This statement was issued today from the IPCC, which appears to be inspired by the recent claims of Dr. Michael Mann in the lawsuit against NRO that we discussed here and here. The colored bold text in the paragraph below is my emphasis, otherwise it is presented as it was released. A source link to the original press release follows.
Reviewing what has transpired for Dr. Mann recently, this quote comes to mind:
A mann’s GOT to know his limitations – Harry Calahan, Magnum Force
– Anthony
2012/12/ST
IPCC STATEMENT
Statement about the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its work on climate change, together with former US Vice-‐President Al Gore.
In its citation, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said that the IPCC and Mr Gore shared the prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-‐made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. In its announcement the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated that through the scientific reports it had issued over the past two decades, the IPCC had created an ever-‐broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming, and that thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries had collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming.
The prize was awarded at the end of the year that saw the IPCC bring out its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.
For more information contact:
IPCC Press Office, Email: ipcc-‐media@wmo.int
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
h/t to Chris Horner
UPDATE: Dr. Mann posted on his Facebook page today this scan of a letter from the IPCC dated October 30th:
The press release from the IPCC was authored on October 29th according to the document properties in the PDF file. There is no hint in Dr. Mann’s Facebook page statement today of any apology or walkback for Dr. Mann claiming to have been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” and that on the NRO lawsuit complaint itself NRO was accused of the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In contrast to Dirty Harry’s boss, Mann is unlikely to be blown to bits…
REPLY: Nor would we want him to be. He’s the climate skeptic’s best weapon – Anthony
The entire IPCC team of fraudsters just got pwned
Didn’t Pachauri claim Nobel prize winning status?
Michael Mann tweeted at 1.30pm a link to a photo on his Facebook page
“On the IPCC’s Nobel Prize Guidance [facebookurl]”
Here is the page
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=441602745895933&set=a.221233134599563.54502.221222081267335&type=1
As you will see it is a letter from the IPCC, confirming that they really did issue a certificate to Dr Mann.
Here is the associated text written by Mann when posting the image to Facebook:
On the IPCC’s Nobel Prize Guidance
There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion.
After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinatin
g lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either “shared” or were a “co-recipient” of the award.
To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter (see letter above and also this statement by the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf ). I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.
re: Pachauri – here’s an example – though to be fair, its possibly the media that get it wrong some of the time!
http://www.wec.org/news/nobel-laureate-r-k-pachauri-discussed-key-climate-change-issues-at-wec-forum
“…were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.”
Which of the above categories does Mann come under.?
I can’t help but wonder: Given this statement and the statements of the Nobel Committee, and given that Mann has claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in sworn legal documents, what is the likelihood of perjury charges being brought?
As a karate expert…
Kev: here’s Yale Environment360 claiming the untrue: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_conversation_with_nobel_prize_winner_rajendra_pachauri/2006/
Google has 68,000 mentions of Pachauri as Nobel Prize Winner. I guess once the Untrue takes hold, it’s hard not to be swamped by it.
I don’t suppose Mann has gained many friends over this little debacle. Quite a few of his team mates are going to have to change their CV’s and drop some of their more outlandish claims to sainthood. Even Trenberth might have to drop from distinquished senior climate scientist back down to a mere climate journeyman.
Ivor Ward
Dang, that’s gonna leave a mark … 😉
WOW !!
Just the fact that the IPCC would even concern themselves with this says a lot !!
Mann’s not the only one:
“He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC.”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Who wrote this??? “Monckton’s assertions aren’t confined to science; he has even claimed, falsely, to have won the Nobel Prize.”
Did anybody guess Michael E. Mann (Chapter 5 of his book)???
The important question is — did the IPCC advise Mann not to call himself a Nobel Prize winner prior to Mann filing the false claim with the court? Does anyone have evidence of this?
Actually, about Pachauri at least, there might be a case of misleading advertising: http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/rajendra-pachauri
“…were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.”
This is most likely a carefully walked line aimed at supporting Mann, well sort of, while still condemning Monckton.
The points are:
1. Mann’s defense, is “my certificate is genuine, really from the IPCC”. Of course this was never the issue, but it plays on the fact that some people initially thought Mann had made his own certificate as well as claiming to be a Nobel prize winner. So this statement from the IPCC, and the other statement on Mann’s website from the IPCC, support this defense – “look Mann’s certificate is genuine!”.
2. In Mann’s book (chapter 5), Mann condemns Monckton’s joke (without mentioning it was a joke) claim to a share of the Nobel prize. Again these statements support Mann’s condemnation, sort of, because Mann was a lead author (therefore got a certificate), whereas Monckton was a reviewer (therefore did not get a certificate).
Finally, Pachauri’s TERI’s website has at least three pages where he is described as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
REPLY: Well, he did stand on the stage and accept the medal alongside Gore…so in his mind he surely believes it to be true for him. – Anthony
I can see Mike’s point, it’s just simple confusion over the exact terminology to use. For instance on my resume, I could claim that I am a former astronaut. I could also claim: “I once met an astronaut”. These things are just nuances of terminology and in the absence of guidance, how’s a guy to know how to properly state it?
The wheels on the bus go thump thump thump…
Would have been nice if the IPCC had documented the number of certificates awarded. Were Mann and Trenberth within a group of 100 or perhaps 1000 others?
Rule One of Holes – for the kind attenton of Dr. M. Mann:
When you find yourself in a hole – stop digging.
copner said on November 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm
“Michael Mann tweeted at 1.30pm a link to a photo on his Facebook page
As you will see it is a letter from the IPCC, confirming that they really did issue a certificate to Dr Mann.
Here is the associated text written by Mann when posting the image to Facebook: I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.”
———————————————————
A clever bit of spin by Mann, but transparent nonetheless. Mann is really going for broke. I can’t see any Judge agreeing with Mann’s view of this. Lundestad clearly said something quite different to what Mann implies he said.
Didn’t Mann have a similar dispute with a newspaper a while ago, claiming the newspaper had said one thing when in fact the newspaper had said the opposite. Anyone remember where that was and got a link to it ?
The gift that keeps on giving:
“Nobel Peace Prize-sharing climate scientist Andrew Weaver”
http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/377266/nobel-winning-climate-scientist-andrew-weaver-to-run-for-b-c-greens/
This, my friends, is a prime example of how to double down on stupid. He’s gonna ride that horse all the way to perdition, isn’t he?