:

Outside Organisation website 9am Neil Wallis “Managing director”. Outside Organisation website 11.30am Neil Wallis “Freelance consultant”.

I know that when I last checked the OO website, a few days ago, Neil Wallis was still listed in their People section, as Hyde had reported, as a consultant. Yet a little over an hour ago, I had one of those now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t moments: Wallis has been “disappeared” from OO’s stellar stable.

No doubt this disappearing act will give OO’s future clients additional confidence in their purported “Digital PR” services:

The web has exploded, social media has erupted and the way a celebrity, band or brand is created and maintained has changed as a result. For us, digital is just another communications channel and with our experienced team, we are in prime position to help create and manage the right online buzz and reputation for our clients. We were there at the start of the digital PR revolution and have helped artists and brands over the years – from Sirens to Diddy – to make the right digital noise [emphasis added -hro]

But speaking of OO, its digital prowess and disappearing acts … last week, while I was perusing their site, I came across three case studies. One was of the group “Spandau Ballet”. In discussing their “Strategy” OO had noted:

“We started leaking out rumours to the press [...]“

I thought this was rather interesting. And since they had invited comments I posted the following:

Hilary Ostrov says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

14 July 2011 at 11:19pm
These case studies are interesting. I wonder if you would be kind enough to share similar details on the “climategate job” headed by Neil Wallis.

Thanks.

I wasn’t exactly holding my breath in anticipation of an honest answer. My lonely comment stayed in moderation for many hours. Yet when I refreshed the page at approximately 10:53 AM PDT on July 15 it had (wait for it!) disappeared! Readers may have noticed from my past efforts at retrieving information that I don’t give up easily (see, for example, here and here). So I decided to repost my comment:

Hilary Ostrov says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

15 July 2011 at 5:55pm
These case studies are interesting. I wonder if you would be kind enough to share similar details on the “climategate job” headed by Neil Wallis.

Thanks.

07/15/2011 10:54 AM PDT

My original comment, which had been in moderation for quite some time, seems to have disappeared. So I’m re-posting.

As of today, July 18, 09:35 PM PDT, this comment is still in moderation. But in case OO decides to do another clever disappearing act, I’ve taken a screen capture:

2nd comment attempt on The Outside Organization website

In one of the many congratulatory blurbs in Music World Week‘s tribute to OO’s CEO, Alan Edwards, who was dubbed “King of the Spinners”, one of Edwards’ fans is quoted as saying:

“I used to believe what I read in the newspapers, until I met you, Alan. From Big Country to Spice to David, we had some of the best times, some of which are not repeatable, and thank God YouTube didn’t exist at the time….

“You have helped me in my career, advised me when I didn’t know what to do (which has been quite often) and gone beyond the call of duty for me when asked.”

A rather telling observation, don’t you think?! It certainly would be helpful to know what advice Neil Wallis – a mere Prince of the Spinners rather than a King, no doubt – had provided to CRU/UEA during the course of his assignment on OO’s “climategate job”. Not to mention how he might have “gone beyond the call of duty when asked”.

One also wonder when the MSM will acknowledge Wallis’ Climategate connections. In the meantime, no doubt the bigwigs at CRU/UEA are desperately hoping that this connection will be buried in the Murdoch-land media frenzy. Then again, perhaps this time they’ve called in the King of Spinners to exercise another talent of which the Music World Week spread suggests OO’s Edwards is proud: that which aims to “kill the story”.

UN agencies fail to practice what they preach

Back in the halcyon days of 1989, when “political correctness” was making its initial forays into our consciousness – and long before the purported perils of dreaded CO2 emissions had permeated and polluted political discourse – I became acquainted with the concept of “sustainability”.

It seemed like a very good idea at the time: I learned about it as an invited participant at the “founding assembly” of the Jewish Association for Development (JAD Canada). We were all fired up with the concept and with the idea of “thinking globally, acting locally” – which in those days translated into, “OK, we want to help developing nations, and we will focus on local initiatives (i.e. raise funds) to support projects which will help those in developing nations help themselves in a sustainable manner”. At least that was my interpretation, as I recall.

We all returned to our respective communities (including me, to my – then – recently adopted home of Vancouver), eager to carry out our mission. But within a rather short period of time, for a variety of reasons, the Vancouver branch petered out. Best laid plans of mice and men, and all that! Not sure what happened in other communities – or with the national organization – but they, too, may have met their demise, as I can find no indication of their virtual presence on the current Canadian scene.

The concept of “sustainability”, however, appears to have been, well, more sustainable! One might say that it has grown in parallel popularity with political correctness.

All of which brings me to one of the “sustainability” concept’s prime movers, shakers, proponents, advocates … (you name it, they’ve done it, well, everything except practice it): the alphabet soup otherwise known as the United Nations – and its multitude of Acronymic Offspring, not the least of which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, aka the IPCC, thanks to which the world now has a rather mediocre climate bible. And without which, according to IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri, “no one would be worried about climate change.”

Sustainability is now inextricably intertwined with “climate change”. The IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers – which reduces the 3,000+ pages of the three Working Groups’ reports to a mere (albeit probably more digestible) 22 pages – contains no less than 7 instances of “sustainable/sustainability” (which is one more than there are of “environment/environmental” and 2 more than there are of “carbon dioxide”) The good news about this Synthesis Report is that there is no mention of the subsequently increasingly popular buzzphrases “environmental justice” and “social justice”, But I digress …

A few days ago, my fellow Citizen Auditor, Dr. Tim Hulsey, tipped me off to an astonishing article on FoxNews.com. This is an article written by George Russell, the Executive Editor of Fox News. Some highlights:

U.N.’s Environmental Housekeeping in Chaos, Internal Report Shows

The U.N. is telling countries how to save the planet, but its own environmental housekeeping is a ‘scattered’ mess, according to a report by a special group of internal investigators.

When it comes to telling the rest of the world how it must behave in order to save the planet from environmental calamity, and lobbying for trillion-dollar solutions to those problems, no organization in the world makes greater claims to being the leading authority — and global arbiter — than the United Nations.

Except, it seems, when it comes to its own behavior as an environmentally friendly global citizen. There the U.N. system is, according to members of a special group of internal U.N. inspectors, in chaos.

Among other things, the group, known as the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), found:

• U.N. efforts at setting internal guidelines on environmental housekeeping and management across its sprawling network of global organizations are “uncoordinated ad hoc efforts” that “continue to be scattered.”

• Most of the environmental measures implemented by the central organs of its many funds and programs, not to mention the central U.N. secretariat, “are not based on any specific guidance and are not documented in a clear and transparent way.”

[...]

• When it comes to the U.N.’s own contributions to solving the global greenhouse gas problem, the organization’s efforts are, according to the inspectors, not only unsystematic but sometimes indecipherable. The U.N. generates the equivalent of 1.741 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — defined by the U.N. itself as the world’s most prevalent and pernicious greenhouse gas — every year (more than such countries as Mauritius, Guyana and Laos). But it apparently doesn’t have any administrative framework to handle the purchase of carbon offsets to balance its emissions, or even a systematic way to purchase or account for them.

According to the inspectors, U.N. procurement experts tasked with handling the offset transactions were apparently ignorant of the basics of the entire carbon offset business (which has been the subject of tens of thousands of hours of U.N.-sponsored conferences over the past decade, often with the aim of putting U.N.-sponsored organizations in charge of the offset trade). The ignorance has prevailed even while two U.N. interagency groups have been working to develop system-wide guidelines on “sustainable procurement.”

[...[

The U.N., they note, has been trying to get its environmental household management together in one form or another since 2001. Yet "despite these efforts, ad hoc intergovernmental decisions and internal guidelines on environmental housekeeping and management continue to be scattered."

[..]

But when it came right down to it, the U.N.’s big environmental problem, the inspectors felt, was a “lack of focus on in-house management issues. “The U.N. needs to set up a “system-wide governance framework” to ensure that best practices are identified, and an organized way to share experience across the chaotic system in order to practice what it preached to the rest of the world.

To win its own Good Housekeeping seal of environmental approval, the U.N. also needs, the inspectors said, to “ensure greater accountability of United Nations system entities to Member States, the public and beyond.”

The JIU’s tough report is by no means the inspectors’ only critique of the U.N.’s environmental competence. Only a year ago another JIU inspector issued an even more damning report that said the U.N.’s system of environmental management for the world at large was in the same chaotic shape as the JIU now diagnoses for its internal management.

Among other things, that report noted that the U.N.’s emphasis on “sustainable development” — merging anti-poverty programs with environmental protection — was starving actual environmental agencies of support, causing U.N. environmental mandates to proliferate without coordination, and creating a jungle of contending U.N. bureaucracies that made it impossible to even know how much the U.N. was spending to manage its environmental actions. (The “rough estimate”: $1.65 billion.)

[Russell concludes:]

With the U.N.’s external efforts at world “environmental governance” a seeming jumble, and its internal environmental management an apparent mess, the JIU’s inspectors have made a striking case over the past year that one of the major environmental problems the world faces may be — the U.N. itself. [emphases added -hro]

I must confess that I haven’t read the entire 70 page report (which FoxNews has made available here) but nothing that I’ve read so far suggests that Russell’s assessment is anything but right on the mark.

The reason I haven’t read all 70 pages, btw, is that I was diverted by the JIU report’s link to the (July 2009) 2008 Annual Statistical Report on United Nations Procurement

In this report I learned (p. 289) that the UN procured “Official Entertainment Services” from a Lebanon based organization, Quantum Trading Co – for the paltry sum of (US)$4,206,082.00 .

I can’t help wondering if these were “sustainable” Official Entertainment Services and/or how they might have contributed to the reduction of the dreaded C02 emissions.

Does CBC censor contra climate change messsages?

When is a blog not a blog? Canada’s national, taxpayer supported, broadcasting network, the CBC, seems to have different policies for different posts. With apologies to Marshall McLuhan, the CBC may well be striving to be “the medium that controls the message”.

On Rex Murphy’s excellent “Climate Change: Science or Politics?“, post of Dec. 4, there are 164 comments. The most recent response was “Posted 2009/12/13 at 3:36 PM ET”

Update: After publishing this post, I went back to Murphy’s blog; there are now 166 comments. … and at least one more (mine, with link to this post) awaiting “pre-moderation”. Most recent was Posted 2009/12/13 at 4:57 PM ET. I do hope this moderator hasn’t left for the day! I’ll update again if/when my comment appears.

Update 2: Hey, guess what?! My comment on Murphy’s blog made it past “pre-moderation”. It was Posted 2009/12/13 at 8:41 PM ET

On any given comment, one can “Agree”, “Disagree” or “Report abuse”. If one wants to contribute to the discussion, CBC offers both “submission guidelines” and a “Submission policy” [just click one or the other, because they both go to the same page!].

Over at Bob McDonald’s Quirks & Quarks blog, one gets a somewhat different picture – which could be because Murphy’s on TV, while McDonald’s primary stomping ground is radio (although he does appear on The National whenever they need a “science” expert.)

McDonald, we are told, is “one of Canada’s best known science journalists”. He’s written science books and won lots of awards, including four honorary doctorates. Conspicuously absent from this glowing bio is any mention of his academic background.

Hmmm … I wonder why….It couldn’t possibly be because his academic credentials do not include any of the science disciplines, could it? Nah … CBC – reliable purveyor of non-scientist Al Gore’s error-riddled, fear-raising flick – would never be so underhanded, would it? But I digress …

McDonald’s latest “BLOG” entry is dated Monday, December 7, 2009 | 12:28 PM ET. Title is “350 years of science, now under siege” . Wow, that’s a rather sweeping claim! Last night, there were 165 comments, the “most recent” of which was Posted December 11, 2009 04:34 PM.

UPDATE 03/20/2013 Above link no longer works. Here’s the new, improved link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/quirks-quarks-blog/2009/12/350-years-of-science-now-under-siege.htm

And if you go there, you will find that the “comments” have been pruned (or purged, depending on one’s perspective) down to 6.

It’s a piece of “climate science” advocacy at its whining finest! Two excerpts (that I decided I was going to comment on):

The world’s oldest scientific institution, the Royal Society in London, is celebrating its 350th anniversary this year with the online release of original documents from its more famous members, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and even Benjamin Franklin. Meanwhile in Canada, 500 scientists have sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying that their voices are not being heard as he heads to the climate talks in Copenhagen.

When it comes to climate change, science seems to have taken a back seat.

[...]

We are often criticized on our radio program for not including people on the other side of the climate “debate” to provide balance. If there were good, peer-reviewed scientific publications that provided solid evidence to counter the climate science, we would run it. But such a body of evidence does not exist. [emphases added -hro]

Before posting, I noticed that there is a “Submissions Policy” Five paragraphs containing 786 words of legal fine-print. As my eyes glazed over the first paragraph (all 486 words) I was almost discouraged from posting a comment. Until I remembered the more readable guidelines/policy from Murphy’s page, where I was reminded:

Guidelines for Submissions to CBCNews.ca
Tell us your story, be a part of the news team. CBC.ca wants you to participate in online comments, video uploads and photo submissions.

COMMENTS

What kind of comments are suitable for CBC.ca?

We want your perspective. Probe, analyze, inform. Challenge, advocate, debate. Inspire, entertain, enjoy. Your contributions make our website and on-air programming richer, the conversations more lively and diverse.

What is and isn’t acceptable?

1. Please keep your submissions relevant to the topic.
2. Be civil.
3. When you are writing about legal issues, remember that people are innocent until proven guilty (that may mean using words such as “allegedly”).
4. Feel free to link internally within the CBC.ca site as many times as you would like. As for external web addresses, we allow three links per post.

Not at all unreasonable. Nor is the following notice above the comment input box on Murphy’s blog:

Note: The CBC does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that comments are pre-moderated/reviewed and published according to our submission guidelines.

Incidentally, the note between the article and the Comments on McDonald’s page is:

(Please note: All comments on this blog are checked by a moderator, and those containing profanity, abusive language or HTML will not be posted. Comments left after regular working hours will be posted on the morning of the next workday.) [emphasis added -hro]

Here’s the content of the comment I submitted:

“When it comes to climate change, science seems to have taken a back seat.”

Science took a “back seat” on climate change the day that “climate scientists” decided pollute the scientific endeavour.

They did so by mixing science with politics and advocacy for their cause – which included co-opting a coalition of willing journalists such as yourself.

As for “peer review” being the be-all and end-all of qualification to be deemed worthy of discussion … It is quite obvious that, in the field of “climate science”, peer review does not include any verification – either by the reviewers, or by the journal editors – of the underlying data in support of the researchers’ claims.

Thus, whatever the “consensus” on “climate change” (formerly known as global warming) might be, it most certainly cannot be considered “science”.

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/delusions-of-climate-modellers-and-the-madness-of-crowds/

I thought it met all the “guidelines/policy” and expected to see it posted when I refreshed the page today. Alas, it seems that Sunday is not a “workday” for the moderator. But then I noticed the following “fine-print”. It resembles the Note on Murphy’s page (see above) but has some … uh … “value added” content:

Disclaimer:

Note: By submitting your comments you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published, and those that are published will not be edited. But all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated. [emphasis added -hro]

The volume of emails precludes publishing all comments? In this day and age?! How very convenient. Well, convenient for a medium that is striving to (censor and/or) control the message.

Helpful hint from Hilary to CBC Management: If you’re still struggling with budget cuts, you might consider giving the workday-only “moderator” a golden-handshake. Then you can replace the long outdated “copy and paste from E-mail” method of handling “Comments” with the more up-to-date technology used on Rex Murphy’s blog.

Update 3: (Dec. 14/09) Good news! The “moderator” is back at work today. And s/he must have really liked my post (and the one that preceded it) because it was posted twice.