Donna Laframboise's new exposé book on the IPCC

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Doug in Seattle

Read the freebee section on Amazon. Donna nails it so well.

“Here’s some reviews:”
*sigh*

Foxgoose

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.

DirkH

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…

kim;)

Maybe we can get BIG OIL 🙂 to donate to middle schools???

noaaprogrammer

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!

Rob Potter

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.

Kohl

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!

Mooloo

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.

Robert Clemenzi

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.

John Whitman

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

Archonix

Kohl, has it ever been in a single, accessible form before?

SteveSadlov

Looks interesting.

AnonyMoose

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.

Kohl

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.”

Kevin Kilty

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.

John

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!

Dave Wendt

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.

More Soylent Green!

I can’t find the preview at Amazon.com. Did I miss it, or is it gone?

u.k.(us)

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?

Robin Guenier

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.

Kevin Kilty

More Soylent Green! says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:05 pm
I can’t find the preview at Amazon.com. Did I miss it, or is it gone?

Click the link on the title image above, then click the same image at Amazon.

Martin A

Jeff Alberts says: “Here’s some reviews:” *sigh*
Rude pedantry is a form of ignorance far worse than an occasional minor grammatical error.

Theo Goodwin

I hope that Donna’s book becomes a best seller and that she gets some interviews on national TV. In addition, I hope that the book is made into a movie starring Seth Green as Michael Mann and as Kevin Trenberth. (If these two are not in the book, poetic license and justice will put them in the movie.)

AnonyMoose says:
October 14, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Squarehead: You omitted a description of the voting membership of the U.N. A democratic process is undermined by anti-democratic members.

Democracy is another word for totalitarian rule by public opinion, by the mob. Literally. Once it is in place, it is only a matter of time before the rule is concentrated into the instigators’ hands.
But we’re more interested in the micro-mismanagement of the IPCC group, not the high level policies.
Trees are more interesting than forests?
A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
It is not possible for the IPCC to clean up its act. It is filthy, rotten, and perverse to the core, as its master, the United Nations, is. When it opens its mouth, it is not to bless, it is to deceive, to lie, to sin. It cannot cease from sin.

DirkH

Robin Guenier says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“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. ”
Y2K was completely blown out of proportion by the media. I, like probably every other professional programmer, got the order to check our product at the time for possible problems and run tests so that our customers could be assured that nothing bad would happen. We did so. No fix was necessary.
At the same time, reports appeared of people building hideouts in the mountains, expecting the end of days. I don’t say that many such people existed but the media used such stories to fill their pages. Some market gurus expected a serious crash. You always have Cassandras, and you always have the media blowing it out of proportion. It was the scare du jour, much like CAGW was in 2007, and the debt crisis is now.

jorgekafkazar

More Soylent Green! says:”I can’t find the preview at Amazon.com. Did I miss it, or is it gone?”
What’s your browser? Opera won’t display the preview. I switched to FireFox and read it okay.

pat

Another nail in the AGW coffin. It is sinking like that Chinese yacht.
http://www.asylum.co.uk/2011/10/14/sinking-boat-china/

TheFlyingOrc

So who exactly is the teenager in the book title, and how was he given “leading climate expert” status?

D. King

I can’t wait to read the reviews from the WWF and Climber magazine.

Baa Humbug

TheFlyingOrc says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:50 pm

So who exactly is the teenager in the book title, and how was he given “leading climate expert” status?

The IPCC is the teenager and he/it was given the status by the UN. Read the book, it’s darn good, easy to read, humorous in places and good value.
Do yourself a favour and download it.

SorenTimo

I think we have to ask the following question: “What must we do to get the IPCC shutdown and de-funded?” Fixing a twisted, corrupt, tainted bureaucratic body is NOT possible.

P Walker

She really gives the IPCC the old raspberry .

Dave Wendt

More Soylent Green! says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:05 pm
I can’t find the preview at Amazon.com. Did I miss it, or is it gone?
There should be a box at the right side of the page labeled “send sample now”. You have to log in to Amazon first and when the download page comes up select the cloud reader format if you don’t have a Kindle or similar device and want to read it on a desktop or laptop.

Martin A says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Jeff Alberts says: “Here’s some reviews:” *sigh*
Rude pedantry is a form of ignorance far worse than an occasional minor grammatical error.

Rude in what way? It seems to be ok when the mods do it. And if you think this kind of error is occasional, you haven’t been paying attention.

View from the Solent

DirkH says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Robin Guenier says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“But one thing troubles me. She mentions (several times) a subject about which I know a lot: the millennium date change problem – or Y2K.
……..
Y2K was completely blown out of proportion by the media.
================================================================
To some extent, yes. But that’s what they do. However, …
I was one of a small team that spent 1-2 years fixing an essential financial system for a *very* large international, erm, computer corp. If that hadn’t been done, on Jan 1 2000 the brown stuff would have left the fan and coated the walls to a depth of several feet.
Probably hundreds of thousands of hours were spent on sorting out badly-designed business systems around the world. (It was boom time for us softies) That the Y2K effect was minimal was a result of that effort.

LazyTeenager

Wow. Does this mean I am famous now.

John Whitman

Donna L says, ” [ . . . ] After more than two years of research, I’m firmly in the climate skeptic camp. After all, journalists are supposed to be skeptical. They aren’t supposed to take anyone’s word for anything. They’re supposed to dig, and question, and challenge.”
From: Laframboise, Donna (2011-10-09). The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (Kindle Locations 2485-2487). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition.

—————
Donna has a great point about balanced professional journalism and fundamental skepticism being codependent.
John

MikeA

I think people like FlyingOrc need to understand the meme of the book. The human mind is at it’s peak in the early twenties and young scientists, for example Einstein, often make their key discoveries early in their careers. These young people are also prone to be passionate and believe in their causes. Older people tend to be somewhat the opposite, and I can attest to this, becoming somewhat curmudeonly and stupid as I age. I’m sure this book will be a marketing success if it is targeted to the correct audience, but I regret to say that my mind has not yet decayed sufficiently so that I can be part of that emeritous cohort.

John M

Gosh,
Our own “Lazy Teenager” needs to sue.
Donna would do well to add a disclaimer to the revision. Something along the lines of:
“Any resemblance of the characters in this work to real persons, living or dead…
…is a crying shame.”
(Apologies to the Three Stooges)

Dave Springer

DirkH says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Robin Guenier says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“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. ”
Y2K was completely blown out of proportion by the media. I, like probably every other professional programmer, got the order to check our product at the time for possible problems and run tests so that our customers could be assured that nothing bad would happen. We did so. No fix was necessary.

Ha. I can do that one better. I was a BIOS programmer at Dell computer from 1993-2000. I actually coded the fix for about 50 million computers circa 1998. Everyone knew how overblown it was. But it was also the biggest sales tool in the history of personal computers and I go back to the 1970’s working either with, for, or around Intel and Microsoft. I bought Dell stock like crazy up until 1998 then started selling it while the artificial replacement craze lasted. In January 2000 shortly after nothing happened and I knew that hundreds of millions of perfectly functional computers were replaced 2-3 years early I handed in my resignation and cashed in all my chips knowing full well the industry was going to see some hard times for the next few years while the early replacement cycle worked its way out of the system. Good times.

Philip Bradley

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)
It was exaggerated. If you look at the money spent by country, you will find there was no relationship between the amount spent and Y2K problems encountered. France for example spent very little, yet encountered few problems.
Having said that, Y2K was a real problem, albeit exaggerated. There is no evidence CAGW is a real problem.

You can’t fix the IPCC. Instead, you must fold, spindle and mutilate the IPCC until its plaintive cries annoy you and you finally grind your heel into its malformed hockey stick skull to obliterate the last spark of life from it and it dies with a satisfying hiss and a rattle…

Donna,
Congratulations and thanks for your dedicated investigations! Any chance of a book signing for local admirers?

DavidG

Squarehead, you may not agree with Donna’s analysis, but I certainly agree with your position; I’m pretty sure I thought this way before you did, in fact!:] The IPCC and the UN are taking us 4000 miles down a bad road.

MikeA says:
October 14, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I think people like FlyingOrc need to understand the meme of the book. The human mind is at it’s peak in the early twenties and young scientists, for example Einstein, often make their key discoveries early in their careers. These young people are also prone to be passionate and believe in their causes. Older people tend to be somewhat the opposite, and I can attest to this, becoming somewhat curmudeonly and stupid as I age. I’m sure this book will be a marketing success if it is targeted to the correct audience, but I regret to say that my mind has not yet decayed sufficiently so that I can be part of that emeritous cohort.
===================================================================
The human mind is at its peak in the early twenties?…… yeh, ok, whatever….
But, even if that were true, you still forgot a couple of things Mike, young people also are brash and prone to mistakes. Many at that age haven’t learned to accept their mistakes, so their prone to reject legitimate criticism. Neither do they have life experience to call upon when in conundrums. Even more importantly, the IPCC isn’t a forum for scientific discovery….. it is suppose to be an assessment. There isn’t any excuse to put people in such a role when to that date their greatest achievement was overcoming acne.
(mumbling ….greatest scientific minds…….phhhttt.) No wonder laymen can easily discredit their work. We’ve been arguing with mental and emotional children….. as if we didn’t know that already.