I nominate Dr. Peter Gleick for the first annual Walter Duranty award

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Roger L. Simon writes on PJ Media:

Starting this year, PJ Media, in conjunction with our good friends at The New Criterion, will be awarding the first annual Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity.

Walter Duranty – it will be recalled — was the New York Times’ Moscow correspondent in the 1920s and 1930s who whitewashed Joseph Stalin’s forced mass starvation of the Ukrainians (the Holodomor) and many other aspects of Soviet oppression.

The Duranty Award

Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his efforts.

Despite numerous attempts by Ukrainian organizations and others, the prize has never been revoked. Duranty’s photograph remains in its honored place on the New York Times’ wall along with the newspaper’s other Pulitzer winners.

The first annual Duranty Prize will be given for what our readers consider the most egregious example of dishonest reporting for the fiscal year 2011-2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012).

We will be officially accepting nominations from PJM and TNC readers starting May 1, 2012, at Duranty@pjmedia.com (but if you want to go ahead now, no one’s going to stop you – the email address is functioning).

A Duranty Prize Committee of seven journalists and writers will then sift the nominations and decide the winner (or winners) to be announced at a ceremony in New York in the Fall.

===============================================================

While I considered Dr. Michael Mann for his recent book contributions, it seemed inappropriate since this was about dishonest journalism, not delusional self-promotion.

That of course leaves Dr. Peter Gleick, of the Pacific Institute and his “Fakegate” crimes, duping reporters at Newspapers and other media (Guardian and BBC, plus Revkin at NYT for example) that should have known better, into reporting a trumped up story based on Gleick’s self admitted deception to steal documents from the Heartland Institute, plus a “fake” document, to give an otherwise mundane set of documents “legs” for a compliant press.

Leo Hickman, Suzanne Goldenberg, and company at the Guardian, plus Richard Black at the BBC thought they had a bona fide leak of incriminating information on the funding of climate skeptics by the Heartland Institute. Turns out they were played for fools by Gleick and when he was cornered by skeptics following the evidence, admitted to his phishing and dishonest impersonation to create a false news story, in a Huffington Post confession here.

I doing so, Gleick has broken both state and Federal Laws. I’m told that actions are pending.

Here’s a review of some salient points:

Some notes on the Heartland Leak

Notes on the faked Heartland document

If the sceptics’ conspiracy was real, why fake the evidence?

BREAKING: Gleick Confesses

NCSE accepts Gleick’s resignation

Dr. Peter Gleick may have run afoul of a new cyber-impersonation law in California

Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

Heartland Institute Releases Peter Gleick Emails Detailing Fraud, Identity Theft

Peter Gleick requests leave of absence from Pacific Institute

Koch takes the NYT and Revkin to task

Gleick declares in Mann’s book review (after phishing Heartland) – “there IS a war on”

Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

Gleick and Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 1343

Gleick and the HP “Pretexting” Scandal

Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger

Gleick and the Watergate Burglars

=========

Given the uproar and that journalistic train wrecks Dr. Gleick has spawned with his dishonesty, and since he has played the role of science journalist in the past, writing for Forbes, Huffington Post, as well as other opinion pieces in science magazines and journals, I think he more than qualifies for the first annual Walter Duranty award.

For those that may think Gleick doesn’t qualifies as a journalist, I add this update from his Wikipedia Page, which shows him acting in that capacity:

Gleick is the editor of the biennial series on the state of the world’s water, called The World’s Water,[4] published by Island Press, Washington, D.C., regularly provides testimony to the United States Congress and state legislatures, and has published many scientific articles. He serves as a major source of information on water and climate issues for the media, and has been featured on CNBC, CNN, Fox Business, Fresh Air with Terry Gross [18], NPR, in articles in The New Yorker,[19] and many other outlets. He has also been featured in a wide range of water-related documentary films, including Jim Thebaut’s documentary “Running Dry”[20], Irena Salina‘s feature documentary Flow: For Love of Water,[21], accepted for the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, and and Jessica Yu and Elise Pearlstein’s 2011 feature documentary Last Call at the Oasis from Participant Media.[22] In 2010 his book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water was published by Island Press.[23] He served on the scientific advisory boards of Thirst, Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk, and other water-related films.

And let’s not forget his numerous articles on Forbes and Huffington Post.

As PJ Media says in their posting:

We will be officially accepting nominations from PJM and TNC readers starting May 1, 2012, at Duranty@pjmedia.com (but if you want to go ahead now, no one’s going to stop you – the email address is functioning).

I’ve sent in mine, WUWT readers are of course welcome to second that nomination.

h/t to WUWT reader Kelly Haughton

About these ads

80 thoughts on “I nominate Dr. Peter Gleick for the first annual Walter Duranty award

  1. This may be the most contested award… ever. To stand out among your peers in the MSM as most unabashed liar is no small feat.

  2. There are so many worthy candidates, deciding who to nominate is very difficulty. But given Gleick’s lying and (more than likely) fabrication of the smoking gun document, this might put him at the top of the list. Only problem is, he’s not a journalist (or a scientist, or ethical, or….).

  3. Yes it’s time to give some prices to alarmists who over-exaggerate the climate alarm or conduct fraud or misconduct to promote their case.

  4. The problem is that while Gleick has been pretty much proved to be an egregious liar, he’s not a journalist. I don’t think he’s eligible.

    Krugman has been nominated for a lifetime achievement Duranty Award.

    Maybe we could nominate Romm for the Duranty Award for Environmental Journalism. Or Philip Campbell, “editor” of Nature.

    • Regarding those who don’t think Gleick qualifies as a journalist, read this from his Wikipedia entry:

      Gleick is the editor of the biennial series on the state of the world’s water, called The World’s Water,[4] published by Island Press, Washington, D.C., regularly provides testimony to the United States Congress and state legislatures, and has published many scientific articles. He serves as a major source of information on water and climate issues for the media, and has been featured on CNBC, CNN, Fox Business, Fresh Air with Terry Gross [18], NPR, in articles in The New Yorker,[19] and many other outlets. He has also been featured in a wide range of water-related documentary films, including Jim Thebaut’s documentary “Running Dry”[20], Irena Salina’s feature documentary Flow: For Love of Water,[21], accepted for the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, and and Jessica Yu and Elise Pearlstein’s 2011 feature documentary Last Call at the Oasis from Participant Media.[22] In 2010 his book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water was published by Island Press.[23] He served on the scientific advisory boards of Thirst, Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk, and other water-related films.

      And let’s not forget his numerous articles on Forbes and Huffington Post.

  5. If Gleik is the “Stalin” in this then it would be anybody that covered this fiasco as being the “Walter Duranty.”

    Now…who did their best to white wash what Gleik did, for a gullible readership? Might we keep the award in house and give it to Revkin? Seth Borenstein would certainly be a finalist for his continued quoting of the faked document, even after finding out the document was a fake! Talk about the spirit of Duranty. Wazhisname, that BBC guy, also.

  6. Nominating Gleik is not a good idea if there are actions pending, imho
    let the law take its course

  7. I think this is the wrong tack. There are many true journalists who fit the category better and deserve a Duranty. What we OUGHT to do is start our own Gleich Award, given to the scientist who shows the greatest disregard for honesty, morality, or ethics in their pursuit of pushing a non-scientific agenda through their work.

  8. I always wondered who schnozzle Duranty was when I was a kid.So this Pinocchio award fittingly goes to Peter Gleick. I bet his brother can do another chapter on chaos theory. Excellent book by the brother.

  9. And while we are thinking about awards. What about the tireless efforts of a certain frequent poster here to cleanse Wikipedia of all truth on the climate question? That should earn him some sort of recognition.

  10. I nominate Nicholas Stern for:

    The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released for the British government on 30 October 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and also chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) at Leeds University and LSE. The report discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy. Although not the first economic report on climate change, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.[1]

  11. I’m going to nominate William Connolley. We can’t have the legions of MSM liars being unchallenged their online counterparts.

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

  12. Anthony:

    I am not nominating ANYBODY until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit weighs in. If anyone can top your recommendations it will be him, Then I will see if it’s still worth the thought to catalog all those miscreants…

    In the meantime surely you have nailed possibly the most deserving recent candidate.

    Then there is Warwick Hughes’ little blue book of climatologists I could never love.

    Then there is the crop of “reporters” and “commentators” on MSNBC…

    Get out the popcorn!

  13. That effusive self-important geek, Gleick, shouldn’t be nominated for any award, however dubious. What he should be nominated for is going to jail, please. Or for record rank incompetence for this unkempt bearded Berkeley leftist. What a clown.

  14. I think you meant to write “compliant press”, not “complaint press”. Although they do complain a lot.

  15. This might be limited to journalists so the sad case of Dr Trick might not qualify. Mind you he did blog and that is a form of journalism. He’s got my vote although I think he will be in tough with the Phony Kony bunch.

  16. I don’t know – Gleick as ‘journalist’. Hmmm…..gives him cover for scientific escapaes …?

  17. Krazykiwi

    I agree – William Connolley should be the nominee. As the gatekeeper from Wikipedia, he has probably done more than any other individual to keep the truth about ‘climate change’ from the general public.

    In comparison, Peter Gleick is a harmless, albeit cranky, lightweight.

  18. “… when he was corned by skeptics…”

    Corned???? What, they marinated him in brine containing garlic, peppercorns, and cloves?

    How bizarre…

  19. I love this idea! I am not in the loop on things, but could it be awarded at the Hearland event and make this an annual event?

  20. “While I considered Dr. Michael Mann for his recent book contributions, it seemed inappropriate since this was about dishonest journalism, not delusional self-promotion.”

    Yee-ouch! :-D

  21. I think that Mumbles McGuirke has the right idea: We need a dedicated award for climate research mendancy or at least scientific mendancy — journalistic fraud is so **** wide-spread that we almost have to specialize to get across the idea that our information gate-keepers are telling porkies.

  22. Are you kidding me? Seth Borenstein of the AP has to be right near the top of biased and alarmist reporting. Everything penned by Borenstein is the most god awful tripe posing as science I’ve ever seen. He is just a pompous very ill informed schlub spewing lies and misinformation, not a Science Journalist.

  23. I think it’s unfair to have to pick one. There should be at least 150 spots on that prize every year.

  24. There should be a well-publicized short list of runners-up. This is such a target rich environment that it would be a shame to use up the annual award on just one scoundrel.

    They should whittle the list down to a dozen or twenty names, with a short blurb explaining why each one made the semifinals. Gleick may be the odds-on favorite, but for the amount of real damage done to science and honest scientists, I would have to vote for Michael Mann. And then there’s the single-handed destroyer of Wikipedia credibility, Billy Connolley…

  25. I abhor contests where there can be ONLY ONE winner.
    In this field, there are a “rising sea level boat-load” of deserving winners.

    Just thinking off the top of my head…
    the units of measurement could be “Pinocchios”.
    The event is a documented statement, with link.
    The author of that statement earns from 0 to 10 Pinocchios depending upon the damage to our understanding of the world.
    True statements in situations where they don’t apply might earn 1.
    Statements that ignore and are counter to well known historical facts might earn 3-6.
    Statements or acts that rewrite historical facts might earn the full 10.

    This system by design allows for accumulating scores by author over the year, multiple years, and for lifetime achievement.
    Prizes are awarded to anyone above 3 sigma in the distribution.
    Honorable mention to anyone above 2 sigma.
    The process is it’s own documentation.
    Would it work as a crowd source project?

  26. Mr. Watts, a couple of typos found in your otherwise excellent piece:
    I suspect you meant “compliant press” instead of “complaint press”, since they could stand to do a lot more complaining about the lies they are fed by some people.
    And I hope what you meant by “…he was corned by skeptics…” was actually “…he was cornered by skeptics”, although he may have indeed deserved rougher treatment.

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

  27. I second Mumbles McGuirk’s proposal (April 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm) to establish a Gleick Prize to be awarded to “…the scientist who shows the greatest disregard for honesty, morality, or ethics in their pursuit of pushing a non-scientific agenda through their work.” If this motion passes, I then nominate MMann to be the first recipient.

  28. Somewhat off-topic, but I have particular interest in the Ukraine famine in question. My grandfather published one of the very few records of the event. We still have the camera he used, and my niece would very much like to get hold of the original book, which our family has lost. I know there are several copies about, but cannot locate any.

    If anyone has ever heard of a copy, please do let me know.

    The author is “Alexander Wienerberger”, the name of the book is either one of the two mentioned here:

    http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL465033A/Alexander_Wienerberger

    Hart auf hart
    or
    The 1932-33 original photographs from Kharkiv, Ukraine

    but may well be in Russian (my mother cannot remember)

    Any details would be gratefully received by email at Alexander.Wienerberger at processmapping.com.au

    Thanks in advance for any information!

  29. What is needed is a set of “Climate Oscars”. The Gleick Award, the Dan Rather “Fake But Accurate” Award, the Michael Mann “Censored FTP” Award, The Phil Jones “Pal Review” Award, the James Hansen “Boiling Oceans” Award, etc., etc. This would require an evening’s ceremony (maybe in conjuction with the Heartland Conference) where an appropriate statuete could be handed out.

    Hmm, this could be fun!

  30. Gleick has managed to convince a lot of people that he’s a Scientist (I am obviously not one of them), but I doubt the same holds true for Journalist, no matter what his puff sheet says.

    This award should be reserved for full-time “professional” “journalists” such as Borenstein, Revkin, and at the top of my list, the Beeb’s Richard Black.

    Maybe legend-in-his-own-mind Gleick could get an honorable mention in the amateur catagory.

  31. Should be Al Gore for his An Inconvienient Truth. He was a reporter in Vietnam so he qualifies on multiple counts.

  32. On the evidence presented I think Gleick will be hard to beat. In most competitions there is usually only a whisker between the top contenders but in this case I think that Glieck is head and shoulders above his nearest rivals.
    He makes the others look like mere amateurs. It is a bit like watching Suleymanoglu at the Seoul Olympics or Tyson versus George Formby…

  33. Jer0me says:
    April 25, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    Somewhat off-topic, but I have particular interest in the Ukraine famine in question. My grandfather published one of the very few records of the event. We still have the camera he used, and my niece would very much like to get hold of the original book, which our family has lost. I know there are several copies about, but cannot locate any.

    If anyone has ever heard of a copy, please do let me know.

    The author is “Alexander Wienerberger”, the name of the book is either one of the two mentioned here:

    http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL465033A/Alexander_Wienerberger

    Hart auf hart
    or
    The 1932-33 original photographs from Kharkiv, Ukraine

    ========

    http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=Alexander+Wienerberger&bt.x=61&bt.y=10&sts=t

    http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=Alexander+Wienerberger&mtype=B&hs.x=20&hs.y=7

    for interest:

    http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/thomas_walker/muss_russland_hungern.htm

    The 1932-33 original photographs from Kharkiv, Ukraine – a couple of places did have it listed, but not available.

  34. I hope these guys have got good lawyers as I suspect whoever wins the prize may not be too pleased about it.

  35. Geoffrey Lean and Louise Grey of the Daily Telegraph should be worth a (dis)honourable mention!

  36. There should a a Lysenko Award for corruptly, lying, cheating scientists.

    The Duranty award should be kept inept, lying skanky journalists.

  37. Affizzyfist says:
    April 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    OT but did anyone record the Australian ABC TV climate show and the debate afterwards?
    ——————————————————————-
    Fizzy,

    You can watch them tomorrow on the ABC website:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/

    by clicking on iView and selecting or searching for the program you want. But, they haven’t been shown yet – it’s Thursday morning 9.30am here and they are on tonight, so wait 24 hours.

  38. Well if you look at the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners, which includes Israeli and US war criminals, then you will get a grip of why these prizes exists. It is to legitimise the unlegitimisable. It is all part of the back-speak of our masters whose mendacity knows no bounds. And people swallow it. So why should they not do these things?

  39. Don Keiller says:
    April 25, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    I nominate Heartland.
    Why haven’t they filed charges against Gleick ?

    They have filed a complaint. It isn’t up to them to file charges.

    As for this award. As it’s for downright dishonest journalism, we can’t prove Black and others are dishonest, Gleik on the other hand has admitted to the dishonesty. OK, he’s not admitted to authoring the strategy memo but without it, the rest was a damp squib only confirming what was already known.

    Has my nomination!

    DaveE.

  40. YEAH. I’d go with William Connelley, since no one knows how long the deceit has gone on – or who he is. Maybe this deserves a thread and a vote, Anthony?

    Peter Miller says:
    April 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    Krazykiwi

    I agree – William Connolley should be the nominee. As the gatekeeper from Wikipedia, he has probably done more than any other individual to keep the truth about ‘climate change’ from the general public.

    In comparison, Peter Gleick is a harmless, albeit cranky, lightweight.

  41. While I approve of the tactic of reducing things to absurdity, and getting people to laugh at the sorry situation we find ourselves in, we also need to face the deadly seriousness of the dangerous times we are living amidst.

    Allow me to introduce the concept of the “éminence grise.”

    This is the sly dude working behind the scenes to influence the mind or minds of the somewhat too-trusting person or people receiving advise. There are cases where the advisor is good and the advice is good, however the cases that stand out in history are usually the cases where the advice is bad, and in some cases treasonous.

    In fiction a fine example of a bad “éminence grise” is Wormtongue, poisoning the mind of the king of the Rohan. It took a wizard like Gandalf to snap the king out of the evil enchantment he was under.

    In English history there was this fellow named Sir Horace Wilson, who was in the position to buffer Chamberlain from hard facts he needed to face, and who worked to make sure Churchhill’s advice wasn’t heeded, or even heard. Wilson was the peace-loving Chamberlain’s “Wormtongue.”

    We now live in a time where the media is jammed with lemmings who hardly can be called the cause of evil, for they are basically invertebrate copy-cats doing what they are told. The real “Wormtongues” are those who stand above the others, making extraordinary efforts to distort and pervert the Truth, (which is the essence of bad advice and evil.)

    The real award we need is a “Wormtongue Award.”

    A number of names pop into my head, the names of famous Environmental Writers and famous Climate Scientists, men who have lived plushly and spent lavishly and enjoyed all the fruits you earn when you sell your soul to the devil, but now face judgment days of various sorts.

    However, as the “éminence grise” of the innocent American college student, (students naively looking for truth in all the wrong places,) I agree with Krazykiwi, and what he said April 25, 2012 at 12:57 pm.

    Few have been the position to pervert and distort so much Truth, and have done so with such abject dedication, to the harm of so many young truth-seekers.

    Therefore, for the first Wormtongue Award, I would like to nominate William Connolley.

  42. Peter Whale says:
    April 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    I always wondered who schnozzle Duranty was when I was a kid.
    ————————————————————————————————————-
    You`re getting Duranty confused with Durante, Schnozzle Durante would be Jimmy Durante

    To quote Jimmy “Everybody wants ta get inta the act!”,

  43. See, I told you Gleick deserved a medal for his mendacity and bodacious exploits. Soon, they will be naming buildings after him. Afterwards, an appointment in Obama’s cabinet.

  44. Bravo, Byron! I waded though all the comments intending to do what you did, if no one else beat me to it.

    But you did it even better!

    So,as the Great Schnozzolla himself would have but it, Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash….

  45. I agree, Everybody wants to get inta the act.

    I nominate Gleick and Revkin. What a team!! They are both smarter than most all of us about being smart and both dumber than a clod of dirt when it comes to real world issues. Hands down winners.

  46. Post and comments were replete with malaprops, it seems. Here’s another:
    “climate research mendancy or at least scientific mendancy” (Rhoda R.)
    That would be “mendacity”, thinks I.

  47. Suzanne Goldenberg for her “work” in the Guardian. She supplies a regiular diet of misleading and frequently spiteful articles, almost always refusing to activate the “comments” section which would enable her egregious errors to be pointed out.
    Damian Carrington, at the same newspaper, for his editorial “control” over the Environmental Section.

  48. I should like to nominate Suzanne Goldenberg for her “work” in the Guardian. She has supplied a constant stream of biased, erroneous and spiteful articles, almost invariably refusing to turn on the comments to enable her errors to be corrected.

  49. I say W M Connolley.

    He’s done more damage and like various others is unrepentant and still making things slide sideways, even if via his trained successors. He got Tim Ball kicked off Wikipedia altogether, the neatest way of hiding the one professor who saw and stood up to the corruption right from the start and thus has unique historical material too. Thanks to support here at WUWT I replaced the page at Wikipedia under my own namespace. I smile to think I chose my user name long before I knew of the Climate Science corruption. I check regularly to ensure Tim Ball’s page is still there. And it could do with updating by anyone interested.

    There’s Bob Ward too, insanely attacking Martin Durkin who produced the last major hope for getting sane climate science out to a wide audience.

    There’s Al Gore who inflamed the world with a serially-misrepresenting popular film which hasn’t got a stitch of real truth in it.

    There’s Iain Stewart and Brian Cox, hunky he-men to make the women swoon and forget that science has to be about uncertainties explored with rigour.

    And many other eminence grises who set up the Revkins, Blacks, Higmans and Monbiots to respond with appropriate knee-jerk reactions.

    In a funny way, compared with all the above, Gleick seems small fry and has already had a good roasting here. We had Moshpit of the Yard on his case, hours after the crime was committed, and the faithful baying hounds of WUWT for months afterwards.

  50. Yeah, three awards.

    Duranty Award for lying and corrupt journalism
    Lysenko Award for lying and corrupt science
    Wormtongue Award for corruption of primary info sources

    And I’d nominate Ben Santer, David Suzuki and Maurice Strong along with WMC for the Wormtongue Award, and Pachauri and Bert Bolin along with Mann for the Lysenko Award.

    Now OTOH, can we think up awards for the polar opposites of the above? What journalist do we know who risked life and limb to expose some heinous corruption? In my locality there was Jill Dando… But hey, we have Anthony Watts right here… Or perhaps John Daly would be a fitting nameholder for this award… And what scientist do we know, ditto, from our times rather than Galileo or Bruno? in my books Tim Ball comes close… And what individual do we know who paid the price for standing up to primary corruption? There was Irene Sendler who helped Jews escape, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize but lost out to Al Gore…

  51. “I nominate Dr. Peter Gleick for the first annual Walter Duranty award”

    Certainly it would be more efficient to just hand out awards for good journalism to the remaining handful of reporters that are honest and impartial.

  52. I thing Gleick belongs in Lenin’s category of “useful idiots”, and we shall see what happens in due course in the courts, but as soon as I think of Black, I think of the whole BBC. It is riddled with the AGW concept, top to bottom, side to side.
    Do you know, in England at present we have an officially declared drought, yet it has rained solid for a week, and there are numerous flood warnings “.
    Seriously folks you couldn’t make it up. yet despite all this, last night the BBC was showing those brave idiots rowing to the North Pole, (sorry the north magnetic pole), oh wait a minute (the north magnetic pole’s position many years ago), and they were blocked by ice programme.
    So for me, this continual drip drip drip of biased programming from the BBC is well up there for its cumulative effect on our whole population.

  53. PaddikJ says:
    April 25, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Gleick has managed to convince a lot of people that he’s a Scientist (I am obviously not one of them), but I doubt the same holds true for Journalist, no matter what his puff sheet says.

    This award should be reserved for full-time “professional” “journalists” such as Borenstein, Revkin, and at the top of my list, the Beeb’s Richard Black.

    Maybe legend-in-his-own-mind Gleick could get an honorable mention in the amateur catagory.

    Yes, and no. Since Gleick himself categorizes himself as a journalist, he qualifies for nomination. Since his acts were not only damaging and dishonest but illegal as well, he climbs quickly to the top of the nominee list.

    However, this is a Pajamas Media “Award” not restricted to climate alarmists so he’ll have very tough competition with the likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman (to name just two).

  54. Haven’t the time to read all the comments or dig into the process, but I hope the organization or person awarding this is able to maintain control of the award, or else it could become as corrupted as the Pulitzer and Nobel Peace prizes and end up being awarded to someone like Anthony eventually.

    Senator Proxmire of WI used to award his annual “Golden Fleece” to the most outrageous example of wasteful government spending. It was quite effective, in that it always got a lot of press, but he maintained personal control of the process and it died with his retirement. The same should be true of this Duranty award, methinks.

    Given that, this award, and other similar awards of ridicule, could possibly be effective. Certainly there’s no lack of material.

    This recent comment, for example, cries out for the creation of a biased/blind/humorless/chicken media award of some sort:

    “With Barack Obama in the White house, there is simply no one in the administration to make fun of. It’s been a very frustrating few years. On the other hand, if Romney is elected, there will be limitless material. Romney is funny, you see. The Obamas? I mean, there is just nothing that lends itself to parody.” – Anonymous NBC producer

  55. Sent the suggestion of an annual Peter Gleich award to the Heartland Institute, but I think it’s too late to organize anything for this year.

  56. LexingtonGreen says:
    April 25, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    I love this idea!
    ——————————-
    Yes, yes, yes!

Comments are closed.