Nobel cause corruption?

“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!

8 thoughts on “Nobel cause corruption?

  1. For AR4, Mann is not listed as a contributing author to any of Working Group I, Working Group II, or Working Group III reports, or as a Core Team Writer or Extended Team Writer to the Synthesis Report. Nor is he a reviewer of Group II or Group III. Mann’s sole contribution is as one of numerous reviewers of the Group I report. He isn’t even a lead reviewer of the paleo Chapter Six. Briffa didn’t even see fit to mention him.

    For this he claims,

    “In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

    In his civil complaint, he claims:

    “Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steady rise of surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    Mann’s statements seem pretty clear to me. He is claiming to have been “awarded” the peace prize when the only individual awarded the prize that year was Gore, and the organization awarded the prize, the IPPC, doesn’t even consider him a contributor, but rather just one among a huge mass of reviewers.

    Maybe your only objection is the use of the word “won” compared to “awarded”.

    [So… after seven years of denialist obsession because Dr. Mann was an influential climatologist, now it’s suddenly about how he’s not an influential climatologist? I’ll grant you that Dr. Mann doesn’t seem to have anticipated a syllable-by-syllable dissection of his statement, but implying that his contribution to the IPCC’s reception of the Nobel Peace Prize was not recognized is blatantly false. – Ben]

    • «For AR4, Mann is not listed as a contributing author…»
      Was the Nobel peace prize specifically and only awarded to the contributors of AR 4? Has Michael Mann been an active participant of the IPCC before AR 4? There is the answer to the objection you raise, Charlie Z. Not too hard.

    • Charlie, this is directly from Mann and the IPCC: This is NOTHING but a huge attempt at hand-waving by the denialistas. The *worst* Mann might be guilty of is a misstatement. Now maybe you could address the science, rather than attacking the scientIST?

      On the IPCC’s Nobel Prize Guidance

      There has been some confusion with respect to the proper terminology to be used in connection with the contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that resulted in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to that organization. I am writing to try to clear up that confusion.

      After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either “shared” or were a “co-recipient” of the award.

      To clarify the proper terminology to be used, IPCC has issued guidance regarding the matter (see letter above and also this statement by the IPCC: ). I also understand that the Norwegian Nobel Institute’s director, Geir Lundestad, has confirmed that the IPCC’s guidance is correct. Needless to say, I couldn’t be prouder of our contribution and the recognition that the IPCC received for its work.

      • I didn’t feel that my comment was an attack. I stated facts and directly quoted Mann from his legal complaint. I did this specifically in response to the notion that he had not claimed to have won the Nobel Prize. I find it interesting that you feel that my stating the facts is an attack worthy of a response, but that someone calling someone “Mockeyton” just a couple replies above is either not an attack or is a valid attack and therefore hunky dory.

        Look, the simple fact is that Mann brought up that he was a Nobel Prize contributor. Regardless of how you interpret the level of his claim, the idea that he would use it is odd.

        I am sure that if John Christy, contributing author to Working Group I, said that he was awarded the Nobel Prize people here would get a bit out of shape too.

        Mann’s science is heavily debated. When people question his science with relevant arguments, they too are commonly attacked. My suggestion is that you not get all up in arms about negativity about your heros when you are so accepting of negativity about your nemesis.


        [Monckton is quite literally a posturing buffoon. Dr. Mann is an acclaimed scientist. Have you forgotten that Monckton has been showing off a “Nobel pin” he claimed to have been given by the Nobel Committee but actually made for himself? The “simple fact” is that Dr. Mann is, and has been acknowledged as such by the IPCC, a significant contributor to the Nobel Peace Prize the IPCC (and Al Gore…) received. See the difference? If John Christy has been given a certificate of thanks by the IPCC then he’s welcome to declare it. The “heavy debate” is fundamentally, repetitively, resentfully, political with any ephemeral science a wilted fig-leaf. Dr. Mann’s work was not perfect, but it provided a fundamental insight that research has continued to built upon. The “debate” is freeze-frame of 1998. What’s the weather like back there? – Ben]

        • “See the difference?”

          Nope. Seems like the only difference in whether someone may be attacked is if you think you are right. Heck, isn’t that the basis of this entire site – attack Watts because you disagree with him attacking ideas that you agree with? He is wrong for attacking ideas you like. You are right to attack him because you disagree with him. The entire basis of your site is about attacking people by claiming that they don’t have the right to attack people.

          FYI, I agree, Monckton is a fool.

          [You might want to check your prescription. Anthony Watts intentionally lies and deceives. Ditto for Monckton, except he prances while doing it. Anyone who does that earns my contempt. Anthony ran out of ideas five years ago, but his mouth keeps running. That’s what I’m responding to. If you agree that Monckton is a fool you might want you reflect on the fact that Anthony’s still A-Ok with him. – Ben]

  2. Pingback: Another Week of GW News, November 4, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s