Trust me, I am a nobel laureate

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”.

131 thoughts on “Trust me, I am a nobel laureate

    • 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”?

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • ” 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.

      • 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.”

      • “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 Stokes February 11, 2018 at 6:37 pm”

        “Nick Stokes February 11, 2018 at 6:59 pm”

        “Nick Stokes February 11, 2018 at 8:18 pm”

        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.

      • 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.

      • “Nick Stokes February 11, 2018 at 11:43 pm
        “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?”

        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.

        “Nick Stokes February 11, 2018 at 11:43 pm
        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.”

        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.
        A pathetic low insult that utterly fails to tarnish Dr. Singer’s credentials; but seriously impacts Nick Stokes’ credentials.
        Stop harming yourself!

      • 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’.

      • 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. “computer models when they have been almost uniformly wrong”…….almost?
    Can someone name one time they were right?…I know of none

      • 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.

  4. Nobel’s ceased to mean much once the globalists began handing them out to those furthering their agenda. Obamit, Algore, Kissinger come to mind.

      • 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

  7. 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!

  8. 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.

      “In its citation, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said that the IPCC and Mr Gore shared the prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-­‐made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. In its announcement the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated that through the scientific reports it had issued over the past two decades, the IPCC had created an ever-­‐broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming, and that thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries had collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. The prize was awarded at the end of the year that saw the IPCC bring out its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).”

      “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.”

      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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. I was robbed! .. robbed I say!
    Things that make you go … hmmm.
    Delusions of grandeur, “… must … save … planet!”
    And then he was gone.

  12. 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.

    • 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.

  13. 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! 🙂

    • 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Clive James, AO, CBE, FRSL, Australia’s best known wit and satirist, has had many things to say about the absurdity of Climate Science alarmists. Ironically, he has received an honorary doctorate from the University of East Anglia, the home of the Climate Research Unit. An ailing Clive recently said:
    “For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense can be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat.”
    Clive’s Essay “Mass Death Dies Hard”, a biting commentary of Climate Change Alarmism is well worth a read (link below an extract).
    Mass Death Dies Hard
    Tuesday 13th June 2017
    “When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.
    Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a comparably senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all of its exponents, to go away in a hurry.”

    • CJ is also a major poet and very insightful literary critic, and his poetry may eventually be seen as his most important contribution.

    • James is absolutely correct. If they are squelched or ignored, they are far more dangerous than if they are allowed or even encouraged to make public fools of themselves. The longer they are able to spout nonsense, the more ridiculous they become.
      Eventually, they may become the loons on the street corner with microphones.

  16. Gentlemen and Ladies: Please keep in mind the Nobel Peace Prize is distinct from the Nobel Prizes issued for Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Literature, Physiology/Medicine, and Economics. No more than 3 people can share one of these prizes. The Nobel Peace Prize can be awarded to more than 3 people or an organization. The other distinction between the awards are the Science(s), Literature, and Economics awards are given out in Stockholm, Sweden and the Peace Prize is given out in Oslo, Norway.

    • Close the Oslo office and present the Peace Prize at the Oscars. Also need to update the ‘Nobel’ label to avoid further embarrassment to the institution and other winners.

    • The only difference that matter between the Nobel Prizes is the fact that the Peace Prize is awarded by retired Norwegian politicians, which makes any scientist taking credit for the IPCC Peace Prize even more ridiculous. The politicians have naturally no idea of the validity of the science but can smell “good” politics miles away. Rest of the Nobels are awarded by supposed experts in those fields that they are awarding.

  17. Actually these days, it is more of an embarrassment than an honor to be the Nobel Peace Prize recipient. It sadly has been turned into nothing but a cheap, far left Progressive political award. There is nothing about it that means anything Nobel or honorable at all anymore.

      • 1939. An Austrian chappie named Adolf Schicklgruber* was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, so the Peace Prize was a joke at that time, and ever since.
        * Adolf’s father changed his name from Schicklgruber to the catchier “Hitler,” after the alleged grandfather. But the grandfather may have been someone else entirely. I have a theory as to who he might have been…

  18. There does seem to be an awful lot of people claiming awards and qualifications to which they are not entitled.
    Ivor Ward. KFC. DUI. Knt to Q4 ch.

  19. The irony could also be that the ‘outstanding papers’ in the climate alarmist literature have a good chance of being shown to have been based on a quicksand theory. Awards, anyone?

  20. As I have said before: Quite a lot of my fellow countrymen/-women are very embarassed by this (and for the NPP to Mr. Obama). As for the retired politicians, I did not vote for them when they still were in norwegian politics….

  21. It’s a load of bolleaux, innit.
    Michael Mann is Professor of Ignorance At State Pen, sorry, Pen State.

  22. We know what you think of Fred Singer, Nick, and anyone else who questions your ideological beliefs. Any chance that instead of displacement you address the issue of some of your heroes like Michael Mann falsely claiming to be Nobel laureates and the implications for their credibility in general?

  23. Ego-driven, power-hungry megalomania has led the world to the sad state it is in now. Big or small contenders – they all read from the same textbook. The big ones are dangerous, the small ones are just simply pathetic.

  24. I’m more concerned with the immediately previous item where he claims to be on the writing team of an IPCC Good Practice Guidance Paper.
    Someone who incorrectly claims sharing a Nobel Prize hardly demonstrates the ability to advise on “Good Practice.”

  25. Some years ago in the Phoenix area an automotive dealer used to appear in TV commercials sitting on a large, horned bovine while making claims about low prices and quality of service, etc. He ended the commercials pointing to the animal with the pun, “…and that ain’t no bull.” In fact, the animal was not a bull, it was a steer. I notice a certain similarity between this “no-bull” animal and the “no-bull” claimants in this article in that both seem to lack certain anatomical features required of real bulls. The difference is that the claims of the auto dealer could be easily verified.

  26. As I understand it, Michael Mann’s claim on the ‘N’ prize was emended from his law suit after Mark Steyn contacted the Nobel Committee and was told there was no record of Mann having been awarded, and explicitly stated that he wasn’t a Nobel Laureate. His lawyers knew it wouldn’t do to have a fib in a law suit!

    • Correct , but it has all gone very cold on that front as Mann is ducking and diving ever getting into court .
      Which is odd considering he started the case , you would think he want justice to be severed!

  27. I crossed opinions with a guy who boasted about his “Nobel Peace Prize”. Ten years ago I three 1960s Alfa Romeo sports cars and spent some time on the “Alfa Romeo BB”. A post about “Believing in Climate Change” was started. Early in my entrees, I noted that I had a degree in Geophysics and began to criticize the “received wisdom”. I was warned that there was a Ph.D. who was a “Nobel” winner who supported the man-caused global warming stuff.
    “RC” had published many papers including studies on the Martian atmosphere. This guy was/is a nasty liberal. And boasted about his “Nobel” prize, which prompted many posts about how phony it was. He defended having the award. Even after the Nobel committee noted that it was to IPCC. He really valued the “honor”.
    Then, someone posted the image of a big sign at an oil-change shop.

  28. Sorry, after the last 40 odd years of politically driven crap from Nobel Committee it carries the same weight as having a Grammy.

  29. This idiot Stott undersells himself. He actually has 2 Nobel Peace prizes
    One like Mikey Mann via IPCC and one via the European Union getting the prize in 2012. The latter is more valuable

  30. A lady who works for me occasionally informs me that she worked for the UN for a while bringing more light into the lives of IPCC members so does anyone know the going rate I should pay a Nobel Prize winning window cleaner? (In Australian dollars please).

  31. Oh dear, I see Stott of the Met has lost his Nobel prize. His cv now states that he “contributed” to the IPCC reports. So that’s all “settled” then. I enjoyed many of the comments above. Why indeed would a real scientists value a political award, handed out by Norwegian pols who know nothing about science? At least the Grammys are judged by actors, who presumably know something about making a spectacle of themselves.
    Agree with Latitude who queried the statement that climate computer models have been “almost” always wrong. It’s my excessive caution as a once professional journalist. Have it your way – there’re all crap. Also agree with Javert Chip that watching all these activists award themselves fake Nobels is “just plain funny”. Sad, delusional, pathetic, but yes hilarious as well.
    Obliged also to Notanist for finishing the Clive James quote that the BBC has been behaving for several years as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union. Elsewhere in his brilliant essay, CJ notes that the BBC continues with a determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned which he characterises as a “condition of servility”. Of course there are some who say that the poll-tax funded BBC is no longer fit for purpose on many other editorial fronts as well.
    Hats off though to Dave Fair who simply wrote “I am not Spartacus! Brilliant – works on so many levels.
    Give that man a prize.

Comments are closed.