Bishop Hill reports that one of his readers, Paul Matthews, has nominated Steve McIntyre for the Maddox Prize:
I nominate Stephen McIntyre for the John Maddox Prize for standing up for science. He meets the requirements of the prize – he has raised concerns about misleading information about climate change, spoken up for rigorous evidence backed up by publicly available data, aided understanding of this complex issue through his papers, blog and talks, and faced difficulty and hostility with admirable equanimity.
The full nomination paper is here.
The Maddox prize is modest, but I think the announcement is the best part:
The prize: £2000. An announcement of the winner will be published in Nature.
I hope Steve wins. Good luck to him.
He will have many more foes than friends but he deserves to win based upon his stalwart steadfastness in the pursuit of integrity and honesty in the climate debate.
Can we do anything to help his cause?
The prize: £2000. An announcement of the winner will be published in Nature.
Ouch! if he wins! That will hurt the Nature editors.
I wonder if Nature typically writes editorials saying how much the winner deserves the award. I wonder what they would say about Steve. 🙂
I like the references in the nomination letter to the Oxburgh report and Nature’s call for open access to data. At the very least it ought to liven up discussion at the selection committee meetings.
Good luck Mr. McIntyre. I so admire what you do. When learning about research, one of the first things my brother taught me was how “scientists” cheated and what NOT to do when in research. With only a 4 year degree I went on to publish 6 peer reviewed papers in a field I know well. My brother considered “cheating” or fudging or bias (the polite way to say it) very important. He taught me well and that is how I came to understand what is going in climatology. In a strange twist of events, he is a warmist. I don’t think he reads the research.
Since one of the four judges works for Nature, we probably shouldn’t hold our breath.
I can’t find a list of past winners, but do see hints this is a new award.
Looking at the judging panel, I would say the odds are stacked against Steve.
DaveE.
Good luck Steve.
The judges:-
Brenda, John’s wife- Author.
Colin Blakemore PhD Cambridge and Berkeley: “… has championed the communication of science and engagement with the public on controversial and challenging aspects of science.”
‘Nuff said about Philip Campbell: Editor-in-Chief of Nature
Tracey Brown(Sense About Science): “Worthless evidence This is dangerous stuff. If we move towards evidence-based everything, where there seems to be no room for people to debate or dissent because the evidence tells them how it must be (though they may have been consulted in the ‘evidence gathering stage’ of
course) scientific evidence will become so political as to be worthless.” March 2009
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/office-team.html
h/t Arte Johnson of ‘Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In’ ….. “Veeeery Eeeenteresting…”
Good luck Steve. Would be well deserved.
Evidence of award: 1. New award. 2. Nature Rag.
Purpose of award: Inside job to reward a suffering warmist.
Outcome of award: The winner is already known (Mann?). Sorry but our man doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
Sound Science? Evidence? Integrity? In the public interest? I would say so!
Those concepts define the work of Mr. McIntyre. — plus mathematician and logician extrordinaire!
There could not be a better winner.
“Sorry but our man doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.” The anthropogenic warmists have already taken over and won there, so of course he has no chance.
Stephen McIntyre and his contributions are already far beyond the accolades of a group of nobodies .
I agree with Pamela. If Steve wins it will be a miracle. It will most likely be someone we know is corrupting science.
From a comment at Bishop Hill
——————
I have been looking up John Maddox, and learn that in 1972 while editor of Nature he wrote a book called “The Doomsday Syndrome”, reviewed at the time by New Scientist. Nature and New Scientist seem to have changed a bit since then.
I have got it from the library and so far only read the preface.
The suitability of Steve McIntyre for the John Maddox prize gets almost uncanny.
Recommended reading for climate scientists, sceptics and Russell.
—————————–
I found this on the Madox prize sponsor site:
Climate Prediction
Great nomination but absolutely no chance of a win.
Mann, OTOH, looks a certainty…he has done so much for science in the face of adversity (BIG OIL and those nasty denier people). /sarc
Will Nature finally understand:
“a man(n) in a hole with a shovel”
Doubt it.
If they honor the efforts of a man fighting to keep an aspect of science open and honest regardless of the conclusion? Good chance!
If they honor the efforts of a man fighting to keep an aspect of science secret and dishonest to protect a flawed conclusion? No chance!
Either way, he deserves the honor.
Steve has done more than anyone else to defend science as it should be. He deserves the prize!
BarryW says:
August 22, 2012 at 9:28 am
I found this on the Madox prize sponsor site:
Climate Prediction
This says sod off Mcintyre. So no chance. BUT what a moment for Nature to pull back and do what Maddox did for their journal instead of following the Granuiad into oblivion.
BarryW – in the document you referenced ‘Climate Prediction’ http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/10/WeatherClimate.pdf – it says “the physical laws that govern weather and climate are well understood and do not change“.
Nice to know that the IPCC’s positive cloud feedback is ‘well understood’.
I don’t know. At first glance it looks a set up for a warmist to win, except the prize is so small. As the CAGW mob is so good at chucking huge chunks of government money around, I would expect a designer warmist accolade to have greater prestige and a much bigger prize. Is it possible they might be tiptoeing a turn around? Steve certainly deserves it, I hope he wins.
Steve deserves this and a Nobel prize. Perhaps share the Nobel with “FOIA”. There are others that deserve recognition also. But, first things first.
eyesonu,
A Nobel Prize doesn’t mean as much as it used to. ☺
Steve richly deserves the prize for all his work over the years. It would be more significant than winning the Nobel Prize these days. One could enjoy seeing Nature Magazine eat humble pie. We had better enjoy it all now, as it will probably be blocked by the usual suspects.
Remember the early days, when the “consensus” said that scientific publishing with its “peer-review” and data policies was just fine?
Seems that “transparency” is going mainstream.
http://the-scientist.com/2012/08/01/bring-on-the-transparency-index/
One of the key measures:
” Whether the journal requires that underlying data are made available”
First they ignore you…
Smokey says:
August 22, 2012 at 2:29 pm
eyesonu,
A Nobel Prize doesn’t mean as much as it used to. ☺
===================
Good one. 😉
Steve Mc has already won the most important award.
Come to think of it, Anthony has as well. Both have asked hard questions addressing the very foundations of the data stream. Is this not the intent of this award?
Too bad these Nature folks do not have the cobbles to admit the veracity of Anthony and Steve’s contribution.
I hope Mr. McIntyre wins as well. After all of the absurd and malicious responses to his excellent and tireless efforts he has stood the test of time and done so in an exceedingly resilient and composed fashion.