“The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus” (2012-11-02). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change swats a semantic mosquito and Anthony Watts, as he gets squished like the bug he is, declares victory.
So did Dr. Michael Mann win the Nobel Peace Prize or just help?
Apparently it’s way more important to argue about semantics, comma placement, etc. and use that for personal attacks than it is to discuss climate change science. Honest scientific discussion is a topic of last resort at WUWT, repeatedly chosen “Best Science Blog”, by weblogawards.org. (Funny how in every possible 2012 category denialist bloggers “won”. Like every fraudulent accolade Anthony claims, they aren’t worth the pixels they’re printed on.)
- Did the IPCC receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their scientific work on Climate Change? Yes. They shared it with crypto-communist Al Gore.
- Did the IPCC thank key contributors for their work, which resulted in the IPCC receiving the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes.
- Was Dr. Mann one of those contributors? Yes.
- Did Dr. Mann, in fit of alleged ego, fabricate his own Nobel Peace Prize certificate? No.
- Do Anthony and his denialist buddies care? No.
“Nobel cause corruption?” (2012-10-31). Anthony Watts knows that Dr. Michael Mann has never claimed to have “won the Nobel Peace Prize.” The editors of The National Review also know this. And yet they are both enthusiastically spreading that false claim.
The National Review is that impartial journalistic enterprise currently being sued for defamation by Dr. Mann. Anthony Watts is just a rabidly partisan blow-hard.
Here Anthony is chortling that the National Review put a snarky advertisement in the Penn State campus paper. You can hold it in your hands! This is even better than that time we hijacked the morning announcements back in high school. Also way better than Anthony’s fake Bloomberg Businessweek cover the next day.
Everyone knows that it’s Anthony’s friend, denialist birther Lord Monckton, who won the Nobel Peace Prize!
“Michael Mann wades into the UVA thicket as intervenor” (2011-11-02). I’ve sat back a bit lately, enjoying the sight of Anthony and his Team imploding over the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study, but this post cries out for a “WTF?”
Anthony Watts sympathetically re-posts Chris Horner’s whining about how Dr. Michael Mann has been allowed to intervene in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit over… Dr. Michael Mann’s correspondence during his time at the University of Virginia.
Why on god’s green earth should Dr. Mann be permitted to intervene in a lawsuit over his own correspondence? What could he possibly know? What insight could he possibly offer? What interest is it of his?
Whereas the ATI’s lawyers, who are also the ATI petitioners, assert that they are pure as driven snow (ideologically at least). They’re highly qualified, as attorneys, to confidentially assess the documents in question without revealing then to the petitioners (that would be themselves). Too bad they were widely broadcasting their intention to widely distribute the material they had tentatively been given permission to inspect under a protective order.
Smooth move, Chris.
Chris does however quite rightly assert that there is no “vast right-wing conspiracy”. It’s actually quite tiny and close-knit.
“Quote of the week #32 – hockeying up a zinger“. Anthony Watts offers up a cherry-picked interview excerpt from climatologist Dr. Michael Mann (the full interview on The Morning Call is good reading):
[Anthony dropped this part: I would say that all good scientists are skeptics. Many who deny the existence of climate change I would not call skeptics, because their skepticism is one-sided.] “I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”
Scientists aren’t allowed to describe themselves as “skeptical!” That’s reserved for Anthony!
Instead of telling others to look in the mirror perhaps he should crack open a book (or a web page). Dictionary.com defines skeptic and offers this illuminating quote (italics mine):
Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]
Sounds like the normal approach of scientists to me. And their “skepticism” has led to some entertaining debunking of statements made by Anthony and his associates.
What “skeptical” post by Anthony would be complete without a bit of Climategate innuendo and a suggestion to readers that they pester a journalist? Check.