text:
Nominations are open for the first annual 'Climate Duplicitist of the Year' award
Anthony Watts / March 24, 2014
With the 2014 Bloggies Awards coming up next weekend, I thought it would be good to offer our own award. Given what we've recently learned about the behind the scenes behavior of The University of Western Australia and Dr. Stephen Lewandowsky self inflicted car crash in handling valid ethics complaints, now dubbed "Lewgate", I thought that he deserved to be nominated for some sort of award.
Therefore, I'm nominating him for this first annual 'Climate Duplicitist of the Year' award. However, to be fair, there are others that might be more worthy of such an award, so I am giving readers a chance to place nominations in comments. See below.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplicity
In 48 hours, the nominations will be tabulated, and the top 5 nominees will be presented for a vote in a subsequent post. If you feel Lewandowsky deserves the award as I have nominated him above, you can also list him with any other nominees you present.
Nominations are open for 48 hours and close at 6PM PDT Wednesday March 26th.
Voting for the top four nominees (determined by number of nominations) will open Thursday March 27th at 9AM PDT
Voting will close on Saturday March 29th at 9AM PDT
The winner will be announced at 6PM PDT (9PM EST) on Sunday March 30th.
Nominees must be living, real, persons that have had some statement, forecast, prediction, claim, or other utterance related to climate that is inherently duplicitous or misleading.
Organizations, such as IPCC, NOAA, CRU etc. are also eligible to be nominated.
Nominations must include a citation, URL, or excerpt that represents the reason for the nomination.
You cannot nominate yourself or your organization.
The winner will receive a gift (TBD) sent by US mail, illustrating their award with an inscription along with a permanent status in the awards page which will remain resident on WUWT and updated yearly. A press release will also be made.
No wagering allowed.
March 24, 2014 in Announcements.
Invitation: attend the Washington D.C. climate conference with me at a special rate
More winning! WUWT "Still the one"
← March ENSO Update – outlook suggests a moderately strong El Niño for the 2014/15 ENSO season
Ooops! Much-touted 2006 Polar Bear survey used by ESA to list them as 'threatened' …now invalidated →
185 thoughts on "Nominations are open for the first annual 'Climate Duplicitist of the Year' award"
1957chev says:
Well, we can't give all of the accolades to Gory Al, the Godfather of Climate Fear Mongering! 😉
DBD says:
Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew!!!
Richdo says:
I would like to nominate Chris Turney: "Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. Turney explained that "climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded."
After having given this much thought….I must nominate the President of the United States. Barack Obama. The brow wiping, pyjama party throwing jet-setting hypocrite. I believe his global warming/climate change rhetoric, is an incredible example of duplicity. Mind you, he is no scientist….climate, or otherwise! LOL!
jim Steele says:
My vote is for Camille Parmesan for hijacking conservation success and metamorphosing the resulting population changes in to global warming caused ecosystem disruption.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/23/the-aaass-lost-climate-integrity/
I vote for the one and only Mann. And the reason for the nominations is his (discredited) hockey stick
Bob Diaz says:
Al Gore, it's hard to top the whoppers he's told!!!
milodonharlani says:
So many worthy candidates, so little time to evaluate them all properly. But this gang just makes it under the wire based upon publication date:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, B?rbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
Another instance of the magic number 97%, close to what Saddam Hussein used to get in his presidential elections.
BFL says:
I would think that Mickey Mann would fit this category, as Monckton's essay showed with superb clarity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/24/hide-the-decline-deja-vu-manns-little-white-line-as-false-hope-may-actually-be-false-hype/#more-106064
Mann's 'False Hope' is false hype
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Dave N says:
I figure duplicity is more like having a principle that is supposed to be applied equally, but in reality is applied differently from one person or group than the next. It seems more a case of hypocrisy here: applying the opposite of the principle, regardless of who is involved.
Or have I missed something?
Anthony Watts says:
Brad Johnson of "forecast the facts" might be somebody worth noting. Look into his twitter feed since he doesn't blog. https://twitter.com/climatebrad
John R T says:
London School of Economics produced G. Soros, C. Figueres, the folk behind the New Economics Foundation, and home to the Grantham Research Institute / Climate Chan….
ouch. . gotta . . . head-ache . .oww… where's the loo?
neillusion says:
There are so many possible candidates in a few catagories. Person, study, publication, graph, etc. You could widen the award effort and also have it once a month. It might make a useful summary/history when looked at after a year or two, especially if the nominees and winners are catalogued. Imagine if we had something like that to look back through now, over the last 10 15 yrs. At the moment the bad science/scientists/politics transgressions are in the various minds of those involved in the challenge, not really available for big picture documentation.
WUWT has the integrity and ability to do something like this and be consulted/respected by researchers/interested others, especially as the tide turns faster
tenndon says:
2nd Camille Parmesan for same reason.
******L1AR OF THE YEAR AWARD*****
(no requirement that it have been said in 2013 — even if that were so, not retracted, so still on the books, thus, a current l1e)
Category 1 — Most Lies Per Minute
Winner: Michael Mann
See, e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/18/climategate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/
Category 2 — Biggest Lie
Winner: Barack Hussein Obama
"… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow…"
Category 3 — Most Idiotic
Winner: Al Gore (tough to choose — so MANY candidates…)
"The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million of degrees… ."
Steve from Rockwood says:
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) for making lawyers available to its members in order to better communicate their climate science message to the masses. I always thought the truth didn't need a lawyer.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-lawyers-up/
And, re: Algore, yes, he is idiotic, however, I do not think he can successfully argue reduced capacity. He was trying to work his geothermal scam. He was exaggerating in order to deceive, just really stupidly.
rogerthesurf says:
Al Gore will be hard to beat. I understand he has at least one sea front mansion purchased at the height of his AGW touring http://heartland.org/policy-documents/sea-level-rising-gore-buys-multi-million-dollar-oceanfront-mansion plus others While it is not clear how close to the actual tide the house is, he apparently also made a claim that he spent all his money on fighting global warming.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
AussieBear says:
With respect (or dis-respect) to Lewgate. May I recommend a special award. A spent toilet paper roll core "plated" in tin foil?
Peter Gleick, obviously. For his duplicitous acquisition and misrepresentation of private information. Citations at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/24/heartland-institute-releases-peter-gleick-emails-detailing-fraud-identity-theft/
Theo Goodwin says:
Yes, we need several categories. Lewandowsky is number one, in my humble opinion, because his duplicity was so effective in attaining his ends, so obvious, yet endorsed by institutions of higher learning and scientific societies.
After Jim Steele's expose of Parmesan, she is a close second because her duplicity has been something like a program that she developed for years, her work has been effective in attaining her ends, and reviewers should never have allowed her later articles to see the light of day.
JohnB says:
I nominate Peter Gleick for a lifetime achievement award.
To be head of an Ethics Committee while engaging in wire fraud, Identity theft and forgery must meet the definition of "Duplicity".
Interestingly, the WordPress spell checker say that i should replace the word "Gleick" with "Fickle". 😀
patw says:
The Union of Concerned Scientists deserves some recognition for their title alone.
The president. Everyone says, "Imagine if Al Gore had become president." You don't have to imagine it; it is staring us in the face.
All the others are small potatoes, in terms of power.
Worst is that he knows it is false, and persists with it.
ossqss says:
Oh boy,,,,, homework again ;-]
Some many candidates and so little time》
James the Elder says:
The Discovery Channel for putting on shows stating that AGW is the cause of all our problems, then running "Raising the Baby Mammoth". Proving beyond all doubt that on the late spring/ early summer day that the calf died and was literally flash frozen, it has never again reached the warmth of that time in order to thaw the animal. If that was a one-off, I could handle it, but it seems to be an ongoing process to find mammoths in Russia and Siberia. Anybody know the average temps back then? Got any tree rings?
I second Chris Turney and his Ship of Fools.
James (Aus.) says:
I'm working on it. The field is quite extensive, from fraudulent Nobel "winners" to hopelessly ignorant film stars living on the waterfront.
And institutions are eligible..mm, what about Bristol University which hires a moon-bat from the other side of the world.. Or the the University of NSW which has several remarkable denizens, not least Turkey of the Shokalskiy with a propensity to get into major trouble quicker than an armoured column into Crimea.
Dingle-bat Kerry must be a very, very strong contender. However I feel he has further potential to unleash far greater buffoonery and it'd be a pity to stifle this with too many premature awards, worthy as he is.
But, still I keep coming back to…. Meltdown Mann.
i nominate the MSM, who, as always, have given extreme coverage to the following today:
24 March: CTV: 'Extreme' weather events of 2013 points to human-induced climate change: UN
by John Heilprin, The Associated Press
GENEVA — The head of the U.N. weather agency blamed extreme weather on human-induced climate change Monday, citing key events that wreaked havoc in Asia, Europe, the U.S. and Pacific region last year.
Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said his agency's annual assessment of the global climate shows how dramatically people and lands everywhere felt the impacts of extreme weather such as droughts, heat waves, floods and tropical cyclones.
"Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," he said…
Jarraud drew special attention to studies and climate modeling examining Australia's recent heat waves, saying the high temperatures there would have been virtually impossible without the emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas.
He cited other costly weather disasters such as $22 billion damage from central European flooding in June, $10 billion in damage from Typhoon Fitow in China and Japan, and a $10 billion drought in much of China.
Jarraud spoke as top climate scientists and representatives from about 100 governments with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change met in Japan to complete their latest report on global warming's impact.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/extreme-weather-events-of-2013-points-to-human-induced-climate-change-un-1.1742875
at least the above headline includes the word "points", but most MSM have taken it a step further:
24 March: Fox News: AP: UN says 2013 'extreme' weather events due to human-induced climate change
Much of the extreme weather that wreaked havoc in Asia, Europe and the Pacific region last year can be blamed on human-induced climate change, the U.N. weather agency says…
Only a few places — including the central U.S. –were cooler than normal last year, but 2013 had no El Nino, the warming of the central Pacific that happens once every few years and changes rain and temperature patterns around the world…
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/24/un-says-2013-extreme-events-due-to-warming-earth-from-human-factors/
Just had a thought about the trophy: A scale model of a rusted out Russian ship locked in an iceberg.
chris y says:
Chris Turney is my #1 pick, especially since he just received some award right after his triumphant return from the Antarctic!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/spiritofmawson-fiasco-leader-gets-award-for-excellence/
dbakerber says:
Secretary of State John Kerry. Lied to US allies when a us .gov website had information showing he was lying.
Stunning folks. We all realize this is a bottomless pit, right?
This guy stood out to me. Coming from him, as a kept man of the Heinz fortune and a talking head to boot. He needs swift boated again…..
I would bet that most folks who read this threat have inadvertently padded his pocket. Ever had ketchup?
Wonderfully done by Dr. Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/17/john-kerrys-remarks-on-climate-change/
Now we must anticipate this inaugural year's winner!
http://youtu.be/ae6ofz3fgD8
Last Glacial Maximum mean global T has been estimated at 3 to 6 degrees C colder than now. Going back another 20,000 years, it would have been a little warmer than that.
This attempt uses models to guess 4 degrees C colder:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/5029/2012/cpd-8-5029-2012.pdf
But at high latitudes the difference would have been even greater, possibly 8 to 10 degrees C colder, since the tropics weren't much cooler than now.
bones says:
Don't forget Peter Gleick. His actions were duplicitious in the extreme.
TrueNorthist says:
I agree,my nomination and vote goes to Chris "penguins on the poop deck" Turney of Ship of Fools fame.
May I change my nomination to Kevin Trenberth?
The depths of duplicity were not plumbed until he had the temerity to suggest that the missing heat must be hiding in the deep oceans, where of course it can't be measured, without suggesting a miraculous means by which the laws of thermodynamics were suspended to get it down there without first warming higher levels of the seas.
Hoo, boy! How did I miss that one!
Palm to forehead gesture, aka the US Marine salute!
Truthseeker says:
Well done bones. I thought everyone was going to miss the most duplicitis act of recent climate times by Peter Gleick. Definitely my nomination.
bushbunny says:
TIm Flannery, for owning a river side home, and predicting without any foundation that the sea levels would rise alarmingly, and we would suffer dreadful droughts. (What's new in Australia) Sea rises have not occurred. Don't forget Timmy who is still noisy.
Who would you rank second?
I agree with Bushbunny about Tim Flannery.
Let us not forget Julia "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" Gillard.
Sun Spot says:
I think there should be a Nation category for the stupidest "climate duplicitist".
i) E.U.
ii) U.S.A.
iii) Canada
iv) Australia
My nominee for the Canadian stupidest "Climate Duplictist" has to be the Zoologist Davis Suzuki, how a zoologist became Canada voice on Global warming has to be the strangest thing the state run CBC ever accomplished.
The IPCC, Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Mike Mann, and Jones from I can't remember for colluding with Mann via emails
S.H.A. Prodi says:
I nominate an underdog: Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, currently a vice-chairman of the IPCC. Not well-known, but nonetheless an influential figure behind the scenes. See:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/30/ipcc-vice-chai-van-ypersele-suppresses-open-scientific-inquiry-disallows-critical-debate/
He no longer uses the term "climate deniers" but, according to his tweets (https://twitter.com/JPvanYpersele), he is mighty fond of the term "climate confusers". (OMG, you people at WUWT are apparently capable of confusing the climate! Evil sorcerers, that's what you are. No wonder the U.S. East Coast had a terrible winter while western Europe enjoyed a gentle not-quite-a-winter and the U.K. had its moment when "the waves rule Britain.")
imoira says:
IPCC. Duplicity is its reason for being.
bevothehike says:
To the media for promoting scare mongering over fact checking to sell more "news".
otsar says:
I nominate old Patch or is it Nick. It has been my experience that old age and deceit generally triumphs over youth and skill. This time it could be different.
gnome says:
Very hard to beat Mann because he put his duplicity into court documents, but Lew and UWA by a nose for genuinely perverting a review process from a position of smug. And Kook, Nucitella, Redfearn, Suzuki, Steffen… Just about an endless list.
Not Flannery though- we should just forgive him for he knows not what he does, and means well. Not Karoly either, because he had the rare (in a warmist) commonsense to withdraw Gergis et al (2012) Duplicity implies malevolence.
(On further reflection, Mann, then Lew and UWA, because of the additional [state pen] action.)
I nominate, Nick Cohen
"The climate change deniers have won"
"Yes, Mr Cohen, those whom you deliberately and with malice call "deniers" are winning. Incredibly, even though they have only 0.03% of the funds, none of the machinery or the institutions, the enmity of western governments, existential opposition from the $350 billion renewables industry, no support from the large global carbon trading market, and only scorn and derision from the entire UN, and yet they are winning with nothing but wits and facts."
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/nick-cohen-deniers-have-won-gets-startlingly-close-to-the-truth/
trafamadore says:
Since I am banned from commenting lately and you don't have the guts to allow dissent, you can't even argue with me, can you? Ha!
[Reply: Oh, grow up. Your "dissenting" comments are posted. Maybe we just don't want to bother with arguing with you. ~ mod.]
davidmhoffer says:
Gotta tighten up the definitions a bit I think. "Of the year" means 2013? Or just whoever we want to highlight this year regardless of what they did and when? If the former, Mann would be out because we didn't actually hear that much from him last year. Gore would be in though for privately investing heavily in the oil and gas sector while insisting publicly that it be shut down. Gleick would be out because (IIRC) his scandal was before that. And I can't vote for Chris Turney, that wasn't duplicity, that was a whole different category. Incompetence or buffoonery. We need multiple categories.
But if it doesn't have to be in a given time period, then I have to co-nominate Al Gore and Bill Nye the pretend-science guy, for faking a science experiment and putting it on air.
If my nomination wins, I respectfully request an honourable mention for R. Gates for wagering with me on the outcome of the experiment if properly conducted, and then welching when A_thony actually did the experiment and I was right and R. Gates wrong.
fletch92131 says:
In my book, it has to be Dr. Michael Mann!
Day By Day says:
Come on you guys–some great nominations but you aren't following the rules (in some cases) and I don't want to see your nominations disqualified:
7. Nominations must include a citation, URL, or excerpt that represents the reason for the nomination.
garykk5st says:
All the nominees so far are worthy candidates. I have to rank the prez at the bottom of this cesspit. His blatant disregard for law in his attempt to crush the economy in favor of his political and financial supporters is worthy of this honor.
There is a potential problem with his duplicitous actions and speech; he may actually believe the crap he's spouting. If that's the case, he's simply ignorant or stupid. That argues he's incompetent instead of dishonest. Or both.
Oh, well. Flip a coin.
Onyabike says:
Surely England (et al) 2014 would get a look in for denying the pause then recently writing his highly publicised and dubious 'the ocean did it' paper to explain the very same pause he had denied. He basically authored a paper refuting his own proposition; a classic case of duplicitous double speak. (also a massive own-goal IMO). Second him, anyone?
The quote by Mickey Mann needed for the nomination of duplicity is this:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
Woops – Sorry for not backing myself…bleating's cheating; here's one of many articles re England's position on 'the pause' that never was…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_matthew_england_deny_the_warming_pause_he_now_concedes/
And the winner, by a nose, is Peter Gleick.
24 March: Reuters: Robert Evans: Global warming not stopped, will go on for centuries: WMO
There has been no reverse in the trend of global warming and there is still consistent evidence for man-made climate change, the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Monday…
"Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable," (U.N. weather agency chief Michel) Jarraud told a news conference…
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-not-stopped-centuries-wmo-204257559.html
Hallelujah:
24 March: Reuters: Michael Szabo: Trading Emissions plc posts 19.2 mln pound H2 liquidation loss
Clean energy fund Trading Emissions plc (TEP) said asset disposals and writedowns related to the winding up of its business had helped push it into a 19.2 million pound ($31.7 million) loss for the second half of 2013.
Shares in London-listed TEP fell 8 percent to 14.62 pence on Monday after the firm said its net asset value had fallen by 26 percent to 22.38 pence per share in the six months ended Dec. 31, 2013…
"It will be no surprise to shareholders that the private equity and carbon investments are becoming progressively more difficult to sell," the company said in its results on Monday.
TEP, a fund that invests in renewable energy projects and United Nations-backed carbon credits, has been badly hurt by tumbling carbon prices and ongoing issues at several of its facilities…
The company also said Brazilian biodiesel plant Bionasa, in which it has a 25 percent stake, "remains troubled".
"Operations have ceased, obligations to creditors including banks and employees are in default, legal actions have commenced against the company to recover overdue costs, (and) the commercial and finance directors have resigned," TEP said.
***It added, citing local media, that 27 of Brazil's 67 biodiesel plants had shut production due to a national supply glut…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/trading-emission-idUSL5N0ML2KG20140324
Damian says:
Al Gore since his residence uses more power than a small town and his non stop crabon spewing jet travel.
Skiphil says:
I definitely nominate Lew for Lewgate, unless there is a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in which case Mann, Gore, Gleick, and a variety of other worthy candidates will 'float' to the surface of the bowl……
re: Lew's research ethics and lack thereof….
For those most conversant with all of the details of Lewgate (which I am not): it could be interesting to analyze how Lewandowsky's behaviors do or do not conform to the letter and spirit of his new employer's research ethics policies, the University of Bristol…. also in comparison to prevailing research ethics standards at UK universities in general, and any national rules and guidelines about research in the UK.
The argument would not be that he could be 'formally' judged by the requirements of an institution which he had not yet joined, but rather that it should be disturbing both internally and externally if Bristol turns out to have hired a researcher whose prior work does not meet it's minimum standards.
For instance, there is this document online:
University of Bristol doc. on Ethics of Research Policy and Procedure
There seem to be a variety of ways in which Lewandowsky's past behaviors would have been dubious under the stated standards at Bristol. Again, not that Lewandowsky is in peril with Bristol in some 'formal' sense, but rather that Bristol officials and faculty should be embarrassed and dismayed if they have hired someone who in the past failed to meet their professed standards.
[this comment cross-posted at Climate Audit]
More categories:
Most Entertaining – Chris Turney, hands down, going away, no contest.
Most Pants on Fire – Gore and Nye for faking a science experiment on air.
Most Misleading – Michael Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline"
Most Disingenuous – Gleick, for chairing the ethics committee of a major organization while engaged in unethical acts of frowd and suspected forgery.
Most Blind – All the investigation committees that investigated Mann's activities by narrowing the definition of what was being investigated until they investigated more and more about less and less and found out everything about nothing. They then concluded that they found nothing about everything.
Most Ignorant – David Suzuki for yapping about climate and then not knowing what Hadcrut, GISS, RSS and UAH were.
Most Sad – that senator who was worried that Guam was going to tip over if we put too many troops there.
Most Cowardly – Phil Jones for admitting that there's been no warming but refusing to speak out for fear of retribution by other climate scientists
Most Outrageous – Kevin Trenberth for insisting that the null hypothesis should be suspended for climate science.
Most Ridiculous – Kevin Trenberth for claiming that the heat is in the oceans where we can't measure it and which got there by skipping past hundreds of meters of water without affecting its temperature.
Most Bullying – Kevin Trenberth for forcing Wolfgang Wagner to resign from a journal for letting Roy Spencer publish a paper even though there wasn't anything wrong with it.
Most Timid – Wolfgang Wagner for resigning due to pressure from Trenberth for publishing Roy Spencer's paper even though Wagner admitted it was properly reviewed and there was nothing wrong with it.
Tired, gotta call it a night, there's got to be at least another 2 or 3 hundred categories.
The IPCC.
Jeez, this is hellishly difficult category to judge. The 'nominees' above are mostly of pretty high calibre in the duplicity field.
In hindsight I think my England Et Al nomination is a bit of small-fry (so to speak). I think we will need multiple categories of duplicitousness and maybe even a 'by field' split (politicians, activists, scientists etc).
You probably need to set a cut off date too. I guess 2013 since this is a yearly award (which rules out my England 2014 paper). For example Donna at nofrakkingconsensus.com is already ripping apart IPPC 'pal review' reports before they are even published: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/21/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ipccs-new-chapter-7/
Can we pin this award down to 2013 nominees only?
Just watched Jimmy Cartier and David Letterman and their ignorance on climate. Has to be some award they qualify for.
Lance Wallace says:
How can we reduce this brimming field of worthy candidates to a paltry 4, and then 1? Anthony, could we not take a page from the Nobel Peace Prize committee and award the prize to the whole kit and caboodle? Say, provide a list of all nominees before your deadline, (perhaps requiring at least one seconding vote), let people vote on the ballot listing all qualifiers, and then provide the final vote count for all? I hate to think of all the deserving candidates shunted to the cutting room floor and losing their chance of world fame. Let them all have their little certificate.
MikeInToronto says:
My nomination is James West. Sure he is not as famous as Albert Gore or as litigious as Michael Mann, but for plain duplicitous creativity nobody comes close to James West's recent article in Mother Jones. The article argues the reason that the debris of the tragic flight 370 in the Indian ocean is difficult to find is due to – wait for it – Global Warming.
Apparently Global Warming has messed up the currents in the southern Indian ocean. The article is replete with bogus technical explanations, of course unsubstantiated, of the changes occurring in the winds and currents in this distant part of the world
Here's the article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/climate-change-malaysia-airlines-370-search
James surely needs at least an honorable mention simply on the strength of this one article . I mean where else will you find a writer, almost in real time, warp a genuine human tragedy into a ludicrous global warming story. The man has duplicity in bucket loads. A dark horse perhaps, but surely is a serious contender nevertheless.
I think Anthony really has to create several well deserving categories.
rogerknights says:
. . . now dubbed "Lewgate", I thought that he deserved to be nominated for some sort of award.
And for his work to be forever enshrined by this beautifully apt eponymous neologism: Lewdoscience.
There are too many. Nominations should be for a Dirty Dozen of the Decade.
Yeah, I agree with rogerknights; I didn't realise there were so many 'two faces' in Gotham batman! Too soon for lifetime achievement awards so I suggest you skim off the wannabes and just give us the four most successful scammers to choose from based on the current state of play…. this profusion of talent is kind of a sad indictment on the whole climate field really…
ntesdorf says:
I think that if there is to be a Duplicity award, the, Lewandowsky, Flannery, Cook, Hansen, Al Gore, Trenberth, Gleick, Mann, England, Karoly, Kerry, and Obama should all have an equal share as co-winners. Rather like a sort of Nobel Duplicity Award.
The Award Trophy should be in the form of a large silver Pig-Trough, large enough for them to all get their snouts in it, at the same time.
Tez says:
Chris Turney gets my vote, not because he was the most two faced climate scientist (though I admit this is highly debatable ), but because he said things like
" As the Shokalskiy attempted to leave, however, we found ourselves surrounded by a mass breakout of multiyear ice"
Climate change science can be mundane and boring, but Turney and his merry men kept me amused for many days.
I see England's windy-ocean theory paper gets another hot pick at Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/climate-change-malaysia-airlines-370-search. Now it is responsible for the anguish and heart-ache of hundreds of mourning families. I can't blame England for the Greens appetite for sick voyeuristic opportunism. But I would blame him if he offers silent ascent to Mother Jones behaviour. Shame on them for trying to score ideological points off a tragedy!
G.S. Williams says:
Say, how about Rajendra Pachauri?
Surely Maurice Strong filters in here somewhere 🙂
Omigod Onyabike- I had forgotten all about Matthew England (and his little mate Andy Pittman). Not Turkey though (or Gergis)- too insignificant.
There are just too many worthy winners.
tancred says:
Excellent idea. Credit where credit is due, I always say. I further suggest, however, that the award would gain particular added meaning if associated directly with any one of the several towering figures well known for truly stupendous achievements in science by deceit. "The Mann Prize" immediately springs to mind, of course, but surely a few other candidates may be no less deserving of such perpetual recognition for their efforts.
MW@PNG says:
As an Australian I would have to nominate Gillard. "There will be no carbon tax …"etc. Flannery second but we didn't vote for him.
stargazer says:
I would like to nominate those scientists that form the 97% of all scientists making up the 'consensus-bloc' stating the 'science is settled.' The award can be given to Al Gore (Al-G) on behalf of those scientists.
I will cite common knowledge in place of a URL, link, or journal cite.
Holy duplication Batman! How did we forget the grinning Commissar? Where's ya quote/URL GSW? I'm sure there are a bundle from Raj. He's always pretty pleased to contradict his own organisations findings when he has a microphone. Too… many… choices… Argh!
Man oh Mann…..
Then again, what about the Schmidt?
Jay Currie says:
I have to go with Kevin Trenberth. He set the stage with his out of year "travesty" comment. Doubled down with the "heat is in the deep blue sea" gift to the suspension of the laws of thermodynamics.
But his race to the finish was the happy notion of seawater effectively piling up on the surface and just waiting for the opportunity to "slosh" back. (He will, my models tell me, take personal credit for the possible El Nino coming this year. "See, see….there is the warm water sloshing back." I am pretty sure as he takes that credit he will not explain how that same water has sunk to the depths of the deep blue sea.)
Meanwhile, as Mark Steyn has seriously lawyered up I fear that Mann may be road kill before he is able to pick up his consolation award for Miss Congeniality.
Eugene WR Gallun says:
Duplicity? Certainly Lew for this year — but doesn't Michael Mann deserves a lifetime achievement award?
Eugene WR Gallun.
Santa Baby says:
Political motivated or based Nobel Duplicity Award?
grumpyoldmanuk says:
The EU is not a nation. It's government by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy is probably the most duplicitous organisation of modern times, but unfortunately outside the nomination criteria for the award.
I nominate the Royal Society, for masquerading as a scientific body so successfully and jointly Lord Debden and Tim Yeo, for supporting scary non-science while enriching themselves at public expense. I second Michael Mann for a lifetime achievement award for using every artifice except disinterested scientific inquiry to keep his hockey stick at the centre of the CAGW narrative. Lew is about as duplicitous as a 9 year- old. His almost total lack of Machiavellian skill precludes me from supporting him.
Anthony, can you give your readers a copy of the citation for the Duplicity Award? It might help narrow down what is fast becoming a ridiculously massive field of contestants.
Something like "For their persistent effort to corrupt their own personal ideals in the pursuit of deception. In keeping with the highest ideals of the Machiavellian politics the Duplicity Award goes to… (insert name)…."
BTW, excuse the saddle soap but have thoroughly enjoyed your informative and sometimes hilarious blog for some time. Kudos to you and your team
timspence10 says:
Dana Nuccitelli for the agonizingly convoluted claims and excuses
observa says:
As imoira says: March 24, 2014 at 7:52 pm
And I second that after pondering the extreme difficulty of choosing among such a wide array of candidates, there can be no greater duplicitous doyen of duplicicists than our global ignobel IPCC
Colorado Wellington says:
The Dynamic Duo:
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/kulaki/media/Cartoons/GorePachauriTheGigIsUp.jpg.html
BruceC says:
If there is no date cut-off, ie; last year or any year, I nominate Chris Hill from Albury (Australia). Apparently according to Chris, daylight savings is the cause of Global Warming (2008).
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8080/droughtxc8.gif
H/T to handjive @ JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/nick-cohen-deniers-have-won-gets-startlingly-close-to-the-truth/#comment-1409575
Lew is about as duplicitous as a 9 year-old. His almost total lack of Machiavellian skill precludes me from supporting him.
So right it makes me grumpy.
Henrik Sørensen says:
Lew is my choice for several reasons. It's good with a clear cut example to carry the first prize so to avoid misunderstandings of what this prize is about, or it could end up like the Nobel Peace Prize. Lew is also the right shoddy company nobody wants to be associated with – perfect company for next years loser.
KNR says:
I would say Bob 'fast fingers ' Ward , but his actual job is to BS , so has a professional rather than amateur I am not sure is allowed.
To save time, here is the article from the Border Mail, 01/10/2008;
Chris Hill, Albury. Border Mail, 01/10/2008
Drought trigger clear as day.
When I was a kid we never had drought after drought.
Then we started with daylight savings. We started with a little bit, but now we have six months of the year daylight saving.
It has just become too much for the environment to cope with.
It is so logical, for six months of the year we have an extra hour each day of that hot afternoon sun.
I read somewhere that scientific studies had shown there is a lot less moisture in the atmosphere which means we get less rain.
I believe this one hour extra sun is slowly evaporating all the moisture out of everything.
Why can't the Government get the CSIRO to do studies on this, or better still, get rid of daylight savings. They have to do something before it's to late.
-CHRIS HILL
As Anthony would say…….the stupid, it burns.
Philip Lloyd says:
The IPCC and all who serve that sinking ship. Ref: AR5
Eyvind Dk says:
I cast my vote on Chris Turney and "The Ship of Fools"!
climateace says:
I nominate Mr Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia, who stated that climate science is crap, but who is now spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money on abating CO2 emissions.
You can't get much more duplicitous about climate science than that.
James Bull says:
As many have said before how do you choose when there are just so many possibilities, the "climate gate" emails would give a good list and then there are all those talking heads who have not bothered to look into what the climate is actually doing.
My head is spinning.
OH I give up….
Just give Micheal Mann a lifetime achievement award!!!!!!!!!!!
Morph says:
Dame Julia Slingo – for her every year is an extreme year, again and again.
AGW_Skeptic says:
Peter Gleick
Peter Gleick is a MacArthur "Genius Award" recipient, a (forced to resign) chairman of the "Task Force on Ethics" at the American Geophysical Union, a (forced to resign) member of the National Center for Science Education, and current president of the Pacific Institute. He is also featured in a "documentary" film titled "Last Call at the Oasis."
http://fakegate.org/
Fakegate
On February 20, 2012, Peter Gleick confessed to stealing documents from The Heartland Institute with the intent of exposing its funding sources and damaging its reputation. He also disseminated a fake "climate strategy memo" that he and other environmental activists on the left claim describes Heartland's "secret strategy" to mislead the public about the true nature of climate change.
At first Gleick claimed he obtained the fake memo along with other documents from The Heartland Institute. Now he claims it came from an anonymous source before he stole the documents. Heartland has consistently and unambiguously said the memo is a forgery and was not produced by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute.
"Fakegate" is the title given to this scandal by the London Telegraph's James Delingpole.
The Heartland Institute conducted an internal investigation that showed the memo was not authored by anyone at the organization. Two external, independent investigations — one by Protek International and one by Juola & Associates — found the same. Many others have also conducted excellent investigations into this matter.
Nigel S says:
I suggest an IgLew award too for those whose are too incompetent to be effective and shoot their cause in both feet. Dame Julia would be my candidate for that one.
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon:
Eric Worrall says:
Do you have an award for stupid? Mike watsisname who accused you of photoshopping NSIDC images deserves some kind of honourable mention in the stupidity or try hard category 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/07/watching-the-deniers-makes-hilarious-goof-while-accusing-wuwt-of-doctoring-nsidc-images/
Jack Savage says:
Amusing as this light relief may be….and at the risk of being "Mr.Buzzkill"…..I really think this is a waste of time and effort and trivialises the antics of these people.
Dr. John M. Ware says:
There are so many worthy contestants (involuntarily entered, to be sure) for this award that I hesitate to add more; but I must. Highest on my list (after Mr. Gore, of course), is President Obama; but closely following behind him is our own EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, which resolutely pushes Global Warming as scientific while being confronted repeatedly by evidence to the contrary. As a result of EPA's pushing, we have numerous stringent and nonsensical rules that can be added to at any time. I suppose it is possible for some of the people at EPA actually to believe what they say, but we all know that their reason for persisting in their doctrine is to control the rest of us (for our own good, of course). Do consider the EPA for this award, and give it all the publicity you can!
M Courtney says:
Dana Nucitelli.
He defamed and distortedLindzen.
He fabricated a projection for PR purposes.
I agree with Dr. John Ware in that there are so many worthy contestants, but I have to give the nod to Al Gore. He's the tip of the spear of climate alarmism. If not for him, this nonsense would have died off a long time ago.
ConfusedPhoton says:
I think I would include Richard Muller who pretended to have been a skeptic, but is now a born again AGW believer.
Cheshirered says:
John Cook, for his highly duplicitous 97% survey.
The central purpose of that 'survey' was simply to give advocates and media lackeys alike a seemingly overwhelming sound bite; something that at a single stroke could be used to convey the 'consensus' of 'peer-reviewed climate scientists' and thus shut down any further discussion.
Due to Cooks duplicity all that became available in an instantly deliverable, seemingly irrefutable one-liner. It has to be said that given the extent it has been used across almost all media it has been an outstanding success.
Lord Monckton has since destroyed the 'survey', exposing Cooks quite deliberate intent to deceive via obviously loaded questions and a deliberately biased screening process. That's perfect duplicity territory. (Awarding him this prize would also go some way to righting his obvious deceit, too.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/23/skeptical-science-conspiracy-theorist-john-cook-runs-another-survey-trying-to-prove-that-false-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming-meme/
Sean OConnor says:
I nominate David "feel it in my bones" Cameron for:
"I agree with you that we are seeing more abnormal weather events. Colleagues across the House can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is."
Surely Hanson, Monbiot and Pachauri should be in the rframe
Allan M.R. MacRae says:
Piltdown Mann
DougByMany says:
Cinderella/Longshot pick:
The Gaurdian's Laurence Topham… aka Peanut Butter Milkshake Boy… aka Environmental Jesus.
"His suffering saved the Planet."
Now mail me my prize.
Matthew R Marler says:
The award letter should thoroughly document its claims. Sorry for the wet blanket. You won't want to be a target of a libel suit. You might want to refresh your understanding of the law via a consultation with an attorney. I can see the appeal of getting this ready by April 1, but I think thoroughness is warranted.
John Shade says:
Good idea. I see there is a new institute for the study of poor science in the bio-medical area (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598944-sloppy-researchers-beware-new-institute-has-you-its-sights-metaphysicians). I reckon something like that for climate science would also be an excellent idea, given the new-found importance of the area.
The title for the award is a bit cumbersome. I suggest an 'Occam's Broom Award' for the most important deployment of that device in climate alarm campaigning. The device is described by Daniel C Dennett (2013) as follows:
'The molecular biologist Sidney Brenner recently invented a delicious play on Occam's Razor, introducing the new term Occam's Broom, to describe the process in which inconvenient facts are whisked under the rug by intellectually dishonest champions of one theory or another…The practice is particularly insidious when used by propagandists who direct their efforts at the lay public …their carefully crafted accounts can be quite convincing simply because the lay reader can't see what isn't there.'
I give some examples from the climate arena here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/occams-broom-and-stink-of-97-of-climate.html
philjourdan says:
John Cook – author of the 97% paper study and enabler of Lewandowsky.
lonetown says:
Gore, Mann, Lewandowsky, it's a warmacopia. Please also remember Peter Gleick wants it bad enough to commit a felony and Richard Muller who is doing his BEST.
Bob Tisdale says:
I'll confirm Kevin Trenberth. While he understands ENSO better than most climate scientists, he elects to obscure/misrepresent its long-term effects at every possible chance to keep the CAGW hypothesis alive.
I nominate David Cameron, the British Prime Minister. He is a most duplicitous, green worshipping toe rag.
Froggy says:
I think the "Climate Duplicitist of the Year" award is a brilliant, wonderful idea. This should be great fun. I love the idea of responding to the name calling from the AGW advocates with a bit of smart humor.
Bill Nye the "science guy" gets my vote, for past participation in the Gore fraudulent CO2 greenhouse gas demonstration/experiment, and continued duplicity in the climate change debate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/84887/bill-nye-responds-to-7-real-arguments-made-by-climate-change-deniers
Many thanks Anthony 🙂
stewgreen says:
Joint award to
1. The entire green movement
2. Aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media
Tom D says:
One more vote for Lew-don't-know-ski, based not only on his past antics, but also on my own super-sophisticated modeling of his future childish behavior which projects a paper on Skeptic/Denier "Duplicitacist Ideation in the Blogosphere" in the near future . . .
With so many candidates, you might have to go to a March madness type of bracket system for voting.
Mumbles McGuirk says:
I suggested such an award two years ago for Peter Gleick. However, he's hasn't made much noise recently (but a Lifetime Achievement Award would be appropriate.) So if we are talking about just this last year I would have to second the nomination of Secretary of State John Kerry for his recent remarks:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/03/19/obamaa-foreign-policy-obsession-with-global-warming-emboldens-putin/
The remarks may not have been as duplicitous as a scientific paper that deceives the subjects polled, but they were more far-reaching and had worse consequences than Lewandowsky et al. After all, where do we go to get his 'worse than weapons of mass destruction' remarks withdrawn?
Chuck L says:
Although I am not sure he fits the definition of duplicitous, I nominate Scott Mandia as "Best Dressed" for his excellent work as "Super Mandia."
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/09/breaking-vivienne-westwood-makes-bid-to.html
A shame he got caught up in the AGW silliness because earlier in his career, he did some excellent work on hurricane storm surge for Long Island and NYC as well as excellent summaries of major hurricanes to hit Long Island/NYC Metro
Lois Johnson says:
The educational system in the US for showing Al Gore's movie.
Michael Palmer says:
So many champions worthy of the prize – the mind boggles. It's way more competitive than the Nobel Peace Prize. Even if we stipulated that only previous winners of that prize qualify, that would still leave us with enough options for years to come.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
Government Entity category:
I nominate the US EPA for flagrant use of junk science to justify classifying CO2 as a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
Lifetime Acheivement (2 nominees)
Paul R. Ehrlich, for a successful and distinguished career of never being right. He keeps making failed predictions and keeps getting rewarded for them, so who can blame him? The term "Cassandra" is sometimes used to denote someone who is always right but never believed (from the Trojan priestess of that name who was cursed with the power of prophecy and the fate of never being believed). I do not know a comparable reference from classical literature for someone who is never right but always believed, so I put forth an "Ehrlich" for that purpose. Support for this nomination can be found here
James E. Hansen, formerly of NASA, deserves nomination for his participation in what may be the first instance of climate duplicity, the US Senate Hearings of 1988. Support for this nomination can be found here .
I'll know I've died and gone to heaven when WordPress provides a preview feature.
Links for the above nominations are:
(Paul Ehrlich): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/paul-ehrlich-wrong-again-world-cereal-production-set-to-reach-historic-high/
(James Hansen): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/
Since this is the first award are we allowed to go back further than 1 year? I nominate George Monbiot of the Guardian. He told us to listen to the science.
George Monbiot – February 15, 2005
Mocking Our Dreams
It is now mid-February, and already I have sown eleven species of vegetable. I know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. Everything in this country – daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees, nesting birds – is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us.
And this is surely one of the reasons why we find it so hard to accept what the climatologists are now telling us. In our mythologies, an early spring is a reward for virtue………….How can something which feels so good result from something so bad?……
\http://www.monbiot.com/2005/02/15/mocking-our-dreams/
Fast forward to 2010
Guardian 20 December 2010
That snow outside is what global warming looks like
Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth
…."You are a liar, Mr Monbiot. You and James Hansen and all your lying colleagues. I'm going to make you pay back the money my son gave to your causes. It's minus 18C and my pipes have frozen. You liar. Is this your global warming?" She's not going to like the answer, and nor are you. It may be yes……
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming
Lady in Red says:
I second, or third, the nomination of Peter Gleick. Lewandowsky is, simply, too much a jerk to be taken seriously by anyone.
Gleick crawled down from the ivory towers of academe to the pit of lies and deceit — and, then, was allowed to re-ascend.
Friends still talk with him. I can't imagine what his justifications, over dinner parties, might be. He is a perfect symbol of the corruption of the science. …..Lady in Red
Billyjack says:
In order to make this competition fair where the truly professional purveyors of duplicity be disqualified and be given lifetime achievement awards so as to not eliminate the new liars chance to win. We should eliminate Mann, Gore, Hansen and Ehrlich from consideration, since their duplicity gives them an unfair advantage.
John Stell says:
I like the idea of multiple categories (climataologist, meterologist, other scientist, journalist, politician, blogger?), and awards should be for contribution within the calendar year. A yearly lifetime achievement award should be named after the initial recipient and be dubbed the Al Gore Lifetime Achievement Award. Acceptance speeches could be used to explain each recipients 'outstandingness' in his/her field. The awards could be shaped like hockey sticks, or other icons of duplicity. Go big or go home :>)
Gary Meyers says:
Don't forget "Choo Choo Pachauri", the railroad engineer turned climate wizard.
An award for bad behavior?
How liberating!
Perhaps all involved in the CAGW movement should be dishonorably mentioned?
As Arlo Guthrie said, "…friends they may think it's a movement."
Yep, CAGW is a "movement" all right.
Rajendra K. Pachauri has been head of the IPCC since 2002.
In 2005 he was the scientific advisor to a residual oil extraction company called Glori Oil (now called Glori Energy).
In 2008 he urged oil executives to help cut emissions.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=27919769
http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/02/13/environment-cera-energy-climatechange-idINN1229690620080213
I know this does not count but just shows you how uncertain they really are. I suspect they were merely reporting on the weather and not the climate – and they didn't even know it.
Independent – 20 March 2000
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
…within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said……
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Independent – 4 February 2012
Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-behind-the-big-freeze-is-climate-change-bringing-the-arctic-to-europe-6358928.html
Jim G says:
As the person who has single handedly done the most damage to society using Global Warming as his tool…Barack Hussein Obama.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/28/obama-calls-global-warming-a-fact-ignores-flat-temps/#!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/obama-climate-change-quotes_n_3499413.html
"All across the world, …increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster. "
— Barack Obama
Global warming is not just the greatest environmental challenge facing our planet — it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Barack Obama
I second the nomination for the ipcc, for their pretense about presenting science, as well as their pretense of caring about the Earth.
Robany says:
Obama for the sheer, staggering damage his duplicity causes/can cause as POTUS. Peter Gleick (any news on a prosecution for his self-confessed wire fraud?), Michael Mann, the IPCC and Al Gore all get dishonourable mentions.
EPA, no question. Most of the others are very tiny people, quite ludicrous, not worth bothering with.
Anthony: A catchier title for your award would be "Climate Conniver of the Year."
Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
Al Gore, for the specific claim in his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie companion book that enviro-activist book author/ex-reporter & Pulitzer-winning Ross Gelbspan discovered a leaked coal industry memo proving skeptic climate scientists were paid industry shills out to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." Photo of Gore's book page here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AnIncT-263.jpg
The first time Gelbspan publicly mentioned those memos was in a December 1995 radio interview, also quoting how the coal group intended to target "older, less educated men and young, low-income women." http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NPR-LOE-Gelb-reposit-12-15-95-1024×591.jpg
Gore quoted the very same "older, less-educated males" / younger, lower-income women" memo phrase in his 1992 "Earth in the Balance" book. http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ErintheB-360.jpg
Ross Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer ( http://www.pulitzer.org/faceted_search/results/gelbspan ), and the above coal group memos do nothing to prove a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptic climate scientists and the fossil fuel industry – money paid in exchange for fabricated skeptic science reports.
John B., M.D. says:
Dana Nuccitelli, who works for the oil industry.
I hereby propose, in honor of Lewandowsky, and regardless of who wins, that the awards be dubbed (drumroll)
The Loogies.
JBirks says:
Mann gets my vote for the Duplicit-list.
John Greenfraud says:
I have to go with Mann on this one. His attack on Judith Curry, while in the process of suing Tim Ball and Mark Steyn for defamation, is duplicity at it's finest.
Specter says:
OK….How about these…
CMIP5 – for not being able to tell anything about the future or the past.
The Science Journals that only publish one point of scientific view and force closings of sub-journals that have the audacity to publish the other side.
The "peers" who review the papers being published on the warmist side.
The news organizations that will not allow any dissenting comments to articles hyping AGW.
The Met Office in Britain.
The list goes on and on….
Michael D says:
I nominate Bill Nye for the "High School Science" fiasco of a few years ago. http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/. Two key failures: a) not actually doing the experiment, b) when caught, suggesting it was not important to actually do the experiment. Why is he more culpable than Al Gore: a) Gore is in the end just a politician and an opportunist, but Nye claims presents himself as a scientist and thus bears more culpability, and b) Nye has placed himself as a mentor for elementary school pre-scientists, and thus has extraordinary responsibility (James 3:1)
JBP says:
so we have:
Camille parmensan
Mikey mann
John Cook
, Sarah A Green5,
Mark Richardson6,
B?rbel Winkler2,
Rob Painting2,
Robert Way7,
Peter Jacobs8 and
Andrew Skuce2
Lewandowsky
Kevin Trenberth
Julia guillard
Davis Suzuki
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
Kook, Nucitella, Redfearn, Suzuki, Steffen
karoly
Maurice Strong
Eugene WR Gallun
Lord debden tim yeo
Dana nuccitelin
Dame julia slingo
Richard mueller
Monboit
Laurence topham
Paul erhlich
CIMP5
WEW!
have we come to an agreement on what the award is actually for?
oh, and my nomination: Clive Best. why? Duplicity!
1st he says: 'resonant dust coulds' = lots of hot air
2nd he says: lunar and solar tidal cycles = a lunatic shooting for the stars
c'mon Clive we know its SUV's and Cow farts.
Can't forget NASA
ikh says:
I nominate Macquarie University for the way it behaved to Prof Murry Salby. The citations are here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/murry-salby/
I am surprised in this forum I have to keep correcting bad information: it was not a U.S. Senator, but U.S Representative Hank Johnson (my congressman) who made this particular blunder during a hearing.
I will not go so far as to claim that a U.S. Senator couldn't be capable of an equivalent blunder, but in the interest of accuracy I must correct davidmhoffer on this detail.
I also need to opine once again that Representative Johnson is better than his predecessor, Cynthia McKinney — you be the judge.
It seems from a quick scan through the nominations thus far that Mike Mann has an edge, although I am surprised at so many votes for Chris Turney.
@Alan Watt – While there is no question that Johnson is not as bad as McKinney, he does appear to be more stupid. But he does not have the "kiss of death" that Old Winny McKinny has (cozying up to Saddam – dead, cozying up to Gaddafi – dead.)
Curious, no nominations for Joe Romm? Or is he just a re-packager of other peoples' duplicity?
Gunga Din says:
If we're talking about just this year, then I nominate Mann for his fighting disclosure in his most recent lawsuit and and Lewbaby for this kind of….well….he needs his diaper changed.
Lewandowsky made a huge fuss about people being unable to locate emails. The only reason why people were unable to locate emails was because Lew had concealed his association with the survey and then used the concealment to score points.
(From this latter post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/quote-of-the-week-the-lewgate-fussbluster/)
I think that when this is actually put up for a vote the ground rules need to be clarified. Are we voting for "this year's" or "lifetime"?
For this first one, maybe both categories should be included?
John Tillman says:
If Screamin' Joe Romm, then how about Weepy Bill McKibben & all the slackers at 350.org?
Boulder_Skeptic says:
Long-time and frequent visitor; first-time commenter… I'd like to suggest that ALONG WITH, and in direct contrast to, this duplicity award that there also be an award for that person, organization or group that has done the most to further the knowledge of real climate science whether the contribution supports our skeptical view or not (more likely it WILL support the skeptical view of climate science but we should be open to where the science takes us). In other words, provide the positive feedback so desperately needed for those actually following the scientific method and furthering the science. Something akin to a new, more credible "Nobel prize" in climate science as determined by a group that seems to have their thinking caps on (as opposed to typical liberals that seem to have taken over most of the previously prestigious science related awards). I think a press release that includes a positive award, in addition to the award pointing out the supreme silliness of the climatstrologists, will have more traction.
I also agree that a few categories for the duplicity award (solo, organizational, media, and lifetime achievement) are needed.
John Whitman says:
My duplicity nomination goes to Michael E. Mann (PSU) for his self-contradictory monologue in his book and for his non-scientific behavior in his supposed scientific research (see A. Montford's book 'The [Mann] Hockey Stick Illusion').
eco-geek says:
I think the award is the wrong one. I think it should be for the best non-duplicitous global warming scientist as this limits the choice somewhat.
I nominate….er….er….er….er…er…er…er…er….
Robber says:
Needs a better name than Climate Duplicitist – Climate Denier, Climate Wacko, Climate Un-Scientist, Cimate Conspirer, Climate Clown, Climate Snake.
slightly OT except relevant to the past and future performance of Michael Mann as climate charlatan and demagogue:
Wow! For the relief of anyone who may have been concerned when Mark Steyn dismissed his former legal representation, he has announced a potent team of some of the most accomplished free-speech attorneys alive today:
Mark Steyn announces "Dream Team" of legal experts
Mikey Mann is not going to know what hit him….. something like a thundering freight train of legal, cultural, scientific, and personal criticism.
[cross-posted at Bishop Hill]
Peter Miller says:
Ed Milliband.
For our former colonial cousins, this is the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in the UK and the individual/twerp most responsible for the insanity of the the UK's current energy policy.
A policy that is guaranteed to produce blackouts and sky high electricity prices in the not too distant future.
Skiphil, thanks for information that Steyn the lawyer no longer has a fool for client, not that IMO he ever did.
Climate Charlatan?
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Charlatan?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
But I think the wiser course is a name that won't bring Mann's legal gnats buzzing around. Though I like "Climate Charlatan", perhaps it's best to leave it as something that describes the actions rather than the person.
Every nuke needs a guidance system.
From the replies received so far, it seems that there should be two awards, one for individual and one for corporate.
nargun says:
James the Elder – the mammoth flash flood and freezing is detailed in Otto Mucks Opus The Secret of Atlantis. Don't let the title fool you – this is a scholarly, masterful piece ofwork and should be required reading for all geology students
Eamon Butler says:
Oh, congratulations on this one. I can see this award developing into something to rival the Oscars or the Nobel.
I had a quick scan through the above nominations. Can't say I'd be disappointed to see any of them take the title, all well deserving. But If I can make my nominations, that I don't think have been mentioned as yet (though I could be wrong, sorry) I think all the Kids over at Skeptical Science are very deserving, for their tireless efforts to promote the scams of all the above mentioned.
Also I think the notorious Climate Models deserve a special mention for their consistency in their heroic failure. I know this is breaking the rule Nr.5, but some look upon these as more than mere machines, with a mind, a heart and a life of their own.
I'm off now to organise my Tuxedo for Sundays award ceremony.
Steve in SC says:
At the very least there needs to be several categories.
Scientists or alleged scientists
Journalist or media figure (not sure if there are any journalists left)
Politicians or those who are known to be dishonest to start with.
Just a couple of comments
Don't know the specifics of her exploits but the Parmesean woman sounds pretty cheesy. Forgive me I could not resist.
Mikey Mann has always impressed me as an evil Pepa Pig.
Malcolm Robinson says:
Surely there should be two awards. A lifetime achievement award for candidates such as Al Gore, the IPCC, EPA etc, and an annual award for more specific duplicitous achievements in the last year or so, such as Lewandowsky, Nuccitelli.
p@ Dolan says:
1. Michael Mann for his claims of having been exonerated by several panels regarding Climategate in his filings against Mark Steyn, e.g., http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misrepresents-noaa-oig/ as documented By Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit;
2. IPCC for 95% confidence claim in AR5
3. IPCC for WG2 Confidentiality statement, where it states, "IPCC places a priority on openness", and especially, "WG II is committed to upholding these confidentiality requirements TO FACILITATE AN ASSESSMENT PRODUCT OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY." (my emphasis).
(Text of guidance follows):
Confidentiality Guidance for WG II CLAs, LAs, and REs for the AR5
Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs), Lead Authors (LAs), and Review Editors (REs) should
follow these Working Group II (WG II) confidentiality requirements for the Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5). IPCC places a priority on openness, and provided WG II CLAs, LAs, and REs
follow the requirements outlined below, they should not feel constrained in publicly discussing
individual perspectives relevant to their own scientific expertise.
The assessment process depends on confidential internal deliberations in which all opinions can
be aired openly . Author deliberations at Lead Author Meetings and in other forums (e.g., email
discussions and conference calls) are confidential and should not be cited, quoted, distributed, or described.	In particular, deliberations should not be discussed with reporters or in forums such as blogs, social media, or other public outlets.
The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly
during the preparation of the AR5. All draft materials (e.g., chapter drafts, figure drafts, notes,
and outlines) are confidential and should not be cited, quoted, or distributed outside AR5 author
teams during the preparation of the AR5. Any draft materials received from other Working
Groups are also confidential and subject to these confidentiality requirements. The
confidentiality of chapter drafts is communicated to expert and government reviewers, and
confidentiality requirements apply to reviewer comments and the responses of author teams
during the preparation of the AR5. Upon completion of the AR5, WG II report drafts, reviewer
comments, and author team responses will be made available in a public archive; all other draft
materials will remain confidential after the completion of the AR5.
For the preparation of the AR5, WG II is committed to upholding these confidentiality
requirements to facilitate an assessment product of the highest quality.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. John Cook for the name of his blog:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
Hockey Schtick says:
I nominate Mann, who just tweeted:
@MichaelEMann:
Irony Alert! Irony Alert!
#AnthonyWatts holds competition for "Climate Duplicitist Of The Year"
#Heartland #Watts #Koch #ProfessionalDenial
I didn't know you are a professional denier paid by the Koch brothers, Anthony. Then again, it could be just more duplicity from Mann. Irony alert!
Theo Goodwin says: Who would you rank second?
Depends on the category
For biologists who destroy environmental science's credibility
#1 Camille Parmesan for turning every conservation success into a climate catastrophe
#2 Andrew Derocher for polar bear deception
#3 J Alan Pounds for bogus Golden Toad climate connection
For Fear mongering Politicians
#1 Al Gore nuff said
#2 Senator Whitehouse for turning every weather event into a climate catastrophe
#3 Cal. Rep Alan Lowenthal for posting on HuffPo that the bogus Powell Survey proved climate case is closed
#4 too many to list
Climate scientists defiling science
#1 AAAS
#2 Kevin Trenberth for arguing all changing weather is climate change
#3 James Hansen for the apocalyptic cult leader dressed in science garb
#4 Michael Mann for cherrypicking data and hiding the declne
#5 Peter Gleick gets the Orwellian Double Speak award as Chair of the prestigious
American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics
Promoters of Fascist Intellectual Tyranny trying to suppress all debate
#1 Stephan Lewandosky for bogus surveys
#2 David Suzuki
#3 BBC
#4 CNN
#5 Slate
After seeing Mann's tweet I would boost him to the top of my rating for over all deception defiling science. He wrote polar bears and the golden toad were evidence of global warming catastrophes in his book DIre Predictions
He denies the tree ring data after 1950 that shows the only observed hockey stick warming is at airports not in natural environments.
He has launched a campaign suggesting if you disagree with him, then you are attacking "science". Such meglomaniacs are always at the forefront of tyranny!
Fabi says:
Obama. Pontificating about climate change while allowing his wife, et al., to traipse off the China for no good reason. Not to mention the other countless trips that served no purpose and unnecessarily added, by his claims, a harmful substance into the atmosphere.
In case they haven't been nominated already,
The ADL for practicing "selective outrage".
The "Weather" Channel. (The current version of it, not the original.)
A look at their program schedule should be enough to gain them dishonorable mention.
Jeff Alberts says:
I'd have to add ALL of the other "scientists" in the CRU emails who criticized Mann's work in "private", but wuz two skeered to do so in public.
Maybe we should separate them up into continents. This Australasia, United States of America, United Kingdom, and India, etc. And send all nominees a certificate. Oh, maybe we will be sued?
For Australia definitely Tim Flannery, UK, Jones, USA you choose, Canada, Susuki, and India, Pachauri. Should be a hard one for the United States.


text:
Q: Elasticsearch index doesn't have field with analyzer? I have an ES index with a mapping like this:
{'texts-temp': {'aliases': {},
  'mappings': {'properties': {'data': {'properties':
       (...)
       'user_text': {'type': 'text',
             'fields': {'word_tokenized': {'type': 'text',
                         'analyzer': 'text_analyzer'}}},
       (...)
     },
    'settings': {'index': {'number_of_shards': '1',
          'provided_name': 'texts-temp',
          'creation_date': (...),
    'analysis': {'filter': {'shingen_filter': {'max_shingle_size': '3',
       'min_shingle_size': '2',
       'type': 'shingle'}},
     'analyzer': {'text_analyzer': {'filter': ['lowercase',
        'stop',
        'asciifolding',
        'apostrophe',
        'stemmer',
        'shingen_filter'],
       'type': 'custom',
       'tokenizer': 'standard'}}},

When I do the following search:
search = Search(index = 'texts-temp')
q = Q("terms", data__urls=list_urls_text)
search = search.query(q)
search = search.extra(track_total_hits=True)
reply = search.execute()
[x.data.user_text.word_tokenized for x in reply]

I get an empty list... However, if I look at the elements x.data.user_text, then I get the texts, but not tokenized.
What am I doing wrong that the index doesn't have the field data.user_text.word_tokenized?
The JSON body of the search above is the following:
{'query': {'terms': {'data.urls': list_urls_text}},
 'track_total_hits': True}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The World Health Organization (WHO) learned about the new outbreak in early May, but suspects that, since April, a total of 44 people have been infected with Ebola including 23 deaths. Three of the deaths involved health care workers.
The experimental vaccine was created by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2003, the vaccine was shown to be effective in monkeys. However, because of a lack of pharmaceutical company interest before the West Africa outbreak, it literally sat on a shelf until it was licensed to Merck in 2014.
The Ebola vaccine, which it is hoped can stem the new outbreak, was developed when there was no public health emergency, and no known widespread outbreak of Ebola. There had only been 1500 cases registered world-wide in the previous three decades. The research involved, and the animals used, were essentially for curiosity-driven, basic research trying to understand, and not for some immediate clinical application.
Yes, we may now have an Ebola vaccine, but as important as this is, that's not why the research using animals began. It began with a very human, but much maligned (especially when animals are involved) intellectual pursuit to better understand what keeps humans and animals alive and healthy.
Ebola is a viral disease that is transmitted to people from wild animals. The virus is thought to exist naturally in some fruit bats and can be transmitted to humans through bodily fluids of infected animals or through the consumption of 'bush meat.' Once the virus is introduced to the human population it spreads through direct contact with bodily fluids of infected people. Symptoms such as fever and bleeding from orifices can be seen after four to ten days, few people survive contact.


text:
Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?
Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
An LCS-like modular ship
A modernised Type 23
A Type 26-lite
Less than 5 hulls
5 hulls
More than 5 hulls
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Dec 2018, 12:09
shark bait wrote: BAE are now the lead after the shakeup, Cammell laird are now subcontractors to BAE.
Thanks, very interesting. It is so written in the FT article?
In UKDL article, they still say
For Leander, BAE Systems will partner with Cammell Laird, who would 'Prime, build and assemble' the vessels at their Merseyside facility while the Clyde will focus on the Type 26 Frigates. Cammell Laird would be main contractor with BAE providing design and combat systems.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31 ... announced/
Postby shark bait » 10 Dec 2018, 12:30
FT.com wrote: BAE, Britain's largest defence contractor, has taken the lead role in the bid from its partner Cammell Laird, the shipbuilder. One of the aspirations of the shipbuilding strategy was to increase competition among British shipyards for naval contracts. Cammell Laird was originally the prime contractor in the consortium, with BAE taking the position of sub-contractor.
It is understood that the two companies swapped their roles when the competition was re-started in August.
What do we make of the government furnished equipment bit? The wording is unclear, it could be a big deal, the chances of getting a decent product are massively increased if the MOD free issue old equipment.
There is little issue scrapping a T23 early to rob it for parts.
Halidon
Postby Halidon » 10 Dec 2018, 16:49
shark bait wrote: What do we make of the government furnished equipment bit? The wording is unclear, it could be a big deal, the chances of getting a decent product are massively increased if the MOD free issue old equipment.
It really depends, in US Navy contracting language it might not (probably doesn't) read the way it should for and RN contract and I don't want to get peoples' hopes too high/dashed by being too certain with my pronouncements. That disclaimer out of the way, the line "It remains our intention to seek a firm price contract for five ships, less an amount of Government Furnished Equipment, for £1.25 Billion" simply reads to me as the £1.25 Billion price for "the ships" and the cost of the GFE that will be added to fit them out are separate, it doesn't have any bearing on where the equipment comes from nor describe a limit to the cost of it. If so, this would be a pretty stark contrast to this statement from a year ago
The program is looking for five Type 31 frigtes with a hard price ceiling of $250 million, a price that includes all the government-furnished equipment, said Simon Bollum, the Ministry of Defence's chief of materiel (ships).
Now, I'm certainly not saying this means they're going to go as far as the USN and add Government Furnished Equipment equal (or greater than) the "base" cost, but if the program's restructuring really has broken out the GFE from that hard cap, it may explain why the industry expects things to go more smoothly this time. It certainly could point to "cannibalizing" some T23 for critical systems, it could also point toward a buy of new, affordable equipment to fit the class out. Responsible UK defence journalists should press for more information on what the GFE plan is.
Tempest414
Postby Tempest414 » 10 Dec 2018, 17:12
would be nice to see some new images of what Babcocks and Altas have come up with
Postby Ron5 » 10 Dec 2018, 17:18
A long waited announcement with a tantalizing lack of detail. God forbid the MoD let the taxpayers know what's actually going on.
Just a couple or so random thoughts:
1. Up to 5 million for the design contracts. Talk about cheap, that's not enough to keep the board rooms supplied with tea and crumpets. The competitors will have to fund the bids out of their own resources.
2. Probably explains why Bae took prime, CL doesn't have the resources to fund this size bid nor accept a billion pound fixed price contract. Unfortunately that diminishes Leanders chances of winning due to the irrational hatred of Bae in some parts of UK government. I do wonder if this opens the door to CL building T26 blocks tho.
3. If the Treasury were fair and reasonable (stop laughing), the cost of GFE would merely be the cost of recovering and refurbishing said equipment. Not cheap but not as much as brand new kit. For instance Babcocks recently showcased their new ability to refurbish the RN's 4.5" gun.
4. A whole year to negotiate a contract. Totally ridiculous.
5. Babcocks is still proposing A140 for 250m each? Good luck with that. But it isn't Bae, keep reminding the MoD of that.
6. The German bid is a joke. Even less UK content than the A140. The Germans are not going to give away the IP. And after Brexit? Look for the MoD to throw another contract or two their way to say thank you for making up the numbers.
Halidon wrote:
I think you are misreading the statement. I think it says the cost of GFE must be met within the fixed cap. So 250 mill of GFE means just 1 billion for the ships. It is badly worded.
chinook88
Postby chinook88 » 10 Dec 2018, 18:28
BAE Leander in Exponaval (Valparaiso - Chile)
https://www.exponaval.cl/index-ing.php
Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Dec 2018, 18:38
shark bait wrote: The wording is unclear, it could be a big deal, the chances of getting a decent product are massively increased if the MOD free issue old equipment.
heh-he, sorry!
Halidon wrote: That disclaimer out of the way, the line "It remains our intention to seek a firm price contract for five ships, less an amount of Government Furnished Equipment, for £1.25 Billion" simply reads to me as the £1.25 Billion price for "the ships" and the cost of the GFE that will be added to fit them out are separate, it doesn't have any bearing on where the equipment comes from nor describe a limit to the cost of it.
Well, the MoD has been subjected to (after RAB at the beginning of this millennium, to... CLoS & IFRS accounting policies - kicking and screaming, but yes: that is the transfer price. Though Ron does not believe it.
... shall I start a new thread on the alphabet soup (of accounting policies, and what price stickers they put on equipment transfers ?)
Halidon wrote: a price that includes all the government-furnished equipment, said Simon Bollum, the Ministry of Defence's chief of materiel (ships).
Ron5 wrote: Unfortunately that diminishes Leanders chances of winning due to the irrational hatred of Bae in some parts of UK government. I do wonder if this opens the door to CL building T26 blocks tho
... it will
Ron5 wrote: cost of GFE would merely be the cost of recovering and refurbishing said equipment. Not cheap
not cheap... but for a different reason
More pictures from Tim Fish in Chile. Can't spot any differences from previous pics of previous exhibitions.
I read the GFE statement again: "It remains our intention to seek a firm price contract for five ships, less an amount of Government Furnished Equipment, for £1.25 Billion,..."
Seems clearer to me this morning that the cost of the GFE is to be included in the 1.25 billion.
Which leads to to one more beating of that dead horse i.e. how much would that cost be for kit taken from a retiring Type 23?
I think I've been chasing a red herring in thinking the book value of the gun has any relevance to this question. The book value is an accountants way of calculating the value of the asset to the MoD. However you calculate that value (replacement cost vs depreciated original price) it doesn't change the fact that the MoD already owns the asset.
So why would the Type 31 budget owner have to reach into his pocket to buy an asset that the MoD already owns? Who would he make out the check to? Himself?
I think the answer is obvious: he wouldn't. So I think the cost to the Type 31 program would just be the removal of the kit from the Type 23 and its refurbishment. The cost of re-installing on the Type 31 would be covered by the shipbuilder under the 1+ billion.
[apologies to my lord jim who doesn't like this kind of stuff ]
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Apparently Cammell laird didn't pass the MOD's capital adequacy test so BAE had to take the prime.
Ron5 wrote: So why would the Type 31 budget owner have to reach into his pocket to buy an asset that the MoD already owns? Who would he make out the check to? Himself?
I have witnessed similar things happening, and I wouldn't put it passed the MOD to write down the value as an efficiency saving. But I hope common sense will prevail and your closing sentence is correct, it would make the world of difference to the T31.
How much of a difference would a load of excellent and cheap recycled equipment make to the T31?
Postby matt00773 » 12 Dec 2018, 07:58
shark bait wrote: How much of a difference would a load of excellent and cheap recycled equipment make to the T31?
The answer is that the difference would be massive: Artisan radar, Sea Ceptor, CMS-1, BAE Shared Infrastructure equipment, Type 2050 sonar. If the assumption is correct, all the contractor would have to do is to design for, refurbish?, and install the equipment. It would be good to get a government statement on this.
Those very nice photos from Chile made me, for the first time, to add a premium to a fast(er) firing gun being in the position in front of the bridge
- the CIWS and the 30mm's being grouped so close together, even though in other ways positioned in an excellent way
So far getting anything that is currently not 'std' in the RN (esp. as we about 20 pieces of one sort available) has seemed like a wasteful (though not in other ways bad) option.
matt00773 wrote:
- CAMM and CMS-1: At least 2 of the 5 T23GP currently does not have Sea Ceptor (Iron Duke and Monmouth, am I right?). I really think it is better to let them as it is, to be stored as reserve or even sold for export. In place, extend the disbanding date of the 2 of the 3 modified T23GPs for 2 years. Argil 2023-->2025, Lancaster 2024-->2026. Montrose can keep its date, 2027. Note 2023 is only 5 years from now.
I think the modified T23 carries 3-sets of 12-unit control electronics for CAMM, and T31e with 12-cell CAMM only needs 1 of them. Re-using the modification program for Iron Duke and Monmouth, we can easily have 6-sets of the electronics. Enough for 5 Leander T31es.
- CMS-1 and BAE Shared Infrastructure equipment: Computer can be recycled, but its system integration may be man-power consuming. Also, ripping them off from old T23GP needs special care, because we want to re-use those kits. It will be "cheaper" than starting from zero, but will not be so cheap.
- Type 2050 sonar: Those of the 5 T23GP was not modified, while the 8 for T23ASWs are, under the "Sonar 2050 Technology Refresh programme". Modification cost may be not expensive, but I am not sure about the current status of the 5 S2050 on T23GPs.
see https://www.sea.co.uk/news/supply-sonar ... oyal-navy/
Pongoglo
Postby Pongoglo » 14 Dec 2018, 14:38
Ron5 wrote: More pictures from Tim Fish in Chile. Can't spot any differences from previous pics of previous exhibitions.
Have to admit if it came as depicted I could just about live with BAE's offering as the Type 31, although clearly ours would come with a Mk 8 gun. With most of the weapons and equipment ported over from the T23 as GFE, Artisan, Sea Ceptor, Harpoon (in the interim), S2050 sonar, BAE's own CMS-1 and the 30mm guns, it should come in quiet comfortably at <£ 250 Mil.
Clearly the Mk 41 would be new purchase but as others on here have stated the launchers themselves come in quite cheap (<£3 Mil GBP, is that per cell or for an 8 cell unit, anyone know?). Also we would need to purchase additional Phalanx or perhaps we could draw on an as needed basis from the RFA's pool, much as we currently do with the Bay's.
IMHO however the biggest weakness with this design is that unlike Arrowhead (either variant 120 or 140) it lacks a Merlin capable hanger, forcing us to rely totally on an already too small Wildcat pool. Also at 3,600 FLD in terms of survivability it is a tad too small, in fact not much larger than a Type 21. Critically however it packs too few CAMM, barely enough to be effective in self defence let alone for the consort escort role.
To my mind there are a couple of solutions however. We could either quad pack the Mk 41 which with the two forward 'mushroom tubs' would allow a max load out of 44 CAMM, significantly more than the T23. Alternatively we could bin it altogether in the RN version, replacing it in its current position with two more 'mushroom tubs' for a total of 24 CAMM. Ideally of course we could do both by moving the Mk 41 further aft, perhaps with a moduler arrangement similar to the STANFLEX concept thus allowing you the option of replacing the 20 ft ISO's with an 8 or 16 cell Mk 41 dependant on mission and task?
T31 BAE.jpg
Postby dmereifield » 14 Dec 2018, 14:47
Pongoglo wrote:
Have to admit if it came as depicted I could just about live with BAE's offering as the Type 31, although clearly ours would come with a Mk 8 gun. With most of the weapons and equipment ported over from the T23 as GFE, Artisan, Sea Ceptor, Harpoon (in the interim), S2050 sonar, BAE's own CMS-1 and the 30mm guns, it should come in quiet comfortably at <£ 250 Mil.[/attachment]
I'd be delighted if it was that capable, for the £250idh mn budget. I'd be disappointed with the low number of calm and the lack of Merlin capable hangar, but relieved overall if it were that well kitted. I just can't see it, I think it be less capable than you have described, sadly.
Umm, I do not think that much will come with £250M average. It is only a quarter of a T26's average cost.
I bet it will be,
- Baseline: Artisan, 12 CAMM, CMS-1, a 57mm or 76mm gun (simple version = very cheap), 2x 30mm guns, a CIWS, chaff/flare launchers and a Wildcat.
- Optionally: Sea Sensor ship torpedo defense system and 8x Harpoon will be there (shown in the photo), while I doubt Mk.41 will be there in RN version (have no idea how to use it).
- Hopefully: Even not seen in the photo is hull mounted sonar.
- I do not want a 114 mm gun, which is man-power consuming, no future, and surely be costing more for maintenance in near future.
Not well equipped, I agree. But because it costs only a quarter of T26, I think it is OK. Only thing I hope is to "bias" the equipment = to make 2 or 3 of the 5 hull almost fully armed with options, while another 3 or 2 can be less armed (say, even without CAMM).
IMHO however the biggest weakness with this design is that unlike Arrowhead (either variant 120 or 140) it lacks a Merlin capable hanger, forcing us to rely totally on an already too small Wildcat pool.
Lack of Merlin capable hangar is sad but not critical because there is anyway too small Merlin pool. On the other hand, Wildcat pool is larger (if T26s are to carry Merlin), so there will be no big problem here, I guess?
A ship with a cost only a quarter of a T26's average cost. We shall not forget this fact.
If more money came, we can add CAMM on the Mk.41 VLS location to make it 24 missiles in total, add a S2050TR hull sonar, or add a very simple hull sonar and a CAPTAS-2.
It will be a depressing long time before we find out
I do wish the MoD were not so secretive/sensitive to criticism. Only one of the three bidders has even acknowledged their success in getting design contracts. Sigh.
Pongoglo wrote: Also at 3,600 FLD in terms of survivability it is a tad too small
Pretty sure that's light displacement.
Also, that's the size the RN is asking for i.e. around 120m/4k tons.
Pongoglo wrote: the biggest weakness with this design is that unlike Arrowhead (either variant 120 or 140) it lacks a Merlin capable hanger, forcing us to rely totally on an already too small Wildcat pool. Also at 3,600 FLD in terms of survivability it is a tad too small, in fact not much larger than a Type 21. Critically however it packs too few CAMM, barely enough to be effective in self defence let alone for the consort escort role.
Won't go to the missile count as there must be hundreds of entries by now. While I agree that we should build for flexibility (Merlin & ASW taskings... anyone; even if only in the future), I can't quite see how the Wildcat pool is too small
- ASuW provision for T-45s
- same for the (first 5) T-31s
- a few to be the "ready" copter to fish out aircrew should a take-off or a landing go awry
- even the RM/SF "light attack provision" though not official seems to be 4 airframes
Will that (summed up) stretch the numbers?
bobp
Postby bobp » 14 Dec 2018, 19:36
Is this the export version of the T31. I see it has been designated T31e.
Postby Caribbean » 14 Dec 2018, 23:20
That mast is interesting - is it intended to mount flat-panel radar?
Ron5 wrote:
It has the same length, width, similar draught, to ANZAC frigate which is said to be 3600t Full Load.
Ron5 wrote: Only one of the three bidders has even acknowledged their success in getting design contracts. Sigh
What do you read into that behaviour?
"BAE Systems, Babcock and Atlas Elektronik UK will now each compete to design and manufacture the new warships. The Type 31e program sees for the delivery of five frigates at a cost of $1.5 billion. Stuart Andrew, Minister for Defence Procurement, told media that it was the first frigate competition the UK had run "in a generation". "One of these designs will go on to bolster our future fleet with five new ships, creating UK jobs and ensuring our Royal Navy maintains a truly global presence in an increasingly uncertain world," he said. The Type 31e frigates will be sitting between the high-end capability delivered by the Type 26 and Type 45, and the constabulary-oriented outputs to be delivered by the five planned River-class Batch 2 OPVs and will cover maritime security, maritime counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, escort duties, and naval fire support missions. The MoD expects to announce a preferred bidder by the end of next year "
If I was the MoD I would add one more to the list, for its efficacy (over NGFS alone):
"Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA) system can be deployed on the US Navy's MQ-8C Fire Scout and is designed to help detect and localize minefields and obstacles when flown over a beach or other coastal landing area. COBRA uses a fast-scanning LIDAR laser, 3D imaging camera, and target recognition algorithms. Data collected by COBRA an be sent to an amphibious landing force through the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Assault Breaching System (JABS), which could either direct a JDAM air assault on the beach to clear mines or could feed the location of mines to the precision navigation and lane marking systems on the amphibious vehicles coming ashore."
- why bother with clearing when you can do breaching so much more quickly?
jimthelad
Postby jimthelad » 15 Dec 2018, 09:49
Didnt work on DDay or Inchon. Over 1000 tonnes of ordinance landed in 30 minutes in the prep of both beaches and most of the mines remained.
Users browsing this forum: Poiuytrewq, rightroyal and 16 guests

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Join Now to View Premium Content
GradeSaver provides access to 1549 study guide PDFs and quizzes, 10601 literature essays, 2667 sample college application essays, 583 lesson plans, and ad-free surfing in this premium content, "Members Only" section of the site! Membership includes a 10% discount on all editing orders.
HomeCollege Application EssaysUndergraduate College Application EssaysChamplain CollegeMy Journey to Medicine
Champlain College
My Journey to Medicine Anonymous
What are the factors that inspired your journey to medical school?
My stomach started itching uncontrollably when I was ten years old and in the middle of Mr. John's fourth-grade class. I remember asking myself whether I had been bitten by a bug. The itching became unbearable and I sought permission from Mr. John to go to the nurse's office. The nurse examined me and immediately called my mother who took me to several healthcare facilities. Most of the doctors could not figure out my condition until I met a dermatologist. The dermatologist diagnosed me with an allergy. She gave me medication that relieved my condition almost immediately. It was like a miracle. To date, I have no idea what was the cause of such kind of an allergy. However, I am appreciative of that condition because it introduced me to a physician who inspired and cultivated my interest in medicine.
Since then, my interest in studying medicine continued to increase by the day. I developed an interest in math and science because I believed they would play a big role in my life. I continued receiving awards until when I completed elementary school. I proceeded to high school where I also did quite well. In addition to my studies, I started playing hardball and football. Through sports, I learned skills such as leadership,...
Champlain College Application Essays
Through A Camper's Eyes
My Journey to Medicine


What we do – Death Ed.
1) Create spaces uniting the medical community, volunteers, faith communities, diverse academic and lay institutions, and citizens in discussions about death, dying and mourning.
2) Create a network where people can explore these topics in an unprejudiced environment.
The Institute for Palliative Care (PUC) has been developing better ways to educate healthcare professionals and create new tools for understanding and creating quality end-of-life care since 2013. Starting in 2018, PUC is expanding itself into the realm of public health through the Death Ed project.
This project opens up spaces where people can deliberate on moral and ethical perceptions of death, and take transformative action in their own lives and in the lives of others. It is a cross-border, cultural and educational initiative which intends to break stigma around death and dying and create light-hearted ways to explore what the end-of-life can mean and entail.
Death Ed's program is simple. We organise cafés where people can talk about death, host film screenings and lecturers who deliberate on death and dying, and collect interviews with people who we think have something interesting to say about death, illness, or care. We will collect these thoughts into a storybook about death, which you can access here, in our blog.
Our program is changing and growing every day. Check our calendar to see what's new, and if you have a suggestion, please contact our outreach coordinator.


Plywood artwork perfect as a gift for Christmas. Prints are based on my original stencil art. Designs would look great in a country home or a city pad to bring a bit of the wild inside!
Prints are really easy to hang using two triangular hooks attached to reverse.
Hand sanded to give a lovely smooth finish, small Stencilize tag on the back.