Michael Mann loses the Nobel Prize – again

 

nobelprize[1]Yesterday I was privileged to be cc’d in some communications between Steve Milloy (of junkscience.com) and UCLA. The communications dealt with yet another false claim of Michael Mann being a “Nobel Prize Winner” in an announcement about an upcoming talk of his, as seen below:

UCLA clip for Mann

Milloy wrote:

From: Steve Milloy

Date: Monday, October 13, 2014 at 1:40 PM

To: Nancy

Subject: Request for correction of event promotion

Ms. Lee,

This UCLA promotion incorrectly promotes Michael E.Mann as a Nobel Prize winner (see highlighted text).

Mann is not a Nobel laureate and did not share the Prize.

I request that you correct this error,

Thank you for your attention,

Steve Milloy

Potomac, MD

The reply from Ms. Lee said:

From: Nancy Lee

Subject: Re: Request for correction of event promotion

Date: October 13, 2014 at 9:14:09 PM EDT

To: Steve Milloy

Thanks for pointing out this error, Steve. We have corrected the information in the program description online and on-site.

Nancy Lee

Manager, Public Relations

HAMMER MUSEUM

10899 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90024

(310) xxx-xxxx

Good for her, and +10 to Steve Milloy.

This is how it reads today on their website.

UCLA clip for Mann AFTERNobel prizes; easy come, easy go.

Mann’s talk at UCLA is on Thursday Oct 23, 2014 7:30PM, and I doubt that it will be any different from the one I saw in Bristol, replete with incomplete data and cherry picked time periods to ignore “the pause”. If anyone wants to go to ask questions, here is the address:

Hammer Museum

10899 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA

90024

ALL HAMMER PUBLIC PROGRAMS ARE FREE. Tickets for assigned seating in the Billy Wilder Theater are required and available at the Box Office one hour before each program. Early arrival is recommended. Tickets are available one per person on a first come, first served basis.

Advertisements

126 thoughts on “Michael Mann loses the Nobel Prize – again

    • Mann didn’t win the Nobel prize? Most surprising!. Obama won it, Gore won it, Arafat won it. Krugman won it. I was also surprised that Messiah IRS-Smidgen Obama didn’t win it for Medicine for his work on Obamacare. In fact with Global temperatures dropping, I was almost convinced that the Nobel Committee would award the Physics and Chemistry prize to the Messiah for solving global warming.

      • Krugman did not win the Noble Prize, there is no Noble Prize for Economics, there is a thing called the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics is Honor of Alfred Nobel … the Noble Board lets winners of that prize slide on their claim of being a Noble Prize winner

      • Obama and Gore did not win the Nobel peace prize. It was given to them to promote a political leftist Agenda.

  1. Good wording from Ms. Lee in the end. Accurate and adding prestige.
    But I do feel a bit sorry for Dr Mann.
    It’s hardly his fault that everyone assumes he’s won a Nobel Prize, is it?

    • Yes, it is his fault. He has represented that he did win the prize. He has done very little to see that the truth is presented about this issue and he has had many years to do the right thing.

    • Still not exactly right. Mann was part of the IPCC, which shared the prize with (chuckle snicker) Al Gore. The IPCC didn’t receive the prize, it shared it. Pretty lame, Mike.

      • Right. The whole thing is rotten and corrupt. For example I myself have never won the Peace Prize even though I can prove that I have never started a thermonuclear war – even once.

    • Why does Mann allow this sort of thing? He is certainly aware of what is written about him, and this cannot help him with his lawsuit. Maybe Steyn was right. Maybe Mann is a fraud, after all.

  2. I still don’t understand why the IPCC deserved the Peace prize. What, exactly, did this group do to further the cause of peace?

    • You haven’t heard? Climate change is going to thrust the entire world into war. That’s why the Department of Defense is taking up the mantra.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0
      [quote]
      The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages.

      The new report, however, calls on the military to incorporate climate change into broader strategic thinking about high-risk regions — for example, the ways in which drought and food shortages might set off political unrest in the Middle East and Africa.
      [/quote]

      • Sick….just friggin’ sick. And this is why, as I was taught early in life, to not trust authority….especially govt authority.

      • In fact, ‘Climate Change’ can be used for any purpose. Like:” Let’s invade them, take their resources and save them from the risks of terrorism.” What a great all-purpose meme.
        Do they really think we are all idiots out here?

      • Meanwhile President Obama has taken three [strokes] off his golf game this year, so things are going great! And Sec. of State Kerry, in between pushing ‘climate change’ diplomacy, is scheduling a really firm press release regarding ISIS for early next week.

      • POTUS always stresses having “Politically Reliable” people in places of power. Just like his new choice for surgeon general; short on experience but he was the founder of “Doctors for Obama”. Can’t get more Politically Reliable than that.

      • Tim,
        Yes they do! Your example is a far cheaper way then the traditional black op’s, usually performed by the CIA …

      • @Tim . . yes they do Tim and the fact that they go on getting away with it is indicative that they may be right, by and large.

      • But you see, it IS a national security problem, because of all the potential for rioting, because of hatred against developed nations over this non-issue, thanks to the efforts of the likes of Hansen, Gore and Mann to politicize science. To wax melodramatically (but sadly, accurately too), the world will reap the bitter harvest they’ve sown… In fact, the poor, starving in cold and darkness and hunger already are.

      • Let’s keep in mind that DoD is civilian led, with the Sec Def appointed by the President. When POTUS tells SecDef that climate change is going to be a focus of the military, he tells the service branch Sec’s and they turn around and give direction to the various Admirals and Generals, who salute and say Aye, Aye or Yes Sir.

      • “…with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages…”
        Hmph! All that sounds like consequences that result from using corn to power vehicles.
        It’s not a stretch to see how using corn to power vehicles contributes to infectious disease (due to inadequate nutrition), global poverty (due to subsistence farmers being unable to control their own land and grow what they need to eat), and food shortages (remember the riots in recent years due to corn shortages?).
        The terrorism is a result because the OPEC sources for oil see their livelihood threatened, so they revert to their previous MO of frightening people into paying them “protection money”. IIRC, this has been going on since the beginning of US history.

      • Back here in Norway, there was a lot of speculation about Gore’s peace prize being a door opener for high-ranking Norwegian politicians to the White House, and making a top-job in the UN more accessible for them. The peace prize for Mr. Obama certainly strenghtened these suspicions. The prime Minister, Mr. Stoltenberg, became after all the UN spokesperson for climate, a position he has now exchanged for the top job in NATO. I don’t think he regrets the switch.
        But what will happen in the US if both Houses go to the Republicans? And what are the chances of a new Democrat Party President? Climate seems to be so politically entrenched, will a Republican Administration undo what Mr. Obama has done in his struggle to save the world?

      • In Colorado, local Democrats have changed election law to permit same day registration and the votes cast are put in the general pool instead of the provisional pool. This way if the registration is later determined to be fraudulent there is no way to cancel out the vote.
        Normally a vote isn’t transferred from the provisional pool and counted until AFTER it has been confirmed that the voter is eligible to vote,.

      • The prize is a political prize, nothing more and nothing less. Gore deserved just as much as many others who got the prize.

      • In fairness to the EU: there has been no major war (beyond a few Troubles) between member states.
        That is something of an achievement when you consider European History.
        Now, I don’t know the mechanism that the EU uses for spreading doves across the continent but it seems to work so Russia should be asked to join the EU immediately – in order to promote their pacifist tendencies.

      • Lack of war in the EU has far less to do with the EU than hundreds of thousands of US troops and an existential threat from the Soviet Union.

      • Jimmy Carter is a great friend of peanuts, so I’ve heard. And you can’t make war while chewing peanuts. No, but seriously, these political awards are controversial decisions, which may already to a certain extent have damaged the reputation of the peace prize.
        On the other hand, giving it to a Chinese dissident has frozen all contact between China and Norway for years, and there’s no thaw in sight. Oh well, we can afford it.
        The latest awards have been a return to “classical” peace prizes; giving attention to little-known heroes of human rights, for instance. It may be safer that way. Even a Peace Prize comes with a price.

      • Arafat was in charge of one of the biggest terrorist organizations in the world… and that counts? Apologies to those winners of the Nobel who are actually noble, but I now automatically assume they are given to politically connected sheep.

      • If Al Gore and Obama deserve the Nobel Prize for whatever it is they did to deserve it, certainly Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II deserve the prize for bringing down the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall.

      • “Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II deserve the prize for bringing down the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall.”
        Oh, seriously? Give me a break. Global politics is not a comic book plot.
        Communism in Europe was dissolved because it was CRAP. It was a house built on sand.
        How about crediting people for what they actually DID? JP II may have deserved the Peace Prize (Mother Teresa certainly did not) but it would not have been for some deluded fantasy which wouldn’t make it into a B movie.

    • The same as Obama. It is a negative “peace.” Perhaps it is for “peace” in the Islamic sense-a state where ALL Infidels are dead and only Muslims inhabit the earth. As the IPCC political policy(IPCC is a political wing of the UN) entails the destruction of Western capitalism, wars will erupt-world wide. Peace prizes have made a mockery of themselves on numerous occasions over the decades.

  3. I can see secretaries, typesetters, printers everywhere updating their CVs with exactly that same wording. Hey, wait didn’t everyone who submitted public comments “contribute” to that report? That’s going on so many resumés.

    • Does anyone remember getting photostats? As a graphic artist, I used to spend miles, gas, and hours getting photostats to change the size if a graphic. (I actually had trouble remembering the name) Of course with personal computers, local typesetters and photostat houses went out of business.

    • omnologos:
      The IPCC, by restricting & raising the price of energy, is complicit in the killing and early starvation deaths of millions of poor people. Your comment, however, appears to consider this better than bombing.
      Unfortunately, those millions probably never pondered the philosophical question of “…which is worse: being bombed, or watching your children starve to death?”.
      I’m guessing you’ve never watched someone in the process of starving to death, much less had your child starve to death.
      The is an intentionally harsh response to your foolish comment.

      • And don’t forget things like early deaths from “biofuels use” aka heating/cooking by burning dung, or additional deaths caused by energy poverty, which happens even in industrial countries like England, not to mention Africa and South America.
        But I have to agree, none of those are as horrible as watching your child slowly die from malnutrition.

    • “At least the ipcc didn’t use it to bomb anybody”
      What does that have to do with anything. Are you drunk again, omnologos?

  4. I believe Dr. Mann was among the first to falsely present himself as a Nobel laureate, and even made the false claim in court documents.

  5. Further correction:
    Mann, along with other more qualified scientists and thousands of unqualified pseudo-scientists, including a railroad engineer and soft porn author, contributed to the reports of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

    • Though I have no greater love for Pachauri than you, we must keep in mind that “railroad engineer” (apparently) has different meanings in North America and India. In the former, it is the person who drives the locomotive. In the later it (I presume) means the person who actually designs the railroads.
      Having a background in railroad engineering is obviously great preparation for reporting on climate.
      Is /sarc required for the last sentence?
      Ian

      • Given Mr Pachauri’s role in this academic fraud, the UN and associated camp followers wouldn’t consider your last sentence to be sarcasm.

      • […] Having a background in railroad engineering is obviously great preparation for reporting on climate.

        So, well qualified for keeping the gravy train on track. 😉

  6. I’m an official reviewer of IPCC documents, so I’ve contributed to their reports and I’m a peer of Mann. Sorry.

  7. If Mann were a member of a professional body, by now he would have been hauled before its disciplinary committee, and would have been struck off for various wrongdoings and for bringing his profession into disrepute. His career would be in tatters.
    But he is a scientist.
    Sadly, a scientist does not have to qualify for a practicing certificate, or abide by a professional code of ethics, or adhere to a handbook of professional standards.

    • Right. Here is the basic code of ethics I follow as a professional engineer:
      _______________________
      “it is the duty of a practitioner (engineer) to the public, to the practitioner’s employer, to the practitioner’s clients, to other licensed engineers of the practitioner’s profession, and to the practitioner to act at all times with,
      – fairness and loyalty to the practitioner’s associates, employers, clients, subordinates and employees;
      – fidelity to public needs;
      – devotion to high ideals of personal honour and professional integrity;
      – knowledge of developments in the area of professional engineering relevant to any services that are undertaken; and
      – competence in the performance of any professional engineering services that are undertaken.”
      _______________________
      The lack of honour and integrity I see in many climate scientists is appalling.

    • Chip… spot on! It’s about lack of accountability. Just look at the cabal of scientists exposed by the climate gate emails. Dr Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution because of the UK statute of limitations. Did his University take disciplinary action against him? No.

    • V.W. – I contacted them and suggested a correction. Their response –
      “Thank you for your email and concern.
      Our research concludes: The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. Andrew Weaver was one of the scientists awarded.”
      Some people really can’t handle the truth.

  8. Could Ms. Lee be persuaded to ask Dr. Mann to come to the presentation with updated charts?
    That doesn’t seem to be an outlandish request of either Ms. Lee or Dr. Mann – right?

  9. Has David Appell contacted Mann about not using the most current data in his presentation, including Cowtan & Way (2013)?

  10. I don’t understand this Noble Prize nonsense anyway. Even if he did win it, it was the Nobel Peace Prize and no more relevant to the study of global warming than if he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Maybe, if he had won a Nobel Prize for Physics it might be somewhat relevant, but even then Nobel Prize winners can be wrong.

  11. Jon P
    Good shot at Appell!
    However, some folks here might not be up to speed on the topic. You might want to expand your comment a bit.

  12. What’s the beef?
    Is it not real that Mann has helped avert the occurrence of 1 billion climate refugees who would certainly have been migrating to higher, cooler ground while raping and pillaging to survive?
    That’s some pretty impressive peace making.

  13. Gore & Obama got a Nobel Prize which means the prize has become a worthless joke. How that prize can retain any status now is beyond me.

    • Just maybe it is this fact.
      Currently about 10 million Swedish Kronor (slightly more than one million Euros or US dollars is awarded to the winner).

    • “What Mann did was commit an act of Deceit. Should we trust such people ever again?”
      No! Absolutely not!
      Every paper/book/comment Mann publishes is an act of Deceit.
      Fool me once, shame on you.
      Fool me twice, shame on me.

    • Only one?
      There is also the Tijlander inverted series,
      And he also appears as a coauthor of the Steig et al 2009 paper where the AWS station Harry reports data that predates its contruction date.

  14. Well I find the whole notion of a “Nobel” peace prize to be ludicrous. And just the mention of it, degrades the stature of the “Nobel Prize.”
    The Nobel Prizes themselves have a dismal history anyway, with all the shenanigans that have gone on in selecting the awardees. Just reading the history of all the duck shoving that went on in considering a Nobel award to Max Planck, or to Albert Einstein, is enough to make one puke.
    Now I wouldn’t in any way denigrate, the merits of the other candidates, who were considered or did receive the prize (Physics or Chemistry), but the reputations of all are tarnished when blatant political favoritism gets involved.
    In the case of Planck and Einstein, they did eventually get the recognition they earned, even though unreasonably delayed, in Planck’s case, and not for his best work, in Einstein’s.
    But I guess Nobel had his view of things. The idea of Yasser Arafat having any interest in peace, is plain silly. I’ll go with Mother Teresa.
    I do have to say my all time favorite among the Nobel Laureates is Marie Curie. (for both of hers).

    • Factoid (or two):
      1) Alfred Nobel never awarded a Nobel prize. His will left money & instructions creating this award.
      2) Norwegian and Sweedish politicians accept nominations and actually make the awards.
      Yup, politicians.

      • Not quite right Chip. Although you are correct when it comes to the political Peace Prize awarded by Norwegian politicians, the scientific Nobel Prizes have a totally different process of nomination and selection under the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. For example, here’s a link to the process for the Prize in physics: http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/

      • Not correct. The appropriate Swedish academies award the four Nobel Prizes – Literature, Economics, Physics and Chemistry. Norway awards the “Peace Prize”, on the recommendation of a committee appointed by its politicians. This derives from history and the fact that until 1905, Sweden and Norway were a “united kingdom”.

  15. The truly sneaky thing about this kind of “Nobel Prize” referencing is the fact that those who do it seem to very consistently forget to mention the fact that the IPCC received Nobel Peace Prize, not a true Nobel Prize for scientific achievements (Physics, Chemistry).
    The truly pathetic dimension of this is the fact some scientist were (maybe still are) also referencing themselves as Nobel Laureates without specifying that it the political Peace Prize they refer to. Such misinformation leads ignorant people to think that the IPCC and the scientist connected to it were awarded for their scientific achievements.

    • The point of the award in the first place was to add credibility for the IPCC and weird Al’s infotainment in the mind of an uninformed public. Mann abused it for the same reason. Like almost all of the AGW fiasco it is about optics and spin designed to achieve an objective. Unfortunately we the people are kept completely in the dark as to what the objective is. Decarbonisation is a means to an end not an end in itself and we are no nearer to knowing what the end is than when this ride started.

  16. They should modify it again to indicate the UNIPCC shared the prize with Al Gore.
    Adding that it is shared with Gore makes it accurate. It also demonstrates how irrelevant the “Peace” prize is to the world of science, given Gore as an international laughing stock, for his widely debunked, falsehood-filed, anti-science political propaganda movie.

  17. I expect Mann to continue to do in LA what has become his well-known intellectual modus operandi. Namely, I expect him to shun skeptics because he fears exposure of his innate intellectual weakness.
    John

  18. Political Junkie,
    Good point. Here is an update.
    After Judith Curry wrote the OP-ED about her new paper, Lewis & curry (2014) in the WSJ David Appell commented on her blog incessantly. Here is an example via his first of many repetitive comments.
    “Judith wrote (in the op-ed):
    “…our calculations used the same data for the effects on the Earth’s energy balance of changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change given by the IPCC’s latest report.”
    But you’re well aware improved datasets have come out since the 5AR, particularly Cowtan & Way and the recent changes in Southern Ocean heat content.
    So how can you write this op-ed, not cite them or even mention them, and pretend they don’t exist? It makes you looks biased.”
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comments
    I think we can all ask David, “Have you contacted Mann about not using the most current data in his presentation, including Cowtan & Way (2013)?”
    Well David? If not, it makes you look biased…

  19. How appropriate that the Hammer Museum is the venue.
    Warren Buffett once described Armand Hammer using the following:
    When he was quiet, he was stealing
    when he was talking, he was lying.

    • In the UK, Hammer productions have traditionally been associated with a brand of cheesy, but often entertaining, horror films: “Hammer House of Horror.” I liked many of them because they were not genuinely frightening, nor even alarming.

  20. To be fair to Mann , given his limited abilities how else could he feed his massive ego if not be inventing BS, therefore what choice does he have?

  21. Appropriate venue….
    “Hammer misled the public by implying that he had personally purchased the Codex for $5.8 million from Christie’s at auction. As it turns out, the funds were obtained from Occidental Oil not only to purchase the Codex, but also to build the Hammer Museum [4]. Kaufman designed The Hammer Museum to be a high revenue hot spot for Los Angeles residents to throw extravagant parties. A class action law suit was filed against Occidental in 1989 by its shareholders who claimed that this was not a proper use of company funds and that the Codex belonged to the shareholders [3]. Occidental had used approximately $96 million in corporate funds for the Hammer Museum [4].
    After Hammer’s death, Occidental had more freedom to cut its losses with the museum and get its shareholders’ support back. Occidental brought in the University of California Los Angeles to manage the Hammer Museum for the next 99 years [5]. The Hammer Museum was stripped of its “Armand Hammer mausoleum” qualities, and instead became more of a cultural center for the Los Angeles community. This included selling the Codex for $32 million at Christie’s to Microsoft’s Bill Gates [8].
    Given the fact that a publicly traded company actually purchased the Leonardo Da Vinci Codex with shareholder money, and built the museum to house it in with shareholder money, I personally do not believe that the sale of the Codex was unethical. In light of everything that Armand Hammer did in his lifetime, this sale is likely the most ethical thing his name is affiliated with. UCLA was involved with the Hammer Museum to calm Occidental shareholders, and made the museum a place where contemporary art is welcome.”
    Lisa Gerben

    • I think you’re skating on mighty thin ice with this one. What zillionaire (apart from members of the Lucky Sperm Club who inherited it) didn’t lie, cheat, and steal to get to the top of the mountain?

  22. Given that Billy Wilder directed Some Like It Hot, perhaps Dr. Mann could adopt the same tagline to finish his speech in the Billy WIlder Theater that Wilder used to finish the film: “Well, nobody’s perfect.”

  23. M Courtney October 14, 2014 at 7:18 am
    In fairness to the EU: there has been no major war (beyond a few Troubles) between member states
    ============================================================================
    That was on account of NATO, not the EU.

  24. Through my taxes (Australian Institute of Sports) I contributed to the receiving of numerous gold medals at the last Olympics. I’ll add that to my resume.

    • We would all have to become very selective though in which areas we take credit in our resumes. Our taxes also contributed to the the rescue of the intrepid ship of fools stuck in the Antarctic ice, destroying the scientific seasons of other nations as well as a bill for millions of dollars.

  25. “Michael Mann loses the Nobel Prize – again”
    This headline is Steyn-worthy. What a sad, pathetic image it conjures.

  26. OK, Nancy Lee, PR at Hammer, at least you publish an email address ( if not a direct one ), so how about insuring the moderator, Ian Masters, asks one or two current climate questions , particularly of Mann. I see that Ian Masters hides his direct email address, perhaps he can be reached thru KPFK FM ?
    “Why do you not use the most current data in your speaking presentations, including Cowtan & Way (2013) ?”
    info@hammer.ucla.edu
    talkback@kpfk.org
    Both these individuals should be thoroughly “you have mail” prior to the event !

  27. The Annals of Improbable Research should award Mann the Ig Nobel Prize so he would stop lying about his Nobel Prize. I suspect the Ig Nobel winners would be insulted if Mann join their ranks.

  28. It would be nice is someone from this blog went along and actually asked a question.
    If he comes to Seattle and I have adequate notice, I’ll definitely do it.

  29. Eckwurzel? Perhaps a descendant of the famous Wurzel Gummidge – I wonder if she has inherited his keen intelligence?

  30. For those of you who play golf there is an analogy here.
    Every golfer knows someone who is a habitual cheat, not only that but we tell our friends to keep an eye on him, the cheat,as he is prone to misquote a score, to “find” balls nowhere near where his ball landed etc etc.
    The thing is , absolutely no one is going to report this guy , because if we spotted something we need to have a witness who also spotted it and have absolutely no doubt in our joint minds that the guy was cheating. If you call out a cheat , you get all the bluster , “you are wrong” “no i, never” “it was,nt a ball it was a handkerchief i dropped to mark the place ” and then you get told that if you so much as mention this to anyone you will be sued for defamation of character. If you report someone to the club secretary you are told that we cannot take this forward without at least 2 witnesses. So cheats do prosper and threaten any attempt at exposure with the law.
    The strange thing is ,the cheats do not do particularly well in competitions, it is more a saving face than winning mentality although there are of course some exceptions who will do anything to win.
    I wonder if Mr Mann plays golf?

  31. Well you know what they say about the Nobel peace prize now a days, “It’s not about what you know, it’s about who you…know”.

  32. Just for future reference (as this will undoubtedly occur again), the IPCC released a statement in December of 2012 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf) that clarifies this issue as follows:
    !The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
    The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.
    !
    Everyone who received a “replica diploma” (and there were about 800 recipients) was given this information.

    • The Nobel Committee does not recognize Mann as a peace prize recipient. Therefore he may not claim that he is, opinions to the contrary by the IPCC notwithstanding.
      I have two points about this particular prize.
      1) it was a peace prize, not science.
      2) there was a far superior candidate for the prize that year. She risked her life on a daily basis and rescued over 2,500 children from Polish ghettos during WWII.
      From Snopes: TRUE
      Origins: On 12 May 2008, Irena Sendlerowa (commonly known as Irena Sendler) passed away of pneumonia at the age of 98 in Warsaw. Irena has often been referred to as “the female Oskar Schindler” in her native Poland for her daring and ingenuity in saving the lives of more than 2,500 Jews (most of them children) in German-occupied Poland during World War II. Unlike Oskar Schindler, whose story was the subject of the Academy Award-winning 1993 film Schindler’s List, Irena Sendler was a relatively unknown figure to the world at large until 1999, when four Kansas high school students wrote and performed “Life in a Jar,” a play about Irena’s life-saving efforts in the Warsaw Ghetto.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp#ZDDSuPS6SmE3xdUb.99
      Instead the award, which is supposed to be for lifetime achievements in the struggle for peace, was awarded to the producers of a dishonest movie. Irene died the following year and any chance for the well deserved award died with her.
      Read her story on Snopes and ask yourself what kind of BS political agenda would convince people to award a lifetime achievement prize to a single disingenuous movie and trump the remarkable true story of this humble woman. The Nobel Prize committee proved it’s political agenda when Obama later won the prize.

  33. I was in a dive bar one evening during happy hour and Mann walked in and ordered a drink. He noticed that I was the only other person in there and in moment of unprecedented generosity, he bought a round for the house. I cringed because in the bar a round for the house earns a ring of the ship’s bell behind the bar. I explained that I preferred the peaceful atmosphere and that the bell gives me a headache. Mann nodded and said, “I won’t ring the bell”
    So we enjoyed our drinks in tranquil conditions.
    The bartender, recognizing Mann’s compassion and understanding gave the great Man a bag of peanuts explaining, “here’s a prize for not ringing that bell.”
    So, the No Bell Peace Prize was born. And Mann did win it.

  34. “Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a danger to the planet…”
    Someone better contact them again. That statement is not correct. The unpublished paper on which the claims of consensus are based never asked if the scientists believe that the warming was a danger to the planet.
    Does anyone in the AGW cabal actually know what the consensus is? Every person who cites the consensus has a different definition. How can they have a consensus if nobody even knows the details? The first question asked was if they believed the earth had warmed. Since it had the scientists answered correctly. Then they were asked if they thought man may have some influence on the climate. It was not quantified. No mention of danger to the planet.i know, they sent one of the questionnaires to me.

  35. Mann is going to speak at the Armand Hammer (Occidental Petroleum) museum? Am I reading that right?

Comments are closed.