My Review (or rant...) for The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert: An Expose on the IPCC by Donna Laframboise

*warning, this blog post has some personal views in it, if you do not share these beliefs, that is fine, I don't write to offend..I write for the same reason anyone else does...because I want to.  So, if you don't agree, don't read.  If you want to make an educated statement against what I say, I welcome it.  If you want to call me a poop head, don't bother, it won't bother me and it will make your position weaker.  All others, forget everything I just said.

Happy Reading...

I rarely ever download a book on my Kindle that I haven't sampled in some way first.  There are exclusions, like sequels and authors I know deliver every time.  So, I have so very many "samples" on my Kindle.  One such sample was The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert.  The bottom of the cover says it is supposed to be an IPCC Expose.  Well, I like to know what arguments those who oppose my views are going with these days so I decided to read it.  If, by chance, there was something to expose in the IPCC, it would be interesting to read about and interpret for myself.  I did not, in fact, download the entire book.  I decided to pass on this one after reading the sample because I thought it would be bad for my health.  The sample has two chapters, roughly, of the book.  I began arguing with the book immediately, so, I decided the rest of the book was not worth it.

My arguments are as follows..just in case you wanted to know...

In this book, the author compares the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a teenager who has only been praised, never regulated and therefore grew into a delinquent teenager who people are throwing praise at without any real discipline.  That this "child" who was never corrected had no self-discipline, that people have praised its brilliance and therefore it hasn't actually had to do anything to get such praise.  I have huge problems with that alone, but I won't go there.

She then picks apart things in a way that is, or so I thing, not properly thought out.

Example One:
The author talks about the IPCC winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  That it was praised for its work and the impact it had on the debate on whether humans were causing global warming.  Then she quotes the end of the Nobel chairman's speech.."Action is needed now.  Climate changes are already moving beyond human control."  She then goes on to tell us how old the earth is, how it has endured "all sorts of perfectly natural climate transformations."  and that the ice that covered 97% of Canada melted and "the Ice Age ended all on its own."  She says that "To suggest that the climate has ever been within human control is surely a bit silly."

Now, I agree that Earth is huge.  I agree that there were things that happened, regarding the climate of Earth, that happened in the human-less past.  But to say it is "silly" that the activity of BILLIONS of creatures using Earth's resources in a way that no animal ever has is actually impacting things is surely not looking at the scope of human abilities.

Also, she says that Earth ultimately had, and ended an ice age all by itself.  OK, BUT..there weren't billions of people that wouldn't survive an ice age then.  Some event, or events, caused a climate change then and because there wasn't a swarm of humans to protect, the earth was allowed to right itself.  Sure, we could think that way, the earth WILL eliminate the problem, US.  It is looking the other way to think we haven't had a hand in this climate change.  Just like meteors and such in the distant past, humans have hit Earth with a powerful force.  Those that believe in climate change crisis aren't ultimately concerned with the effect on Earth, necessarily, but in our relationship and dependence ON Earth.  We are concerned with keeping the earth in a climate that is livable for us.  It is ignoring the billions of people to rely on thoughts such as the author's.  You can't look at one piece of a huge machine and think you know how to run it, or, how to maintain it.  You can't understand the sentence unless you know the context of it.  So how can she make a statement on the insignificance of human impact on the climate if she doesn't have all of the facts.

She believes that because it is an intercontinental panel that "every country that chooses to send delegates to infrequent meetings is a godparent of the IPCC." She then says that with that many "godparents" this "child" is bound to be "spoiled" and praised for anything they do, equivalent to a mother, godparent, or grandparent putting any scribble a child does on the fridge and calling it art. This is a childish thing to say.  Climate change is a big issue, and anything that changes the terrible impact should absolutely be noticed.  It isn't as if they have discovered or challenged something that is unimportant. It isn't as if they are just doing more research on an already over-researched topic.  Until the countries around the world have implemented policies to stop the bad impact we, humans, have on the earth and atmosphere, it is imperative that we keep making noise about it...even if there are people who are tired of hearing it.  If you are tired of hearing it..be part of the solution and make it better. The IPCC isn't being praised because it is making noise.  It is being praised because the noise it is making has forced people's eyes open, and because of that actions are being taken and measurable improvements in the climate, in the Earth are being seen.  We now see that we can make a difference and we are not satisfied to sit back and watch as parts of our world disappear, whether it be wetlands, forests, species, or people.  If for no other reason than it woke up the world and empowered us to actually make changes, it should be praised.

At one point she talks about a conflict of interest..but doesn't really go any further than to just say it is there...at least she doesn't in the chapter in which she mentions it..and, as I don't care to read the whole book (unless someone who doesn't agree with me wants to have a discussion about the whole book..then I will suffer through the rest.) I didn't see any other mention of it.

The author also says that the IPCC admits that "scientific excellence" is not the only reason people are put on the panel. So. I would assume that when discussing something that has an impact so wide-spread, it would be logical to include experts in all fields.  When working on problems that are so huge, it is best to have a wide variety of experts to bring up problems that one group might not think of, or, like the gardener that made the huge discovery at Stonehenge, some scientific groups tend to think in very intricate patterns and sometimes miss the simple things. The best plans are made by groups of people that are of all different fields and education levels.

She also backs up her distaste for the IPCC with questionnaire results. A questionnaire was put on the IPCC website for "interested parties" to fill out.  She then uses answers from this questionnaire to prove her point.  She talks about how the IPCC is made up of many parties that just "want" to be there..well, so is the "data" she is collecting from questionnaires answered on the internet.  What qualifies these people to rate the work of the IPCC?  Furthermore, what makes the author qualified to make these statements about this climate change panel?  It seems hypocritical to say that the non-scientific excellent people do not belong on the panel..especially from a Women's Study major who started in 2009 blogging about climate change.  She used to be the vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association..with an undergraduate degree in Woman's Studies.  How is she scientifically qualified to assess the progress and work of the IPCC?

The author seems to think that what the panel is proposing is something that will be bad for the planet, or its people. Like they are convening to decide whether to use nukes in Syria.  Why would you condemn a panel that is proposing things that, even if it weren't a huge concern, would made the world healthier.  Is it a horrible thing to ask that people and countries live healthier, that they leave the world in a shape that will be healthy for future generations...that we make changes in our lives and production that will allow future earth residents to enjoy the same beautiful landscape that we enjoy, and not wear masks everywhere they go because the smog is so thick?  If nothing else, it might, just might make people a little more aware of the other billions of people that they share the world with...Make us a more compassionate people.

My opinion of this book is pretty easy to see, and my opinion on the author is that she should stick to what she knows and go back to writing books on woman's rights, feminism, and civil liberties..Which, in my opinion...civil liberty advocates would be all for a world that takes into consideration the quality of life for everyone..I mean is civil liberties not concerned with equal rights for everyone, and the right to life, the right to bodily integrity..well..if we are choked out by smog while walking on the streets..someone else has infringed upon my right to life, and someone else is violating my body, I then have no control over what happens to it.

At least that is what I think...but...I could be completely wrong...your thoughts?