Despite the best efforts of the likes of Peter Gleick and other assorted detractors, Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is doing very well, thank you very much!
Australia’s Andrew Bolt, who “runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report”, interviewed Donna yesterday (which was today, there, I believe!)
He introduces the video as “My interview yesterday with Donna Laframboise, author of a stunning expose of the IPCC, headquarters of the global warming faith”.
Bolt also includes a link to an excellent review of The Delinquent Teenager … in Australia’s Quadrant Online by Tony Thomas, a “retired economics/business journalist (Age, BRW) and author of Stolen Generations: The Pocket Windschuttle“. Here are some excerpts:
by Tony Thomas
October 31, 2011
Small book on IPCC: Big punch
Donna Laframboise’s small study on IPCC processes has a clumsy title, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
The ‘delinquent’ is the IPCC. The study is a game-changer.
It is not about the science of human-caused global warming, it is just the first serious publication on the organisational integrity of the IPCC, a somewhat influential body.
[The InterAcademy Council’s] report in August 2010 found “significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process.” (Emphasis added). Thus Laframboise is no wild-eyed ranter; she’s in respectable company.
Laframboise provides safeguarded hyperlinks to all her significant sources.
For example, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri is quoted, in Nature, 19/12/2007, (no less):
We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path,” he says. “I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it. (Emphasis added).
I tested the link; it worked fine. No-one is making this stuff up.
Unlike Gleick and his cohorts, Thomas decided to read the book before he wrote his review. And it shows, in the several excerpts he selected for his readership – along with convenient links so that they could immediately purchase the Kindle, PDF or Paperback version:-)
The Australian carried a review by the U.K.’s Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist:
IPCC warming assessments attract the activists and snub the sceptics
by: Matt Ridley From: The Australian
October 31, 2011 12:00AM
A LITTLE-KNOWN Canadian freelancer who writes a short book dense with data and argument, and self-publishes a kindle version on Amazon, can hardly expect fame and fortune.
Yet this seems to be what is happening to Donna Laframboise, the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate Expert.
Her book has garnered nearly 90 reviews on amazon.com in just two weeks, about four-fifths of them giving it five stars.
The web is alive with discussion of this remarkable little book. The World Wildlife Fund has put out a press release denouncing it.
What is all the fuss about? Like many people, me included, Laframboise used to take climate science at face value. She thought the case had been made by a committee of many neutral scientists working for the UN that global warming was a serious threat.
After all, as Mark Twain once said, “people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing”.
In 2009, two years after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a Nobel Peace Prize, Laframboise, growing irritated with the shallow analysis of the issue in the news sources she trusted most, began reading and digging into the issue herself to get the first-hand version.
“After all,” she writes, “journalists are supposed to be sceptical. They aren’t supposed to take anyone’s word for anything. They’re supposed to dig, and question, and challenge.”
She was not the first Canadian outsider to do this. About seven years before, an expert mathematician named Stephen McIntyre, also a resident of Toronto, had begun to request the data and analysis behind the famous “hockey stick graph” that appeared six times in the 2001 report of the IPCC.
He eventually found that it was a house of cards, based on faulty data filtered through a distorting statistical lens. McIntyre’s careful “audit” is now legendary, as is the resistance and calumny he encountered. The hockey stick graph was dropped by the IPCC.
(Incidentally, both McIntyre and Laframboise were influenced by encountering stubborn injustice earlier in their careers: McIntyre experienced police corruption at first-hand; Laframboise investigated a miscarriage of justice in a murder case.)
Laframboise focused on the IPCC reports themselves. How were they actually written and who by? The impression the UN gave was that they were composed by thousands of senior scientists.
In the words of Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC: “These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of publications, on the research that they have done . . . They are people who are at the top of their profession.”
In fact, as Laframboise meticulously documents, world experts on malaria, hurricanes and other topics are excluded because of their sceptical views; while a relatively small clique does the actual writing, many of whom are young and have such a short “track record” that they barely have higher degrees.
Moreover, many of the authors are up to their necks in activism.
[… and Ridley concludes:]
To those who are being asked to make significant economic and environmental sacrifices to prevent global warming, and are relying on second-hand accounts of this threat from the press: you have been let down. The press, derelict in its duty, has passed on opinions that in many cases are not worth Twain’s “brass farthing”.
There you go! Three treats, no tricks … Happy Hallowe’en! But speaking of tricks, Ridley has also posted this review to his own blog, where he notes by way of introduction that “The review prompted a [
knee-jerk bleat ooops, sorry -hro] tweet from Michael Mann that I was wrong to say the IPCC had dropped the hockey stick”.
Ridley provided a source, so that his readers can judge for themselves. To Mann’s credit, though, at least he wasn’t foolish enough to attempt to refute anything else Ridley had written about the book – or that which the book contains about the IPCC.