tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3542474855286492752..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Donna Laframboise new "book" - Instructions are on the coverSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24571765355803557572013-10-01T03:46:32.638+10:002013-10-01T03:46:32.638+10:00I can only concur. LaFramboise is thoroughly ignor...I can only concur. LaFramboise is thoroughly ignorant about science and scientific research.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33329714624135873092013-10-01T02:21:21.753+10:002013-10-01T02:21:21.753+10:00I will assume this is a Poe.
Donna is just a si...I will assume this is a Poe. <br /><br />Donna is just a silly little blogger who wouldn't know a heart from a liver. She knows less than nothing about science and scientific organisations, and less than that again about climate science and the IPCC.<br /><br />She produces fodder for her fellow members of the scientific illiterati. Some of them are even dumb enough to pay her to feed them hogwash. I guess they find hogwash tasty. <br /><br />For myself, I prefer a good Merlot.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11241519049258255782013-10-01T00:04:33.869+10:002013-10-01T00:04:33.869+10:00The Laframboise books are both important as record...The Laframboise books are both important as records of the deviousness at the heart of the IPCC. When the dust settles on these peculiar decades of distraught eco-ness, her work will continue to be valued as a source of insight wherever people ask 'How could anyone have ever taken the IPCC so seriously?'.Frank Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00488675321117014047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76301834964756681952013-09-19T17:51:04.084+10:002013-09-19T17:51:04.084+10:00And Nick, the most interesting part is not even Ju...And Nick, the most interesting part is not even Judith Curry's endorsement of LaFramboise's fevered delusions, but also Richard Tol's. Considering his outrage over the Cook et al study and supposed errors in its design and execution, you wonder why he skipped over the obvious problems in LaFramboise's book.<br /><br />Also note that the same asymmetric complaint about "activists" was present in the discussion of the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources, where a huge outrage was created about Sven Teske being a Greenpeace member was allowed to be lead author on one of the chapters. That there were lead authors from fossil fuel companies on the same chapter was duly ignored...<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8183449226419071432013-09-19T10:47:29.306+10:002013-09-19T10:47:29.306+10:00In her attacks on the presence of 'green lobby...In her attacks on the presence of 'green lobby' experts in WG2 literature, she utterly failed to note that many other contributors were/are employees of fossil-fuel energy corporations and consultancies. Yes,unreliable and one-eyed only begins to describe Laframboise. Her work is a yard-stick for the incompetence and ethical bankruptcy of organised pseudo-skepticism.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82668225922297322792013-09-11T19:48:29.091+10:002013-09-11T19:48:29.091+10:00"Associated with" often means that they ..."Associated with" often means that they simply have helped Greenpeace to answer questions from the general public.<br /><br />Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69082677461711935832013-09-11T19:23:39.466+10:002013-09-11T19:23:39.466+10:00I noted similar issues.
Also, her ad hominem towa...I noted similar issues.<br /><br />Also, her ad hominem towards Greenpeace and WWF members (or often just "associated with", like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg) was rather asymmetric. After all, she loudly complained about the absence of "experts" like Paul Reiter and Roy Spencer. Reiter was on the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, as well as writing for Tech Central Station (set up by a lobbying group). He is also attached to the Heartland Institute. Roy Spencer...well, we all know he's on the Board of the George C. Marshall Institute, and that he is an Advisor to the Cornwell Alliance. Mörner is also attached to certain lobbygroups, like the ICSC and the now defunct NRSP. Why oh why isn't *that* a problem, Donna?<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47728704497796185092013-09-11T19:04:39.863+10:002013-09-11T19:04:39.863+10:00Thank you for that, Phil. You've more toleran...Thank you for that, Phil. You've more tolerance than I.<br /><br />It looks as if it's largely the same nonsense as her last book with some words a bit different. Some people choose not to earn a crust by honest means.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86358216761659427652013-09-11T18:39:22.950+10:002013-09-11T18:39:22.950+10:00You could read a few chapters of Laframboise's...You could read a few chapters of Laframboise's previous book using the 'Preview' function on amazon.com. Here are some words I wrote having wasted some time doing just that ...<br /><br />Donna wants us to believe that the IPCC excluded world authorities in certain fields for idealogical reasons, and gives us a total of three examples, two of which are William Gray on hurricanes and Nils-Axel Mohner on sea level. Of Morner she correctly states that he was president of a distinguished Commission on sea level changes, but adds that "there is a disparity between what genuine sea level specialists think and what those who write IPCC reports believe." <br /><br />This is a lie. The reality is that Morner's ideas have been widely discredited and the Commission of which he was president (INQUA) felt constrained to write this to the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences:-<br /><br />"I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, (INQUA) does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view."<br /><br />You'd think a genuine 'investigative journalist' (the above is available via wiki) might have slipped in this nugget, no? <br /><br />Similarly, Gray's global warming research has been dismissed as substandard by his peers, you can read a critique here : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/<br /><br />And Dr Curry is similarly unimpressed by Gray … “I am not going to critique Gray’s paper, it is beyond rational critcism, I will save technical comments for such an unlikely event as any of this actually ever gets published. Bill Gray is not a player in the scientific debate, his ideas reflected in the paper referred to at RC are so flawed that they are unpublishable"<br /><br />Laframboise does not seem to consider the possibility that the IPCC failed to include her 'people you'd expect to find at the heart of the organisation' not because they were contrarian, not because thet have retired from academic life (Mohner and Gray are in their seventies & eighties respectively), but because they've gone nuts. <br /><br />I notice a chapter entitled The Peer Review Fairy tale. I haven't read it but I speculate it is a rehash of her deeply dishonest 'survey' of the number of peer-reviewed references in the reports. This made crass errors, for example categorising a book chapter as not peer-reviewed even though it was an exact reprint of a widely-cited and refereed journal article, dismissed the numerous self-cites to previous IPCC reports as 'non-reviewed' even though these are some of the most reviewed documents on the planet and counting references that could never have been peer-reviewed (e.g. a quote from Sir Isaac Newton's diary, research by Agassiz etc) towards the non-peer reviewed total, to get her numbers up!<br /><br />Not the most reliable or impartial author, then. I read the seven chapters available on Amazon preview and while it contains the logical fallacy that a Greenpeace or WWF member cannot at the same time be a good scientist, it doesn't include the bit where she shows how the IPCC science is mistaken. Presumably that comes later on?<br />Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17359654743664825302013-09-11T17:58:21.390+10:002013-09-11T17:58:21.390+10:00Although her writing is overall not fully as nutty...Although her writing is overall not fully as nutty as Coutler's and Delingpole's. Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13231213517050153902013-09-11T17:56:20.887+10:002013-09-11T17:56:20.887+10:00I think that most of Donna's audience shares h...I think that most of Donna's audience shares her sentiments.<br /><br />There is of course also the possibility that she doesn't believe it herself, but simply and cynically gives her audience what they want. Like Coulter and Delingpole, I suspect.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39648839255002594702013-09-11T16:45:58.367+10:002013-09-11T16:45:58.367+10:00It's a mystery how a person like Donna can be ...It's a mystery how a person like Donna can be so isolated from the rest of society - or so fearful (which is what I read into that quote, Lars). <br /><br />I know that "ethnocentrism" is an attribute of Altemeyer's right wing authoritarians. That is, they keep to themselves and aren't exposed to mainstream society. But that must be difficult in the age of the internet etc. More so if you have family, work colleagues etc. Maybe it's just that her mental capability is limited in a way that means she processes what she sees and hears such that it's re-interpreted to fit her fixed world view.<br /><br />The human brain is fascinating.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20816974553736700632013-09-11T15:31:19.514+10:002013-09-11T15:31:19.514+10:00I read most of Donna's first book, "The D...I read most of Donna's first book, "The Delinquent Teenager". It was glaringly obvious that Donna didn't know anything about science and scientists.<br /><br />Here is a quote that shows what a wingnut Donna is:<br /><br />”No matter what they said the problem of the moment was – over-population, ozone depletion, acid rain, global warming – environmentalists have long advocated the same basket of solutions.<br />These solutions amount to humanity forsaking industrialized society and a good measure of individual freedom. Apparently the answer is a return to Eden – to a slower, greener, more, ‘natural’ pace of life that embraces traditional values rather than mindless consumerism.”<br /><br /><br /><br />Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12615434159936964022013-09-11T10:41:28.220+10:002013-09-11T10:41:28.220+10:00So Judith has linked to a tired list of Pachauri-a...So Judith has linked to a tired list of Pachauri-attack-by-UK -tabloid-fish-wrapper as though it still has a quality,currency and power it never had.... Laframboise is a mediocrity in a mediocre 'field' of self-nominated 'critics', barking mad and boring. Her every 'discovery' is a measure of her enduring ignorance.<br /><br />The only puzzle/sadness is that Judith Curry should feel a need to go anywhere near the woman's amateurism. It seems Curry's collapse is complete and her intellect gone. She is a captive of some genuinely nasty liars now....how did she allow it to happen?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35287642731871474132013-09-11T10:34:54.046+10:002013-09-11T10:34:54.046+10:00They and the Donna Laframboises of the world deser...They and the Donna Laframboises of the world deserve each other. The rest of us deserve better.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36259549128615748612013-09-11T10:07:31.962+10:002013-09-11T10:07:31.962+10:00There's a great little pre-packaged, none-too-...There's a great little pre-packaged, none-too-discerning audience out there...billnoreply@blogger.com