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
What’s the latest exit date for Pachauri from the IPCC?
– – – – – – –
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
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?
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.
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.
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 🙂
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
How many is “so many…”? Are you sure you’re not confusing a casual dismissal attitude with anger?
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.
– – – – – – – –
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
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.
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]
Grant A. Brown:
At September 11, 2013 at 11:32 am you conclude your post saying
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
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.
– – – – – – – –
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
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!
John Whitman says: September 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm
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
Grant A. Brown | September 10, 2013 at 10:50 am [Climate Etc]
Grant A. Brown September 11, 2013 at 8:24 am
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:
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@Hilary Muggridge 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—
p@ur momisugly 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/
😉
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
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
– – – – – – – –
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
– – – – – – – –
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
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
@ur momisugly 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.