Voting is open closed: ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award

Readers surely recall: Nominations are open for the first annual ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award.

The top nominations are in, now you can vote.

(poll is closed per original rules, result will posted Sunday night)

 

Only one vote per person, vote stuffing attempts are minimized by the design of the poll software.

Trenberth was added as  bonus option, even though he’s been relatively quiet recently. I recognize that readers had many more suggestions for nominations, but these are the ones most numerous in comments.

About these ads

122 thoughts on “Voting is open closed: ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award

  1. I voted for Mann. He stays busy. Gleick is the most spectacular of all time. But what has he done for us lately? While Mann is like the Everready Bunny. He just keeps churning out this crap.

  2. I’m running a get-out-the-vote campaign for Kevin Trenberth. Sure, he’s a dark horse running in a field of thorough-breeds like Michael Mann – but I just know he can do it. He tries so hard.

    GO KEVIN!!!!

  3. Al Gore is da’ man! Whenever you want to buy some sincere climate duplicity, he’s your go-to guy… and he stays bought. Well, at least until it’s time to get out ahead of the crash.

  4. Just incase: du·plic·i·ty
    d(y)o͞oˈplisitē/
    noun
    noun: duplicity

    1.
    deceitfulness; double-dealing.
    synonyms: deceitfulness, deceit, deception, double-dealing, underhandedness, dishonesty, fraud, fraudulence, sharp practice, chicanery, trickery, subterfuge, skulduggery, treachery;
    informalcrookedness, shadiness, dirty tricks, shenanigans, monkey business;
    literary: perfidy. “He got caught up in the duplicity of his crooked partners.”

    Trickery/dirty tricks lends itself to Mann.
    Shenanigans, monkey business, and chicanery to Lew.
    Fraud and underhandedness to Gleick.
    But I don’t see ‘basic idiot’, so I guess I am going to scratch Turney.
    And I am still out on Gore as to whether he is the classic ‘delusional messiah complex’ individual or something more.

    So I got it down to 3 candidates, so tough. Kinda wish we had (dis)approval voting and I could cast 3 votes.

  5. It’s gotta be Trenberth. He churns out more papers to find the elusively hidden heat than anyone.

  6. All so deserving. Maybe a lifetime achievement award for Mann, Trenberth & Gore. If it’s for the past year, I’m going to have to go with Lewdie or the Antarctic Iceman. Gleick would have been hands down winner for the 2012-13 duplicity season, so maybe a retroactive winner could be declared, with honorable mention for the dishonorable AGU for not perp walking the liar out of its Task Force on Science Integrity & the whole organization.

  7. I think it needs to be Gleick. As bad as some of the others are (“self”-ethics review, horrendous statistics, blind willfulness, refusal to debate, refusal to release data, etc.), none of them, so far as I am aware, actually went so far as to forge documents as part of a frame-up job.

  8. I still think “Climate Conniver” has more swing than “Climate Dupliciitst”–lots more.

    Lewdicrous Lew’s Lewdoscience takes the cake!

  9. I went with Mann – he’s the one that’s been most active this year. But actually, he and Al Gore could both receive life-time awards so then we could turn our attention to the also rans.

  10. ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award

    Have they changed the rules?
    …I understood that if you’ve won over 10 years in a row
    you get the lifetime achievement award

  11. I think it would be better if it were more like the college football polls: 5 points for first place, 4 for second, etc. down to 0 points for last place. It would provide a lot of information about the relative…. um…. notoriety of the candidates. Maybe someone could write up a Lewandowsky style attack paper based on the results.

  12. I cast my vote for Mann on the basis that his work has had by far the most impact. As a scientist myself, I am offended at how he operates, more like a politician than an actual scientist — never admits a mistake, just moves on. Michael Mann is a cartoon. It’s hard to understand how academia still takes him seriously.

  13. I went with Al Gore. Al Gore has made more money, is the most publicly visible, his lies have been far more widespread and widely quoted, not to mention that he made a lying movie for which he received numerous accolades. I agree with all that others have said so far about the candidates, but Al gets the prize. He may be the most duplicitous and untrustworthy character in all phases of his public life that I have ever seen.

  14. I had to vote for Turney simply because he has one of those faces that make me want to punch the screen every time his photo appears.

  15. We should do everything we can to have Mickey Mann at 9th International Conference on Climate Change

  16. Les Johnson stole my thunder — — it has to be “All of the Above” with Julia Gillard and Steven Mosher added as a bonus.

    Maybe we could call it the ‘Gore Hanson Lifetime (mal-)Feasance Award’ ?

  17. I understand the flight to little Mann with the voting, but the general public knows him not. Algore, on the other hand, is about as two faced as is possible and very publicly well known.

  18. The idea of impact is important, but it is not a vote for impact. While I understand the votes for Mann because of the topicality of the horrendous recent SciAm article, in my heart I think Mann actually believes some of this cr*p. The Lew doesn’t. To him it is a game he thinks he can win if he tries hard enough.

  19. Per usual I was the odd guy out. I voted for Chris Turney, the lowest vote getter in the poll. You have to admit though that someone who’s climate follies required the rescue attempts by two icebreakers; each from a different country, and one of which got itself stuck; the use of a helicopter; and the potential mobilization of a third mammoth icebreaker from a third country; and who’s dubious exploits were in the news on an almost daily basis, and during the Holidays to boot; certainly deserves at least an honorable (or, dishonorable, to be more precise) mention.

  20. Where’s the button for “All of the above”?

    If only someone on that list was noticeably more duplicitous or the others showed any merit. They’re all disgraceful and rank.

    Instead of a “Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award; how about we just nominate them for the “Duplicity Hall of Fame”? That way they get to stay listed forever; unless they do something terribly noble, like tell the truth the whole truth!

  21. Mann has to be the man, there’s simply no contest despite the strong field of candidates. It was the “faux pause” that clinched it for me.

  22. In my mind the hockey stick was the No 1 flagship of alarmism, it is still engraved on everyones mind no matter how debunked it has become, it has to be MICHAEL MANN,

    AL GORE- who’s that.

  23. I felt a tugging at my heartstrings to vote for Lew, but he is not actually a climate scientist. He’s not even a “citizen-climate-scientist”. So it was Gleick for me.

  24. Perhaps the MSM should have been on there, after all they have been the NO1 conduit for pushing all of this garbage.

  25. Peat,

    Thanks for clarifying my thinking. With three top choices it’s hard to decide using a coin toss (to decide Mann vs Gore vs. Lewandowski.

    I can eliminate Gore (only as a choice, sadly) since he is simply a caricature of the self-servingness of politicians and I think he’s become a joke beyond the skeptic community, limiting his damage.

    Lewandowski makes up polls (and ethics) to suit his agenda, but the former is what many psychologists also all too frequently do and get away with since their discipline is not really science. See the story about the graduate student Nick Brown who last year blew apart the mathematical deceptions upon which ‘positive psychology’ is based:

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown

    and the monumental self-destruction of not one but two eminent Belgian psychology professors in recent separate scandals due to following the discovery that their ‘scientific’ studies were fabricated, that resulted in their forced resignations:

    http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/25/following-investigation-erasmus-social-psychology-professor-retracts-two-studies-resigns/

    and the more famous of the two:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

    So that leaves Mann, who is supposed to be a real scientist, who therefore should accept critical assessments of his work, take pains to use the best practices available to his science, and who should be willing to adjust his thinking when the data goes against him, instead of trying to hide his data and methods, and fight criticisms with lawsuits.

    I’ll now vote for Mann.

  26. NOAA for their obscure adjustments with less revision history than wikipedia and their use of disproportionate coloring schemes in their maps.

  27. I voted for Gleick as he is one of the most spectacular climate liar of all time.

    We need a “life-time achievement” award for climate duplicity.

  28. Very US-centric field, some good runners haven’t made the cut. Even the Kenyan Emperor sees the need for fracking, but there are figures in the EU who will fight for the return of Medieval living standards to the bitter end and how the Figures (Sp) harridan missed an honourable mention I’ll never know. Some opportunities missed, I fear.

  29. I woulda voted for Al Gore, but he seems rather quiet lately.
    But speaking of wisdom, we were right?
    Here is # 14 out of 16 presented here:

    http://www.theospark.net/2014/03/flying-wisdom.html

    “14. Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding it.”
    ============
    It works both ways, don’t it ?

  30. I voted for the Mann.

    Without the profoundly self-contradictory nature of his work and book that inflicted very public self-incrimination in a scientific sense, then skeptics would have achieved less scientific communication effectiveness.

    John

  31. How did Laurence Topham aka..”Peanut Butter Milkshake Boy” not make the list?
    You asked for duplicity.
    In his Video Diary he says that his bed is hard and that he misses his girlfriend.

    Clearly this man has no girlfriend.
    I await you adding Mr. Topham to the Ballot.

  32. So the UK contingent didnt make it – like Tim Yeo (formerly in government regarding climate while holding directorships in renewable companies) Bob Ward, (who can be relied upon to lie about any piece of data or opinión that is not with the team), the BBC who have a chárter of impartiality but who have been shown to be totally partial…..etc. etc.

  33. Of course, in a way this is counter productive because the likes of Mann, Lewandowsky, or Gleick would revel in the infamy of such an award, thinking that they have actually achieved something countering skeptics rather than just being fraudulent, incompetent or criminal.

  34. I have now tried a different method. I closed my eyes, tossed a coin and came up with a climate model. Back to the drawing board.

  35. Oh my, so hard to pick. However after reading all the comments I swung over to M. Mann. Gore was my first thought but then, oh my, Lewandowski’s condem and punish the deniers rant had me going, ultimately, Mann gave us the infamous Hockey Stick, perhaps this award should be accompanied by a ceremoniously awarded lead hockey stick?

  36. I feel bad for the contestants running against Mann, they really don’t stand a chance. I know they all try so hard, but there’s simply no contest as long as Mann is in the running.

  37. I am surprised at how far behind Gore is (my pick). Of the people on the short list:

    Gore has made millions by promoting CAGW alarmism, and;
    Gore has made millions by investing in oil and gas, and;

    Is that not the very embodiment of duplicity?
    All Mann has going for him on that metric is some fake science.

  38. BTW, may I commend the people posting to this topic today. The wit and hilarity are off the charts! I’m thoroughly enjoying this thread!

  39. How do you get more duplicitist than holding the position of ethics guru at a major science organization than stealing an identity and forging a document?

  40. I only regret that I have but one vote to cast for Mikey Mann. Uh, oh, he’ll probably sue me for that…

  41. I just voted. I kept in mind that this was for just the past year.
    Many of you are more aware of who doo-d what this past year than I am.
    So, as far as I am aware, that narrowed it down to Turney, Mann, and the Lew.
    I also kept in mind that it was for duplicity and not stupidity.
    That left out Turney.
    Lew or Mann?
    I only know of one big Lew doo.
    Mann has at least two so I went with Mann because of his “Little White Lie-n” and his refusal to expose his data and emails in his various lawsuits.
    (Wouldn’t disclosure quickly show that he’s not a fraud or, at worst, reasonably wrong?…. unless……)

  42. I voted for Turney for his Antarctica misadventure. Was it science, climate propaganda, an expensive vacation? Paying passengers referred to as science volunteers?

  43. Mark Hladik says:
    March 27, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Maybe we could call it the ‘Gore Hanson Lifetime (mal-)Feasance Award’ ?

    =======================================
    Maybe the Putz-er Prize?

  44. Let’s give it to Mann.

    To stick it to Mann, let’s also support Mark Steyn’s 30 million dollar countersuit vs. Mann.

    I was more than skeptical about the whole thing, but Steyn’s more than capable and has a pair, in addition to great lawyers. http://www.steynonline.com/

  45. Bad News Quillan says:

    March 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Where is Baruq Obama? Where is John F’n Kerry?

    –Bad News
    ==============
    Wrong site.
    Weak attempt anyway.

  46. Yikes! It’s not even April yet. Maybe it should be called Climate Duplicitist of the Year-to-date, as I’m sure 2014 will see many more contenders! Ah, such a target rich environment.

  47. Chris D. says:
    March 27, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Yikes! It’s not even April yet. Maybe it should be called Climate Duplicitist of the Year-to-date, as I’m sure 2014 will see many more contenders! Ah, such a target rich environment.

    ==================================================================
    Elections are approaching.
    Time for Hyperdrive!

  48. Gleick’s acts of forgery, mendacity, and hypocrisy were by far the most spectacular, breathtaking actually, but his flame burned like the Sun only for a short time. Mann’s grandiosity, shamelessness, and inability to STFU is the gift that keeps on giving. Dogged persistence deserves to be rewarded. That’s why Mann gets my vote.

  49. Agree with an earlier commenter. Mann isn’t duplicitous… all that whining is from diaper rash. It’s Big Lew that truly puts the DUPE in duplicitous!!

  50. Al Gore is most OBVIOUSLY duplicitous… as DavidMHoffer and Alan Robertson say. More money – absolute highest Carbon footprint, Selling out and making money from oil, which he is stated as being against, the CO2 Temperature graphs which are full of bunk. The evil one who’s done more damage to create awareness of a hoax which many people think is a reality is Gore – He’s the winner!

    But alas, not everyone agrees with my sentiment –yet

  51. @Gunga Din: Your reasoning is timely and makes perfect sense. I thought about it (timeliness) – and retroactively gave the award to Gore…

  52. Perhaps this might be more honestly described as Hated Climate Alarmist Of The Year. If it was so described I might cast a vote myself. But as it is, as if only the opposition were capable of duplicity, I can only consider it suitable for thirteen year olds or other imbeciles. This is the first such poll? Have some sense. Make it the last as well.

  53. I voted for Mann based on his body of work over the years. Next year for Gore. Than Gleick. Once the classics are out of the way….I will vote for the most duplicity for that given year.

  54. Looking at the rules for this game, number 9 states this:
    “The winner will receive a gift (TBD) sent by US mail, illustrating their award with an inscription along with a permanent status in the awards page which will remain resident on WUWT and updated yearly. A press release will also be made.”

    Perhaps if Mann wins it then it can be arranged to send him a fake Nobel prize as a gift. Then he will have 2.

  55. Since this is “of the year”…. Mann or lew all the way, I had to vote lew because his case is funnier.

  56. re:Eyvind Dk says March 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Pretty cute, vid, but, someone is going to get ‘served notice’ (Mann does not like his ‘image or likeness’ used in parodies!) Ask Elmer …

    .

  57. I agree with the suggestion that we need a lifetime achievement award.
    Much as it pains me as a Canuck, Maurice Strong (high school graduate: FRS, FRSC, etc) IMO deserves top billing, along with Crispin Tickell, and the Prophet James Lovelock.

    From Donna LaFramboise:

    The IPCC: Providing ‘Hope for Our Earth’

    These people imagine that they’re saving the world – that they’re delivering “Hope for our Earth.” They know what the rest of us must do. They believe they have the right to make moral judgments on behalf of all of humanity – without our participation or consent. Like religious zealots, they insist there’s a proper way to understand their material – never mind intellectual freedom or free speech. And then there’s their insistence that the Yokohama meeting is about taking action.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/26/the-ipcc-providing-hope-for-our-earth/

    So what does this hope for the Earth really mean?

    Chairman Mo’s little red website
    From heading the first UN environment conference in Stockholm in 1972 to masterminding the 1992 Rio summit, “Maurice Strong,” says Maurice Strong’s website, “has played a unique and critical role in globalizing the environmental movement.” Mr. Strong is now 80 years old and thus out of the running for the title of CEO of “Earth Inc.,” but it is his environmental nightmares and dreams of global governance that will dominate Copenhagen. This is a man, we might remember, who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a “glimmer of hope.” My editor didn’t believe me when I wrote this, so here’s what Mr. Strong actually said, in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=7e5f9073-4b71-4690-868d-c2c4eb23551d

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/25/death-of-expertise/#comment-442818

    Earth Charter Inventors Stephen Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, Gorbachev

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/11/responsible-conduct-in-the-global-research-enterprise/#comment-378892

    Tickelled Green

    http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/tickelled-green.html

    Dominic Lawson: A retort to the population control freaks
    I don’t accept the assumption that this country is unbearably overcrowded – or would be at 71m

    I was surprised to hear Sir Crispin Tickell citing 20 million as the appropriate number of residents for the UK; only four years ago, on BBC 2′s Newsnight, he spoke in support of a figure of 30 million. Numbers, numbers. In his earlier broadcast, Sir Crispin remarked: “Someone has said that constantly increasing growth is the doctrine of the cancer cell. You just get out of control.”

    This metaphor, in effect describing the birth of children as like a metastasising tumour, is truly disgusting. Who, though, was that “someone” Sir Crispin airily quoted? His name is Paul Ehrlich and he is a patron, along with Tickell and Sir Jonathon Porritt, among others, of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation that campaigns tirelessly for an organised reduction in human life.

    http://tinyurl.com/kype72r

  58. James Ard says:
    March 27, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    How do you get more duplicitist than holding the position of ethics guru at a major science organization than stealing an identity and forging a document?

    Lew’s managed to top him.

  59. ‘Where is Baruq Obama? Where is John F’n Kerry?’ RIGHT
    AND what about Hillary? She’s in there with both feet!

  60. Mann can wriggle out of this by dropping his cases. But it won’t stop Mark. If he felt his scientific experiment is correct he could put on his case all his research. But he isn’t doing that. So he and Al Gore (who depended on others to get his info) , then invested in Green energy, must be top contenders for this award.

  61. Chris D. says:
    March 27, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Yikes! It’s not even April yet. Maybe it should be called Climate Duplicitist of the Year-to-date, as I’m sure 2014 will see many more contenders! Ah, such a target rich environment.
    ______________________
    I’m unsure of the schedule, but April Fools Day would be a good day to award the prize.

  62. This is a tough one (and yes, I think we should have more than 1 vote). I voted for Mann, not because of his glorious history or for sentimental reasons, but because his reach and threat to free speech makes him very special. And calling Prof. Curry ‘anti-science’ just recently shows his avowed commitment to suppression of everybody but him. Eliminating the Other.

    Having said that, the rest of the field richly deserve the prize as well. Like I say, more votes please.

  63. The fix is in! Clearly this poll has been skewed to show a decidedly Lewandowskyan bias! :p

    /sarc

  64. I would vote for Rajendra Pachauri this year, but he is not an option. He told the Guardian on March 7, 2014 that extreme weather is only going to get worse because of global warming, when the IPCC report AR5 states that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found.

  65. Uh, don’t you idiots, who voted for Mann, know you are going to be sued if he wins?
    Each and every one of you will be named in a new defamation suit.
    Or are you planning on just denying the lawsuit exists?

    OK, I voted for him, but I didn’t give my real name.
    :)

  66. rogerknights 10:37am

    “Climate connivers?”

    Got to love it. A so truthful play on words.
    That is the type of phrase that can stick — and hurt.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  67. I went with Lewandowsky. I wanted to vote for Mann but the criteria is “the last year”. If this were cinema Lewandowsky fits the role of the henchman who at the opening of a movie commits some obscenely gross crime — and later we find out who is the mastermind villain behind it.

    So for short term follow-the-leader evil — I guess it goes to Lewandowsky.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  68. Lewandowsky got my vote – but at the time he was still only No. 2 so will have to try harder. Come on all you Lew fans! Our antihero needs your vote!

  69. It has to be Trenberth for me – given that I sit on a research vessel for weeks at a time running CTDs http://www.seabird.com/products/spec_sheets/911data.htm I have so far failed to find the missing heat.

    Given that the heat enters the ocean at the surface, I fail to see how it somehow sneaks past the hydrocline (Thermocline) and sinkd to the sea-bed. Even if it did, it never seems to be in the places that I look. If there were heat there it would more likely come from submarine volcanicity.

  70. “Mann’s grandiosity, shamelessness, and inability to STFU is the gift that keeps on giving. ”

    Too right: it just has to be da Mann, and for so many reasons. These include his book whining about his ‘treatment’ at the hands of critics, his pompous belligerence, his lawsuits, and his inability to address the least criticism. He is truly self-deluded, which given his high profile makes him a danger to science itself.

  71. Al gore seems to be laying low, so he does not seem to qualify for “of the year” this year. It was a close pick before Lew and Mann, but I think his attack on Judith Curry just as he is ramping up his lawsuit surely qualifies as “duplicitous” and thus pushed him over the edge for me.

    Trenberth seems to go the way of Algore. Like master, like pet I guess.

  72. Whoever of this rogues gallery wins, the annual award should be titled in his name to permanently preserve his reputation as a dangerous crank.

  73. Tricky choice between Mann and Lew what ever his name is. Lew… has stuck his upside down head above the parapete a few times this year, Mann’s serial court cases will drag on into next year before anything happens, so Lewy got my vote this year.

    Presumably we get to vote about trivial people with worthless and irrelevant lives again next year.

  74. Possibly Mann is watching this site or one of his lawyers. But I doubt if he will sue us all. It would cost too much money.

  75. I’ve just cast my vote and I must say I’m extremely disappointed to find my “dead horse” running second last.
    In such a low quality field I thought Turney would be a dead set cert to run a drum.
    Either the vote is rigged or the place getters are “doped” up.

  76. Eyvind Dk says:
    March 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    ===============================================================
    8-)
    If you had put the video to music I’d have to wonder if you were related to elmer.

  77. You know what the nominees for the academy awards say, ‘Being nominated amongst such great
    actors is enough’. Well we should award runners up like they do in beauty competitions.

  78. It’s not fair – Mann gets all the press, so of course he wins. We should give lesser known hacks a chance.

  79. Mann did a lot of yelling, bullying and screwing people, but at least he was in the business. I just read it as his character. The travisty is that people “were” bullied by him.

    Lewandowskyan got my vote, because he went out of his way to put his finger in a pie not his own. He misrepresented the argument, misrepresented the people, misrepresented himself. And wrote the most wrong headed article about his own biases imaginable.

    Even Peter Gleick only did one wrong deed and left the subject well enough alone. Lewandowskyan is still at at.

Comments are closed.