Shakespeare’s monster, Caliban, dreamed of clouds opening to point out riches able to drop upon him.
Climate scientists don’t should dream about it – honors, awards and money prizes rain down in torrents.
Other scientists attempt to help humanity, however while local weather scientists might child themselves and others that they share that aim, their sensible intent is to boost power costs and hurt nations’ power efficiency by way of renewables.
While they posture as planet-savers in white coats, a few of them pocket awards of half-million dollars, even one million, and notch up more career-enhancing medals than a North Korean common.
A couple of local prizes are the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science ($A250,000) for ex-President of the Australian Academy of Science Kurt Lambeck last October, and in January UNSW Professor John Church pocketed an $A320,000 half-share of the 400,000 Euro BBVA Prize.
Both have finished science work of worldwide repute and their reputations of their specialist fields are deservedly excessive. Nevertheless, Lambeck is a long-standing smiter of “deniers” and Church propagates by way of the ABC such lurid situations as this:
“… if the world’s carbon emissions continue unmitigated, a threshold will be crossed which will lead to the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet. This, with melts from glaciers and ice in Antarctica, will lead to a sea level rise in the order of seven meters.”
There are lots of mickey-mouse awards in Australia for climate science and I’d be amazed if any post-doc local weather individual hasn’t gained a gong.
It’s notably obnoxious that even schoolkids are incited to compete for climate awards by regurgitating local weather doomism.
On the global stage, my tally of warmist cash awards to US climate doomsayer Paul R. Ehrlich is about $US2.6 million. For the local weather scare’s originator, ex-NASA scaremonger James Hansen, about $US2 million.
These rewards are usually not for getting anything proper – their doom deadlines have confirmed to be utter tripe.
For those who’re a climate scientist you possibly can blot your copybook horribly however the prizes maintain coming. You won’t have heard of California’s Dr. Peter H. Gleick, but learn on.
He’s been creaming it with prizes recently, $US100,000 from Israel’s Boris Mints Institute in April for the “Strategic Global Challenge of Fresh Water” and the Carl Sagan Prize last yr for “researchers who have contributed mightily to the public understanding and appreciation of science.”
He’s scored more than 30 honors and awards all-up together with a $US500,000 MacArthur “Genius” award for 2003.
Nice work, Gleick, however you’re the identical man who in 2012 raided e-documents from the minor skeptic thinktank Heartland Institute.
Its CEO Joe Bast stated that Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his id by making a pretend e mail handle and proceeded to make use of that pretend e mail tackle to steal paperwork that have been prepared for a board meeting.
He learn these documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, after which cast a two-page memo.” Gleick denied forging the doc.
The forgery, among other fabrications, showed Heartland receiving $US200,000 from the Koch brothers’ Foundation when the truth was a mere $US25,000, and even that sum was truly for a health-care research.
Gleick confessed he dedicated the thefts because he believed Heartland was stopping a “rational debate” on international warming, regardless that he had refused a Heartland invitation to a fee-paid after-dinner debate shortly earlier than he stole the paperwork. Gleick stated:
“…in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received … materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues…My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists .., and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless, I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.”
As for Heartland being “well-funded”, its finances that yr was $US4.4 million, of which, perhaps a 3rd went on climate work, funding one convention, a weblog, and half a dozen local weather studies.
That compares with, say, WWF’s current price range in the US of $US230 million (Heartland’s, $US6 million), or the Australian Conservation Foundation’s current $A14 million.
The ironies concerning the much-honored Gleick didn’t stop there.
In 2011 he was founding chairman of a science ethics committee of the 60,000-member American Geophysical Union (AGU) and he immediately resigned membership when outed by Heartland.
AGU president Mike McPhaden issued a toe-curling statement. The worldwide group of earth and area scientists, he stated, had:
…witnessed the surprising fall from grace of an completed AGU member who betrayed the rules of scientific integrity.
In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the general public’s belief in scientists, and produced recent gasoline for the unproductive and seemingly infinite ideological firestorm surrounding the truth of the Earth’s changing local weather.
His transgression … is a tragedy that requires us to stop and mirror on what we value as scientists and how we need to be perceived by the public… It is the duty of each scientist to safeguard that belief.
This has been one of the making an attempt occasions for me as president of AGU… How totally different it is than celebrating the news of a brand new discovery … These uncommon and sad events remind us that our actions reverberate by means of a worldwide scientific group and that we should stay dedicated as individuals and as a society to the very best requirements of scientific integrity within the pursuit of our objectives.
Inside three weeks of Gleick’s confession, I child you not, water tech company Xylem awarded him a “Water Hero” award.
Thereafter he gained a Lifetime Achievement Award from a Silicon Valley Water Group (2013), was honored by the Guardian newspaper in 2014 as a world top-ten water guru, and in 2015 he acquired the Leadership and Achievement Award from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents.
The identical yr he acquired an Environmental Schooling Award from the Bay Institute. The main Carl Sagan and BMI Prizes followed in 2018 and 2019. Transgressions by warmist scientists are soon forgotten and readily forgiven.
Whereas the Gleick case is one among horror, different climate-award materials goes into the comedy file. The Climategate emails uncovered two of the local weather world’s prime “experts”, Phil Jones and Mike Mann, horse-trading for brand spanking new honors for themselves, by way of reciprocal suggestions.
Jones, at the University of East Anglia Climate Analysis Unit, ran the HADCRUT4 international temperature knowledge collection underpinning the IPCC warming scare.
He managed to literally lose raw knowledge (failure to back-up) and hid incriminating emails topic to FOI calls for. Michael Mann authored the infamous “Hockey Stick” paper used as a emblem by the 2001 IPCC report as proving current warming is CO2-caused and unprecedented up to now 1000 years.
Mann’s paper also managed to ‘disappear’ the Medieval warming and the 300-year Little Ice Age to 1850.
Mann’s skeptic foe, Mark Steyn, revealed a whole 320-page guide, A Disgrace to the Career comprising rejections of Mann’s findings, not by skeptics however by orthodox climate scientists. 
Listed here are two climateers at work. (emails from four/12/2007). Mann to Jones:
By the best way, I am still wanting into nominating you for an American Geophysical Union award; I’ve been advised that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the proper one. Let me know if in case you have any specific choices you’d like me to research…
Jones selects his own award:
As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting certainly one of their Fellowships can be effective.
Mann then lets Jones know that he (Mann) himself happens to lack a Fellowship of the AGU and adds in brackets, “(Wink)” to encourage Jones to do something about it. (pp105, 118).
The matey honors system at the AGU continues to today.
The choice committee last yr for the AGU’s annual $US25,000 Climate Communication Prize (gained by Mann final yr) included outstanding warmists Katharine Hayhoe, Stefan Rahmstorf, Richard Somerville, and Kevin Trenberth.
Recipients included the same Katharine Hayhoe (2014), Stefan Rahmstorf (2017), Richard Somerville (2015) and Kevin Trenberth (2013). A network clearly operates.
Winners Gavin Schmidt (2011), Mann (2018) and Rahmstorf (2017) collectively contribute to their realclimate.org blog. The AGU seems aware of incestuousness and has these uncommon tips for the prize-winner choice:
Nominators and potential nominees…are urged to restrain from contacting members of their respective award choice committee while the AGU nomination and choice course of is in progress…Persistent or frequent contact on subjects associated to the award nomination might probably be seen as an try and affect…
In the massive international league, local weather bureaucrat Christiana “Tinkerbell” Figueres, who oversaw the 2015 Paris pseudo-agreement from her UN perch, staggers underneath the load of honors.
They embrace the Shackleton Medal, the Grand Medal of the City of Paris, the Legion of Honor, the German Great Cross of Benefit, the Guardian Medal of Honor, the 2015 Hero of El Pais award, the International Thinker Award, Four Freedoms Award and the Photo voltaic Champion Award from the woke people of California.
Fairly a haul considering she still can’t distinguish between weather and climate. She achieved perpetual quotability with this ripper from February 2015, in an official UN press launch:
This is the primary time within the historical past of mankind that we’re setting ourselves the duty of deliberately, within an outlined time period, to vary the financial improvement mannequin that has been reigning for at the very least 150 years, because the Industrial Revolution.
A Champagne socialist from the top finish of town in Costa Rica, she views a halt to progress within the West with equanimity:
“Industrialised countries must stop growing — that’s fine. But developing countries must continue to grow their economy in order to bring their people out of poverty…”
Paul R. Ehrlich, now 87, has been showered with profitable prizes. He has spent the past 50 years making horrific predictions about planetary and human doom.
None of these have remotely been fulfilled, similar to his 1969 prediction of disastrous international famine by 1975, requiring obligatory birth control by way of sterilizing agents in meals and water.
As a close-to-my-home example, he gave an tackle at Perth’s Murdoch University on October 2, 1985, concluding that until Western nations went into wealth-sharing with the Third World, there can be lethal penalties for civilization such that “the handful of human beings that survive the resultant collapse may, if they are lucky, be able to eke out a livelihood hunting and gathering.”
He warned that by 2000, we might have a billion individuals perishing from hunger, with those famines leading in turn to a thermonuclear warfare that “could extinguish civilization.”
He continues to today to be sought out by the media for yet more doomsday mayhem.
Learn full submit at Quadrant Online