Donna Laframboise, who wrote the book The Delinquent Teenager, describing the shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process has announced a new book. I was aware of this last week, but agreed not to post on it until she was able to make a last minute update about Dr. Rajenda Pacharuri’s supposed “dual PhD’s” and to solve a technical glitch with the PDF version distribution.
This book, Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize, while also speaking about the IPCC, also focuses more on Dr. Pacharuri’s issues of credibility. As we’ve seen in the past with Himalayagate, voodoo science, referencing grey literature, and the self styled soft porn novel Return to Almora, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a non-stop train wreck.
She sums up the book:
==============================================================
The IPCC is supposed to be an objective scientific body, but Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and has accepted a ‘green crusader’ award.
He is an aggressive policy advocate even though his organization is supposed to be policy neutral. In 1996, an Indian High Court concluded that he’d “suppressed material facts” and “sworn to false affidavits.” Contrary to longstanding claims, he earned only one PhD rather than two.
This book is a collection of essays about Pachauri originally published as blog posts between February 2010 and August 2013. Essay number one, The IPCC and the Peace Prize, appears here for the first time. It documents how Pachauri improperly advised IPCC personnel that they were Nobel laureates after that organization was awarded half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (Al Gore received the other half).
Scientists aren’t supposed to embellish. They’re supposed to be clear-eyed about what is true and what is false. The idea that hundreds of scientists have been padding their resumés, that they’ve been walking around in broad daylight improperly claiming to be Nobel laureates, isn’t something any normal person would expect.
But that is exactly what happened. It took the IPCC five years to correct the record. During that time, media outlets, science academies, and government officials went along for the ride. The moral of this story is that, when faced with a choice between the unadorned truth and exaggeration, IPCC personnel made the wrong call. Their judgment can’t be trusted.
paperback edition here * Kindle e-book here * PDF here
==============================================================
A note to readers: if you want to post a review of the book on Amazon, at least buy one of the versions above and read it first so that your review is accurate. Some people like to post reviews about what they “think” the book is about, and unfortunately, Amazon has no policy to prevent ghost reviews by people that want to tear down the work. I hope to read it this coming weekend, as she has provided me with a copy. – Anthony
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.
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.
Dr. Pachauri should have stuck to playing with his choo-choo trains.
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.
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…
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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
Ok guys. Enough feeding of the troll.
Lets get back on topic.
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.
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.
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.
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
– – – – – – –
Grant A. Brown,
Full disclosure laws of Canada apply to its lawyers.
I formally request your full disclosure.
John
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.
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?
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.
– – – – – – – –
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
John Whitman says:
September 10, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Very nicely done. Too bad you were not here earlier.
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.