Voting is open closed: ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award

Readers surely recall: Nominations are open for the first annual ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award.

The top nominations are in, now you can vote.

(poll is closed per original rules, result will posted Sunday night)


Only one vote per person, vote stuffing attempts are minimized by the design of the poll software.

Trenberth was added as  bonus option, even though he’s been relatively quiet recently. I recognize that readers had many more suggestions for nominations, but these are the ones most numerous in comments.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Mann is a perennial so this time I voted for Lewadowsky.

Michael Mann is always in the running for this one isn’t he?


I voted for Mann. He stays busy. Gleick is the most spectacular of all time. But what has he done for us lately? While Mann is like the Everready Bunny. He just keeps churning out this crap.

son of mulder

Too difficult to decide.

Les Johnson

All the above?

I’m running a get-out-the-vote campaign for Kevin Trenberth. Sure, he’s a dark horse running in a field of thorough-breeds like Michael Mann – but I just know he can do it. He tries so hard.


So many choices (and all SO deserving).


Al Gore is da’ man! Whenever you want to buy some sincere climate duplicity, he’s your go-to guy… and he stays bought. Well, at least until it’s time to get out ahead of the crash.

C.M. Carmichael

In the absence of Canadian content (Suzuki, CBC) , Al Gore is King.


Perhaps the subname of the award is the James Hansen Award… because I note he is not a candidate.

Anyone who declares that the Earth’s crust is hotter than the corona of the Sun, gets to win it every year.

timothy sorenson

Just incase: du·plic·i·ty
noun: duplicity
deceitfulness; double-dealing.
synonyms: deceitfulness, deceit, deception, double-dealing, underhandedness, dishonesty, fraud, fraudulence, sharp practice, chicanery, trickery, subterfuge, skulduggery, treachery;
informalcrookedness, shadiness, dirty tricks, shenanigans, monkey business;
literary: perfidy. “He got caught up in the duplicity of his crooked partners.”
Trickery/dirty tricks lends itself to Mann.
Shenanigans, monkey business, and chicanery to Lew.
Fraud and underhandedness to Gleick.
But I don’t see ‘basic idiot’, so I guess I am going to scratch Turney.
And I am still out on Gore as to whether he is the classic ‘delusional messiah complex’ individual or something more.
So I got it down to 3 candidates, so tough. Kinda wish we had (dis)approval voting and I could cast 3 votes.


So many choices. Which to choose, which to choose?


It’s gotta be Trenberth. He churns out more papers to find the elusively hidden heat than anyone.


All so deserving. Maybe a lifetime achievement award for Mann, Trenberth & Gore. If it’s for the past year, I’m going to have to go with Lewdie or the Antarctic Iceman. Gleick would have been hands down winner for the 2012-13 duplicity season, so maybe a retroactive winner could be declared, with honorable mention for the dishonorable AGU for not perp walking the liar out of its Task Force on Science Integrity & the whole organization.

Evan Jones

I think it needs to be Gleick. As bad as some of the others are (“self”-ethics review, horrendous statistics, blind willfulness, refusal to debate, refusal to release data, etc.), none of them, so far as I am aware, actually went so far as to forge documents as part of a frame-up job.


I still think “Climate Conniver” has more swing than “Climate Dupliciitst”–lots more.
Lewdicrous Lew’s Lewdoscience takes the cake!

Rhoda R

I went with Mann – he’s the one that’s been most active this year. But actually, he and Al Gore could both receive life-time awards so then we could turn our attention to the also rans.


‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award
Have they changed the rules?
…I understood that if you’ve won over 10 years in a row
you get the lifetime achievement award

Steve Fitzpatrick

I think it would be better if it were more like the college football polls: 5 points for first place, 4 for second, etc. down to 0 points for last place. It would provide a lot of information about the relative…. um…. notoriety of the candidates. Maybe someone could write up a Lewandowsky style attack paper based on the results.


I cast my vote for Mann on the basis that his work has had by far the most impact. As a scientist myself, I am offended at how he operates, more like a politician than an actual scientist — never admits a mistake, just moves on. Michael Mann is a cartoon. It’s hard to understand how academia still takes him seriously.

Alan Robertson

I went with Al Gore. Al Gore has made more money, is the most publicly visible, his lies have been far more widespread and widely quoted, not to mention that he made a lying movie for which he received numerous accolades. I agree with all that others have said so far about the candidates, but Al gets the prize. He may be the most duplicitous and untrustworthy character in all phases of his public life that I have ever seen.

I had to vote for Turney simply because he has one of those faces that make me want to punch the screen every time his photo appears.

Ronald Voisin

We should do everything we can to have Mickey Mann at 9th International Conference on Climate Change

Mark Hladik

Les Johnson stole my thunder — — it has to be “All of the Above” with Julia Gillard and Steven Mosher added as a bonus.
Maybe we could call it the ‘Gore Hanson Lifetime (mal-)Feasance Award’ ?

Come on people. Mann is not so duplicitous. He’s just a flat out alarmist, a narcissist and a bully.
One only has to read Climate Audit to see the true winner:


I understand the flight to little Mann with the voting, but the general public knows him not. Algore, on the other hand, is about as two faced as is possible and very publicly well known.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Johannesburg

The idea of impact is important, but it is not a vote for impact. While I understand the votes for Mann because of the topicality of the horrendous recent SciAm article, in my heart I think Mann actually believes some of this cr*p. The Lew doesn’t. To him it is a game he thinks he can win if he tries hard enough.

Tom J

Per usual I was the odd guy out. I voted for Chris Turney, the lowest vote getter in the poll. You have to admit though that someone who’s climate follies required the rescue attempts by two icebreakers; each from a different country, and one of which got itself stuck; the use of a helicopter; and the potential mobilization of a third mammoth icebreaker from a third country; and who’s dubious exploits were in the news on an almost daily basis, and during the Holidays to boot; certainly deserves at least an honorable (or, dishonorable, to be more precise) mention.

Alan Bates

Voted for Lew but so many deserving candidates …

Where’s the button for “All of the above”?
If only someone on that list was noticeably more duplicitous or the others showed any merit. They’re all disgraceful and rank.
Instead of a “Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award; how about we just nominate them for the “Duplicity Hall of Fame”? That way they get to stay listed forever; unless they do something terribly noble, like tell the truth the whole truth!


This is so hard!

Jonathan Berber

Mann has to be the man, there’s simply no contest despite the strong field of candidates. It was the “faux pause” that clinched it for me.


In my mind the hockey stick was the No 1 flagship of alarmism, it is still engraved on everyones mind no matter how debunked it has become, it has to be MICHAEL MANN,
AL GORE- who’s that.

James Strom

I felt a tugging at my heartstrings to vote for Lew, but he is not actually a climate scientist. He’s not even a “citizen-climate-scientist”. So it was Gleick for me.


Perhaps the MSM should have been on there, after all they have been the NO1 conduit for pushing all of this garbage.


Thanks for clarifying my thinking. With three top choices it’s hard to decide using a coin toss (to decide Mann vs Gore vs. Lewandowski.
I can eliminate Gore (only as a choice, sadly) since he is simply a caricature of the self-servingness of politicians and I think he’s become a joke beyond the skeptic community, limiting his damage.
Lewandowski makes up polls (and ethics) to suit his agenda, but the former is what many psychologists also all too frequently do and get away with since their discipline is not really science. See the story about the graduate student Nick Brown who last year blew apart the mathematical deceptions upon which ‘positive psychology’ is based:
and the monumental self-destruction of not one but two eminent Belgian psychology professors in recent separate scandals due to following the discovery that their ‘scientific’ studies were fabricated, that resulted in their forced resignations:
and the more famous of the two:
So that leaves Mann, who is supposed to be a real scientist, who therefore should accept critical assessments of his work, take pains to use the best practices available to his science, and who should be willing to adjust his thinking when the data goes against him, instead of trying to hide his data and methods, and fight criticisms with lawsuits.
I’ll now vote for Mann.

Rob Dawg

NOAA for their obscure adjustments with less revision history than wikipedia and their use of disproportionate coloring schemes in their maps.

I voted for Gleick as he is one of the most spectacular climate liar of all time.
We need a “life-time achievement” award for climate duplicity.

Very US-centric field, some good runners haven’t made the cut. Even the Kenyan Emperor sees the need for fracking, but there are figures in the EU who will fight for the return of Medieval living standards to the bitter end and how the Figures (Sp) harridan missed an honourable mention I’ll never know. Some opportunities missed, I fear.

No Cook? No one cooks the books like Cook. Or is that Kook?

Both the 97% paper and the Hiroshima bomb equivalency in ONE year with a Presidential reference to boot. Write in Cook. : )


I woulda voted for Al Gore, but he seems rather quiet lately.
But speaking of wisdom, we were right?
Here is # 14 out of 16 presented here:
“14. Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding it.”
It works both ways, don’t it ?

I voted for the Mann.
Without the profoundly self-contradictory nature of his work and book that inflicted very public self-incrimination in a scientific sense, then skeptics would have achieved less scientific communication effectiveness.


How did Laurence Topham aka..”Peanut Butter Milkshake Boy” not make the list?
You asked for duplicity.
In his Video Diary he says that his bed is hard and that he misses his girlfriend.
Clearly this man has no girlfriend.
I await you adding Mr. Topham to the Ballot.


So the UK contingent didnt make it – like Tim Yeo (formerly in government regarding climate while holding directorships in renewable companies) Bob Ward, (who can be relied upon to lie about any piece of data or opinión that is not with the team), the BBC who have a chárter of impartiality but who have been shown to be totally partial…..etc. etc.


Eric Holdren certainly deserved at least a nomination.


Of course, in a way this is counter productive because the likes of Mann, Lewandowsky, or Gleick would revel in the infamy of such an award, thinking that they have actually achieved something countering skeptics rather than just being fraudulent, incompetent or criminal.

son of mulder

I have now tried a different method. I closed my eyes, tossed a coin and came up with a climate model. Back to the drawing board.

george e. conant

Oh my, so hard to pick. However after reading all the comments I swung over to M. Mann. Gore was my first thought but then, oh my, Lewandowski’s condem and punish the deniers rant had me going, ultimately, Mann gave us the infamous Hockey Stick, perhaps this award should be accompanied by a ceremoniously awarded lead hockey stick?