From the move over Mann department (on a tip from a WUWT reader)
Richard A. Houghton, Ph.D. has made a blatantly false claim on his Woods Hole Research Center webpage that:
“Along with other lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, Dr. Houghton was a recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”
Source: http://www.whrc.org/about/cvs/rhoughton.html
In a statement of 29 October 2012 the IPCC clarified that the “prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and not to any individual involved 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.'” It stated that it had not sent the certificates to “contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
Even Wiki, that great bastion of information, states the same information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize#cite_note-IPCC_Oct_12-5
Dr. Duffy, President of Woods Hole Research Center, has been contacted on the false claim and we await a correction to Dr. Houghton’s webpage along with a public retraction and apology for promoting false credentials.
In 2014, the U.S. Government (taxpayers) gave $4,984,373 that represented 55.5% of Woods Hole’s research money. It is not known how much money was raised based upon Dr. Houghton’s “Nobel Prize credentials”.
[Added: screen cap]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate-Change-The-Career-Path….
How does climate science qualify for the peace prize anyway?
They certainly wouldn’t qualify for a science prize.
Dammit, s.o.m! That’s another bloody keyboard gone!
+10
A sad fact.
Excellent +10
+10 for sure.
No coffee or red wine involved this time [fortunately].
Auto
As Miss Personality.
This is biggest thing that needs calling out. The “peace” prize is a political award for doing something that Nobel Committee likes.
It speaks volumes that this so-called scientific report did not win them a science Nobel prize. It won them a political prize.
The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization and did not win a Nobel science award. It is a intergovernmental, political body that won half a political award. Gore is a politician who won the other half of a political award.
The so called “Peace Prize” is the only Noble Prize awarded by the Norwegian Committee, and it is widely suspected, that in recent years in the 21st Century, that they do choose the person or organisation which they think will most upset the Swedish Nobel Committee……. Toys – Pram – Children ???
Obama won the prize on the basis of his not being Bush.
Mike, very good, you are correct. Judge for yourself what a Nobel science prize means. But a Nobel peace prize means nothing or is a badge of dishonor. Yasser Arafat, Barack Obama, and the like win Nobel peace prizes. And in 2007 the ICPP won half of a peace prize and Al Gore won the Other half.
Neither is the Woods Hole Research Center. It’s a tarted up political action committee.
Stole their name from an actual scientific org for the confusion if would create.
They’re like League of Conservation voter.
Being known a fraud is resume enhancement for the Woods Hole Research Center.
Well, let us see. They are peacefully showing videos where you can explode children. They are peacefully asking those who disagree with them to put in prison. They are peacefully linking those who disagree with them to the holocaust. Violence against non-believers is true peace after all. At least in their mind.
For many on the left, peace is defined as lack of opposition to communism.
You know, saving the world and so forth. LOL
Perhaps because it’s falling to pieces!!
I’ll get my coat…
Good point, it is a political not a scientific award. So even if he did win it, it has nothing to do with credible science.
Paul really??? It’s the most obvious association EVER, you control the climate and you promote peace, nobody is really interested in going into battle when the air temperature is sub zero! The proof? we never had a war in the Arctic or Antarctic! There!
Yet another example of the UNIPCC’s “group-hug” mentality. It’s also a very sneaky way to collect apparent “endorsements” for any reports they produce, the more the merrier sort of thing. I recal reading a paper/article by Prof Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in which he explained his testimony to the House of Lords Climate Change Committee, saying that he had threatened the IPCC with legal action to have his name removed from their report, the IPCC insisting he should be “included” because he had “contributed”! However, the inclusion of all who contributed implies falsely that they ALL agreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, which is emphatically NOT the same thing at all! In principle, one could “contribute” to their reports, totally disagreeing with their conclusions, have your input wholly removed or sanitised, but one still “contributed”! Very crafty & sneaky & downright dishonest!
Sounds like the ever expanding scope of some formerly narrow focus environmental group. Sign a petition expressing your disagreement with hunting bunnies with bazookas (or something) and next thing you know, said environmental group claims you support ALL their loopy “causes”.
Yep, been on the reeiving end of that one years ago, can’t remember which one it was but I’d been get post every now & then through the door thanking my for continued support!!! Took me a few weeks to get my name taken off their little list of faithful followers!
Might be easier for the handful of us who didn’t win a Nobel Prize to just register our unworthy names somewhere and leave it at that.
There is always ….. The Ig® Nobel Prize
“The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that make people LAUGH, and then THINK. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative — and spur people’s interest in science, medicine, and technology.
Every September, in a gala ceremony in Harvard’s Sanders Theatre, 1100 splendidly eccentric spectators watch the new winners step forward to accept their Prizes. These are physically handed out by genuinely bemused genuine Nobel Laureates.”
Genuinely this …..
ARCTIC SCIENCE PRIZE [NORWAY, GERMANY, USA, CANADA]:
Eigil Reimers and Sindre Eftestøl, for testing how reindeer
react to seeing humans who are disguised as polar bears.
REFERENCE: “Response Behaviors of Svalbard Reindeer towards Humans and Humans Disguised as Polar Bears on Edgeøya,” Eigil Reimers and Sindre Eftestøl, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, vol. 44, no. 4, 2012, pp. 483-9.
See more read all about it …
http://www.improbable.com/ig/
Now that’s Science !!!!
:LOL:
I was more interested in the response of polar bears when they see a human dressed as reindeer compared to how they respond when a human is dressed as another polar bear.
Now that might be interesting research.
Sorry, I’m a member of the EU and so a Noble Prize winner (Peace 2012).
Mark Steyn made a similar joke at the recent non-alarmist climate conference.
Well, Obama got one when his only accomplishment was (and still is) being elected President, so by the logic of Mann and Houghton, every person who voted for him share the prize. I am not included in that group, with no regrets, prize or not.
The comment is worth a Nobel for Science!!! I hope that the EU paid for your three year study to come to that conclusion…….
Seems it has been changed on his website:
Along with the IPCC, a portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007.
A portion… LOL
[there has been no change on the website as of this writing, and the word “portion” does not appear -mod]
Portion? He probably got the Nob end – while Mann got the bel…..
Not changed when I just checked .
Right, didn’t read the top paragraph, sorry mod.
I had scrolled to the bottom of the page, where it can be found.
When I checked it now says “Dr. Houghton contributed to the reports of the IPCC which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.” which is pretty accurate, it could be that someone who maintains the website edited the bio and Dr. Houghton was unaware of the actual verbage.
There’s a lot of ego in academia. They can’t help themselves.
Yeah I noticed. It’s like nerd rage.
“Nerd rage”. Fascist rage. Sounds like RICHARD S. COURTNEY. Reference Dahlquist and Mr. Courtneys posts above and below Dahlquist at 7:29 pm, 16 June 2015 in the article of 15 June 2015 “Claim: Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants’ ability to absorb nutrients”.
[???? .mod]
In reference to my post today, I apologize to others here who should not have to be subjected to an exchange which took place between Richard s. Courtney and I the other day. I feel it is appropriate to point out that Mr. Courtney seems to believe he is judge, jury and executioner and seems to feel the need to put down anyone who even attempts to tell the truth when it does not suit his tastes…That co2 “May” have some minor negative effects on plants. It seems that he acts like the people and scientists on the CAGW side to shut down any opinion other than their own.
Dahlquist June 16, 2015 at 7:29 pm
I suppose it is allowed for posters like Richard s Cortney to creep back into a post late at night when everyone is sleeping and the post has been laid to rest, to continue to manipulate and trash talk people who aren’t there to respond in order to make himself look smart and good…A real TRUTH SEEKING SKEPTIC who cannot stand to hear the truth about a minor, possible aspect of co2 increase. It simply cannot go without an attack on one who brings up a possible problem with co2 in a discussion forum.
It is not my responsibility to lead Richard by the nose to anything. I gave him what I had and was truthful and respectable with him. Criticizing another for not doing what you yourself are perfectly capable of doing is lazy and childish. Richard had every opportunity to listen to me, jquip and Jimmy and refer to the study which contained references to 30 or more other studies and did state that co2 does have some negative effects on some plant species. He just needed to entertain an open mind and do his own research, rather than bag on me for not doing his work for him.
After this exchange, I did a search of him and found many people who know him for similar bashing on people. He has a bad reputation for this. I would hope he can learn that bashing people for stating a truth and referring others to some good info is not a reason to insult and harangue that person, as we have similar goals in opposing the CAGW agenda. However, I am not going to go about bashing someone for stating something about the issues with co2 because I simply don’t like to hear it, as Richard seems to have done to me.
Clean your act up Richard S. Courntey. Please. It would be a favor to all of us who have had to endure tour BS.
Dahlquist
Dahlquist June 15, 2015 at 9:05 am
This study does agree with many others from 1990s and 2000s.
Jquip June 15, 2015 at 12:03 pm
richard, read through the paper a bit. It is an interesting one and it does echo a number of the points raised elsewhere is thread by commenters. Specifically to the issue of protein and protein concentrations, look at the page numbered 239. (Numerous citations are name-dropped liberally throughout)
Note here though: the question seems to be less whether it does or not, then whether we care or not. For instance, in the one protocol it noted a 14% loss under a 100% N load. But only a 9% loss under a 50% N load. Which seems rather absurdly backwards. But there’s a reasonable discussion about the nitrogen uptake networks and their regulations that may relate to this. Not stated in relation to protein reduction is plant mass. For if we only reduce proteins 14% under heavy fertilization — and on 9% under moderate fertilization — but have, say, 50% more plant mass, then this seems like an overall win on the nutrition angle.
Jimmy June 15, 2015 at 2:23 pm
Richard,
You quoted the Jain and Pandy paper as pointing out that the “response to elevated CO2 concentration is usually positive.” You should note that this was in the context of photosynthetic output. The paper went on to say (all quotes are from the same paper):
“As a result of this primary response [referring to the improved carbon assimilation], and a range of secondary responses,including growth, dry matter allocation, and nutrient composition and assimilation,may change”
“Therefore, factorsthat may affect availability and uptake of N are critical in determining plant and ecosystem responses to high CO2″
“The overall nitrogen concentration in plants on dry weight basis decreases when they are grown in enhanced CO2 (Jain et al., 2007)”
“Further, the total amountof nitrogen per plant is often unaltered (Hocking and Meyer, 1991a) or reduced (Conroy et al., 1992) in enhanced CO2″
.
I highly recommend that you take the advice of Dahlquist and Jquip and read beyond the first page of the paper.
There are another number of posts between Mr. Courtney and I, but it would take up too much space. My attempt here is to let others know the Mode of operation of Mr. Richard S. Courtney in order to save themselves some aggravation and wasted time if you happen to run into him here and at other skeptic websites.
Apologies and thanks
Dahlquist
Ps. If anyone cares to view exchange, be sure to look at the times of postings. Richard S. Courtney goes back and places his newer replies where it looks like continuation of the thread, but some of them are not. He inserted them where he chose to make it look better for him.
[Not true. Replies are inserted by WordPress’ processor based on the “location” of the [Reply] button in the thread at the time of the answer, and on which display mode of WordPress is being used by each respondent on his or her screen at the time of reply. Many hundreds of users have reported their “replies” are in different location in the thread than where they expected. .mod]
Now that is completely off topic!
Not forgetting that your comment is made for personal reasons.
@ATheoK
Yes. Being attacked personally and for ridiculous reasons deserves a rebuttal. Mr. Courtney has an unreasonable flair for this.
@Moderator
Thanks. Didn’t know that. But replies can be placed anywhere? Correct?
He’s not the only one Jonathan Overpeck has this on his CV bio:
“2007 – Nobel Peace Prize – contributed in leadership role as a Coordinating Lead Author of
the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
And Trenberth is another one still maintains his claim.
Note that this warmist outfit’s name sounds a lot like the reputable Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Institute. Coincidence, I’m sure…
All the degrees were Dishonorary.
I think the name (WHRC) was specifically chosen because those that are not aware that WHRC is a warmist cabal that in no way has anywhere near the scientific chops the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute has.
I agree. Other organizations would have doubtlessly NOT want to be mistaken for a different group but in this case it suits them just fine.
For people smart enough to earn Ph.D’s these folks sure are slow learners.
Definition of PhD – knows more and more about less and less.
The alternate description of the various academic degrees:
B.S. = Boy’s Shovel
M.S. = Man’a Shovel
PhD = Posthole Diggeer
I thought it was:
B.S. = Bull S***
M.S. = Massive S***
PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper
Until he knows everything about nothing
I thought PhD stood for Piled High and Deep…
What happens if the Nobel prize is awarded and the work turns out to be fraudulent?
They get elected to a second term as POTUS
+1
+10
They sell networks to like suitors…“When considering the several suitors who were interested in acquiring Current, it became clear to us that Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current,”
They change the data to disguise the fraud.
“What happens if the Nobel prize is awarded and the work turns out to be fraudulent?”
If it’s the Nobel “Peace” Prize, the question is pretty much a tautology. 🙂
Well Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize and we’ve been in a state of continuous low intensity and ever expanding war, had several race riots and Mexicans have been shooting down our helicopters across the boarder, so I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a recall.
Maybe he’d like to come here and explain why he’s even proud of contributing to that pile of crap.
Didn’t think so.
Used car salesman of the month would be a better title. On the other hand I don’t think he would have been good at kicking tyres either. Nah, just another “could a been champion”, (Aussie’s will know the reference).
The EU won a peace prize in 2012. I have an EU passport. I’m a Nobel prize winner too!
As a proud citizen of the Canton of Fribourg this may be the first time that I, or any of my Swiss compatriots, have experienced EU envy. By the way, your share of the honorarium should have been 0.001024 Euros, I hope you spent it wisely.
Me too. Oh wait, it was stollen!
funny
I have heard of the EU. Does that make me an associate, junior Nobel Peace Prize winner? When do I get my check?
The Nobel Peace Prize,
Now that rhymes with lies,
Anthony, I trying to resist the temptation;
Perhaps it is best
To say that with like the rest
There appears to be some exaggeration!
http://wp.me/p3KQlH-8d
Correction: I’m trying to resist..
I got your nobel peace prize right here.
Prepare for a salvo of rationalizations…”Oh, but…”
I don’t care about the stupid (and meaningless) Nobel Peace Prize. I want to know what the HECK is the “International Center for Climate Governance”!! Climate Governance????
http://www.iccgov.org/default.aspx? – home page
About: (for more, bring basic airline barf bag)
ICCG’s mission is to disseminate science-based and socio-economic research in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation to policymakers and the general public. It seeks to achieve this at the local, national and international level through interdisciplinary activities as well as producing climate and energy policy analyzes and defining optimal governance models to manage climate change.
Climate Governance
=============
they set the rules that the climate must follow
As a recipient of Time Magazine’s 2006 Person of the Year award, I find this reprehensible….
OMG, I did not know I am 2006 Person of the Year! So somebody actually reads my comments on WUWT???
Yessss!
(What’s next? A Macarthur “genius” grant for getting out of bed in the morning?)
Too funny!
97% of some of the scientist who agreed with the IPCC report were recipients of the 2007 Nobel Piece Prize which, when, divided among all of the recipients amounted to $1.41 each along with a microscopic piece of paper.
Arctic Temps from 1958 onwards ect look exactly the same nearly every year until 2015 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.
Hey, he identifies with the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s all that counts these days.
Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II never received the Nobel Prize for bringing down the Berlin Wall and defeating communism, but Gore, Obama, the IPCC received the price for …… I have no clue.
The Nobel Prize used to mean something, but no more.
I wrote the prize off when Jimmy Carter and a little terrorist murderer in the Middle East shared one. I suspect they weren’t the first non-deserving prize winners.
I have something even better than the IPCC “Nobel Statement” document. Since there are at least 2 persons in Montreal also claiming to be recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, I took the liberty of asking the Norwegian Nobel Institute directly:
________________________________________________________________________
From: Michel Lafontaine [mailto:lafontainemtl@yahoo.com] Sent: 2. mai 2015 22:49 To: Postmaster Subject: Claiming to be a Nobel Peace Price recipient
Madam / Sir
I am including a link to a short resumé of an individual, called Eric Duchemin, who claims that, because he performed work and studies for the IPCC, he is allowed to be identified as a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (in French as quoted “co- récipiendaire du prix Nobel de la paix 2007). I am also including a pdf document of the same link.
______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Claiming to be a Nobel Peace Price recipient From: Postmaster (postmaster@nobel.no) To: lafontainemtl@yahoo.com; Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 7:47 AM
When an organisation is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, its individual members/employees/contributors or the like are not referred to as laureates by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Kind regards
Dag Kühle-Gotovac
Head of Administration The Norwegian Nobel Institute
That CV is long on activism, short on research.
… and I suppose his wife is Morgan Fairchild.
Yeah .. that’s the ticket.
“Whom I’ve seen naked.”
“Whom I’ve slept with. Yeah, that’s the ticket.”