Fresh wild raw uninhabited world 6

Donna Laframboise wrote The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an examination of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its infamous report.

The report, you’ll remember, alleged that human beings, just by bumbling about their daily business in spots here and there in the vast empty spaces of the continents, were having a deleterious – worse, a drastic – still worse, a disastrous effect on the climates of the planet. Its fans have had it up to here with the human species. If they could have their way they’d be rid of every last one of the squalid two-legged contaminators, and let the planet, finally cured of human infestation, spin on round the sun forever fresh, a wild, raw, goodness-packed organic world.

These quotations, illustrating the anti-human strain in the ideology of environmentalism, come from a selection in our post Environmentalism, death cult (October 19, 2010):

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planet … Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. – David Graber, biologist, National Park Service.

Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation. — Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995.

It may take our extinction to set things straight…. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.—David Foreman, Founder of Earth First!

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. —Economist editorial.

Last October, Quadrant Online published a review by Tony Thomas on Donna Laframboise’s book, usefully summarizing its main points. Here’s our pick of them:

IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri is quoted, in Nature, 19/12/2007 [as saying]:

“We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it. …

Peer reviewed material

In 2008, Pachauri [said in an address to] a committee of the North Carolina legislature:

“We carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that.”

The reality …

In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.

IPCC rules were that non-peer citations could indeed be used but should be flagged as such. But out of the 5,587 non-peer citations, a grand total of six, or 0.1% , were flagged as per IPCC rules. After the InterAcademy Council in 2010 demanded that the flagging be strengthened and enforced, the IPCC in May 2011 dispensed with the flagging rule altogether!

The high stature of IPCC authors

The IPCC constantly claims its scientists are pre-eminent, world-leading specialists.

The reality …

(Eg) Laurens Bouwer in 1999-2000 was an IPCC lead author … before getting his Master’s in 2001. Although a specialist in water resources, he was lead author for the chapter on Insurance and Other Financial Services. Why? Apparently because during part of 2000, he was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance. …

IPCC scientists who wear Greenpeace* and World Wildlife Fund** hats

Are IPCC scientists independent, i.e. capable of objectively judging the literature and not open to any public perception of bias?

The tone was set from the top with Pachauri authoring prefaces to Greenpeace literature in 2007 and 2008.

Bill Hare has been a Greenpeace spokesman since 1992, its ‘chief climate negotiator’ in 2007, and a Greenpeace ‘legend’ – but also a 2007 IPCC report lead author, an expert reviewer on two out of three sections of that report, and one of only 40 people on the “core writing team” for the overall big-picture summary known as the Synthesis Report. He is a lead author for the 2014 report.

Australia’s marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg gets credits in nine chapters of the IPCC 2007 report. He was a contributing author and will be a ‘coordinating lead author’ for the 2014 Report. Laframboise says that he wrote four reports on coral reefs for Greenpeace between 1994 and 2000, and later, two for the World Wildlife Fund. He will lead a chapter for the 2014 IPCC report.

In the IPCC 2007 report:

28 out of 44 chapters include at least one individual affiliated with the WWF.

100% of the 20 chapters in Working Group 2 include at least one WWF-affiliated scientist.

15 of 44 chapters are led by WWF-affiliated scientists.

In three instances, chapters were led by two WWF-affiliated lead authors.

The ‘rigorous’ IPCC review processes

The IPCC’s supposedly rigorous “Review” processes involve thousands of experts but is toothless and uninquiring.

The IPCC reviewers do not check papers underlying data – and one reviewer who sought a paper’s raw data, was threatened with the sack.

If a reviewer points out a flaw in a lead author’s summary, the lead author, as judge and jury of his/her own case, can simply respond, “Rejected”. There is no independent referee. …

An upright IPCC scientist

In all this murk, only one IPCC scientist, Chris Landsea, a noted hurricane specialist, has resigned and gone public about unethical IPCC behavior.

Kevin Trenberth, a hurricane non-specialist, had gone to the press in 2004 claiming, with no science support, that recent hurricanes reflected global warming. He was lead author for the 2007 hurricane chapter. Not one other IPCC scientist stood up in agreement that Trenberth had compromised his objectivity as ‘judge’ on that chapter.

Two years later, the IPCC’s ‘moral midgets’ as Laframboise calls them, collected their Nobel Prize.


* See our posts: The evil that Greenpeace does, January 16, 2010; The vast left-wing conspiracy, January 18, 2010; The blind cruelty of Greenpeace, January 20, 2010.

** “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” —Prince Phillip, patron and past president of the World Wildlife Fund.

  • Ralph

    Cannibalism and a killer virus. This isn’t about global warming or CO2 emissions. It’s about the destruction of our species. Instead of a virus or cannibalism it would be more efficient to reopen Auschwitz. Then humanity could suffer for it’s sins against the planet. Possibly another Noah . God could flood the Earth and wash all the human sin away. This reads like Christians who know they can’t be perfect like Jesus and hate themselves because they are simply human.

  • Harold

    I have read much of Donna Lafroiboise’s previous “report” on the IPCC, which purported to show how much of it was based on non peer-reviewed information.  Of course, it did no such thing – the chapter on the reality of global warming had a very high peer reviewed level, and most of the non peer reviewed stuff was not central to the case.  It was ironic to see a work of such little worth criticising another work, however flawed.  I see from the reviews that this contains some of the same information, along with some more irrelevent diversions.

    If you wanted to know the truth about a position – say evolution, would you look at the evidence, or would you try to find sources that showed how minor details of the way it was put together were not perfect?  You can ignore the entire IPCC if you wish, the evidence is still very clear.

    Lets be clear here about what the issues are.  If we are talking about how to address climate change, then there is a genuine debate to be had.  This is not purely a scientific subject, in much the same way as whether the state should be separated from the church is not a scientific subject.  Should we spend money today to avert costly consequences 75 years from now?  There are arguments on both sides.

    However, if the debate is about the existence of AGW, then this is a scientific matter, in much the same way that evolution is. 

    It is possible to reasonably hold a position that we should not cut back on CO2 because it would cost more than the benefits.  Of course, you would need to have some evidence for such a view to be reasonable, but I believe it is possible, depending on such things as discount rates for the future.  The Stern review, for example, did not discount at all, which is at least a little controversial.  In these areas relevent specialists, such as economists, should be listened to, and climate scientists should get out of  the way.

    You can argue endlessly over such things as whether a carbon tax is preferable to a cap and trade system.  That debate has no place for climate scientists.

    It is impossible to resasonably argue that AGW is not happening, and that our CO2 and other emmissions are not affecting the climate.  In all the outopurings from “skeptics”, there is very, vey little nowadays that  challenges this central point.  Nearly all of it is about our response to it, or about nothing much at all.  The above book falls into the latter catagory, as it is clearly not an attempt to properly asses the credentials of the IPCC, but an effort to pick examples where it appears to fall short of its stated standards. 

    So the minute you argue that you should carry on driving an SUV because AGW is not happening, you fall into the unreasonable camp.  You can reasonably make other arguments that you should carry on driving your SUV.  Please try to stick to reasonable arguments. 

    • Liz

      I guess I fall into the “unreasonable” camp, because its obvious to me that what is happening here is not “AGW” –  its BULLSHIT, being piled higher and deeper continuously, by a bunch of con artists using “save the planet” as their cover. 
      The rest is really beside the point.        

      • Keith

        Put me in the unreasonable camp too. The world is getting warmer because of the big yellow thing in the sky. It has happened before and it will happen over and over again. 
        We wish we had the ability to effect change in the weather but try as we might we can’t.

    • C. Gee

      “It is impossible to resasonably argue that AGW is not happening, and that our CO2 and other emmissions are not affecting the climate.  In all the outopurings from “skeptics”, there is very, vey little nowadays that  challenges this central point.”

      Impossible?  Really?  Twenty minutes on the internet would suffice to show your assertions to be nonsense.  Will you now define “reasonably” to exclude those who do argue that AGW is not happening and that CO2 and other emissions are not driving global climate change?  

      Why do you attempt to put AGW beyond debate?  Debating about the existence of the debate is pointless. Pretending that AGW is not debatable does not negate the arguments against it. But even if we were to ignore all skeptics, the AGW theory is failing on its own terms: its forecasts have proved to be wrong, some ludicrously so.  

  • When a group of slightly intelligent animals uses primitive tactics to encourage the mass suicide of their brethren, I call humanshit.

    One of the beautiful things about an evolutionary worldview is the prospects for our deep descendants. Humans are the most intelligent species on this planet, but just barely: our consciousnesses still only appreciate a single dimension of time, our kludgy linguistic ejaculations rarely map onto reality, and we haven’t even escaped the vagaries of our deep animal ancestry. Not to mention that most members of the species are easy game for ideologies of sanctioned stupidity!

    We are tasting the cusp of intuiting reality through the field of robotics, but it must go even deeper than that. Over the course of millions of millions of years, humans stand a chance to sow the seeds for the most advanced beings in this universe – but, given the proliferation of Leftism and Islam and Christianism, I wonder if the bears and crows will beat us there using our own technology.