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
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
Grant A. Brown says: September 12, 2013 at 10:25 am
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 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.
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 🙂
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.
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
– – – – – – – –
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
John Whitman:
At September 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm you say
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
Hmmmn.
12x replies and promotions from John Whitman?
– – – – – – –
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
– – – – – – –
RACookPE1978,
Having you join the dialog is a pleasure.
12? Indeed. I love it.
John
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
@ur momisugly John Whitman says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:36 am
Grant A. Brown,
Based on your most recent comment {@ur momisuglyGrant 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.
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.
– – – – – – – –
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.
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
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
@ur momisugly richardscourtney September 14, 2013 at 4:00 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]:
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:
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
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]:
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?!
@ur momisuglyrichardscourtney
Your own medicine back at you, brother: Do not feed the trolls!
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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…
@ur momisugly 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!
@ur momisuglyjohn 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?!
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
– – – – – – – –
p@ur momisugly 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