Touring the Lucky Country giving speeches about how wrong climate scientists are must be nice work if you can get it, but Donna Laframboise has been getting her knickers in a twist about a consensus statement on coral reefs and climate change.
Donna's beef is that not only do the scientists agree, but they display no doubt about their findings. "The statement doesn’t sound scientific, however. For one thing, the language isn’t circumspect" moans Donna.
She's written an entire blog post entitled Delusions Down Under which argues that the statement from the Center for Ocean Solutions is invalid because it is worded with certainty. Leading to a conclusion of her own that a "magnificent self-delusion" has taken hold of the coral reef scientists.
This is the same Donna Laframboise who wrote a book dissing the IPCC consensus. In which , musing on a favourite climate *skeptic* meme Donna wrote "it isn't terribly plausible that scientists [...] can know for certain that current temperature fluctuations aren't part of a [...] natural cycle."
So for Donna only certainty from scientists is good enough, except when scientists are certain and then it's not good at all.
Tweet
Showing posts with label Donna Laframboise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donna Laframboise. Show all posts
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.
Amazon.co.uk say "We only allow each customer to write one review of each product set."
Update: The above just looks at Amazon .co.uk But theres also the Amazon.com 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 Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk MPHELPS posts five star reviews January 25, 2010 on the US site and 24 Jan 2010 on the UK site.
Tweet
Amazon.co.uk say "We only allow each customer to write one review of each product set."
Update: The above just looks at Amazon .co.uk But theres also the Amazon.com 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 Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk MPHELPS posts five star reviews January 25, 2010 on the US site and 24 Jan 2010 on the UK site.
Tweet
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 ?
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 Amazon.co.uk 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.
Tweet
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.
Tweet
Ross McKitrick a fish out of water
Another IPCC contributor with think tank connections is Ross McKitrick who says "far from being an open network of top experts it has turned itself into a narrow clique of like-minded activists."
I'd like to venture why Professor McKitrick feels that way. McKitrick served on Working Group I which deals with the physical science basis for anthropogenic global warming. McKitrick's field is the dismal science of economics.
McKitrick is far more at home at the Fraser Institute . In 2001 this libertarian think tank published "Global Warming A Guide to the Science" an opus which staes "A review of the scientific literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide ... have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature." It also tells us "There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate." Although this guff was published in 2001 it didn't stop Professor McKitrick from contributing to the IPCC's 2007 report.
Tweet
I'd like to venture why Professor McKitrick feels that way. McKitrick served on Working Group I which deals with the physical science basis for anthropogenic global warming. McKitrick's field is the dismal science of economics.
McKitrick is far more at home at the Fraser Institute . In 2001 this libertarian think tank published "Global Warming A Guide to the Science" an opus which staes "A review of the scientific literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide ... have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature." It also tells us "There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate." Although this guff was published in 2001 it didn't stop Professor McKitrick from contributing to the IPCC's 2007 report.
Tweet
Has the IPCC been infiltrated by right wing think tanks?
Some months ago I started a wiki listing skeptical scientists who have served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I found the IPCC welcomes representatives not just from academia but from well known corporate interests too like Boeing Exxon Chevron Shell and 3M so I listed the involvement of some of those too. But why are there so many corporate afilliations for outfits whose product is nothing but advocacy or policy?
A quick look at the list of contributors to Working Group III contributors to the Fourth Assessment Report reveals some familiar names like Pat Michaels representing his University and the Cato Institute, yes the Cato Institute funded by those famous progressive leftie pinkoe watermelon Koch brothers.
There's also a Lenny Bernstein of L.S. Bernstein & Associates , L.L.C. Who they? Well L.S. Bernstein & Associates are an environmental consultants employing a staff of approximately one, Lenny has a profile page on the website of the slightly more well known George C. Marshall Institute .
Then there's the representatives from outfits no one has heard of like IPIECA, turns out that's the 'global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues' or Research Triangle Institute who get at least two seats at the table, or the more generically titled think tanks like 'Policy Solutions'. We don't know who their clients are and what interests they represent at the IPCC.
Whether this amounts to infiltration depends on your definition, and the definition doing the rounds now is posited by Donna Laframboise in her ludicrous book with egregious errors I have already noted elsewhere on this blog. She has been taken so seriously the WWF have taken the bold step of issuing a press release denying her claims. So where are the press releases clarifying what the George C. Marshall Institute and the Cato Institute have been up to at the IPCC?
Tweet
A quick look at the list of contributors to Working Group III contributors to the Fourth Assessment Report reveals some familiar names like Pat Michaels representing his University and the Cato Institute, yes the Cato Institute funded by those famous progressive leftie pinkoe watermelon Koch brothers.
There's also a Lenny Bernstein of L.S. Bernstein & Associates , L.L.C. Who they? Well L.S. Bernstein & Associates are an environmental consultants employing a staff of approximately one, Lenny has a profile page on the website of the slightly more well known George C. Marshall Institute .
Then there's the representatives from outfits no one has heard of like IPIECA, turns out that's the 'global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues' or Research Triangle Institute who get at least two seats at the table, or the more generically titled think tanks like 'Policy Solutions'. We don't know who their clients are and what interests they represent at the IPCC.
Whether this amounts to infiltration depends on your definition, and the definition doing the rounds now is posited by Donna Laframboise in her ludicrous book with egregious errors I have already noted elsewhere on this blog. She has been taken so seriously the WWF have taken the bold step of issuing a press release denying her claims. So where are the press releases clarifying what the George C. Marshall Institute and the Cato Institute have been up to at the IPCC?
Tweet
The Fundamental Flaw in Laframboise's new book
Donna Laframboise posits that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a make up of scientists pre-disposed to accept the consensus. To make her point she focusses on any scientist (out of 2500 plus IPCC scientists) that can be shown to have a link to say Greenpeace or WWF and suggests that makes them an 'activist'. Fair enough you might say but a scientific analysis would consider the other side of the picture too, and ask if there are skeptical IPCC contributors. Donna clearly hasn't looked at this question yet her twitter profile states "If we've only listened to one side of a debate, we haven't made an informed decision. Let's be civil & fair-minded."
In chapter 3 Donna introduces some skeptics William Gray, Paul Reiter and Nils-Axel Mörner "Each of them possesses highly specialized knowledge . Each of them is a seasoned professional with long experience in his field. They are in other words exactly the kind of people you'd expect to find at the heart of [the IPCC]"
Donna goes on to say "But they are all IPCC outsiders" . In the case of Reiter and Nils-Axel Mörner this is simply not true. Nils-Axel Mörner served on Working Group II of the IPCC's fourth assessment report . Paul Reiter served as an expert reviewer on Working Group II of the Fourth Assessment Report. An astonishing omission especially when you consider all three have been active in promoting doubt about anthropogenic global warming outside of the IPCC. Perhaps that would make them 'activists' too in Donna's weltanschauung. A question alas, we will never know the answer to.
Tweet
In chapter 3 Donna introduces some skeptics William Gray, Paul Reiter and Nils-Axel Mörner "Each of them possesses highly specialized knowledge . Each of them is a seasoned professional with long experience in his field. They are in other words exactly the kind of people you'd expect to find at the heart of [the IPCC]"
Donna goes on to say "But they are all IPCC outsiders" . In the case of Reiter and Nils-Axel Mörner this is simply not true. Nils-Axel Mörner served on Working Group II of the IPCC's fourth assessment report . Paul Reiter served as an expert reviewer on Working Group II of the Fourth Assessment Report. An astonishing omission especially when you consider all three have been active in promoting doubt about anthropogenic global warming outside of the IPCC. Perhaps that would make them 'activists' too in Donna's weltanschauung. A question alas, we will never know the answer to.
Tweet
Donna on Activists, the IPCC and Vampires (wtf ???)
Canadian advocate positioned as skeptic Donna Laframboise's schtick is to draw attention to the links between IPCC scientists and any group that can be painted as any shade of green which in Donna's weltanschauung makes them "activists". I'll let Donna explain in her own words what this adds up to :
Scary stuff . That's from her new book which boasts glowing testimonials from Matt Ridley, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Tol. All three have connections to think tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation (all), The Fraser Institute (McKitrick) and Economic and Social Research Institute (Tol). A point Donna and her publisher neglect to mention.
Tweet
"Imagine you're an accident victim on the side of the road. You're told not to worry, that the person who is going to wait with you until the ambulance arrives is trained in first aid. What you aren't told is that he is also a vampire and that the blood seeping from your wound will be difficult for him to resist . You have not been warned about the presence of another agenda - one that changes the picture dramatically."
Scary stuff . That's from her new book which boasts glowing testimonials from Matt Ridley, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Tol. All three have connections to think tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation (all), The Fraser Institute (McKitrick) and Economic and Social Research Institute (Tol). A point Donna and her publisher neglect to mention.
Tweet
Duck a la framboise
Now I have to confess I haven't really been keeping up with advancements in the cut throat world of environmental epidemiology . So I'm not going to impeach Donna's Super Six . Sure I accept that Drs. Reiter Hay Snow Shanks Spielman and Gabler are eminent enough. But her case is still a clutch of canards.
Canard number one: "The onus is on the IPCC to demonstrate that it has, indeed, recruited the best experts. It is not up to the rest of us to do the tremendous legwork of demonstrating, in each chapter ... that others are more qualified." Donna's kibitzing here relies on the IPCC being in the business of bestowing the crown of undisputed-heavyweight-environmental-epidemiologist-champion-of-the-world. But that's not it's function so Donna doesn't have a point .
Canard number two: Donna's story suggests throughout that Kovats didnt make the grade. That a minimum standard was not reached. Donna presents no evidence whatsoever that this view is based on any science, it can only be based on academic metrics. That would be a point easily nailed by showing us the IPCC rule on recruitment, which Donna doesn't do .
Canard number three: I've asked for Donna to point to superior scientists who were overlooked . And Donna has given me the names of the Super Six. Now correct me if I'm wrong but Reiter Hay Snow Shanks Spielman and Gabler are not beefing about not getting a seat on the IPCC . So The Super Six are just Donna's list of her favourite malaria experts who do not support her claim that Kovats is 'far from being a world-class scientific expert' and should resign. And very fine malaria experts they are too, but how would they react if they knew their eminent names were being used in this way?
Canard number 4: All of the above shows that Donna's argument is opinion and not fact. Of course Donna is entitled to her opinion . Donna is a responsible and entirely impartial judge of who should and who should not be serving on this scientific panel , and Donna's not going to let her 'skeptic' views on anthropogenic global warming get in the way of a rational decision. Oh puh-leeeeeese . Donna has form on this, witness her acidic introduction to another lead author.
Canard number one: "The onus is on the IPCC to demonstrate that it has, indeed, recruited the best experts. It is not up to the rest of us to do the tremendous legwork of demonstrating, in each chapter ... that others are more qualified." Donna's kibitzing here relies on the IPCC being in the business of bestowing the crown of undisputed-heavyweight-environmental-epidemiologist-champion-of-the-world. But that's not it's function so Donna doesn't have a point .
Canard number two: Donna's story suggests throughout that Kovats didnt make the grade. That a minimum standard was not reached. Donna presents no evidence whatsoever that this view is based on any science, it can only be based on academic metrics. That would be a point easily nailed by showing us the IPCC rule on recruitment, which Donna doesn't do .
Canard number three: I've asked for Donna to point to superior scientists who were overlooked . And Donna has given me the names of the Super Six. Now correct me if I'm wrong but Reiter Hay Snow Shanks Spielman and Gabler are not beefing about not getting a seat on the IPCC . So The Super Six are just Donna's list of her favourite malaria experts who do not support her claim that Kovats is 'far from being a world-class scientific expert' and should resign. And very fine malaria experts they are too, but how would they react if they knew their eminent names were being used in this way?
Canard number 4: All of the above shows that Donna's argument is opinion and not fact. Of course Donna is entitled to her opinion . Donna is a responsible and entirely impartial judge of who should and who should not be serving on this scientific panel , and Donna's not going to let her 'skeptic' views on anthropogenic global warming get in the way of a rational decision. Oh puh-leeeeeese . Donna has form on this, witness her acidic introduction to another lead author.
Donna's super six
Donna Laframboise replies:
Dear Mr. McStone,
Thank you so much for your note. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. Please forgive me if I dispute your logic.
We have been told repeatedly by government officials from around the world, and by the most senior IPCC officials, that the IPCC is a body of the world's top experts and best scientists. When that body first gathered together 21 people from the entire world to examine the incredibly important topic of how climate change might affect human health it beggars belief to imagine that there was no one better equipped for this task than a 25-year-old who had yet to publish a single scholarly paper. I think one has to have a very poor opinion of the medical profession to imagine that a more suitable person could not have been found.
The onus is on the IPCC to demonstrate that it has, indeed, recruited the best experts. It is not up to the rest of us to do the tremendous legwork of demonstrating, in each chapter (there were 44 in the 2007 IPCC report), that others are more qualified. However, since you've posed the question and I happen to have a ready answer, I can advise you that while a significant chunk of that first IPCC health chapter dealt with malaria, not one person among those 21 authors appears to have published a bona fide research (as opposed to review) paper on malaria prior to their involvement in writing that chapter. This is more than odd.
Numerous scholars have devoted decades of their lives to the study of malaria. Among the far more suitable candidates for that IPCC chapter are malaria specialists such as Paul Reiter (who spent 21 years with the CDC in Atlanta before joining the Pasteur Institute in Paris), Simon Hay, Bob Snow, Dennis Shanks, Andrew Spielman, and Duane Gabler.(sic)*
Once again, thanks for taking the time to write. All the best to you,
Donna
* I think Donna means Duane Gubler
So there we have it. Must add to the list of Donna's many skills "authoritative evaluator of malarial expertise and relevance in the field of environmental epidemiology".
That suggests I might be a little out of my depth here, but I'll venture Donna isn't able to support the inference that a single one of these eminent individuals has been overlooked in favour of Dr Kovats. Stay tuned.
Dear Mr. McStone,
Thank you so much for your note. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. Please forgive me if I dispute your logic.
We have been told repeatedly by government officials from around the world, and by the most senior IPCC officials, that the IPCC is a body of the world's top experts and best scientists. When that body first gathered together 21 people from the entire world to examine the incredibly important topic of how climate change might affect human health it beggars belief to imagine that there was no one better equipped for this task than a 25-year-old who had yet to publish a single scholarly paper. I think one has to have a very poor opinion of the medical profession to imagine that a more suitable person could not have been found.
The onus is on the IPCC to demonstrate that it has, indeed, recruited the best experts. It is not up to the rest of us to do the tremendous legwork of demonstrating, in each chapter (there were 44 in the 2007 IPCC report), that others are more qualified. However, since you've posed the question and I happen to have a ready answer, I can advise you that while a significant chunk of that first IPCC health chapter dealt with malaria, not one person among those 21 authors appears to have published a bona fide research (as opposed to review) paper on malaria prior to their involvement in writing that chapter. This is more than odd.
Numerous scholars have devoted decades of their lives to the study of malaria. Among the far more suitable candidates for that IPCC chapter are malaria specialists such as Paul Reiter (who spent 21 years with the CDC in Atlanta before joining the Pasteur Institute in Paris), Simon Hay, Bob Snow, Dennis Shanks, Andrew Spielman, and Duane Gabler.(sic)*
Once again, thanks for taking the time to write. All the best to you,
Donna
* I think Donna means Duane Gubler
So there we have it. Must add to the list of Donna's many skills "authoritative evaluator of malarial expertise and relevance in the field of environmental epidemiology".
That suggests I might be a little out of my depth here, but I'll venture Donna isn't able to support the inference that a single one of these eminent individuals has been overlooked in favour of Dr Kovats. Stay tuned.
Move along , nothing to see here.
This is an email I've sent to a blogger in Canada who is critical of many aspects of mankind's understanding of the climate, the backstory can be gleaned by clicking the hyperlinks.
Dear Ms Laframboise,
Ive been reading your piece about Dr Kovats, and I think there is something missing. Who has been passed over in favour of Dr Kovats ?
It's especially relevant because you say on Bishop Hill "If we had not been advised for those same 16 years that the IPCC is comprised of the world's top scientists and best experts, there'd be no story here."
Since you conclude that Kovats, the IPCC, and the British government all know she is 'far from being a world-class scientific expert' and should resign you must be able to point to superior scientists passed over in favour of Dr Kovats . Ive read your piece several times but there is no indication nor mention of who the world class scientific experts who were better suited to inform the IPCC might be.
Either Dr Kovats has somehow displaced a superior scientist or Dr Kovats is a world class scientific expert (to whom it would seem you owe an apology) and there is no story here.
I very much look forward to your reply.
Have a good weekend
Hengist McStone
Dear Ms Laframboise,
Ive been reading your piece about Dr Kovats, and I think there is something missing. Who has been passed over in favour of Dr Kovats ?
It's especially relevant because you say on Bishop Hill "If we had not been advised for those same 16 years that the IPCC is comprised of the world's top scientists and best experts, there'd be no story here."
Since you conclude that Kovats, the IPCC, and the British government all know she is 'far from being a world-class scientific expert' and should resign you must be able to point to superior scientists passed over in favour of Dr Kovats . Ive read your piece several times but there is no indication nor mention of who the world class scientific experts who were better suited to inform the IPCC might be.
Either Dr Kovats has somehow displaced a superior scientist or Dr Kovats is a world class scientific expert (to whom it would seem you owe an apology) and there is no story here.
I very much look forward to your reply.
Have a good weekend
Hengist McStone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)