BOOK REVIEW News Weekly
IPCC's fraudulent climate science exposed
, August 4, 2012
THE DELINQUENT TEENAGER
Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
by Donna Laframboise
(Foreword by Ian Plimer)
(Ballan, Victoria, Connor Court)
Paperback: 237 pages
Reviewed by Michael Gilchrist
Donna Laframboise is a an investigative journalist and a former vice-president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. During the 1990s, and until she retired from the profession in 2001, she was one of Canada’s leading newspaper writers, producing a weekly opinion column for The Toronto Star, the nation’s largest circulation newspaper.
Up until 2009, she accepted the “alarmist” view of climate change, after which she began to suspect that much of the current analysis was shallow. She decided to undertake her own research.
The Delinquent Teenager is the result of two years of delving into the inner workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the United Nations over 20 years ago.
The IPCC, the author explains, is rather like a spoiled child that has never been subjected to normal discipline: “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These reports are informally known as the Climate Bible.”
We are endlessly told there is a scientific “consensus” about dangerous man-made global warming, that the cream of the cream of the world’s climate scientists are of one mind on this, that the “debate is over”, and that those who question this are “deniers” who should be silenced, if not imprisoned, for “heresy”. This has overtones of religious fanaticism rather than scientific open-mindedness.
The basis for an alarmist conviction on the part of most politicians and journalists around the world is their unwavering confidence in the impeccable credentials of the IPCC. Yet Laframboise demonstrates with detailed chapter and verse that the IPCC is in reality a politicised house of cards with little scientific integrity or credibility.
As Ian Plimer argues in his foreword to the Australian edition (reviewed here), the IPCC was actually established to confirm “pre-ordained conclusions contrary to a huge body of existing validated evidence”. He says: “Rather than using evidence and logic, the IPCC has relied on spin and propaganda.”
The Delinquent Teenager documents the fact that the IPCC continues to be influenced by activists from environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. Many of the key chapters in reports were written by these activists, or non-scientists, or else scientists outside their normal field of expertise. Several of the so-called “experts” are junior scientists at the very start of their careers and with few if any runs on the board.
Many of the references cited by the IPCC are from publications by its own hand-picked authors, or from the “grey literature” of green activists’ media releases or non-peer reviewed journal articles.
Moreover, as Laframboise shows, the summaries of the IPCC reports — which are all that most politicians and journalists ever read — bear little relation to the scientific data contained in the reports (which have 44 chapters and around 3,000 pages).
The author also analysed the documents forming the basis of the IPCC reports and found that only 58 per cent were peer-reviewed while the rest were “grey literature”. Leaving aside the sometimes incestuous peer-review process, in some cases the lead authors have relied heavily on grey literature to make their points. For example, a paper that was only recently demolished by experts in the field for its flawed research was nevertheless prominently cited in one report to make claims about the alleged link between global warming and an increase in extreme weather events.
Other chapters about the likely spread of malaria and the number of species facing extinction as a result of dangerous global warming were also heavily reliant on dubious sources that depart from the readily available conclusions of reputable researchers.
One of the more notorious examples of scientific dishonesty was the so-called “hockey stick” graph, which was “the central icon” in the 2001 IPPC report.
It conveniently air-brushed out of history the well-documented Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, and purported to show stable world temperatures for 1,000 years prior to industrialisation when the temperature suddenly shot up as a result of increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
When the flaws in this shoddy research were exposed, after much stonewalling from the authors, there was no admission of error from the IPCC, although the hockey stick graph subsequently disappeared from future reports.
There are numerous examples along these lines that cast serious doubt on the credentials of the personnel and source materials that underpin the IPCC. It is clear that this body is little more than a massive political advocacy vehicle providing endless opportunities for “snouts in the trough”.
Thanks to the IPCC’s poorly researched alarmist conclusions, trillions of dollars continue to be wasted worldwide, funds that could have achieved untold good in better preparing countries for the usual run of natural disasters and changes in climate, not to mention raising the standard of living in Third World countries.
In Australia, an incoming federal Coalition government should not only dismantle Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, but also ditch its own “direct action” program. Both are pointless, wasteful responses to a non-problem.
The Delinquent Teenager should be read by teachers, academics, politicians and journalists. Meanwhile, Al Gore and the IPCC should be stripped of their Nobel Peace Prizes, and these should be transferred to Donna Laframboise and Ian Plimer.
Michael Gilchrist is editor of AD 2000.