Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Sensitivity analysis | Main | Briggs on BEST »

Peter Foster on the Delinquent Teenager

H/T to Hilary O for this review of the Delinquent Teenager in the Financial Post in Canada.

In a meticulously referenced and deservedly praised page-turner, Ms. Laframboise, an accomplished journalist who turned to the skeptical blogosphere, demonstrates how the IPCC is a thoroughly political organization. Far from objectively weighing the best available science, it cherry-picks egregiously to support its main objective: to serve its government masters. Its lead authors are not the world’s leading scientists but frequently wet-behind-the-ears graduates, and/or ardent activists. They are also selected on the basis of gender and country “diversity” rather than expertise. The organization, Ms. Laframboise demonstrates, has also been thoroughly infiltrated by environmental NGOs, in particular the World Wildlife Fund.

Getting some MSM coverage can make a big difference to a book. The review in the FP is the first time I've come across an MSM outlet reviewing a self-published book, and to my mind this shows just how important Donna's work is.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (26)

Best line:

The Stern Review, incidentally, wasn’t peer reviewed, although Sir Nicholas Stern was given a peerage for writing it.

Thanks Hilary and Bish. And most of all Donna. Let's hope this becomes the first of many.

Oct 23, 2011 at 7:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

There are a couple of errors in Donna's book . Reiter and Morner both served on the IPCC yet she describes them as IPCC outsiders. Reiter and Morner are both active outside the IPCC , where does Donna note that ? I agree with Donna when she says " If we've only listened to one side of a debate, we haven't made an informed decision..." But her book is ony one side of the debate .

Oct 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist

@Hengist "But her book is ony(?) one side of the debate". We've heard the other side ad nauseam.

Oct 23, 2011 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered Commentersimon abingdon

"her book is ony one side of the debate "
Erm isn't everything from the heaters also one side? isn't every news story every BBC/media hack article? so I assume you will also be berating them for their one side fits all articles ?

Oct 23, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered Commentermat

"@Hengist "But her book is ony(?) one side of the debate". We've heard the other side ad nauseam."
Oct 23, 2011 at 10:41 AM | simon abingdon

Which in no way shape of form invalidates Hengist's point. If Donna claims that only listening to one side of the debate will not lead to an informed decision, and then only presents one side, then she's failing under her own reasoning.

The reality of course, is that there isn't really another side to the debate, just people who don't want to change or pay money, finding various spurious reasons to object.

Oct 23, 2011 at 10:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

One side of the debate? Where have you been? For then last 15 years we have been told time after time that the IPCC was the gold standard in pulling together the climate science, and indeed if you ignore the activities of the Team in preventing papers getting in for consideration and slipping helpful papers in after the deadlines, WG1 is a scientific tour de force, although I suspect it will be less so for AR5, given the shenanigans over papers that might shake the consensus. WG2 and WG3 not so rigorous. So an organization that has set itself up as the gold standard has now been examined and in detail, and found to be the very essence of anti-alchemy, the lead standard. An organization infiltrated by environmental groups, environmental activist scientists and and others with a green agenda, pushing out green propaganda by the ton. And the solution they are offering to save the world? The destruction of western industrialized civilisation.

I should jolly well think we would be all over them like a rash, they arenplanning for us to divert trillions of dollars into doing the impossible and that is reducing our CO2 output to 1990 levels by 2050.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Hengist's point is facile. Donna's book is not about the scientific debate, it is about the organisation that is supposed to weigh up, in an unbiased, apolitical, scientific manner, all the available scientific information regarding climate change and draw conclusions from it. We know what the IPCC claims to be, Donna has demonstrated that thoses claims are unfounded. We may now make an informed decision as to whether the IPCC is indeed the leading scientific authority on climate change, or if it is a prime example of preconceptual science, a conclusion looking for supporting data.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterDocBud

ZDB: Please read it.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

@ZDB Did you know that you can preview what you've written before posting? (Glaring mistakes can have such a negative effect on the reader).

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered Commentersimon abingdon

The truth always comes out in the end.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:25 AM | simon abingdon

Gosh - and there's me thinking it was me pointing out a glaring error on your part. Your point eludes me. Perhaps you could assist?

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Many thanks for the link. Pete has written an excellent review.
It is truly astonishing how weak the negative reviews at Amazon have been. At last count there are seven 1-star reviews, one of which is a well-written parody. They are appallingly bad - and I mean really, really bad. No substance. Barely an indication that they have actually read even the free first 10 or so pages. For the most part they miss the pointof the book entirely - which given that they do not appear to have read it, is not surprising. All this goes to demonstrate Pete's point that the debate is not over, it never started.

Oct 23, 2011 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

Don't feed the trolls , it only make them come back for more .

Oct 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

@Oct 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM | Hengist

Since you've posted the same point in two threads, I'll re-post my response her.

Exactly where did Donna say (Morner & Reiter) haven't served on IPCC? Certainly not anywhere in Delinquent Teenager.

Did you just make this up or can't you understand plain English?

Oct 23, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

@Martin Brumby,

Donna says "But they are all IPCC outsiders" referring to Morner, Reiter and Gray. Second last sentence of chapter 3. She may just be using language loosely, but she certainly gives the impression throughout that chapter that they haven't served on the IPCC.

Oct 23, 2011 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Jones

Hey what's the matter, you don't understand English? You can't come in here unless you say "swordfish".

Oct 23, 2011 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterharold


On the other thread where Hengist posted this rather odd criticism, I quoted an inhterview with Morner where he makes it clear that he was a reviewer on 2 reports but suggests that his views were effectively ignored. Gray certainly feels excluded from the IPCC process as well. By this definition, Steve McIntyre is part of the IPCC as well.

Oct 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes


She may just be using language loosely, but she certainly gives the impression throughout that chapter that they haven't served on the IPCC.
Not my reading of it at all. You wouldn't refer to somebody who had never worked with the IPCC as an "IPCC outsider". That would make me one and most of the people on this site.
Reference to (eg) a "Cabinet outsider" would suggest a minister who is not one of the "inner Cabinet" or the "favoured few" or whatever other term you care to use for the small coterie that surrounds every PM and to whom he turns for most of his advice. Same applies.
Hengist is playing his usual game of pretending to be thick in order to disrupt things.
Either that or he really is thick; I'm never quite sure which.

Oct 23, 2011 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

That's right Stephen McIntyre was an expert reviewer on AR4 Working Group I . The IPCC is where science is turned in to policy advice, it's contested. I would expect a scientist with something to say to fight their corner , not to leave in a huff which only produces an anecdote to play to a gallery of diehard skeptics, by definition a polarizing action. You cant expect the wider world to take such dramatics seriously . In other words the IPCC has heard from Reiter Morner and McIntyre and suggesting or saying otherwise is IMHO counter productive

PS Were talking William Gray not Vincent, I dont think hes been on the IPCC

Oct 23, 2011 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist

An indictment is not a one-sided document.
Your infantile attempt to compare an expose of the failures of the IPCC with the IPCC product, which is allegedly to offer policymakers the gold standard of climate science for making good policy is not even good by AGW apologist standards.
You should try harder.

Oct 23, 2011 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter


as always you raise interesting questions. The most interesting one being which end of the pantomime horse you prefer to play.

Oct 23, 2011 at 11:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes


"just people who don't want to change or pay money"

OK - so what have you done? A straight answer, please.

Oct 24, 2011 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P


James P also wants to know - you never responded to my request on an earlier thread, perhaps you'll respond to him.

What have you done to change? How much have you reduced your carbon footprint; what is it now?

Oct 25, 2011 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterKendra

Kendra - I was giving him the benefit of a lie-in, but I see he's active on a newer thread, working himself into a state of faux outrage, so he's clearly not interested in answering real questions, and I somehow doubt he's done anything practical to ameliorate his carbon output. As with Huhne, that's for everyone else.

Oct 25, 2011 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

James P, I've gotten tired of comments by Zed that we're all afraid to do what he/she considers necessary so I'll continue to ask every time that happens (unless its really too late on a thread - it often happens I get behind). Otherwise, I agree with DNFTT.

Oct 26, 2011 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterKendra

Kendra - I don't know why we get sucked in, either. Too much optimism, that's our trouble.. :-)

Oct 26, 2011 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>