Guest essay by Chris Morrison
There has been a fresh outbreak of climate scare activists awarding themselves fake Nobel prizes
Dr Peter Stott, the scientific strategic head of climate monitoring in Britain’s Met Office, claims on his cv that he is a “co-recipient” of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Dr Stott hit the headlines last month with the widely reported claim that 2017 was one of the hottest on record without an El Nino.
Since these records consist mainly of imprecise temperature measurements mixed with copious amounts of “proxy” data and stirred with a great deal of smoothing and man-made guesses, the claim needs to be treated with proper skepticism. Falsely claiming to be a recipient of a Nobel prize would not seem to help the cause either. Needless, to say scientific skepticism was in short supply after Dr Stott spoke, The BBC led the way by failing to ask why anyone should believe climate studies based on computer models when they have been almost uniformly wrong over the last three decades.
The “I’m a Nobel prize winner” scam started in 2007 when the United Nation’s IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (a political award separate from all other Nobels). Suddenly the cvs of numerous climate activists were padded with references to winning a Nobel (often minus the Peace bit) on the grounds that they had contributed to the IPPC climate reports.
The most notorious was Michael Mann, of hockey stick and Climategate fame, who in the course of an American libel case suggested that it was one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics but it was “quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient”.
By 2012, it seems the IPCC had had enough, deafened maybe by the thunderous laughter that greeted every fake claim. It noted:
“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 scientists who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner”.
The weather forecasting Met Office and the BBC have long been propagandists for the global warming alarm. In 2006 the BBC held a seminar composed largely of climate activists that recommended the science of human induced climate change was “settled” and little attention should be taken to given to those who approach the issue with a skeptical view. That decision seems to have prompted the writer Clive James to note recently that the state broadcaster “has spent ten years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can’t decide …..delusion or desperation …..
It’s egocentric fantasy with total lack of honesty, professionalism or any ability to properly attribute earned deserved kudos.
And it is desperation.
One can imagine Dr. Stott’s attempts at seduction or pickup lines?
“Want to help me polish my IPCC fake Nobel certificate?”
It should also be a huge red flag to any organization considering Dr. Stott.
“Oh! Look! Here’s another delusional crackpot falsely claiming to be a Nobel Laureate.”
Only, there is no Dr. Stott anywhere on the Official Nobel Peace Prize list
Donna Laframboise describes the climate crowd’s Nobel Peace Prize dementia as “evidence of an insecure ego run amok“
I remember Donna collecting a list of all the “climate scientists” and others claiming to be Nobel Laureates.
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/?s=nobel+laureat
Absolutely. Imagine a scientist being reduced to claiming he has part of a political Nobel Peace Prize. How demeaning that is for someone who supposedly works in an unbiased, apolitical, profession.
These boys are seriously messed up.
I was co-winner of Times Man of the Year prize a few years ago.
But…all his friends are doing it.
Barrack Hussein Obama was awarded a Nobel Prize for … ? …
“Community Organizing” ?
“Beating HER” ?
“Being half-black” ?
“Being the first Kenyan elected POTUS” ?
“Being the first Marxist POTUS” ?
“The Apology Tour” ?
“Obamakkare” ?
“Gas guzzler rebates” ?
“Solyndra funding”?
“Alinskism”?
His base loves being lied to.
His best line they took without question,
Jun 4, 2008 · “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
I mean come on, healing the frickin’ planet, and rolling back the seas!! And all he got was crummy Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama got it for merely existing, nothing more. Dope couldn’t make an off-the-cuff remark without stuttering and waffling for nearly a full minute. Somewhere, there’s a video of him doing the ‘uh-uh-uh-the-the-the’ bit. It was ludicrous, but the braindead media were so in love with this metrosexual twit that they ignored it.
He was nominated well before he even took office.
Sara,
The left media defended that as an “intellectual stutter” – seems his brain operates so quickly that his mouth can’t keep up. I reckon Porky Pig is an intellectual par excellence. Porky has done as much for world peace as Barry so why the Nobel people have slighted Porky is beyond my comprehension.
czechout
This
https://youtu.be/poz6W0znOfk
Great article, I wonder how many others associated with the IPCC have claimed the Nobel Prize based on the IPCC getting the Nobel Peace Prize??
” I wonder how many others associated with the IPCC”
Quite an early claimant was Dr Fred Singer, based on his having volunteered as a reviewer of IPCC reports.
Here is his bio for an article in the Sun, May 23, 2008.
Re Nick Stokes:
**Quite an early claimant was Dr Fred Singer, based on his having volunteered as a reviewer of IPCC reports.**
You have to do better than that Nick. There is more sarcasm in that remark than a claim. Notice Fred did not say he was a co-recipient with IPCC. Fred has done work. Gore just makes unsubstantiated claims.
“sarcasm in that remark than a claim”
It wasn’t a remark. It was one of the few points made in a bio in the New York Sun. Here’s the complete bio:
“Mr. Singer, a professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, is the former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. As a reviewer of IPCC reports, he shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. His most recent book is “Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1500 Years.”|
So which bits are sarcastic? How can you tell?
He rather liked the accolade. Here are some other occurrences:
bio for talk, June 2008
Bio for IBD op-ed, April 2009.
Nick, Can you show us where HE claims it rather than some some publicists assistant?
lee,
“rather than some some publicists assistant”
It goes out in his name, in some very prominent outlets. It can hardly do so without his support. And it appears in several places with similar wording. Do you think the writers are all thinking of it independently?
But here he is certainly asserting the claim quite personally. Here is Roger Helmer, MEP, describing Singer’s presentation at a 2008 seminar Helmer hosted at the European Parliament:
“Fred was wearing a lapel-pin given to all 2,500 members when the IPCC was awarded its Nobel Prize in 2007.”
An early entrant for the 2018 Cognitive Dissonance Award post Nick ?
“As a reviewer of IPCC reports, he shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.”
I think this is less about claiming the prize as it is elevating his standing to that which might be perceived of Al Gore by the common man.
Nick Stoke’s mean pitiful despicable attempt to slime Dr. Fred Singer.
Yet, Nick never shows where Dr. Singer actually claims said title or status. Only secondhand articles written by authors eager to puff as much glory into their writings, as possible.
When climate clowns were publicizing their alleged Nobel Peace Prize co-recipient IPCC certificates, where is Dr. Singer doing the same?
Can Nick show us a picture of Dr. Singer pointing to his certificate and actually claiming to be a Nobel Laureate?
Hint! Where does Dr. Singer use the words “I earned” or “I received”, “a Nobel Peace Prize?”
Nick’s ad hominem attempt may be a new low.
“Nick Stoke’s mean pitiful despicable attempt to slime”
What is this article about except people who have claimed Nobel status as a result of the Peace Prize award? If that is “sliming”, then why is it not so for Peter Stott and Michael Mann?
“Can Nick show us a picture of Dr. Singer pointing to his certificate”
Well, I’ve pointed to where he wore the lapel pin that was given out.
You seriously cannot see the sarcasm when it includes sharing it with Al Gore?
You should be ashamed of such a slur on a scientist far, far more accomplished than you.
Nick, ““Fred was wearing a lapel-pin given to all 2,500 members when the IPCC was awarded its Nobel Prize in 2007.”
“Well, I’ve pointed to where he wore the lapel pin that was given out.”
So a pin given to all 2,500 members? Not that he said it was a Nobel peace prize?
Nick,
Dr Singer wore a pin in his lapel, provided for him by the IPCC to wear in his lapel. How on God’s earth do you manage to turn that into a false claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize?
Agreed Nick. There is no evidence of sarcasm in that statement. Had it been made by a publicist and FS disagreed, he could quite easily have contradicted it. Sometimes our heroes have feet of clay. We have to be able to see things for what they are, otherwise our “scepticism” amounts to nothing more than prejudice – in this case, prejudice in favour. Scientists sceptical of AGW are surely just as vulnerable to vanity, insecurity and ideological blindness (or lack of balance) as those on the other side of the debate. Feynman pointed out an obvious truth when he said that the easiest people to fool are ourselves. We humans keep on fooling ourselves. When we start to think that doesn’t apply to us then guess who we may be fooling . . .
Mr. Stokes, nice little kick to the shinbone.
Yes, they are human – sometimes too “human” – on both sides.
That is why we look at their work more seriously than at their person.
“Yes, they are human – sometimes too “human” – on both sides.”
Exactly so. That is the point I am making. It really isn’t that bad that people get a kick out of being associated with a Nobel Prize. And sometimes inflate their association. Nobody is harmed by that.
If he did it was silly of him.
I’m afraid I must agree with Nick on this point. S Fred Singer has the byline on the article though nothing indicating weather he authored the italicized accreditation line at the end of it or not. It can only be presumed he did. Though the Editor could have added it prior to posting.
**So which bits are sarcastic? How can you tell?**
If Singer wrote it, then I suggest it is sarcastic. If the media wrote it then your remark is completely hollow, Nick. As for the lapel pins Singer did not print them. He would deserve them more than Gore. Why do you not comment on Gore’s prediction of the arctic being ice free in 2014?
“Can Nick show us a picture of Dr. Singer pointing to his certificate”
Well, I’ve pointed to where he wore the lapel pin that was given out.
Nick at his most pathetic.
And exactly what do your words mean here, Nick”
A) You want to be as reviled as Peter Stott and Manniacal?
B) You want to revile people as much as Stott and Manniacal?
C) Both?
Your ad hominems against Dr. Singer is sliming.
Exactly what does wearing an IPCC award pin mean, Nick?
If, the lapel pin was awarded with the IPCC certificate; which are simply “Thank You” achievement awards from the IPCC.
Or are you, Nick, claiming that Dr. Singer’s pin explicitly makes a “I am a Nobel Laureate” claim?
Neither saving an IPCC award certificate or lapel pin indicates someone claims anything beyond receiving an achievement award.
I have a bunch of certificates and pins; they’re meaningless except for some of the memories.
A rare few awards that came with bonuses were much more appreciated, having actual meaning to my family.
Worst of the awards are those given out by dozens, hundreds, thousands…
I kept a few bulk awards at work for amusement. They were jokes when we received them and are still jokes to employees who actually worked hard for that particular effort.
Those bulk awards are symbolic “kicks in the face” from socialistic bosses who can not take the time or effort to authorize or prepare meaningful awards. Those who worked hardest and longest got exactly the same award as people who did not.
Look, my Dear Wife, work gave me a piece of fancy paper with expensive colored ink and a cheap geegaw for the months I spent working late and at home…
What is critically important are people who use the words “I am a Nobel Laureate”, or make false achievement claims that directly states or implies they are Nobel Laureates. Which is exactly what Trenberth, Manniacal, Stott and a host of alarmist climate team members have claimed.
Your “Roger Helmer” alleged “Nobel Laureate” claim is specious.
Roger Helmer does not state “Dr. Singer is a Nobel Laureate”!. Roger Helmer makes it quite clear that Fred is wearing a lapel pin awarded when the IPCC was a Nobel Peace Prize co-winner.
Mean spirited.
Pitiful.
A pathetic low insult that utterly fails to tarnish Dr. Singer’s credentials; but seriously impacts Nick Stokes’ credentials.
Stop harming yourself!
OK. I’m a Nobel prize winner too.
We should all get our own peace of this prize. Or was that piece?
Do you live in the EU? 2012 Nobel Prize awarded to EU You have just as good a claim as Dr. Michael Mann.
So EU rock stars may tell they ‘received the noble piece prize’ along with the EU?
OT my pet peeve is typos like IPPC (seen today), and the horrible tide ‘guage’.
Yippee! As I reside in the EU I can claim my Nobel! CV amended accordingly.
I look forward to being merely a subject of Her Majesty again and no longer having the embarrasment of sharing a Nobel Peace Prize with; Yasser Arafat, Seán MacBride, Henry A. Kissinger.
Everyone who’s a citizen of a nation in the European Union is a Nobel Peace co-winner by this standard. That’s funny. Here’s a good song for all you Nobel Prize Winners in the EU.
I’ll search the world over for my Nobel Peace Prize co-winning angel in black.
I live in the EU but have decided to send my Nobel prize back in protest at the devaluation of science and meaning of the award by the Nobel committee giving one to Al Gore.
But 1999 was not an El Nino year. And it was about 0.1F cooler than 1997 at 62.45F, which was warmer than 2017’s 58.51F.
UCAR/NCAR still claim that Trenberth is a Nobel winner: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/
Yikes
‘shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC’
He’s the Robin Hood, shares prizes to the poor.
2017 was a year without an El Nino. Barely.
Regardless, the heat pulse from an El Nino trails the El Nino that caused it.
It appears a following La Nina will push warmer El Nino Pacific Ocean surface waters poleward and into the Indian Ocean. They continue to affect global temperatures.
See Bob Tisdale’s excellent work.
“computer models when they have been almost uniformly wrong”…….almost?
Can someone name one time they were right?…I know of none
Well Latitude they haven’t been “uniformly” wrong. Some are more wronger than others.
Yes, they cover a wide sweep of wrongness.
The computer models are always right when predicting past temperatures in the short range. The programmers have the luxury of having actual data so the models can be fine tuned to get the exact short range past temperatures. There is still a problem with this because if you go back far enough the errors in the program propagate and soon even past temperatures become unpredictable. Maybe if the models can solve this then they can staret worrying about predicting the future. Until that happens I would advise the programmers to concentrate on the past and not risk unbelievable amounts of derision worldwide.
Nobel’s ceased to mean much once the globalists began handing them out to those furthering their agenda. Obamit, Algore, Kissinger come to mind.
Remove the bad apples and the rest of the bushel is good.
cheap tricks for fakers to gain legitimacy: give awards.
that gives the impression of being an arbiter of quality.
psst- wanna buy a dr of divinity degree? u can put it on your resume that you’re divine. cheap, online.
the rest of the bushel is suffering from believing in a religion
The Peace Prize is purely political. How about some Nobels in the sciences.
Well, taking full note of this thread’s above sturm & drang, you have to admit watching warmists grub & grovel for self-anointed “co-recipient” Nobel honors (even after the UN explicitly told them there was no such thing) is just plain funny,
I think 97% of people would agree with that.
The science is settled.
According to my “computer model” I have over $500 Million in investments, live on a boat in the tropics, have all my hair, am 6’4” tall and am married to a beautiful Blonde, well endowed both fiscally and physically. There’s a difference between illusion and reality…
Just talk to my wife .. Morgan Fairchild
That’s the ticket.
Wasn’t the whole EU awarded the prize too?
I’m not a co-recipient of a Nobel prize but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night.
I think the lady i was with was some sort of prize winner too!
Gentlemen may cry peace, peace, but there is no peace.
I just wonder why IPCC didn’t issue some sort of “outstanding contribution to IPCC work resulting in the Peace Nobel Price award” certificate to relevant participants.
I guess they failed to reach consensus about who would deserve it, or not.
You mean this IPCC Certificate?
Manniacal used to post a picture of his personalized certificate taped to his office window.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_certificate_sample.pdf
Donna Laframboise estimates approximately 9,000 people contributed to the IPCC’s work and report, when the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize.
The IPCC’s awarded personalized certificates to select personnel, still tallied to several thousand IPCC contributors.
No, I didn’t mean some ugly childish poster, I mean some sort of award allowing to write something on their CV, like
“co-recipient of the IPCC award for contributing to its 2007 Nobel Peace Price”
Would be fair, whatever you think of the award.
You confuse me, paqyfelyc.
The picture is exactly what you describe.
The only difference is that the awards were personalized to the recipients and handed over with words much as you describe;
“Your hard work”
“making you a co-recipient worker”, etc.
Quite a few of these claims were very erroneous.
The IPCC distributed, much like a news flyer, somewhat of a “co-recipient Peace Prize winner” retraction after people queried the Nobel Organization regarding the thousands of IPCC co-recipients.
Leaving a large amount of the “award” recipients without official IPCC notification that their “awards” were not Nobel Peace Prize co-recipient awards.
Notably, Quite a few of the pseudo Peace Prize co-recipients ignore unofficial and inconvenient notifications that their Nobel Peach Prize winner claims are false.
Oddly, or not, some of these pseudo Peace Prize winners are researchers who also ignore all falsification or serious criticisms regarding their research claims.
“The picture is exactly what you describe.” Pretty much indeed, except the most important: cannot be translated into a CV line. Well, I guess they could write “certificated by IPCC for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, but that would sound ridiculous, wouldn’t it?
Note the Mr Nobel himself made squillions from the invention of explosives (mostly used for quarrying and construction, but also war), something my chemistry professor said has caused more suffering to humanity than probably any other invention. From the money had made from patenting explosives, he set up the Nobel prizes.
There is a book called ‘A Most Damnble Invention’ I think which tells the story.
How is the IPCC in any way related to peace? This is an atrocity. There must been so many local wars that year that the Nobel committee was desperate.
Thinks to me that if you think about what “has caused more suffering to humanity”, explosives rank vary low on the list, and Nobel’s Dynamite even lower. The top 3 definitely are
speaking. writing. schooling.
The Chinese invented gunpowder at least a thousand years ago. I think. Nobel’s contribution was a mix of sawdust and nitroglycerin if I recall correctly. Made it safe to handle.
Kieselguhr, IIRR.
I can understand why they would leave out the part about it being the “Peace Prize”. After all one who claims to have won the prize joins the ranks in more recent times on a list which includes Yasser Arafat who in his younger days killed many and once skinned a man alive.
I peed in the Pacific Ocean so does that make me on par with Einstein, he must have peed in it as well.
I think they give awards for that, called the Nobel Pee Prize.
I was robbed! .. robbed I say!
Things that make you go … hmmm.
Delusions of grandeur, “… must … save … planet!”
And then he was gone.
I am a Nobel Prize winner and so is my wife.
(adapted from Life of Brian)
But they were hanging in the Welsh section.
As for 2017 being the hottest non-El-Nino year on record:. It is the third hottest year in the UAH v6 record of the lower troposphere, and the first full year in that record is 1979. And all versions of HadCRUT at least as old as HadCRUT2 including ones that predate The Pause becoming known show that the warmest few years after 1859 were well after 1979. So I see a good case for 2017 being the warmest non-El-Nino year since the Little Ice Age, although ENSO was not completely non-positive during the months when it would have affected the global temperature for the year 2017.
We have absolutely no idea what the satellite would show had it been measuring temperatures in the 1930s/1940s, and there is a strong case that if temperatures were properly measured, the 1930s/1940s would be the warmest period just like they appear to be in the contiguous US, Iceland and Greenland.
The data (well it is not data after the endless adjustments/homogenisation etc) is simply not fit for purpose to make any significant scientific claim.
All these claims should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
If you’d take these claims with the actually necessary quantity of salt, you’d be a mummy before you know it.
“should be taken with a large pinch of salt”
…and a dash of lemon and a shot of tequila!
Was there an El Nino in 1936? If so, it must have been a big one because Hansen shows it as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which also makes it 0.4C hotter than 2016 (the hottest year evah!) and hotter than 2017.
And 2017 is about as close to an El Nino as you can get since it takes a while to dissipate the heat from the 2016 El Nino.
TA: Are you talking about global temperature or US temperature or contiguous US temperature? Please cite your source for 1936 being .5 degree C warmer than 1998.
Here’s Hansen’s 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart. Although it is a U.S. temperature chart, its temperature profile (the 1930’s being hotter than subsequent years) is duplicated by unmodified charts from around the world and in both hemispheres, so I consider the 1999 Hansen U.S. temperature chart to be a good proxy for the global weather at the time. None of the unmodified temperature chart profiles resemble the bogus Hockey Stick charts.
Here’s a reference to 1934 being hotter than 1998, and you can look at Hansen’s chart to see how much hotter it was than 1998 (0.5C)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs-2.pdf
1934 instead of 1936.
You ended the closing quote too soon:
“In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nation’s most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union.
See? I knew you’d like it! 🙂
you are right, the whole quote is even better
This from author ‘Theodore Dalrymple’ (a pen name) in ‘Frontpage’ magazine is an excellent description of the plan.
‘In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.’
About a year ago, someone who had his head firmly embedded in the communist thought process spent an hour arguing with me online when I said, in rebuttal to something else he said, that 2 + 2 = 4.
He went to great lengths to prove what that old Marxism poster says: 2 + 2 = 5.
The result was that he made a public fool of himself in the process.
Gentlemen, I see where this is going. With my deepest regret I have to announce that I am not a Nobel prize winner, peace or not.
I am not Spartacus!
I broke the dam
The sky is not falling!