Donna's IPCC "delinquent teenager" now in paperback

NOW AVAILABLE!!

Paperback $20 (click here)

-250 pages

-includes an index

-ships internationally from CreateSpace, the publishing arm of Amazon.com

Read the reviews here and here

.

PDF edition $4.99 (click here)

-downloaded instantly

-no shipping charges

-123 standard-sized printer pages

-see a sample here

.

Kindle e-book edition $4.99

-see a sample here

Amazon.com store

-Amazon UK store

-Amazon Germany store

-Amazon France store

The world needs to confront the folly that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Almost nothing we’ve been told about this organization is true.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Donna's IPCC "delinquent teenager" now in paperback

  1. Got it and read it (Kindle version). Should be compulsary reading.
    Can someone keep us up with how many copies are sold please?

  2. I highly recommend Donna’s book though I have to say $20 for a paperback is way too steep. The $5 PDF version is fine as a working copy.
    I have followed and contributed to the debate about Donna’s book on Amazon. Currently there are nine 1-star reviews, one of which is a parody. My assessment is that none of the eight remaining reviewers show any evidence of actually having read the book – although my guess is that a few have subsequently become more familiar with the book either by reading others’ comments and/or by reading beyond the free sample available on Amazon in order to counter the negative feedback their reviews received. Donna’s book has flaws but the overall indictment is so well put together that it is basically irrefutable. It is a shot across the bows and, assuming the Pachauri gang does not emasculate the review process, I doubt very much that there will be the same level of dependence on activist inspired grey literature in the next report.

  3. Bernie, while I tend to agree with you on the “grey” so-called literature. One could also argue that not all of the journals in which some climate scientists publish do not come up to the standard of what some regard as archival literature such as Phys. Rev. or Phys Rev. B.

  4. Oops, that is what I get for writing this after a dinner accompanied by a good wine. The second sentence should read “One could also argue that not all of the journals in which some climate scientists publish come up to the standard of what some regard as archival literature such as Phys. Rev. or Phys Rev. B.” thus eliminating the double negative.

  5. The entry in Wikipaedia for Donna Laframboise says “The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies.”
    The notability guideline says “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”
    Doesn’t WUWT count? Maybe not on Wiki. Guideline also says “Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus.” There’s that “C” word again.

  6. “The notability guideline says “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.””
    She is on “The Bolt Report in Australia on Sunday , will that count?

  7. Got it on Kindle, read, and when the anger had subsided, read it again, and wept.
    Why are we so readily conned? Where is the shame? More to the point, where are the recriminations?
    The IPCC should be subjected to prosecution.

  8. RayG:
    I agree: Not all journals are equal. Indeed, many new journals get born when a number of like-minded academics, frequently with strong normative positions and agendas, believe their results are not being accepted by the wider community and as such they tend to have a decided viewpoint on an issue or issues. (In this sense, the profusion of new journals supports the notion of Post-Normal Science.) This also means that the use of inexperienced and green researchers as IPCC authors and contributors increases the likelihood that marginal and flawed research gets cited. No self respecting journal would use unqualified reviewers, why on earth does the IPCC? Donna’s general point is that the IPCC and the green movement abetted by an uncritical and lazy media are engaged in false advertising. The IPCC Reports are not as scientifically rigorous and objective as they claim. Donna demonstrates and illustrates that there is much in the report that is neither scientifically rigorous nor objective. It is not an assessment of global warming science. Michael Crichton would have used this material to great dramatic effect, as he did the late, great John Daly’s pairwise temperature charts. Indeed, Donna has shown that there might well be as much fiction in the IPCC AR4 as there is in Crichton’s State of Fear

  9. I read the Kindle version. I brought together things I “knew” and some I didn’t. The author collects negative information about the IPCC and its processes in one place. For that it is well worth reading. I was a bit disappointed in some lack of detail of supporting arguments. I believe the book would have been much more damning if the author had given more specific examples of IPCC misconduct.

  10. Just out of interest, I cannot buy the paperback from Amazon, although Createspace is an Amazon company.

  11. E.M.Smith says:
    October 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm
    Any chance of a detailed review of the book? Don’t want to wait for paper. Don’t have a kindle… Guess it’s PDF time for me 😉
    ===========
    The archives here should give you a pretty good idea what is in the book.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
    It is on Anthony’s sidebar.
    Straight from the tigers mouth.
    Even better than a detailed review ?

  12. A detailed review? Try here: http://thegwpf.org/science-news/4225-book-review-the-delinquent-teenager-.html
    Now that we know the IPCC has taken recent action to jettison normal rules on conflicts of interest, disguise its use of WWF articles as peer-reviewed science, and appoint zealots as lead authors – what action should we take? Wait for AR5 to be published? Enjoy some in-house grumbling?
    Throw up our hands?
    These people – ie the 32 Bureau members – must be held accountable.

  13. Bernie;
    “The IPCC Reports are not as scientifically rigorous and objective as they claim. ” Understatement of the month/year/decade/century? How about, “The IPCC Reports are not as scientifically rigorous and objective as a grade school class gossip newsletter.”??

  14. 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).
    I did a more scientific paper writing my four year Bachelor of Engineering paper.
    (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.

Comments are closed.