Donna Laframboise, who wrote the book The Delinquent Teenager, describing the shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process has announced a new book. I was aware of this last week, but agreed not to post on it until she was able to make a last minute update about Dr. Rajenda Pacharuri’s supposed “dual PhD’s” and to solve a technical glitch with the PDF version distribution.
This book, Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize, while also speaking about the IPCC, also focuses more on Dr. Pacharuri’s issues of credibility. As we’ve seen in the past with Himalayagate, voodoo science, referencing grey literature, and the self styled soft porn novel Return to Almora, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a non-stop train wreck.
She sums up the book:
==============================================================
The IPCC is supposed to be an objective scientific body, but Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and has accepted a ‘green crusader’ award.
He is an aggressive policy advocate even though his organization is supposed to be policy neutral. In 1996, an Indian High Court concluded that he’d “suppressed material facts” and “sworn to false affidavits.” Contrary to longstanding claims, he earned only one PhD rather than two.
This book is a collection of essays about Pachauri originally published as blog posts between February 2010 and August 2013. Essay number one, The IPCC and the Peace Prize, appears here for the first time. It documents how Pachauri improperly advised IPCC personnel that they were Nobel laureates after that organization was awarded half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (Al Gore received the other half).
Scientists aren’t supposed to embellish. They’re supposed to be clear-eyed about what is true and what is false. The idea that hundreds of scientists have been padding their resumés, that they’ve been walking around in broad daylight improperly claiming to be Nobel laureates, isn’t something any normal person would expect.
But that is exactly what happened. It took the IPCC five years to correct the record. During that time, media outlets, science academies, and government officials went along for the ride. The moral of this story is that, when faced with a choice between the unadorned truth and exaggeration, IPCC personnel made the wrong call. Their judgment can’t be trusted.
paperback edition here * Kindle e-book here * PDF here
==============================================================
A note to readers: if you want to post a review of the book on Amazon, at least buy one of the versions above and read it first so that your review is accurate. Some people like to post reviews about what they “think” the book is about, and unfortunately, Amazon has no policy to prevent ghost reviews by people that want to tear down the work. I hope to read it this coming weekend, as she has provided me with a copy. – Anthony
Please be aware that Donna Laframboise was sued for defamation in her previous incarnation as a columnist at the National Post. She subsequently lost her job at the National Post, who had to settle the suit for a princely sum. You can judge for yourself the reliability and integrity she brings to her reporting by perusing the following website:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~fchriste/LawsuitDocA/MY%20CASE.htm
RESPONSE FROM DONNA – added by Anthony:
Dear Anthony,
I would be grateful if a mod would insert a note under the first comment that appears under your announcement about my book.
There is no truth whatsoever to the suggestion that my departure from the National Post was connected to the lawsuit. In the months following my layoff (which involved more than 100 other staffers), the Post offered me a regular twice-monthly columnist gig – an offer I declined.
That newspaper has since published an op-ed by me, two excerpts of The Delinquent Teenager, and just last week commissioned an excerpt of this latest book.
I have left a comment well down this thread which provides more detail and context. It’s important for people to understand that it isn’t uncommon for investigative journalists to be sued. What is unusual in that, 12 years after the article in question was published and 4 years after a settlement was reached (in which I admitted to no wrongdoing), one of the lawyers involved is still trying to harm my ability to earn a living.
many thanks,
Donna
I’ve added this response from Donna, Grant A. Brown’s claims are just denigration tactics to minimize the impact of the book. – Anthony
Dear Anthony,
I would be grateful if a mod would insert a note under the first comment that appears under your announcement about my book.
There is no truth whatsoever to the suggestion that my departure from the National Post was connected to the lawsuit. In the months following my layoff (which involved more than 100 other staffers), the Post offered me a regular twice-monthly columnist gig – an offer I declined.
That newspaper has since published an op-ed by me, two excerpts of The Delinquent Teenager, and just last week commissioned an excerpt of this latest book.
I have left a comment well down this thread which provides more detail and context. It’s important for people to understand that it isn’t uncommon for investigative journalists to be sued. What is unusual in that, 12 years after the article in question was published and 4 years after a settlement was reached (in which I admitted to no wrongdoing), one of the lawyers involved is still trying to harm my ability to earn a living.
many thanks,
Donna
Yeah, I don’t like the IPCC or Pachuari, but I’m not going to go out and buy a book about all the ways they have been wrong.
Pachauri is free to sue. I am waiting patiently.
Oh some barbed replies, now that is a sure way to promote the book and encourage all of us to buy a copy, some people use litigation to try and silence their critics, and of course there are many examples in the CRU released emails of people that have been quite underhand in their intentions to prevent publications pass through their “controlled paper minefield” and come out quite dirty in the process and did I mention suing others to silence them.,. Oh well another book for Christmas, might post a copy to one well known offender and wish them well.
Thanks for posting the advice Anthony!
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
Please be aware that Donna Laframboise was sued for defamation in her previous incarnation as a columnist at the National Post.
Yeah. Mr Brown so whats your pointless point? has Donna Laframboise been sued by the IPPC, Columnist are constantly sued and you know it. BUT HAS the UN or any other Warmist who HAVE cook the books and outright lied re their Climate assertions or qualifications SUED that’s the real question?
So thanks for exposing yourself so early in the postings.
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
Please be aware that Donna Laframboise was sued for defamation in her previous incarnation as a columnist at the National Post.
Mr Brown the great crusader for truth Professor Tim Ball was/is also sued by warmists such as yourself and wears it proudly.
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
Yah, sure thing, shoot the messenger. That sounds far more productive than making ourselves aware of the many sins of the IPCC chair.
Aside to Anthony: I think you should put quotes around the part of the text above that were written by Ms. Lamframboise, to separate them from your own words of introduction.
Kindle’d.
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
——————-
Yeah, I wasn’t particularly interested until you piped in. I’ll make a point of buying a copy, thanks.
Just bought it. Will read. What’s not to like for 8 bucks.
But looking forward, how lead authors to AR5 WG1 like Zweirs reconcile 95% certainty AR5 SPM FOD leaked in August with their own new paper saying the pause falsifies the CMIP5 archive of models to 98% certainty ( only 2 % chance the models are right) is going to be an acid test. Bet the meme wins and as a result the IPCC edifice is permanently discredited. Only weeks to go for the main show, and how Paucheri handled the huge disconnect caused by the paper cutoff date.
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
So Grant, you have provided the argument made by the agreived, but do you have a link to the case itself, the outcome, and the amount paid in damages? All you have provided is a link to the person making a claim.
I usually like what Donna has to bring to the debate. But I do appreciate your comment Grant, it`s something I would rather know.
DavidG
It is worse than that. The issue isn’t if she is sued by the IPCC or even if she settles such a suit, a lot of suits are settled because it costs more to go to court, the issue is if there is a suit does it have any merit, and the only way to determine that is to have suit that goes to trial and have jury decide.
“Please be aware that Donna Laframboise was sued for defamation in her previous incarnation as a columnist at the National Post.”
And so has Mark Steyn. Your point?
To Brown-
There’s big money to be had suing journalists and publications. Just ask Michael Mann.
Feminist activists are just as venal as climate activists.
Take a Valium folks. Donna LaFramboise appears to have been a very bad girl and her employer threw her under the bus. That, in and of itself, makes her no less credible than anyone else in the climate wars. Her words deserve to be judged on their own merit.
Aphan says:
September 10, 2013 at 10:05 am
To Brown-
There’s big money to be had suing journalists and publications. Just ask Michael Mann.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Especially when someone else foots the bills for the lawyers. link
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
Mr Brown,
I find some irony in the fact that the defamed Mr Christensen won his case against Ms Laframboise based on his scientific opinion on childhood sexuality over the conventional “prejudicial” beliefs (consensus) commonly held by Western culture, apparently shared by her as well.
She seems to be fighting a similar battle now as Mr. Christensen did then – in that she’s standing up against the “perverted” Western view of the role of humans in climate change – and those who promote it – like Mr. Pachauri.
Here is the lawsuit from the point of view of the other side: link
Now that that red herring is out of the way can we get back to discussing Pachauri?
Perhaps what is most interesting is that Brown was obviously just waiting for Anthony Watts to post the short article. And then he pounced and posted immediately in a not so subtle attempt to besmirch Framboise’s book.
Failed again Grant: I was neutral before, but now will definitely read her book.
Interesting. Guy takes over organisation that deals with children, writes weird book about p0rnography.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~fchriste/LawsuitDocA/CHRONOLOGY-Short.htm
One of the volunteers in the org solicited s3x with a 16 yr old earlier and dropped out of the org after a LaFramboise article…
http://de.scribd.com/doc/17557329/Ferrel-Wins-Defamation
VERY interesting…
“Scientists aren’t supposed to embellish.”
Well…you are up for libel again,Donna. Climate scientists embellish everything and anything. You think we Canucks slapped you with the law suit.Wait until the world slaps you.
Grant A. Brown says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am
“Please be aware that Donna Laframboise was sued for defamation in her previous incarnation as a columnist at the National Post. She subsequently lost her job at the National Post, who had to settle the suit for a princely sum. You can judge for yourself the reliability and integrity she brings to her reporting by perusing the following website:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~fchriste/LawsuitDocA/MY%20CASE.htm”
Defamation in Canada is not what it is in the US. Only the US has recognized robust free speech. If she was sued through the offices of the “Human Rights Commission,” or whatever that monstrosity is called, then she was a victim of “totalitarian creep.”
A few points to clarify my earlier post:
1. I agree with a very large proportion of what Donna Laframboise has written on both topics: her old stomping ground of gender politics and her new hobby of climate politics. (I am an AGW skeptic of long standing.) In the old days, when she was on the gender politics beat, I was on email-friendly terms with her.
2. That relationship changed when she defamed an academic colleague of mine. He sued her and the newspaper. I subsequently became a lawyer, and for a time (until I ceased practicing law), I represented the Plaintiff in the defamation case linked to in my original post. I cannot claim impartiality in that matter, which is why I asked the interested reader to assess the case for him- or herself and provided the link.
3. The case summary linked to in my original post is indeed the Plaintiff’s “version” of events. But everything he claims in the summary is pedantically supported by court documents (affidavits, examinations for discovery, pleadings, etc.). The facts are not in dispute. One may (unreasonably, in my opinion) disagree with the Plaintiff’s gloss on them – but one can do so (reasonably or unreasonably) only after having read his very thorough account.
4. The case was settled out of court, so there was no verdict. One of the terms of settlement is that the amount of the settlement cannot be revealed. This term was requested by the National Post. It was a substantial amount, which I believe most people would take as an admission of fault. Indeed, the case the Plaintiff presents is well-nigh overwhelming, in my academic and legal. (I have both a DPhil and an LL.B., and publications in both fields that would qualify me as an expert.)
5. None of this implies, suggests, or even hints that there is any error in Laframboise’s new book. I made no such allegation or claim, as I have not read the book. The inference I would like the prospective reader to draw is this: “Perhaps I should be cautious in accepting as Gospel every spin the author might put on contentious events.” Ms. Laframboise seems to have a tendency to get carried away with her righteous zeal at times, and it has got her into trouble in the past. The tone and tenor of the bits and pieces of her new book that I have read raises this concern anew.
If libel law in the US was the same as in Canada most of the news networks would be is serious trouble. Mike Walace and CBS was sued by Gen. Westmoreland over a program and lost their libel insurance for a couple so years even with the law as it is. TV Guide wrote a review of the program called “Anatomy of a Smear”.
I enjoyed her first book.