An Audit of LaFramboise’s IPCC Citation Audit
Posted: 19 February 2013 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3794
Joined  2010-08-15

Hello pals,
one of my contrarian acquaintances, kept coming at me with Donna LaFramboise, so it inspired me to investigate her.

It’s been quite the interesting journey starting with a look at Donna’s phobia for 20ish grads and scientists.
1/24/2013
Donna Laframboise’s Blind Spot… and the Manhattan Project
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/01/donna-laframboises-blind-spot.html

That lead to
2/4/2013
{#1} D. LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - A Closer Look
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/02/1-d-laframboise-delinquent-author.html

I’m up to
2/13/2012
{#10} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Shield’n Sword
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/02/10-dlaframboise-delinquent-author.html

Which lead to
2/28/2013
An Audit of LaFramboise’s IPCC Citation Audit.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/02/citizenschallenge-audits-laframboises.html

It turns out that the 76% of citations Donna calls garbage, are actually quite authoritative.
And adhere to IPCC’s promise to work with the best most authoritative information available :

IPPC references =                14…...............28%
Government Study/Report =      14…...............28%
Authoritative Sources =          10…...............20%

Peer-reviewed (LaFramboise) =    12…...............24%

This has now lead to this little essay of sorts.  Here’s the intro:

The following came out of a conversation I had with a character along with some interesting experiences in the ‘echo-chamber,’ you see, I’ve become the butt end of some vicious below the belt insults and labels and it occurred to me that perhaps it was time for me to start getting down’n personal too. 

But, rather than the denialist penchant for attacking the ‘opponent,’ I figure maybe I should get down’n personal about myself.  It might help shed some light on folks like me and what drives our various blogging missions to expose more folks to the rational aspect of climate science… the things that Republicans and their professional denialists do everything to distracting us from. . .

Of blog moderation and citizen GCM audits
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/02/of-blog-moderation-and-citizen-climate.html

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3794
Joined  2010-08-15

Let me clarify.

I picked the chapter with the least citations, 50:

Working Group 3, Chapter 1 of the 2007 IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3.html

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
citizenschallenge.pm - 19 February 2013 12:08 PM

But, rather than the denialist penchant for attacking the ‘opponent,’ I figure maybe I should get down’n personal about myself.  It might help shed some light on folks like me and what drives our various blogging missions to expose more folks to the rational aspect of climate science… the things that Republicans and their professional denialists do everything to distracting us from. . .

Sorry to be a picky prude, but you contradict your first statement with “the things that Republicans . . .” grin

Probably better to strike that part of the sentence after your “...”

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2013 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3794
Joined  2010-08-15
TromboneAndrew - 19 February 2013 08:06 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 19 February 2013 12:08 PM

But, rather than the denialist penchant for attacking the ‘opponent,’ I figure maybe I should get down’n personal about myself.  It might help shed some light on folks like me and what drives our various blogging missions to expose more folks to the rational aspect of climate science… the things that Republicans and their professional denialists do everything to distracting us from. . .

Sorry to be a picky prude, but you contradict your first statement with “the things that Republicans . . .” grin

Probably better to strike that part of the sentence after your “...”

I don’t fully follow.

Do I seem hypocritical when I say “penchant for attacking the ‘opponent’

And then claim the “Republicans” are doing everything in their power to facilitate and further climate science denialism?

~ ~ ~

I’ll stop right here. . . for now.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2013 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

I know it’s not exactly “attacking the ‘opponent’” but it did strike me as an odd pairing of concepts in a paragraph. There is a bit of finger-pointing there which can be interpreted as not being on-point. Many Republicans are into climate change denial, but not all of them, and the way it’s worded one can read it as meaning ‘all Republicans and their denialists.’ Which also sounds a bit like a straw-man. Maybe a more direct thing to say would be to reference, instead of Republicans, climate science deniers?

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2013 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3794
Joined  2010-08-15
TromboneAndrew - 20 February 2013 11:22 AM

I know it’s not exactly “attacking the ‘opponent’” but it did strike me as an odd pairing of concepts in a paragraph. There is a bit of finger-pointing there which can be interpreted as not being on-point. Many Republicans are into climate change denial, but not all of them, and the way it’s worded one can read it as meaning ‘all Republicans and their denialists.’ Which also sounds a bit like a straw-man. Maybe a more direct thing to say would be to reference, instead of Republicans, climate science deniers?

Well I used to subscribe to that feelie-melie view* - but when you look at the crop of Republican elected representatives - who speaks up about manmade global warming?  Who has done everything in it’s power to shut down any government focus on the issue?  Who’s voting against Earth Observations satellites and other scientific efforts?  What about the manipulation of that Rove/Koch and that whole crew?
Heck, look who’s the anti-science party
{ a little addition - think of the moronic things important republicans have said . . .  and gotten away with!}

The more I look at it
The more I think people need to notice it’s the neo-Republican power structure that IS the global warming science denial movement!

We should stop pretending this denialist movement is some sort of grassroots movement - it is funded, strategized and organized from the top.

So let’s start blaming them by name.


* hell I used to respect many Republicans
cheers, peace’n love


[edit: sorry forgot about the ? marks   red face ]

[ Edited: 21 February 2013 09:59 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2013 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

What ‘feelie-melie view’ do you think I have? Of course way too many prominent Republicans are climate-change deniers. It’s a systemic problem within that party. But that doesn’t mean that they all are. I’m much more in favor of calling people out by name specifically - such as ” the things that Republicans like Lamar Smith and their professional denialists…”

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2013 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3794
Joined  2010-08-15
TromboneAndrew - 20 February 2013 07:48 PM

What ‘feelie-melie view’ do you think I have? Of course way too many prominent Republicans are climate-change deniers. It’s a systemic problem within that party. But that doesn’t mean that they all are. I’m much more in favor of calling people out by name specifically - such as ” the things that Republicans like Lamar Smith and their professional denialists…”

feelie-melie, just a word-ish. . . 
No offense intended, nor any assumption of what your own position is. 
Thank you for the feed back I love it.  It’s what makes a dialogue grow.

But, I myself come from a place where I’ve been watching in amazement as an unimaginable sin was being perpetrated against humanity (while they knowingly embraced it) by a few folks with very deep pockets and very shallow minds.  So obvious, so open, so, so predictable even.

... we all embraced it, we were told life wasn’t supposed to have any limits . . . too much was never enough. 

I’m sure it goes back well before my day, BUT I’ve been witness to and informed by the Reagan Devolution.
Out of that Administration certain greed driven hubristic personalities and ideas have taken control of public thinking - bullshit on the liberal press -  the controllers of thinking were/are the Murdoch/Fox and their cliche’ with those maniac bazillionaires their spread sheets and world-power hallucinations . . . . . . .

not to mention their stable of narrow-minded agenda focused “think tanks” who ruthlessly fight for their profit driven causes.

So instead of working the problem.  They have been churning out crap to confuse and distract and we the people ate it up.  Because facing the situation meant facing certain realities, and those realities would have required certain toning down of expectations.  NO can do.

What’s the Problem?
That problem being society’s dependence on carbon based fuels and their resulting warming of our planet.  And the obvious conclusion that warming our planet would/will energize and disrupt weather patterns.  No f’n rocket science about it.  But we’ve turn it into this massive distraction, pretending that knowing every number was important - when what we needed was to get our lazy soft asses in gear and start working the problem.

And now we’re all trapped in the straight-jack of our own creation.  And most still haven’t even figured out what’s going on.


Oh and I’m sorry but when I look at the major personalities, power and money all of it reeks Republican from top to bottom.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2013 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3794
Joined  2010-08-15

Oh and by the way,
WAY too f’n many people making too f’n many babies !  TOO

We were worried about that in the sixties - the worries were right. . .  our dismissal was collectively idiotic.


grrr


So in the end, come to a spiritual peace, humans are still reptile at heart, all things shall pass, evolution is beautiful and I am part of the flow….................................. Ohmmm . . . . . . .


kiss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{#1}Updated-LaFramboise Delinquent Author - A Closer Look  wink

[ Edited: 21 February 2013 10:04 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile