Here’s Here are some reviews:
Blooming brilliant. Devastating” – Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist
“…shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC” – Richard Tol, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change and convening lead author of the IPCC
“…you need to read this book. Its implications are far-reaching and the need to begin acting on them is urgent.” – Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
Donna writes on her blog:
Two editions of my IPCC exposé are now available.
The Kindle e-book is here – at Amazon.com for the reasonable price of $4.99 USD.
UK readers may purchase it for £4.88 from Amazon.co.uk here.
German readers can buy it from Amazon.de for EUR 4,88.
French readers may buy it at the same price here at Amazon.fr.
If you don’t own a Kindle you can read this book on your iPad or Mac via Amazon’s free Kindle Cloud Reader – or on your desktop or laptop via Kindle for PC software.
Digital option #2 is a PDF – also priced at $4.99. Formatted to save paper, it’s 123 standard, printer-sized pages (the last 20 of which are footnotes). Delivered instantly, it avoids shipping costs and is a comfortable, pleasant read.
A 250-page paperback edition priced at $20 should be available by the end of next week from Amazon.com – which ships internationally.
Amazon has posted a sample of the book that extends well into Chapter 7. Click here to take a peek.
h/t to Bishop Hill
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Read the freebee section on Amazon. Donna nails it so well.
“Here’s some reviews:”
*sigh*
Got it this morning from Amazon UK – not much work done today
Definitely the best book to date on the politics of climate science.
*Many “lead authors” were grad students with no published science.
*Dozens of contributors and authors had previously signed up as WWF activists.
*Some chapters were mainly activist “grey” literature.
I can’t see how the IPCC can survive this forensic scrutiny of its practices.
Read the Amazon preview. UN Gender and Diversity criteria when selecting people for positions! as Donna says, perfectly ok if the IPCC is a training field, but not when it is supposed to produce the best scientific report possible. It is astonishing that the Media were so incompetent through all these years that they have let the UN get away with even bigger incompetence. Oh, wait, I don’t know who’s more incompetent… nevermind…
Maybe we can get BIG OIL 🙂 to donate to middle schools???
IPeCaC – enough to make one throw up.
Read the short version:
Chapter 1: The IPCC is owned by the United Nations.
Chapter 2: The United Nations wants to be the government for the entire inhabited world, by definition.
Chapter 3: Every word written, every conclusion drawn, and every call for action by the IPCC supports the totalitarian agenda of the United Nations.
Chapter 4: Unless you want to be a slave, baby, get the US out of the UN, and the UN the hell out of the US!
Been following the development on Donna’s site for a while so probably already have the gist of the contents, but I’ll see what the best reading option is for me – sometimes paper is best!
And a hearty “well done” to Donna for her work – I hope she gets the credit she deserves for this.
I have only been able to read excerpts so far, but I will be buying it.
The book appears to be a marvellous compendium of facts, figures and fictions relating to the machinations and operations of the IPCC. Having so much information in one place is extremely useful.
But, (and not taking anything away from this) didn’t we already know much, if not most, of this?
So statements such as “I can’t see how the IPCC can survive this forensic scrutiny of its practices” seem to me to be optimistic.
The IPCC has already survived and survived.
In that regard it is very like some doomsday cult which, improbably and in the very face of all contrary rational consideration, has survived it’s own postulated ‘day of doom’.
The IPCC is one part of the planet which most decidedly is not under any sort of threat from global warming!
I don’t think your analysis, Squarehead, has anything to do with Donna’s. Being Canadian, I doubt that the US position in the UN is of much interest to her at all. If it’s your opinion, make it clear that it’s your opinion, and don’t pretend it’s anyone else’s.
It is no surprise that the IPCC has problems, or that the media can’t find them. What bothers me is why the national academies haven’t found these problems.
Donna L,
Congratulations on your book!
Great!
I just bought the Kindel for PC version and am settling in for a weekend read through.
John
Kohl, has it ever been in a single, accessible form before?
Looks interesting.
Squarehead: You omitted a description of the voting membership of the U.N. A democratic process is undermined by anti-democratic members.
But we’re more interested in the micro-mismanagement of the IPCC group, not the high level policies.
Archonix, perhaps you didn’t notice that I said : “The book appears to be a marvellous compendium of facts, figures and fictions relating to the machinations and operations of the IPCC. Having so much information in one place is extremely useful.”
How can young people with only master’s degrees and thin experience become a world’s foremost climate experts? Easy, we are defining everything downward, degrees, education, deviancy.
I read the brief snippet at Amazon. If everything this woman writes is true, and I have no reason to doubt her, this is a lot worse than I thought.
Wow, judging by the freebie, Steven Colbert couldn’t have ranted better.
It is quite devastating. In isolation the points made in each of the first seven chapters could be overlooked, but taken together they are inexcusable. This deserves to be very widely read – by the general public. Well Done Donna!
Amazing that it has taken decades for this kind of basic checking of credentials to be done. It’s clear that not only science, but anything that purports to be a “news” organization has lost the right to be considered a an objective source of information through this ongoing charade.
I can’t find the preview at Amazon.com. Did I miss it, or is it gone?
Jeff Alberts says:
October 14, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“Here’s some reviews:”
*sigh*
====
Here’s an actual comment.
Donna Laframboise’s website should be required reading, and is linked in Anthony’s sidebar
as “No Frakking Consensus”, under the heading “skeptical views”.
Long odds on it winning a Nobel Prize.
Mooloo says:
October 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm
I don’t think your analysis, Squarehead, has anything to do with Donna’s. Being Canadian, I doubt that the US position in the UN is of much interest to her at all. If it’s your opinion, make it clear that it’s your opinion, and don’t pretend it’s anyone else’s.
Actually, I wrote my book first. Donna could have easily copied it and expanded it to 123 pages! Mine was short enough that I could post it here in its entirety, sans the footnotes.
I’m sure Donna has no more desire to be a Canadian-UN slave than I want to be a US-UN slave.
Being Canadian, you don’t doubt that, do you?
Donna’s book (downloaded this morning) is a remarkable piece of calm, professional, investigative journalism: a valuable source of evidence that counters repeated claims that the IPCC must be regarded as the ultimate authority on climate change.
But one thing troubles me. She mentions (several times) a subject about which I know a lot: the millennium date change problem – or Y2K. And here her research was plainly inadequate: she is fully signed up to the established but false notion that it was another exaggerated scare. (A view shared by another of my heroes, Matt Ridley.) But the much-maligned “experts” didn’t get Y2K wrong. They issued warnings (not predictions) – people listened and did what was necessary to fix a real and seriously worrying problem. We should be glad that they did.
The book reiterates much of an article – “The Y2K Scare, the Media & Climate Change” – published on her blog in August. To my email expressing concern, she replied with the (reasonable enough) challenge that:
“Anyone who wants to change my mind is going to have to supply a great deal of supporting documentation – lots of direct links and lots of examples. Such a person will have to build a very convincing case.”
A month ago, I sent her a paper that I think fills the bill. It’s here: http://qii2.info/y2k.pdf .
I’m awaiting her reply.
BTW a journalist who agrees with my analysis advised me last week that I shouldn’t have any illusions: once the establishment, the media and leading commentators have made up their minds about something (e.g. that Y2K was an over hyped scare story) there is nothing, no matter how cogent the argument or clear-cut the evidence, that can change their collective mind. It’s settled and that’s it. Sound familiar?
I suggest Donna has missed the essential point: yes, there’s a parallel between Y2K and AGW but it’s the opposite of the one she’s drawn – the real point is that, just as the commentariat is completely wrong about Y2K, so it’s completely wrong about AGW.
PS: she makes an amusing (to me) date change error in the book. She refers (location 3106) to “a 2003 column” written by a computer consultant. It was written in 1993.