With 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.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplicity
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.
Rules:
- Nominations are open for 48 hours and close at 6PM PDT Wednesday March 26th.
- Voting for the top four nominees (determined by number of nominations) will open Thursday March 27th at 9AM PDT
- Voting will close on Saturday March 29th at 9AM PDT
- The winner will be announced at 6PM PDT (9PM EST) on Sunday March 30th.
- 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.
- Organizations, such as IPCC, NOAA, CRU etc. are also eligible to be nominated.
- Nominations must include a citation, URL, or excerpt that represents the reason for the nomination.
- You cannot nominate yourself or your organization.
- 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.
- No wagering allowed.
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 . . .
With so many candidates, you might have to go to a March madness type of bracket system for voting.
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:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/03/19/obamaa-foreign-policy-obsession-with-global-warming-emboldens-putin/
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?
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.”
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/09/breaking-vivienne-westwood-makes-bid-to.html
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
The educational system in the US for showing Al Gore’s movie.
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.
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 .
I’ll know I’ve died and gone to heaven when WordPress provides a preview feature.
Links for the above nominations are:
(Paul Ehrlich): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/paul-ehrlich-wrong-again-world-cereal-production-set-to-reach-historic-high/
(James Hansen): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/
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.
Fast forward to 2010
LOL
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
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.
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 :>)
Don’t forget “Choo Choo Pachauri”, the railroad engineer turned climate wizard.
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.
🙂
Rajendra K. Pachauri has been head of the IPCC since 2002.
In 2005 he was the scientific advisor to a residual oil extraction company called Glori Oil (now called Glori Energy).
In 2008 he urged oil executives to help cut emissions.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=27919769
http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/02/13/environment-cera-energy-climatechange-idINN1229690620080213
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.
As the person who has single handedly done the most damage to society using Global Warming as his tool…Barack Hussein Obama.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/28/obama-calls-global-warming-a-fact-ignores-flat-temps/#!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/obama-climate-change-quotes_n_3499413.html
“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
I second the nomination for the ipcc, for their pretense about presenting science, as well as their pretense of caring about the Earth.
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.
EPA, no question. Most of the others are very tiny people, quite ludicrous, not worth bothering with.
Anthony: A catchier title for your award would be “Climate Conniver of the Year.”
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: http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AnIncT-263.jpg
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.” http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NPR-LOE-Gelb-reposit-12-15-95-1024×591.jpg
Gore quoted the very same “older, less-educated males” / younger, lower-income women” memo phrase in his 1992 “Earth in the Balance” book. http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ErintheB-360.jpg
Ross Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer ( http://www.pulitzer.org/faceted_search/results/gelbspan ), 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.
Dana Nuccitelli, who works for the oil industry.
I hereby propose, in honor of Lewandowsky, and regardless of who wins, that the awards be dubbed (drumroll)
The Loogies.
Mann gets my vote for the Duplicit-list.