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.
John A says:
October 16, 2011 at 4:47 am
“Its pretty average so far.’
What’s that? An average mauling of the IPCC?
——————–
Yes, the clear description of the circular reasoning of IPCC supported climate modelers becomes part of the public discourse. Will this be fodder for Donna’s fellow journalists?
John
Robin Guiner:
I largely agree with you. Claims that the Y2K problem was a scare story have annoyed me for a long time. One thing your critics here miss is the problem of software systems that interface with other software systems, both local and remote. (You talk about it in your paper.)
Also there’s a blind spot in people who have only worked on PC’s (as opposed to mainframes).
Some of the faulty software was written before 1970, and some of it was hard to understand in those days, never mind 30-40 years later. In those days and later, it was not uncommon, in making a change to a program, not to try to understand the program, but to invent a way not to have to understand it. I can’t describe that briefly, so I’ll just say that the result was a change that made the program even harder to understand.
As of Sunday Noon, US EST. OCt 16th, 2011
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #193 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Science > Environment > Conservation
#1 in Books > Outdoors & Nature > Conservation
#2 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Current Events > International > Relations
Also Ranked #12 OVERALL in Amazon Kindle Movers & Shakers
http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/digital-text
Oh and where is the troll R. Gates? Surely he can condescendingly explain to us simple people how none of the revelations by Donna Laframboise are relevant and that we shoudl just move along now, nothing to see!
Where are you Mr Troll?
Downloaded to Kindle and read over the weekend.
Great Book
Thanks for the heads-up Anthony….
jeremy says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:48 am
As of Sunday Noon, US EST. OCt 16th, 2011
————-
jeremy,
I mentioned over on BH’s just now about your above update on how Donna L.’s new book is doing.
Thanks.
John
The first scathing review of the book has appeared on Amazon. Nick Bowles calls Donna Lamframboise’s new book “junk”. Donna can expect a lot more attacks like this. I suspect that CAGW believers will be worried that some of their flock read the online preview or actually buy the book. Given that the new book is a fact filled compelling condemnation of the entire IPCC process this can not be good news for CAGW propagandists. The propagandists for CAGW will need to do everything in their power to prevent people reading this shocking expose on IPCC. Every open-minded reader of Donna’s book cannot help but walk away feeling something is terribly rotten in the state of the UNFCC and IPCC.
Here’s my response to that critical review by Nick Bowles, which I posted on Amazon:
Incidentally, I just added the following first sentence (not yet vetted by Amazon) to my review: “The author has written the UN’s scofflaw IPCC a dozen parking tickets (which will naturally be ignored).”
PS: The public’s dislike of UN members habit of ignoring parking tickets should have been capitalized on by titling the book, “Scofflaw: The Climatic Nonsensus of the UN’s IPCC.” This would also have given the book a handier (shorter) “handle.”
Interesting reading. I’m only on chapter 10 after downloading the Kindle edition this morning. I do find the tone and style a bit too journalistic, rapid fire, with rather quick leaps that some not educated on the subject might find confusing. I will though withhold judgement until I’m finished reading the whole thing. That said, the most important point about this work seems to be the amount of research that went into taking down names of the players and exposing the lack of diligence at the UN’s IPCC.
Best,
J.
20 reviews on Amazon.com!!!!
There appears to be a battle playing out between reviewers on Amazon. A certain Peter Gleick (apparently of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California) has thrown down the gauntlet to all skeptics out there by calling Donna’s book “junk”!!!
Jeremy says: October 16, 2011 at 7:25 pm
“20 reviews on Amazon.com!!!!”
23 reviews already.
I’ve got the PDF version. A bit cheaper than a cigarette package here!
I’ve replied at length to the three one-star reviewers. They seem as alike as peas-from-a-pod: Raving overstatements, vitriolic sneers, factual inaccuracy, deceptiveness (although they’re likely so blinded by faith they don’t recognize the distortions they’re uttering), paucity of specifics, etc. I haven’t visited warmist sites in the past year, so I was taken aback.
Brian H, I was taught that “the use of BC and AD for numbering calendar years was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD”. “Dionysius named the years relating to his cycle, BC meaning Before Christ which starts with year 1 and AD meaning Anno Domini, the year of Our Lord referring to the year of Christ’s birth. This is also year 1. There is no year 0.” (Quotations from http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q4_ad_bc_ce.html, the accuracy of which I cannot vouch for though people more learned than I have maintained a similar line.)
A few facts for conspriracy theorists to dwell on (from Wiki site on IPCC) – not that I expect it will dampen your fervour!:
Various scientific bodies have issued official statements endorsing and concurring with the findings of the IPCC.
Joint science academies’ statement-2001
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.[109]
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 … We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment…[110]
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.[111]
European Geosciences Union
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…is the main representative of the global scientific community….IPCC third assessment report…represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of scientific researchers and investigations as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[112]
International Council for Science
…the IPCC 4th Assessment Report represents the most comprehensive international scientific assessment ever conducted. This assessment reflects the current collective knowledge on the climate system, its evolution to date, and its anticipated future development.[113]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)… is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.[114]
National Research Council (US)
The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[115]
Network of African Science Academies
The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[116]
Royal Meteorological Society
In response to the release of the Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society referred to the IPCC as “The world’s best climate scientists”.[117]
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change.[118]
“A few facts for conspriracy theorists to dwell on…”
Do you even think about what you write when you introduce a cut-and-paste post with a bullying insult to people’s intelligence? Really do you think that we are all idiots and your brow-beating will silence us? Or are you so stupid as to imagine that you can influence people by insulting them?
And finally, those who have the gall to accuse doubters of ‘being in cahoots with big oil’ show unbounded stupidity to call their critics ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Hi everyone, I’ve just started following and it feels like I’ve come home. Phew!
The reason I checked in here was because my little blog, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, recently got monstered – is the only way I can put it – by the very born again, save the world types Donna Laframboisse appears to be talking about. In fact, given the choice between Jehovah Witnesses at my door, and these types, I would prefer the JWs.
Anyway, they were all mainly from a WordPress site called Taminos, and … OK… it was probably my own fault that it happened. I’d noticed, through my Site Stats, that loads of them were coming on to read my post: Is Man-Made Global Warming the New Original Sin? (link here: http://ishtarsgate.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/is-man-made-global-warming-the-new-original-sin/) so I popped over to see how I’d been linked to and it turned out that the whole post was about me and my post! It was called Opportunity Knocks, and it was about whether or not they should try to reducate me as I seemed quite a reasonable person and was just ignorant about the issues. (There’s a link to that post here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/opportunity-knocks/).
So anyway, I made the mistake of leaving a comment and saying that they would be welcome to come over and comment if they felt that I’d got anything wrong. I thought I might learn something new. Well, wow! I thought that just one or two would come over and make some reasonable points. But no! I spent the whole of Saturday and half of Sunday trying to deal with all their comments, and when I got the point of being unable to publish all of them, because there were just too many for me to digest and reply to, some of them cut up really nasty and started attacking my character. So in the end I had to close the comments down.
So that’s why it’s a real weight off even just to be here. I was beginning to think that maybe there really was something wrong with me and that it is partly my fault the whole world is going to hell in a handcart. It was very difficult for me to refute what they said because I’m not a scientist, but it was that just that there was something about what they were staying that stank of shortsightedness, lack of vision and a huge agenda! I felt like they didn’t have enough vision to understand that the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles for 400,000 years at least, so how could me buying low energy lightbulbs make the slightest difference to the arrival of the next warming period?
In the end, I had to close down the Comments on the post, something I’ve never had to do before on my blog. But if any of you more reasonably-minded people would like to come over and leave some more realistic comments, I will open it up again because it would just be good to have the other side of the argument reflected there. Balance, in other words!
Thanks for listening,
Peace, Ishtar
I have now deleted all their comments after discovering that one of the commenters on Tamino’s blog had said that wanted to hit me, twice, and another was recommending that they all come over to my blog to “goad her, to see just how batshiite, tinfoil-body-armor crazy we can get her? I mean, think of the entertainment potential…”
I’ve asked Tamino to remove both of those comments as I think this is just naked bullying and aggression and that threatening violence is really beyond pale.
Ishtar, they are an angry bunch over there. We generally ignore them. I’d restore those comments if you have them. – Anthony
“Jose Suro says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm
………. I’m only on chapter 10 after downloading the Kindle edition this morning. I do find the tone and style a bit too journalistic, rapid fire, with rather quick leaps that some not educated on the subject might find confusing………..”
I finished the book and I was wrong in my initial assessment. The reason for the rapid fire style is the vast amounts of information the author is presenting – no space for “fill” prose. The “quick leaps” all get resolved in the following chapters. A brilliant piece of work! One of a kind. The book is NOT about climate science. It is about the POLITICS of climate science and the IPCC politicians.
After reading the book I have one thing to say to climate activists and activist scientists:
You activists all might like to think that you have been steering the climate boat and you are wrong. You have been played; and played by some of the best in the business – the career politicians of the UN (World). Embarrassing….
Anthony, you should bring up this book again with another post at the top of the blog so the people that have read it can post their “after the read” comments. I think this book is that important.
Best,
J
Got it late last night and it’s proving to be a very good read. I highly recommend it.
Great read!
Years ago, one of my first skeptical arguments against AGW was that if the group responsible for the “science” were named Intercorporational Panel on Climate Change would they receive the same positive attention?
The answer of course is obviously no. Especially in light of how “skeptical” scientists and researchers are treated by being unfairly tied (often without proof or citations) to “big oil”.
Regarding Y2K- a bit overhyped
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Some-Perspective-5-Years-After-Y2K/
http://www.freakonomics.com/2006/02/20/was-the-y2k-threat-real-imagined-or-invented/
My main statement is the book focuses too much on the people involved whereas the IPCC is more fundamentally flawed-
(1) Its mission was scientifically worthless- review scientific paper no progress in that. Something a scientific literarature reviewer could do (a few thousand of them).
(2) A malstructured bucreacracy ().
(2-1) Malstructured in that each chapter is written by one person with little comeback and many other ways.
(2-2) as though a bucreacracy is anyway near suitable for scientific investigation except for the admin
(3) And it doesn’t follow it own rules which is totally nonbucreacratic (unfortunately a quality of most government bucreacracies)
Not to say it doesn’t cover those issues but without enough emphasis as (2-1) and (3) could overcome the natural biases of the individuals involved.
Also the book doesn’t say what the IPCC should have been or give organisation/investigations as comparisons.