Tuesday, November 10, 2015

The Donna Laframboise Collection (with invitation to Donna)

After a little reflection I realized this is a perfect opportunity to extend an invitation to Donna Laframboise to offer specific corrections and clarifications regarding any of the various claims and supporting evidence I write about.  
Therefore, at the end of this list I've added a note directly for Donna's consideration. (9:15 am - and now I've emailed her 9:35 am)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I just had someone point to Donna Laframboise as a source for disproving the collective understanding of climate science (that would be the "consensus" view).  I have way too many projects started to begin another one for Arne's sake - fortunately, I've already done Donna.  It was back during a period when I had way less work going on than these days.  

I repost this for those who have been frustrated by people who take this political writer as some sort of authority on the science - when all she is, is a nasty gossip columnist trying to confuse the science and reinforce contrarian fixations.  She's got nothing to do with learning or teaching anything constructive.  

I'll begins with some insider information I received.

Quoting a portion of an email from someone who prefers to remain anonymous - but who did want to share the following observations:

"With reference to Donna Laframboise, what are her credentials really?   
She has an undergraduate degree from the University of Toronto in Women's Studies. But has she ever held down a full-time job? Credentials usually mean listing employment, but she's never listed a job as part of hers.   
And that's because she's never had a job, apart from writing a weekly column, for about a year, for the Canadian newspaper, the National Post. Her husband's income is such that he supports them both.   
There's nothing wrong with that, but it is still ironic that she is assailing others for their credentials when hers are flimsier than most."

(First, from a source that musters more authority than I'll ever pull off.)

Donna Laframboise recycles old attacks on IPCC

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
INDEX of WUWTW posts regarding Donna LaFramboise's brand of 'crazy-making'.

Monday, February 18, 2013
An Audit of LaFramboise's IPCC Citation Audit.

Thursday, January 24, 2013
Donna Laframboise's Blind Spot... and the Manhattan Project

Sunday, February 3, 2013
(2) D.Laframboise's Blind Spot... a peek at noconsensus.org
~ ~ ~ 
Monday, February 4, 2013
{#1}Updated-LaFramboise Delinquent Author - A Closer Look

Monday, February 4, 2013
{#2} D. LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - praise worthy?

Tuesday, February 5, 2013
{#3} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Best Experts

Tuesday, February 5, 2013
{#4} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - 20-somethings

Friday, February 8, 2013
{#5} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Gender"

Friday, February 8, 2013
{#6} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Activists"

Saturday, February 9, 2013
{#7} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Modelers"

Saturday, February 9, 2013
{#8} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Clear as Mud

Sunday, February 10, 2013
{#9} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Immense Edifice

Wednesday, February 13, 2013
{#10} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Shield'n Sword

Wednesday, February 27, 2013
{#11a} D. LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Peer Review

Monday, March 4, 2013
{#11b}LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Dr. Tol

Friday, March 8, 2013
{#11c}LaFramboise - peer review / citations -The Delinquent Author
~ ~ ~ 

Monday, February 11, 2013
Dear Ms.LaFramboise, re: Greenpeace | environmentalists

Sunday, March 3, 2013
Pearls of Wisdom From Donna Laframboise Pt1: IPCC Authorship
~ ~ ~

Thursday, February 14, 2013
New Anthropocene: "donna laframboise and cloud screaming"

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Friday, February 15, 2013
Why Climate Science Deniers Have No Credibility - In One Pie Chart
~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dear Donna Laframboise,

If I were to imagine a debate between you and myself I would preface it with something I wrote a couple weeks back.  Then I would ask you what 'of substance' have you added to the public's understanding regarding what we/society has been doing to our atmosphere and it's cascading consequences?  

Why is endless debate over trivia and character assassination your goal?  You do appreciate that the runway behind us don't do anyone any good, right?

What compels your hostile posture and venomous attitude towards young professionals, who by hard work and accomplishments are advancing in their respective fields?  It seems like you never met a serious scientist you don't despise - you come across more neurotic vengeance seeking than anything.  But, oh how the Republican/libertarian crowd love it.  I'm curious what's up with that?

I want to share some thoughts on "knowing" and the process of trying to teach others and continue learning for oneself.  It's still a work in progress and I'm sure you'll find my writing atrocious* and ridicule-worthy, so it is, I'm a professional skilled-tradesman, not writer (I'm the guy that comes to your home to fix the stuff you depend on but don't have a clue how it operates.) and I got a brain that works and eyes and a mind that has been paying attention all my sixty years.  I know that being skeptical demands we constantly questioning ourselves and remaining capable of admitted mistakes and constructively learning from them.

You on the other convey absolute self-certainty in every attack you undertake, your moral mission is above the need for accuracy, empathy, or perspective.  I struggle with comprehending how someone like you justify's yourself to yourself, when no else is there.  

(* which is why I keep correcting the little typos I find on rereading. :)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To the best of my knowledge

Saturday, October 31, 2015 (revised 11/10/15 9:45 pm)

 When a rationalist such as myself makes a claim, there's always an undercurrent of "to the best of my knowledge."  Meaning that, yes, I firmly believe this and this, for such and such reasons.  Yet, I appreciate there's more to learn.  Here is the place for one's constructive-debate opponent to add new information to my store of knowledge.  

Give me stuff I hadn't considered; point out my weaknesses; make me think through why I'm making my particular argument; make me question my own certitude, you bet I'll reexamine my understanding in light of new information.  And though I'm no scientist, I do know that this is also the scientist's way.

Being shown to be wrong may hurt my ego, so what!?  It's an opportunity to understand my topic even better.  That's why I've spent many hundreds (actually thousands all told) of hours chasing down and trying to understand contrarian arguments.  They've been fabulous learning experiences.

The tragedy is realizing that no such love for intellectual adventure and learning about the planet we depend on exists within my Republican/libertarian debate opponents.

Their only interest is in winning petty political goals, such as sowing confusion and out-screaming the evidence.  No room for rational constructive arguments, nah they rather resort to tearing apart their opponents, no matter how dishonest, dirty and ruthless they need to get to win their political battle at the time.  

As for appraising the evidence they have an extraordinary ability to absolutely ignore what they don't like - it don't exist in their minds, thus it don't exist, period.  Their thinking is hubristic shading towards infantile.

The Republican/libertarian crowd have shown countless times that they couldn't care less about learning from their own mistakes (as the disastrous state of global affairs makes plain).  Absolute self-certitude is their foundation backed up by ruthlessly confronting all opponents - as opposed to constructive dialogue.

Then there's the faith-based angle.
To make matters worse, the Republican/libertarian tribe get their self-certain attitude from a contrived conviction that they have a direct connection to the "God" of time and creation, seems over the top, doesn't it?  But, so it goes.

It certainly reveals a lack of self-recognition, in that all of us people are petty to an extent.  All of us rather believe ourselves than others.  Along with our noble aspects, we possess varying degrees of vanity and insecurity, jealousy and greed.  

More importantly we are only capable of viewing the world through our own individual filters (based on our own unique experiences).  None of us is capable of understanding the "God" behind this infinite creation we reside within for our one fleeting moment.  

Dream and wonder and worship all you want, but for God's sake at least be grown-up enough to appreciate that we humans aren't capable of better than a shadow-play inkling of Thee Truth.  
{hold this thought, instead of one way to "god", there are as many as there need to be ;-) }

Science is all about formalizing human curiosity and our endless desire to better understand the world, while enabling better mastery of our surroundings.  It's rules are straightforward and have worked wonderfully for centuries and enabled this incredible world full of modern marvels. 

It's participants are self-skeptical.  The work of others is honestly represented and evaluated with integrity.  Fraud and mistakes happen, but are caught-out because it is a community of skeptical experts.  Furthermore, mistakes are used to improve understanding, rather than to bludgeon people for political policy ends.

Scientists and the weight of their evidence and the quality of their climate understanding deserves to be defended.  What are you doing?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Donna, regarding what motivates these scientists 
you despise so much 
let a real professional explains it:
Richard Alley - what drives scientists? 


citizenschallenge said...

Still no word from Donna,
not that I'm surprised
so it goes with malicious bullies.
It's not the learning she's into - hate mongering and sowing pure confusion is her game.

citizenschallenge said...

This exchange seems worth sharing.
The entire pathetic 'debate' can be seen at YouTube
Dr. Ivar Giaever - The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate

Arne Lyra writes 2:06 PM - Nov 22, 2015 - (speaking of Donna La)

+citizenschallengeYT Well, since she found a lot of things that where totally ludicrous on a matter as some claim are important, she was right, wasn't she. The fact that a big chunk of what the IPCC use to support their theory wasn't scientific papers at all, when they said so. And many other things, I suggest you read the book.

And since this whole issue is driven by money that the politicians want (and other want's a cut of that money) you can rest assure that more things will get disclosed in the future. It always does when greed and power are at stake.

citizenschallenge Responds:

What lotta things??? Always the bile, never specifics we can actually look at.
Have you spent any effort actually learning about what the IPCC does? https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_assess.pdf
"In the assessment process, emphasis is placed on the evaluation of all cited literature and of its sources. Contributions to IPCC reports take full advantage of peer-reviewed3 and internationally available literature. Sources other than scientific journals also provide crucial information for a comprehensive assessment.

Examples include reports from governments, industry and research institutions, international and other organizations, and conference proceedings. Information about certain experiences and practices in mitigation and adaptation activities in particular may be found in sources other than traditional scientific and technical journals.

Such materials may utilize a wide range of quality-assurance mechanisms, including but not limited to formal peer review. Author teams using literature of this kind have a special responsibility to ensure its quality and validity." { quoting the IPCC }
Here's another one Procedures on Preparation of IPCC Reports https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf -

Stuff Donna Lala won't tell you about, but do you care??? Come on be truthful, does it matter to you that Donna does a lot of lying and misrepresenting of the facts?