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.
Mann’s biography on Amazon still states that “He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Michael-E.-Mann/e/B001KP3VIW/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
As does the blurb about the Author of his book …
If he got such an e-mail, and saved it, that lets him off the hook, mostly. But if what it said was not exactly “This makes each of you a Nobel laureate,” then he’s gotten himself in deeper with another “stretcher.”
“a lead author on Chapter 2 of the Working Group I contribution the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001 [of work done by thousands of people between 1998 and 2007, inclusive].”
Well, that’s exactly the same as being a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
/sarc
As a Norwegian I know that some of the people, like Jaggeland, that deceide who is given this prize are socialists.
If you look at who has been awarded this prize the last 10 years it seems to me that it’s less about peace and more about promoting national and international socialism?
kind of o/t but, it is because of the likes of MM, that the public is subjected to at least one CAGW alarmist story every day in the MSM and it is, quite frankly, becoming as ridiculous as the pompous CAGW team itself:
3 Nov: SMH: Reuters: Rising seas prompt Panama’s islanders to move inland
Every rainy season, the Guna people living on the Panamanian white sand archipelago of San Blas brace themselves for waves gushing into their tiny mud-floor huts.
Rising ocean levels caused by global warming and decades of coral reef destruction have combined with seasonal rains to submerge the Caribbean islands for days on end…
It is the largest of the Guna’s 45 inhabited islands, and its planned evacuation is among the first blamed largely on climate change. Scientists say worldwide sea levels have risen about 3 millimeters (0.12 inch) a year since 1993. Recent research suggests they could rise as much as 2 meters (6.5 feet) by 2100…
“It’s another example that climate change is here, and it’s here to stay,” said Hector Guzman, a marine biologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-seas-prompt-panamas-islanders-to-move-inland-20121103-28qdf.html
speaking of inaccuracies, how’s this new thread up at joannenova:
Oops Climate Commission graph: Queensland warmed nearly 3 degrees in 50 years?
If Alan Jones needs to get “educated” because he got the level of CO2 wrong once, the Climate Commission surely needs to go back to do high school maths, because anyone who has done junior high can see that the running average in the graph below is an impossibility. The latest Climate Commission report: “The Critical Decade: Queensland climate impact and opportunities” starts with blatantly incorrect figure. Since when do “averages” run outside the extreme highs and lows? Thanks to reader Ian E.
Eyeballing this graph suggests Queensland’s average temperature has risen by 2.7 C since the 1950′s.
The text on the same page says: “The average temperature for Queensland has risen by about 1°C since early last century”. So at least the writing matches the official (if exaggerated) records.
Who proof-read this document?
Three professors (Will Steffen, Lesley Hughes, Veena Sahajwalla) and Mr Gerry Hueston, all Climate Commissioners, signed off on it…
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/climate-commission-report-queensland-warmed-by-3-degrees-in-50-years-look-out/
Does this mean the the “crime” is now “defamation of a person who mistakenly claimed to be a nobel prize recipient but is now thankful to have had it brought to his attention that he had actually all he did was contribute to an organisation which was a joint recipient of a nobel prize”?
I know it’s not quite as catchy as the first draft.
you can be absolutely sure Hugh Riminton would NEVER EVER write the following with Mann’s name instead of Monckton’s:
5 Feb 2010: The Punch, Australia: Hugh Riminton: Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate
Sorry Lord Monckton. You are a fraud.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton. I emailed him the Monckton website.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate – no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off an a Nobel Laureate…
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/asc/
There has got to be a money making opportunity for someone to create personalised “Nobel Peace Prize” certificates for citizens of the EU. After all, I’ve done my part in keeping Europe peaceful, well apart from Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia ….
So then the headline changes from ‘throwing under the bus’ to ‘confirms his story’, as far as the screen-cap of Mann’s tweet, which recently had it’s own coverage here.
Ian H says:
November 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm
It was funny roasting Mann over this for maybe 5 minutes.
But 5 minutes are over. Can we move on now?
———————————————-\
No, I don’t much go for rare, let;s wait until he’s well done!
When I was at Uni many years ago, there were 13 Nobel Prize winners also attending the uni. These were real Nobel Prize winners in hard sciences. Does that mean I can claim to have 13 Nobel Prizes? That would be really cool on my resume.
Mann’s tricks are clearly not limited to hiding the decline.
Let us not forget who the Nobel Prize Committee passed over to give the Peace Prize to these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
anthony, reality bites in Calif? is this an admission they were wrong?
1 Nov: Bloomberg: James Nash: California Environmental Law Marked for Biggest Change Since ’70
Brown, a 74-year-old Democrat, said he expects lawmakers to vote next year on changes to the California Environmental Quality Act, the 1970 law that requires the state and local governments to weigh environmental consequences when considering approval of public and private projects.
California’s environmental laws place limits on development, require a unique blend of gasoline to reduce smog and will impose a statewide cap on greenhouse-gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The largest U.S. state by population, with an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent in September, is frequently accused of being unfriendly to business.
Changes in the law are “very important” to spur economic development, Brown said yesterday in Los Angeles at a forum to promote Proposition 30, a ballot measure to raise taxes for education.
“There are many people who work very well under CEQA and don’t want to change it,” Brown said about the environmental act, responding to a question from the audience. “And yet, changes are needed.”
Brown didn’t disclose specifics. His aides referred questions to Rubio, a Bakersfield Democrat who is working on a bill to amend the law…
Rubio said he wants to streamline environmental reviews to avoid long delays on projects such as the proposed extension of the subway in Los Angeles and student housing near the University of Southern California, which was stymied by a rival developer’s lawsuit…
Brown signed a bill last year to waive provisions of the law for a proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, arguing that environmental challenges shouldn’t be allowed to delay the project indefinitely.
This year, Brown proposed exempting California’s planned $68 billion high-speed rail project from the law. Under pressure from environmentalists, the governor backed down from the idea.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/california-environmental-law-marked-for-biggest-change-since-70.html
——————————————————————————–
Richard 1:52 am:
“…there were 13 Nobel Prize winners…..does that mean I can claim to have 13 Nobel Prizes?”
If you were one of the 57 people thanked by an Oscar winner at the awards you could claim to be an Oscar winner yourself, I suppose:-)
My correct title is Graphite OBE*
*owe bookies everywhere
Richard says Nov 3 1.24am. Very funny, I enjoyed that logic – Mann’s logic.
The IPCC isnt throwing him undert the bus. Its pointing out the reality that any climate science “laureate” could have ascertained for himself with 2 minutes of effort.
Instead Mann on his Facebook page says that receipt of a certificate of involvement from the IPCC led to his understanding that it was “appropriate to state that we either “shared” or were a “co-recipient” of the award.” His understanding was clearly not arrived at by anything so mundane as checking.
This affair speaks volumes about Mann’s credibility and integrity.
At the time of Alfred Nobel, Norway and Sweden was in union (“Sweden-Norway”). Unless I am mistaken, it was Nobel’s decision that the peace price should be awarded from the city of Christiania (city renamed to Oslo in 1924). After Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905, the peace price remained in Christiania.
The Nobel committee in Oslo is appointed from the Norwegian Parliament (“Stortinget”). It consists of 5 members. 2 from the Labour party (Arbeiderpartiet) including the committee leader Thorbjørn Jagland. One is from the Socialist Left (SV), one is from the conservative party (Høyre) and one is from the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) further to the right of Høyre. Regarding AGW, none of this matters. 100% of the Norwegian politicians, from any party, are AGW believers.
Ian H says:November 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm
“….It was funny roasting Mann over this for maybe 5 minutes.
But 5 minutes are over. Can we move on now?…”
Nah. It thought that for a moment too.
But Mann’s ego is so much a part of this (who the hell else would have made such an interpretation and claimed it so loudly?), I’d say while he’s still dancing keep the blowtorch to his feet.
Except in Mann’s case, there are no limits to his deception and deceit.
I think this is simply an unfortunate misunderstanding. You see, the University of East Anglia got Prince Dumbo… er Charles to award the title of Noble to Mann for his contribution to the IPCC report and he just misspelled Noble for Nobel. Can happen to anyone
About Monckton — several have suggested that his long-ago and since abandoned claim to the Nobel was a joke. Several have argued he was serious and seriously mistaken and (therefore) just as wrong as Mann, which of course then makes Mann correct by consensus.
I’m wondering if Monckton wasn’t seriously attempting to deflate ALL the various contributors to IPCC AR4. By inflating his own claim, and drawing the response, it seems he could have gotten the same sort of “correcting instruction” then as Mann has received now. And with that general rule in place Monckton would then have had a skewer, plucked from his own hide, with which to prick every other opponents inflated ego.
Just seems to me that such a stunt would be in character.
The odd thing is, that if so, and if it had worked, Mann’s claims would have been reset to the smaller but more accurate version now on offing. Mockton’s skewering would have helped Mann by avoiding the current derision.
This sort of adversarial relationship leading to improved communication is of course why the normal scientific method insists on sharing data, replicating techniques, re-running the code, etc. It’s truly tragic that many in this branch of academics do not seem to avail themselves of the resources provided by clever adversaries.
to mann
“liar liar bums on fire”
its ok C02 can put it our for you