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.
geronimo says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:30 am
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
Thank you geronimo I was thinking about her too. It could make an article for WUWT if you are up to it. or Anthony? Anyone else?
Not to toot my own horn, but over the course of my career I received a number of certificates. Some were even for ‘contributing’ to some sort of corporate or even international standards success.
At no point, did I ever misconstrue a certificate, (AKA official thanks from your sponsor for good work), for a personal subdivision award of the actual achievement.
Having given employees similar certificates ‘thanking’ them officially for their efforts; I am especially aware that at no point could I actually give the employees the offical award their efforts helped achieve. Why? At no time did I, or even my superiors, have the authority to assume official capacity to make such awards. Our attempts were always to make sure we appreciated the efforts of the staff.
When entered into resume’s or applications, the certificates were always certificates of award for the effort involved. Never for actually winning the award. If any applicant listed a certificate as actually winning the award (co-win is winning), that applicant was in for a grilling. Grilling as intended to ‘teach’ accuracy and honesty in preparing a list of one’s honors.
Mann’s current belief version that the IPCC intends certificate recipients are “…“shared” or were a “co-recipient”…” of the Nobel prize is absurdly egomanniacal. The IPCC statement itself states that the certificates were for “contributing” to the award, not as being a ‘co-whatsis’ Manny is trying to elevate it to. Fast back-editing and fancy word replacements still leaves Mannmostfoul construing grandiose claims out of simple thanks. Construing grandiose claims is darn close to construing grandiose delusions and it may be that Mannmostfake is unable to accept reality.
Manniacal Manns attempts to make the certificate into anything more than acknowledgement of Mann’s efforts by the IPCC is bogus. Or as Pamela G. hints, flagrantly fraudulent. so if Mann expects to walk into a courtroom touting his “…“shared” or were a “co-recipient”…” of the Nobel Prize, I expect to hear a lot of derision and some sharp legal reprimands. What should be happening is half a dozen organizations immediately start organizing ‘official’ review boards into Manny’s fakery of his achievements. This kind of review historically is almost always a zero tolerance of falsehoods approach.
What seems to me as interesting is:
Did egoManniac state his Nobel heritage in the “Tim Ball” lawsuit?
Did egoManniac state his Nobel heritage in the “UVA” intervention?
Is there an official grant or Penn State document where egoManniac states his Nobel heritage as part of his ever so wonderful background? Not the easily Manniacal accessed web stuff, but the hard documentary stuff on official files. Grants would usually be kept in the grantor’s application files. Penn State should have an HR department with his, ahem, official application history and claims of dubious wonder…
Seems to me, that there are legal and official goldmines aplenty where the gold pated Manniac likely set legal precedent for his pompous Nobel claims.
Mann is still claiming he shared the award.
The implication of the IPCC statement is that it renders Mann as no different or more important than the xx others that happened to be on the list and received the internal certificate, which is contrary to Mann’s view of grandiose self-importance, a view he clearly used repeatedly for gain (prestige & financial) and to claim superiority and infallibility in the current and impending court cases.
I’ll drive the bus.
Still up at http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
“He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”
and
“2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001)”
You would think that a man as inteligent and educated as Dr. Mann would intuitively know that contributing to a work that recieved a Nobel Peace Prize is not the same as sharing the same prize; it’s sad but this kind of misjudgement and sophmoric behaviour seems to be a character flaw of the Doctor’s. I’m now more certain than ever to consider any work that Dr. Mann has done or contributed to be unreliable until proven otherwise.
I hope that Michael Mann’s lawyers have changed the wording on their law suit.
Their horse fell at the first hurdle. This doesn’t look good for Mann.
The next organization that is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will likely receive pretty tightly controlled restrictions from the Nobel committee on what they can say on certificates of thanks given out to a recipient organization’s members. And then its members will fall or not on their own swords if they “embellish” that certificate when citing it in their employment vitae. Trenbreth’s use of parenthesis to squeak through the embellishment loophole on his certificate is exactly the kind of loophole the Nobel Peace Prize committee could, if they impose restrictions, go after in court for trademark infringement.
And make no mistake, I do hear bloodhounds barking in the distance. Their collars tags read “Nobel Peace Prize Committee”.
Perhaps it’s a case of ‘Norwegian Wood’? (H/T John Lennon)
Yes, and I’m sure that the Nobel Committee is none too happy about the IPCC’s infringement of their copyrighted artwork on the ICPP certificates or participation. I imagine they will add language in the future along the lines of the famous NFL statement: “Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s expressed written consent is prohibited,”
well-done says:
November 2, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Two torpedoes from Rodney struck Bismarck-Mann with great effect. Dorsetshire also rounding Bismarck-Mann has fired torpedoes and Bismarck-Mann’s deck is awash.
==================================================================
A side note. If I’m not mistaken, when the Rodney torpedoed the Bismarck that the first and only time in history one battleship torpedoed another.
(Now back to the Mann-roast!)
I was inspired to read the original indictment:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf
Quite a lot of bizarre text. Apart from the several references to being “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”, we have:
“he was one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s”, supported by reference to his hockey stick work.
A number of points:
– the steady rise during the 20th C was well known probably before MM graduated
– what’s the “steep rise” post 1950s?? The rise between 1979 and 1998 was steeper than the AVERAGE pre-1979, but certainly not much different than the 1910 to 1945 rise.
– In any case, the ‘steep rise’ up to 1998 is based on instrumental data from other sources, not the work of MM.
– MM’s (et al) own HS work does not show the late 20th C rise at all! Because of the ‘well known’ divergence problem.
– MM goes on and on about defamation of him by others, but he regularly uses the term “climate change deniers” for all those who disagree with him.
– MM complains about his association with a child molester, but its well known that the original reason for using the term ‘denier’ was to associate AGW-sceptics with Holocaust denial. So which is worse?
I think a fair-minded assessment of his complaints is:
– he overplays the comparison with a child molester. No-one has accused him of being one, but he’s trying to suggest they have. The ‘child molester’ association was in bad taste, and I would agree not appropriate, but does not represent liable against MM.
– the rest of his argument is more about free speech. Understandably, he doesn’t like what was said about him, but this was tabloid journalist talk in a free world, and little different from him denigrating all those who challenge his own work as ‘climate change deniers’.
– Overall, I find the indictment document rather amateurish, in contrast to his normally rather smooth approach to handling the media. I tweeted him that he would make a good public affairs spokesman in the corporate world. (No response).
Overall, a very entertaining episode from MM.
Also entertaining is to follow his tweets on how he is constantly talking up the link between Hurricane Sandy and CC. He’s certainly exploiting the tragedy of Sandy as much as possible to regenerate his own reputation and divert from the Nobel fiasco.
CD (@CD153) says:
November 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm
“If Mann’s ego ever gets so big that his head explodes someday, the only downside to that will be the mess that somebody will have to clean up.”
The current administration will take credit for creating thousands of green jobs.
The essence of Mann’s excuse seems to be that it was not explained to him that he could not claim to be a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. If that is to be accepted, then I can ask myself just what coveted awards I would have liked to have received but have not, at least as yet, come my way. There are institutions beyond count that have failed to award me with a certificate acknowledging my contributions to mankind. There are some that I would shun such as the Nobel Peace Prize which I feel would associate me with some of the nastier politicians of my lifetime, but that leaves several thousand estimable bodies that have not taken the trouble to explain to me personally that I am not free to lay claim to their awards. I am tempted to start modestly with a Ph. D. Not from Penn State, of course, but M.I.T. might be nice without overdoing it. I shall have to decide on what discipline would suit me best. I can work my way up slowly from there.
There is something wrong here, and if I sleep on it, perhaps I shall be able to put my finger on it.
@TonyG November 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm:
As I understand the way it works, a competent opposing lawyer would love to present such claims on court documents to the jury or judge, so as to plant the idea not only of perjury per se, but as one whose assertions before the court simply are not to be believed; i.e. him being considered a liar before the court. This would have great effect even before any charges of perjury. Once seen as lying, his case will be dead as a door nail. The judge may even get to hit him with contempt charges for lying to the court if he brings any of it up again (which his lawyer would certainly prevent him from doing).
It is amazing his lawyer would draw up such documents.
Afterward, it is up to the D.A. re perjury.
Steve Garcia
A Mann CV still stating he was awarded the Nobel Prize:
“2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for
involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the
Third Assessment Report, 2001)”
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Mann_Vitae.pdf
Two ‘Penn State Live’ news articles:
“Mann was lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Scientific Assessment Report and was among the scientists who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for that report.”
http://live.psu.edu/story/57526
“Mann ………… was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report ………….. In 2007 he shared the Nobel Prize with other IPCC lead authors.”
http://live.psu.edu/story/56383
Would Mann and his institution have received all the funding for research since 2007 if the awarding bodies had understood that they were awarding grants to a scientist who was lying on his CV by falsely claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Prize?
Six successful people who lied on their resume, five of whom had to resign.
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-1154-Cover-Letters-Resumes-Infamous-R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9-Lies/
If Mann got a position somewhere with claims on his CV are that he was a recipient of the Nobel Prize, Mann would be subject to dismissal. As Ken Harvey says just above, we all could claim to have PhDs from MIT, and then argue that, “Well MIT didn’t TELL us we couldn’t claim the degrees,” so we should be allowed to do it.
It is fraud in a job application, and it is fraud in court docs.
Steve Garcia
As I thought previously – They did give Certificates to the Secretaries as well – it must be kinda like a movie set at IPCC Land – everybody gets a gong in the credits.
Wonder who the hairdressers were ?
I wouldn’t get too excited about any claims made in a plaint – even egregious errors like incorrectly naming the defendant can usually simply be amended by application – at least that is how it has worked here in Aus when a plaint lodged for prosecution mis-named the defendant – it was simply a clerical filing error that the magistrate allowed to be amended and re-served – no big deal with that type of thing and I suspect Mann will not suffer any detriment because of this other than dimunition of character reputation.
In the voices of my generation, (X-Y)
Snap, you lost, get over it.
I don’t speak for all of us, but I do speak for many of us.
Best I can.
Dale Wright.
You’ll have to ask Mike who did his hair.
It look like mine
cn
Didn’t Jimmy Savile get a Nobel Prize? No, sorry, it was a papal knighthood….
Maybe Mann could quickly get one of those?
Pamela Gray says:
November 3, 2012 at 9:26 am
The next organization that is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize will likely receive pretty tightly controlled restrictions from the Nobel committee on what they can say on certificates of thanks given out to a recipient organization’s members. And then its members will fall or not on their own swords if they “embellish” that certificate when citing it in their employment vitae. Trenbreth’s use of parenthesis to squeak through the embellishment loophole on his certificate is exactly the kind of loophole the Nobel Peace Prize committee could, if they impose restrictions, go after in court for trademark infringement.
And make no mistake, I do hear bloodhounds barking in the distance. Their collars tags read “Nobel Peace Prize Committee”.
—————————————————-
Pamela, I’m not so sure the Nobel Committee’s ‘movers and shakers’ would come out and do anything to damage the CAGW mime. They gave the award to Al Gore and the IPCC.
Maybe that says it all.
cn
Here’s a sane and balanced reaction to the award by another well known climate scientist:
“I’ve had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don’t think I will add “0.0001 Nobel Laureate” to my resume.”
John Christy