George Mason University “Climate Change Communicator of the Year” – where only one viewpoint is allowed

George Mason University “Climate Change Communicator of the Year” – where only one viewpoint is allowed“. George Mason University, reluctant home of the notoriously failed denialist statistician Edward J. Wegman, has a Center for Climate Change Communication. Anthony Watts is irked that their Center is running an internet poll for Climate Change Communicator of the Year and there isn’t a single denialist on the slate. They would be found over there on the Climate Change Deceiver of the Year poll (you’d have a solid shot at it, Anthony, although Lord Monckton is certainly more entertaining).

Anthony deflects his critics with this self-appraisal: “Lest some think this is some sort of sour grapes, it isn’t.” After all, who won the anything-goes 2011 Bloggies mob-athon, where responsible science communication was honored? Anthony did, that’s who.

The discredited 2006 Wegman Report is still clutched by denialists as some sort of proof of “warmist” fraud and collusion, but it is Wegman who is now under investigation for misconduct.

2 thoughts on “George Mason University “Climate Change Communicator of the Year” – where only one viewpoint is allowed

  1. Poor sad little Anthony, since he cannot use his notorious HBGary spam bot brigade, to boost any denialist since they were excluded (only real science from the real world is allowed) from the list to win the new coveted award!

    Link to news of the snaky HBGary Spambot.

    He must now contend himself to be the unnoticed unwanted anti-science jeer squad following at the rear end.

    [You don’t believe what those commies at Forbes say, do you? :-) – Ben]

  2. It’s now one year + 2 months into this case, and the notion that GMU is dragging it’s feet seems to have become an understatement of the first kind in this case.

    USA Today added a note (on May 26, 2011) to their original post on Oct 8, 2010,
    that :

    GMU spokesman Dan Walsch clarified in the May 26, 2011, Nature journal that the year-old investigation is still in its preliminary “inquiry” stage, rather than a full investigation.

    with the ‘apology’ from Dan Walch (GMU) that

    In terms of my comments this past fall, my understanding of the internal procedure was not as clear then as it is now

    Now, 7 months after Walch made this statement, he again seems to not be clear about GMU’s internal procedures :

    which clearly state :

    The inquiry committee completes the inquiry, including the preparation of a final inquiry report that includes any comments received from the respondent, within 60 days of the committee’s first meeting unless the Dean or Director determines, and documents in the inquiry record, that the circumstances warrant a longer period

    Many questions emerge : Who are the members of the inquiry committee ? Did they produce a report yet ? Did the Dean or Director at GMU determine that the cicumstances warrant a longer period than what GMU’s own policy demands ? And if so, what was the reason and what will be the new timeline for completing the inquiry ? And if not, what on Earth is holding up GMU to investigate misconduct in the Wegman report, which after all, has been a pivotal piece of “evidence” quoted by Senators and House Representatives alike, as evidence that climate science is a “hoax” and regulation against greenhouse gas emissions is not warranted.

    What’s GMU’s excuse for this blunt violation of their own policy ? May it be time for Raymond Bradley to (once again) insist on a resolution to the investigation into his official complaint, or may it be time to challenge GMU legally with obstruction of justice ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s