Science Nepotism Racket …Small, Closed Group Of Climate Scientists Caught Awarding Themselves Prizes And Money!

The latest in science scandals: a small, closed group of self-glorifying and like-minded climate scientists have been caught awarding each other prizes and money in a clear abuse of ethics.

If there were a prize for science nepotism, this year it would have to go to: RealClimate, namely the following scientists:

Stefan Rahmstorf
Katharine Hayhoe
Richard C. J. Somerville
Kevin E. Trenberth
Michael E. Mann
Gavin A. Schmidt

Science nepotism comes as no surprise to climate science critics and skeptics, who have long known that an exclusive inner circle of like-minded, wagon-circling climate scientists have been giving each other prizes and awards to pump their already inflated egos.

But thanks to Twitter member Schub, a glaring example of groupthink nepotism in action is presented here, The AGU Climate Science Communication Award:

Racket: giving each other prizes, and money

As Schub points out, many of the the Climate Communication Prize Committee members themselves are the winners of the “Climate Communication Prize”. In other words these scientists are giving each other prizes year after year.

Included with the Climate Communication Prize is a “monetary prize”, and so the scam is extra profitable for the cozy group of scientists.

Imagine a contest where one of the judges wins almost every year. It needs to be investigated if there’s not some sort of racket going on.

We’re dealing with some very serious ethical questions and possible abuse here.

2018 winner: RealClimate’s Michael E. Mann

This year (2018) the Science Communication Prize prize went to Michael E. Mann, which shows that you don’t necessarily need to be on the prize committee to win it. It’s enough to be a regular at Gavin Schmidt’s Real Climate.

Same structures used for peer review

The same modus operandi is often seen for publishing in academic climate science journals. The same small group of like-minded alarmist scientists have been accused of acting as gatekeepers to keep out dissenting science, while waving through papers the papers from their friends. This is why in climate science the process of quality control for publishing scientific results has come to be known as “pal-review”.

“Communication” prize winners blocking other opinions!

This small group of self-glorifying scientists is really quite exclusive, so much so that they block all dissenters at Twitter. For example as PhD scientist Ned Nikolov recently experienced:

Clearly within the nepotistic circle of the RealClimate scientists, the “climate communication prize” ironically goes to people who shut down communication, and not, for goodness sake, to those who would promote it through a desire to engage in open debate, such Ned Nikolov.

Grave ethical questions

And because the the prize involves the award of money, serious ethical violations, if not criminal, could be at play here. Again, this is clearly a case of the judges on a panel declaring themselves the winners, accepting the prize, and grabbing the cash.

28 responses to “Science Nepotism Racket …Small, Closed Group Of Climate Scientists Caught Awarding Themselves Prizes And Money!”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    No it is not remarkable.
    Rather it is standard practice for corrupt climate “scientists”.

  2. Yonason

    They lie, and then give themselves rewards for who did it best.

    Junk science exposed.
    https://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

    But, to be fair, they do want to award special “prizes” to skeptics, as well.
    https://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/climate-change-deniers-should-be-prison

  3. Yonason

    “2018 winner: RealClimate’s Michael E. Mann”

    Give him a break. He needed the money.
    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/climategate/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

    Should have been awarded directly to his lawyers, since they are the only ones he insists that skeptics talk to, and they’re the ones who’ll probably end up with it in any case.

    A “Climate Communication Prize” for threatening opponents with “I’ll see you in court.” What a sick joke!

    Here’s a little backgrounder on the mann.
    http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/michael-e-mann/

    1. Rosco

      You can’t believe anything John O’Sullivan writes – “Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.”

      Hmm – O’Sullivan wrote that nonsense in 2014 – he thinks he is a legal mastermind but he is basically just an egotistical joke.

      Here it is 2018 and the case that O’Sullivan has repeatedly said has collapsed simply continues.

      The real loser in this legal mess is Tim Ball – the University will pay Mann’s bills but Ball has had years of stress and expense over this. People like O’Sullivan urged him to fight but they have no consequences.

      I am yet to see any resolution to the legal mess one way or the other.

      1. Yonason

        Rosco: “I am yet to see any resolution to the legal mess one way or the other.”

        Thanks, Rosco. Going back over it, I can’t seem to find anything definite, either, although this is recent and interesting…
        http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/13/alert-canadian-judge-dismissed-all-charges-in-lawsuit-against-skeptical-climatologist-dr-tim-ball/

        In it is posted a lengthy communication from Dr. Ball giving details about everything else, but neglecting to directly address the dismissal issue with a clear “yes” or “no,” and ending with the cryptic last sentence. “Now we prepare to bring the Mann case back to the court.”

        So, does that implies that Dr. Ball has the initiative? Tantalizing, but a bit short on detail.

        While Ball doesn’t dispute the dismissal claim, he doesn’t affirm it, except to imply that he may now be the one on the offensive, which would seem to only be true if Mann’s suit was dismissed and Ball wanted some comeuppance, …maybe. Whatever. Clear as mud.

        Anyway, thanks again.

  4. Steve

    Why am I not surprised?
    And I have on several occasions on NTZ asked SebH ‘who is paying you’
    Anyway the Sun is poking its head up and I am heading down to the beach.

    1. Yonason

      Instead of asking “who is paying you?”, it occurs to me that perhaps a better question would be “who is FOOL enough to?” (o;

  5. Sean

    Don’t be so hard on this merry little band of experts, they are so skillful at their trade they got Trump elected.

    1. Yonason

      Oh yes. That is a definite plus, Sean!

  6. spike55

    Just read on TH’s site that President Trump has named Will Happer as “Emerging Technology” aka “science” advisor. 🙂

    Watch the far-left AGW alarmista heads pop all over the world 🙂 🙂

  7. Duster

    It really is not limited to any particular science. The only key criterion is the amount of grant money available, and that is determined by 1) private interests (look at pharmacological research), medical research (cancer for example) and 2) governmental interests. You can track the deplorable state of affairs on the retraction watch site.

    Under the second list are any potential topics that can be employed to allow a “policy maker” to look like they are doing a “vital job.” Climate science is particularly attractive because the concpet of a human evoked climate catastrophe appeals to a great many tropes in western and even global cultural schemes. If an environmental problem for example is “caused” bu humans, then humans can actually do something about it. In this way it is even more pwoerful than “original sin” was for the church. Even churches can climb on this climate bandwagon. Energy is another issue “ore body.” You can mine it for new energy sources or generating systems to “wean the public of ‘non-renewable'” energy, That ties neatly into climate. On the other hand, if you try to tell people that sun is getting cooler and will be that way for years, cutting harvests, causing chaotic patterns of heat, cold, downpours, and droughts – and there is not a thing the policy makers can do except tell the public to “prepare for hard times” – that is when regimes change. Read the history of China and note the pattern of correltaion between dynasty changes and weather problems.

  8. Yonason

    I wouldn’t expect bringing them to justice any time soon, at least not as long as corrupt Democrat politicians are able to shield them, with the help of their media flunkies.

  9. SebastianH

    1) Be a real skeptic and investigate the timeline of the events. Who was on the commitee when a certain scientist won? How about doing that before broadcasting serious accusation of commiting a crime? You often accuse the media of doing something wrong, but you are just a sensationalist who writes stuff without checking the validity of his claims.

    2) Who wouldn’t block someone like Nikolov?

    1. spike55

      “Who wouldn’t block someone like Nikolov?”

      You mean block someone who would absolutely TROUNCE them in a debate.

      Its COWARDICE… just your thing. !!

      Let’s prove it

      Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      Watch seb RUN AWAY with evasion and distraction, yet again

  10. Yonason

    Oh, look. Australia has it’s own version of the scam.
    https://honors.agu.org/medals-awards/climate-communication-prize/

    Be a climate propagandist, be rewarded by other propagandists. And look who won!
    https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2011/08/eureka-moment-leading-climate-change-communicator

    (Has anyone seen my motion sickness bag?)

    And what more deserving fellow could there be, folks?
    https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/john-cook-will-receive-lots-of-money.html?m=1

    See also here
    https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
    “John Cook … is a co-author of a (totally bogus) study about the “97% consensus” that was enthusiastically linked to by climate activists across the world, including the president of the United States of America. Barack Obama had over 30 million Twitter followers which made Cook very happy (these days, Obama has over 60 million). Doesn’t anyone feel uncomfortable when the most powerful politician in the world builds his multi-trillion policies on research by an individual who has demonstrably exploited identity theft and fabrication of sociological data in closely related, if not the same, “research” and “experiments”?”

    It’s “scientists” like these that SebastianH wants us to trust. Well, I don’t trust them, or him and his evidence free slanders of anyone who refuses to drink the Kook Aid.

  11. Yonason

    A little more (OK, a lot) on one of SebH’s “real” skeptics (the one in Oz who was awarded a nepotism award for propaganda).
    https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

    Lubos Motl shows us 104 things Cook gets wrong, but don’t worry, if SebH said you can trust him, then …. good luck with that. lolol.

  12. scott allen

    Sebastian you built a good straw man in your post.

    To your first point a link was provided so that the reader could go to the site (climate communication) as see for oneself, who was on the committee and who and when they won the prize (a screen shot was provided of the last 8 winners) to compare with the list of who was on the award committee.
    I reread the post and saw no claim of these people committing crimes (possible crimes maybe that needed investigation). Unethical behavior at the least.
    As far as checking the validity of the claim, the two screen shots and the link to the website should be enough evidence (should you be willing to do a small amount of fact checking on your own) of the validity of charge would be confirmed.
    The fact that you still post on this site is proof that the sceptic are more open minded when it come to discussion then you and Katharine Hayhoe.

    1. SebastianH

      To your first point a link was provided so that the reader could go to the site (climate communication) as see for oneself, who was on the committee and who and when they won the prize (a screen shot was provided of the last 8 winners) to compare with the list of who was on the award committee.

      Do you think the comittee consisted of the same people in every year since 2011?

      I reread the post and saw no claim of these people committing crimes (possible crimes maybe that needed investigation). Unethical behavior at the least.

      “And because the the prize involves the award of money, serious ethical violations, if not criminal, could be at play here.”

      As far as checking the validity of the claim, the two screen shots and the link to the website should be enough evidence (should you be willing to do a small amount of fact checking on your own) of the validity of charge would be confirmed.

      Nope. A bit of research will reveal to you that none of the recipients were on the comittee when they received an award. And it is not unusual to ask a former recipient to join such a comittee.

      The fact that you still post on this site is proof that the sceptic are more open minded when it come to discussion then you and Katharine Hayhoe.

      Allowing other opinions on your blog comments is not a sign of being open minded. You just need to watch the replies my comments regularly get. And why this “the[a]n you” part? Where am I blocking anyone? From time to time I try to ignore spike55 and the likes, but it is difficult to ignore someone who is so obviously wrong and spreads his nonsense unrefuted 😉

      1. spike55

        Poor cry-baby seb

        When you can produce some RATIONAL EVIDENCED, SCIENTIFICALLY SUBSANTIATED reply, then maybe people will treat you less like the mindless AGW troll that you.

        You have been PROVABLY WRONG on basically every piece of garbage you rant about.

        It is your childish arrogance and even more child-like ignorance that warrants the replies you get.

        This prize-giving is NEPOTISM, pure and simple.

        And I suspect you know that very well, and are just LYING through your teeth in evasive defence, as always.

        As you say, my comments go UNREFUTED..

        because YOU KNOW YOU CAN’T.

        Prove me wrong, refute the FACT there is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supporting the CO2 warming conjecture.

        We are all STILL WAITING, little troll.

        1. SebastianH

          Produce such a reply first, you big “cry-baby” with your childish replies projecting your own immaturity on others. Then we can talk. Until then you are just part of the local troll mob who tries to annoy other commenters into oblivion.

          Maybe you’ll stop being so annoying when I tell you that I only comment because of you? I really enjoy your replies and desparetely hope you reply to everyone of my comments 😉

          Prove me wrong, refute the FACT there is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supporting the CO2 warming conjecture.

          To a math illiterate? How should I do that? You’ve shown your level of understanding plenty of times now. You don’t want it to be true and thus you don’t accept anything that points to that conclusion. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more CO2 increases the GHE. That’s a fact. Of course, not in your version of reality.

          1. spike55

            “How should I do that? “

            Poor seb, your DESPERATION at your totally inadequacy to produce one bit of real evidence, just standard anti-science AGW mantra, is quite clownish.

            There you go running around like a headless chook whenever asked to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE

            Your child-like attempts at EVASION are getting more and more hilarious by the day.

            ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE seb

            NO FACTS seb.. just FANTASY.

            I would love to see you fantasy maths and physics, seb, its always been hilariously naïve in the past. Sort of below average junior high level.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            cue… more headless chook evasion from the most ineffective AGW troll on the web.

      2. Scott Allen

        Sebby if you had actually had passed a high school course in reading the english language you would have read the link (provided in the story to the conflict of interest policy for awarding of the prize. I will provide it too you.

        https://honors.agu.org/agu-conflict-of-interest-policy/

        So most of the people who won the award are also permanent members/contributers to REALCLIMATE blog, which they share proceeds and grant monies earned from that site (along with many other shared work products and monies). All of which are expressly prohibited per AGU.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/

        So even Stevie Wonder could see the conflict of interest in the granting of the award

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #327 | Watts Up With That?
  14. Corrupt Climate Clique Award Themselves Prizes And Money! | PSI Intl

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  15. beththeserf

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

    Ffft, what a travesty, ‘promoting a message.’… ‘Science based
    values?’ Would’ve thought Feynman covered these with ‘First do
    not fool yrself,’ and importance of a testable/falsifiable
    theory, ‘No matter how beautiful yr theory and /or who ascribes
    to it, if it doesn’t match observations it’s wro-ong.’

  16. Scientific Incest; The Inbreeding of Climate Alarmists – CO2 is Life

    […] Science Nepotism Racket …Small, Closed Group Of Climate Scientists Caught Awarding Themselves Prizes And Money! (Source) […]

  17. Brian G Valentine

    I really can’t bear to read anything from the people listed as “prizewinners” – it is too painful

    Hayhoe adds an extra religious dimension to her inanity and the result is ineffable

  18. Jerry Brown’s plan for ‘negative’ CO2 emissions is based on ‘science fiction’ All of these proposals remains “magical thinking” at this point – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Image: Corrupt Climate Clique Award Themselves Prizes And Money! […]

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close