Talk:Donna Laframboise

Notability
I removed the notability tag, as we now have three substantial third-party sources for Laframboise -- Quadrant, Curry, and Fox News. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Malware report on external link
Temporarily removed link to "TripodGirl, Laframboise photo site" as MyWot indicates that this site was found to be hosting malware (Mal/lframeF as per Sophos) as of March 2014 by Yandex ComplyAnt (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I put it back in, hopefully OK now? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Book review removed?
An editor recently removed a quote from this book review, writing "per wp:ARBCC blog source unacceptable, particularly as BLP issues). The blog is Judith Curry's "Climate Etc", and I don't think there are BLP issues in reviewing a person's book. Here is the bit removed:


 * Climatologist Judith Curry wrote that Laframboise's book "makes a clear and compelling case regarding problems with the IPCC." [cited to above link].  --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPSPS – Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. WP:ARBCC. . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The previous version actually used a lot of self-published sources, e.g. to state that she is a feminist. A sorta funny claim, which has been parroted e.g. in a German newspaper but is far from being appropriate. Lafromboise has been mentioned (and critized) in the one or other serious book, I reduced some blurb and expanded the article with some of her actual activities. I would consider Judith Currys blog a suitable source in this case, which might be used with attribution. But thats up to the discussion here. Serten II (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm always glad when I see your comments in this field, but WP:BLPSPS and WP:ArbCC are firm and that's generally a good thing -- such policies defend Laframboise and other living persons from bloggers' smears. If you really think a review of the book should be in the BLP, there are other possible sources: any one of: Financial Post, Daily Mail, Calgary Herald, Fox News, News Weekly, Forbes, Spiked. I'm not familiar with all those sources and I'm sure some are controversial, but none look like they're self-published. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these all seem to be in-universe contrarian sources: any sources to give due weight to mainstream science? . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I found no other non-blog reviews. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As said, I am not aiming to force Judith Curry, but I would prefer a reasoned opinion of an actual scholar in comparision with Fox News ;) Thnx for that link sample, btw. Maybe we find some info about the actual person. The entry should cover all her activities. Serten II (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Judith Curry is of course listed as opposing the msinstream, so not a majority view. . dave souza, talk 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually saw the rather clumsy process to finally list her on Wp's sceptics pillory. (Never tell citizens how politics and Liverwurst is being made, Count Bismarck) and I doubt the real world doubts her credentials as a respectable scientist. Serten II (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the sources cited at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and if you think she should be removed from that list then argue the case there. I don't think her credentials are doubted, any more than those of Seitz or Singer, but her pronouncements do appear to promote minority views, and she's done rather badly in the past with book reviewing. . dave souza, talk 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I meant to address my comment to Pete Tillman. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thats OK! I would like to see wether Pachaury actually claimed that the IPCC reports are completely based on peer review. I have added some formal ponts, as the VIAF entry and as well added some categories. Serten II (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever Pachauri may have said, non peer-reviewed information is acceptable, subject to critical assessment and review of the quality and validity of each source. See Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which shows that this issue was raised and answered a year before publication of Laframboise's book. . .  dave souza, talk 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Long no see, dave. I agree with the concept that a report made for governments with imnportant impact on industry and society requires grey literature and e.g. industry conteributions of various kinds and backgrounds. Take anything provided by Eurostat, no one has prob with that. I understand as well that grey literature is needed less for the pure climate science, but for the WG's dealing with the impact on societies. I agree as well that the IAC review (long before Donna L.) responded to mounting criticisms of the use of 'grey literature' in IPCC reporting. It saw some problems with lack of evaluation and flagging of unpublished sources. The actual procedures were comparable vague and had to be improved and enforced. We all know that consensus in a team based science assessment is a social construct with rather practical problems, right? So no sweat about that. The problem starts when someone like Pachauri claims "peer review" as the IPCC gold standard in the public. Then the whole organization is bound to loose face and credibility, when the grey sceletons come out of the cupboard. If he had been more open about vulnerabilities and incertainties (see Jean Goodwin), Lafromboise would not have been able to play the Muckraker. Same btw if the IPCC would work along the Eurostat model, as an agency for a bunch of governments with no public role at all, no one would blame them for shaky figures (e.g. to allow Greece into the Euro zone). Serten II (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If Pachauri misrepresented which sources are acceptable in IPCC procedures, that reflects on Pachauri. Attempts to use that to discredit the whole organisation are classic denial tactics, producing unreasonable doubts as a product, and we shouldn't give undue credence to that tactic. . dave souza, talk 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignoring digressions, and assuming nobody else comments, I'll try to summarize. Pete Tillman and Serten II think the Curry blog is acceptable; Dave Souza and Peter Gulutzan insist it's not. Peter Gulutzan thinks other sources are acceptable; Serten II is unenthusiastic because they aren't by scholars, and Dave Souza is opposed because they're contrarian, and Pete Tillman has no expressed opinion. If I've summarized fairly and there are no new points, then I think we're stuck: no book review can be restored or added at this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you use attribution and evaluate the useable content, biased sources are and may be used in various standard WP entries, e.g. in friendly topics like Obersturmbannführers Schmidtchens Ritterkreuz or Iran MP asking to bomb Israel. A blog entry of an acknowledged scholar or a book review of a quality newspaper is much better and possible source (ok, not in Climate change), but for what? My question is wether we should do so, since this is an article about Lafromboises as a person, less about her book. Serten II (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC


 * Thanks, Peter, to clarify, I'm not opposed because they're contrarian, I'm concerned that the sources are largely from a fringe contrarian view of science and due weight needs to be given to scientific mainstream views. ARBCC is clear about not using blogs, that applies to Curry's blog as much as to mainstream blogs.
 * Serten II, that's a good point in that this shouldn't become a WP:COATRACK to promote her book or her fringe ideas. . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dave we agree on most points here. One important point - the IPCC has taken a political role and has become a strong global player. Thats was an advantage, but became a pandora box. Michael Oppenheimer thought the IPCC should deal just with governments, not with the public, like Eurostat. The box is open, way too late. Pachauri presents that Organization, and his errors (they might look trivial) reflect on the IPCC. Christian Wulff had to step back due to a 300€ hotel bill. You may believe science is more important than politics - the contrary is the case. Serten II (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course Pachauri was a political appointee, put in place following the insistence of George W. Bush that Bob Watson was too effective as a chairman Pachauri may be achieving Dubya's aims, inadvertently. . dave souza, talk 18:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus story overruled the incerntainties in the FAR, lead to Kyoto and may have backfired. If the IPCC would have kept a low profile, like Eurostat, we might have seen a working emmission trading scheme, low key, but working. Industry - especially in Germany - is quite keen on regulation that allows to sell machinery, Peter Löscher had tried to rebuilt the whole Siemens conglomerate ready for green energy. The concept failed for Desertec due to the arab spring and in Germany due to the strict landscape regulation, which didnt allow for giant windparks in the Wadden Sea, offshore and on land is way to expensive. The decisive conflict was between protection of climate and protection of the Wadden Sea UNESCO heritage. Humanities versus Technocracy 2:0. ;) Serten II (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit & cleanup
I went through recent edits and additions. Hopefully it reads better now.

I don't understand Note 10, "Compare the VIAF entry and Laframboises blog". It would be helpful to add ISBNs to the book cites. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thnx! Btw, I do not doubt that she has a degree, but the only source we have is her personal blog. Lets assume good faith for that. Viaf entry, where I found the Lillyhammer country coauthors. Vennlig hilsen fra Tyskland ;) Serten II (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto, the date sequence and topics re global warming were rather mixed up, I've reorganised the section so clarify the topics and show the IPCC response. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thny for the copyedting to all. To start some nittipicky, the actual review IAC disclosed actual weaknesses in the dealings with grey literature. Citing rules doesnt show wether they have a practical value or are being followed. Btw where is the ring of ExxonMordor now? I was told the US are ruled now by Holdren and other knights of the good side of the force. Serten II (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

EIKE
is clearly a climate denial organization. It pretends to be an institute but seems to consist only of a club and a mailbox. It does not do any research. There are no climatologist members. No one takes them seriously except other deniers. I cannot access the seven-year-old source for the sentence in the article that they are "climate change skeptics" but today it is known that they are just a primitive denialist organization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can access the seven-year-old source. It doesn't mention Jäger or EIKE or any kind of "leugner", it mentions only one "Klimaskeptiker" (Christopher Monckton). So the sentence is just an unsourced statement about an organization with (apparently) no direct connection to Ms Laframboise. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. That means the unsourced statement can go. I deleted it, and also the other ephemeral "who translated it" stuff. It does not belong in a biography. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)