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.
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
CLIVE JAMES
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.”
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/june-2017-online-only-clive-james-mass-death-dies-hard
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.
Then there was the quiet agricultural accolade, the No-bell Peas Prize. Does that not ring a bell?
Was it for promoting whirled peas?
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.
At the Oscars? At the Razzies, rather.
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.
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.
It’s been an embarrassment since at least as far back as 1973
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…
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.
And bar!, v. good.
OMG
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?
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….
It’s a load of bolleaux, innit.
Michael Mann is Professor of Ignorance At State Pen, sorry, Pen State.
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?
The Nobel committee produced guidance for this very situation. They made a mistake in awarding a Contrbutors certificate. A co recipient is an entirely different thing. See fourth paragraph.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
I used this to get a local university to stop publicising it’s new member of staff as a Nobel prize winner.
Its
Stop falsely claiming the Nobel Peace Prize or else I will rise in my grave and blast them with dynamite!
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.
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.”
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.
It’s a new social media start-up venture called Rent-a-Nobel.
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!
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.
“FREE WITH EVERY OIL-CHANGE–ONE NOBEL PEACE CERTIFICATE”
🙂
Sorry, after the last 40 odd years of politically driven crap from Nobel Committee it carries the same weight as having a Grammy.
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
I hope Alfred Nobel will haunt him night after night until kingdom come.
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).
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.