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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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: http://climateaudit.org/?s=lewandowsky
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Peat,
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:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown
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:
http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/25/following-investigation-erasmus-social-psychology-professor-retracts-two-studies-resigns/
and the more famous of the two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel
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.
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:
http://www.theospark.net/2014/03/flying-wisdom.html
“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.
John
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW8pD7t6gcI
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.
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.
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?