So what do actual, you know, Climate Scientists say about the book? Nothing good:
The book is well written with ample documentation (numerous hyperlinks in the kindle version). The target audience is the broader public, and the “spoiled child” metaphor provides a readable narrative for her arguments about the IPCC. Most (not all) of this material I’ve seen before, but Laframboise’s narrative makes a clear and compelling case regarding problems with the IPCC.Dr. Curry is the head of Georgia Tech's climate science department. Unlike me, she thinks that the world is noticeably warming lately, and that human impact is substantial. Unlike me, she knows much more about the science.
My personal reaction as a scientist is to be very thankful that I am not involved in the IPCC. I already feel duped by the IPCC (I’ve written about this previously), I am glad that I was not personally used by the IPCC..Does the problems with the IPCC mean that WG1 science is incorrect? Not necessarily, but I agree that a “new trial” is needed. WG2 and WG3 reports pretty much belong in the dustbin, as far as I can tell..I regret that so much of our intellectual horsepower and research funding has gone into supporting the IPCC assessments. Donna’s book could provide some impetus for changing this.
But like me, she thinks that the IPCC reports about the "science" (scare quotes used intentionally) of Global Warming aren't worth the Carbon Offsets you'd need if you burned them.
Check out Donna's book. The "Science" isn't settled. It's a scandal.