Friday, February 8, 2013

{#6} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Activists"

[updated with note from Greenpeace - 2/11/2013 am]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

{#6} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Activists"

This is chapter six from Donna LaFramboise's book 
The Delinquent Teenager: "Activist"

For an introduction explaining why I'm reviewing this piece of work, 
please click here.

{Courier font identifies LaFramboise's words
Laframboise, (2011-10-09). T D T W W M W T C E (Kindle Locations 195-201). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition. }

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
6 - Activists   Many environmental organizations employ people whose sole purpose is to raise awareness about global warming. The more effective these people are at convincing the public there's an urgent problem, the more money we're likely to contribute to their cause. 
~ ~ ~ 
Notice Donna shows no interest in the examining whether those concerns are legitimate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Since activists bring their own agenda to the table, and since agendas and science don't mix, environmentalists need to keep their distance from scientific endeavors. Data cannot be considered scientifically reputable if it has been collected and analyzed by activists. Scientific conclusions - especially those involving judgment calls - cannot be trusted if activists have played a role. 
~ ~ ~
"agendas... science don't mix"
"environmentalists need to keep their distance from the scientific endeavors"
"cannot be trusted if activists have played a role"  Ergo activists are considered dishonest.

Donna, Why is "it assumed that data collected and analyzed by an "activists" is fraudulent data"?

Just how do you define "activist"?

If someone worked as an environmental activist for a summer during school days, why does that justify your 'tainting' them for the rest of their lives with that label.

In fact Donna, what's with you blanket condemnation of "environmentalist"?   
How would you define an "environmentalist" anyways?  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
But activists have not kept their distance from the IPCC. Nor has that organization taken steps to safeguard its reputation by maintaining a strict boundary between itself and green groups. This is one of those red flags, an indicator that the IPCC is a spoiled child that feels no need to conduct its affairs in a grown-up, professional manner. 
~ ~ ~
Doing that little twist at the end with "spoiled child" is the act of a propagandist.

What Donna does here is assume that "environmentalist" and "activists" are all dishonest.  Indeed, she wants to reject them from interacting with the IPCC altogether.  Without even examining their track record.

Greenpeace Research LaboratoriesThe Greenpeace Research Laboratories form the Science Unit of Greenpeace International. Based at the University of Exeter in the UK, the laboratories provide scientific advice and analytical support to Greenpeace offices worldwide, over a range of disciplines. The laboratories are equipped with hardware for the analysis of heavy metal and organic contaminants in a range of environmental samples. An extensive database of scientific literature has been built up since 1986 and serves as a core information resource.The expertise of the group encompasses a number of disciplines, including toxicology, organic and inorganic analytical chemistry, biochemistry and terrestrial and marine ecology.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The improper relationship between activists and the IPCC is illustrated by a 2007 Greenpeace publication. The foreword to that document was written by none other than Rajendra Pachauri. At the end of his remarks, beside his photograph, he is identified not as a private individual expressing private opinions but as the chairman of the IPCC. 
~ ~ ~ 
Without the slightest examination Donna screams "improper relationship".
Donna can you define this relationship; what is improper about it?
After all, the issue is understanding how our planet functions.

Interestingly, Donna openly advocates for the supremacy of "free-market ideals" {we'll get to that later}.  That's her own judgement call.  But, reviewing her chapters I've already found many examples where she misrepresents reality.  

Thus, I find it ironic that she's transferred her sins unto her enemies.

Let's think about this a moment, Greenpeace may have activist aspects; but they do serious peer reviewed science, see the above link.  
Besides, lets consider what Greenpeace advocates for?  
Raising aware of the health of our planet's biosphere.
Why does Donna see that as an evil endeavor?  
What is wrong with people being dedicated to learning about our global life support system?  Why must LaFramboise treat it as an evil empire?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
The following year Pachauri wrote another foreword for another Greenpeace publication. Think about this for a moment. The IPCC's role is similar to that of a trial judge. It examines the scientific evidence and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change. 
~ ~ ~ 
Donna reveals her own advocacy for willful ignoring scientific findings when she says something as disconnected as: "... and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change."  Click here for information explaining the state of the science.  

There is NO disagreement about whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide's is driving current global warming.  So what's Donna trying to do here?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
How much faith would you have in the impartiality of a murder trial if the judge was hearing evidence during the day and partying with the prosecution team during the evening?   
~ ~ ~
Donna resorts to melodrama and is again crossing over into hysteria.  As for Greenpeace, guess if you have absolute contempt for the biosphere of this planet, her attitude might make sense but if one appreciates that human welfare depends on a healthy environment, one would appreciate that Greenpeace is a respectable and honest organization.

I wrote Greenpeace as asked them about this.  Here is their reply:
Hello Peter and thanks for your e-mail, it's great to hear from you. 
We base all of our campaigns on research, investigation and science and Greenpeace uses a mix of external resources (usually Government or industry figures), commissioned reports from relevant experts, and our own scientific research from our labs at Exeter University.   
There's more information here that you might find of interest  
We also challenge the role of science in society 
As an aside, if scientific data collected by activists can't be trusted then can studies or data collected by vested company interests (e.g. the GM food industry) be trusted? 

I hope that helps!
Best wishes,
L. C.
Supporter Services, Greenpeace UK k 
Also see: 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
As has been mentioned above, the fact that Richard Klein worked as a Greenpeace campaigner at age 23 was no impediment to the IPCC appointing him a lead author at age 25. But that's just the beginning. 
~ ~ ~ 
Professor Klein spent three months as an "Office Intern" for Greenpeace.
Three months... a lousy intern.  
Only a dedicated propagandist can expect a student's three month summer job to be held against him for the rest of his career.  

It's character assassination by association.  Donna don't have any incident to point to... Donna ignores Professor Kline's career of impressive accomplishments... and feels free to make malicious claims.  It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if she possess any sense of humanity and fair-play.

Richard Klein is a professional who has been proving himself since his student days, but Donna just see's him as a target to take down.  No wonder this man-made global warming dialogue is in such sorry shape.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Bill Hare has been a Greenpeace spokesperson since 1992 and served as its 'chief climate negotiator' in 2007. A Greenpeace blog post describes him as a legend in that organization. Yet none of this has prevented him from filling senior IPCC roles. 
When the 2007 edition of the Climate Bible(1) was released, we learned that Hare had served as a lead author, that he'd been an expert reviewer for two out of three sections of the report, and that he was one of only 40 people on the "core writing team" for the overall, big-picture summary known as the Synthesis Report. 
It's worth noting that the IPCC is less-than-candid about Hare's Greenpeace ties. The 2007 Climate Bible(2) lists his affiliation as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Since Hare is a 'visiting scientist' there the IPCC hasn't lied. Nevertheless, it has committed a sin of omission. His Greenpeace affiliation means he's not just any researcher. 
~ ~ ~ 
She has yet to explain why she feels comfortable claiming that anyone that's had anything to do with Greenpeace should be considered dishonest and rejected.

This isn't investigative journalism it's Donna's imagination and prejudices run-amuck.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Imagine you're an accident victim on the side of the road. You're told not to worry, that the person who's going to remain with you until the ambulance arrives is trained in first aid. What you aren't told is that he is also a vampire and that the blood seeping from your wound will be difficult for him to resist. You have not been warned about the presence of another agenda - one that changes the picture dramatically. 
~ ~ ~ 
Is this hysterical or what?   
Greenpeace associates, "environmentalist" . . . Donna now labels all of them vampires.  
Can I call LaFramboise a drama queen?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
In 2009 an activist think tank observed that both Hare and a person named Malte have "long been key members of the Greenpeace International climate team." Malte's surname is Meinshausen. In 2001 he and Hare co-authored an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. During 2002 and 2003 he was a Greenpeace spokesperson. 
But these facts didn't prevent him from being recruited as a contributing author to not one, not two, but three chapters of the 2007 Climate Bible(3). Like the graduate students discussed above, Meinshausen's participation demonstrates that many IPCC authors are hardly elder scholars. He only received his doctorate in 2005. 
~ ~ ~ 
The only people I ever hear using the term "Climate Bible" for IPCC reports are folks who hate the IPCC.  Good faith consumers of IPCC reports know that they aren't perfect, but they are the proverbial "best to be done with what they had."  It's utterly uncalled for to inject "vampire" nonsense and this "Bible" melodrama into what should be a serious discussion.  

What level of perfection is expected?  How specifically have their reports fallen short?  Does Donna have anything beyond ad hominem attacks.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  
A number of passages in the 2007 Climate Bible(4) blandly cite research papers authored by Hare and Meinshausen as though it's immaterial that they are Greenpeace personnel. Indeed, the IPCC goes so far as to reprint a graph that appears in a paper for which these two men are the sole authors. 
But the Greenpeace connection extends still further. Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is often described as a "world renowned reef expert."  Nine chapters of the 2007 Climate Bible(5) base their conclusions partly on his work. He was a contributing author to that report and has been appointed a coordinating lead author for the upcoming edition. 
~ ~ ~
I tell you, McCarthyism is starting to come to mind.  These scientists Donna is slandering with insinuations but no incidents to point to are people with respectable careers that are being totally ignoring in order to make her propagandistic point that no one can be trusted.  This is getting pathetic.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The problem is that Hoegh-Guldberg has had close ties to activist organizations for the past 17 years. Between 1994 and 2000 he wrote four reports about coral reefs and climate change that were funded, vetted, and published by Greenpeace. Since then he has written two more for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 
Someone who has spent 17 years working closely with activist groups is thoroughly tainted. By no stretch of the imagination can he be considered a disinterested party who will carefully weigh the pros and cons and then write a scrupulously objective account of the situation. 
~ ~ ~ 
What does this claim "thoroughly tainted" mean?  Why are they tainted, how are they tainted?  I have found nothing to indicate any of them have produced bad work.  

This is nothing but character assassination by association.

Most pathetic Donna still hasn't explained why any scientist who has touched Greenpeace should be excluded!  

Donna, why do you have such a passionate revulsion for Greenpeace?  Ah and now the World Wildlife Fund.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Speaking of the WWF, its website includes a formal photograph of 20 of the IPCC's most senior personnel. In the second row there's a gentleman named Richard Moss, who has been involved with the IPCC for nearly 20 years. During part of that time he was employed by the WWF as one of its vice-presidents. 
~ ~ ~
Here again, we see a character assassination by association.  
And now we have Donna's dismissal of the World Wildlife Fund.  
Perhaps that plays good with her political audience, but any investigative reporter would have at least established why these organizations deserve such blanket and absolute condemnation.  Donna still hasn't done that, she simply expects us to take her word for it.

Incidentally, here again, there is nothing to indicate that Richard Moss is anything less than an honest competent professional.  But, a propagandist's goal is to stir up suspicion, regardless of actual facts. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Similarly, Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the WWF's chief spokesperson on climate change. She led its global climate change program and headed its delegation to the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Prior to that, she worked for the Climate Action Network. Currently she is director of a climate program for the World Resources Institute. 
In other words, Morgan is not one of the world finest scientific minds. She is a professional activist. Yet in June 2010 the IPCC appointed her to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous, and balanced. 
~ ~ ~ 
Notice how Donna doesn't examine what Ms Morgan actually did for the IPCC.  It's not like every job for the IPCC demands earth shattering decisions to be made.  But Donna isn't interested in those nuances.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Michael Oppenheimer  is also worth a mention. When the public hears the term 'scientist' we think of someone who is above the fray - who's disinterested and dispassionate and who goes wherever the scientific results happen to lead. This implied neutrality is what gives scientists their authority. But in the 1970s a new kind of scientist began to emerge - the activist scientist. Nowadays these people occupy impressive positions at universities. They are often employed by respectable government bodies. All of that disguises the fact that they hold activist worldviews and that those views can influence their scientific judgment. 
~ ~ ~ 
To begin with Donna doesn't define what she means with "activist worldviews"
Except that it sounds like a bad thing.

Then this "implied neutrality" of Donna's is a fantasy.  Old Victorian and twentieth century scientists where just as captive to their respective world views as contemporary scientist.  

But, beyond personal political views, the scientist's job demands that he/she seeks accuracy above all.  Those that are frauds are drummed out in a hurry, because other scientists are always looking over each others shoulders.  And thus science moves forward.  The thing with the man-made global warming is that all lines of Earth observation evidence keep reinforcing earlier understanding. 

What Donna is suggesting is nothing less than a global multi-disciplinary conspiracy among scientists.  It's a juvenile idea and laughable, if not for the fact that so many buy into it for other than rational reasons.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Research findings are rarely clear-cut. Data is collected, selected, discarded, adjusted, and interpreted by human beings. At every juncture there is the risk of going astray, of dismissing information that is actually important. The bits and pieces that get left on the cutting-room floor might add up to a different story. Because activist scientists begin with a particular narrative in mind, they may be unconsciously blind to these other possibilities. 
~ ~ ~
Donna makes an assumption, but doesn't provide any evidence.  

Nor does she do justice to the scientific dialogue between competent competitive experts.  It seems Donna's cynical view of the world makes her oblivious to the importance of the pursuit of understanding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
At first glance, Oppenheimer could hardly seem more eminent. He is director of a program in science, technology and environmental policy at Princeton University, as well as a professor in the atmospheric sciences department. 
Prior to these appointments, however, Oppenheimer spent more than two decades as the chief scientist for the activist Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). That organization is so wealthy its list of staff experts includes more than 100 names. Among them are seven attorneys, eight economists, and a vice-president of corporate sponsorships. 
Although we are familiar with the idea that big business exerts an influence on public debates, most of us have overlooked the fact that there's also such a thing as big green. Groups like the EDF lobby ferociously to advance their particular perspective. They also hire people who provide their activist agenda with a veneer of scientific respectability. Even now, Oppenheimer continues to advise the EDF. This means that his professional life has been spent in an activist milieu. 
~ ~ ~ 
The "veneer of scientific respectability" here again Donna assumes the worst, though she provides no evidence of any wrong doing.  This is nothing less than McCarthyist tactics.

All this begs the question why shouldn't organization dedicated to the health of our life supporting biosphere, you know that environment, be part of the information gathering process?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The IPCC doesn't think that matters. His online biography says Oppenheimer has been "a long-time participant." He was a lead author for the 2007 edition of the Climate Bible(6), is serving as an even more senior author for the upcoming edition, and also helped the IPCC write a special report on "climate extremes and disasters." 
Perhaps one of the reasons the IPCC doesn't view Oppenheimer as irredeemably contaminated is because the scientific profession itself appears to have lost its bearings on such matters. Oppenheimer's Princeton bio further tells us that he: 
has been a member of several panels of the National Academy of Sciences and is now a member of the National Academies' Board on Energy and Environmental Studies. He is also...a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
~ ~ ~ 
"irredeemably contaminated" 
"scientific profession itself appears to have lost its bearings on such matters."
More of that hysterical language.  And now she has stepped it up another notch indicting the NAS and their Board on Energy and Environmental Studies as falling in with the grand conspiracy.

Now an investigative reporter would fill in the missing pieces and build a case rather contend herself with smoke'n mirrors.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
The activist scientists who emerged in the 1970s have been working their way into high-status, leadership positions. Rather than keeping its distance from those whose careers have been associated with activism, the scientific establishment now honors, celebrates, and promotes such people. 
~ ~ ~
More melodrama - but notice still no attempt to explain this phobia of "activists."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
But this has consequences. The public is supposed to accept the Climate Bible's(7) findings because it is a scientific document written by the world's top scientific experts. What happens when the public discovers that those involved are actually brazen activists? What happens when it discovers that the world's most illustrious science bodies have themselves stopped drawing a line in the sand between activists and those who strive to pursue science in a genuinely neutral and unbiased fashion? 
~ ~ ~
Ah now Donna say "brazen activists" though still no examples of how any of these scientists she mention have done anything wrong or dishonest.

And if we are going to talk about activism, what about LaFramboise self examining her own brazen advocacy of the notion that the worlds climatologists and other scientists have been engaged in a grand fraud.  

Pretty extreme. Evidence, well no.  Objective, not that I've seen.
So far all I've discovered is that she hates environmentalists.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If scientists want us to trust their expert opinions they need to behave in a trustworthy manner. If they want us to be impressed by their high standards, they need to enforce these standards. 
From this perspective, the shenanigans at the IPCC shed light on a broader malaise within the scientific community as a whole.
~ ~ ~ 
Unfortunately, you dear Donna LaFramboise, have done nothing to shed any light on the actual process or voracity of IPCC reports.

Heck, considering you used the term seven time, it's obvious you're even under the illusion IPCC reports are some sort of Bible - Bible mean frozen - everyone know IPCC reports are actual works in progress, summations of a science that never stops moving forward.

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

No comments: