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
@ur momisugly 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.
John Whitman says: September 15, 2013 at 11:41 am
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:
And here’s the second:
** 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!
– – – – – – – –
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 @ur momisugly 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
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.]
– – – – – –
p@ur momisugly 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
@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.
– – – – – – – – –
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.
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
Donna Laframboise has written an article addressing Grant A. Brown
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/18/on-journalism-skepticism-a-lawsuit/