The Delinquent Teenager

The Greenhouse “consensus” of scientists fraud is unwinding with the book by Donna Lamframboise, The Delinquent Teenager (available only on Kindle so far but costs under $5)

This demonstrates the lack of expertise of a great many IPCC people, their political connections and the fusion of the IPCC and WWF. The book catalogues the various dirty tricks that insiders use to ensure the Politically Correct line of the IPCC reports, shows how many of the lead authors are not experts in the field for the chapters they control, demonstrates that 30% of the references are from the “Grey” literature, mainly from activist organisations like WWF, Greenpeace, EDF. It further shows that a great many of the references are from journals controlled by Phil Jones, Mann and others. Then there is climategate, phantom disappearances of glaciers in the Himalayas, ocean rises, the hockey stick fraud and the “systematic misrepresentation” by Pachuri in travelling the world claiming 30% of species were heading for extinction, a claim based on an activist paper that has been utterly discredited

There are some interesting Australian links. Lisa Alexander from Monash was a lead author 10 years before getting her PhD; former ALP appointee as head of the Health Dept. Tony McMichaels suddenly became a malaria expert, forecasting its increased prevalence without knowing that it is not a disease confined to the tropics (and being preferred by the IPCC establishment over Paul Reiter the world’s greatest authority); Multiple government grant receipient, David Karoly featuring as a lead author of six chapters of the IPCC. Bill Hare, Greenpeace activist being a lead writer of the Synthesis Report and an “expert reviewer”. There is University of Qld’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg whose work is “funded and vetted by Greenpeace” and NZ’s Kevin Trenberth who was placed in the hurricane expert’s spot without having written on the subject and then proceeding to freeze out the world’s greatest expert on hurricanes, Chris Landsea who had the temerity to use observational data to demonstrate the inconvenient facts that hurricanes had increased neither in number nor intensity.

Surely all these people will sue if the book is defamatory!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to The Delinquent Teenager

  1. amcoz

    I think it is a well written story of intrigue, hypocrisy, lies, oversize egos, falsities, inaccuracies, and so on, and on.

    It is a story that should be on the front page of every newspaper but therein lies the problem; they’re all too stupid to understand the simple issue of the geopolitical deceit rendered by so few that affects all of us, or they’re so afraid of Miz Liar’s wrath should they ever tell the truth.

  2. Of course, proponents of the Washington “consensus” would never put the fox in charge of the henhouse, would they?

  3. No Worries

    I await sob showing up to defend the integrity of the IPCC and all the rats aboard that sinking ship.
    C’mon sob, make me laugh.

  4. Jim Rose

    Who gains from having such an incompetent crew?

    I would have thought there are plenty enough real experts willing to sell their soul?

    as an example, economics has many schools of thought. Each made up of true believers.

    You do not have to ask economists to guild the lily, plenty can be found that honestly believe the agreeable things they saying.

    There is enough ambiguity is most sciences to sow honest agreement without having to hire compliant recent graduates who will be infinitely grateful for the best job they will ever have.

  5. Actually, I know little about the arcane workings of the IPCC.

    Everyone, though, even on the pro-climate change side, has acknowledged that it needs to work better the next time around, and it is embarrassing that some mistakes slipped through.

    I tend to be more interested in what the scientists working directly in the field say on their current blogs and papers.

    Some aspects of climate change I have always been skeptical about – most notably, estimates of species likely to be lost. This has just always struck me as being pretty much guess work. Estimates of numbers of people likely to want to move because of it are also (to my mind) obviously going to be very rubbery.

    But on the whole, I tend to worry more about the effects on humans and their cities than the effect on critters, unless we are talking important food sources, like fish.

    I think it is very much an open question, for example, as to how productive the oceans will be in future, as the food chain effects of ocean acidification seem very difficult to forecast. However, lose the pteropods in polar waters, and I can imagine trouble.

  6. JamesK

    it is embarrassing that some mistakes slipped through.

    I tend to be more interested in what the scientists working directly in the field say on their current blogs

    All u need to know.

  7. jupes

    No no no no…

    This book is wrong. Why Kevin Rudd himself told us that:

    The IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change – scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years. They reached a conclusion about, first of all, climate change happening and, second, the high likelihood, defined as 90 per cent plus, of it being caused by human activity sometime ago.

    The author is obviously in the pay of Big Oil.

  8. Jim Rose

    essentially humourless scientists in white coats

    most of the science is not about lab experiments.

  9. jupes

    Actually, I know little about the arcane workings of the IPCC.

    And so Steve retreats to fallback position number one:

    …lose the pteropods in polar waters, and I can imagine trouble.

    Comedy gold!

  10. Yes, it’s hilarious that someone reads about ocean acidification and has an idea where the biggest future problems may lie.

  11. jupes

    Yes, it’s hilarious that someone reads about ocean acidification and has an idea where the biggest future problems may lie.

    No no… We already knew that. It’s part of the list.

    The funny bit is that all the banging on about “peer review” doesn’t have quite the same force these days.

  12. JamesK

    So in the 100 years since the concept of pH was first introduced, what are you suggesting has happened exactly steve – I mean apart from: “we’re going to die….we’re going to die!!!!”?

  13. JamesK, I don’t have time today to spend educating ideologically motivated dummies who refuse to read broadly on science.

    Go Google it yourself, and not just “CO2 Science”, where people like Rafe learn about how butterflies love all that lovely, lovely CO2 and we would all be happier and skip over the lush green fields if only we would let CO2 double or treble from the levels its been at for all of human civilisation.

  14. Viva

    it needs to work better the next time around,

    There’ll be a next time round? I would have thought the credibility of this organisation was just about shot.

  15. Gab

    I don’t have time today

    So you’ve said elsewhere, Steve, and yet here you still are, pomposity ‘n all.

  16. MACK1

    “The IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change – scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years.”

    It is now becoming clear that the big fault line in climate science is between the real scientists who do actually go outside and measure things, and the IPCC crowd who stay inside and model things on their computers.

    See for example Dennis Jensen’s list of papers here:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/labor-censors-dennis-jensen-denies-peer-reviewed-science/
    Professor Kench actually went out from his office in Auckland and did field measurements of Pacific Islands and found most of them were growing in spite of the miniscule increases in sea levels, etc etc…

  17. Jim Rose

    humourless scientists in white coats

    how can the science be settled if basic measurements are being made by front-line researchers?

  18. Jim Rose

    a trouble with pollution taxes and other corrective interventions is it is hard for politicians to adjust to new learning and then admit that the new tax is not now required and that they may have got it wrong.

    their oppoenents will say that they got it wrong if that is not true.

    a tax neutral carbon tax has the additional flaw that the beneficiaries of the offsetting income tax cuts are co-opted as a new constituency that supports a carbon tax.

  19. “If he had followed his observations, his line would probably have been nearer the truth. I have myself sometimes found it difficult to let the lines run where they will, instead of running them where I think they ought to go. My conclusion is that it is safest to follow the observations exactly and let others do their own correcting if they wish.”

    – Wilbur Wright, December 1, 1901 (in a letter to Octave Chanute).

  20. No Worries

    Ah sob, you never disappoint. You “don’t have time today”, yet you had plenty of time crow about BEST the other day. Yet Muller continues to refuse to substantiate the independence of the BEST data set, despite being directly asked by Pielke Snr when the project started.
    sob – it’s the sound you make when you start typing on here.

  21. Irving J

    wait for labor to pass the minority political party protection, anti-discrimination and anti-vilification act and affirmative action for minority political parties act.

  22. WB

    The book isn’t just on Kindle. You can do a pdf download from Amazon, on Mac and PC. I’ve read it. It’s a rollicking read. If you’ve followed Donna Laframboise blog it’s not a complete surprise but she’s done a great job putting everything together and it really is the first book analysing the IPCC.

    Bottom line, the IPCC Assessment Reports are not quality work. It’s political, biased and it’s taking up all the oxygen on climate science with tax consequences for all of us. I reckon it needs disbanding.

  23. GrazingGoat66

    Payed my fiver and had a bloody good read about the type of organisation that Gerard Henderson gets some of his best material from on a Friday arvo…….you know the type that interview each other and basically agree with each other in order to further their one particular line.
    I too look forward to the “inevitable” court action that should automatically flow from those that Laframboise mentions and questions in her excellently researched tome. Because then they might be forced to try and explain some of their peer reviewed bullshit in a court of law somewhere on the planet….and that is a train wreck waiting to happen.

  24. JamesK

    Awww c’mon steve, admit it.

    You’re a closet marxist masquerading as an environmentalist fearmongering that repealing Julia’s carbon tax will deprive cutesy coral organisms of the calcium carbonate they need to build their home sweet homes.

  25. C.L.

    What Happened To That Warming?

    All the science points to an exaggerated hoax.

    No wonder even Obama has dumped warmenism.

  26. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    My Kindle is suckling nourishment from the national grid right now so I can order this; already have James Delingpole’s Watermelons, was under USD 7 at the time I think and a bargain for amusement and information.

  27. johno

    My Kindle is suckling nourishment from the national grid right now so I can order this; already have James Delingpole’s Watermelons

    Don’t let the Greens know that you are using a Kindle to read such subversive material otherwise they will shut down the grid to stop people reading this stuff.

    Ohh! Duh! That’s what they are already trying to do. At least now it makes sense why they want to stop the electrons from flowing.

  28. Lazlo

    There’ll be a next time round? I would have thought the credibility of this organisation was just about shot.

    They are working on AR5 right now, and behaving in exactly the same ways as before..

  29. dover_beach

    Interesting graphic therein, CL. Makes one think that Mother Jones has been misleading our dear monty only last weekend.

  30. Lazlo

    Everyone, though, even on the pro-climate change side, has acknowledged that it needs to work better the next time around, and it is embarrassing that some mistakes slipped through.

    Yes, this is the politically correct narrative on the IPCC.

    Back in the real world, the IPCC was thoroughly slammed by the InterAcademy Council in 2010.

    Dodgey practices identified by the IAC included: extensive use of grey literature (eg WWF and Greenpeace propaganda); numerous cases of conflict of interest (report authors citing their own work, and promoting their own findings over those of other researchers); improper and unsupportable characterisation of uncertainties (eg saying something was “very likely” due to human naughtiness, without supplying any scientific foundation for that assessment).

    The IAC made numerous recommendations to rectify these practices which the IPCC in plenary accepted without reservation. However there is already evidence that the IPCC in practice is ignoring these recommendations in the current development of Assessment Report 5 (AR5).

    They believe they can do whatever they like.

  31. Lazlo

    PS sfb: what does “the pro-climate change side” stand for? I thought you wanted the climate to return to some static and pristine state?

  32. This is straight out proven fraud they cannot deny the climate gate bust nor the computer code which proves they not only said they would fudge it they actually did . It is very clear it is to stifle the west in favor of the communist countries . They are even funded by the richest people in the world including big oil , good work guys truth will prevail . Who funds the Climate Alarmists?

  33. old44

    Jim Rose
    25 Oct 11 at 9:19 am
    To sell your soul, you have to have one.

  34. Streetcred

    Why Kevin Rudd himself told us that:

    The IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change – scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years. They reached a conclusion about, first of all, climate change happening and, second, the high likelihood, defined as 90 per cent plus, of it being caused by human activity sometime ago.

    Turns out that the 4,000 were a couple-a dozen pimply faced kids doctoring the real science and supplementing it with MSM headlines.

  35. Gab

    Turns out that the 4,000 were a couple-a dozen pimply faced kids doctoring the real science and supplementing it with MSM headlines.

    No. Really? Don’t say stuff like that unless it’s true because I would believe the IPCC capable of such things. After all they’re desperate and fighting for (funding) survival.

  36. Carrie M

    The next step is to find out who appointed these people to the IPCC. I mean, the actual names of the people doing the appointments, not the governments of the day. Then find out their history, education etc. The rot in science all gets back to the education system and the universities.

  37. Pingback: News & Views – October 26, 2011 | JunkScience.com

Comments are closed.