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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What a useless environmental lobby group they must be, if they didn’t even seek to influence the IPCC.
/sarc
WWF claim their people’s involvement with IPCC is nothing but, IMO it would be like selecting the officers of PETA to make decisions about ‘wildlife management’ or ‘species endangerment’.
Some animal populations need to be controlled and not every animal on earth is endangered.
I don’t think would trust a PETA person to make the “hard’ decisions for the right reasons.
Same with WWF….They’ve gotta dog in this fight.
The material on the WWF advisory panel is at the end of Ch. 31 (“Extinction Fiction”) of DL’s book, at Kindle location 2069. When I read it, I thought DL went a bit overboard with her condemnation. Agreeing to advise someone isn’t the same thing as aligning with them. I’d be happy to advise anyone, regardless of his orientation. I’m not compromised if I screw a funnel into his ear and shout into it. Maybe that’s how these signers felt. Their affiliation is pretty weak, if they’re just advisors, which is, or might be, an arm’s-length relationship.
It would be hypocritical to get too judgmental about this panel (unless more dirt comes to light) while excusing skeptical scientists from being tainted by their affiliation with free-market think tanks because that amounts to no more than their giving talks at dinner events and having their articles published in the think tanks’ journals, etc. Those are arm’s-length linkages too.
(Hmm … unless the WWF advisors knew that the WWF would be publicizing their affiliation by printing their names in WWF brochures and whatnot and thereby legitimizing the WWF as being mainstream, having “connections,” and basing its policy positions in part on the recommendations of IPCC bigwigs—and thereby leading to more donations to the WWF. Hmm.)
A much better target for DL would have been the WWF’s scandalous involvement in the recent WG3 document on the practicality of renewable energy. (It’s one of the justifications for a sequel from DL.)
What would it take to get a memory stick with this book on it into every one of those ‘show bags’ for the participants at Durban? Just thinkin’. ROTFLMAO
This is the second of two excerpts from The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, by Donna Laframboise, published this month by Ivy Avenue Press. The book is available as a Kindle e-book for $4.99 at Amazon.com or as an instantly downloadable PDF edition. Coming soon: a $20 paperback edition sold via Amazon.com.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/24/book-excerpt-ipccs-activist-experts/
JohnM says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:05 am
Try this post by Donna
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/
@ur momisuglyRobert of Ottawa @ur momisugly October 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm
You sound like me! 😉
Say, here’s an interesting question: Are members of this advisory panel getting paid–and how much, if so?
Pete H says:
October 24, 2011 at 7:34 am
….Now…….I want to know how these organizations can still be recognized as charities and claiming the tax breaks they get? Time to hit them in the pocket? How much are they making?
__________________________________
Pete it is worse than that. If you are American YOU “Donate” to them!
“….Profile: The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money, 10% from industry, and half from prescriptive foundations….” http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm
And Yes I check the numbers are about correct.
Roger Knights says:
October 24, 2011 at 11:48 am
…….In Britain, whence this press release came, a “scheme” means merely a project.
__________________________________
Agreed but we here in the USA can still enjoy RONFLOAO for the use of that particular word.
This is an interesting look into those who initially funded WWF. http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/whit-man-game-wwf.htm Innocent, they ain’t.
Robert of Ottawa says:
October 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Call me old-fashioned (I am travelling with a ‘droid phone, iPad and laptop) but I am awaiting the book. Old. Fashioned. Paper. I just like books.
________________________________________________
I am with you there. I want the BOOK not a pdf file. If I had the money I would by a copy for each of The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes Unfortunately most of them are as corrupt as the IPCC.
Gail and Robert;
Paper is nice for casual reading, but good luck with checking the references. Unless you live next door to a university library. Hyperlinks rule!
@roger Knights October 24, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Well, if you take a look at the WWF’s own “Guidelines” for their illustrious Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), you’ll find:
What kind of “objective” assessment/finding could any self-respecting scientist make if s/he could voluntarily subscribe to the mission of “increasing the public awareness of climate change and building the political will to prevent ‘dangerous climate change’” Not to mention volunteering to confer their “scientific” seal of concurrence on personal anecdotal material?
As I wrote a few hours ago on my own blog, the WWF’s “interests, vision ‘n “values” far too cosily coincide with those of the IPCC”.
If the IPCC were upfront about an author’s affiliation with WWF (or Greenpeace, or EDF etc), that would be one thing. However, if you examine the IPCC’s own documentation on its selection of authors, these affiliations are not disclosed.
Furthermore, if you examine (for example) the list of participants at the May Abu Dhabi confab at which the SRREN was “reviewed and approved” by WG III (and any “panel” IPCC members that happened to attend the WG III session) you will see that the list of participants does include people who are identified as being affiliated with “Organizations” (as opposed to being a member of a “National Delegation”). As far as I can determine, the “Organization” people don’t have a vote.
So a reasonable person would be led to conclude (well, this reasonable person was,at least!) that … OK, WWF has a few seats at the table. But they don’t get to vote. I could live with that.
But, as Donna noted in her book, the WWF recruited IPCC authors to their SAP! And as I think she also noted (either on her blog and/or in the book) these SAP Guidelines include the following:
The WWF Press Release attempts to paper over the glaringly obvious potential for bias and/or conflict of interest by insisting that “protocols” are in place to preserve the “independence of [these ‘senior scientists’] scientific opinions”.
Apart from the fact that the IPCC has no such “protocols” in place, perhaps part of WWF’s unspecified protocols’ “fine-print” is a “don’t show, don’t tell” policy (pursuant to 4.3 above) – thereby providing a made-to-order excuse for this particular aspect of the IPCC’s utter lack of transparency and accountability.
Admittedly, that last paragraph may be somewhat of a stretch (and it was written partially tongue-in-cheek!) But considering positions the IPCC powers that be have taken on other matters (cf Solomon and Manning vs McIntyre!), this may not be so far-fetched!
So, before I step down from my soapbox, Roger … in light of the foregoing (and much more that I could have written!), I respectfully disagree with your thought that Donna “went a bit overboard with her condemnation” 🙂
Who are the the extra 10 copies for?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_there_is_535_congress_members
.
Jim;
Start with Obama and Chu, then take then next 8 members of his cabinet at random.
As for donating copies, PDFs are 1/4 the cost. And if that format (direct from the WH) was good enough for his (clumsily Photoshopped) long form BC, I’m sure they’ll be able to handle a properly composed and published book!
Nice try; her intimation, by an attempt at citing the figure ‘535’ would be to our congress, but our dear often off-the-cuff Gail either muffed the correct number or has ten additional, specific individuals in mind when she cites “545 People”; those ten additional ppl I would like detailed. I doubt you can name them as she has them in mind, unless you perhaps bunk, room or converse with Gail daily.
BTW, attempting a conversion of the hard-core AGW apostles e.g. Chu would be a waste of time; too much is tied up in their AGW belief systems regarding ‘money, fame and fortune’ to make any changes.
.
I think, if you look closely, those government ‘monies’ are for specific studies and the like (paying for manpower and salaries to conduct that work) as opposed funds simply transferred *to* WWF for use willy-nilly as WWF see fit.
No?
.
*IF* those references are on the web, *THEY* are but a web-search away …
.
Especially with an outfit as large and “flexible” as WWF, unless there’s very detailed follow-up accounting and audit, there’s really just one “pocket” that the money goes into.
Brian H says:
October 25, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Gail and Robert;
Paper is nice for casual reading, but good luck with checking the references. Unless you live next door to a university library. Hyperlinks rule!
______________
That is why I plan to get both but I want the hard copy for the first read through.
_Jim says:
October 25, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Gail Combs says on October 25, 2011 at 11:46 am
…
I would by a copy for each of The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes …
Who are the the extra 10 copies for?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_there_is_535_congress_members
Select politicians I think will be running in the up coming elections.
Gail Combs says on October 25, 2011 at 11:17 am
Pete it is worse than that. If you are American YOU “Donate” to them!
“….Profile: The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money
_____________________________________________
_Jim says: @ur momisugly October 26, 2011 at 6:47 am
I think, if you look closely, those government ‘monies’ are for specific studies and the like (paying for manpower and salaries to conduct that work) as opposed funds simply transferred *to* WWF for use willy-nilly as WWF see fit.
No?
_________________
NO!
Straight from Donna via Anthony
IPCC: Resistance is futile to WWF Document:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwKfjKsXaxaGMDZlNGNkZTUtOWJlOC00ODI4LTlkYTQtYTJkOTBlMGYxOTJh&hl=en_US
(In Euros)
Operating income……………………..2009………………….2010
Individuals (1)…………………………221,479…………….242,078
Legacies and bequests……………..44,873……………….56,940
Other donated income………………51,913………………56,030
Corporations……………………………35,233……………..31,595
Trusts and foundations……………..96,545……………..88,919
Public sector finance………………….3,812………………6,175
So “Public Sector Finance” IE public taxes DO pay for operating income.
Actually I do not give a rat’s behind if the money was “Grants” for “studies”. If the Tea Party set-up a foundation and grabbed grants from the US government you would hear the HOWLING from California to DC as well you should.
The government should not be giving money to a Politicial Activist group of any stripe. Especially since we are SUPPOSED to have separation of Church and State and Churches are forced to be apolitical thanks to Johnson and his change of the Tax Code. That also goes for ANY other Nonprofit. If you are nonprofit you are SUPPOSED to stay out of politics or lose the nonprofit status.
Giving WWF nonprofit status AND tax payer money adds insult to injury in my book.
Which brings up a point: you need to double the 535, as each sitting Congresscritter has an opponent to educate, too.