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.
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.
1. Michael Mann for his claims of having been exonerated by several panels regarding Climategate in his filings against Mark Steyn, e.g., http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misrepresents-noaa-oig/ 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:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
I nominate Mann, who just tweeted:
@MichaelEMann:
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.