So upset they issued a press release. That’ll show ’em. Funny how they couldn’t delineate the title of the book in the text.
You can get the full story here at Marketwatch. But I see this as a rousing endorsement, likely to have the same opposite intended effect as the review by Dr. Peter Gleick on Amazon that backfired so badly on him when commenters pointed out he didn’t have any facts to back up his vitriol and many suspect he never actually read the book before writing a review. Dr. Gleick still has an open opportunity here to tell his side of the story on WUWT as I offered him a guest post slot on Judith Curry’s blog. So far silence in my inbox.
People are now buying the book in droves thanks to Gleick’s review saying on WUWT and Curry’s that they wouldn’t even have considered it until the fight broke out over his review.
Here are some other 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.
Another review worth mentioning, this one in the Financial Post: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/
Whoever posted that headline cannot tell the difference between “refute” and “rebut”.
All chess players know that “refute” means to prove the argument is wrong. When my novelty chess opening is “refuted” I get crushed.
To “rebut” is merely to disagree with the argument without providing conclusive proof that its wrong. The WWF merely “rebutted”” the argument presented by “The Delinquent Teenagre” in the feeblest way possible- argument by denial.
There is a Kindle App that works on the iPad – so you can read Kindle books in colour (much better than a Kindle). Just bought the book, and will read with interest.
.
BTW, everyone, its about time that we all gave another donation to the WUWT TIP BOX. This kind of political pressure and lobbying does not come cheap, and the ramifications of losing this debate will be very expensive in terms of our jobs and taxes. In comparison, another $50 into the box is nothing.
.
Classic sign of a poor review used not to inform about a piece of work but to attack the idea of doing the work in the first place , is that it claims something which the work does not do. And here WWF attack Laframboise’s new book for ‘climate change denial’ something they don’t actual do .
Like Gleick what really upset them is that Laframboise has done this work in the first place, aware as they are of the issues around the IPCC and the fact these issues greatly benefit WWF they much rather no one covered this story at all .
Ironically its very much part of WWF remit to influence, what else is all the PR and pushing for governments to change policy about but using influence? And yet they object to this being pointed out ,while I am sure there membership would be upset if they did not do it .
Marketwatch is absolutely right, the WWF did not “infiltrate” the IPCC, they took it over!
Again, thank you very much Donna!
Lots of people who donate to WWF don’t realize what their money is actually being used for. They need to be told.
Peter Gleick and his brother must have some sort of feud going on.
Brother James has written two of the most fascinating yet easily absorbed books on science ever produced. Chaos, which explains a complicated subject and Genius, a biography of the no less complicated Richard Feynman.
Pick either one and brother Peter has no argument. Whether he has a dog in the fight or pen is mightier than the sword envy is another matter. Do they never converse?
Wait a second. IPCC Scientists are invited to a WWF panel, therefore WWF “infiltrates” IPCC?
Is that really a fair description of Laframboise’s reasoning? (Honest question, I haven’t read the book) I find that difficult to believe.
Could anybody who read the book quote the relevant passage?
“WWF Climate Witness Scheme” – they obviously miss ed a work – protection.
This scheme is to allow climate scientists to change there identify so they stop getting death threats from those evil deniers, or something like that.
From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc
“Facing global outcry, Rajendra Pachauri backed down and apologised today for a disputed IPCC claim that there was a very high chance the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035.
The report’s only quoted source for the claim was a 2005 campaigning report from the environment group WWF.”
You have to note the WWFs objections are as follows:
“It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.
“It is also ludicrous to suggest that IPCC reports are or could be influenced by the fact that some scientists have generously contributed some input to WWF’s climate witness scheme.”
They failed to address this:
– 28 out of 44 chapters (two-thirds) included at least one individual affiliated with the WWF
– 100% of the chapters in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them – included at least 1 WWF-affiliated scientist
– 15 out of 44 chapters (one-third) were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead authors belong to the panel
– in three instances, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors
This is the information that we must put in the hands of our legislators. Contact your MP or congressman or senator. They need to be aware of and read this book. I think Donna’s book can bury the IPCC once and for all. Do your part. Talk to your legislator.
Toto, here are the two instances of Donna’s use of the word ‘infiltrate’ that came up in my search.
Pg. 79 of the pdf. “After a few days of searching, cross-checking, and tabulating here are my findings with respect to the IPCC’s 2007 report:
28 out of 44 chapters (two-thirds) included at least one individual affiliated with the WWF
100% of the chapters in Working Group 2 – all 20 of them – included at least 1 WWF-affiliated
scientist
15 out of 44 chapters (one-third) were led by WWF-affiliated scientists – their coordinating lead
authors belong to the panel
in three instances, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated coordinating lead authors
Ladies and gentlemen, the IPCC has been infiltrated. It has been wholly and entirely compromised.”
Pg. 116 of the pdf. “For further info on this matter, please see my blog post titled: How the WWF Infiltrated the IPCC (and the blog posts that followed shortly thereafter). It was written as the manuscript for this book was in the very last stages of being finalized.”
Just purchased it and look forward to reading it.
Thank you for the easy path to purchasing it online Anthony!
Click on the Amazon link and read Chapter 6 “Activists” which is available on line.
It does appear that the old Shakespearean quote applies “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” WWF should know that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. I am sure Donna appreciates the publicity.
AndyS said, October 24, 2011 at 7:05 am”
“People like Peter Gleick who live in a goldfish bowl and are apparently unaware of the nature of the real world may be forgiven when their strenuous attempts to undermine and hopefully destroy Donna’s new book have the completely opposite effect.”
Sure it had a desirable effect regarding bringing attention to the book, but NO, they cannot be forgiven for being so politically biased or just plain stupid and in such a supposedly prestigious position.
The ends DO NOT justify the means. Never have, never will!
I’ve been stealing free peaks at Donna’s book. It’s very well written. Will buy for sure.
But I can’t get past one part:
“6 – Activists
Activists…need to keep their distance from scientific endeavors.
Scientific conclusions…cannot be trusted if activists played a role.”
I believe strongly in the above two statements, but clearly the IPCC, NASA, WWF, Greenpeace – none of these groups seems to mind a scientific activist who conducts research using public money.
My question: Does it break ethical or legal standards to research with public money AND be an activist in the same area as your research, helping private interests such as Greenpeace? It breaks my ethical standards but I don’t count.
.
Is this Delinquent Teenager related to our very own Lazy Teenager??
.
“seeking (to) (sic) ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent ” To paraphrase: keeping the team “on message”. Where have we come across this attitude before?.
(Note cherry picked quote….I am learning team work fast.)
I would like to say how good this book is even though I have not read it yet.
I’d be more interested in the greenpeace contribution.
In all the hype from the wwf everyone seems to have forgotten my favourite watermelon organisation: greenpeace.
Wwf seems more interested in its business model, greenpeace is the infiltrator.
toto: your
Wait a second. IPCC Scientists are invited to a WWF panel, therefore WWF “infiltrates” IPCC?
Is that really a fair description of Laframboise’s reasoning? (Honest question, I haven’t read the book) I find that difficult to believe.
Could anybody who read the book quote the relevant passage?
Yes, it is a fair description. Its also correct.
If a scientist affiliates with an activist organization, then the science should be suspect. The scientist is making a political judgement, and a call to action, based on their supposed scientific work.
As Donna says in her book, imagine the outcry if an Exxon funded scientist were the head of a chapter that had a conclusion backing Exxon’s point of view.
I don’t understand the word ‘infiltrated’? Right out of the box the IPCC was run by an world political organization that answers to nobody and is an offshoot from the Environment Programme of Maurice Strong who mused that the world has to DE-industrialize. Their agenda always was and always will be to increase their power over people like any political organization.
From a naive and non-conspiratorial analysis it is possible to construct an argument that the WWF’s and other environmental NGO’s efforts to insert themselves into the IPCC process were a justifiable and innocent attempt to exert influence in a project that was very much in their field of interest, although when the vast web of financial interconnections is revealed that appearance of innocence looks much murkier.
However since the IPCC’s remit has always been, at least ostensibly, to conduct a comprehensive review of the “scientific”, and hence by definition impartial, evidence in this matter their willingness to include a significant percentage of contributors whose only “credentials” were a lifelong history of policy advocacy, is entirely indefensible. Even if those so included were in fact in possession of legitimate expertise, if that expertise was accompanied by that history of personal advocacy, they should have been excluded or at the very least had their contributions footnoted to reveal their potential bias. The inclusion of significant numbers of contributors whose “credentials” range from inadequate to nonexistent is indefensible under any scenario.
If, as a separate product, the IPCC had put together reports that provided a truly comprehensive and impartial digest of the contending policy advocacy viewpoints on this subject they would probably been a more valuable resource for policy makers and the general public than the purest review of the “science” imaginable. From my view the state of climate science is so abysmal that, even for the elements of the controversy that are more or less stipulated by both sides, the actual evidence is nothing to write home about.
Of course the IPCC made absolutely no effort at balancing the advocacy viewpoints it recruited, but in fact proactively moved to exclude not only contrarian policy wonks but scientists whose impartiality was much more robust than most of those they chose to include. At this point anyone who is still attempting to argue that the various IPCC ARs are a source of impartial science is demonstrating that they are such epistemological mattress backs that they should be cautioned against venturing out on the streets of New York City, because they will probably be sold the Brooklyn Bridge three times before lunch.
JohnM: your
I’d be more interested in the greenpeace contribution.
In all the hype from the wwf everyone seems to have forgotten my favourite watermelon organisation: greenpeace.
Wwf seems more interested in its business model, greenpeace is the infiltrator.
This is more right than you know. The WWF has a member, a VP in fact, by the name of Richard Moss. He is also a review editor on the upcoming AR4, in WG2.
This is very interesting as the WWF has been given money by the World Bank to purchase the rights to Amazonian forests. The WWF hopes to sell these rights as carbon credits, for 60 billion dollars, through a program called REDD. (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Devolping countries)
Which section of the IPCC deals with REDD?
Why, its WG2. The working group with a WWF VP as review editor.
Its a bloody good thing that the AR4 has no Conflict of Interest rules. Otherwise, 60 billion dollars might be at stake…..
Remember Amazongate? Where it was claimed that 40% of the Amazon was at risk from drought? This was fought tooth and nail by the IPCC, and by the WWF. Daniel Nepstad from the Woods Hole Research Center was brought in to defend the assertion of drought killing 40% of the Amazon. Of course, Nepstad had authored papers on the Amazon forest, but his own research fails to back the claims of the WWF or the IPCC. Of course, Woods Hole is an early champion of REDD. Of course, Nepstad has written many papers for the WWF.
Let me summarize; We have an activist from the WWF on the review panel for the AR4 section dealing with REDD. The WWF has a potential 60 billion investment in REDD. The scientist that was brought forward to defend the claim of 40% reduction of the Amazon by drought, is an activist who writes papers for, and is supported by, the WWF.
Yeah, I would call that “infiltration”. I would also call it massive conflict of interest. In the real world, this would get you 10 to 20 with a roomie named Bubba.
The correct phrasing is
WWF ‘scientist’
which is actually synonymous with
1. Cargo-cult scientist
2. Tinker-toy scientst
3. Neo-Lysenko scientist