{#3} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Best Experts

This is chapter three from Donna LaFramboise's book 
The Delinquent Teenager: "The Top Scientists & Best Experts?"

For an introduction explaining why I'm reviewing this piece of work, please click here.

{Courier font identifies LaFramboise's words
Laframboise, (2011-10-09). T D T W W M W T C E (Kindle Locations 195-201). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition. }

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For starters, I want to point out that Donna LaFramboise refers to IPCC reports as "Climate Bible" four times in this chapter.  Notice how she uses it as a pejorative - her implication being that "it was handed down from on high and is immutable."

Many of her claims can be dispelled simply by spending the time to give the IPCC reports a good-faith reading.

Donna maliciously distorts her readers perception of IPCC expectations and powers.  Instead, Donna contends herself with merely casting aspersions then morphing them into self evident truths.

A fair play approach would have examined how leaders utilize IPCC reports - how much impact IPCC reports have actually had on important decisions and such.  Instead Donna contends herself with making the IPCC sound like a big menace, but never making a case for why we should believe her.

3 - The Top Scientists & Best Experts?   
The people who write IPCC reports are the crème de la crème. Everyone says so. . .

{From here Donna lathers up her audience with 230 words focused on building the straw-man that the IPCC pretends to be a perfect body.  A notion that intentionally misses the substance of what the IPCC is all about.}

Reading all her words, with their implications I had to wonder, where is Donna's humanity?  She takes theatrical offense at the statement: "IPCC engages thousands of the world's best experts."  Donna what's up with that?  

Donna acts like she expects every single IPCC participant be the world's best.  

Donna why are you fabricating impossible standards?

What's wrong with only two-thirds being among the best and brightest and one-third just being damned good?

Nor does Donna mention that this proud IPCC claim includes the many authors of the Papers and Studies the IPCC collected, but who never participate in the compilation process. 

{Here we have 113 words regarding William Gray hurricane forecasting pioneer}

Then we go on to ...Paul Reiter knows little about atmospheric science. What he does know is the field in which he has specialized for more than 40 years - diseases that are spread by mosquitoes. According to him, the people who've been writing about those diseases in the Climate Bible are not experts. { followed by 200 some words explaining and defending Paul Reiter's perspective}

Interestingly, it didn't take long to find the following which makes clear that perhaps Reiter's indictment of the IPCC doesn't carry the weight Donna tries giving it.  

Here's what an official UK review found:

HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on Economic Affairs 3rd Report of Session 2005-06
Government Response to the Economics of Climate Change 

8. We noted evidence from Professor Paul Reiter of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, which strongly disputed the IPCC’s arguments on the likely spread of malaria as a result of warming (paragraph 32). 

This is unconvincing. Professor Paul Reiter’s evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published.
 [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf].

After this it's on to...

It's the same story with sea levels. The former president of a Commission on Sea Level Change, Nils-Axel Mörner, also addressed the House of Lords committee. Mörner, who has 40 years experience in his field, 

{another 100 words, then...}  They concluded that sea levels are unlikely to increase by more than 10 cm (4 inches) by the year 2100. Mörner says the claim that sea levels are rising quickly... are simply not true.

Speaking of Mörner, does Donna's uncritical acceptance of Mörner's Dowsing claims?  To quote WIKI:  

"Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...".[3]"

Also see Randi's take on Mörner  ~  http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

~ ~ ~ 

Problem here; there's overwhelming evidence that Mörner's conclusions are wrong.

Read this for a short summation, it includes links to further scientific information:

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise 

Posted on 6 December 2011 by dana1981 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

And now, on to...

Dr. Gray, the hurricane specialist...

William Gray is another story altogether.  Who knows why he wasn't invited and Donna does nothing to explore that question.  Could it be Gray's written nothing on the topic being a hurricane forecaster?  Although I admit he's listed as co-author on a study with Landsea back in 2001.  Still is Donna's automatic assumption of nefarious motives fair?

I do image that part of the IPCC process involves cooperating with others and crusty old Dr. Gray with his superiority complex has a reputation: 

"Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

I could see folks not wanting such a person on their team. 

Each of them possesses highly specialized knowledge. 

Of demonstrably dubious veracity and value!

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 an organization comprised of world-class scientists examining one of the planet's most important questions. 
But they are all IPCC outsiders. This suggests the IPCC defines top scientists and best experts differently than do most of us.

Not at all! 

Donna an "investigative journalist" would have examined the reasons why these three scientists find themselves uninvited and shunned.  Rather than just taking their self-serving word for it.  

There are plenty of reasons why these three, each in their own way, might have been passed up and why they continue to belong to the fringe element.  It's nothing personal, their arguments simply don't possess any traction - and all your mesmerist skills can't change that simple reality.