Nominations are open for the first annual 'Climate Duplicitist of the Year' award

duplicity_award_iconWith the 2014 Bloggies Awards coming up next weekend, I thought it would be good to offer our own award. Given what we’ve recently learned about the behind the scenes behavior of The University of Western Australia and Dr. Stephen Lewandowsky self inflicted car crash in handling valid ethics complaints, now dubbed “Lewgate”, I thought that he deserved to be nominated for some sort of award.

Therefore, I’m nominating him for this first annual ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award.  However, to be fair, there are others that might be more worthy of such an award, so I am giving readers a chance to place nominations in comments. See below.



In 48 hours, the nominations will be tabulated, and the top 5 nominees will be presented for a vote in a subsequent post. If you feel Lewandowsky deserves the award as I have nominated him above, you can also list him with any other nominees you present.


  1. Nominations are open for 48 hours and close at 6PM PDT Wednesday March 26th.
  2. Voting for the top four nominees (determined by number of nominations) will open Thursday March 27th at 9AM PDT
  3. Voting will close on Saturday March 29th at 9AM PDT
  4. The winner will be announced at 6PM PDT (9PM EST) on Sunday March 30th.
  5. Nominees must be living, real, persons that have had some statement, forecast, prediction, claim, or other utterance related to climate that is inherently duplicitous or misleading.
  6. Organizations, such as IPCC, NOAA, CRU etc. are also eligible to be nominated.
  7. Nominations must include a citation, URL, or excerpt that represents the reason for the nomination.
  8. You cannot nominate yourself or your organization.
  9. 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.
  10. No wagering allowed.


185 thoughts on “Nominations are open for the first annual 'Climate Duplicitist of the Year' award

  1. I would like to nominate Chris Turney: “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. Turney explained that “climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded.”

  2. After having given this much thought….I must nominate the President of the United States. Barack Obama. The brow wiping, pyjama party throwing jet-setting hypocrite. I believe his global warming/climate change rhetoric, is an incredible example of duplicity. Mind you, he is no scientist….climate, or otherwise! LOL!

  3. I vote for the one and only Mann. And the reason for the nominations is his (discredited) hockey stick

  4. So many worthy candidates, so little time to evaluate them all properly. But this gang just makes it under the wire based upon publication date:
    John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, B?rbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
    Another instance of the magic number 97%, close to what Saddam Hussein used to get in his presidential elections.

  5. I figure duplicity is more like having a principle that is supposed to be applied equally, but in reality is applied differently from one person or group than the next. It seems more a case of hypocrisy here: applying the opposite of the principle, regardless of who is involved.
    Or have I missed something?

  6. London School of Economics produced G. Soros, C. Figueres, the folk behind the New Economics Foundation, and home to the Grantham Research Institute / Climate Chan….
    ouch. . gotta . . . head-ache . .oww… where’s the loo?

  7. There are so many possible candidates in a few catagories. Person, study, publication, graph, etc. You could widen the award effort and also have it once a month. It might make a useful summary/history when looked at after a year or two, especially if the nominees and winners are catalogued. Imagine if we had something like that to look back through now, over the last 10 15 yrs. At the moment the bad science/scientists/politics transgressions are in the various minds of those involved in the challenge, not really available for big picture documentation.
    WUWT has the integrity and ability to do something like this and be consulted/respected by researchers/interested others, especially as the tide turns faster

  8. ******L1AR OF THE YEAR AWARD*****
    (no requirement that it have been said in 2013 — even if that were so, not retracted, so still on the books, thus, a current l1e)
    Category 1 — Most Lies Per Minute
    Winner: Michael Mann
    See, e.g.,
    Category 2 — Biggest Lie
    Winner: Barack Hussein Obama
    “… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow…”

    Category 3 — Most Idiotic
    Winner: Al Gore (tough to choose — so MANY candidates…)
    “The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million of degrees… .”

  9. And, re: Algore, yes, he is idiotic, however, I do not think he can successfully argue reduced capacity. He was trying to work his geothermal scam. He was exaggerating in order to deceive, just really stupidly.

  10. Al Gore will be hard to beat. I understand he has at least one sea front mansion purchased at the height of his AGW touring plus others While it is not clear how close to the actual tide the house is, he apparently also made a claim that he spent all his money on fighting global warming.

  11. With respect (or dis-respect) to Lewgate. May I recommend a special award. A spent toilet paper roll core “plated” in tin foil?

  12. Yes, we need several categories. Lewandowsky is number one, in my humble opinion, because his duplicity was so effective in attaining his ends, so obvious, yet endorsed by institutions of higher learning and scientific societies.
    After Jim Steele’s expose of Parmesan, she is a close second because her duplicity has been something like a program that she developed for years, her work has been effective in attaining her ends, and reviewers should never have allowed her later articles to see the light of day.

  13. I nominate Peter Gleick for a lifetime achievement award.
    To be head of an Ethics Committee while engaging in wire fraud, Identity theft and forgery must meet the definition of “Duplicity”.
    Interestingly, the WordPress spell checker say that i should replace the word “Gleick” with “Fickle”. 😀

  14. The president. Everyone says, “Imagine if Al Gore had become president.” You don’t have to imagine it; it is staring us in the face.
    All the others are small potatoes, in terms of power.
    Worst is that he knows it is false, and persists with it.

  15. The Discovery Channel for putting on shows stating that AGW is the cause of all our problems, then running “Raising the Baby Mammoth”. Proving beyond all doubt that on the late spring/ early summer day that the calf died and was literally flash frozen, it has never again reached the warmth of that time in order to thaw the animal. If that was a one-off, I could handle it, but it seems to be an ongoing process to find mammoths in Russia and Siberia. Anybody know the average temps back then? Got any tree rings?

  16. I’m working on it. The field is quite extensive, from fraudulent Nobel “winners” to hopelessly ignorant film stars living on the waterfront.
    And institutions are, what about Bristol University which hires a moon-bat from the other side of the world.. Or the the University of NSW which has several remarkable denizens, not least Turkey of the Shokalskiy with a propensity to get into major trouble quicker than an armoured column into Crimea.
    Dingle-bat Kerry must be a very, very strong contender. However I feel he has further potential to unleash far greater buffoonery and it’d be a pity to stifle this with too many premature awards, worthy as he is.
    But, still I keep coming back to…. Meltdown Mann.

  17. i nominate the MSM, who, as always, have given extreme coverage to the following today:
    24 March: CTV: ‘Extreme’ weather events of 2013 points to human-induced climate change: UN
    by John Heilprin, The Associated Press
    GENEVA — The head of the U.N. weather agency blamed extreme weather on human-induced climate change Monday, citing key events that wreaked havoc in Asia, Europe, the U.S. and Pacific region last year.
    Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said his agency’s annual assessment of the global climate shows how dramatically people and lands everywhere felt the impacts of extreme weather such as droughts, heat waves, floods and tropical cyclones.
    “Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change,” he said…
    Jarraud drew special attention to studies and climate modeling examining Australia’s recent heat waves, saying the high temperatures there would have been virtually impossible without the emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas.
    He cited other costly weather disasters such as $22 billion damage from central European flooding in June, $10 billion in damage from Typhoon Fitow in China and Japan, and a $10 billion drought in much of China.
    Jarraud spoke as top climate scientists and representatives from about 100 governments with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change met in Japan to complete their latest report on global warming’s impact.
    at least the above headline includes the word “points”, but most MSM have taken it a step further:
    24 March: Fox News: AP: UN says 2013 ‘extreme’ weather events due to human-induced climate change
    Much of the extreme weather that wreaked havoc in Asia, Europe and the Pacific region last year can be blamed on human-induced climate change, the U.N. weather agency says…
    Only a few places — including the central U.S. –were cooler than normal last year, but 2013 had no El Nino, the warming of the central Pacific that happens once every few years and changes rain and temperature patterns around the world…

  18. Just had a thought about the trophy: A scale model of a rusted out Russian ship locked in an iceberg.

  19. James the Elder says:
    March 24, 2014 at 6:59 pm
    Last Glacial Maximum mean global T has been estimated at 3 to 6 degrees C colder than now. Going back another 20,000 years, it would have been a little warmer than that.
    This attempt uses models to guess 4 degrees C colder:
    But at high latitudes the difference would have been even greater, possibly 8 to 10 degrees C colder, since the tropics weren’t much cooler than now.

  20. I agree,my nomination and vote goes to Chris “penguins on the poop deck” Turney of Ship of Fools fame.

  21. May I change my nomination to Kevin Trenberth?
    The depths of duplicity were not plumbed until he had the temerity to suggest that the missing heat must be hiding in the deep oceans, where of course it can’t be measured, without suggesting a miraculous means by which the laws of thermodynamics were suspended to get it down there without first warming higher levels of the seas.

  22. bones says:
    March 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm
    Hoo, boy! How did I miss that one!
    Palm to forehead gesture, aka the US Marine salute!

  23. Well done bones. I thought everyone was going to miss the most duplicitis act of recent climate times by Peter Gleick. Definitely my nomination.

  24. TIm Flannery, for owning a river side home, and predicting without any foundation that the sea levels would rise alarmingly, and we would suffer dreadful droughts. (What’s new in Australia) Sea rises have not occurred. Don’t forget Timmy who is still noisy.

  25. I agree with Bushbunny about Tim Flannery.
    Let us not forget Julia “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” Gillard.

  26. I think there should be a Nation category for the stupidest “climate duplicitist”.
    i) E.U.
    ii) U.S.A.
    iii) Canada
    iv) Australia
    My nominee for the Canadian stupidest “Climate Duplictist” has to be the Zoologist Davis Suzuki, how a zoologist became Canada voice on Global warming has to be the strangest thing the state run CBC ever accomplished.

  27. The IPCC, Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Mike Mann, and Jones from I can’t remember for colluding with Mann via emails

  28. I nominate an underdog: Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, currently a vice-chairman of the IPCC. Not well-known, but nonetheless an influential figure behind the scenes. See:
    He no longer uses the term “climate deniers” but, according to his tweets (, he is mighty fond of the term “climate confusers”. (OMG, you people at WUWT are apparently capable of confusing the climate! Evil sorcerers, that’s what you are. No wonder the U.S. East Coast had a terrible winter while western Europe enjoyed a gentle not-quite-a-winter and the U.K. had its moment when “the waves rule Britain.”)

  29. I nominate old Patch or is it Nick. It has been my experience that old age and deceit generally triumphs over youth and skill. This time it could be different.

  30. Very hard to beat Mann because he put his duplicity into court documents, but Lew and UWA by a nose for genuinely perverting a review process from a position of smug. And Kook, Nucitella, Redfearn, Suzuki, Steffen… Just about an endless list.
    Not Flannery though- we should just forgive him for he knows not what he does, and means well. Not Karoly either, because he had the rare (in a warmist) commonsense to withdraw Gergis et al (2012) Duplicity implies malevolence.
    (On further reflection, Mann, then Lew and UWA, because of the additional [state pen] action.)

  31. I nominate, Nick Cohen
    “The climate change deniers have won”
    “Yes, Mr Cohen, those whom you deliberately and with malice call “deniers” are winning. Incredibly, even though they have only 0.03% of the funds, none of the machinery or the institutions, the enmity of western governments, existential opposition from the $350 billion renewables industry, no support from the large global carbon trading market, and only scorn and derision from the entire UN, and yet they are winning with nothing but wits and facts.”

  32. Since I am banned from commenting lately and you don’t have the guts to allow dissent, you can’t even argue with me, can you? Ha!
    [Reply: Oh, grow up. Your “dissenting” comments are posted. Maybe we just don’t want to bother with arguing with you. ~ mod.]

  33. Gotta tighten up the definitions a bit I think. “Of the year” means 2013? Or just whoever we want to highlight this year regardless of what they did and when? If the former, Mann would be out because we didn’t actually hear that much from him last year. Gore would be in though for privately investing heavily in the oil and gas sector while insisting publicly that it be shut down. Gleick would be out because (IIRC) his scandal was before that. And I can’t vote for Chris Turney, that wasn’t duplicity, that was a whole different category. Incompetence or buffoonery. We need multiple categories.
    But if it doesn’t have to be in a given time period, then I have to co-nominate Al Gore and Bill Nye the pretend-science guy, for faking a science experiment and putting it on air.
    If my nomination wins, I respectfully request an honourable mention for R. Gates for wagering with me on the outcome of the experiment if properly conducted, and then welching when A_thony actually did the experiment and I was right and R. Gates wrong.

  34. Come on you guys–some great nominations but you aren’t following the rules (in some cases) and I don’t want to see your nominations disqualified:

    7. Nominations must include a citation, URL, or excerpt that represents the reason for the nomination.

  35. All the nominees so far are worthy candidates. I have to rank the prez at the bottom of this cesspit. His blatant disregard for law in his attempt to crush the economy in favor of his political and financial supporters is worthy of this honor.
    There is a potential problem with his duplicitous actions and speech; he may actually believe the crap he’s spouting. If that’s the case, he’s simply ignorant or stupid. That argues he’s incompetent instead of dishonest. Or both.
    Oh, well. Flip a coin.

  36. Surely England (et al) 2014 would get a look in for denying the pause then recently writing his highly publicised and dubious ‘the ocean did it’ paper to explain the very same pause he had denied. He basically authored a paper refuting his own proposition; a classic case of duplicitous double speak. (also a massive own-goal IMO). Second him, anyone?

  37. oh no…
    24 March: Reuters: Robert Evans: Global warming not stopped, will go on for centuries: WMO
    There has been no reverse in the trend of global warming and there is still consistent evidence for man-made climate change, the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Monday…
    “Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” (U.N. weather agency chief Michel) Jarraud told a news conference…

  38. Hallelujah:
    24 March: Reuters: Michael Szabo: Trading Emissions plc posts 19.2 mln pound H2 liquidation loss
    Clean energy fund Trading Emissions plc (TEP) said asset disposals and writedowns related to the winding up of its business had helped push it into a 19.2 million pound ($31.7 million) loss for the second half of 2013.
    Shares in London-listed TEP fell 8 percent to 14.62 pence on Monday after the firm said its net asset value had fallen by 26 percent to 22.38 pence per share in the six months ended Dec. 31, 2013…
    “It will be no surprise to shareholders that the private equity and carbon investments are becoming progressively more difficult to sell,” the company said in its results on Monday.
    TEP, a fund that invests in renewable energy projects and United Nations-backed carbon credits, has been badly hurt by tumbling carbon prices and ongoing issues at several of its facilities…
    The company also said Brazilian biodiesel plant Bionasa, in which it has a 25 percent stake, “remains troubled”.
    “Operations have ceased, obligations to creditors including banks and employees are in default, legal actions have commenced against the company to recover overdue costs, (and) the commercial and finance directors have resigned,” TEP said.
    ***It added, citing local media, that 27 of Brazil’s 67 biodiesel plants had shut production due to a national supply glut…

  39. Al Gore since his residence uses more power than a small town and his non stop crabon spewing jet travel.

  40. I definitely nominate Lew for Lewgate, unless there is a “Lifetime Achievement Award” in which case Mann, Gore, Gleick, and a variety of other worthy candidates will ‘float’ to the surface of the bowl……

  41. re: Lew’s research ethics and lack thereof….
    For those most conversant with all of the details of Lewgate (which I am not): it could be interesting to analyze how Lewandowsky’s behaviors do or do not conform to the letter and spirit of his new employer’s research ethics policies, the University of Bristol…. also in comparison to prevailing research ethics standards at UK universities in general, and any national rules and guidelines about research in the UK.
    The argument would not be that he could be ‘formally’ judged by the requirements of an institution which he had not yet joined, but rather that it should be disturbing both internally and externally if Bristol turns out to have hired a researcher whose prior work does not meet it’s minimum standards.
    For instance, there is this document online:
    University of Bristol doc. on Ethics of Research Policy and Procedure
    There seem to be a variety of ways in which Lewandowsky’s past behaviors would have been dubious under the stated standards at Bristol. Again, not that Lewandowsky is in peril with Bristol in some ‘formal’ sense, but rather that Bristol officials and faculty should be embarrassed and dismayed if they have hired someone who in the past failed to meet their professed standards.
    [this comment cross-posted at Climate Audit]

  42. More categories:
    Most Entertaining – Chris Turney, hands down, going away, no contest.
    Most Pants on Fire – Gore and Nye for faking a science experiment on air.
    Most Misleading – Michael Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline”
    Most Disingenuous – Gleick, for chairing the ethics committee of a major organization while engaged in unethical acts of frowd and suspected forgery.
    Most Blind – All the investigation committees that investigated Mann’s activities by narrowing the definition of what was being investigated until they investigated more and more about less and less and found out everything about nothing. They then concluded that they found nothing about everything.
    Most Ignorant – David Suzuki for yapping about climate and then not knowing what Hadcrut, GISS, RSS and UAH were.
    Most Sad – that senator who was worried that Guam was going to tip over if we put too many troops there.
    Most Cowardly – Phil Jones for admitting that there’s been no warming but refusing to speak out for fear of retribution by other climate scientists
    Most Outrageous – Kevin Trenberth for insisting that the null hypothesis should be suspended for climate science.
    Most Ridiculous – Kevin Trenberth for claiming that the heat is in the oceans where we can’t measure it and which got there by skipping past hundreds of meters of water without affecting its temperature.
    Most Bullying – Kevin Trenberth for forcing Wolfgang Wagner to resign from a journal for letting Roy Spencer publish a paper even though there wasn’t anything wrong with it.
    Most Timid – Wolfgang Wagner for resigning due to pressure from Trenberth for publishing Roy Spencer’s paper even though Wagner admitted it was properly reviewed and there was nothing wrong with it.
    Tired, gotta call it a night, there’s got to be at least another 2 or 3 hundred categories.

  43. Jeez, this is hellishly difficult category to judge. The ‘nominees’ above are mostly of pretty high calibre in the duplicity field.
    In hindsight I think my England Et Al nomination is a bit of small-fry (so to speak). I think we will need multiple categories of duplicitousness and maybe even a ‘by field’ split (politicians, activists, scientists etc).
    You probably need to set a cut off date too. I guess 2013 since this is a yearly award (which rules out my England 2014 paper). For example Donna at is already ripping apart IPPC ‘pal review’ reports before they are even published:
    Can we pin this award down to 2013 nominees only?

  44. Just watched Jimmy Cartier and David Letterman and their ignorance on climate. Has to be some award they qualify for.

  45. How can we reduce this brimming field of worthy candidates to a paltry 4, and then 1? Anthony, could we not take a page from the Nobel Peace Prize committee and award the prize to the whole kit and caboodle? Say, provide a list of all nominees before your deadline, (perhaps requiring at least one seconding vote), let people vote on the ballot listing all qualifiers, and then provide the final vote count for all? I hate to think of all the deserving candidates shunted to the cutting room floor and losing their chance of world fame. Let them all have their little certificate.

  46. My nomination is James West. Sure he is not as famous as Albert Gore or as litigious as Michael Mann, but for plain duplicitous creativity nobody comes close to James West’s recent article in Mother Jones. The article argues the reason that the debris of the tragic flight 370 in the Indian ocean is difficult to find is due to – wait for it – Global Warming.
    Apparently Global Warming has messed up the currents in the southern Indian ocean. The article is replete with bogus technical explanations, of course unsubstantiated, of the changes occurring in the winds and currents in this distant part of the world
    Here’s the article:
    James surely needs at least an honorable mention simply on the strength of this one article . I mean where else will you find a writer, almost in real time, warp a genuine human tragedy into a ludicrous global warming story. The man has duplicity in bucket loads. A dark horse perhaps, but surely is a serious contender nevertheless.

  47. . . . now dubbed “Lewgate”, I thought that he deserved to be nominated for some sort of award.

    And for his work to be forever enshrined by this beautifully apt eponymous neologism: Lewdoscience.

  48. Yeah, I agree with rogerknights; I didn’t realise there were so many ‘two faces’ in Gotham batman! Too soon for lifetime achievement awards so I suggest you skim off the wannabes and just give us the four most successful scammers to choose from based on the current state of play…. this profusion of talent is kind of a sad indictment on the whole climate field really…

  49. I think that if there is to be a Duplicity award, the, Lewandowsky, Flannery, Cook, Hansen, Al Gore, Trenberth, Gleick, Mann, England, Karoly, Kerry, and Obama should all have an equal share as co-winners. Rather like a sort of Nobel Duplicity Award.
    The Award Trophy should be in the form of a large silver Pig-Trough, large enough for them to all get their snouts in it, at the same time.

  50. Chris Turney gets my vote, not because he was the most two faced climate scientist (though I admit this is highly debatable ), but because he said things like
    ” As the Shokalskiy attempted to leave, however, we found ourselves surrounded by a mass breakout of multi­year ice”
    Climate change science can be mundane and boring, but Turney and his merry men kept me amused for many days.

  51. I see England’s windy-ocean theory paper gets another hot pick at Mother Jones Now it is responsible for the anguish and heart-ache of hundreds of mourning families. I can’t blame England for the Greens appetite for sick voyeuristic opportunism. But I would blame him if he offers silent ascent to Mother Jones behaviour. Shame on them for trying to score ideological points off a tragedy!

  52. Omigod Onyabike- I had forgotten all about Matthew England (and his little mate Andy Pittman). Not Turkey though (or Gergis)- too insignificant.
    There are just too many worthy winners.

  53. Excellent idea. Credit where credit is due, I always say. I further suggest, however, that the award would gain particular added meaning if associated directly with any one of the several towering figures well known for truly stupendous achievements in science by deceit. “The Mann Prize” immediately springs to mind, of course, but surely a few other candidates may be no less deserving of such perpetual recognition for their efforts.

  54. As an Australian I would have to nominate Gillard. “There will be no carbon tax …”etc. Flannery second but we didn’t vote for him.

  55. I would like to nominate those scientists that form the 97% of all scientists making up the ‘consensus-bloc’ stating the ‘science is settled.’ The award can be given to Al Gore (Al-G) on behalf of those scientists.
    I will cite common knowledge in place of a URL, link, or journal cite.

  56. G.S. Williams says:
    March 24, 2014 at 10:37 pm
    Say, how about Rajendra Pachauri?
    Holy duplication Batman! How did we forget the grinning Commissar? Where’s ya quote/URL GSW? I’m sure there are a bundle from Raj. He’s always pretty pleased to contradict his own organisations findings when he has a microphone. Too… many… choices… Argh!

  57. I have to go with Kevin Trenberth. He set the stage with his out of year “travesty” comment. Doubled down with the “heat is in the deep blue sea” gift to the suspension of the laws of thermodynamics.
    But his race to the finish was the happy notion of seawater effectively piling up on the surface and just waiting for the opportunity to “slosh” back. (He will, my models tell me, take personal credit for the possible El Nino coming this year. “See, see….there is the warm water sloshing back.” I am pretty sure as he takes that credit he will not explain how that same water has sunk to the depths of the deep blue sea.)
    Meanwhile, as Mark Steyn has seriously lawyered up I fear that Mann may be road kill before he is able to pick up his consolation award for Miss Congeniality.

  58. Duplicity? Certainly Lew for this year — but doesn’t Michael Mann deserves a lifetime achievement award?
    Eugene WR Gallun.

  59. Sun Spot says:
    March 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm
    The EU is not a nation. It’s government by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy is probably the most duplicitous organisation of modern times, but unfortunately outside the nomination criteria for the award.
    I nominate the Royal Society, for masquerading as a scientific body so successfully and jointly Lord Debden and Tim Yeo, for supporting scary non-science while enriching themselves at public expense. I second Michael Mann for a lifetime achievement award for using every artifice except disinterested scientific inquiry to keep his hockey stick at the centre of the CAGW narrative. Lew is about as duplicitous as a 9 year- old. His almost total lack of Machiavellian skill precludes me from supporting him.

  60. Anthony, can you give your readers a copy of the citation for the Duplicity Award? It might help narrow down what is fast becoming a ridiculously massive field of contestants.
    Something like “For their persistent effort to corrupt their own personal ideals in the pursuit of deception. In keeping with the highest ideals of the Machiavellian politics the Duplicity Award goes to… (insert name)….”
    BTW, excuse the saddle soap but have thoroughly enjoyed your informative and sometimes hilarious blog for some time. Kudos to you and your team

  61. As imoira says: March 24, 2014 at 7:52 pm
    “IPCC. Duplicity is its reason for being.”
    And I second that after pondering the extreme difficulty of choosing among such a wide array of candidates, there can be no greater duplicitous doyen of duplicicists than our global ignobel IPCC

  62. grumpyoldmanuk says:
    March 24, 2014 at 11:55 pm

    Lew is about as duplicitous as a 9 year-old. His almost total lack of Machiavellian skill precludes me from supporting him.

    So right it makes me grumpy.

  63. Lew is my choice for several reasons. It’s good with a clear cut example to carry the first prize so to avoid misunderstandings of what this prize is about, or it could end up like the Nobel Peace Prize. Lew is also the right shoddy company nobody wants to be associated with – perfect company for next years loser.

  64. I would say Bob ‘fast fingers ‘ Ward , but his actual job is to BS , so has a professional rather than amateur I am not sure is allowed.

  65. To save time, here is the article from the Border Mail, 01/10/2008;
    Chris Hill, Albury. Border Mail, 01/10/2008
    Drought trigger clear as day.
    When I was a kid we never had drought after drought.
    Then we started with daylight savings. We started with a little bit, but now we have six months of the year daylight saving.
    It has just become too much for the environment to cope with.
    It is so logical, for six months of the year we have an extra hour each day of that hot afternoon sun.
    I read somewhere that scientific studies had shown there is a lot less moisture in the atmosphere which means we get less rain.
    I believe this one hour extra sun is slowly evaporating all the moisture out of everything.
    Why can’t the Government get the CSIRO to do studies on this, or better still, get rid of daylight savings. They have to do something before it’s to late.

    As Anthony would say…….the stupid, it burns.

  66. I nominate Mr Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia, who stated that climate science is crap, but who is now spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money on abating CO2 emissions.
    You can’t get much more duplicitous about climate science than that.

  67. As many have said before how do you choose when there are just so many possibilities, the “climate gate” emails would give a good list and then there are all those talking heads who have not bothered to look into what the climate is actually doing.
    My head is spinning.
    OH I give up….
    Just give Micheal Mann a lifetime achievement award!!!!!!!!!!!
    James Bull

  68. Peter Gleick
    Peter Gleick is a MacArthur “Genius Award” recipient, a (forced to resign) chairman of the “Task Force on Ethics” at the American Geophysical Union, a (forced to resign) member of the National Center for Science Education, and current president of the Pacific Institute. He is also featured in a “documentary” film titled “Last Call at the Oasis.”
    On February 20, 2012, Peter Gleick confessed to stealing documents from The Heartland Institute with the intent of exposing its funding sources and damaging its reputation. He also disseminated a fake “climate strategy memo” that he and other environmental activists on the left claim describes Heartland’s “secret strategy” to mislead the public about the true nature of climate change.
    At first Gleick claimed he obtained the fake memo along with other documents from The Heartland Institute. Now he claims it came from an anonymous source before he stole the documents. Heartland has consistently and unambiguously said the memo is a forgery and was not produced by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute.
    “Fakegate” is the title given to this scandal by the London Telegraph’s James Delingpole.
    The Heartland Institute conducted an internal investigation that showed the memo was not authored by anyone at the organization. Two external, independent investigations — one by Protek International and one by Juola & Associates — found the same. Many others have also conducted excellent investigations into this matter.

  69. I suggest an IgLew award too for those whose are too incompetent to be effective and shoot their cause in both feet. Dame Julia would be my candidate for that one.
    For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
    Hoist with his own petard: and ‘t shall go hard
    But I will delve one yard below their mines,
    And blow them at the moon:

  70. Amusing as this light relief may be….and at the risk of being “Mr.Buzzkill”…..I really think this is a waste of time and effort and trivialises the antics of these people.

  71. There are so many worthy contestants (involuntarily entered, to be sure) for this award that I hesitate to add more; but I must. Highest on my list (after Mr. Gore, of course), is President Obama; but closely following behind him is our own EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, which resolutely pushes Global Warming as scientific while being confronted repeatedly by evidence to the contrary. As a result of EPA’s pushing, we have numerous stringent and nonsensical rules that can be added to at any time. I suppose it is possible for some of the people at EPA actually to believe what they say, but we all know that their reason for persisting in their doctrine is to control the rest of us (for our own good, of course). Do consider the EPA for this award, and give it all the publicity you can!

  72. I agree with Dr. John Ware in that there are so many worthy contestants, but I have to give the nod to Al Gore. He’s the tip of the spear of climate alarmism. If not for him, this nonsense would have died off a long time ago.

  73. I think I would include Richard Muller who pretended to have been a skeptic, but is now a born again AGW believer.

  74. John Cook, for his highly duplicitous 97% survey.
    The central purpose of that ‘survey’ was simply to give advocates and media lackeys alike a seemingly overwhelming sound bite; something that at a single stroke could be used to convey the ‘consensus’ of ‘peer-reviewed climate scientists’ and thus shut down any further discussion.
    Due to Cooks duplicity all that became available in an instantly deliverable, seemingly irrefutable one-liner. It has to be said that given the extent it has been used across almost all media it has been an outstanding success.
    Lord Monckton has since destroyed the ‘survey’, exposing Cooks quite deliberate intent to deceive via obviously loaded questions and a deliberately biased screening process. That’s perfect duplicity territory. (Awarding him this prize would also go some way to righting his obvious deceit, too.)

  75. Cinderella/Longshot pick:
    The Gaurdian’s Laurence Topham… aka Peanut Butter Milkshake Boy… aka Environmental Jesus.
    “His suffering saved the Planet.”
    Now mail me my prize.

  76. The award letter should thoroughly document its claims. Sorry for the wet blanket. You won’t want to be a target of a libel suit. You might want to refresh your understanding of the law via a consultation with an attorney. I can see the appeal of getting this ready by April 1, but I think thoroughness is warranted.

  77. Good idea. I see there is a new institute for the study of poor science in the bio-medical area ( I reckon something like that for climate science would also be an excellent idea, given the new-found importance of the area.
    The title for the award is a bit cumbersome. I suggest an ‘Occam’s Broom Award’ for the most important deployment of that device in climate alarm campaigning. The device is described by Daniel C Dennett (2013) as follows:
    ‘The molecular biologist Sidney Brenner recently invented a delicious play on Occam’s Razor, introducing the new term Occam’s Broom, to describe the process in which inconvenient facts are whisked under the rug by intellectually dishonest champions of one theory or another…The practice is particularly insidious when used by propagandists who direct their efforts at the lay public …their carefully crafted accounts can be quite convincing simply because the lay reader can’t see what isn’t there.’
    I give some examples from the climate arena here:

  78. Gore, Mann, Lewandowsky, it’s a warmacopia. Please also remember Peter Gleick wants it bad enough to commit a felony and Richard Muller who is doing his BEST.

  79. I’ll confirm Kevin Trenberth. While he understands ENSO better than most climate scientists, he elects to obscure/misrepresent its long-term effects at every possible chance to keep the CAGW hypothesis alive.

  80. I nominate David Cameron, the British Prime Minister. He is a most duplicitous, green worshipping toe rag.

  81. I think the “Climate Duplicitist of the Year” award is a brilliant, wonderful idea. This should be great fun. I love the idea of responding to the name calling from the AGW advocates with a bit of smart humor.
    Bill Nye the “science guy” gets my vote, for past participation in the Gore fraudulent CO2 greenhouse gas demonstration/experiment, and continued duplicity in the climate change debate:
    Many thanks Anthony 🙂

  82. One more vote for Lew-don’t-know-ski, based not only on his past antics, but also on my own super-sophisticated modeling of his future childish behavior which projects a paper on Skeptic/Denier “Duplicitacist Ideation in the Blogosphere” in the near future . . .

  83. With so many candidates, you might have to go to a March madness type of bracket system for voting.

  84. I suggested such an award two years ago for Peter Gleick. However, he’s hasn’t made much noise recently (but a Lifetime Achievement Award would be appropriate.) So if we are talking about just this last year I would have to second the nomination of Secretary of State John Kerry for his recent remarks:
    The remarks may not have been as duplicitous as a scientific paper that deceives the subjects polled, but they were more far-reaching and had worse consequences than Lewandowsky et al. After all, where do we go to get his ‘worse than weapons of mass destruction’ remarks withdrawn?

  85. Although I am not sure he fits the definition of duplicitous, I nominate Scott Mandia as “Best Dressed” for his excellent work as “Super Mandia.”
    A shame he got caught up in the AGW silliness because earlier in his career, he did some excellent work on hurricane storm surge for Long Island and NYC as well as excellent summaries of major hurricanes to hit Long Island/NYC Metro

  86. So many champions worthy of the prize – the mind boggles. It’s way more competitive than the Nobel Peace Prize. Even if we stipulated that only previous winners of that prize qualify, that would still leave us with enough options for years to come.

  87. Government Entity category:
    I nominate the US EPA for flagrant use of junk science to justify classifying CO2 as a “pollutant” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
    Lifetime Acheivement (2 nominees)
    Paul R. Ehrlich, for a successful and distinguished career of never being right. He keeps making failed predictions and keeps getting rewarded for them, so who can blame him? The term “Cassandra” is sometimes used to denote someone who is always right but never believed (from the Trojan priestess of that name who was cursed with the power of prophecy and the fate of never being believed). I do not know a comparable reference from classical literature for someone who is never right but always believed, so I put forth an “Ehrlich” for that purpose. Support for this nomination can be found here
    James E. Hansen, formerly of NASA, deserves nomination for his participation in what may be the first instance of climate duplicity, the US Senate Hearings of 1988. Support for this nomination can be found here .

  88. Since this is the first award are we allowed to go back further than 1 year? I nominate George Monbiot of the Guardian. He told us to listen to the science.

    George Monbiot – February 15, 2005
    Mocking Our Dreams
    It is now mid-February, and already I have sown eleven species of vegetable. I know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. Everything in this country – daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees, nesting birds – is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us.
    And this is surely one of the reasons why we find it so hard to accept what the climatologists are now telling us. In our mythologies, an early spring is a reward for virtue………….How can something which feels so good result from something so bad?……

    Fast forward to 2010

    Guardian 20 December 2010
    That snow outside is what global warming looks like
    Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth
    ….”You are a liar, Mr Monbiot. You and James Hansen and all your lying colleagues. I’m going to make you pay back the money my son gave to your causes. It’s minus 18C and my pipes have frozen. You liar. Is this your global warming?” She’s not going to like the answer, and nor are you. It may be yes……


  89. I second, or third, the nomination of Peter Gleick. Lewandowsky is, simply, too much a jerk to be taken seriously by anyone.
    Gleick crawled down from the ivory towers of academe to the pit of lies and deceit — and, then, was allowed to re-ascend.
    Friends still talk with him. I can’t imagine what his justifications, over dinner parties, might be. He is a perfect symbol of the corruption of the science. …..Lady in Red

  90. In order to make this competition fair where the truly professional purveyors of duplicity be disqualified and be given lifetime achievement awards so as to not eliminate the new liars chance to win. We should eliminate Mann, Gore, Hansen and Ehrlich from consideration, since their duplicity gives them an unfair advantage.

  91. I like the idea of multiple categories (climataologist, meterologist, other scientist, journalist, politician, blogger?), and awards should be for contribution within the calendar year. A yearly lifetime achievement award should be named after the initial recipient and be dubbed the Al Gore Lifetime Achievement Award. Acceptance speeches could be used to explain each recipients ‘outstandingness’ in his/her field. The awards could be shaped like hockey sticks, or other icons of duplicity. Go big or go home :>)

  92. An award for bad behavior?
    How liberating!
    Perhaps all involved in the CAGW movement should be dishonorably mentioned?
    As Arlo Guthrie said, “…friends they may think it’s a movement.”
    Yep, CAGW is a “movement” all right.

  93. I know this does not count but just shows you how uncertain they really are. I suspect they were merely reporting on the weather and not the climate – and they didn’t even know it.

    Independent – 20 March 2000
    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
    …within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said……
    Independent – 4 February 2012
    Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?

  94. As the person who has single handedly done the most damage to society using Global Warming as his tool…Barack Hussein Obama.!
    “All across the world, …increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster. ”
    — Barack Obama
    Global warming is not just the greatest environmental challenge facing our planet — it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.
    — Barack Obama
    This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Barack Obama
    — Barack Obama

  95. I second the nomination for the ipcc, for their pretense about presenting science, as well as their pretense of caring about the Earth.

  96. Obama for the sheer, staggering damage his duplicity causes/can cause as POTUS. Peter Gleick (any news on a prosecution for his self-confessed wire fraud?), Michael Mann, the IPCC and Al Gore all get dishonourable mentions.

  97. EPA, no question. Most of the others are very tiny people, quite ludicrous, not worth bothering with.

  98. Al Gore, for the specific claim in his “An Inconvenient Truth” movie companion book that enviro-activist book author/ex-reporter & Pulitzer-winning Ross Gelbspan discovered a leaked coal industry memo proving skeptic climate scientists were paid industry shills out to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” Photo of Gore’s book page here:
    The first time Gelbspan publicly mentioned those memos was in a December 1995 radio interview, also quoting how the coal group intended to target “older, less educated men and young, low-income women.”×591.jpg
    Gore quoted the very same “older, less-educated males” / younger, lower-income women” memo phrase in his 1992 “Earth in the Balance” book.
    Ross Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer ( ), and the above coal group memos do nothing to prove a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptic climate scientists and the fossil fuel industry – money paid in exchange for fabricated skeptic science reports.

  99. I hereby propose, in honor of Lewandowsky, and regardless of who wins, that the awards be dubbed (drumroll)
    The Loogies.

  100. I have to go with Mann on this one. His attack on Judith Curry, while in the process of suing Tim Ball and Mark Steyn for defamation, is duplicity at it’s finest.

  101. OK….How about these…
    CMIP5 – for not being able to tell anything about the future or the past.
    The Science Journals that only publish one point of scientific view and force closings of sub-journals that have the audacity to publish the other side.
    The “peers” who review the papers being published on the warmist side.
    The news organizations that will not allow any dissenting comments to articles hyping AGW.
    The Met Office in Britain.
    The list goes on and on….

  102. I nominate Bill Nye for the “High School Science” fiasco of a few years ago. Two key failures: a) not actually doing the experiment, b) when caught, suggesting it was not important to actually do the experiment. Why is he more culpable than Al Gore: a) Gore is in the end just a politician and an opportunist, but Nye claims presents himself as a scientist and thus bears more culpability, and b) Nye has placed himself as a mentor for elementary school pre-scientists, and thus has extraordinary responsibility (James 3:1)

  103. so we have:
    Al gore
    Chris turney
    Camille parmensan
    Mikey mann
    John Cook
    , Sarah A Green5,
    Mark Richardson6,
    B?rbel Winkler2,
    Rob Painting2,
    Robert Way7,
    Peter Jacobs8 and
    Andrew Skuce2
    Brad johnson
    American Geophysical Union
    Peter Gleick
    Discovery Channel
    Kevin Trenberth
    TIm Flannery,
    Julia guillard
    Davis Suzuki
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
    Kook, Nucitella, Redfearn, Suzuki, Steffen
    Nick cohen
    Bill nye
    Robert evans
    Phil jones
    James west
    Rajendra Pachauri
    Maurice Strong
    Eugene WR Gallun
    Royal society
    Lord debden tim yeo
    Dana nuccitelin
    Chris hill
    Bob ward
    Tony abbott
    Dame julia slingo
    Richard mueller
    David cameron
    Laurence topham
    US EPA
    Paul erhlich
    have we come to an agreement on what the award is actually for?
    oh, and my nomination: Clive Best. why? Duplicity!
    1st he says: ‘resonant dust coulds’ = lots of hot air
    2nd he says: lunar and solar tidal cycles = a lunatic shooting for the stars
    c’mon Clive we know its SUV’s and Cow farts.

  104. davidmhoffer says:
    March 24, 2014 at 8:54 pm

    Most Sad – that senator who was worried that Guam was going to tip over if we put too many troops there.

    I am surprised in this forum I have to keep correcting bad information: it was not a U.S. Senator, but U.S Representative Hank Johnson (my congressman) who made this particular blunder during a hearing.
    I will not go so far as to claim that a U.S. Senator couldn’t be capable of an equivalent blunder, but in the interest of accuracy I must correct davidmhoffer on this detail.
    I also need to opine once again that Representative Johnson is better than his predecessor, Cynthia McKinney — you be the judge.
    It seems from a quick scan through the nominations thus far that Mike Mann has an edge, although I am surprised at so many votes for Chris Turney.

    • @Alan Watt – While there is no question that Johnson is not as bad as McKinney, he does appear to be more stupid. But he does not have the “kiss of death” that Old Winny McKinny has (cozying up to Saddam – dead, cozying up to Gaddafi – dead.)

  105. Curious, no nominations for Joe Romm? Or is he just a re-packager of other peoples’ duplicity?

  106. If we’re talking about just this year, then I nominate Mann for his fighting disclosure in his most recent lawsuit and and Lewbaby for this kind of….well….he needs his diaper changed.

    Lewandowsky made a huge fuss about people being unable to locate emails. The only reason why people were unable to locate emails was because Lew had concealed his association with the survey and then used the concealment to score points.

    (From this latter post

  107. I think that when this is actually put up for a vote the ground rules need to be clarified. Are we voting for “this year’s” or “lifetime”?
    For this first one, maybe both categories should be included?

  108. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    March 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    If Screamin’ Joe Romm, then how about Weepy Bill McKibben & all the slackers at

  109. Long-time and frequent visitor; first-time commenter… I’d like to suggest that ALONG WITH, and in direct contrast to, this duplicity award that there also be an award for that person, organization or group that has done the most to further the knowledge of real climate science whether the contribution supports our skeptical view or not (more likely it WILL support the skeptical view of climate science but we should be open to where the science takes us). In other words, provide the positive feedback so desperately needed for those actually following the scientific method and furthering the science. Something akin to a new, more credible “Nobel prize” in climate science as determined by a group that seems to have their thinking caps on (as opposed to typical liberals that seem to have taken over most of the previously prestigious science related awards). I think a press release that includes a positive award, in addition to the award pointing out the supreme silliness of the climatstrologists, will have more traction.
    I also agree that a few categories for the duplicity award (solo, organizational, media, and lifetime achievement) are needed.

  110. My duplicity nomination goes to Michael E. Mann (PSU) for his self-contradictory monologue in his book and for his non-scientific behavior in his supposed scientific research (see A. Montford’s book ‘The [Mann] Hockey Stick Illusion’).

  111. I think the award is the wrong one. I think it should be for the best non-duplicitous global warming scientist as this limits the choice somewhat.
    I nominate….er….er….er….er…er…er…er…er….

  112. Needs a better name than Climate Duplicitist – Climate Denier, Climate Wacko, Climate Un-Scientist, Cimate Conspirer, Climate Clown, Climate Snake.

  113. slightly OT except relevant to the past and future performance of Michael Mann as climate charlatan and demagogue:
    Wow! For the relief of anyone who may have been concerned when Mark Steyn dismissed his former legal representation, he has announced a potent team of some of the most accomplished free-speech attorneys alive today:
    Mark Steyn announces “Dream Team” of legal experts
    Mikey Mann is not going to know what hit him….. something like a thundering freight train of legal, cultural, scientific, and personal criticism.
    [cross-posted at Bishop Hill]

  114. Ed Milliband.
    For our former colonial cousins, this is the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition in the UK and the individual/twerp most responsible for the insanity of the the UK’s current energy policy.
    A policy that is guaranteed to produce blackouts and sky high electricity prices in the not too distant future.

  115. Skiphil, thanks for information that Steyn the lawyer no longer has a fool for client, not that IMO he ever did.

  116. Robber says:
    March 25, 2014 at 2:10 pm
    Needs a better name than Climate Duplicitist – Climate Denier, Climate Wacko, Climate Un-Scientist, Cimate Conspirer, Climate Clown, Climate Snake.

    Climate Charlatan?
    But I think the wiser course is a name that won’t bring Mann’s legal gnats buzzing around. Though I like “Climate Charlatan”, perhaps it’s best to leave it as something that describes the actions rather than the person.

  117. Skiphil says:
    March 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm
    Every nuke needs a guidance system.

  118. From the replies received so far, it seems that there should be two awards, one for individual and one for corporate.

  119. James the Elder – the mammoth flash flood and freezing is detailed in Otto Mucks Opus The Secret of Atlantis. Don’t let the title fool you – this is a scholarly, masterful piece ofwork and should be required reading for all geology students

  120. Oh, congratulations on this one. I can see this award developing into something to rival the Oscars or the Nobel.
    I had a quick scan through the above nominations. Can’t say I’d be disappointed to see any of them take the title, all well deserving. But If I can make my nominations, that I don’t think have been mentioned as yet (though I could be wrong, sorry) I think all the Kids over at Skeptical Science are very deserving, for their tireless efforts to promote the scams of all the above mentioned.
    Also I think the notorious Climate Models deserve a special mention for their consistency in their heroic failure. I know this is breaking the rule Nr.5, but some look upon these as more than mere machines, with a mind, a heart and a life of their own.
    I’m off now to organise my Tuxedo for Sundays award ceremony.

  121. At the very least there needs to be several categories.
    Scientists or alleged scientists
    Journalist or media figure (not sure if there are any journalists left)
    Politicians or those who are known to be dishonest to start with.
    Just a couple of comments
    Don’t know the specifics of her exploits but the Parmesean woman sounds pretty cheesy. Forgive me I could not resist.
    Mikey Mann has always impressed me as an evil Pepa Pig.

  122. Surely there should be two awards. A lifetime achievement award for candidates such as Al Gore, the IPCC, EPA etc, and an annual award for more specific duplicitous achievements in the last year or so, such as Lewandowsky, Nuccitelli.

  123. 1. Michael Mann for his claims of having been exonerated by several panels regarding Climategate in his filings against Mark Steyn, e.g., as documented By Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit;
    2. IPCC for 95% confidence claim in AR5
    3. IPCC for WG2 Confidentiality statement, where it states, “IPCC places a priority on openness”, and especially, “WG II is committed to upholding these confidentiality requirements TO FACILITATE AN ASSESSMENT PRODUCT OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY.” (my emphasis).
    (Text of guidance follows):
    Confidentiality Guidance for WG II CLAs, LAs, and REs for the AR5
    Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs), Lead Authors (LAs), and Review Editors (REs) should
    follow these Working Group II (WG II) confidentiality requirements for the Fifth Assessment
    Report (AR5). IPCC places a priority on openness, and provided WG II CLAs, LAs, and REs
    follow the requirements outlined below, they should not feel constrained in publicly discussing
    individual perspectives relevant to their own scientific expertise.
    The assessment process depends on confidential internal deliberations in which all opinions can
    be aired openly . Author deliberations at Lead Author Meetings and in other forums (e.g., email
    discussions and conference calls) are confidential and should not be cited, quoted, distributed, or described. In particular, deliberations should not be discussed with reporters or in forums such as blogs, social media, or other public outlets.
    The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly
    during the preparation of the AR5. All draft materials (e.g., chapter drafts, figure drafts, notes,
    and outlines) are confidential and should not be cited, quoted, or distributed outside AR5 author
    teams during the preparation of the AR5. Any draft materials received from other Working
    Groups are also confidential and subject to these confidentiality requirements. The
    confidentiality of chapter drafts is communicated to expert and government reviewers, and
    confidentiality requirements apply to reviewer comments and the responses of author teams
    during the preparation of the AR5. Upon completion of the AR5, WG II report drafts, reviewer
    comments, and author team responses will be made available in a public archive; all other draft
    materials will remain confidential after the completion of the AR5.
    For the preparation of the AR5, WG II is committed to upholding these confidentiality
    requirements to facilitate an assessment product of the highest quality.
    4. John Cook for the name of his blog:

  124. I nominate Mann, who just tweeted:
    Irony Alert! Irony Alert!
    #AnthonyWatts holds competition for “Climate Duplicitist Of The Year”
    #Heartland #Watts #Koch #ProfessionalDenial
    I didn’t know you are a professional denier paid by the Koch brothers, Anthony. Then again, it could be just more duplicity from Mann. Irony alert!

  125. Theo Goodwin says: Who would you rank second?
    Depends on the category
    For biologists who destroy environmental science’s credibility
    #1 Camille Parmesan for turning every conservation success into a climate catastrophe
    #2 Andrew Derocher for polar bear deception
    #3 J Alan Pounds for bogus Golden Toad climate connection
    For Fear mongering Politicians
    #1 Al Gore nuff said
    #2 Senator Whitehouse for turning every weather event into a climate catastrophe
    #3 Cal. Rep Alan Lowenthal for posting on HuffPo that the bogus Powell Survey proved climate case is closed
    #4 too many to list
    Climate scientists defiling science
    #1 AAAS
    #2 Kevin Trenberth for arguing all changing weather is climate change
    #3 James Hansen for the apocalyptic cult leader dressed in science garb
    #4 Michael Mann for cherrypicking data and hiding the declne
    #5 Peter Gleick gets the Orwellian Double Speak award as Chair of the prestigious
    American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics
    Promoters of Fascist Intellectual Tyranny trying to suppress all debate
    #1 Stephan Lewandosky for bogus surveys
    #2 David Suzuki
    #3 BBC
    #4 CNN
    #5 Slate

  126. After seeing Mann’s tweet I would boost him to the top of my rating for over all deception defiling science. He wrote polar bears and the golden toad were evidence of global warming catastrophes in his book DIre Predictions
    He denies the tree ring data after 1950 that shows the only observed hockey stick warming is at airports not in natural environments.
    He has launched a campaign suggesting if you disagree with him, then you are attacking “science”. Such meglomaniacs are always at the forefront of tyranny!

  127. Obama. Pontificating about climate change while allowing his wife, et al., to traipse off the China for no good reason. Not to mention the other countless trips that served no purpose and unnecessarily added, by his claims, a harmful substance into the atmosphere.

  128. In case they haven’t been nominated already,
    The ADL for practicing “selective outrage”.
    The “Weather” Channel. (The current version of it, not the original.)
    A look at their program schedule should be enough to gain them dishonorable mention.

  129. Most Cowardly – Phil Jones for admitting that there’s been no warming but refusing to speak out for fear of retribution by other climate scientists

    I’d have to add ALL of the other “scientists” in the CRU emails who criticized Mann’s work in “private”, but wuz two skeered to do so in public.

  130. Maybe we should separate them up into continents. This Australasia, United States of America, United Kingdom, and India, etc. And send all nominees a certificate. Oh, maybe we will be sued?
    For Australia definitely Tim Flannery, UK, Jones, USA you choose, Canada, Susuki, and India, Pachauri. Should be a hard one for the United States.

Comments are closed.