(2) D.Laframboise's Blind Spot... a peek at noconsensus.org

Time for a review of Donna LaFramboise's blog

http://noconsensus.org/the-future.php 

It's a revealing look at her attitude towards climatology.

Her menu banner includes:

Smart People  

Consensus?

Freedom 

The Future 

Global Warming Theory 101

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Under "smart people" she has all of four individuals, none having anything to do with climatology, but they do "Beg to Differ" with the consensus.  So what?  Some people think NASA never made it to the moon?  Who cares?

Now, if I were to have a "Smart People" page I would start with links to lectures that individual scientists have given.  More and more colleges are YouTube-ing hour long lectures.  I'm most familiar with UCTV's PerspectivesOnOceanScience http://www.uctv.tv/oceanscience/, but many others are available.

If you want to know about the veracity of the scientists, why not start by listening to them explain their science?  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Under "consensus" Donna uses tired old and vacuous arguments.  

But, it is a little funny.  LaFlamboise starts by attacking the notion of "consensus" -  then in the next breath she presents the notorious Oregon Petition as some proof of a consensus of disbelief. 

Worst, that petition is a fraud and a classic example of how attack-the-science tactics operate.  Starting with a fabricated cover letter formatted to look like a journal paper - to the "curious" credentials of many signatories, to the petitions origins within a survivalist compound, er "university."

~ ~ ~ 
Want to find out more about the notorious Oregon Petition, there's no end to it:

• A Climate Deception Revisited: What’s Behind the Signatures of 31,478 Skeptical “Scientists”
• The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

• The Oregon Petition : Deltoid
• Oregon petition: it’s back : Deltoid
• The Oregon Deception Project…..
• Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
• One more Petition, still a consensus « Climate Change
• One Blue Marble Blog Climate Change Myth #2: Many climate scientists still have doubts!
• Richard Littlemore | New Oregon Petition Promoter “Not Sufficiently Rational” to Advise Tobacco Industry
• Richard Littlemore | Flawed Oregon Petition Rises Again
• Kevin Grandia | Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition Alive and Well
• oregon institute of science and medicine
• Art Robinson
• Oregon Petition
• Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
• debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
• Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
• RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign
• Petitioning on climate, part 1
• Petitioning on climate, part 2
• Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (SourceWatch)
• The Oregon Petition

~ ~ ~ 
Then, it's on to the good old Galileo story and that great lone genius canard, followed by more smoke'n mirrors to fill space.  

Thing is, today we have incredible Earth Observation abilities.  What's being talked about by climatologists is not a religious doctrine - it is cold hard facts.  Facts that folks like Donna will do anything to hide from you.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

"Freedom"  actually: "Global Warming, Fanatics, and Freedom"

Here again we see an example of Donna's crafting mischief :

"People who claim to be making the world a better place have often delivered misery. The Soviets, for example, said they were building a more equal society. Instead, they murdered tens of millions.
The environment is important. But so are other things. The freedoms that generations of our forbearers sacrificed and died for cannot be brushed aside in the name of saving the planet. Do we want to live in a world:

• where asking questions is considered immoral?

• where industries that have helped us achieve long, prosperous lives are demonized?

• where elected politicians who think differently than unelected activists are jailed?

==========================================

Consider how Donna manipulates with words.  To begin with equating working on strategies to reduce GHG injections into our atmosphere with Stalin Russian, if that isn't hysteria in action, what is?  We have climatologists doing science-speak while Donna's off churning out cold war propaganda tricks.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The environment is important BUT...

Donna, the real problem is not that "asking questions is considered immoral"  The problem is:

nonstop repetition of lies is immoral! 

& unrepentant unfounded personal attacks on scientists are immoral...

& strategic crazy-making intended to turn our attention away from learning what is happening to our atmosphere and planet is immoral...

& the uneven "playing field": where one side is held to the highest standards imaginable while the other side gets away with playing as dirty as they want is immoral...

& disregard for honest curiosity and learning about what is happening upon our planet is immoral...

& let's not forget the hubristic stupidity of thinking we can disregard our life sustaining environment - and increase consumption forever - that's just plan dumb.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Why this glorification of industry?  Why this demand to remain blind to the damaging side effects of our wonderful industries?  No one hates our modern conveniences - we just need to get real about how to harness our industry so it don't destroy us.

We need to get real about the damages our super-charged industrialization has done to our planet.  The signs are everywhere one looks - hiding from it will only make the reckoning that much worse.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

And Donna, what in the world is this supposed to be?
"where elected politicians who think differently than unelected activists are jailed?"
Paranoia, visions of global conspiracy, emotionalizing, this isn't the work of an investigative journalist, it's the stuff of a propagandist.

She goes on:

"Environmental activists who believe their cause is more important than other people's free speech aren't hard to find. DeSmogBlog.com argues that alternative perspectives on global warming amount to a plot to confuse and mislead the public."

~ ~ ~ 

Well, when Donna's "free speech" consists of lies regarding scientists, lies regarding the science, lies regarding the global observation data - Why should honorable people not voice their revulsion?  Speak all you want, but speech without evidence is hot air.

And when it revolves around something as momentous as the very weather patterns - that have sustained humanity for eons - then some sort of nasty line has been crossed. Certain self-interested groups and their spokes-people will begin to be recognized as the traitors to humanity and their counties that they are.

One only need to pay attention to the change in weather over the past few decades - and to appreciate basic physics (even if some exact numbers are uncertain) to understand that this is going to get to become a rough ride.  

All because of humanity's collective inability to outgrow their petty ideologies and dogmatic beliefs.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At "The Future Generations":Climate Victims or High-Tech Geniuses?"
Donna writes:

Some people feel we should take immediate and dramatic steps to reduce the alleged effects global warming will have on the planet 50 to 100 years hence. But predicting the future is a tricky business. Fifty years ago there were no personal computers, {and so on and so forth}

Donna goes on to recite the dreams of someone with their eyes firmly glued to the read-view mirror, someone seemingly incapable of recognizing that the road ahead of us looks very different from the road receding behind us.  

Not one word about the state of our biosphere as though our future is somehow independent from the physical world around us.  She seems completely oblivious to the observed trends and does not seem to grasp that these trends in extreme weather are going to continue compounding and impacting our day to day ever more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Donna's offering under "Global Warming Theory 101" is another indicator of her disregard for the core issue.  This is all she's got to say:

"We can't predict next summer's weather reliably - But we claim to know - with a few degrees - how hot it will be 100 years from now"

That's it, nothing else.  
As if this is all some meaningless joke to Ms. LaFlamboise.  

The content at noconsensus.org makes clear that we are dealing with a writer who does propaganda, not any investigative journalism driving by an honest desire to learn and understand.

PS Ms. LaFlamboise. 

"They can't even predict the weather 5 days in advance..."

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/01/they-cant-even-predict-weather-5-days.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~