The Climate Science Nepotism Awards Racket – thanks to @AGU

If you have been following the climate debate for any length of time, you’ve probably noticed that a select few individuals seems to be the major drivers behind alarm, and alarming news stories. Some of that was on display when we witnessed the behind the scenes workings thanks to Climategate, but this is far more out in the open, and aided by the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

Yesterday, Shub Niggurath noticed something related to AGU’s “climate awards”. He wrote on Twitter:

You see something funny here? prize committee and prize recipients are a small handful of people who know each other, giving awards to each other:

So who will get the nod this year? Why it’s the great blocker communicator Dr. Michael Mann, as told by this PSU Press release.

The award comes with a $25,000 prize. Can you imagine the howling if a skeptic got that much money for “communicating climate”? Can you imagine the hateful things Dr. Mann would say on Twitter?

Note that three of the people who have received awards (Schmidt, Rahmstorf, and Mann) all work together on the blog. But, oops, then there’s this:


Maybe we need another climategate style email dump.

What a small circle of “friends” they have to choose from. I wonder who on that list will get the nod next?

Pretty soon, they are going to run out of “qualified” candidates. That’s when they’ll start bottom feeding for people like John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, and the worst bottom feeder of them all “Sou/Hotwhopper” aka Miriam O’Brien.


135 thoughts on “The Climate Science Nepotism Awards Racket – thanks to @AGU

  1. Amazing. It’s comparable to students grading each others’ tests.

    Are there any legitimate investigative journalists left out there?

      • And any MSM journalist who dared to investigate AGW would immediately be terminated. John Stossel being one of the few exceptions

      • Like the chivalrous knight and the impartial judge, the investigative journalist is more of an ideal than a real person. 😐

      • You missed the part where the award commity were the ones recieving the award?
        Hell, it’s only $25,000. Why give that away to somebody you don’t like.

      • Curious: Actually in your humor, which I quite enjoyed, is a kernel of truth (the best humor has this). One should always give ideas a critical look to see how well they stand up. Question the proponent to gauge his understanding and ability to express the idea and deal with criticisms. Were I to ask you to make the case you espouse, how would you requit yourself. Would it just be an appeal to authority or do you actually understand the notion. To not do the due diligence ranks you in a very large horde.

        Moreover, in this case your mocking would be being disrespectful to the few brave scientifically literate ones that do challenge! Dissidents in the Soviet Union who questioned the system numbered a very view and paid very dearly. It’s the few that protect that right. Mobbery is easy.

    • “Are there any legitimate investigative journalists left out there?”

      Of course, hundreds. Like Peter Hadfield for example; forensic dissection with detailed citation and next to no opinion, just the plain, well-documented facts by a professional science journalist.

  2. For what little I know about AGU at least their leaders don’t really sound very humble. My guess is that besides the awards committee that most of those at the top belong to a select clic who all think and believe exactly the same way. I will bet that communicate with each other “at least causally” at least once a week. While they claim to promote ethics it would appear ethics are only how they define them not by any real objective standard. I find it interesting that the AGU executive director is not a geophysical scientists but originally according to her bio came out of the health care lobbying industry. Very Strange for a professional organization. I guess the membership or board don’t believe in those in the AG field are capable of running such an organization.

    • “Can we have more climate science and less recycled MSM climate trash-talk?”

      Here! Here! Been thinking the same recently.

    • PS,
      Those graphs, limited in time as they are, can be interpreted as having jumps between steadier states. The post 2000 group is possibly different to the 1980-2000 group, with different intensities of some controlling parameters.
      If this is so, it is wrong to use a standard deviation envelope over the lot, as is currently done. Statistics sample a larger population. Here, there is emerging evidence of 2 or more populations being wrongly treated as one. That is, wrongly for some purposes, not necessarily wrong for all. Possibly wrong when the aim is to create alarm, because the definition of “normal range” changes. Geoff

    • This is just one item on the site, is it not important to expose this incestuous behaviour when these scientists are the ones driving foolish climate policies?


    The prize was established in 2011 to highlight the importance of promoting scientific literacy, clarity of message, and efforts to foster respected and understanding of science-based values as they relate to the implications of climate change.

    “Promoting scientific literacy”, ……………….. excuse me, while I have a laughing fit …

    Okay, I’m back.

    Now “clarity of message” and “foster respect and understanding of science-based values” seem like ……………… ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!! ……………

    I’m sorry, I just can’t continue, I”m too overcome with laughter ………………..

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

    • What ever happened to one of WUWT’s regulars Janice. She would post comments like yours above (usually accompanied by a video). Moreover, what ever happened to Jimbo – his posts were very helpful.

      • Janice probably took up living in a cave somewhere, in order to dissociate herself from the catastrophic demise of sanity today. Jimbo is probably busy amassing arms and survival supplies for the coming fall of Western civilization.

        … just a guess — I never was around, I don’t think, when these folks were commenting.

        As for posting videos, alas, I’m not sure how to do that in the new WUWT domain thing. I know I can post a link to a video, but embedding an actual video directly seems to be a no go these days.

      • RACookPE1978,
        My suspicion is that there are fewer of them than what it appears. Some I have encountered on Yahoo seem to have similar writing styles and vocabularies. They are using multiple pseudonyms, hence, fewer have to be paid.

  4. In the publishing business, this is called “log rolling”, i.e., author 1 writes blurb for author 2, who writes blurb for author 1, etc. Repeat as needed.

    I grew up in the country. Nice spot, but hard to handle a summer of fun where the only kids were my brother and my cousin. Nevertheless, we set up a spy agency where (being oldest) I was the Boss. Also the Chief Engineer, Head Spy, Chief Coder (and Code Breaker). And I think I was a guard in the prison.

    Then again, I was 8, and not a highly respected adult in climate science…

      • LOL @ Eschenbach. The hockey stick is alive and well and living in the real world. It’s been confirmed over and over again. The only place it’s “dead” is in WUWT-land, and the rest of The D Nile Sphere. If you think your post on a blog will “kill” it, it might be that YOU need resuscitation.

        • David, I didn’t say my post would kill it. That’s the voices in your head. What I actually said was:

          The discussion of the 1998 Mann “Hockeystick” seems like it will never die.

          I also note that you cannot point out one single scientific error in my two posts … so you’ve taken to straw men and red herrings.

          Nice try, though.


          • 1) You used the word “resuscitate.” If it won’t die, there’d be no need to resuscitate it.

            PS, it’s not about errors….it’s about all the subsequent studies using different proxies and different statistical methods that have confirmed the original work.

          • See Willis’s above post:

            ‘I also note that you cannot point out one single scientific error in my two posts … so you’ve taken to straw men and red herrings.’

            Which you promptly proved.

          • You use the word “resuscitate” because the dead horse of the Hockey Stick is constantly being paraded before the masses and needs a semblance of life

          • If you attempt to resuscitate a dead horse, and the horse remains dead, the resuscitation failed. At that point the choice of the word “resuscitate” is incorrect.

          • And yet, you continue to beat this dead horse without one ounce of substance, yet argue semantics of what the word ‘resuscitate’ means.
            But please, go on – you can’t prove my point any better than by continuing to talk.

          • If you are really interested in the fascinating piece-by-piece dismantling of Mann’s facade (and I know that you’re not, but others may be), I’ve followed Steve McI’s blog since the outset.

            It’s truly devastating for Mann and his increasingly hysterical acolytes. Measured, analytical, factual. I’d recommend you start reading here:

        • Does the name Steve McIntyre mean anything to you, David? With Ross McKitrick he has published work that utterly destroyed the Hockey stick in all its manifestations. Meaning each and every one of them.

          Steve M’s blog posts demonstrate a litany of incompetence and dishonesty in the paleo-T community.

          Apart from that, the paleo-temperature reconstructions themselves are no more than pseudo-science. The whole field is a crock.

          • DD,

            I can’t access the first link.

            Copying and pasting it takes me to a page which says the abstract is available from the AGU site, but when clicked, it isn’t available.

          • Ah yes – the subservience to authority – the ‘crony-peer-review’ in the scientific literature.

          • Ah yes, the standard alarmist fall back.
            Anything that isn’t sourced from one of your pre-approved sources is automatically disqualified.

          • It is fortunate for the world that Einstein wasn’t starting his career today. The likes of Dirkse would dismiss his theories if they came out in non-peer reviewed journals.

          • I’ll make it easy for you, David.

            Show me the physical theory that converts a tree-ring metric into a physical temperature. When you do that, you’ll have a case that paleo-T reconstructions are part of science. Until then, you’re in unicorn-land.

            You obviously did not look carefully at Steve McI’s site. He published a reply to Huybers, et al. He also showed that Wahl and Amman’s results actually confirmed McIntyre and McKitrick, except that W&A misrepresented that in their paper.

            Here’s another basic pointer for you, David: people who argue ‘ha-ha-ha-peer-reviewed’ don’t know anything about scientific argument and also don’t know what they’re talking about.

            Here is my blog-post on the crock that is proxy paleo-T reconstructions. Let’s see you refute word one of it.

          • Frank, you miss the forest for the trees. Please address the dozen+ reconstructions subsequent to MBH98 that corroborate it. If you are unable to do so, then please give me a link to an accepted reconstruction that *PROVES* Mann wrong.

          • I believe the point is that these reconstructions continue to use the same proxies that have been shown to be poor proxies. If you continue to use the same bad data to “corroborate” a result that was based on those bad proxies to begin with, you have not demonstrated anything.

          • Show me the physical theory that converts a tree ring metric to a physical temperature, David.

            That question, which you’re avoiding, includes both the forest and the trees.

            Continue to avoid that question and thereby prove your paleo-T advocacy is anti-science.

            I’ve already linked you to Steve McIntyre’s copious library demonstrating beyond any sane doubt that, a) Mann’s work is a crock, and b) the supposed confirmations are likewise crocks.

            You don’t want to do the hard work of going through the studies yourself. Fine. But then stop pretending that you know anything worthwhile, or that your empty challenges carry any weight.

            The paper I linked above shows that Mann’s work is pseudo-science.

            Guess what that means: even if Mann’s work is self-consistent and logically correct (important to you, no doubt), it’s physically meaningless.

          • Pat,
            I think that we need to focus more on the idea that those who insist that only peer-reviewed work is science, and thus appeal to authority, are intrinsically anti-science. That is, those who reject the Scientific Method, in favor of authoritarian dogma, are the real science deniers.

          • And David proves that he has no understanding of science, he just regurgitates what he has been trained to believe.

            The question was, prove that tree rings are accurate thermometers.

            David’s response was there are lots of studies that use tree rings, and they all agree with each other.

            It really is sad when a troll comes to believe that it is capable of thinking.

          • I did not say there were lots of studies that use tree rings. For example Marcott uses lake/ocean sediment cores, and ice core studies use oxygen isotope ratios.

          • They all substitute statistics for physics, David. Not one of those studies reconstructs physical temperature.

          • I feel as though I have gone back in time, reliving the death of this line of discussion over and over again, where I pointed out places where McKitric and McIntyre thoroughly answered Huybers 2005 or pointed to the questionable integrity of the Wahl & Ammann 2007 paper, and where I pointed out the utter ridiculousness of equating all blogs to “aliens-live-among-us” blogs.

          • Kernodle, why don’t you go back in time and address the dozen or more reconstructions performed with different proxies, and different statistical methods that have corroborated Mann’s hockey stick?

          • Many people here, including myself, have followed the hockey stick debate since about 2003, David. We’ve seen it thoroughly refuted.

            Mann’s original was a fake, as revealed by the contents of Mann’s own “back to 1400 CENSORED” folder, that he carelessly left on his ftp site.

            That folder showed Mann fabricated a non-standard short-centering PCA method that mined random noise for hocky stick shapes.

            It also showed that his reconstruction failed verification and that he knew it and published anyway. Mann’s global T was really just a single bristle-cone pine series from the White Mountains that his fake method promoted into significance.

            The so-called conformation studies relied on a single series from a tree in Yamal that had a hockey stick shape; others used a Tiljander lake varve series that was inverted to produce a hockey stick shape.

            The whole field is a crock.

            This is all tediously familiar to most of us here. Then some hot jonny-come-lately (you) drops in and, in his ignorance, resurrects the HS zombie yet one more time.

          • “The whole field is a crock.”

            That will remain your opinion until you cease getting your information from blogs. David Dirske is correct.

          • Steve McI’s critical work is published.

            Here is my WUWT critique of paleo-T reconstructions, Ryan. Let’s see you refute one word of it.

            Here is the paper I published showing, among other things, that paleo-T reconstructions are no more than pseudo-science. Let’s see you (or any of your buds) refute any of it.

            The whole field is a pseudo-science crock.

            David Dirkse shows no knowledge of science, and evidently so do you.

          • To heck with hundreds of lines of independent evidence.
            To heck with historical records.

            The acolytes, using invalid proxies have re-written the history of the world.

          • Physical records, such as tree rings, ice cores, some lake varve series, and palynology all reveal warmer/wetter – cooler/drier elements of past climate, including the North American climate.

            If the extent of paleo-NA agriculture is ever mapped out by archaeologists, we’ll have historical records of North American climate swings as well. Some probably already exists for the Puebloans.

          • Not correct, David. Tree ring series, ice cores, and the rest can be used to reconstruct warmer/wetter – cooler/drier periods.

            That is, they can track the over all qualitative movements of the climate.

            They cannot be used (yet, anyway) to extract and reconstruct a quantitative physical temperature metric. That’s the point at issue.

          • And of course, you’d be defending the wonderfulness of the hockey stick even if you thought it is scientifically meaningless, wouldn’t you, David.

            Presuming you’re not that far afield from the rational, let’s instead surmise you’re defending the hockey stick because you think it transmits information about physically real paleo-temperatures.

            In that case, the issue is indeed whether proxies can be used today to reconstruct past physical temperatures. That makes the issue the issue, and not an opinion.

            My view is grounded in science. Causal quantification requires a falsifiable physical theory.

            There is no such theory for converting tree ring metrics into physical temperatures. Paleo-temperature reconstructions, most especially the hockey stick fakery, is a crock.

            Wetter/warmer – cooler/drier has been well-established in the proxy field for at least 50 years. It’s thoroughly verified in Harold Fritt’s work; see his site.

          • Ah yes, here comes Ryan with the patented response, science is only done on sites that agree with me.

            Now Ryan will return to the bench convinced he has hit a home run, never noticing that the ball is in the catcher’s mitt.

          • MarkW,
            It would appear that these science deniers are stamped out on an assembly line. They offer up the same responses as I see on The Conversation and Yahoo comments.

          • What makes you think that Dr. Pat Frank is getting his “information from blogs?” Have you seen his CV?

          • David, why don’t you show with references and logical explanation how each of the dozens of papers confirming Mann’s hockey stick graph use different proxies and statistical methods. Right now you look like a bot just repeating your same line like a parrot.

          • Just because lots of “studies” use tree rings is not evidence that tree rings are suitable for this purpose. It just shows that acolytes are eager to please their masters.

        • I wonder how long it will take the alarmists to get tired of telling that lie?
          Acolytes, using the same bad data and the same discredited methods get the same ridiculous results.

          Color me surprised.

        • Is it just me, or do we see twerps like this pop up every time a Michael Mann article appears on this site?

        • David Dirkse,

          I’m confused. When I click on your name, I arrive at a website where you have many graphics (cartoons) ridiculing climate alarmism.

          Are you just messing with us?

        • David, it’s not very brave or rewarding simply to appeal to authority for your beliefs and to mock those few who examine and criticize. Being a non scientist from the sociology /polisci field is not an excuse for not doing a due diligence on the subject, especially with the enormous negative ramifications for the world economy and its already put upon poor denizens that policy prescriptions burden. These are on your professional beat or what good are you to anyone?

  5. I would like to nominate the first five commenters who upvote my own comment to a… uh… climate upvote award. All we need now is a government entity to finance the payoffs. I mean awards.

  6. “Maybe we need another climategate style email dump.”

    What we need is for these buffoons to be compelled to defend their claims of an absurdly high ECS using only the laws of physics and get it on video.

    I can guarantee with absolute certainty that if they had to answer to my concerns about the many violations of first principles physics required to support their position, they will look like fools as their delusional illusion implodes around them. I’m equally certain that there are many others here who could also make them look incredibly foolish through many lines of questioning.

    The problem is that they refuse to debate, Schmidt technically reports to Trump who should order him to support his claims or be fired if he refuses.

    • That particular horse has long bolted, unfortunately. The only thing which will turn this gravy train around now will be a prolonged and unambiguous stretch of cooler weather.

  7. Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

    h/t Commenter Sunsettommy The deeper I dig into the Hockey Stick, the more it stinks. As you can see from the above Hockey Stick graphic, Michael Mann combined proxy and instrumental data post-1902. The fact that the chart dog-legs at precisely the time the instrumental data is added should have raised red flags to anyone that

  8. Has it occurred to anyone that one might be invited to serve on the committee after they have rep’d the award?

  9. The rise of communication “science” seems to resemble the socialism argument,–“ it never has worked, but we just haven’t explained (or practiced) it right.” This AAAS statement bothers me a lot.

    “The U.S. scientific community has repeatedly voiced its support for open borders and the free exchange of people and ideas.” Apparently AAAS does not understand history.

    In Texas with a serious border crime problem this was just the headline–“Suspected illegal aliens kill Refugio tracking dogs.” Ok, innocent until proven guilty, but I don’t think this is what AAAS has in mind. Or is it?

  10. This fits so perfectly with what was demonstrated in the original Iron Man movie when Tony Stark received his award (but didn’t bother turning up to receive it).

  11. That could be fraud or embezzlement, with a dose of conspiracy and maybe RICO on top. One of the AGU members might want to mention it to the FBI.

  12. I think we should have pool on who will be selected for each prize.

    I note the warning on the site to nominators and nominees to refrain from constant calling or…er…communicating with the panel members that make the selection!!!! S’Truth, these people are smaller minded and more dishonest than I could have thought. What really is rich is the threat made that the panel is obliged to report excessive contacting of the panel to the AGU Ethics officer the redoubtable Peter Gleick, who, after his felonious misrepresentation forgery and info theft re Heartland, was given an award by someone or other. Turney of the Antarctica ‘Ship of Fools’ was also given an award after his reckless, costly,dangerous voyage and expensive rescue from being trapped in the ice with women and children in a cold blizzard.

    This cheapening of awards, including the Nobel Prize itself, began at the public school level a couple of generations ago when they discriminated against the smart kids by burying their achievements under truckloads of other ridiculous awards and trophies handed out to everyone in the class. A trophy for participation (man I remember the kind of award meted out to those who didnt participate in school in the 1940s)! Kids all know who the smart ones are anyway. Next was to gut the curriculum so, indeed, smart and the slow could get A’s with no problem. The product is the shallowness of scholarship we see today. The smart ones are still there but it’s hard to get a seat on the bus.

  13. I seem to remember a Climategate exchange of e-mails where Mann and Jones discuss reciprocal recommendations to Science honors in their respective countries. (Wasn’t Royal Society something that Mike desired?)

    I tried a quick web search and found nothing, but I’m relatively sure my memory is correct.

  14. I saw this coming, so this is why I resigned from being and AGU-member publically, long ago. And also, of course AGU’s political, and un-necessary climate statement made by the selct few on the top, on behalf of all their members.

  15. Awards seem to be an important part of any green/climate program. I recently visited a web site run by a group working towards “energy sovereignty” (whatever that is) for their town by 2022. I spoke to them a year ago asking what their plan was to achieve their goals in that timescale and the response I got back infered I was just being negative. I revisited to see whats happening and on the news page there is an award being handed out to a community member, and awards being collected by the program leaders but nothing about what’s actually happening. As they say, its about the journey (and the awards) rather than the destination.

  16. If they aren’t organising prizes for themselves, Foundations do it for them. A good example is the annual Asahi Glass Foundation Blue Planet Award, of 50 million yen, almost half a million dollars. That ain’t peanuts.

    Last year it was Schellnhuber, climate adviser to the Pope. Previous winners include economist Jeffrey Sachs, also a climate adviser to the Pope, James Hansen, Susan Solomon, Amory Lovins, Robert Watson, Thomas Lovejoy, Nicholas Stern, Jane Lubchenco, Gro Harlem Brundtland, (Agenda 21), Maurice Strong, Bert Bolin, Wally Broecker, Syakuro Manabe, Charles Keeling, Dan Sperling, James Lovelock and many more of the same persuasion.
    “In 1999 Stefan Rahmstorf was awarded the one-million dollar “prize of the century” by the American James S McDonnel Foundation for his work on calculating climate change through changes in the Golf Stream. Rahmstorf had postulated that already a really small warming of global temperatures leads to an altered flow or even a tipping of the ‘Gulf Stream climate machine’.”

    • “Golf Stream”

      Wow. Really?

      [It is a large water hazard off of the east coast of North American. .mod]

  17. The need to circle the wagons seen in this approach, is one of defence .
    But defence from what, is the question . And in this case its seems defence from views that those inside find a challenge. And we find ourselves once again asking why is critical review given its central role in normal scientific practice , so very unwelcome in climate ‘science ‘ and question even more perplexing given the claims of ‘settled science ‘ which should easily equip the area to deal with such a challenge.

      • MarkW,
        Not unlike the inverse correlation between the quality of a movie and the amount of pre-release advertising on TV. If they know it is going to be a stinker, they invest more money in promoting it.

  18. The perfect storm of groupthink, noble cause corruption, confirmation bias, and good old fashioned socialism.

  19. What/! The Pope didn’t get a ” Climate Communications” prize?
    He made more noise than these other “useful dullards” that did win
    God will not be pleased.
    Perhaps He should freeze them,
    but good.

  20. This is truly comical. The sniveling weasel himself is one of the worst communicators in the climate fakery field. Remember when college professors and academics were distinguished and erudite? Mann looks like the restroom attendant in a freshman “animal house” dorm

  21. It is noticeable that certain MSM purposely put the most clumsy lies on the net to provoke quoting.

    I’ve given up citing a particular news magazine because this “revolver press” / yellow pages / lives on advertising aka “clicks”.

    same as it ever was.

Comments are closed.