Summary of #67 Donna Laframboise: “Every time I turn over a rock, I find another scandal”

00:00:00 - 00:45:00

In this video, journalist Donna Laframboise exposes the lack of accountability and transparency within the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), particularly in its production of scientific reports on climate change. Laframboise found that the IPCC was run by bureaucrats rather than scientists and exposed conflicts of interest among lead authors who had links to green organizations. She also discovered that not all of the citations in the IPCC reports came from peer-reviewed sources, challenging the organization's claim. Laframboise emphasizes the importance of analyzing information for oneself and not blindly trusting institutions such as governments, media, and scientific bodies that have failed in their responsibilities to the public.

• 00:00:00 In this section of the video, journalist Donna Laframboise explains how she became interested in examining the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) and its reports on climate change. Laframboise found that everything that she had been told about the IPCC turned out not to be true, and she discovered that many journalists had done a poor job of fact-checking and investigating the organization. She believes that journalists are predisposed to trust a U.N. body like the IPCC and that this tendency, combined with a left-leaning perspective, leads to laziness and a lack of thorough investigation. Initially, Laframboise began blogging about the issue, which eventually led to two books on the topic.
• 00:05:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise talks about how her book, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert," exposed the lack of accountability and enforcement mechanisms within the UN body, IPCC, responsible for producing scientific reports on climate change. She discovered that the organization was run by bureaucrats rather than scientists and that the reports it produced were problematic. She then goes on to discuss how the IPCC's lead authors' credentials were not as impressive as initially touted and how some Greenpeace members were involved in writing reports. The conversation then shifts to the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC for climate activism, which Laframboise finds problematic given Gore's lack of scientific background.
• 00:10:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise discusses conflicts of interests in the IPCC, especially how lead authors of IPCC reports have links to green organizations. She argues that this is a profound conflict of interest because green organizations are not likely to have staff who are open-minded about whether climate change is a crisis or not. She also mentions the claim by the IPCC that everything is based on peer-reviewed science, which she found not to be true. Despite the fact that peer review is not an assurance of accuracy, the claim misled many people into believing that the IPCC reports were trustworthy. Laframboise found that some chapters of the IPCC reports cited sources that were not peer-reviewed, which further undermines the claim of the IPCC.
• 00:15:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise explains how she initiated the Citizen Audit project, which examined the citations within the IPCC report and assessed whether they came from peer-reviewed sources. Laframboise and a team of volunteers discovered approximately a third of citations did not come from peer-reviewed literature, thus challenging the IPCC's claim that its report was completely based on peer-reviewed material. Although the Citizen Audit received little media attention, Laframboise believes that it impacted the IPCC's false claim about peer-reviewed literature. She also notes how the authority of scientific bodies is at risk if they do not validate institutions such as the IPCC and conduct their own investigations.
• 00:20:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise discusses her disillusionment with the scientific community and its handling of climate science. She questions why scientists did not call out the IPCC chairman's misleading statements about the peer-review process and the quality of the lead authors. Laframboise explains that the authors were nominated by governments, which she believes introduces bias, and the selection criteria used by the IPCC account for diversity, not scientific expertise. She argues that this lack of transparency and accountability within the scientific community raises concerns about what else scientists could be hiding or lying about.
• 00:25:00 In this section of the video, author Donna Laframboise discusses the lack of transparency and deception within the UN regarding their reports. The scientists involved are not qualified or able to address important topics because it is predetermined what will be addressed and what will not. The outline is a meticulous document that adheres to strict criteria and length limits, and even feedback from scientists is dismissed if it requires changes or additions to the final report. The result is a heavily managed report, lacking real scientific impact or significance, that the public is supposed to trust as being based on peer-reviewed literature, when in fact it may only be two-thirds based on science.
• 00:30:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise explains the process of creating the IPCC report summary documents which are widely read by journalists, policymakers, and the public. She notes that scientists draft the summaries which are then reviewed and edited by a committee of diplomats, bureaucrats, and environmental officials from all over the world. These summaries are highly politically negotiated documents that often bear little resemblance to the original reports written by scientists. Laframboise notes that there is so little science left in the summaries, and they often get released before the full report gets released, contrary to conventional scientific procedure. The IPCC report's purpose is to facilitate a political instrument, a treaty amongst nations, and as long as the treaty exists, the IPCC report will continue to be updated.
• 00:35:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise discusses the issue of climate change jobs and the potential pushback that arises when discussing cutting those jobs. She also talks about how the United Nations uses a similar model to the IPCC in other areas related to the environment. She then introduces her new book, which discusses the treatment of truckers in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they were suddenly deemed non-essential workers and required to be fully vaccinated to continue their cross-border trucking. She highlights the impact this decision had on their livelihoods and questions the lack of data to support this decision.
• 00:40:00 In this section, Donna Laframboise discusses her upcoming book "Thank You Truckers", which will be a collection of interviews with truckers and supporters who participated in the three-week protest in Ottawa against vaccine mandates. The book will be a tribute to the truckers and the community who supported them, showcasing the thank-you notes, letters, and drawings from children that they received during the protest. Laframboise also mentions a children's book she wrote titled "Oppa's Convoy Letters," which uses little snippets from these thank-you notes and letters to show people the part of the story about the truckers that was ignored by the media.
• 00:45:00 In this section, the guest Donna Laframboise emphasizes the importance of analyzing things for oneself and not relying on institutions such as the government, media, and science bodies that have failed us. She believes that we are on our own and need to use our own brains to gather information from reliable sources and avoid blindly trusting the information those institutions provide. She also mentions the Shadow Banning issue on Twitter and why she had given up on the platform, but is now trying again since things appear to be opening up a little more.