Donna Laframboise’s book on IPCC has now been published. Available at Amazon or as pdf here for $5.
The self-indulgent and petulant behavior of leaders in the climate community is one of the first things that impresses outsiders. Donna aptly uses the metaphor of a “spoiled child” to describe IPCC and the climate community. Her introduction starts:
This book is about a spoiled child. Year after year, this child has been admired, flattered, and praised.
There has been no end of self-esteem-building in his life. What there has been little of, though, is honest feedback or constructive criticism.
When we’re young, our parents ensure that we confront our mistakes. When our ball shatters a neighbor’s window we’re required to apologize – and to help pay for a replacement. What happens, though, if a child is insulated from consequences? What if he hears his parents tell the neighbor that because he’s special and precious he hasn’t done anything that wrong by trampling the neighbor’s flower bed?
The answer is obvious. A child who is never corrected is unlikely to develop self-discipline. A child whom everyone says is brilliant feels no need to strive for excellence. Nor does he have much hope of developing what, in this tale, is the most important quality of all: sound judgment.
The child at the center of this book was brought into the world by two United Nations bodies – one focused on the weather, the other on the environment. Called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC for short – this child arrived more than 20 years ago.
Donna’s book builds on her own line of issues about IPCC (which are related to, but, in many respects, distinct from issues discussed here) – the presence of WWF and Greenpeace sympathizers and fellow travelers as IPCC authors, the use of gray environmentalist literature in IPCC (especially WG2, where activist influence is most pronounced).
Recommended.
Climate Audit 
73 Comments
Download it, it is worth it.
I agree. Followers of Ms Laframboise’s blog will have seen many of the basic arguments before, but the book fleshes out the arguments and provides exhaustive documentary evidence in support. To me, she provides compelling evidence of the all-pervasive corruption of the IPCC itself and of what is undoubtedly, at best, the misguided zealotry and/or sheer unbridled ambition and greed of a tiny minority of scientists who have allowed themselves to be corrupted by this “noble cause”. This excellent book fills a significant gap in the case for a more rational approach to the climate change conundrum.
This is a book not for the hardened frequenter of sceptics blogs – though I learned a great deal from it – but for the ordinary person who is bored to tears by the nitty-gritty details on places like Climate Audit – and I sure know some of those! – but would still like to know why some of us think it is eminently reasonable to doubt the IPCC, the eponymous delinquent of the title.
As I read this over the weekend I was thrilled that someone with Donna Lafraboise’s communication skills had taken the time to grapple with this extraordinarily important, multi-faceted area. It’s wonderfully researched and footnoted but what sets it apart is its readability. Wherever possible Donna keeps it light and is never (like many other worthy critics) ponderous. When the facts she uncovers will not allow her to be lighthearted her passion – for truth, for justice, for the myriad of victims of incredibly wasteful emission reduction policies – has the precision of a laser rather than the dumb rage of a bull in a china shop.
You could say therefore that I’m a fan. But that’s not the point. The point is: buy copies of this book for all your confused friends, for colleagues, for family and above all for your MP. More than any other volume I have read this book has the power to transform the climate debate by bringing home to ordinary people why it matters so much.
Richard, you took the words of my (totally unbiased ;-)) opinion right out of my mouth!
Hilary, you’re one of a number of hidden heroes behind this great effort. Thanks for your work – and those like Ross McKitrick that also gave of their time and expertise to make this the precision weapon it is. But it’s Donna I’m sure that somehow got the tone exactly right. I know I couldn’t do that.
Richard, that would make a wonderful review of the book on Amazon, should you care. You also have the advantage of actually having read the book, unlike Dana Nuccitelli, who didn’t bother with such formalities when writing his one star review of The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Peter Gleick has written a scathing one star review for this book without even bothering to read it, as can be seen from his review. What’s it with these guys? Can’t they atleast read the book, find faults and write reviews instead of writing blind ad hom reviews showing them up as fools?
Venter, I took the Gleick’s self exposure as an irresponsible propagandist as another benefit of this excellent book.
I hadn’t realized before reading it that the charge to the authors of the “climate bible” was to discover and reveal to governmental policy-makers, science supporting policy responsive to climate change.
I was not surprised that the heavy lifting was done in large part by grad students and the like, but was amazed that a purportedly scientific report was summarized not by scientists, but by politicians, and in secret.
Given the propensity so far demonstrated (and documented by Ms LaFramboise) by politicians to manipulate the product after the scientists have written, one wonders how thoughtful scientists, Richard Tol, for example can continue to be a part of it.
Gleick has prior form for publicly declaring his views on literature without apparently reading it.
“Be specific” is your friend when responding to faux-objections.
Half-way through “Delinquent”, and whereas I’m not quite so gripped as I was during HSI, it’s an eye-opener.
Does anyone have a URL for Gleick’s review?
This is the URL for Gleick’s review
If Gleick read the book, he might get contaminated.
“Without having bothered to read it, as can be seen from his review.” I could not see that. His review points to various sections of the book he doesn’t like. Implying that he at least skimmed it.
GrantB:
Thanks – but I wrote this after doing me best on Amazon.co.uk – in which I think it’s faor to say I cannot be accused of understatement!
Note that Amazon allows comments on other reviews – let’s use that facility to expose those who see fit to dismiss this tour de force without even reading it. It’s not that any work of this complexity is beyond criticism. Though the only thing I can think of that I disagreed with is that Jonathan Leake exposed the Himalayan glacier scandal on 17th January 2010 in the Sunday Times, not the Times.
The vested interests associated with the IPCC and all its myriad outworkings in policy and economics are not going to fold easily. But it feels to me that we’ve exchanged a pea-shooter for a howitzer. Go Donna and her excellent Canadian friends!
Would also recommend, I haven’t finished my copy yet.
How about a link to noconsensus on the blogroll ?
Laframboise’s book, which I just downloaded and read ($5 on my Mac Kindle) is much better than I expected. She writes well, and, unlike much of what is written about climate change, she has done her homework.
Getting the facts right is not that difficult; she quantitatively compares the IPCC’s actual behavior against the standards it claims to uphold — for example, what percentage of the cited literature is in fact peer-reviewed? — and, in doing so, shows that the IPCC honors at least some of its principles mostly by ignoring them.
Readers here already know some parts of the story, but it is worth seeing it pulled together.
To be clear, the book is not about whether or not climate change is occurring. It is about the IPCC’s standard, and its failure to insist upon compliance with them. But the largest failure can be laid at the feet of the scientific community; we let IPCC get away with obstreperous behavior for too long, and now we’re stuck with a spoiled arrogant teenager, selfish and self-centered, incapable of serving anyone but itself.
Read the Kindle version of Donna L.’s new book over the weekend.
I highly recommend it. To me it is an example of what a professional journalist should do when writing about the IPCC and its supporting cast of activists and activist climate scientists. Professional journalists should, like Donna L. has done so well in her book, do detailed homework with a skeptical attitude. I hope Donna L.’s book inspires fellow journalists.
I reviewed it at Amazon.com. Suggest anyone reading her book do an Amazon.com review of it.
Donna L., thanks.
John
I have read the pdf version and reviewed it at Amazon. The major new point for me – not counting the well documented venality of such solons as Susan Solomon, is the penetration of the IPCC by WWF, EDF and Greenpeace activists. As I say in my review, if the fossil fuel industry were equally well-represented there would be considerably more skepticism and there would have been no Nobel prize. Donna has pulled together a stunning indictment.
“the penetration of the IPCC by WWF, EDF and Greenpeace activists.”
WWF = City of London (Finance), UK Government
EDF = Wall Street Finance (Goldman, etc.), part of US goverment.
Greenpeace (UK) = UK Goverment, City of London, Green industrial scams
Greenpeace (USA) = Tentative. A little worried their stock will crash if they invest too much in the CO2 bubble. More independent from government than UK Greenpeace.
IPCC = UN, profiteers in offset “authentifications” and who knows what else. Likely as corrupt as “Oil for Food.”
WWF, EDF, Greenpeace UK–not really “intruders,” but invitees from the financiers calling for cap and trade an such scams. Indeed, the same orgs get much financing from finance industry.
Richard Drake: You have it right; what sets this apart is how readable it is. She’s brought so much together in a really snappy way. I downloaded it yesterday and read it in one straight sitting – didn’t take too long.
Because of this recommendation, I forgive Steve for all the times he snipped my posts, which often contained content similar to what is found in Ms. Laframboise’s book. ;>)
Hello Steve!
I am always enjoying your posts and a day without a new CA post is a sad day for me!
However, I would like to add a critical comment to your book recommendation..
I have not read it yet, but if the one Amazon-review is true, there are some “facts” given in the book which should alarm your audit sensors..
If it is true that Donna Laframboise states that the CO2-concentration is so small, that a doubling of it would not matter, someone should point out to her, this is so much at odds with establisehd science, that she almost disqualifies herself from an informed debatte. In other words, she might need a critical audit of her book..
Then perhaps you should read it and provide one.
Donna does not say what you suggests she says about the doubling of CO2 (page 14 in my pdf version). By my reading, she points to the obvious issue that any catastrophic impact of doubling CO2 depends upon the net size of the positive feedbacks in the climate system as a whole. Some guess that these are sizable, others guess that they are small because of negative feedback mechanisms and the overall long term stability of the climate system. Everybody has guesses but as Roger Pielke Sr frequently points out, the NRC points out that there is so much we do not know that these must remain guesses. The fact that these guesses are embedded in computer models does not change the fact that they are guesses.
Now that is s good point , the idea that a ‘science guess’ is somehow vastly different to any other type of guess merely becasue it comes from scientists , when in practice it may not be . Certainly in some areas there is more guess work than they like to admit too.
SWAGs always trump WAGs.
As for the book, Donna’s effort to illuminate the ethical shortcomings of the IPCC brings to mind the old adage about leopards and spots. We already knew that the IPCC has proceeded for years without so much as a conflict of interest policy and refused to allow the new one to apply until sometime in the future. We knew that the Climategate e-mails reveal some very unsavory behavior by authors and reviewers. We knew that a variety of scientists such as Pielke, Sr have cried foul over the IPCC’s process. And we knew that the political statement is released 3 months before the science.
Everything she writes is consistent with everything that we already knew. The IPCC is all politics, all the time. And a particularly nasty, rotten brand of politics at that.
Hi there,
okay I should read it! And still perhaps people smarter than me should audit her..
But I take your word, Bernie, over an anonymous critics at amazon any time!
So, it seems I was wrong with this point, but is there anything else which could be improved?
Cheers and thx for the correction,
LoN
LoN,
Please buy it, read it, and let us know what you find questionable. It might be good to make a list. No one can really do it for you.
I was recruited to do research in the late 90’s on AGW — Alternative Energy (R&D director of a couple of project). I was active in the field till maybe 2005 (on the dark side) but the last two years have been spent doing (unpaid) research on the effectiveness of alternative energy. The point being that I know and know of some of the players. My opinion is that Donna could extend her research into slightly different areas and find far worse offenses than she has so far uncovered. I have direct knowledge of some schemes to extract millions of dollars for research that would never be performed… for example.
So did I see any mistakes made by Donna? Nothing significant, but I am afraid that I would now believe the worst anyway — with no prompting — so I may not be an unbiased reviewer. I spent Saturday morning and afternoon reading the book in entirety and found that it was worth 10 times the amount — and as I said I am pretty familiar with the territory. Yes I did a tiny bit of work on here review of the report so my name is in the appendix — just not this name.
Hopefully she will now look at the alternative energy field which is even richer in “interesting research and conclusions” — especially some of the IPCC/Greenpeace links — but there are others that involve large chunks of cash — some right here in Steve’s homeland.
Let’s just say that you should never expect to see Canadian government research granting agencies on Steve’s doorstep offering funds — he sees too much and asks too many questions.
thanks for that alert Will. Able to be more specific? Email wd be appreciated if it’s too OT for this thread.
WillR:
She sure could – and so could any of us. But that touches on the other remarkable thing about the book: what it left out. Donna described in July the three phases the project had gone through in over two years, leading to the final change of orientation:
This was the masterstroke – yet given the size of the beast under her microscope what a challenge to execute it effectively.
Donna summarises the science brilliantly, in my view, without making the kind of elementary mistake being put about by one anonymous reviewer on Amazon. But the focus on the IPCC itself – not the myriad other issues downstream from it – and Donna’s self-discipline in not overstating the case or frothing at the mouth over each of the detailed issues by which chooses to illustrate the overall problem, mean that she doesn’t come across as either ponderous or paranoid. What’s left at the end is a massive, unarguable challenge: the need to scrap the IPCC.
This book should change history. Donna Laframboise has done her part. We must ensure it gets into the hands of as many concerned citizens and legislators as possible – and pray for a rebirth of moral courage as they read it.
WillR, if I were in Donna’s shoes (or at her keyboard!) I’d certainly want to take a breather after this – rather than diving into the depths of yet another cesspool! Have you thought about contacting Vivian Krause? She’s done a number of excellent exposés (some of which have appeared in the National Post.
Following the money-trails seems to be very much Krause’s forté (not that I doubt for a moment that Donna would be equal to the task if she so chose!)
Will, a working email address for Donna can be dug out of her web site. Please consider contacting her directly. She used a form of crowd-sourcing to audit the AR4 sources and authors. If your topic(s) are amenable to this kind of approach then please reach out to her.
RG
LoN:
Your comment on auditing Donna is well-taken. One of the very few supportive commenters, PJ Clarke, of Peter Gleick’s vacuous review legitimately raised the point that Donna had focused on a relatively small number of questionable experts and pointed out that a sea-level expert, Nils-Axel Mörner that Donna indicated should have been included is now viewed as problematic by the new head of the Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, a group that Mörner had previously led for 4 years (1999-2003).
The facts as reported on Wikipedia suggest that Mörner is at least a controversial figure – which Donna should have acknowledged. However, I do not see that this detracts in any significant way from Donna’s overall indictment of the IPCC process.
Donna makes it quite clear that Mörner is controversial, in the IPCC’s eyes at least. She only mentions him on one page in chapter three, “The Top Scientists & Best Experts?” – and that is to contrast his 40 years of hands-on experience with those who actually write IPCC reports, who she argues rely on software models and ignore this kind of experience. The next chapter is called “Twenty-Something Graduate Students”, which speaks for itself. Truly shocking.
The manufacturing of straw men is going into overdrive as we speak. The answer is to read the book in its entirety and decide whether the final chapter, Disband the IPCC, deserves the name. It does. Don’t get sidetracked.
Talking about Mörner being controverisial, wasn’t Schellnhuber coordinating lead author of the IPCC synthesis chapter of Working Group II?
“The facts as reported on Wikipedia…”
When it comes to AGW, or anything else controversial for that matter, Wikipedia is an extremely unreliable source.
Indeed, “The facts as reported on Wikipedia” must surely soon enter the hallowed halls of classic oxymorons ranging from “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” to “Military intelligence”.
On anything controversial, as you say. It’s a remarkable social phenomenon but its quality may tend to decline from now on, as fewer people put the effort in to maintain it and attacks become more frequent. The attacks from the inside being the worst – and climate science and policy being a prime example.
That ‘relatively small number’ being three. The other two ‘ignored experts’ in the chapter are Paul Reiter on mosquitos and William Gray on hurricanes. I have no knowledge of Reiter, but it is fair to say that Gray’s notions have failed to gain much serious traction. Judith’s Curry’s views expressed on this very blog were
“I am not going to critique Gray’s paper, it is beyond rational critcism, i will
save technical comments for such an unlikely event as any of this actually ever
gets published. Bill Gray is not a player in the scientific debate, his ideas
reflected in the paper referred to at RC are so flawed that they are
unpublishable”
Does one detect a pattern?
No. That’d be quite hard in a set of three extremely different people.
But the quote from Judith Curry is fascinating. October 2006. Who’d have thought it? Do I detect that Dr Curry has come some way in her views in the last five years? About the IPCC, for example?
As for Gray, Judy quotes this lovely reflection from Richard Lindzen:
Let’s say Lindzen’s evaluation is right (as I would assume). One, the man should be honoured. Two, the IPCC should make efforts to include him. Which is Donna’s point. While we’re at it, though, is there anything in chapters three and four where you would agree that Laframboise is making an important point about the IPCC?
Dr Curry was wriing about Gray in 2006, Laframboise cites his testimony from 2005, so it seemed germane.
The pattern seems to be that if Donna thinks you are a ‘world-renowned’ expert who ‘belongs at the heart of an organisation of world-class scientists’, then it is probably time to consider retirement …
The pattern seems to be that I answer your question and give my reasons, which you ignore, then ask you a question, which you also ignore. But that’s only part of a much bigger pattern: fasten on one detail, however small, in order to try and deflect from the overall force of the argument. Rather like a delinquent teenager in fact.
If anyone’s looking for a more mature response, here’s Matt Ridley on his blog yesterday:
“Is there anything in chapters three and four where you would agree that Laframboise is making an important point about the IPCC?”
Everything I’ve ‘audited’ so far does not stand up to scrutiny. Turns out to be a straw man, or unsubstantiated.
In Chapter three Laframboise champions Morner, William Gray and Paul Retier. Morner has been disowned by the ‘genuine sea level experts’ Donna cites, who do not hold the views she ascribes to them, which means her assertion of ‘a disparity between what genuine sea level specialists think and what those who write IPCC reports believe’ either dishonest or poorly-researched. On Gray she wants it both ways, she lambasts the IPCC reports because although the conclusions are based on peer-reviewed science, not every reference in the reports is to a peer-reviewed document (I leave the reader to spot the logical fallacy), yet she champions Gray who has not had anything relevant published for over a decade, and whose recent work has been judged wanting. She quotes Reiter, but only in the context of the 1995 report, more recently the House of Lords , which she cited in suppot of Gray and Morner found:-
“This is unconvincing. Professor Paul Reiter’s evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published.”
Click to access 71.pdf
That pretty much demolishes Chapter 3 for me. Thus I am disinclined to invest further time on this book.
On ‘twenty-somethings’, Albert Einstein had his ‘annus mirabulis’ in 1904, in a single year he published ‘four articles that contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter’ (Wiki)
Einstein turned 25 that year.
PS Would that be the same Matt Ridley whose iseas led directly to the first run on a UK bank in over a century, requiring a £27 billion bailout from my taxes? You’ll forgive me if I mistrust the soundness of his judgement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors
Phil, I am quite familiar with what Paul Reiter says. Quoting what (misinformed) politicians say about his knowledge is not the best argument against Paul Reiter, to say the least.
The main point is if climate change will influence the spread of infectuous deseases. The answer in general is no. The spread of malaria is far more a matter of wealth, not of climate. Malaria was endemic in southern Europe (and beyond), but with increasing wealth, measures were taken: marshes were filled, pesticides used (with the ton) and last but not least, better health care, hygiene and housing which not only kept the victims in relative better health, but also reduced the risk of transmission. See Reiters comment from 2008:
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/7/S1/S3
A similar, even more clear pattern for dengue fever: The number of new cases in New Mexico (USA) is less than 10 per year. The neighbouring states of Mexico have over 60,000 new cases each year. There is no difference in climate across the border…
Thus my question is (I haven’t read the “Spoiled Child” yet), who did write the IPCC chapter that Reiter made so angry that he didn’t even wanted his name mentioned as contributing author. And what experience these IPCC authors had compared to Paul Reiter? See his background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter
“Morner has been disowned by the ‘genuine sea level experts’”
Which experts reconcile the deceleration in sea level that tide guages show and the recent multi-year drop in satellite sea level and the previous short period of 5 different satellites show 3mm a year rise when 10mm was used as the gold standard of scaring people?
Phil Clarke finds that a scientist has been demolished by a political committe. Specfically a judgment upon Reiters opinon on this question
But how else could we test the Lords 6 year old opinion today? There is always the consideration of what has happened in the real world since then. Especially when you see this reported from the World Health Organisation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15346624
It’s truly great news about the reduction in deaths from malaria. But, given that the globally averaged temperature anomaly (or whatever one calls it) has barely risen since 2000 I’m not sure how relevant that fact is to the scare story about AGW Paul Reiter has been at pains to correct.
The cause and effect relationship I’d most like to know about is the impact of WHO’s official change of policy on DDT on these numbers. But that of course is not mentioned in the BBC report.
No. His notions on hurricanes and global warming. His peers find his research substandard and lacking in scientific merit, at least over the last decade or so.
How is this not the case for all of climate science?
BTW Phil.
Thanks for the link to that old CA thread. Really brings back memories! I highly recommend it.
I read through it and it reminded me of how much Judith Curry’s thoughts on the subject of the climate change debate have “evolved” and “grown”.
I wonder if her students read her blog now.
🙂
Well, it appears that if Phil is counting on Judith Curry for ammunition to criticize this book in question, he may be in for a disappointment.
Of course, when the spoilt child grows up they cannot tell right from wrong and get into tantrums when they are shown to be wrong or when their mistakes are corrected?
The premise of the AGW talking points is that the IPCC is made up of such high level experts doing such noble disinterested quality science, that anyone who questions them is a) a dolt and b) evil. Donna’s work shows that 1) maybe not such experts as claimed, 2) who are not actually disinterested and 3) using not such high level science (all the grey lit).
game, set, match
Chris Posted Oct 17, 2011 at 4:30 AM | Permalink | Reply
Would also recommend, I haven’t finished my copy yet.
How about a link to noconsensus on the blogroll ?
=======================================================
There is.
it’s called “Jeff Id”
Steve McIntyre,
Maybe I missed it, but I did not see Donna Laframboise’s blog listed on your blog roll.
I am curious as to your thoughts about her blog, given its absence from your blog roll.
John
Steve, O/T but FYI
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/big-tobacco-abusing-foi-process-labor/story-e6freonf-1226171011581
Not another PP attempt to link AGW skeptics to the ‘tobacco industry’ What is the point is not only dead wrong but no ones is buying it .
As I said, I am not familiar with the Reiter backstory. However it is the same House of Lords evidence on which Donna leans in her championing of Gray and Morner. Sauce for the Goose….
Even if she has half a point regarding Reiter, that’s two-thirds of the already skimpy basis for the charge of ‘bogus claims’ without much merit ……
I am finding it hilarious that Gleick comes onto Climate etc and claims he has read the book….the guy does not know when to stop digging the hole for his coffin.
petergleick | October 19, 2011 at 4:52 pm | Reply
Crap, Richard. I’m happy to take criticism of my review. I take offense when someone tells lies. Judith in her post (now corrected) said I didn’t read the book. She didn’t say that she disagreed with my review, or that it sounded like I read a different book… she said I didn’t read it. You liked the book? Fine. That’s a difference of opinion. But stick to the facts.
P.E. | October 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Reply
I believe that Watts is the source of that claim. Perhaps you should go there and challenge him to defend his claim.
petergleick | October 19, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
I can’t. Watts censors posters, including me.
Richard S.J. Tol | October 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Reply
Now that we’re on the subject, you accuse Laframboise of telling lies. Can you quote chapter and verse?
Please note that I have a stake here. I reviewed two drafts of the book. I did not find any falsehoods (let alone lies, which imply intention). I would like to know where I went wrong in my duty as a reviewer.
Kermit | October 19, 2011 at 4:31 pm | Reply
Peter, you have to admit your review was unhelpful to readers and reveals nothing about the actual content. Could you write a more informative review?
Kermit | October 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Reply
I had no intention of reading this book before now
petergleick | October 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Reply
phooey. I wasn’t criticized for writing an unhelpful review. I was falsely accused of writing a review without reading the book. Pardon me for taking offense.
stan | October 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Reply
Dr. Curry was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
petergleick | October 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Reply
Oh, right. It’s better to be accused of not reading a book that you’ve reviewed than to have your opinion challenged? BS. Dr. Curry was repeating (unchecked) a lie posted on Amazon by others and on Watt’s website, where censorship is standard (I, for example, am not allowed to post comments because he doesn’t like my positions). Ironic, given that Laframboise spends considerable time claiming she’s a defender of free speech and a victim of censorship. Oh, yes, that’s in another part of her book I supposedly didn’t read.
Bishop Hill | October 19, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Reply
Peter
You seem to have blocked me from your Twitter account. Did I say something wrong?
curryja | October 19, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Reply
I find it funny that Gleick says Watts prevents him from posting there. The only way that would happen is if Gleick posted under a pseudonym and went on a profanity-laced rant, and/or failed to use a valid email address when posting.
Countless people post views diametrically opposed to Anthony’s on WUWT every day.
Thank you Ferdinand Engelbeen for the link to the brief Wikipedia article on Paul Reiter. I followed the links to his presentations to the US Seate and the UK House of Lords. Since Reiter explicitly stated to the latter that his focus was primarily the Health Chapters of the IPCC’s Second and Third Assessment Reports, I am at a loss to understand the comment that Reiter’s criticims were selective and focused on reports that were neither “very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge [etc]”. Was this unconscious irony???
You can also link to other works by Reiter from the Wikipedia article.
Richard Drake (Oct 20 03:47),
Thanks. I didn’t realise WHO had change their policy on DDT in 2006, looking again at the bar chart of declining incidence shown in the BBC article, I do now notice a steepening of the decline around then. Interesting. However, according to that chart, there still was a decline in progress before that new policy started.
Also, if you accept that the last decade is the warmest on record, then surely the rate of temperature rise isn’t relevant to the incidence of malaria? My main point is given the fact that malaria incidence has droppped so preciptously over the last decade I would have thought it impossible to pick out the climate signal that so impressed the Lords and Phil Clarke against the validity of Reiters scepticism.
According to Pierre Berton, the largest cause of death amongst those building the first Trans-Canada railway was malaria.
StuartR Posted Oct 20, 2011 at 6:56 AM
WHO policy on DDT was in place long before 2006:
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
Note for the Press No 15 28 November 2000,
DDT USE IN MALARIA PREVENTION AND CONTROL
http://www.malaria.org/whopressreleaseddt1100.html
DDT still has an important role to play in saving lives and reducing the burden of malaria in some of the world’s poorest countries, states the World Health Organisation (WHO) as the international community considers phasing it out.
Its use on bed nets is still effective (some mosquitoes are resistant) because mossies do not like it avoid the net
An entire chapter of this book is devoted to complaining that people didn’t have doctorates at the time they did the work. I think Steve will remember that argument – from the other side.
The point you make is not well made. The book highlights the fact that vested interests are in control of the IPCC against its own rules/guidance.
Steve states this as follows:-
“Donna’s book builds on her own line of issues about IPCC (which are related to, but, in many respects, distinct from issues discussed here) – the presence of WWF and Greenpeace sympathizers and fellow travelers as IPCC authors, the use of gray environmentalist literature in IPCC (especially WG2, where activist influence is most pronounced).”
The reason your point is not well made is that she is not insulting the people involved she is just making the obvious point about conflict of interest and the rules of the IPPC not being abided by.
Steve openly admits he is not a Climate Scientist and that his expertise is in statistics among other things. The insults rained upon him are in effect a huge compliment, simply because the Team our Gav and their mates are incapable of taking him on intellectually.
I don’t recall which chapters the IPCC invited Steve to serve as Lead Author on- care to list any? Or did you actually miss the whole point here, namely that this is about the discrepancy between the IPCC’s claims that its authors are the world’s top scientists, yet many of them on inspection turn out to be underqualified activists?
I am perfectly clear that the chapter was claiming they were underqualified because they didn’t have doctorates at the time they did the writing. Why do you think I might have missed that point, just because I criticize the evidence used to support it? Why is it wrong for team members to make a big thing that Steve doesn’t have a doctorate, but reasonable to use the lack of doctorates to prove that other people are underqualified? Because that chapter talks mostly about lack of doctorates, and sometimes about youth, these two factors aren’t used to support other evidence that these people are unqualified.
The complaint has been that McIntyre isn’t a Climate Scientist(tm), therefore he isn’t qualified. I haven’t seen anything about him not having a PhD as being the issue.
> [T]his is about the discrepancy between the IPCC’s claims that its authors are the world’s top scientists, yet many of them on inspection turn out to be underqualified activists[.]
The concept of “activist” is taken for granted. It’s at least half of the what “this is about”. It is yet underspecified.
Describing what is to be an activist deserves due diligence.
Catch Donna’s TV interview at WUWT!
I finally gotten around to reading this book. I enjoyed it very much. I like how it is filled with facts and page numbers so I can reference the information myself. I stumbled on to a nasty letter written to the author. Can some comment on this letter?
http://nittygrittyscience.com/2011/11/03/an-open-letter-to-donna-laframboise-or-you-have-got-to-be-f-kidding-me/
One Trackback
[…] Source: https://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/ […]