Climate Scientist Michael Mann Congratulates Identity Thief Peter Gleick for Receiving his Carl Sagan Award

Left, Peter Gleick. Right, Michael Mann
(CREDIT
Patrick Mansell, Penn State)

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon – Identity thief Peter Gleick, who impersonated a Heartland Director while serving as AGU Ethics Chairman, and whose swag of rather boring stolen Heartland emails somehow got spiced up with a a nasty forgery, has just been congratulated by Michael Mann for receiving his Carl Sagan Science Popularization Award.

From the Carl Sagan Award Website;

PRESS RELEASE August 31, 2018 WINNER OF CARL SAGAN PRIZE FOR SCIENCE POPULARIZATION ANNOUNCED

SAN FRANCISCO — Wonderfest, the 21-year-old Bay Area Beacon of Science, announced today that environmental scientist Dr. Peter H. Gleick has won the 2018 Carl Sagan Prize for Science Popularization.

The prize, funded by Aduro Biotech, is presented specifically to recognize and encourage researchers who “have contributed mightily to the public understanding and appreciation of science.” Past Sagan Prize winners include UC Berkeley biochemist Jennifer Doudna, Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, and SETI Institute astronomer Jill Tarter. The prize includes a $5000 cash award, and will be formally presented at a by-invitation event in San Francisco on November 9th, Carl Sagan’s birthday.

“Wonderfest was born in 1997, just a few months after the death of researcher and popularizer Carl Sagan,” notes the organization’s founding executive director, Tucker Hiatt. “Wonderfest’s work has been dedicated to Sagan’s memory ever since. Sagan would be proud to know that Peter Gleick, so renowned for his research and his outreach, has received Wonderfest’s Sagan Prize for 2018.”

Wonderfest is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to informal science education and popularization, particularly among adults in the San Francisco Bay Area. Several times every month, Wonderfest produces in-person science events — with accompanying online videos — in an effort to “enlarge the concept of scientific community.” Wonderfest also produces “Science Envoy” workshops to develop the science communication skills of Bay Area Ph.D. students.
Gleick is president emeritus and co-founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environ- ment, and Security in Oakland, California. The Pacific Institute, created in 1987, is a nonprofit research institution dedicated to creating and advancing solutions to the world’s most pressing water challenges.

Gleick holds a B.S. degree in Engineering and Applied Science from Yale University, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Energy and Resources from UC Berkeley. Among his more than thirty honors and awards are membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (the so- called “Genius” award).

Gleick has coauthored or edited 11 books, more than 70 journal articles, and more than 80 peer- reviewed reports, book chapters, and proceedings. A strong public communicator, he gives dozens of public lectures annually; writes op-eds and popular essays on climate, water, and environmental issues for major newspapers, social media outlets, and blogs; and is popular on Twitter for his science and policy commentary. Gleick is regularly called upon by state and federal government agencies for advice on climate change and water resources.

Gleick said: “I’m thrilled to be honored with the Sagan Prize. Carl Sagan’s early efforts to bring science challenges and solutions to the public and policy makers was an inspiration to me, and has encouraged a whole generation of scientists now willing to speak up on the critical challenges of our day.

Additional information: https://wonderfest.org/sagan-prize http://www.pacinst.org

Contact:
http://www.gleick.com
Tucker Hiatt
Executive Director, Wonderfest Email: tucker@wonderfest.org Tel: 415-577-1126

Read more: http://wonderfest.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SaganPrize2018-release-peter-gleick.pdf

My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?

Advertisements

312 thoughts on “Climate Scientist Michael Mann Congratulates Identity Thief Peter Gleick for Receiving his Carl Sagan Award

    • Just whisper in Robert Mueller’s shell-like that Gleick voted for Trump and watch him being investigated down to his toenails.
      That would be “justice”.

  1. How much more shameless can they get? How they guy was not prosecuted and/or sued is beyond me, and now he is receiving sham awards. It’s truly disgusting, and further evidence for how morally, ethically, and scientifically bankrupt their movement is.

    • The offense was committed in Illinois. Check out where constitutional lawyer and sitting president at the time was from. Ask yourself whether he may have had any sway in the legal community in that state.

      It seems that criminal activity by nice middle class white folks is fine as long as the do it for the right reasons.

      I mean it’s not like he’s a “real” criminal, he was just trying to save the planet when he committed wire-fraud and forgery.

    • Heartland was unable to get the U.S. DA in Chicago to file charges, and it didn’t sue civilly because it feared a liberal judge would allow Gleick to obtain “discovery” and obtain the names of its donors, which it had promised them would remain secret.

    • Absolutely.

      We all now know just how easy it is to utterly corrupt science in the interests of its rent seekers just as it is fairly easy to corrupt merchant banking, the priesthood, politicians, policemen and God only knows how many other people whose profession puts them on a bit of a pedestal.

      Thankyou Dr Gleick for revealing the tawdry truth about yourself and your grubby little scientific backwater goldmine.

      That is indeed a mighty achievement and you did it by accident!

      I am sure Carl Sagan is just pissing himself while laughing mightily at your advent.

      • sagan was the archetype for rockstar activist with the noble lies.
        maybe you weren’t there for his nucular winter?
        he’d be laughing with admiration.

        • “sagan was the archetype for rockstar activist with the noble lies. maybe you weren’t there for his nucular winter?”

          Your description of Dr. Sagan as a “rockstar activist” for his Nuclear Winter theory is accurate. He applied this theory to the Iraq Oil Well fires and predicted they would cause a weather disaster. When the weather disaster did not happen, he admitted that he had been wrong. I’d be surprised if Dr. Gleick or Dr. Mann ever admitted that they were wrong about anything.

      • “corrupt merchant banking”.
        The whole of the financial world has been corrupted by Keynesian economic theories. The only reason these have dominated is because they enabled a huge transfer of wealth and power to the state.
        Fortunately, history has started another Popular Uprising whereby just plain folk will again seek solid research and the truth in science and governance. The last great reformation began in the early 1600s. And the advance real science was part of the reformation.
        In the late 1500s, the big bank of the day wrote a market letter. One dryly observed that it was only governments that funded alchemists.
        The problem now is that the governing classes have become ungovernable.
        The last successful Popular Uprising erupted in 1989 and took down the Berlin Wall and Communism. No mean feat.
        So far, the current one has been successful, which will continue.
        The US election in November will be fascinating.
        Bob Hoye

        • It may take longer than we had hoped and anticipated, but rest assured, the DC swamp will be drained and the first step to a process that will achieve real results toward that worthy goal will be the shutting the doors and eliminating The Federal Reserve thus depriving the ‘swamp critters’ the means for robbing the honestly productive Citizens of this once great nation. MAGA.

    • Gleick has contributed mightily to the public understanding and appreciation of science, but not in a good way.

      The public understands he is a liar and a fraud who has undermined science. He deserves jail time, and doesn’t even rate an Ig Nobel award.

  2. Climate science (along with politics and journalism) tends to put a low value on integrity. This has not always been the case but is trending in that direction.

    • TRENDING????????????????????????? From the start, when James Hansen went before Congress in 1987 and again in 1988, climate science has been one long deceptive branch of science which has resulted in the biggest and most costly lie in history. . Witness the 2 sets of climategate emails as one arrow of proof.

      A scientific community that developed computer climate models that pedalled a CAGW meme and that never had any accurate predictions.
      A scientific community that took over all the atmospheric science faculties the world over and turned them into faculties of global warming.
      A scientific community that predicted we would all be drowned by now or all burned from forest fires started by global warming.
      A scientific community that was caught through their own emails of trying to hide the decline in temperatures.
      A scientific community that was caught through their own emails of fudging data with tricks.
      A scientific community that refused to release their data so that others could try to replicate it.
      A scientific community that took over all the major journals in relation to any topic remotely associated with climate change and refused to publish contrary studies to global warming.
      A scientific community that kept on spouting a fake 97% consensus.
      A scientific community that turned peer review into pal review and thus is corrupting all of science.
      A scientific community that refuses to debate the issue because they say the science is settled but on NASA’s own web site it says the IRIS effect has not been proven or disproven. That one effect if true could destroy any capability of CO2 affecting the climate at all.
      A scientific community that rallies around any study that purports to debunk any contrarian study on global warming making sure that the skeptic scientists are drowned out.
      A scientific community that has as yet to publish any definitive physics on how the greenhouse effect actually happens.
      A scientific community that supports a scientist like Michael Mann who has tried to erase history vis a vis the mediaeval warming period and who even Dr Richard Muller of Berkeley a famed alarmist has said he will never read another paper by Michael Mann again nor read the journal that published Mann’s paper ever again.

      A scientific community that took over all the government agencies that had anything to do with climate and that have produced fake graphs and altered temperature data.
      A scientific community that punishes any scientist by demotion,firing, …etc who dares to object to any aspect of global warming.
      A scientific community that frightens little kids around the world with predictions of disaster that are impossible.
      A scientific community that sees almost every retired scientist come out agsinst the global warming meme because at last they have nothing to lose.
      A scientific community that threatens and hurls insults including words such as harlot at scientists who go over to the skeptic side.
      A scientific community that publishes fake debunk studies.
      A scientific community that defends the computer models which are actually junk science.

      A scientific community that admires its own and despises anybody who disagrees.

      THAT IS NOT SCIENCE

      • I have never read a bigger load of unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs. In a response to a question of integrity. Wow

        • “I have never read a bigger load of unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs.”

          We tend to leave that sort of thing to you, old fruit!

          • “We tend to leave that sort of thing to you, old fruit!e tend to leave that sort of thing to you, old fruit!”

            Except that is not what happens. I back up every claim I make here with evidence. True, go and check.

            And if philincalifornia thinks it is up to me to go chasing Mr Tomalty’s ranted nonsense down a dozen internet burrows so I can “respond to each point one by one”…lol.

            What is most bemusing is that you and the conga line above don’t think there is anything wrong with this kind of unsubtantiated arm-waving. You think this is sciency enough, that it is proof enough. The only thing it demonstrates is your lack of scepticism old bean.

          • “Evidence” can be a double edged sword you know! So far the evidence with which you have “backed-up” your statements has been regurgitated warmist claptrap! However, I duly note your Great Mentor’s statement, one Vladimir Illyich Ulianov, when he said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth!”. Also as the Chancellor of 1930s-1940s Germany said in his little piece of prose, Mein Kampf, “the mass of the people are more likely to believe a really big lie, than a small one!”. Have fun! 😉

          • According to this chart, the oceans have warmed up by maybe 0.01C.
            Of course any true scientist knows that anyone claiming that we can measure the temperature of the ocean to even 1C is lying through their teeth.
            The probes themselves are accurate to betwenn 0.5C and 0.3C. Not only that, we con’t have enough coverage to claim even that kind of accuracy.

          • anyone and i mean anyone that thinks we have any idea of global ocean heat content is an absolute fool. i do not care how well educated they are. argo coverage is abysmal and short lived, previous methods not fit for purpose unless you think sailors taking bucket measurements were recording to the nearest zettajoule.

            believing climate science knows the exact numbers and variation to large atmospheric and oceanic masses might pass the mustard on (un)skeptical science or real climate , i very much doubt it will here.

          • Are you insinuating that there may be people on the anti-factualist side of this little ‘game’ whose thinking is symmetrical in three dimensions: Narrow, shallow and short term. Well…..Go figure.

          • So “I back up every claim I make here with evidence” and yet, in the same message, you state that you will refuse to back up your claim that Mr Tomalty’s statements are “unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs”. I’m confused – can you explain these two positions?

            Have you read any of the ClimateGate E-Mails? If so, you know that several of Mr Tomalty’s claims are true/

        • Let’s talk about “hide the decline”. That’s been used by skeptics to prove deception, but it was nothing of the sort. Alan knows this but his honesty or lack of, doesn’t stop him peddling this old myth.
          “The “trick” was a technique to combine data series, and “the decline” was a well known issue with Keith Briffa’s reconstruction using certain tree ring proxies which appeared to decline after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. The email was widely misquoted as a “trick” to “hide the decline” as though it referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, but this was obviously untrue as when the email was written temperatures were far from declining:”

          • I guess that I’m uneducated. What is a “z-score” and why does it matter? It would appear that Dr Briffa re-examined his analysis of the data and made some corrections.

          • On that one point Simon is right. The “decline” that was being “hidden” was the divergence between the tree-ring proxies and the actual temperatures.

            We don’t gain anything in our arguments by getting the basic facts wrong.

            HOWEVER…the practice was scientifically uncalled-for and fundamentally dishonest on two counts:

            • It is never justifiable to mix data in order to provide the answer that suits your purpose;

            • The divergence between proxies and observations immediately calls into question the reliability of the whole series of those proxies, in this case tree rings which dendrologists will tell you — and did tell them — are a guide to all the growing conditions of a tree with temperature only one factor out of many.

            With that single exception — and the fact that ‘pedalled’ should be ‘peddled’ (!) — there is nothing inaccurate in Tomalty’s post.

          • Oh dear Simon – the temperatures were indeed increasing, but the proxies from tree-rings in the modern period WERE declining hence diverging. So in the period when we have the best data, the tree-ring proxies are negatively correlated with temperature, but always in the past they were positively correlated? That completely destroys any use of tree-rings as proxies. So to avoid the embarrassment of this, they chopped off the end of the tree-ring proxies to “hide the decline” of the proxies and pretend everything was ok.

            The “trick” was to then splice on modern temperature over the top of the deleted period of proxies. But that’s invalid too. The decline shows the reconstructions from tree-rings are seriously flawed and probably useless. Covering it up with cut-and-paste of modern temps is…covering it up.

            Quite frankly it amazes me how anyone can continue with the sort of nonsense that you are spouting. You have zero credibility here if you believe what you just posted isn’t evidence of rubbish science.

          • Bang on! This discussion is about whether or not they spiced their utterly garbage science with deceptive representation.

          • Also google “the divergence problem”

            Here is one account:
            http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/09/climategate-part-one-overview-tree-rings-and-the-divergence-problem-data-manipulation/

            This is my post from 2012 – I suggest it was a scam:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/the-question-put-to-dr-mann-at-disneyland-today/#comment-989607 (old server)

            [excerpt]

            More on “the Divergence Problem”, “Mike’s Nature Trick” and “Hide the Decline”:

            It took eight years before the “Divergence Problem” was revealed, also in testimony. Mann grafted modern surface temperature data onto earlier tree ring temperature proxies to produce his upward-sloping “hockey stick” graph. Grafting together two different datasets is usually NOT good scientific practice.

            Why did Mann do this? Because if he had exclusively used tree-ring data, the blade of the hockey stick, instead of showing very-scary warming in the last decades of the 20th Century, would have shown COOLING.

            The correct scientific conclusion, in my opinion, is that using tree rings as a proxy for temperatures is not sufficiently accurate for the major conclusions that were drawn from the Mann studies.

            Mann and the IPCC were clearly wrong about the hockey stick – the only remaining question is not one of error, it is one of fraud.

            For more on the public revelation of the Divergence Problem in 2006, see
            http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/

            “The discrepancy between the forecast and the actual caught Cuffey’s eye and he asked D’Arrigo about it. She said “Oh that’s the “Divergence Problem”. Cuffey wanted to know exactly how you could rely on tree ring proxies to register past warm periods if they weren’t picking up modern warmth “questions dear to the heart of any climateaudit reader”.”

          • It took eight years before the “Divergence Problem” was revealed, also in testimony.
            Briffa published a paper on the subject in 1998, so it was hardly revealed in 2006.
            Briffa, K. R., F. H. Schweingruber, P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, S. G. Shiyatov, and E. A. Vaganov (1998), Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes, Nature, 391, 678–682

          • Repeating for Phil:

            For more on the PUBLIC revelation of the Divergence Problem in 2006, see
            http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/

            Phil, Briffa is discussed by Steve McIntyre in his above 2006 post on ClimateAudit, but the true significance of the Divergence Problem, and the shifty way it was handled by Mann and others was not a matter of public knowledge until about 2006.

            We owe a great debt to Steve McIntyre for his highly competent and tenacious efforts to reveal this warmist chicanery.

            Mann’s early poor-quality tree-ring data eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age to depict the straight shaft of the Hokey Stick, but his later tree-ring data would have showed modern cooling with the blade of the stick turning down (the so-called “Divergence Problem”), so Mann deleted the modern tree ring data and instead grafted on modern surface temperature data to show the very-scary global warming message that he wanted to portray. Mann became famous, moved to Penn State and a tenured position, etc.

            In summary, the Divergence Problem was “solved” thus:
            Pure tree-ring proxies showed a downturn in modern temperatures, so Mann grafted modern surface temperature records onto the tree ring data to show global warming. Presto! Problem solved!

            The IPCC loved Mann’s hokey stick and published it several times as an important piece of evidence in their “2001 TARpaper” – a steaming pile of deceptive warmist propaganda!

            Now it was time to stampede the sheep!

            References:

            https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/
            2001 TAR Fig SPM-10b and other figures

            https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

            “Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.” – John Christy

          • Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 absolutely destroyed McIntyre and McKitrick.

            I seriously doubt this statement’s grandiose claim, given the following:

            McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s response to Huybers 2005
            https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.huybersreply.pdf

            As for a response by McIntyre and McKitrick to Wahl & Ammann 2007, there seem to be some ethical issues surrounding the consideration of that paper, as evidenced by the barrage of commentary here:

            https://climateaudit.org/2008/05/23/will-stephen-schneider-say-what-the-acceptance-date-of-wahl-and-ammann-2007-was/

          • The strike goes to YOU, Remy M, because you fail to recognize that the commentators at that “blog post” were McIntyre and McKitrick themselves, describing faults with that paper.

            I’d say that, when the authors themselves are the blog commentators, and when their comments relate to how Wahl & Ammann 2007 apparently attempted some slight of hand in the review/acceptance of their paper, the “blog post”, at least, merits some consideration, in that it raises legitimate questions about the integrity of the numbers in Wahl & Ammann 2007.

            To be clear, I was NOT attempting a refutation, but rather I was attempting to deflate the grandiosity of your claim, on which my references cast doubt . Consequently, I seriously doubt your claim. Hence, I am not convinced.

          • Well said. The claim that peer review is somehow a gold standard has been thoroughly debunked.

            Way back to the Climate Gate emails and we see the corruption of peer review in their own (Leading Climate Scientists like Phil Jones) words.

            The BEST paper was on a PR tour before it ever was peer-reviewed by any legitimate science journal. Ir finally got published by an Indian online pay-for-play science journal.

          • Reg, peer review remains the gold standard until something replaces it. Do you prefer NO REVIEW ? If so, I can point you to a blog that demonstrates all of the alien civilizations currently visiting planet Earth, and studying us .

          • Remy – more nonsense from you.

            In climate science, too octen “Peer Review = Pal Review”

            In many cases, blog posts have much greater credibility that published papers – it depends not on the review, but on the scientific evidence.

          • Allan said: “In many cases, blog posts have much greater credibility that published papers – it depends not on the review, but on the scientific evidence.”

            Ok, then give us several examples of specific blog posts that meet the scientific evidence threshold you refer to.

          • Once again, Remy demonstrates that he has no concept of how science works.
            Nor does he show any ability to understand what peer review is.
            Most of the time peer review is little more than an advanced spell checker.

          • LMAO @ Kernoodle round 2…..science is not done in blogs, and even more to point is that the COMMENTS of a blog post are not science either.

            Well, Rem, on the one hand, I’m glad that I can entertain you. On the other hand, I think you inflate what we are doing here. We are TALKING about science, and in TALKING about science … in “blog posts” … , we help clarify points and help reveal weaknesses, and even reveal flaws in what we might call proper “science”.

            When the scientists you attempt to slam are some of the very commentators in a blog post, talking specifically about a paper that you claim “destroys” their work, then I think that their words count towards diminishing YOURS, as well as if these words were pal (I mean “peer”) reviewed for publication in a respectable journal.

            The first link I provided was NOT a blog post — it was another published response. The second link I provided included the authors themselves as commentators on the second paper you claimed “destroyed” them. Had the authors themselves not appeared in that blog post, then I would not have cited it. Their appearance there, on multiple comments, gives a bit more credibility to the sorts of people contributing there.

            So, laugh all you want, but I think that you are shortchanging some blogs based on your myopic focus on a blog focusing on aliens living among us.

            Talk about LMAO ! Here’s your logic, Rem:

            Some blogs talk about aliens living among us.
            Some blogs include, as commentators, authors who write published papers talking about their critics.
            Thus, all blogs are only as credible as those talking about aliens living among us.

            Back to logic 101 for you.

          • Talking about science is not doing science
            ..
            If your logic is to be taken seriously, then talking about politics in the editorial pages of a newspaper is doing politics.
            .
            LOL

          • i don’t know what you think politics might be without talking, but i do know you should not be underage drinking.

          • Remy Mermelstein

            If your logic is to be taken seriously, then talking about politics in the editorial pages of a newspaper is doing politics.

            ?? Yes, that is exactly WHERE “politics” begins, continues, and (often) resumes. You think it only happens under the big domes of polished stone between those who vote on laws? That merely is one step (often only one of many intermediate steps) in a long process of communication, conversation, conversion, and persuasion. And, all too often, persecution, lies (on those very editorial pages!) and propaganda – also on the editorial pages and letters and twitters and facebooks and streetcorners.

          • I’m beginning to wonder if Remy is just another poorly written bot, or perhaps he’s still in 3rd grade.
            Voting is one aspect of politics, but it most assuredly is not the only one.
            In your poor excuse for a mind, how do you believe people decide how they are going to vote? Most of the time, the talk to each other.

          • Remy sure is desperate to find any excuse to ignore arguments he can’t refute.

            Talking about science is how peer review is done dear boy.
            At least it is outside the realm of climate science, in which talking about science is absolutely forbidden unless you are one of the self selected masters.

          • Talking about science is not doing science.

            So why are you talking? What are YOU doing? If we cannot talk about science, then what point is talking about the fact that we cannot talk about it? You’re just desperately trying to manipulate words to avoid talking about what needs talking about, Rem.

            What good are you doing here in this “blog post”, with all YOUR talking? Do you think that talking about the fact that talking about science is not doing science is somehow going to improve how science IS done? Help me out here. What should a “blog post” about climate science talk about, if not climate science? If talk is no good, then YOUR talk is no good too, because YOU are IN a “blog post” whose PURPOSE is to TALK … ABOUT SCIENCE, for one thing, and certainly ABOUT the POLITICS of SCIENCE, for another, specifically “climate science”.

            At present, you’re just talking about why we should not be talking. Maybe you could enlighten me as to what you think DOING SCIENCE means. Is there no talk involved? I think scientists talk. I’ve known a few, and they DO talk, amazingly. They talk about the science that they are DOING in order to communicate what they are DOING among themselves. They TALK to the press, so the press can TALK to the public, and the public can TALK about what the scientists are doing, which (via TALKING) extends that science and the DOINGS of science throughout the culture.

            So, I guess I am disagreeing with your proposition that talking about science is not doing science. Talking most certainly IS part of DOING science. Without the surrounding talk, nobody would know what the hell was going on, and there would be no vehicle to propagate the findings and apply the findings throughout culture.
            ..

            If your logic is to be taken seriously, then talking about politics in the editorial pages of a newspaper is doing politics.

            Actually, when I used the word, “logic”, I was referring to YOUR bizarre logic of thinking that all blogs should be considered as if they were “aliens-live-among-us” blogs, or, in one of your most recent posts, your logic that all publications except professional pal (peer) reviewed journals should be considered as if they were the National Enquirer.

            Falsely over generalize much?

            But, now that you mention it, I WOULD agree that talking about politics in the editorial pages of a newspaper is doing politics. Of course it is. News is a big, big part of politics. Again, without the talk, we, the public, would not know what politics were being done and conveyed to us in the culture.

            QUESTION: Are you an alien living among us? (^_^)

          • Science can be done anywhere.
            Remy just hates blogs because they keep showing how incompetent his masters are.

          • ROTFLMAO @ MarkW

            “Science can be done anywhere. ”

            Show me some “science” done in the National Enquirer. For instance, do you find any results from CERN published there?

            Better yet, show me some “science” done on CNN.

          • Any time you discuss science, you are doing science.
            Science is not just doing experiments. It is also analyzing those experiments. It is one group trying to find holes in another groups work, and the first group defending their work.

          • Show me any science on WUWT. Just looks like a bunch of old fat dudes masturbating in their mother’s basement. That’s all that MarkW guy seems to do. So sad when that’s all their life is.

          • Actually Allan is making a fine point. That being you have no idea what you are talking about and aren’t mature enough to realize what a fool you are making of yourself.

          • My poor, poof Remy. Scientific papers are refuted by facts.
            It matters not where the facts come from.

            As always, you seek excuses to avoid dealing with anyone who disagrees with your masters.

          • If I can confirm those facts for myself, why shouldn’t I.

            I know in your world something is only true if it comes from a scientist that you agree with. However most people aren’t that narrow minded.

          • no matter how many different people make soup from ham and peas,you are always going to get soup that tastes of ham and peas.

          • that might be missing the point remy, it might make the pea and ham harder to detect, but dig deep enough with the spoon and you will find the pea and ham. a certain mr mcintyre is good at digging deep 🙂

          • As usual, Remy doesn’t understand the concept of an analogy.
            Regardless, he considers anyone who’s work isn’t blessed by one of his sainted authorities has already been proven false.

          • Remy Mermelstein

            I assume you are so strongly supporting “Pee Review Papers” so fervently because they are a part of your life, your belief and your supreme philosophy (what mortals used to call religion. Indeed, you are likely to have written and submitted papers yourself through the peer-review process.

            But, who reviewed which papers? What were their criticisms, what ideas and calculations were actually checked? Which ideas were accepted site unseen and facts unverified? We don’t know.

            Why were certain criticisms accepted (forced!) on the original paper, and which ideas and comments from which peer-reviewers were rejected immediately as being not needed? What false criticisms were raised to slow papers felt “unworthy” of publication because they were unpopular or threatened a colleague, threatened funding or the – gasp! – the reputation of a colleague? Who decided what was unworthy and what was “worthy” of being crowned correct?

            Who decided the two or three anonymous individuals who did the “pall review”, and what were their prejudices?

            Oh wait! We do know absolutely that the CAGW community attacked and got editors fired who alarmed the CAGW community, who disagreed with the CAGW ‘s need for alarm and catastrophic predictions immediately before the IPCC reports, don’t we?

            In a perfect world of perfect laboratory theory and the simplified reality of the classroom and lecture hall, peer review can work. If all involved in the process are saints. Omnipotent saints with perfect recall. And a good eraser. And no need for a government budget the next year from the government bureaucrats who need their conclusions published.

          • Splicing a thermometer series on the end of a proxy series is proof that you are interested in deception, not science.

            The reason why they had to do this was because the proxy series failed to provide the evidence they were looking for. So they chopped it off. In other words, hid it.

          • the treemometer proxies don’t calibrate to thermometers- that was the point.

            the ‘decline’ is the euphemism for tree rings, used as temperature proxies, that produce data proving they are not valid proxies.

            the ‘nature trick’ is how to fotochop a chart to hide the fact that the proxies indicate that global temperatures are dropping but more importantly that they prove to be worthless as proxies, period.

          • Remy – They calibrate extremely well prior to 1960. The problem with them occurs AFTER 1960 .

            Really – doesnt that scientific explanation seem a little too convenient?
            A little too cute – maybe?

            Just like the elevated temps during the MWP confined to the north atlantic/northwestern europe/greenland – all due to a 300 year.

            Really – doesnt that scientific explanation seem a little too convenient?
            A little too cute – maybe?

            Maybe they get there by omitting SH proxies that show an elevated mwp by ex post screening.

          • Remy – marcott shows the current warming to be greater than all of the holocene – When the reality is that both the current warming and the MWP warming are mere bumps compared to the warming of rest of the holocene.

            Doesnt Marcott’s dating the 19th & 20th century proxies cause a few qualms in your defense of his reconstruction

            https://climateaudit.org/?s=marcott

          • it just suddenly happened for the first time ever one day cuz the trees heard Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini?
            drugs r bad, mmk?

          • If they don’t calibrate for the entire period, then they don’t calibrate. PERIOD.

            The idea that you can just pick the parts of your data that match what you are seeking to prove may be the vogue in climate science, but it isn’t science.

          • Remy – If the proxy calibrates to the thermometers why can’t you splice?

            I have no problem with splicing the proxy when it calibrates to thermometers –

            The problem is that the divergence showed they dont calibrate – at least not with the resolution needed to support the claimed accuracy of the reconstructions.

            Further many of the proxies dont reconcile well with other known events,

          • “The divergence occurred after 1960. Prior to that, the tree rings calibrate very well. Hence the “decline” misrepresented in the publication of the stolen emails”

            80-90 years of good calibration then 40+ years of divergence – are you comfortable with the explanation.

          • Easy enough that even you should be able to figure it out.
            If it calibrates to the readings, it isn’t needed.
            In this case it didn’t. The thermometers went in the opposite direction that the proxy was. That’s why they stopped using the proxies and started using the thermometers. So they could get the graph they had been paid to create.

          • Let’s talk about “why the blip”:

            Climategate email:

            From : Tom Wigley

            To: Phil Jones

            Subject: 1940s

            Sept. 27, 2009

            “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940’s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”

            See, they are trying to figure out what kind of lie they can tell to explain why the “blip” no longer shows up in the official surface temperature record.

            The 1930’s-40’s was the hottest period in recent history, hotter than any subsequent year including 2016, but the Climategate conspirators describe it as a “blip”.

            This “blip” had to disappear because otherwise it would blow up the CAGW hypothesis by showing that temperatures do not correlate with CO2 levels. It would show that while CO2 levels were increasing, the temperatures were decreasing from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, equal to the low temperatures that occurred in 1910.

            Yes, the CAGW Charlatans had to get rid of the 1930’s heat. It didn’t fit with their theory. And so they did and now we have temperature records that noone with any sense trusts.

          • Wallaby – complete and utter rubbish. Gee, I’ll say “climate skeptics have falsified graph data in order to disprove temperature increases.” I don’t have to prove it, I can just tell anyone who challenges me they must prove the contrary. Why shouldn’t the person who first made the assertions (Alan) have to provide supporting evidence for his claims?

          • Why shouldn’t the person who first made the assertions (Alan) have to provide supporting evidence for his claims?

            “you’re new here, aren’t you…lol”

            That is gold.

          • Mr Tomalty isn’t the first to make any of these claims, and each claim has been discussed in dpth over the years. However, your claim that it is “unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs” is a first.

          • Retired engineer Jim said: “Mr Tomalty isn’t the first to make any of these claims, and each claim has been discussed in dpth over the years.”

            OK, then it should be very easy for you to provide a link to the “in-depth” discussion on this one: A scientific community that predicted we would all be drowned by now or all burned from forest fires started by global warming.

          • next time you will have to pay in advance.
            your life is made of moments like this, being all you can be.
            these are the memories that will flash past on your last day.
            yu may copy this for your epitaph.

          • Chris,
            Did you even read the links Alan provided?

            I thought not. Some come here to try to learn; some just to sling mud.

          • I’m waiting for the evidence about us all being drowned by now or consumed in forest fires. Where’s the link?

          • There are differing quotes from Hansen re West Side Highway (WSH) being under water (and various other calamities besetting New York City). There was an article in Salon (regrettably, my attempts to link to the article fail) stating that Hansen said that the WSH would be under water (owing to sea level rise) by 2008. (See https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-rumours-of-manhattans-death-are-exaggerated/, for example.) Didn’t happen.

            However, the Salon “quote” may have been a misquote from, or a misunderstanding of, the original quote in “The Coming Storm” by Bob Reiss. He [Reiss] states that the “WSH underwater” comment was Hansen’s prediction of what would happen in 40 years (i.e., 2028) and when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubled (i.e., hit 560 ppm). (See https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm, for example.) Note that neither of these references are from the book – they are websites.

            Also, note, that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will not hit 560 ppm by 2028.

            Others (notably, the Potsdam Institute) have predicted massive sea-level rise when the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS) collapses. (I don’t have a web reference for that.) Note that the mass media took the “collapse” to be imminent, when the Potsdam folks were looking at a very long-term process. If I am remembering their plot correctly, sea level would rise about 1 metre in the next 100 years.

            So, we’re not all going to be “drowned by now”. I suspect Mr Tomalty was being hyperbolic there. In actual fact, the worst predictions of sea level rise are about 100 metres, so there would still be lots and lots of dry land to which to retreat.

            But the proponents of Catastrophic Anthropocentric Global Warming (or its new brand name, Climate Change), continue to make strong predictions / forecasts / projections about the consequences of accelerating sea-level rise. The outcome is right, they’re just off on the timing.

            As to us all of us being burned to a crisp by now by forest fires, probably some more hyperbole. However, if you listen to what is coming out of Sacramento about the current California fire season, the predictions are dire, and will, in all probability, be proven to be wrong. Note that several of our most recent wild fires were started by humans (wither intentionally or unwittingly), and cannot be ascribed to CAGW / CC. And all of us in areas prone to fires owe a great debt to our fire fighters – they protect us from more widespread damage. And some give up their lives protecting us.

          • Ahhh, so now it’s hyperbole. That’s just a slight retreat from what he said. You say: “In actual fact, the worst predictions of sea level rise are about 100 metres, so there would still be lots and lots of dry land to which to retreat.” How many trillion dollars is that going to cost? You act as if it is no big deal for 100s of millions of people to lose their residence, and to have to pack up and move. For dozens of ports to be relocated or modified. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm

          • you know you want it, chris.
            withholding opprobrium would be an act of moral embezzlement.
            you worked for it, you earned it, the honorable person obliges you.
            it’s really all you’re good for.

          • REJ, no matter how many links you give, Chris will always reject anything you say because you never give any links.

            He’s a one trick pony, and his trick is worn out.

          • Thank-you for a (correct) and much more balanced view. It’s difficult to get that on this site. I note that this site is very Anglocentric. In Sweden we have had the worst forest fires this Summer in recorded history. This is definitely not normal.

          • Frank – you don’t get balance here. Here’s the standard answer you’ll get on WUWT regarding forest fires in Sweden. “It’s because liberals prevented logging companies from cutting down trees.” “It’s because liberals fought against letting forest fires burn.”

            Even though Sweden has a massive logging industry, that, if anything, has cut down far more trees in recent decades than in earlier times. Logging companies have rights to 96% of Sweden’s productive forests.
            https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/11/swedish-wildlife-extinction-threat-loggers-clear-cut-old-growth-forests

            Nope, the answer is still the same, blame it on the left. That’s what passes for science here on WUWT.

          • Thanks Chris. Having spent maybe 3 months quietly on this blog now I have to say I am really disappointed with the level of discourse. Having been initially “skeptical” I have to say the experience has given me an uncomfortable insight into the minds and level of scientific literacy of those that occupy the skeptical part of the spectrum. The articles posted seem to be cherry picked and written in purely polemic style with little regard to the scientific merits of the piece. I will be going elsewhere from now on.

        • RyanS;

          I have never read a bigger load of unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs.

          Though you probably read the Guardian every day 😉

        • “I have never read a bigger load of unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs”

          So you don’t read your OWN posts. !

          That has been obvious for a quite a while.

        • Which one of the points made is unsubstantiated? So far as I can tell the matters referred to above were true. Which ones are not true, and if you cannot demonstrate that they are untrue, then the old French proverb “qui s’accuse, s’excuse” applies.

          • Dude, dude, you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

            I hear you’re a wife beater? I also here you’re a thief and someone told me you actually eat babies. You think I’m making it up go and prove it.

          • I hear you have a micropenis, RyanS, hence the need for the telescope.

            Don’t need to be Sigmund Freud to spot the obvious references to wife beating (resentful of their laughter), thievery (manhood has been stolen), and babies (you envy their endowment). And it has turned you into a bitter man who has to find something to lash-out at. You think I’m making it up, go and prove it.

            Or you could actually address the points and stop playing games.

          • “Or you could actually address the points and stop playing games.”

            No, in the real world of science, those who make claims provide evidence to support their points. It’s Alan who made the claims.

        • I have never read more shameless arguing in bad faith from invincible ignorance with a heaping side of indignant projection than you’ve all been projectile vomiting here.

        • I note that our dear Ryan has once again, not even attempted to refute anything the original poster said.
          I guess being outraged is as much as he’s being paid for this week.

        • head over to real climate ryans.numero uno when it comes to mud slinging and unsubstantiated bs.much of it from that clown connolley .

      • This statement is such a load of tripe. The most ridiculous and litmus test for Alan’s knowledge is this gem….
        “A scientific community that has as yet to publish any definitive physics on how the greenhouse effect actually happens.”

          • Yes, but the 1W/m^2 effect is tiny compared to the dominant planetary surface temperature control and adds no heat to the system, which is on track with previous ice age cycles. Nothing to see here. And that is if you are taken in by the correlation as causation and biased assumptions of IPCC models designed to prove UN green political dogma of AGW by CO2, considering the atmosphere alone, were decent, honest, truthful, or even correct on the factual data (not),

            The change we see in a human lifetime is tiny, and remains so. 0.6 Deg K per Century and its cause is unclear. Noise in the relatively tight interglacial range of c. 8 Degrees K in the comfy zones. Most important, Climate is clearly insensitive to CO2, and the actual warming from IR-re radiation by water vapour is tiny, and diminished logarithmically with temperature through the band satuaruion effect, hi uge amounts required for a tiny change now.

            If you believe GHE makes any significant difference to the straightforward insulation effect the atmosphere delivers as smart planetary lagging, with water vapour as the dominant control keeping us at about 290 Degrees in the Absolute zero of space by adjusting incoming insolation levels, plus and minus the few degree range of ice age cycles, at just above the temperature the oceans would freeze and create a long term ice planet, and not too hot to cook the plant and animal life. The dominat control of this greenhouse gas is to keep a lid on the interglacial maximum thet CO2, emitted from already warming oceans, plays no detectable part in, as a review of the interglacial warming end demonstrates.

            Even if you believe the models assumptions about what controls climate and what does not, used to reject significant effects in the models as insignificant or not responsive enough to consider, to attribute all change possible to CO2, and assume amplification by water vapour which is a clear nonsense, the prophesies/confessions arising from the extreme torture of sensitivity amplification of the CO2 inquisition do not match reality. Because the models are designed to prove CO2 guilty, by correlation. But that a forcing of the the numbers by arbitrary assunption is unreal, so they don’t. And can’t, on the historical data they deny. In fact no change of any substance happens in human lifetimes, and CO2/ AGW is a demonstrably inconsequential effect. AS below.

            Water Vapour controls the warmest inter glacial periods of the ice age cycle, now, by cloud formation which can quickly cool the ocean surface and increases albedo to maintain surface temperatures in response to warming, and also vice versa in response to cooling, within the equable range. The control is currently around a very responsive to change 140W/m^2 (90 W/m^2 from evaporatio and cud formation, and 50W/M^2 from albedo – check NASA Energy balance and albedo studies).

            AGW at 1.6W/m^2 is tiny in this, as is solar wind’s effect on cosmic rays and other short term variations such as volcanic eruptions and the odd asteroid. The cloud control handles all this with ease to keep global temperatures stable across human lifetimes, mopping them up by cloud variation. AGW is almost insignificant in this.

            Finally, If you check the interglacial rise data, the clouds stop it dead after 7Ka while the rapidly increasing CO2 emissions from warming oceans continue for hundreds of year after, unnoticed by the planet’s atmospheric temperature, which plateaus. How do you explain any of the above facts, no assumptions, no models, no prophesies. No runaway. Because natre doesn’t work like that, and it’s time scales and sheer scale of enrgy required are longer and larger than you could possible imagine in your philosophy. The planet’s climate is brutally stable over tens of lifetimes, , not unstable, and it’s primary control is water vapour, a control which is insensitive to CO2 on the record.

            Finally, the Earth’s preferred planetary climate state has been ice age, not interglacial, for millions of years, be they 41Ka or the current 100Ka MIlankovitch periodicities of the last 1 Million years. The cause of the short 100Ka warming we live in is another paper… But reality is we have only existed and built a civilisation in the few thousand years of this short warm snap, long term climate reality is very different, one ice age is ten times the lifetime of civilised hom sap.. And our pathetic effects on the planet and its lanetary and solar scale controls are insignificant, on the natural facts we are smart enough to measure, but the organised criminals in government would rather misunderstand and exploit to legislate a CO2 based fraud to make a fast buck at the people’s expense in actually insignificant human lifetimes.

          • “Yes, but the 1W/m^2 effect is tiny compared to the dominant planetary surface temperature control and adds no heat to the system, which is on track with previous ice age cycles. ”

            Planetary surface temperature control? Nice mumbo jumbo. The topic was whether the greenhouse gas effect is real. Not about AGW.

          • Forgive me if I am wrong, the topic was about whether C02 (frequently mislabeled as Carbon, and\or Carbon Pollution by the Far Leftists) has any affect on the Earth’s Climate.

            Chris, please lead me to a study (verified by the Scientific Method) that has ever been confirmed in the real world (outside a laboratory).

          • It should be Mark- you haven’t brought anything to this discussion- and it’s trolls like you that give this site a bad name.

          • Brian, you said: “If you believe GHE makes any significant difference to the straightforward insulation effect the atmosphere delivers as smart planetary lagging, with water vapour as the dominant control keeping us at about 290 Degrees in the Absolute zero of space by adjusting incoming insolation levels, plus and minus the few degree range of ice age cycles, at just above the temperature the oceans would freeze and create a long term ice planet, and not too hot to cook the plant and animal life.

            Let’s ignore the fact that this is an incomplete sentence; actually it’s a subordinate clause without a subject, operative verb or object (if you believe etc. etc., then ………what?). It looks as if you wrote it in a hurry in response to Ryan S’s absurdly disingenuous comments (which are best ignored) so minor grammatical errors are allowed.

            More importantly, you refer to “straightforward insulation effect” and use the term “lagging” to make it sound like the insulation we are familiar with in our daily lives. That kind of insulation works by using a layer of material with low thermal conductivity, to reduce the flow of heat into or out of a body.

            The earth, existing as it does in the vacuum of space, cannot gain or lose heat by conduction. Or convection. It can only gain or lose heat by radiation. And the “straightforward insulation effect” that you refer to is none other than the remarkable property of certain gases in the atmosphere, which are transparent to incoming SWIR from the sun, to absorb a portion of outgoing LWIR, and to re-radiate it omnidirectionally so that s portion of the absorbed heat radiates back to the surface. This is commonly known as the greenhouse effect (GHE). Which, despite the billions squandered on climate science research models, is only understood in general terms.

            The big error in the warmist philosophy is (as we all well know) to assume that CO2 (and methane and CFCs etc.) dominate the GHE, while marginalizing water vapour, which is present at concentrations up to 100 times greater than CO2, to a role as “just” an amplifier of the GHE of CO2. The rest of your comment clearly shows that you appreciate this. You’re not doing yourself, or your skeptical position, any favours by referring to the GHE as “insulation”. That’s more like sophistry than mounting a scientific argument.

            Brian, forgive my little show of pedantry. We are on the same side.

            It’s a lovely day in northwest Ontario. A slight chill in the air, the birch trees are now mostly in their autumnal colours, and the poplar trees are starting to turn. It looks like a long, cold winter is coming our way. So why do I suspect that 2018 is going to be announced as the “warmest year ever”? It’s a guess, based on observed trends. Perhaps they will relent and make it the second-warmest year ever, just to show how balanced and objective they are

          • Smart Rock said: “The big error in the warmist philosophy is (as we all well know) to assume that CO2 (and methane and CFCs etc.) dominate the GHE, while marginalizing water vapour, which is present at concentrations up to 100 times greater than CO2, to a role as “just” an amplifier of the GHE of CO2.”

            Nonsense.

            “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

            Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.”

            And: “We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect. The remainder is made up with the other minor greenhouse gases, ozone and methane for instance, and a small amount from particles in the air (dust and other “aerosols”).”

            Both quotes taken from NASA’s web site.

      • I’d like some direct quotes for this BS sentence…
        “A scientific community that predicted we would all be drowned by now or all burned from forest fires started by global warming.”

      • “RyanS
        I have never read a bigger load of unsubstantiated, mud-slinging bs. In a response to a question of integrity. Wow”

        Great job Alan Tomalty! When you can get a response like that above from such a poster you’ve landed an upper cut.

          • Well, Ryan, most of us have already seen all the evidence to back up what Alan wrote. So it isn’t unsubstantiated to us.

            However, it is certainly possible that someone may not know the details of some of the ‘Climate Crises’s history. (especially if they have a history of posting on subjects they know little about)

            So if their is a point of Alan’s list that you are unfamiliar with, let use know which one, and we’ll fill you in.

            ~¿~

          • Simon just proved how gullible he is, if he thinks the AGW “mechanism” is based on any sort of real physics.

          • Schitzree

            Well, Ryan, most of us have already seen all the evidence to back up what Alan wrote. So it isn’t unsubstantiated to us.

            Sorry but you are now doubling down on bs. Substantiate one, just one of his claims.

          • ryan offers nothing of value; ryan makes petulant demands.
            the things the effete will do for a selfie…
            so broken…

          • You ask it in bad faith. I doubt you’ve any intention to give the evidence you demand an honest appraisal. You will just find an excuse to dismiss it then go right back to demanding “substantiation”. This is the crux of arguing from invincible ignorance. Many here see right through it, downvote, and move on. A few like gnomish will add some snark for their own amusement.

            You’re not the final arbiter of what is substantive and what is not. Those who discuss things in good faith are quite happy to do their own homework and decide that for themselves.

          • “You ask it in bad faith. I doubt you’ve any intention to give the evidence you demand an honest appraisal.”

            Wrong, I’d be checking.

            “You’re not the final arbiter of what is substantive and what is not. Those who discuss things in good faith are quite happy to do their own homework and decide that for themselves.”

            That is a long way from spewing out a list of outrageous, patently absurd thought bubbles without an iota of evidence and expecting everyone to chase them into a series of blind alleys. Only way to describe that is bs.

          • “Asking for substantiation is petulant?”

            Now that’s funny coming from you. What would Phil Jones say… “why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Yes, science is broken.

          • gnomish, why not contribute something substantive to the discussion? Or do you think snark passes for intelligence?

          • Ryan, Simon, and Chris – thank you, a specific point you needed clarified.

            I’d like some direct quotes for this BS sentence…
            “A scientific community that predicted we would all be drowned by now or all burned from forest fires started by global warming.”

            Of course, this is a reference to the many, many failed predictions of Climate Doom that have been made by the Faithful over the last 3 decades. WUWT has covered many of them, and it’s hard to believe anyone who would try to post on a Skeptical board could have missed them all. But here we are.

            Now, I’m not very good myself at finding specific WUWT articles, so I’ll let others find most of those. But there is this one.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

            Of course, when that prediction came due, the Climate Faithful suddenly realized that Hansen actually meant 40 year instead of 20. Not that I remember any of them questioning it before then. It’s about 30 years now, so most of us consider this one blown, but I suppose a True Believer might still claim the remaining 9 1/2 feet (minimum) could happen at any moment.

            Regardless, while Hansen himself may not have meant 20 years, that was how it was reported at the time. So there’s you quote.

            This article has a number of additional prediction you may find interesting.

            https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

            Hope you find this helpful and informative.

            ~¿~

            PS there was also a ‘prediction’ I don’t remember the details of, but it ended with a few breeding pairs of humans living in Antarctica. Ah well, now that I think about it, that one seems pretty silly. I doubt it was made by anyone credible, anyway.

          • Schitzree – no, the interviewer got it wrong. Hahaha, are you really putting that out there as evidence? An incorrect quotation is evidence?

            Oh, and the interviewer said “assuming CO2 doubles.” That’s not the case today.

          • i would think anyone that has paying even a small amount of attention to the claims arising from climate science relating to arctic sea ice (how many wadhams are left this year ?) extreme weather (it’s going to increase any time now ) or sea level rise (how many feet under water is tuvalu this year ?)knows very well what unsubstantiated claims are.

          • Unless all the people they regard as scientists were saying it all the time, then they never said it.
            Kind of the way they declare that unless 100% of the hundreds of papers on the MWP and LIA agree, down to the month and a hundredth of a degree, then both the MWP and LIA have been disproven.

      • A scientific community that developed computer climate models that pedalled a CAGW meme and that never had any accurate predictions.
        wrong. The cooling in the stratosphere is ably predicted, as are surface temps.
        A scientific community that took over all the atmospheric science faculties the world over and turned them into faculties of global warming.
        Correct; They have brains and understand physics
        A scientific community that predicted we would all be drowned by now or all burned from forest fires started by global warming.
        wrong. cant find any of this in the IPCC
        A scientific community that was caught through their own emails of trying to hide the decline in temperatures.
        Wrong: the DECLINE WAS IN TREE RINGS not temperature
        A scientific community that was caught through their own emails of fudging data with tricks.
        Wrong. I read all the mails and published the first bookon them.
        A scientific community that refused to release their data so that others could try to replicate it.
        Partially correct. But eventually we got the data. To date the only person refusing me
        data Successfully are three skeptics:
        A scientific community that took over all the major journals in relation to any topic remotely associated with climate change and refused to publish contrary studies to global warming.
        Wrong: good contrary articles by Mcintyre and others have been published
        A scientific community that kept on spouting a fake 97% consensus.
        The consensus is real. UNimportant but real.. didnt you acccuse them
        of taking over all the unvirsities
        A scientific community that turned peer review into pal review and thus is corrupting all of science.
        wrong. My papers were reviewed by enemies not pals.
        A scientific community that refuses to debate the issue because they say the science is settled but on NASA’s own web site it says the IRIS effect has not been proven or disproven.
        Wrong. You just had a series written about the happer debate. IRIS has been disproven
        several times
        That one effect if true could destroy any capability of CO2 affecting the climate at all.
        A scientific community that rallies around any study that purports to debunk any contrarian study on global warming making sure that the skeptic scientists are drowned out.
        Wrong. See Nic lewis’ papers
        A scientific community that has as yet to publish any definitive physics on how the greenhouse effect actually happens.
        Wrong. See Ray Pieerehumberts textbook on plantary physics
        A scientific community that supports a scientist like Michael Mann who has tried to erase history vis a vis the mediaeval warming period and who even Dr Richard Muller of Berkeley a famed alarmist has said he will never read another paper by Michael Mann again nor read the journal that published Mann’s paper ever again.
        Partially correct. Except Muller is not alarmist.

        A scientific community that took over all the government agencies that had anything to do with climate and that have produced fake graphs and altered temperature data.
        Wrong. At Berkeley earth, funded by right wing donors we proved there was no faking

        A scientific community that punishes any scientist by demotion,firing, …etc who dares to object to any aspect of global warming.
        Wrong. Christy and Spencer still have jobs
        A scientific community that frightens little kids around the world with predictions of disaster that are impossible.
        Partially correct. The disasters are improbable
        A scientific community that sees almost every retired scientist come out agsinst the global warming meme because at last they have nothing to lose.
        Wrong. Plenty of retired guys still understand the correct physics
        A scientific community that threatens and hurls insults including words such as harlot at scientists who go over to the skeptic side.
        Wrong. we call you idiots, not harlots
        A scientific community that publishes fake debunk studies.

        Not even wrong

        A scientific community that defends the computer models which are actually junk science.
        wrong. its the only way to do observational science of processess you cant fit in a test tube

        A scientific community that admires its own and despises anybody who disagrees.

        Huh. Mann and Glieck suck. We dont despise the nuts who deny science. they make us laugh

        • Are you telling us that the Arctic Ocean is now ice-free, Steve? Or that it no longer snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro? Or that the sea level increased by around 10 feet in the 20 years since 1989? Or maybe instead that it’s on track to increase that much in 40 years since 1989 in the revisionist version of the James Hansen quote?

          Here’s a bonus question: how many of the more attention-grabbing shorter-term scaremongering statements about possibly catastrophic global warming have actually come to pass?

          • Yes it is true that some of the predictions didn’t eventuate, but they are attempts to see the future based on available information. I don’t see that as any reason to discard what is being said today. It’s like saying they once thought the earth was flat, so I don’t believe what they say about it being round now. Gaia gave you a brain… use it

          • “Are you telling us that the Arctic Ocean is now ice-free, Steve?”

            It was never supposesed to be … except in the demented mind of one potty professor (Wadhams) ….
            I could quote one potty Lord, but I’m sure the sensible realise that he doesn’t talk for all naysayers.
            Not that there’s a “consenus” of them, other than ABCD

            https://i.imgur.com/MTd0W2D.png

            Or that the sea level increased by around 10 feet in the 20 years since 1989? …

            https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/7/4/044035/Full/erl439749f2_online.jpg

            Figure 2. Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.

            Wierd … no one ever claimed that, least of all the IPCC ….

            “Here’s a bonus question: how many of the more attention-grabbing shorter-term scaremongering statements about possibly catastrophic global warming have actually come to pass?”

            Err NONE, as none are expected yet.
            The usual it’s not happened yet so projectons of events in the future cant happen.
            Wierd naysaying logic

          • Ralph, the alarmists will first claim that Al Gore isn’t recognized as “climate scientists”.
            But they will ignore the fact that no “climate scientist” stood up to call BS on the claims.

            In this case silence equals agreement.

        • Well done Mosher. Hard to argue with any of that. But…. given Alan T still thinks the greenhouse effect is nonsense, I don’t know why you took so much time.

        • “wrong. its the only way to do observational science of processess you cant fit in a test tube”

          the trouble with that statement is there are more processes at work than you are capable of fitting in your computer tube. when you start doing accurate predictions instead of projections that are possible scenarios based on the input data that doesn’t reflect reality then you will be getting somewhere. everyone currently breathing today will be dead before that capability exists, if it ever does.

  3. Glieck is rather appropriate recipient for an award named for Carl Sagan. Sagan’s most consequential “research” was the notorious TTAPS “nuclear winter” study. It was one of the earliest noted climate change studies, and bears a great deal of similarity to current climate change studies.
    It was transparently political, and produced to advance a current political agenda.
    Another similarity was the lack of predictive power of the model, as Carl Sagan predicted global cooling from the Kuwait oil fires in the first Gulf War. One does remember how that prediction came out.

    • Carl Sagan grated on me. His PBS “Cosmos” etc. shows were rightly criticized for how the camera lingered too long and too often on his countenance gazing to the heavens. He burnished his celebrity status with far more rigor than he applied to his science.

      • The astronomical Dr. Sagan was also often laughably wrong.

        For example, he thought that cuneiform writing was chiseled into cylinders and tablets, rather than impressed into wet clay with a stylus, then baked.

        • Sagan’s first wife, Lynn Margulis, OTOH, actually made real contributions to science, being one of the first to recognize that eukaryotic cells resulted from endosymbiosis. Our mitochondria are now accepted as bacteria incorporated into archean cells, as also are other plastids such as chloroplasts in photosynthetic eukaryotes, being derived from captured cyanobacteria.

          • An interesting comment John, thanks for the info., could you not also say an invading cyanobacteria? I just wonder if the word ‘captured’ is defined in some way, or if we could see it as an invasion dependent on language alone. No criticism by the way, just a question.

          • It could be either, the bacteria could have been engulfed or invaded, either would work. The host cell has surrounded the original mitochondrial cell with a bilayer of its own phospholipids, so the mitochondria has a double bilayer, its original one and the host one.

        • I started to watch a “science” special by Tyson a few months back.
          After 5 minutes, they were still talking about Tyson’s “illustrious” career, so I turned it off.

      • I bought his series and haven’t got past the first two episodes. He’s an entertainer posing as a scientist. I also think Brian Cox has modelled himself on Mr Sagan.

      • He burnished his celebrity status with far more rigor than he applied to his science.

        As does the Carl Sagan wannabe Neil Tyson

    • A very apt comment! Have an up-vote.
      An unethical Ethics Chairman receiving an award named for a shameless showman and being congratulated by a ‘scientist’ justifiably suspected of being an unsavoury fraud. The combination could hardly be more appropriate.

  4. “My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?”

    With Peter Gleick as the test case, clearly there is no threshhold to distinguish SCUM from MARGINALLY PASSABLE ICKY SUB-SCUM in the world of “climate science”

    The American Geophysical Union (AGU) will never recover from naming this SCUM as chair of its “Ethics Committee”, and then leaving him in that post after the Heartland fraud was revealed.

    Yeah, I’m talking about you Carol Finn (USGS), AGU Pres during the debacle.

    Dante’s Eighth Circle of Hell is named Fraud, and the lowest level is reserved for “falsifiers, perjurers and counterfeits”. Perfect place for the likes of Gleick

  5. “What level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?”
    As the accepted scale of moral values is now inverted, the established science community awards recognition on the “scientists” with the lowest discovered level of honesty and integrity. Hence the continued success of Michael Mann and Peter Gleick.

  6. I posted this on the Wonderfest Facebook Page:

    “I am astonished and disappointed that you would attempt to honor Peter Gleick with such a prestigious award as the Carl Sagan prize. Are you not aware that Gleick is an admitted forger of documents in an attempt to smear and defame the Heartland Institute? That he did this while serving as the AGU Ethics Committee, a position he was forced to resign (along with his post at the Pacific Institute), once the false documents came to light? I loved Carl Sagan for his clear and entertaining take on science, which helped me develop a lifelong love of the subject. You dishonor his memory by associating his name with this charlatan. Please explain to your funders, and more importantly the children you are trying to reach, that in no way do you endorse Peter Gleick’s shameful actions.”

    • As I recall, he did not admit to any forgery. What he did admit to was bad enough.

      An interesting thought occurs: that if a skeptic won this award, the social media snowflake bees would swarm all over this until the prize was retracted.

    • To their credit, The Wonderfest organization responded to my post. Here’s the text:

      Wonderfest Science Here is the webpage that announces and explains the awarding of Wonderfest’s 2018 Carl Sagan Prize for Science Popularization to Peter Gleick: . Perhaps that page should also have included this: In 2012, Peter Gleick had a lapse of judgment and (as described in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick as “Heartland Institute Incident”) dissembled to the anti-climate-change Heartland Institute, allowing an employee to believe he was a member of its board. https://www.nytimes.com/…/in-heartland-institute-leak-a… He was attempting to confirm material previously sent anonymously to him that revealed planned Heartland Institute projects to mislead the public on issues of climate change, and even to engage in potentially illegal activity (supporting candidates for office). The information was important, but tarnished because it was confirmed through unethical means. In this document https://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/heartland-institute… as well as in others, Gleick publicly has expressed sincere remorse for his ethical lapse. Since then, he has put his head down and continued to do good work on both the scientific and public fronts, and has continued to enjoy the respect of his peers in the scientific community as well as the appreciation of the public he has continued to enlighten.

      In appreciation of their effort, I responded as follows:

      I think this is a reasonable response under the circumstances, and I appreciate the rapid response. I am certainly glad to hear that Gleick is trying to “make amends”, but it’s also worth pointing out that the Heartland Institute still claims (with supporting evidence) that the only unverified document that Gleick published (the damning one) was a forgery. Whether or not Gleick was the forger is somewhat immaterial, since his attempt to mix it in with stolen, but authentic documents (and thereby make it appear authentic) was a the worst kind of ‘ethical lapse’. I will commit to further investigation of Gleick’s career since 2012, to see if I can discover reform on his part.

  7. ” Dr. Peter H. Gleick has won the 2018 Carl Sagan Prize for Science Fiction Popularization.”

    Fixed it for you. 🙂

    Now that the Carl Sagan awards have been completely stripped of credibility and respect. Gleick et al will live on in infamy.

  8. “My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?”

    What ever, from the web site that benefited form the the illegal release of the Climate gate emails more than 10 years past. No thought of acceptable or unacceptable conduct there.

    Tsk tsk.

    • If memory is correct, no one knows where the ‘climategate’ dump came from, how it got there, nor has anyone been charge. How can it be ‘illegal’?

      Gleick admitted to ‘identity theft’ and also forging a document!

      That is ILLEGAL!!!

      • Good point. The climate gate releaser never had the guts of Gleick, to admit his wrongdoing. Very good point.

          • The difference being, climategate e-mails released information climate scientists tried to hide from public scrutiny while Peter Gleick used identity theft and the creation of false information to mislead the public opinion of skeptical scientists

        • sorry, skippy.
          courage != ‘caught red handed lying and forging fake news’…lol
          love your nick, too- it totally follows the form

        • The majority of evidence for Climategate wasn’t that it was stolen, so was most likely released via an insider, & if so, was fully aware of the huge risk they faced if discovered, lost of position, loss of credibility with his/her colleagues, potential loss of pension, & not least the risk of prosecution! I sadly wasted 10 years working for the UK Guvment in a science department, trust me I know of the bullying & suck-up culture that was endemic at the time, all every colleague over 40 talked about was how soon could they go but just didn’t have the years in, don’t know what happens in Guvment circles in the colonies!

          • i am surprised , given subsequent happenings elsewhere in the blogosphere that more people haven’t worked out how the emails were found and who by. i have my suspicions that they were left in an unsecured server and found by someone that is good at finding that sort of thing.

          • “Alan the Brit

            …every colleague over 40 talked about was how soon could they go but just didn’t have the years in, don’t know what happens in Guvment circles in the colonies!”

            Pretty much the same in Australia and New Zealand in my experience.

      • The material appears to have been collected by UEA personnel in case, after their having fought tooth and nail against a FOIA request, they were ordered by a court or the government to comply with the reasonable query.

        What kind of scientist refuses to share or make public his or her “data” and discussion at a publicly-funded university, because somebody might find something wrong with it? What part of the scientific method does such a putative “scientist”, like Jones, not get?

    • It’s called whistle-blowing dude. The fact that the sound of the whistle was covered up by your lying tribe notwithstanding.

      Did you read them?

    • The Police of East Anglia investigating found no criminal activity in the exposure of the e-mail content.

      • “The Police of East Anglia investigating found no criminal activity in the exposure of the e-mail content.”
        On the contrary:

        “Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Superintendant Julian Gregory, said: “Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.

        “The international dimension of investigating the World Wide Web especially has proved extremely challenging.

        “However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.

        “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.””

          • FOIA claimed to be an insider. The structure of the CG1 release suggests someone who was very familiar with the material, it was a long way from being a random dip. “The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.” probably just means they used a proxy server, or chain of proxy servers, to obscure their identity when they performed the download. For all we know the emails were sitting on a publicly accessible server somewhere – hardly the first time something like that has happened.

            Whoever downloaded the FOIA material was very computer literate, probably software developer or system administrator skill computer literate, and likely had inside knowledge of the emails.

            Peter Gleick committed a crime (identity theft, possible wire fraud), while serving as the AGU ethics chair. When the stolen material wasn’t interesting enough, somehow it got spiced with a badly written forgery. The stolen heartland documents didn’t contain any incriminating evidence, so someone involved in Gleick’s theft decided to plant some fake evidence. The planting of fake evidence alone puts Gleick’s actions in a whole different ballpark, let alone the crime he committed obtaining the original inoffensive documents.

          • Eric Worrall said:

            “The stolen heartland documents didn’t contain any incriminating evidence, so someone involved in Gleick’s theft decided to plant some fake evidence.”

            You don’t know that.

          • You don’t know that
            =====
            It could have been coincidence that someone else forged the document and then it was stolen without the theif knowing but to what end? It seems much more likely the forger had inside knowledge of the theft. 100% certain is very rare in anything. except of course global warming. We are 110% sure that evil capitalism is the cause.

          • ferdperple said:

            “It could have been coincidence that someone else forged the document”

            You don’t know that it was a forgery.

          • given it’s content and whose behind it blew smoke up, it’s highly likely (nice climate sciency term there for you) that we do.

          • That it’s a fake has been proven beyond a doubt.
            Multiple experts in analyzing written documents have also stated that it is consistent with Gleick’s style of writing.

    • There was nothing illegal about the release, and nobody at this site had anything to do with it.
      Are you really that desperate to change the subject?

  9. While the Wonderfest organization is “dedicated to the memory of Carl Sagan”, it is not clear that is was ever sanctioned by him, and this award was not endowed by his estate. Given his two-year fight against cancer, one would think any organization that legitimately reflected his intentions would have been set up before, rather than after, his death.

    • So, you are saying that Carl Sagan would not have supported this award? You obviously don’t know the man, nor what he stood for.

      • No he didn’t say that. Yours is a particularly [pruned]straw man.

        Try reading it again, although I know you won’t.

      • ReallyGullible, I didn’t know the man personally but I read his writings and listened to him talk from about 1965 until his death and after. In his professional writings, his public non-fiction and in his fiction he was all about open, honest and correct application of the scientific method. The ” I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” by Phil Jones or Gleick’s illegal acts would almost certainly have elicited a public reprimand by Sagan. He stood for correct application of the scientific method, and personal and professional integrity first, last and above all else. Gleick, Jones and Mann do not even pay lip service to that calling.

      • Really Skeptical
        I am expressing the same kind of real skepticism that Sagan himself championed. From Cosmos: (CAPS MINE)

        “But our congenial climate MAY be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and CONTRADICTORY ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus OR the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows.”

        I have found no definitive later statement from Sagan that supports climate alarmism. If you have, please eschew the ad hominem attacks and provide specific supporting evidence.

        • back in the day when kids who had tommy the turtle cartoons in elementary school and perhaps annual winter warnings not to eat the snow because of fallout…
          back when the doomsday clock was invented and evangelical catastrophism became a fabulous growth industry…

          hippies told themselves they had to make the thought of nuclear war so abjectly terrifying that it would be a compelling reason to disarm. they had to save the world.
          love was the answer, but the world can’t expect you to save it for free.

          the popular fantasies of 6 legged babies was kinda shopworn from sci fi entertainment and to compete with regular gothic doom offerings, something fresh was needed.

          rockstar carl provided nucular winter.
          https://www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-winter

      • No honest, serious scientist would have supported this award. What you think of Carl Sagan is up to you.

      • He stood for politics over science. Just like the rest of the climate scientists. So he quite probably would have approved it.

  10. My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?

    It takes a level of honesty and truthfulness to achieve the aforementioned level of unacceptability in the climate science community

    • TBH, I think the DOJ, FBI and co have more to worry about than Gleick.

      I can see a Trump ‘MOAB’ being dropped in the not to distant future ….. and it ain’t gunna be pretty for the DOJ, FBI and co. 😉

      Just saying.

      • The biggest MOAB Trump could drop would be to declassify all the records Congress has requested from the Executive Branch.

        The Democrats will criticize him, of course, but shining the light of truth on government activities (redacting only sources and methods) will show the American people and the people of the world that Trump is not guilty of anything worthy of removal from Office, and will indict the sedition, criminality, and corruption of the Obama administration and the Clinton Crime Syndicate and their efforts to steal the 2016 election, and failing that, to undermine the Trump administration at every turn.

        The Democrats will scream loud and long when they are exposed, but the People will finally see the truth. And let the chips fall where they may after that.

  11. I bet that it won’t take long that Gleick congratulates Mann for a more or rather less prestigious award he managed to shove on to him. The merry-go-round of mutual shoulder-tapping and cash-dispensing is still well-oiled. Shmeary figures.

  12. “My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?”
    The left is oblivious to all of the above.
    They pursue their agenda like a blind man driving a bulldozer through a packed used car lot.
    We see the corruption of the left daily.
    We have seen the unacceptance of the results of your last Presidential Elections and the total disregard of Law and Order.
    What happens when the Left ignores the rulings of the SCOTUS.
    Their logical next step.

    • Trump declares them to be in open rebellion and sends in the troops.

      If they complain about it, let them be reminded that they had no problem when federal troops were sent in to enforce the Brown decision, after the governor of Arkansas attempted to use the state’s national guard to prevent the integration of schools.

    • the kaku, the suzuki, the nye, the tyson-
      sagan was their role model.

      there is a ‘world champion air guitarist’, so why should science miss out?

  13. Wonderfest seems to me to be yet another manifestation of local noisy signal conditions being spread over a wide area, in the same manner that one or two temperature recordings are spread across the entire Arctic by politically motivated activists. A look at their home page shows their agenda where one of two upcoming events is “Extreme weather”.

  14. My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?

    None because this is area where poor practice is not only acceptable but a requirement to get on in the profession. That and having a massive ego combined with a thin skin.
    On the other hand actual good scientific practice and ability are not required, as long as your ‘results ‘ keep the gravy train on tract any old rubbish is and has been fine.
    Its an area that went more little known and less cared about part of physical sciences, to major league, more money than it knowns want to do with and you can work in it as a third rate academic who find it hard to get work in any other area.

  15. I see Sagan as being the ‘science guy’ of his day. He was a good communicator but it is somewhat ironic that his award goes to a faker when Sagan’s own science on Venus’s ‘greenhouse effect’ was a tad off-beam.

  16. This is how it goes.

    When people mess up, they get promoted, it’s a face saving exercise. When it first came out what this sack of uselessness did, committed a criminal act, and then created a forgery it is alleged, he was almost immediately promoted (demoted).

    Gleick did not act alone, I guarantee you that. This is the result.

    Mann, as we say in Ireland, has a neck like a jockey’s bollocks

    • It’s being “kicked upstairs”. When it’s considered cheaper and easier to promote screw-ups to positions where the damage they can do is minimized, than go through the headaches involved in terminating their employment.

  17. Didn’t I read somewhere a couple of years ago that it was some rather dodgy interpretation of some aspect of atmospheric science by that same Carl Sagan that started all the positive-feedback-CO2-caused-back-radiation-tipping-point nonsense in the first place? Can’t remember the details, unfortunately.

    Perhaps Gleick does actually deserve the award!

  18. Sagan’s reputation was largely built on the book “Intelligent life in the Universe” which was actually a slightly revised version of Iosif Shklovsky´s “Vselennaya, zhizn’, razum”.

  19. well non science but the bush clintons n bummer era shows fame and money gets em out of everything any normal person would befired/ jailed for.
    this pairs no different

    • He might, but he’d rather just bash people, as seen above.

      He also seems very reluctant to come forth now with the evidence he found that Gleick did forge said document.

  20. Frauds of a Feather Frolic together.. We know of the fraud of MM and PG. How about Carl S? Well, Carl S. was on the “Nuclear Freeze” bandwagon, literally claiming that a post nuclear exchange would plunge the Earth into an “Ice Age”. (Ironic, I know.) Then came Gulf War No. 1. Carl S. bloviated about Saddam H. blowing up the Kuwait oil fields and the resulting smoke causing an “oil field” winter. Saddam DID blow up 750 oil field wells, and yes, they burned for 6 months. American HERO (compared to these ZEROES) Red Adair and his team put them OUT, and there was NO noticeable “climate change”. Sagan was shown to be the fraud that he was! So isn’t it appropriate…that these three are so wonderfully associated?

    • The Kuwait oil fires showed several discrepancies between theory and practice as I recall. As I recall they were extinguished much quicker using much fewer resources than the self proclaimed experts claimed could be possible. Many experts denigrated Mr. Adair’s early claims about what he could do. They were silent when he beat his most optimistic estimates.

    • “Sagan was shown to be the fraud that he was!”

      No, Dr. Sagan was shown to be wrong and he admitted that he had been wrong. It seems unlikely that Dr. Gleick or Dr. Mann would ever admit to being wrong.

      • you don’t know the backstory, i guess.
        the lie was deliberate. the activists were intent on demonizing atomic energy.
        they did a solid job of it, too, don’t you think?
        your failure to understand the evil done in the name of saving the world is not getting by on the excuse that you are just too innocent to grasp it.
        no excuse for you.

    • I remember that because while the fires were burning I was invited to speak to a biology honors class because I was teaching environmental assessment and management. (I never liked honors classes). I followed a poetic crisis talk. I gave biological examples of failed predictions, controversies and unknowns. At the end a bright student asked me about the fires and the atmosphere. I told them a little about the problem, but said they should have a physics (or one studying it) professor come talk about the details. I suggested that it was over exaggerated, which at that time (1991) was probable for most crises even with total ignorance.

      Afterwards a frightened student came up and said –“but we just heard!!!” I replied that he could be right, but with something like this is a university and he deserves all facts and points of view. Thanks to the Texas fire extinguishing crews I was closer to the truth and Sagan was wrong.

      Biological sciences have more than a few highly rewarded celebrity crisis types. They are
      very brave (?) with their predictions.

  21. I think you ask the wrong question. The 21st Century science establishment does not do Feynman’esque independently verifiable science as a discipline, they do it as a career for reward first.

    Science is a means to maximise their grants, speaking opportunities, book revenues, and egos by whatever method. They are expected to support political agendas with “religious science” that must be believed to receive the funding, The higher they rise the more money and power and control over what science they promote and what they and the departments and institutions they control suppress, the more the money, the greater the deceit and suppression of the truth. So the question should be;

    “What level of dishonesty and science denial do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is worthy of an award?

    He fits that one. As does Al Bore, Piltdown Mann, Bill Nye “the science guy” (really? ) and so many more. All are paid disgraces to real science, promoting deceitful agendas to deceive the public and support fiscal frauds conducted in the name of the fake science they promote, that anyone who checks the data can see is phoney. Forget the science, follow the money.

  22. “My question – what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?“

    The sky’s the limit as Carl Sagan taught us. BILLIONS and BILLIONS of times worse won’t begin to scratch the surface.

    (Be sure to pronounce the B sounds explosively with absurd dramatic effect)

  23. Ah, a liar and frAudster with a make-believe Nobel congratulating a thief, liar and hypocrite on his “award”. How charming.

  24. Why would Mann want to be seen congratulating a self-confessed fraudster ? Is this the expected behaviour of someone of his supposed standing ?

  25. Progressives give these guys awards so they can keep them in power and shield them from attacks. When this guy is introduced to an audience they won’t mention his criminality, they will mention his awards. Just like Google, progressives will only let you know what they want you to know. The truth is meaningless.

  26. There is only one thing about this “prize” that gives it any prestige, and that is the name of Carl Sagan that has been attached to it. Otherwise, it is awarded by a small random unknown group called “Wonderfest”, which is interested in “informal science education” (i.e. low standards) and it’s from San Francisco and only is for scientists from the Bay area. Thus, it is a minor thing that of course Gleick and Mann try to make a big deal out of. Like climate science itself, it is all for show, all for the media consumption.

    I wonder if the prize has anything directly to do with Carl Sagan himself or his estate, or if it is just named after him by this small group. No one on their Board of Directors, which decides the prize, is listed as related to his estate… in fact one of the directors is listed as a “comedy magician”. Another is a musician. Another is a previous recipient of the prize.

    So it is a mutual back-scratching society I think.

  27. The warmists defended the forged Glick document as authentic – which raises the question-

    How is it that someone who lacks the basic intellectual skills to recognize an obviously forged document somehow possesses the superior intellectual capicity to ascertain the validity of climate science?

  28. Yuk. Another award I should refuse when offered. But G’s contribution to understanding is beyond question and totally obvious. He signals loud and clear that ‘climate science’ is corrupt and corrupting.

  29. I’m not sure why, but every time I see Michael Mann’s picture, all I can think of is “Sniveling Weasel.”

  30. When Nobel prizes are awarded to the likes of Gore and Obama, then nothing like this should surprise anyone.

  31. Eric you have it backwards. The “Team” is like the Mafia. You need to “murder science” to become a “made man” before they will let you in.

    In this way the “Team” can be confident you will never rat them out because it would mean exposing yourself.

    Omerta. The code of climate silence.

  32. LOL dont remember ever even looking at manns twitter feed but this is what I get
    Sorry, you are not authorized to see this status.
    nice LOL

  33. I can think of quite a few science popularizers that would get a Sagan award before Gleick (and Gleick shouldn’t be getting it, ever).

    They have tarnished Sagan’s name with this.

  34. “what level of dishonesty and public humiliation do you have to achieve before the establishment climate science community decides your conduct is unacceptable?”

    There is a movie name that answers the question : “Limitless”.

  35. A Carl Sagan award might be just the thing.

    Back in the mid-90’s, when Apple was developing its first PowerPC computers, the code names were those of scientific frauds such as Piltdown Man. And Carl Sagan. (One is not unlike the other, as it were.)

    Sagan got wind of this mostly internal naming and had his lawyers demand that the name of ‘his’ computer be renamed. It was. To BHA.

    Butt Head Astronomer.

Comments are closed.