Laframboise's reviews on Amazon falsely inflated

The new IPCC bashing tome by Donna Laframboise continues to garner positive reviews on Amazon, perhaps because she has implored her followers to do so.   Alas some of Donna's shills have taken her bleating "These reviews really do matter" to heart and left multiple reviews. Naughty. say "We only allow each customer to write one review of each product set."

Update: The above just looks at Amazon But theres also the site in the U.S. Foxgoose has managed to post five star reviews on both (October 16, 2011on the US site  14 Oct 2011 on the UK site)  Martin A from Normandy posts a third five star review on the US site October 19, 2011 .

Update 20:21 pm : Andrew Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion has also seen it's positive reviews inflated by multiple postings on and MPHELPS posts five star reviews January 25, 2010 on the US site and 24 Jan 2010 on the UK site.

Climategate 2.0 Has Potholer nailed it ?

Three cheers for Potholer for putting his thoughts into words lickety split on Climategate 2.0

Now, I'd like to ask my advocates positioned as skeptics friends if Potholer is right or wrong @ 7:20 "But although conspiracy theorists get very excited when they see a doubt or an uncertainty expressed in the emails - and take this as a sign that these must be secret - no instance has been cited of an uncertainty that hasn't already been openly discussed by these researchers in publicly available scientific journals." ?

Parlez Vous Climate *Skeptic* ?

Mazzer writes "In far too many cases IPCC experts were not chosen on their scientific credentials but on their ideological affiliations and their association with the WWF or Greenpeace." I've asked Mazzer to cite just one case, to give me a single shred of evidence that IPCC contributors were recruited on the basis he claims. Mazzer responds "I can never prove that experts were selected on their ideological qualifications any more than you can prove they were not." So Mazzer interprets my request for evidence as a demand for proof and issues his own counter demand. Such is the standard of rhetoric.

So where is Mazzer getting his ideas from?

Mazzer is responding to my one star review for Donna Laframboise's new book. Laframboise provides plenty of innuendo for Mazzer to frame his view but no actual evidence. In Chapter 21 she writes "One day the IPCC may come to be seen as a textbook case of how badly things can go wrong when political amateurs are recruited and manipulated by UN-grade political operatives." Did you notice the caveat "one day the the IPCC may come to be seen as..." ? It enables Laframboise to employ conjecture to say anything she likes. Here she is doing the same thing to Australia.

At 1:57 Andrew Bolt asks a leading question, suggesting that IPCC contributors are chosen on the basis that they agree with the scientific consensus. Laframboise's response is peppered with "one suspects" "perhaps" and "it's not clear". Having read her book I have to say there is only one correct and honest answer that Laframboise could have given and that is to admit she has no actual evidence IPCC contributors were recruited on the basis of affiliations to Greenpeace , WWF or on agreement to the scientific consensus. I've tweeted Donna Laframboise to ask she support her claims with evidence . Perhaps I'm asking too much, she hasn't corrected the factual errors in Chapter 3 yet. So please, advocates positioned as skeptics and apologists for Donna Laframboise; where is the evidence in her book supporting what she is saying about selection of IPCC contributors ?

Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager

Have reviewed "The Delinquent Teenager" byDonna Laframboise, after approval by Amazon this should be posted on too. It gets one star.

Shoddy research or a deliberate attempt to mislead

The first of many misleading claims are the two words ”IPCC EXPOSÉ” found on the front cover of "The Delinquent Teenager" . Nothing is being exposed here, this is basically a write up of Ms Laframboise's blog which the reader can get online for free.

Chapter 3 introduces three scientists Drs Gray, Reiter and Mörner whom she claims have all been “left out in the cold” all well known skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. Laframboise tells us that Gray has never served on the IPCC and goes on to say and that ‘they are all IPCC outsiders’ . This is untrue. Both Reiter and Mörner have served on the IPCC (Working Group II of the IPCC's fourth assessment report.) Laframboise clearly indicates the opposite. It’s either shoddy research or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Moreover Dr Reiter serves on an advocacy group which receives no scrutiny from the author whatsoever. Such unequal treatment is the hallmark of Laframboise’s work. In Chapter 6 she asserts a new set of rules all her own “Since activists bring their own agenda to the table, and since agendas and science don't mix, environmentalists need to keep their distance from scientific endeavors.” No support is offered for this arbitrary statement, it’s not a protocol or part of any philosophy of science it’s just Laframboise’s made up rule . Any scientist with any connection to WWF or Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth is in Laframboise’s words “tarnished”. It is a witch hunt in print.

Laframboise labours under the illusion that IPCC scientists can be qualified for the job or not. But unable to point to the necessary qualifications she relies on a vague statement by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri that IPCC contributors “… are people who are at the top of their profession”. Armed with this Laframboise sets out to find IPCC contributors who in her opinion fall short of that mark. So a geography professor in Holland is criticized for being young , an epidemiologist in London is criticized for not getting her doctorate quick enough and whenever Laframboise spots that the doctoral thesis of one scientist has been supervised by another the innuendo of favouritism is made. It is one grossly contrived gripe.

The arbiter of who should and who shouldn’t serve on the IPCC is none other than Donna Laframboise in this tome. She berates a biology PhD for example because there is ‘little indication’ he has reached the ‘threshold’ of being in the ‘world’s-top-experts’ even though no such threshold is established. “[H]is orientation is overtly activist” huffs Laframboise, yes all scientists are divided into two groups ‘activists’ and people the author tolerates.

Bad science is mixed with partisan political advocacy. Examining the link between human generated carbon dioxide and climate change Laframboise claims“But the truth of the matter is far from clear”. If Laframboise really finds that area of radiative physics far from clear then perhaps she should have thought twice about writing a book about climate change. The heat trapping properties of carbon dioxide can clearly be demonstrated in the laboratory and have been known for over a century. But it’s in the final chapter entitled “Disband the IPCC” which gives the game away. Laframboise is an activist herself and the true purpose of her writing is to undermine her subject.

Put simply Laframboise’s work cannot be trusted. She argues that the IPCC should maintain “a strict boundary between itself and green groups” but never stops to ask if perhaps libertarian think tanks might hold sway over some IPCC contributors. A ‘strict boundary’ it seems is a standard only for environmentalists not for Big Oil or libertarians. This is ironic because all four of the testimonials she draws on with a science background to praise her book have documented links to think tanks denying anthropogenic climate change. Laframboise seems to consider that point outside the scope of her work.

No the real villains of the climate change debate hardly get a mention (and when they do it’s complimentary.) Despite their strong anti-science influence, in particular spreading doubt about climate change , the words ‘George C. Marshall Institute’ or ‘Fraser institute’ never appear in this book. One can only assume that’s because Laframboise doesn’t want you to consider the other side of the equation .

Principally this book is about characterizing an institution. But because of the authors poor grasp of science, political prejudices and basic errors there really is no reason to trust anything written in this book, nor any reason to recommend it at all.