A new book on the IPCC and Pachauri from Donna Laframboise

dustbin_front500Donna 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

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book Review, IPCC and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to A new book on the IPCC and Pachauri from Donna Laframboise

  1. Grant A. Brown says:

    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

  2. KevinM says:

    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.

  3. Jimbo says:

    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….

    Pachauri is free to sue. I am waiting patiently.

  4. Ken B says:

    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!

  5. DaveG says:

    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.

  6. DaveG says:

    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.

  7. heyseuss says:

    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.

  8. RACookPE1978 says:

    Kindle’d.

  9. Mark Bofill says:

    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.

  10. Rud Istvan says:

    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.

  11. Joe Ryan says:

    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.

  12. David says:

    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.

  13. Tom Trevor says:

    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.

  14. OldWeirdHarold says:

    “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?

  15. Aphan says:

    To Brown-

    There’s big money to be had suing journalists and publications. Just ask Michael Mann.

  16. commieBob says:

    “Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.”

    ― Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays

    Feminist activists are just as venal as climate activists.

    Nullius in verba

    (Latin for “on the word of no one” or “Take nobody’s word for it”) is the motto of the Royal Society.

    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.

  17. Gail Combs says:

    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

  18. David Borth says:

    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.

  19. Gail Combs says:

    Here is the lawsuit from the point of view of the other side: link

    ….Furthermore, I must make it clear here that nothing which I allege regarding this case, including my personal opinions or any conclusions I draw from the documents, has been proven in court, and that the Defendants do not admit any such allegations, opinions or conclusions…..

    Now that that red herring is out of the way can we get back to discussing Pachauri?

  20. Vuil Uil says:

    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.

  21. DirkH says:

    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…

  22. Justthinkin says:

    “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.

  23. Theo Goodwin says:

    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.”

  24. Grant A. Brown says:

    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.

  25. Bruce Wilkins says:

    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.

  26. Theo Goodwin says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Under what laws was she sued? Canada has some real bozo laws; that is, an attempt to pass the same laws here would have the mass of Americans in the streets. So, before you can be taken seriously, you must tell us under what laws she was sued.

  27. clipe says:

    http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/03/14/the-imaginary-trial-of-peter-gleick-%E2%80%93-part-4-prosecution-witness-donna-laframboise/

    This bit is true. I remember reading Donna’s dismantling of the “evidence” in the Toronto Star as the local police railroaded an innocent man to life behind bars.

    PROSECUTION

    For example, you wrote extensively about the case of Guy Paul Morin, a Canadian who had been convicted and imprisoned for a horrific murder. After years in prison, Morin was proven innocent by DNA testing, released, and compensated financially by the Canadian government. Isn’t that correct?

    LAFRAMBOISE

    Yes.

    PROSECUTION

    And isn’t it true that in that case, a government inquiry eventually vindicated your reporting, revealing that, in fact, there had been police and prosecutorial misconduct, and misrepresentation of forensic scientific evidence?

    LAFRAMBOISE

    Yes.

  28. Walt in DC says:

    Dr. Pachauri should have stuck to playing with his choo-choo trains.

  29. Theo Goodwin says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Apparently, you do not understand that you have not yet crossed the threshold of raising a question about Laframboise. To do so, you must describe the law or laws under which she was sued and do it in your own words. Do not presume to assign homework. Without explanation, Canadian defamation laws carry the same weight here as Canadian football.

  30. clipe says:

    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.

    I’m sorry but I smell a great big dirty rat here. How does this relate to Rajenda Pacharuri?

    Hmm…

  31. Grant A. Brown and clipe:

    Is the book good or not?

    If you don’t know or cannot justify your answer then please stop cluttering the thread.

    Richard

  32. Grant A. Brown says:

    Theo Goodwin: The defamation suit was filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta – that is, the superior court of Canada. It was no trifling matter. A very quick peek at the link would have answered your petulant questions.

    Clipe & Richard: A word to the wise is sufficient – and a treatise for the dullard is inadequate.

  33. Theo Goodwin says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    I am here to debate, Sir. I am waiting on you. You must first state an argument that includes an explanation of the law under which she was sued. I have no interest in Canadian court documents. I am interested in what you say here. What is holding you back?

  34. Theo Goodwin:

    re your comment to Grant A. Brown at September 10, 2013 at 12:53 pm.

    He has no argument or he would have made it, and his only purpose is to disrupt the thread from its subject as he makes clear in his post at September 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm.

    Don’t feed the troll.

    Richard

  35. Theo Goodwin says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    “He has no argument or he would have made it, and his only purpose is to disrupt the thread from its subject as he makes clear in his post at September 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm.”

    You have a point. It’s just that he came on so strong, proclaiming himself a lawyer in the suit in question. I thought he was eager to present an argument. Please pardon my error.

  36. Grant A. Brown says:

    Theo & Richard: I’m not “making an argument.” I’m issuing a cation. Here is a direct quote from my previous message:

    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.

    You have the link which is the basis of my warning. I do not understand what is so difficult to understand or so offensive in that – unless you disapprove of caution when it comes to AGW skepticism.

  37. Matthew R Marler says:

    Grant A. Brown: The tone and tenor of the bits and pieces of her new book that I have read raises this concern anew.

    Is that it? Tone and tenor, but no dispute as to factual basis of claims?

  38. Theo Goodwin:

    re your post at September 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm.

    I refer you to the subsequent post from Grant A. Brown at September 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm.

    Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    I hope the thread can now deal with its subject.

    Richard

  39. Philip Peake says:

    Ok guys. Enough feeding of the troll.
    Lets get back on topic.

  40. Theo Goodwin says:

    It is a shame that this conversation about Donna fizzled. Judith Curry has a lively conversation at her site. Dr. Curry is very positive about Donna’s book. Search on CurryJ and Hilary. Here is a sample of Hilary’s work:

    “Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) | September 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Reply
    The IAC committee commissioned to conduct this review had a very limited time in which to produce their report. Their review procedure is documented within the report (as you would know if you’d actually read it!) as well as on the IAC main site.

    Whatever its shortcomings may or may not be, in terms of transparency, oversight, and accountability the IAC is miles ahead of anything the IPCC is currently capable of and/or willing to provide.”

    You might recall that the IAC reported many serious errors in the IPCC’s work and made some important suggestions for improvements that were not followed.

  41. rogerknights says:

    Here’s the link to the thread on the book at J. Curry’s site:
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/

    It contains lengthy excerpts from two chapters.

  42. Julian in Wales says:

    I wish you luck. This man is very dangerous – he has a reputation of using his money to sue using lawyers that escalate their fees and create impossible bills for the opposition to keep up with.

  43. John Whitman says:

    Donna,

    I just bought your new book just like I bought your first book about the IPCC.

    NOTE: Sure I had a problem with your withdrawal from the HI conference (the Billboard issue) because you were a investagative reporter who rather timidly withdrew from the opportunity to do a first hand investigation.

    John

  44. John Whitman says:

    Grant A. Brown on September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am

    Grant A. Brown on September 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    - – - – - – -

    Grant A. Brown,

    Full disclosure laws of Canada apply to its lawyers.

    I formally request your full disclosure.

    John

  45. Ken Gregory says:

    Donna Laframboise gave a presentation at the Friends of Science 9th Annual Luncheon in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The title of her talk was “The UN’s Climate Change Panel: Activist and Untrustworthy”. A video of her presentation is here:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=603
    Scroll down a bit to see the video window.

  46. Grant A. Brown says:

    John Whitman: I know what I am obligated to fully disclose to my client. I know that virtually everything I know about the case is protected from third-party disclosure by solicitor-client privilege (unless and to the extent that privilege is waived). That’s why I linked to the Plaintiff’s website for details. So what is it that I owe “full disclosure” of to you?

  47. David McEwen says:

    I have read the new book, but am unable to comment as an Amazon critic because I was too closely involved (as a proofreader) to “The Dustbin.” Any contestants are welcome to provide any evidence that what she said in this book is not true (she is wonderful as far as providing backup linkages), and I think she is making the job of filling R.K.P.’s position in the future a serious task, given the inspection that will ensue.

  48. John Whitman says:

    Grant A. Brown on September 10, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    John Whitman: I know what I am obligated to fully disclose to my client. I know that virtually everything I know about the case is protected from third-party disclosure by solicitor-client privilege (unless and to the extent that privilege is waived). That’s why I linked to the Plaintiff’s website for details. So what is it that I owe “full disclosure” of to you?

    - – - – - – - -

    Grant A. Brown,

    I sincerely do appreciate you making this into an interactive communication. Thank you.

    You have confirmed several significant aspects in you response that I had insufficient capability to establish. Again thank you.

    Are you a currently licensed Canadian professional? In that regard please take a position on whether you have conflicts of interest in the public discussion of any previous or current litigation involving the professional journalistic behavior of Donna Laframboise; explicitly state so now.

    If I were you I would consult independent Canadian legal counsel before answering.

    Absence of a direct answer would be spectacularly entertaining. N’est ce pas?

    John

  49. Theo Goodwin says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 10, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Very nicely done. Too bad you were not here earlier.

  50. commieBob says:

    Philip Peake says:
    September 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Ok guys. Enough feeding of the troll.
    Lets get back on topic.

    Au contraire. I think this discussion has been salutary.

    There are two websites which are exemplary and which have had tremendous effect. One is Groklaw and the other is WattsUpWithThat. Both PJ and Anthony have chosen to to place the highest value on following the facts and the truth wherever they lead. They have both chosen to eschew activism. Anyone who is foolish enough to question their credibility ends up hurting their own credibility.

    The “truth” means the whole truth. It does not mean that one can cherry pick facts that support ones case and ignore or suppress those that don’t support ones case. It also means taking the time to completely understand the facts of the case. The stark contrast between Anthony and Donna should be a sobering lesson for all of us.

    Donna’s credibility received a possibly fatal blow when her employer, the National Post, chose to fire her and to issue a retraction. That may or may not have been fair but, in my humble opinion, it means that she did not have all her ducks in a row. As a result, she has given her critics a giant stick with which to beat her. It will lead folks to ignore the truth contained in her book and that is sad.

  51. Toto says:

    What’s the latest exit date for Pachauri from the IPCC?

  52. John Whitman says:

    Theo Goodwin on September 10, 2013 at 7:35 pm says @ John Whitman,

    Very nicely done. Too bad you were not here earlier.

    - – - – - – -

    Theo Goodwin,

    Always a pleasure to get a comment from you, indeed.

    There is urban mythological wisdom that timing is everything. I doubt it.

    Conceptual cognition is everything.

    John

  53. Luther Wu says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 11:41 am
    _____________________________

    If i repeated what I’ve heard others say, that lawyers are often engaged in the business of ‘meretricious mendacity’… would it help and maybe, not hurt your business or your feelings, if I said that my intent is not to disparage you?

    Oh, by the way- in Canada, do they spell it; hoseur?

  54. wobble says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    A very quick peek at the link would have answered your petulant questions.

    No. I took an extended “peek” at your link and didn’t learn anything worthwhile. The link requires an excessive reading of background material in order to gain any understanding of the case.

    Many Americans are skeptical of Canadian defamation lawsuits, and we all know that companies/employers settle cases without merit all the time rather than incur definite legal fees and the risk of a judgement – which can be an irrationally high risk if a jury is involved. Additionally, Donna may have been fired for something related to the case that has nothing to do with her employers assessment of guilt. Her employer may have been unhappy with her actions during discovery, etc. Getting fired as a result of a defamation lawsuit certainly doesn’t directly imply that any defamation occurred.

    So, as others have said, if you have a direct claim to make about Donna, then make it. But it’s weak for you to merely claim that she was fired as a result of a settled defamation suit. And don’t expect us to wade through that joke of a website that you linked to.

  55. ConTrari says:

    It is a pity that so many get so angry about these critical remarks concerning the author. Maybe Mr. Brown is right, maybe he is wrong, but there should be no need for this uproar, it looks too much like what you see on alarmist websites. Mr. Brown my be biased, but he seems open and honest in his writing, so let everyone decide for themselves. And please don’t call him a troll, that’s way out of line.
    commieBob: agree totally with what you write, can’t express it as well as you do, so thanks.

  56. How odd! A thread about a book and next to nothing about its content. I might return after I’ve read it. I thoroughly enjoyed Donna’s last effort and nothing I have read here today alters my opinion of that work :-)

  57. Before this silly “Donna was fired” meme takes hold, put your critical thinking caps on, folks, and ask yourselves the following questions!

    If – as is evidently claimed either by Brown and/or by Brown’s source – Donna was “fired” from the National Post (for any reason whatsoever) do you really think that the National Post would have:

    a) Published a very favourable review of The Delinquent Teenager … very shortly after publication?

    b) Published two extensive excerpts from TDT in conjunction with the above?

    c) A few months later, invited Donna to write an article on the US DOJ’s involvement in l’affaire Tallbloke?

    Oh, and one more thing to keep in mind. I don’t remember the exact year but in the early 2000′s, in a cost-cutting measure, a number of National Post employees, of which I believe Donna was one, were let go.

    Now can we get back to discussing the book?! Speaking of which … while I’m here …For those who might be interested in my review of Into the Dustbin:

    IPCC personnel’s laurels: Resting on slivers of unearned Nobel glory

  58. wobble says:

    ConTrari says:
    September 11, 2013 at 12:39 am

    It is a pity that so many get so angry about these critical remarks concerning the author.

    How many is “so many…”? Are you sure you’re not confusing a casual dismissal attitude with anger?

  59. Grant A. Brown says:

    John Whitman: The case was settled years ago. I retired from the practice of law years ago. I would have thought that would be sufficient to answer your question, but to be absolutely sure of covering it: I have no other involvement with Ms. Laframboise.

    Luther Wu: Indeed, lawyers are well noted for their “meretricious mendacity.” I say so myself in my forthcoming book on the family-law system in Canada. I would not want anyone to put any stock in my caution because I once represented the Plaintiff. That’s why I provided the link to the whole story. See further my (a) response to Various.

    Wobble: (a) A “peek” should have been enough to establish the court in which the case was filed. Links to all of the documents run throughout the summary. (b) Indeed, many unmeritorious defamation suits are settled for various reasons. That is why I invited you to read the summary and judge the merits for yourself.

    Various: (a) I should perhaps have been more fulsome in my description of what one might expect to find if one delved deeper into this. The defamation aspect of the case was perhaps among the least interesting. What is more troubling, in a general sort of way, is the complete lack of journalistic ethics on display by Ms. Laframboise in the development of the “story” she broke involving the Plaintiff (and in the subsequent investigation). She failed to disclose her personal relationship with her key witness; she inserted herself into the story in an attempt to get the organization she was reporting on to bend to her will, indeed, she pretty much created the story she reported; she misquoted the Plaintiff and mislead witnesses with paraphrases of his book in an attempt to get them to provide the quotes she was fishing for; she failed to retain critical emails and other documentation, and parts of recorded conversations were mysteriously deleted so that they could not be produced on discovery; she failed to advise witnesses that she was recording their conversations, at least until well into the conversations; she made up invalid excuses to protect the anonymity of her sources; etc., etc. It’s all there in the Plaintiff’s summary of the case – and much more besides: the hypocrisy, the obfuscation in response to straight questions in discovery, etc., etc. Anyone who can read through this case and still be sanguine about Ms. Laframboise’s objectivity and integrity has a stronger stomach that I. But what do I know? I only have a DPhil in ethics / political philosophy, and taught business and professional ethics for a decade…. Again: read it for yourself and judge.
    (b) If you think this is a diversion from the thread, I’m sure your mouse contains a functioning roller that allows you to scroll past the parts that are of no interest to you. Sheesh!

    Hilary Ostrov: (a) I cannot and do not claim that Donna was fired from her position at the National Post *because* of her defamatory article – nor even for her lack of journalistic ethics on display in that episode. I (reasonably) speculate that it was a factor, nothing more. (b) It proves little that the National Post subsequently published an article by her, or wrote a favourable review of her previous book, or excerpted parts of the current book. Even while I was representing the Plaintiff in his suit against the National Post, I continued to write hundreds of letters to the editor and was published (I would guess) on a weekly basis by them – sometimes more, sometimes less. I have since remained a trusted contact and consultant for some of the National Post columnists.

    It has been a pleasure debating these points with you all.

  60. John Whitman says:

    Grant A. Brown on September 11, 2013 at 8:24 am

    @John Whitman

    The case was settled years ago. I retired from the practice of law years ago. I would have thought that would be sufficient to answer your question, but to be absolutely sure of covering it: I have no other involvement with Ms. Laframboise.

    - – - – - – - -

    Grant A. Brown,

    Thank you for your direct and timely answers to my questions.

    If you think the following questions and my basis for asking them are too personal or are OT pejorative, then I apologize in advance. My intent is not to insult you but to understand why you made that initial comment on this thread. And to get a view of your strategy in doing so.

    What was the intentional purpose of your first comment if it wasn’t to create the idea that there is sufficient evidence for one to think Donna L. inherently lacks journalistic integrity, objectivity and capability?

    Pre-meditation of your intent is another possible aspect of your comment. Did you anticipate WUWT announcing Donna’s new book and had a planned strategy to make that comment immediately upon the WUWT announcement for maximum impact in the thread? If the answer is yes, it doesn’t matter per se, but it would beg another question. How would such an effort be thought of; that is, thought of by whom?

    Again, questions were pretty aggressively personal, I do apologize if it offends you.

    John

  61. Grant A. Brown says:

    John Whitman: I visit a few climate blogs from time to time, not religiously. It was entirely coincidental that news of Ms. Laframboise’s book was posted just as I happened to log on to WUWT. Actually, I had just finished visiting Climate, Etc., where the news also appeared, and where I left a similar note about the author. (It generated no response there.) My intention was merely to slow the stampede of comments I had seen at Climate Etc. naively praising Ms. Laframboise’s honesty, integrity, etc. Although I have not read the book in question, I have seen Ms. Laframboise’s tendentious spins and half-truths and selective reporting at work and up close before. IMO, readers should be on their guard. It does the skeptics’ cause no good to over-state the case and embellish and trumpet unreliable sources. Think of that how you will; I don’t mind.

  62. John, why are you even pursuing this?! The subsequent comments of an individual who claims to be a “Grant A. Brown” make it fairly obvious what his malicious intent was – to plant a wall of totally unsubstantiated smears on the record.

    And do you notice something missing from the credentials he claims to have:

    “I only have a DPhil in ethics / political philosophy, and taught business and professional ethics”

    To the best of my knowledge, lawyers are not required to drop all references to their LL.B when they “retire”.

    Anthony or mods: Please review this thread carefully. Particularly: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/a-new-book-on-the-ipcc-and-pachauri-from-donna-laframboise/#comment-1414283

    Thanks,
    Hilary

    [Thank you Hilary . . having a look now . . mod]

  63. Grant A. Brown:

    At September 11, 2013 at 11:32 am you conclude your post saying

    Think of that how you will; I don’t mind.

    I don’t need to think about it because I recognise it.

    Your post is a crude and blatant example of poisoning the well.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

    Richard

  64. rogerknights says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 11, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Although I have not read the book in question, I have seen Ms. Laframboise’s tendentious spins and half-truths and selective reporting at work and up close before. IMO, readers should be on their guard. It does the skeptics’ cause no good to over-state the case and embellish and trumpet unreliable sources.

    But we have the precedent of her first book, which has stood up well to criticism, to rely on. And this book, like the first, has links to document her quotes and sources.

  65. John Whitman says:

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) on September 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    John, why are you even pursuing this?! The subsequent comments of an individual who claims to be a “Grant A. Brown” make it fairly obvious what his malicious intent was – to plant a wall of totally unsubstantiated smears on the record.

    - – - – - – - -

    Hilary Ostrov,

    I am pursuing it because I am interested in gaining knowledge of him through his interaction. I know of no surer way to assess an individual except for meeting them in person.

    Your assessment of him is yours. I will do my own, thank you.

    But I will not have much time to do that right now because I am deeply into reading Donna Laframboise’s ‘Dustbin’ so I can intelligently engage as soon as possible in commentary on it.

    John

  66. Grant A. Brown says:

    Hilary Ostrov: Here is a complete list of my credentials. I’m sure you are interested enough to check them out, then get back to Anthony and the moderator to confirm their accuracy –

    B.A. (Hons). University of Waterloo, 1982
    M.A., University of Waterloo, 1984
    D.Phil, Oxford University, 1997 (Thesis: Functional Libertarianism)
    LL.B., University of Alberta, 2002

    Lecturer – Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, 1990-1999.
    Member of the Alberta Law Society, 2003-2008.

    E-mail me and I’ll send you my complete CV.

    Cheers!

  67. John Whitman says: September 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    I am pursuing it because I am interested in gaining knowledge of him through his interaction.

    Well, I’m sure you’ll enjoy the book … but what do you make of these “interactions”, John?

    Grant A. Brown September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am

    [...]. She subsequently lost her job at the National Post, [...]

    Grant A. Brown | September 10, 2013 at 10:50 am [Climate Etc]

    [she] was sued for defamation, forced out of her job, and the National Post had to settle [...]

    Grant A. Brown September 11, 2013 at 8:24 am

    [...] I cannot and do not claim that Donna was fired from her position at the National Post *because* of her defamatory article [...] I (reasonably) speculate that it was a factor, nothing more

    Was he lying then? Or is he lying now? Or has he simply redefined “forced”, “reasonably” and/or “speculate”?!

    And I wonder what it is about the phrase “and/or his source” that “Grant A..Brown” has so much difficulty understanding. Furthermore, he seems to think that his unsubstantiated claim:

    Even while I was representing the Plaintiff in his suit against the National Post, I continued to write hundreds of letters to the editor and was published (I would guess) on a weekly basis by them – sometimes more, sometimes less. I have since remained a trusted contact and consultant for some of the National Post columnists.

    Well, to be honest I’m not entirely sure what he thought this might prove – or even accomplish.

    Other than to bury his ludicrous attempt to handwave away my documented details provided earlier for those who are capable of critical thinking – a quality that is conspicuously absent in his walls of unsubstantiated malicious smears.

  68. p@ Dolan says:

    @ Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    A few points to clarify my earlier post:

    1. I agree…

    …(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:…

    Sir, your claim to agree, yet in fine lawyerly fashion—to which you claim expertise—you are very definitely trying to lead the potential reader to a place of doubt regarding Ms. Laframboise. Had you simply said, “Don’t believe everything you read! Be vigilant! Research everything, and don’t simply believe it because you want to!” I wouldn’t be writing now.

    But you deliberately, in spite of your soft pedaling attempt to undermine Ms Laframboise. Why I’m not yet sure.

    I will NOT review her book through a prism of any ad hoc offerings you have, regarding unrelated subjects which have no bearing on her veracity in re Mr. Pachauri. You couch your words in language to seem as if you’re advising me to examine “all” the facts. All what facts, sir? As others have stated, anyone may be sued, and many settle, for outrageous sums, because the alternative is even more outrageous. Yet, without a trial and court verdict, THERE IS NO CLAIM YOU CAN MAKE THAT SHE HAS COMMITTED THE CRIME TO WHICH YOU MAKE VERY POINTED SUGGESTIONS. You even state that there was confidentiality about the settlement, and then violate that confidentiality (or appear to do so) by stating, not hinting, that the settlement—which is confidential, is it not—was very large, and THEN have the gall to suggest that this settlement, about which yours is the only word we have—because, didn’t we agree, it’s confidential—is large because she’s guilty, in spite of the lack of a judgement by competent authority.

    It is all appears to be a smear campaign on your part, sir, and ill done. No court has confirmed wrongdoing, and that she’s a ‘former’ reporter may reflect any number or reasons that you have NOT mentioned. Let’s not forget Ward Churchill, who, though I detest his thoughts as published, was vindicated by a court, that he was dismissed as a vendetta for exercising his free speech when he called 9/11 victims in the Twin Towers, “little eichmanns” in his 2005 paper. Yet to this day, he is demonized as a plagiarist, “proven” guilty of skullduggery because, after all, he was fired. Slime I may believe him to be, but he was found not guilty of that which got him fired.

    Your words and veiled innuendo are not justified, I believe they constitute an ad hominem attack on Ms. Laframboise, and your own words they are intended to sow doubt in potential readers in spite of your assurances that you agree with her. Her work will stand or fail on it’s own merits, no thanks to your caveats, thank you very little. Fie, sir, with all your expertise, you ought to know better.

    Perhaps Mr. Cook-the-Books of the incredibly named, SkepticalScience blog, would welcome your warning.

  69. p@ Dolan says:

    @Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) says:
    September 11, 2013 at 1:00 am

    Thanks for the link to your review! My copy is on the way (hardcopy; sorry to be an old fud, but I like to hold my books, and I scribble in the margins…I really hate having to wipe all that ink off my laptop screen!)…I’m looking forward to reading it—

  70. p@ Dolan says: September 11, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    Oh, you’re more than welcome :-) And many thanks for your post of September 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm.

    Glad your copy Into the Dustbin is on the way … but did you know that there’s an app for that ink on screen problem?!

    http://songdrops.com/pug-licking-screen-clean/

    ;-)

  71. Friends:

    So here we are. Yet again a troll has completely destroyed a thread.

    Have we learned anything about the book from this thread? No.
    Has the thread discussed any information or assertion in the book? No.
    Has the thread assessed the readability of the book? No.
    Has the thread discussed whether the book is worth its purchase price? No.

    All we have learned is that a troll has successfully ‘poisoned the well’ and, thus, has reduced interest of onlookers who may have decided to purchase and read the book.

    Well done, Grant A. Brown. You have earned your fee from your client whomever that may be.

    Richard

  72. John Whitman:

    As Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) noted at September 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm, I too notice your assistance to the troll. It is not appreciated.

    Richard

  73. John Whitman says:

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) on September 11, 2013 at 4:42 pm says,

    John Whitman says: September 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    I am pursuing it because I am interested in gaining knowledge of him through his interaction.

    Well, I’m sure you’ll enjoy the book … but what do you make of these “interactions”, John?

    - – - – - – - -

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001),

    Thanks for your comment, a pleasure.

    I am <25% through the book and right now I am probably <<10% through what I hope will be a reasonably robust interaction with Grant A. Brown. So far he seems willing.

    I won't assess her book until I have read it and likewise I won’t assess my interaction with Grant A. Brown until I think there is sufficient interaction either here at WUWT or elsewhere if interaction here is no longer tolerated.

    John

  74. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 12, 2013 at 1:59 am

    John Whitman:

    As Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) noted at September 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm, I too notice your assistance to the troll. It is not appreciated.

    Richard

    - – - – - – - -

    richardscourtney,

    Engaging continues, a pleasure.

    By my concept of ‘troll’ the commenter Grant A. Brown is not a troll.

    I choose for my part to try to interact with you and likewise with him.

    In the many years participating at WUWT I have seen very very few commenters whom (?who?) I would call trolls.

    John

  75. Grant A. Brown says:

    Moderator: Please allow me to apologize for “taking over this thread.” My intention with my first message was simply to offer a word of warning to the wise. I was not expecting to have to make a second post (as I have not at the Climate Etc. blog) to justify myself. I have tried to respond only to direct challenges and questions, keeping my points succinct. I must confess that I’m a bit surprised by the vehemence with which my simple precautionary messages have been received here.

    p@Dolan: Defamation is not a “crime.” Lots of people are guilty of defamation who do not have a judgment against them. A judgment is merely a judge’s opinion on the case, and judges are often wrong. I prefer to exercise my own judgment; would that more people in the climate debates did so as well. The best evidence I can provide to support my contentions about Ms. Laframboise is the link I sent in my first message. As I said then, read it, and you be the judge.

    Hilary & Richard: What I learn from your interactions is that you appear to be scarcely better than the cheerleading mob on the AGW side of the debate – reflexively attacking anyone who suggests that their heroes might have feet of clay. I recall a recent thread on this very website where Al Gore was attacked because his great-grandfather owned slaves, and his father owned a tobacco farm, and so on and so on. Al Gore is fair game for all manner of irrelevant attack, but woe betide anyone who dares to suggest that a brawler in the anti-AGW forces might have skeletons in her closet, or zero journalistic ethics. Can’t you get beyond this knee-jerk tribalism?

    REPLY: “My intention with my first message was simply to offer a word of warning to the wise.”

    No, clearly from the way it was phrased, your point was to trash Ms. Laframboise. Anyone can make a mistake, I’ve made plenty, but the fact remains: Pachauri and the IPCC is corrupt, political, and out of touch with the current situation. – Anthony

  76. John Whitman says:

    I just finished reading the ‘Dustbin’. And I skipped going down to SF Pier 29 area for today’s race in the America’s Cup finals just so I could finish it.

    Now I can understand and contribute to discussions about Donna Laframboise’s new book. I feel giddy like a college kid who actually finished his reading assignments before the class discussion starts.

    : )

    John

  77. Grant A. Brown says: September 12, 2013 at 10:25 am

    The best evidence I can provide to support my contentions about Ms. Laframboise is the link I sent in my first message.

    It may well be your “best evidence”. in fact, considering your subsequent unsubstantiated regurgitations thereof, I don’t doubt that it is. But don’t assume that it has not previously been examined by others before – and given the consideration it deserves.

    Hilary & Richard: What I learn from your interactions is that you appear to be scarcely better than the cheerleading mob on the AGW side of the debate.

    From your dustbin-worthy droppings here, I have yet to see you demonstrate that you are actually capable of learning from interactions with others. So this utterly lame attempt at immoral equivalence is nothing less than an epic fail on your part – as well as an excuse to keep reiterating and recycling the “message” of your malicious smear campaign.

    You obviously haven’t done even a minimal amount of research which should have included – at the very least – a thorough reading of The Delinquent Teenager and/or Into the Dustbin, as well as verification of the source material behind these books.

    But don’t assume that others are as bitter, biased, superficial, judgemental and shallow as you are, and have failed to do their own homework, prior to voicing their respective opinions and/or support.

    Now, why don’t you run along, put your nasty smear campaign on the very back burner and do something productive with your time, instead of wasting ours by diverting this thread to your misbegotten agenda.

    Helpful hint from Hilary: A good start would be the research I suggested above. And if you should find anything wrong, be sure to come back with full quotes, context and citations and let us know about it.

  78. John Whitman says:

    Based on reading Donna Laframboise’s new book I think chapter 49 and chapters 64 thru 68 do lead one to question the relevancy of what journalists sometimes choose to report.

    John

  79. Grant A. Brown says:

    Anthony: When someone uses the verb “to trash” (someone), the common implication is that the comments are untrue or unfair. Yet every sentence in my short original message is demonstrably true, and amply supported by the link. It is not “trashing” someone to point out straightforward facts about their history, even unfavourable facts. You might more accurately have said that Ms. Laframboise trashed her own reputation by doing the things noted in the first message – if you think the stated facts amount to a “trashing.” Now, it is conceivable that the conduct alluded to was a once-off “mistake” (as you choose to believe) rather than a symptom of a character flaw (as I rather suspect it is). But you can’t even make that assessment without having read the story linked to.

    More recently, I saw Ms. Laframboise interviewed by Ezra Levant on the subject of David Suzuki. She and Ezra were in high moral dudgeon, calling the elderly Suzuki “creepy” and “sexist” for wanting to be surrounded by “eye candy” at one of his speaking engagements. Yet, Ms. Laframboise does not generally find men’s natural sexual proclivities either “creepy” or “sexist” – she is on record many times over the years pushing back against this kind of feminist demonizing of male sexual inclinations. Indeed, she had posted FAR more “creepy” and “sexist” material on her own website (under the rubric of “Pink Kink”). The moral outrage she summoned to attack Suzuki for the conservative audience of that show was, I submit, entirely phony. She attacked him not because of any perceived “sexism,” but because he is on the other side in the climate debate and this was a convenient stick to beat him over the head with at the time.

    I posit that anyone who can so casually shed her own moral principles and adopt those of an audience for the sake of scoring some points in a debate is a dangerous ally. Note that she and the Plaintiff in the defamation suit were fellow-travelers in the gender-politics wars for a long time. Yet she was able to turn on him, viciously, when she perceived some advantage in dong so. In that episode as well, she adopted moral positions that are betrayed as phony by her own “Pink Kink” website, in order to advance her agenda. This is not a once-off “mistake.” It is calculated and premeditated. Given the repeated pattern, I believe it stems from a character flaw. Sidle up to her at your own risk, Anthony.

    REPLY: Meh, see the the statement attached to your original claim. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but it seems your role is to denigrate without a factual basis to do so. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony

  80. John Whitman says:

    Grant A. Brown,

    Based on your most recent comment {@Grant A. Brown on September 12, 2013 at 10:04 pm}, you should read Donna Laframboise’s new book. In that comment you may have been prescient about chapter 49 and chapters 64 thru 68.

    John

  81. Grant A. Brown has been making allegations on this thread. The following is my side of the story:

    Being threatened with lawsuits and, indeed, being sued comes with the territory when you’re an investigative journalist. In early 2001, as a staffer with the National Post, I wrote a story about a disbarred lawyer who’d been elected to serve as vice president of a fathers’ rights group. The following is an excerpt from that article:

    In 1996, Mr. Adams, a practising lawyer, was arrested after he approached one of his clients, a 16-year-old prostitute, for sex. He pleaded guilty, received a 15- month conditional sentence, and was disbarred in 1998. Unanimously upholding his disbarment in September, 2000, three Alberta Court of Appeal judges noted that Mr. Adams, who was in a position of trust in relationship to the young woman, contacted her on the street, as well as at home.

    After being approached by police, the young woman agreed to co-operate. “Adams, twice the age of his young client, and fully aware of her strong desire to have her boyfriend released from jail, persuaded her to have sex with him,” wrote the judges.

    In my view, the fact that I penned this story demonstrates my integrity as a journalist. At the time, few reporters in Canada had been more sympathetic to the plight of divorced fathers than I. When this group elected an unsavoury individual to its executive, I had two choices. I could have looked the other way since I was well aware that the bad publicity would damage the reputation of a cause to which I was personally sympathetic. Or I could do my job – which involves shining a light on stunningly bad judgment.
    A third party in this matter chose to threaten legal action rather than respond to a list of questions I’d e-mailed him. The story was carefully vetted by the newspaper’s libel lawyer before it was published. We were confident in the accuracy of our facts and that the story would withstand a legal challenge.

    Nevertheless, this third party sued. Over the course of the next eight years, he was represented by four or five different lawyers. Brown says he was one of them. Since he and the complainant live in Alberta while the National Post and I were based thousands of miles away in Toronto, to my knowledge Brown has never met me.

    In 2009, the lawsuit was settled. This had a great deal to do with the fact that the insurance company involved (newspapers purchase libel insurance) considered it cheaper to pay the complainant a sum of money than to fund a trial in which both I and a senior National Post editor would have been accommodated in a hotel in another city for weeks. When lawyers’ fees were factored it, the costs associated with going to court would have been enormous.

    Four years ago, the complainant accepted this settlement. The settlement paperwork contains no admission of wrongdoing on my part. To this day, the complainant’s allegations remain just that. They are one person’s opinion and have never been proven in a court of law.

    The National Post was sold in September [2001]. Within weeks, approximately 130 of its personnel – myself included – were laid off with severance packages. Further rounds of cost-cutting have occurred since then. There is no truth in Brown’s suggestion that my departure from the National Post was connected to the above lawsuit.

    It’s bizarre that, 12 years after the article was published and four years after a settlement was reached, one of the lawyers involved in this matter hasn’t moved on.

  82. My apologies. The National Post was sold in September 2001 – not 2011 as I say in the second-last paragraph above.

    To recap, my article was published in April 2001. That September, the Post was sold and I was laid off, along with more than 100 others.

    This means I was employed by the Post for three years and defended the lawsuit for eight. Not an experience I’d wish on anyone :-)

  83. Bart says:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    “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.”

    Thank you, Mr. Brown, for acquainting us with the thuggish smear tactic which Ms. Laframboise’s opponents plan to use against her. Now that we know all the facts, we can be prepared when the myrmidons deploy it. As you have made this positive contribution, I would suggest you withdraw from further discussion unless and until you have something apposite to contribute to the topic at hand.

  84. p@ Dolan says:

    @ Grant A. Brown says:
    September 12, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Regrets on my use of the word, “crime” when I meant that it is an action for which Tort may be claimed.

    Regardless, your allegations are unfounded.

    You have proven to me, sir, that you are a fraud: you claim to merely warn people to be careful in assessing what they read, yet, you are very specific as to smearing this one author in particular, regarding a single issue from over a decade ago, which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the book under discussion. You are quite brazen to claim innocent, altruisic motive after that.

    It appears clear that you have an agenda. You clearly tried to put a negative spin on the reputation of the author—please do not try to deny that; your words are recorded above. That is a matter of fact. You have tried several times now to deny it, yet it is clear that you tried, in clumsy fashion at that, to smear the author’s reputation for veracity in anything with your dire innuendos regarding a decade old incident of which you provided poor, confusing documentation, and of only one perspective— Fairness alone would call for a rendering of both sides…assuming in this case, any of what you had to say had any bearing on the subject of Ms. Laframboise’s book. It does not. It has bearing on the author herself—only because she was a subject in the suit—but you try to conflate the author with a rumor of falsehood, and then conflate that with her subject in this book.

    Nice try, no sale. (Don’t quit your day job)

    If you merely disagreed with the content of the book, that would be one thing. If you disagreed with conclusions the author had made in previous books, that would be another. You did neither. You even said you agreed with her conclusions. Yet your complaint and warning were NOT about the subject of any book, but a clear and obvious ad hominem attack against the author, with a very transparent attempt to veil it as a “gee, I’m just looking out for everyone’s best interest” altruistic offering.

    I don’t trust altruists, and you have proven conclusively sir that I cannot trust you.

    Your digs at Hilary and Richard as reflexive anti-AGW are unfounded ad hominem attacks and appear to be an attempted distraction. You failed there as well, and you are VERY wrong about Hilary and Richard, as anyone who visits here regularly can attest. Will you take a dig at Anthony next?

    I won’t say, “Please peddle your claptrap elsewhere” because this isn’t my blog.

    But I sincerely wish you would.

  85. Ms Laframboise:

    Please be assured that what the egregious Grant A. Brown was attempting to do was recognised by all unbiased observers from the start of this thread. Your explanation is appreciated but was not necessary because everybody could see what he was doing before reading your account.

    Richard

  86. John Whitman says:

    Donna Laframboise on September 14, 2013 at 9:09 am

    And

    All the comments of Grant A. Brown

    - – - – - – - -

    Donna Laframboise & Grant A. Brown,

    I appreciate having both sides of the situation.

    I would rather know of such situations than not, then I can make my own independent assessment of whether it is relevant to all contexts now and going forward. Just as I think any investigative journalist would want to know such things in the course of investigative work.

    So, I thank Grant A. Brown for introducing us to this situation. And I thank Donna Laframboise for giving the other view of the situation.

    I thank WUWT for its tolerance of discussion on the situation. It is a rare thing to see such tolerance in this mostly partisan world we live in.

    I do not think this discussion was inappropriate so far and I also think that if is conducted the way it has been then it would not be inappropriate should it continue.

    John

  87. John Whitman:

    At September 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm you say

    I do not think this discussion was inappropriate so far and I also think that if is conducted the way it has been then it would not be inappropriate should it continue.

    Whatever you “think” it certainly would continue to be completely irrelevant to – and a distraction from – the subject of this thread.

    The limaceous troll, Grant A. Brown, has completely destroyed this thread with his smear campaign.

    As for your assertion that he is not a troll, I wonder what you think a troll is because this one has been a completely successful troll. He has distracted the thread from its subject and, thus, prevented the thread from discussing the subject.

    Richard

  88. RACookPE1978 says:

    Hmmmn.

    12x replies and promotions from John Whitman?

  89. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 14, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    John Whitman September 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm you said,

    I do not think this discussion was inappropriate so far and I also think that if is conducted the way it has been then it would not be inappropriate should it continue.

    Whatever you “think” it certainly would continue to be completely irrelevant to – and a distraction from – the subject of this thread.

    The limaceous troll, Grant A. Brown, has completely destroyed this thread with his smear campaign.

    As for your assertion that he is not a troll, I wonder what you think a troll is because this one has been a completely successful troll. He has distracted the thread from its subject and, thus, prevented the thread from discussing the subject.

    Richard

    - – - – - – -

    Richard,

    I was hoping that you would stay engaged. I thank you for extending our interchange. Always a pleasure. : )

    As to your view of relevancy, have you read Donna’s Laframboise’s new book yet? I will wait for you to say ASAP that you have. Until then it will not be intellectually effective to discuss the relevancy of the situation addressed by both Brown & Laframboise. So have you read her new book?

    As to your request about what my concept of troll is, I will give it to you but only under the following intellectual protocol to ensure neither of us is just making troll concepts up conveniently in this dialog . I have previously stated publicly my concept of troll and it was in a comment in a thread on WUWT some time ago. I will start to retrieve it, it will take a while and I will provide evidence that it is a relatively long standing conceptual position of mine. But before I give it to you I need to know if you have a prior publicly stated conceptual view of troll and whether it is retrievable; I don’t request what your concept is yet. If you do not have a previously publicly stated concept of troll then I would request you state a concept as a condition of I sharing mine. Shall we start this process?

    John

  90. John Whitman says:

    RACookPE1978 on September 14, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Hmmmn.

    12x replies and promotions from John Whitman?

    - – - – - – -

    RACookPE1978,

    Having you join the dialog is a pleasure.

    12? Indeed. I love it.

    John

  91. John Whitman:

    re your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 3:50 pm.

    Having assisted the egregious troll to destroy this thread you now want to troll the thread by sidetracking it into your definition of a troll?!

    I have repeatedly stated on WUWT what a troll is. Search it yourself.

    Richard

  92. p@ Dolan says:

    @ John Whitman says:
    September 13, 2013 at 7:36 am

    Grant A. Brown,

    Based on your most recent comment {@Grant A. Brown on September 12, 2013
    at 10:04 pm}, you should read Donna Laframboise’s new book. In that comment
    you may have been prescient about chapter 49 and chapters 64 thru 68.

    John

    Mr. Whitman, I’m sorry, but you write as one who hasn’t understood a thing that has gone before—or like a troll. Or maybe a troll’s shill. At least, those are the only possible interpretations I can put upon your words. Have you read the Quadrant article referred to by Chapter 49, and then gone to the reference, the judgement by K Ramamoorthy of the High Dehli Court?

    I just received my copy of “Into the Dustbin” this arvo around 1700. I immediately went to the very first chapter to which you refer (due to what appears to be very false bonhommie from yourself to Mr Brown), read the chapter, read the article to which it refers, read the judgement of the court.

    In what way could anyone read that and then say that Mr. Brown could have been prescient? HE minced no words in saying that Ms Laframboise was untrustworthy, and of low character, and that she repeatedly smears others who are blameless (if I’m putting his words into my own, please forgive me. But anyone who doubts my interpretation is welcome to read his words again). In chapter 49, far from engaging in the kinds of behaviour Mr Brown has alleged, she was positively restrained: in the case of the India Habitat Center vs Old World Hospitality Pvt. Ltdl, , Mr. Pachauri and his fellows were CORRUPT.

    Far from the claim of the defendants in the case that IHC was a non-profit, non-governmental organization, the bench found that it was a governmental organization which was not, as required, being used for the good of all citizens: from section 107, “Though the defendant would claim to be a nonprofit, a non-Governmental Organisation acting as a nodal Centre it is only an alter ego of the Government of India. Only Government officials are in the Governing Council and In charge of the entire administration of the defendant. By giving a nomenclature the defendant cannot project itself a non-profit Organisation”. And also this: “The responsibility that is given to the defendant is very stupendous and the defendant is expected to act with circumspection and in public interest. A Government land cannot be used by anybody in this country if ultimately the benefit is not derived by the Government which ultimately will go to the people of this country. Even land in India is to be used only for the benefit of the entire population of the country.”

    I quote now from section 108 of the judgement, “A perusal of the documents produced shows that the Organisation is only for the benefit of few persons who had come into contract with the defendant.”

    That doesn’t sound as dramatic as, “Let him hang by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead.” but trust me, that is a resounding finding of corruption, and it was perpetrated by the IHC. There were three members of the governing counsel of IHC, and Dr. Pachauri was one. Now on reading, the written finding of the court does not paint him out to be the salacious creature that our friend and learned attorney, Mr. Grant A. Brown, would have us believe Ms Framboise to be—even through his assurances that he agrees with her and he’s not trying to tarnish her reputation—but I believe that’s due entirely to the difference in character between the two, jurist Ramamoorthy of the Dehli High Court and Mr. Grant A. Brown, of all the fine degrees.

    The pair of you should take your show on the road: “Trolls on Parade” or the like.

    And I really wish you would. Preferably to a place with no access to the internet.

    To everyone else, I’m enjoying the book, it’s very well written, and as far as I’ve been able to determine (and I assure you, I’m an a$$hole about these things, so I’ll let you know if it fails me on this), very well researched.

    I would be failing of honesty if I didn’t say that after reading many, many books and articles about AGW, “Climate Change”, the IPCC, etc., I wasn’t already conditioned to expect the worst of Mr Pachauri. That said, I do try—hard—to be unfailingly fair and honest. I will as dilligently report false claims of his failures as I will praise accurate research and portrayal of his failures.

    But to the trolls: do everyone a favor and begone.

  93. Bart says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 14, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    “Whatever you “think” it certainly would continue to be completely irrelevant to – and a distraction from – the subject of this thread.”

    On the one hand, yes. But, on the other, no. Things really could not have worked out better. We have obtained Ms. Laframboise’s debunking directly, and are now armed in the event that an AGW partisan tries to deflect an argument by resorting to this particular calumny against her.

    I, for one, am very glad Mr. Brown chose this particular venue to acquaint us with this particular smear. If you hadn’t heard it here first, you may well have encountered it elsewhere, and had no knowledgeable defense to offer.

  94. John Whitman says:

    richardscourtney on September 14, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    John Whitman:

    re your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 3:50 pm.

    Having assisted the egregious troll to destroy this thread you now want to troll the thread by sidetracking it into your definition of a troll?!

    I have repeatedly stated on WUWT what a troll is. Search it yourself.

    Richard

    - – - – - – - -

    Richard,

    Thanks for continuing an interesting dialog.

    So you have admitted that you have a previously formed and publicly documented concept of troll yet are unwilling to volunteer your previously formed concept of troll. That is sufficient for me to proceed with yielding mine. Here is the end product of my conceptual evolution (over many years) of troll.

    WUWT Post entitled ‘Climategate 3.0 has occurred – the password has been released’ dated March 13, 2013

    - – - – - – - -

    John Whitman says:
    March 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    @Mark Bofill March 19, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    @John Whitman March 19, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    John, you’ve got a pet troll! How’d you do it? Every time I try to keep one Stealey chases it away.

    - – – – – – – -

    Mark Bofill,

    That’s pretty good satire. Thanks.

    Actually, I respect wobble’s tenacity and her/his creativity in commenting. Trolls / Troll-Babes are, per my own definition, purposely malicious toward a blog site’s reputation. So, to me s/he is not a troll.

    I welcome her/his comments in whatever quantity even though most of his/her comments so far are just of the mocking type. Mock on wobble.

    But, I think if s/he has an attachment to someone on this thread then I think it is with Poptech. Many times more comments with Poptech than with me. : )

    John

    Therefore I do not consider as trolls either Grant A. Brown or most of the people that you apparently consider trolls. I say apparently because you declined to volunteer your prior long standing concept.

    As to my question to you about whether you have read Donna Laframboise’s new book or not, so we might assess in part the relevancy of Grant A. Brown commentary, you did not respond ASAP. I would appreciate your prompt response as to whether or not you had read it at the time I initially asked you. Thank you.

    John

  95. John Whitman says:

    Moderator,

    I failed in my previous comment to close my blockquote properly.

    Can you do it? Sorry.

    It is the blockquote command between

    John

    And

    Therefore I do not consider as trolls . . .

    John

  96. @ richardscourtney September 14, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Having assisted the egregious troll to destroy this thread [John Whitman now wants to] troll the thread by sidetracking it into [his] definition of a troll?!

    It is strange, isn’t it?! If one didn’t know better, one might be inclined to wonder if perhaps John Whitman’s persistent assistance to the sleazy diverter (and now his very own diversion!) springs from a longstanding bee in his own bonnet. As he had written in his first post in this thread [September 10, 2013 at 5:39 pm]:

    NOTE: Sure I had a problem with your withdrawal from the HI conference (the Billboard issue) because you were a investagative reporter who rather timidly withdrew from the opportunity to do a first hand investigation.

    Notwithstanding his “revisionisms” above – not to mention what must be his rather peculiar definition of “timidly” – for the record, the facts are as follows:

    a) Donna’s participation was scheduled to be that of a speaker in a planned debate – not that of a “reporter” commissioned to, or volunteering to, “investigate” anything

    [See: Why I Won’t Be Speaking at the Heartland Conference]

    b) While Heartland was quite content to ride on the coat-tails of the success of TDT (and the work of others), during its promotion of the conference, in keeping with a past pattern of inconsiderate and/or inappropriate self-serving hype, it gave no consideration whatsoever to the collateral damage to the reputations of others that would obviously ensue from this campaign.

    [See: Heartland disheartens]

    On September 12, 2013 at 4:02 pm John Whitman told us he had finished reading Into the Dustbin and he further commented:

    Now I can understand and contribute to discussions about Donna Laframboise’s new book.

    Yet, unless I’ve missed a comment of his along the way, the only on-topic “contributions” he has made are far from enlightening and/or substantive, IMHO. First:

    John Whitman says: September 12, 2013 at 8:55 pm

    Based on reading Donna Laframboise’s new book I think chapter 49 and chapters 64 thru 68 do lead one to question the relevancy of what journalists sometimes choose to report.

    Yet he chose not to give readers any inkling as to what it was in the content of these chapters that might lead one to such a “question”. So he seems to have tried again:

    [Whitman to Brown: September 13, 2013 at 7:36 am]:

    Based on your most recent comment {@Grant A. Brown on September 12, 2013 at 10:04 pm}, you should read Donna Laframboise’s new book. In that comment you may have been prescient about chapter 49 and chapters 64 thru 68.

    So let’s take a closer look, shall we?! First he cites Chapter 49 – Explosive Pachauri Profile in Australian Magazine. Perhaps John Whitman would care to explain why he thinks:

    a) the examples she cites of MSM unquestioning fawning depictions of Pachauri (and his purported academic credentials)

    b) highlighting MSM repeated failure to investigate or report such previously unreported details of Pachauri’s background

    might not be “relevant” in the context of a book which illustrates sides of Pachauri that are not in keeping with what one has a right to expect of a person in his position.

    As for Chapters 64 through 68, these all pertain to her fairly recent review of Pachauri’s purple prose potboiler, published in early 2010, as I recall – in the promotion of which he chose to rest on his unearned Nobel laurels.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Pahauri’s self-aggrandizement and the pervasive extent to which he and other IPCC-niks have wrapped themselves in flags of unearned Nobel glory – and the MSM’s unquestioning contributions to the propagation of this mythology – were two of the main themes of Into the Dustbin.

    That being said, one could make the case that perhaps one such chapter might have been sufficient – or perhaps even a summary of all four – with a note to the reader indicating that a more in depth review could be found in her recent blogposts.

    However, IMHO, such an argument overlooks the fact that the author might well have wanted to provide a more complete picture for readers who might not be familiar with her blog and therefore would not have read the four parts of her July 2013 review of this particular example of Pachauri’s exercises in creative writing.

    So, do you have anything else to contribute that derives from your reading of the book, John?!

  97. p@ Dolan says:

    @richardscourtney

    Your own medicine back at you, brother: Do not feed the trolls!

    @ John Whitman,

    Write as if, “Gee, aren’t well all having so much fun! This is wonderful and I’m learning so much, discussing these issues with everyone!”, but you won’t discuss the book with me? You’ll try to discuss something as stupid as the definition of “trolls”, and ignore my questions, but you then claim you’re not a distraction? You will even write to the moderator about formatting, but ignore my questions? Please forgive me if my own philosophy does not include a precise definition of trolls—I’m not a habitue of the internet; I’m retired military. But by inference, my understanding is that a Troll is one who does what you have done: writes nonsense in order to get attention, and generally distracts from the discussion.

    If you are not one such, will you not discuss the book with me? You ignore my post: are you, or are you not, a shill for Mr. Grant A. Brown, he of the lovely law degrees who smears people and then prates about defamation? Are you simply a fool, or do you not see that calling Grant A. Brown “prescient”, as if he was correct in his allegations, flies in the face of everything discussed in Chapter 49 of “Into the Dustbin”? Will you defend your statements? Will you have a real discussion, or will you continue to come the the fool with us all? I defy you to find anything in the first third of the book, let’s say, to chapter 28, “My Fave Chairman Pachauri Quote”, which supports any of the allegations of the egregious Grant A. Brown.

    @ Donna Laframboise,

    I love the book, but not so much the fact that I also need an electronic copy for all the references (yes, yes, I’m an old fud, and I prefer to hold my books in my hands. But thank you for saying where the reference material can be found in your introduction, and for publishing a searchable pdf copy, as well as having references on nofrakkingconsensus.com. I’m a member of the Free Software Foundation: perhaps you can understand why I will never own a Kindle, Nook or iPad…and if anyone has any questions about that, I urge you all to visit FSF.ORG). On the other hand, to be fair, even though Ian Wishart put all his references in footnotes (as did Ian Plimer—long live the two Ians! And I urge everyone to read both “Air Con” by Wishart and “Heaven and Earth” by Plimer…), I still needed to sit at a computer as I read the book to vet the references…so perhaps not having them in print is not such a big deal, and I need to get over my own prejudices about what should/should not be in a book…

    And though, as I said earlier, I’m not a fan of Dr. Pachauri, and i’m not at all unhappy to read a work which gives me more reasons to not like him, I have been looking at the references with a careful eye. I cannot provide an example yet of a reference which was an unsupported opinion, questionable, or simply unsupported. Documentation is all to events or reports from events which were published in the public domain. This does not make all of them true (and not having been a fly on the wall, all I can do is look for corroboration where I feel it’s necessary), but were they lies, I’m sure that by now, that would have been exposed, or lawsuits would’ve ensued. So pending information which discredits them, I’m persuaded that all the references I’ve read so far are truthful, and honestly reported.

    Needless to say, what I’ve seen thus far refutes any of the claims of one Mr. Grant A. Brown—assuming anyone but the amiable Mr Whitman needed me to tell them that.

    I must thank you, Mr. Brown: were it not for your blatant unfairness, I might not have been intrigued enough to read the book. Not only did you single-handedly encourage me to read it (because I do sooooo oppose the kind of unfairness you attempted to employ), but I’m impressed enough that I’ve ordered Ms Framboise’s earlier work, TDT, and will probably become a regular at her blog, nofrakkingconsensus.com. Thanks to you, Mr. Grant, I may just have become a dyed-in-the-wool fan.

    Wow. How very distasteful: I have something for which I should be thankful to a Mr Brown, with all those lovely, lovely degrees (really, I was SO impressed!)…

    Eeeeeew.

    Good evening to you all…

  98. p@ Dolan says:

    @ Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) says:
    September 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    Pour it on!! I couldn’t (didn’t!) say it better! You rock!

    @john Whitman
    One last: maybe, instead of obstructing this blog, you should pay attention to your own:

    “Premise Detection & Analysis” may be alive, but it appears it’s been in a coma for one year and four days… So tell us (I can’t resist!): What’s up with THAT?!

  99. John Whitman says:

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) on September 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    @ richardscourtney September 14, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Having assisted the egregious troll to destroy this thread [John Whitman now wants to] troll the thread by sidetracking it into [his] definition of a troll?!

    It is strange, isn’t it?! If one didn’t know better, one might be inclined to wonder if perhaps John Whitman’s persistent assistance to the sleazy diverter [. . .]

    - – - – - – - –

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001),

    Wow that was quite an extended comment to me! It is wonderfully extending a spirited discussion. Thanks.

    Because of your comment’s length I will respond in pieces over several comments; working down it in linear sequence. Since in this thread from the begining I have been strictly working on my iPhone, it is the approach that is easiest.

    The first segment of your comment (it is quoted above), does not describe what the real troll diversion was that actually transpired on the subject of troll related comments in the thread. The real troll ‘diversion’ was engaging in troll name calling initiated by none other than richardscourtney (richardscourtney on September 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm). Next the troll ‘diversion’ comment was by Philip Peake (Philip Peake on September 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm). Then next the troll ‘diversion’ comment was by commieBob (commieBob on September 10, 2013 at 7:58 pm). Followed next by the troll ‘diversion’ comment by ConTrari (ConTrari on September 11, 2013 at 12:39 am). Then next the troll ‘diversion’ was continued (for the second time) by richardscourtney (richardscourtney on September 12, 2013 at 1:52 am). Next the troll ‘diversion’ was continued (for the third time) by richardscourtney (richardscourtney on September 12, 2013 at 1:59 am) which was first troll ‘diversion comment addressed to me. Since I do try to respond to every comment addressed directly to me, I immediately responded very politely to richardscourtney (John Whitman on September 12, 2013 at 7:41 am) Brown was not a troll. There followed a similar pattern right up to now.

    Please note that 2 of the 4 commenters I just listed did not necessarily think Brown is a troll per se and they were before my first troll comment. So by the time I engaged in response to a comment addressed to me on the troll diversion, there was ample prior dialog on troll diversion. It was pretty evenly divided. My first troll comment was ~18 hours after richardscourtney introduced us to his troll name calling strategy and call for silence. It backfired per the Streisand Effect => Name calling exhibited was the troll diversion. N’est ce pas?

    My next comment on the next segment of your long comment to me will at the next NFL game halftime.

    : )

    Once again I enjoy dialogs with you.

    John

  100. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    My apologies . . . again

    Like yesterday I very ineptly handled that last block command.

    Can you fix it or if you like you can delete my comment and I can repost it.

    John

  101. John Whitman says:

    p@ Dolan on September 14, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    @john Whitman
    One last: maybe, instead of obstructing this blog, you should pay attention to your own:

    [Whitman blog] “Premise Detection & Analysis” may be alive, but it appears it’s been in a coma for one year and four days… So tell us (I can’t resist!): What’s up with THAT?!

    - – - – - – - -

    p@ Dolan,

    Thank you for your comment to keep up the dialog.

    But especially I thank you for asking that question on the status of my first venture into blog ownership!!! I have wanted to do a site status update, but have not felt it kosher to self-promote my site on other blogs. Your direct inquiry gives me a guilt free opportunity.

    I knew from WUWT that it is a major commitment to do a blog. But a year ago when I registered my blog on WP there is one thing I had little comprehension of necessary commitment on and had totally unreal estimates on time required for; the arrival of my first grandchild a scant month earlier. Wow, it turned several months later into a pleasant eye opener at this relatively late stage of my life. So rather than try to do both, I left the site dormant on the surface. But have acquired in the past year a HUGH amount of data, subject matter and references in premises. So for anyone interested, rest assured my premise focus has never been idle. This thread’s premise data and subject has been put into my archives.

    I suspect the site will be active around next mid-summers eve, all current situations remaining equal.

    I have no idea how the owner of WUWT does all that he does.

    John

  102. p@ Dolan says:

    @ John Whitman says:
    September 15, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Felicitations on the addition to your clan. I agree: if this site is anything by which to judge, Anthony accomplishes more by accident than the rest of us do by design.

    To brass tacks, I must repeat myself from a previous post:

    Are you not, a shill for Mr. Grant A. Brown? Do you not see that calling Grant A. Brown “prescient”, as if he was correct in his allegations, ignores everything discussed in Chapter 49 of “Into the Dustbin”? Will you defend your statements? Will you have a real discussion, or will you continue to discuss everything and anything except the book? I defy you to find anything in the book to chapter 38, “Rajendra Pachauri: The Little Man who told Big Whoppers”, which supports any of the allegations of the egregious Grant A. Brown.

  103. John Whitman says: September 15, 2013 at 11:41 am

    [...] Since in this thread from the begining I have been strictly working on my iPhone, [...]

    Well, I suppose that’s as good an excuse as any for your apparent failure to read and/or respond to the posts of others with even a modicum of adult reading comprehension – not to mention your misperceptions of the individual(s) to whom comments have been addressed: Blame it on your iPhone!

    So … in the interest of sparing you (and/or your iPhone) any further self-embarrassment with your (no doubt) time-consuming walls of text which have absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China – or with the topic of this thread – permit me to repeat for you the only two questions I had actually put to you in the comment which (with the sadly misleading aid of your iPhone) you had mistakenly thought was all addressed to you.

    Are you ready for this, John? Here’s the first.

    And, just to refresh your memory, this pertains to your substance-free something-or-other re Chapter 49, which is entitled (although you and your iPhone couldn’t be bothered to mention it) Explosive Pachauri Profile in Australian Magazine:

    Perhaps John Whitman would care to explain why he thinks:

    a) the examples [the author] cites of MSM unquestioning fawning depictions of Pachauri (and his purported academic credentials)

    b) highlighting MSM repeated failure to investigate or report such previously unreported details of Pachauri’s background

    might not be “relevant” in the context of a book which illustrates sides of Pachauri that are not in keeping with what one has a right to expect of a person in his position.

    And here’s the second:

    So, do you have anything else to contribute that derives from your reading of the book**, John?!

    ** Helpful reminder from Hilary: The book you claim to have “finished reading”, which is the subject of this thread, is called, Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize

    Here’s hoping that you – and/or your iPhone – can get your act together, at long last!

  104. John Whitman says:

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) on September 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    [. . .] it is strange, isn’t it?! If one didn’t know better, one might be inclined to wonder if perhaps John Whitman’s persistent assistance to the sleazy diverter (and now his very own diversion!) springs from a longstanding bee in his own bonnet. As he had written in his first post in this thread [September 10, 2013 at 5:39 pm]:

    NOTE: Sure I had a problem with your withdrawal from the HI conference (the Billboard issue) because you were a investagative reporter who rather timidly withdrew from the opportunity to do a first hand investigation.

    Notwithstanding his “revisionisms” above – not to mention what must be his rather peculiar definition of “timidly” – for the record, the facts are as follows:

    [. . .]

    - – - – - – - -

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001),

    My pleasurable engagement with you continues.

    This is my comment on the second sequential segment of your long comment to me. The segment is quoted above.

    When I said I bought her first book (Teenager), I did not say that I had been an avid long term fan of Donna Laframboise and her blog prior to the book. It is documented in several other blogs. I also did not say that I bought her first book immediately when it was released and devoured it immediately. Then I immediately reviewed it at the bookseller’s website. That review was overwhelmingly positive and I also critiqued several negative reviews of her first book @ the booksellers site. I also actively and enthusiastically supported the content of her first book on this blog. Note: I continued to actively follow her and her blog to this day. Then sometime much later at the time of the HI billboard issue I made critical comments to her on her handling of the HI billboard issue (I was also critical of Ross McKitrick’s ), not comments to her critical of her criticism of HI but her strategy in handling it. None the less, my assessment of her first book and blog was undiminished. This is why I immediately bought her second book (Dustbin) upon its release and why I immediately gave reading it a high priority. I did read the Dustbin book within a day and a half. I immediately posted what may actually be the first comment on the book in this thread (notwithstanding your link to your review that was at another site). I have not posted my review of Dustbin yet but it is predominately highly positive but not as positive as my review of her Teenager book was. The review will be posted in a day.

    So, your above quoted comment segment is appears as a presumption of my going after Laframboise to attack her and /or her new book. Well if I am going after her then it is only to give her high praise as I have consistently done for many years.

    SUMMARY: There is no paradoxical dichotomy if I want to know about all sides of her professional legal situation and if I also want to enthusiastically agree with her work and to continue to enjoy following her work.

    Your comment presumption does not serve Donna’s avid followers well.

    My next comment on the next sequential segment of your long comment to me will probably be in the morning. : )

    John

  105. dbstealey says:

    Lots of things I like about Donna LaF. But this is not one of them:

    Grant A. Brown says:
    September 10, 2013 at 8:41 am

    NOR was her previous, disloyal attack on Heartland several months ago — one of the true Good Guys in the climate wars — for her own self-aggrandizing reasons. She just threw them under the bus, without a second thought. Sometimes jumping out in front of the parade is a good thing; but sometimes it is just hypocritical.

    The cause is important — not whether you are jumping on the bandwagon at the opportune moment! Donna needs to learn that lesson. We sink or swim together.

    We are all imperferct [myself included — which is a great example, at times!] But loyalty to one’s supporters is essential to victory in any battle. Let the other side attack them — that’s their job, no? Yes. We attack them. They attack us. Not vice versa!

    Anyway, a good article, thanks for posting it! It definitely fills a need.

    [PS: Reminds me of the old joke: what's the difference between a Harley and a Hoover?

    Answer: on the the Harley, the dirtbag is on the outside! Same with Pachauri.]

  106. John Whitman says:

    p@ Dolan on September 15, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    - – - – - -

    p@ Dolan,

    Dozo . . . kudazai . . . as my many dear Japanese associates would say.

    Or “hei, wah . . . as my inscrutable ‘
    chung wa ren’ associates would ask of you.

    But as us primal Yankees would say “Nuts”.

    John

  107. Anthony Watts says:

    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

  108. @John Whitman September 15, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    Frankly, I don’t give a flying fig about your ex post facto ramblings on what was/were not the reason(s) for the completely irrelevant “NOTE” you chose to append to your one-liner first post in this thread.

    If it was just a stupid incomprehensible choice on your part, then simply say so, and be done with it!

    And you really should stop playing this very silly game of pretending that you are replying to my comment of September 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm (much of which – contrary to your claim – was not addressed to you) by chopping it up and using snippets as hooks for more of your non-responsive diversions.

    Maybe this is your idea of “fun”, John. But, as the saying goes … small things amuse small minds.

    Then again, since you claim to derive “pleasure” from pretending to “engage”, perhaps you are another of those unfortunate chaps who is just far too enamoured with the sound of his own virtual voice for anyone’s good. Least of all, his own.

  109. John Whitman says:

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) on September 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    [. . .]

    So let’s take a closer look, shall we?! First he cites Chapter 49 – Explosive Pachauri Profile in Australian Magazine. Perhaps John Whitman would care to explain why he thinks:

    a) the examples she cites of MSM unquestioning fawning depictions of Pachauri (and his purported academic credentials)

    b) highlighting MSM repeated failure to investigate or report such previously unreported details of Pachauri’s background

    might not be “relevant” in the context of a book which illustrates sides of Pachauri that are not in keeping with what one has a right to expect of a person in his position.

    As for Chapters 64 through 68, these all pertain to her fairly recent review of Pachauri’s purple prose potboiler, published in early 2010, as I recall – in the promotion of which he chose to rest on his unearned Nobel laurels.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Pahauri’s self-aggrandizement and the pervasive extent to which he and other IPCC-niks have wrapped themselves in flags of unearned Nobel glory – and the MSM’s unquestioning contributions to the propagation of this mythology – were two of the main themes of Into the Dustbin.

    That being said, one could make the case that perhaps one such chapter might have been sufficient – or perhaps even a summary of all four – with a note to the reader indicating that a more in depth review could be found in her recent blogposts.

    However, IMHO, such an argument overlooks the fact that the author might well have wanted to provide a more complete picture for readers who might not be familiar with her blog and therefore would not have read the four parts of her July 2013 review of this particular example of Pachauri’s exercises in creative writing.

    So, do you have anything else to contribute that derives from your reading of the book, John?!

    - – - – - – - – -

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001),

    It is a continuing pleasure to exchange comments, as always. Thank you.

    This is intended to be the last of three comments that worked sequentially down your initial very very long comment to me (Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) on September 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm).

    The portion of your comment that I am addressing now is quoted above.

    Those chapters in Donna’s new book (Dustbin) bear on reporting aspects of Pauchari life that are not part of his role as an IPCC leader. In my comment about those chapters, I was respectfully and gently leading those who have read Donna’s new book (Dustbin) to consider independently the irony on this thread of criticizing Grant A. Brown for posting info on Donna Laframboise (the lawsuit against her & her newspaper employer) because they claimed it did not bear on her new book. I encourage comments on the irony exhibited by such commenters..

    You conclude your very very long comment to me with asking for my additional thoughts on Donna’s new book (Dustbin). I intend to post my review of the book at the bookseller’s site. Thank you for expressing continued interest.

    I want to thank you for responding at considerable length to my previous two sequential comments. I think it is how people come know each other; which is important very important to me.

    IN CONCLUSION => Donna is a public figure. I happen to avidly and persistently support her public work on the IPCC in very substantial part; I have done so for years. But it does not mean that I am uncritical of her IPCC work. Also, it does not mean that I agree with her views and actions and work on non-IPCC subjects; I most emphatically do not agree with her on other subjects.

    John

    PS to Grant A. Brown => I hope you will join this extremely effervescent group of commenters more often on other threads. I would like to explore your skepticism (you indicated you are a skeptic on GW) and I would like to share mine.

  110. Grant A. Brown says:

    After this thread left the first page of the blog, I stopped checking it for a few days, expecting no further traffic on it. Today, I made a “final” check and found the responses of Donna LaFramboise. I will limit my comments to this: (a) Ms. LaFramboise makes no effort to defend herself against the charge of lacking journalistic ethics in the episode linked to – because there can be none. (b) It is patently false for Ms. LaFramboise to assert that the Plaintiff made no response to her “list of questions” she emailed to him; he responded immediately and forcefully to her editor. (c) As John points out, it is hypocritical of Ms. LaFramboise to feign puzzlement and offense when someone dredges up her past, on unrelated matters, while at the same time promoting a book in which she does exactly that to her subject. And (d), as anyone who reads the story in the link can attest, it is utterly ridiculous to characterize the Plaintiff in the defamation suit against Ms. LaFramboise as a “third party” in her story. If anything, the mendacity on display in her posts here only tends to confirm what the link claims about her.

    Anthony: You misread me badly if you suppose that I am “upset” by anything on this thread. On the contrary, I am grateful that you have not blocked the discussion, as many moderators on other sites probably would have done. And you misread me badly if you suppose that my goal is to dampen criticism of the IPCC or its notables. On the contrary, I fervently hope that they reap all the infamy they so justly deserve. Some authors I would trust implicitly to do a fair job of that; not Ms. LaFramboise.

    REPLY: I didn’t misread you, your purpose here was quite clear. Like Ms. Laframboise said, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits come with the territory of being a journalist. I’ve seen several with my colleagues through the years. It doesn’t mean you are a bad journalist, but quite often it means you hit the mark. – Anthony

  111. Anthony Watts says:

    Donna Laframboise has written an article addressing Grant A. Brown

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/18/on-journalism-skepticism-a-lawsuit/

Comments are closed.