Announcing the inaugural Climate Prat of the Year Award.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but notables of the green persuasion seem to win a lot of awards from various green organisations. They give prizes to each other, occasionally with a nice bit of money as well; sometimes with a very very nice bit of money. You may also have noticed, they never actually award us realists any prizes. As I thinks upon it, no one awards us any prizes. Actually, that’s not quite true, the skeptic blogs made a complete clean sweep of all the science Bloggies this year, so I suppose that’ll have to act as some small measure of consolation.

However, getting back on point and rising above that rather venial pettiness on their part, I thought it would be a nice ecumenical gesture, if us realists awarded them a prize.

Okay, okay, stop right there, I haven’t lost my mind. Seriously. I mean it. Just gimme a moment to explain before you do anything rash. The way to look at it, and you’ll have to bear with me just a teensy weensy little bit on this one, is as an olive branch thrown into that desolate wasteland between that great divide in the climate wars. Think Christmas 1914, the trenches of WWI and offering the Germans a game of football. For goodness sake, let’s do a little bit of human kindness here and anyway, we can always get back to shooting at them afterwards.

I realise this might be a slightly divisive initiative but I honestly think we should respond to similar moves from the other side. Blessed are the peacemakers and Pointy the Peacemaker does have rather a neat kinda ring to it. … hears the faint cheering of crowds, a slight halo starting to appear and a guarded phone call from Norway out of the blue … Shakes head, naw, forgedda about it, ’tain’t never gonna happen Pointy. Anyway. Sure, there are those hard-hearted individuals amongst us, who doubt that the various alarmists’ attempts to engage with us, and win our hearts and minds, might not be that sincere.

We should be a bit more open. One or two of these approaches might possibly have been sincere, with some of them even learning not to compare us to holocaust deniers, or at least not to our faces, which has to be looked upon as a positive sign of progress on their part. I’ll admit that mostly, these attempts have been short-lived, with them running back inside their bunker at the end of the brief exercise, proclaiming they’ve tried to engage with us mentally ill deniers and all to no effect. Of course, sometimes they run back inside because they’ve just managed to cock it up themselves or failing that, one of us has finally ran out of patience with them and thoughtfully obliged them with a rolled up copy of their own peace plan, forcefully inserted into the appropriate orifice. With a history like that, it’s no wonder their peace plans tend to be quite terse documents nowadays.

There are even some deeply un-christian elements on our side, who think of them as, how shall I put this tactfully, rodents repositioning themselves off an ocean-going vessel that’s involuntarily transitioning from the surface down to the seabed. In an effort to reassure my fellow resistance fighters, and keep what’s left of my reputation as a hawkish maquisard of the realist side, I can only say I’m determined that my efforts at rapprochement will be equally as sincere as the alarmist’s.

Picking an appropriate name for the award was the first problem to be wrestled with, not because I couldn’t come up with one, but because so many strong contenders suggested themselves. The Gore’s Gob award, the Gleick Self-inflicted Wound award, the Laden Keep Digging award, the Blanchett Buy Beachfront award, the Muller Mendacity award and so on. In the end, I went for the Climate Prat award, because it’s a non-specific catch-all name, describing them all to a tee. If you’re unfamiliar with the term prat, you can find a rather scholarly exposition on it here.

Obviously, every competition has to have rules and this one will be no different. As a further concession to them, I’ll run it strictly along the lines of climate science. I know, I know, we’re not supposed to do post-normal science but remember, this is a gesture of reconciliation, which might even result in a game of football around Christmas time, which is when the prize will be awarded. Need I point out that despite what a number of people may think, football is still a contact sport? I’m certainly not advocating anything here in terms of an overly physical style of play, but I would bring to your notice that in the unlikely event that such a game were to come about, I would try my hand at a bit of refereeing. The ref being on our side for once, would be a novel experience.

Chris “Chopper” Monckton cutting the legs out from under George “Twinkle Toes” Monbiot would be a sight to see though. Chopper’s got a slide tackle that would put the great Nobby Stiles to shame. If Nobby means nothing to you, think Mean Joe Green of the Steelers or studs up Ty Cobb sliding in on third.

You can nominate up to five people by simply adding their names as a comment on this post. The field is wide open in terms of potential nominees but it has to be a person and in recognition of their actions or utterances this calendar year. It can be pretty much anyone; a politician, scientist, celebrity, blogger or even a journalist. If they’re slightly obscure, it’d probably be best if you included a few words or a link demonstrating why we shouldn’t overlook them. I will understand of course, if the best you can manage is just their name, hissed between gritted teeth. Think calm, think calm and unclench those fists.

I’ll collect your nominations as a result of this piece and after there’s enough, add a polling thingy to the blog, containing the first round draft picks. There’ll be five names, which you can then vote for using the poll form. You can vote for more than one person but only one lot of voting please. My developer, Harry, assures me that the voting mechanism is bullet proof, so don’t even think of voting early and often.

I’m starting to worry about Harry. He’s a bit frazzled and although the details are hazy, I think he had a bad experience working at some university and is on the come back trail from it. I like the guy, we share an interest in photography, but the appearance of a password protected README file in the development folder is a cause of some concern. I can’t understand that, since I’ve already told him who the winner is going to be. That’s how post-normal voting works.

The voting will run from now to Christmas, which gives us lots of flexibility, allowing for the sudden appearance of an exceptionally gifted prat in the coming months. Feel free to subsequently nominate anyone whom you think has demonstrated a superior capacity to be a prat and if I agree, I’ll swap out the one with the lowest number of votes.

The big question is, does it come with a bit of money? Obviously, it’d be a lot more desirable if it did. In the best traditions of climate science, any money involved here sure as hell isn’t going to be my own, so I’ve been looking for funding. Having decided on an appropriate prize amount, the first stop was that shadowy organisation known only as Skeptic Central. Pleading poverty, they referred me on to Big Oil, who referred me on to Big Coal, who referred me on to Big Meerkat, who referred me on to Big Pharma, who then referred me to Big MaxGentleman, which I couldn’t quite understand. In a rare moment of inspiration, or should I say desperation, I got in touch with the Koch brothers.

Slightly better news with the latter, I’m happy to say. A terribly charming person there has promised to ring me back one day, some day, real soon about perhaps opening preliminary discussions on the slight possibility of some sort of limited type of one-off sponsorship, but it’s been a while since I’ve heard anything. They’ve been extremely slow getting back to me. I’m getting a bit worried actually. I’d chase them up but I don’t want to seem too pushy, if you know what I mean.

Quite honestly, I’ve had a terrible time with the sponsorship and am now on the brink of giving up on it entirely. For goodness sake, I know we don’t have much in the way of money, but don’t tell me that we can’t at least scrape together a lousy 6.66 Confederate Dollars. Maybe if I go for 6.66 Euros, I’ll have more success. Then again, the Euro might not be with us by Christmas. Never mind. I’ll keep plugging away but it doesn’t look too good, I’m afraid. If all else fails, I do have a few supermarket coupons I’m unlikely to use. They’re for discounts on things like Spinach, which I can’t abide anyway. They’ve been in my wallet for ages. I suppose I should check up on the expiry dates.

The next thing to think about is the design of the actual prize. Given the bleak outlook on the prize money, it would be prudent to restrict ourselves to something quite modest, like a fancy certificate with lots of copperplate writing. Between us, can knock together a few suitably glowing words for it. Alternatively, we could go for some sort of custom logo.

As the voting progresses, you’ll be able to see the numbers but please remember it’s just raw data. Before any final decision can be made, certain adjustments and homogenisations must be done, to account for things like the Blog Heat Island effect. I won’t be giving you any further details in this area because you might just use the information to find fault with the methodology.

Okay folks. I think I’ve covered all the bases, so the floor is now open for nominations. Gimme those names. The quicker I get them, the sooner the voting can begin and may the best prat win.


Update 1: Nominations closed.

We’ve more than enough first round nominations to start the process. Apart from a few of the usual suspects, no big front-runner is apparent, so rather than arbitrarily pick five miscreants out, I’ve put up all nominations for an elimination round of voting, which should cull it down to the desired number. The voting form is located at the top of the right hand column, on every page.

Update 2: Finalists selected.

The nominees have been now culled down to six contenders. See Time to cull the prat nominations.

Update 3: Blinder Prat option exercised.

By popular request and via the blinder prat option, Bono has been replaced by Stephan Lewandowsky.

Update 4: Voting fraud detected.

The one vice I’m not partial to, is gambling. This isn’t for any ethical reason, indeed I have a few pennies invested in the gambling industry myself, but because I know too much about betting odds. Mr. House always wins in the end but I see no harm in people having the occasional flutter. However, that doesn’t preclude the odd modest wager and I’ve got one going with a friend in the Carolinas, about who’ll eventually walk off with this prestigious award. Being as his candidate was hotly in pursuit of the leader, he’s been monitoring the numbers very closely.

He told me something odd had happened to the voting over the weekend and going over the numbers, I’m forced to agree. The total votes cast, leapt from 640 to 2,211 in two days. Obviously, someone has been running an automated script, and as the three beneficiaries of this wheeze all hail from Australia, the finger of suspicion is definitely pointing in an Antipodean direction.

Yet again, so much for Harry’s wonderful “bullet-proof” voting mechanism. I’m beginning to wish I’d some bullets to test on Harry. I was quite angry over it actually. I was just working myself up to firing his ass, when he went into full on grovel mode. I’ve found out it’s virtually impossible to give someone the boot, when they’ve grabbed your ankles and are blubbering all over your shoes. It’s also extremely embarrassing. We’ve patched it up, but he knows he’s now in the Last Chance Saloon.

Yes, I know I said it’d be run along post-normal science lines, and yes, I appreciate how high feelings are running down under about what passes for a Prime Minister of Australia these days, but honestly, have you no shame? Even under post-normal rules, that’s just plain outright cheating. We have a field of world-class prats in competition and they all deserve their fair chance at glory.

Since it appears to be beyond the powers of man, and certainly Harry’s, to adjust the numbers, I’m obliged to do something radical, in order to get everyone back to the relative positions they were in, as of last Friday.

To the best of my recollection, Gleick the Gormless was in front, closely trailed by Timbo the Dimbo, HRH Gillard the Great, Hansen of Dementia-sur-mer, Oreski the Ommadawn (a knowledge of Gaelic helps with that particular word) and Bono the Bonehead coming up the rear, though as far as I’m aware, there’s never been any suggestion he’s any way that inclined. Bonehead got swapped out in favour of Lewpaper, via the Blinder Prat option.

By the simple expedient of swapping around the names, everyone should end up back in the relative position they were on Friday. This is a rather neat solution, though I say it myself, the only downside being that Dimbo is now about 150 votes behind Gormless, instead of 20, but I’m sure there are enough voters in Oz to help him carry the national standard past Gormless. At least it gives the team a defensible excuse to do some sophisticated normalisation and homogenisation of the data, before the winner is announced in December.

Right. No more naughtiness from you crowd of Ockers down under. This time, Harry’s job is on the line. Not even an Übergrovel will save him if there’s a next time.

Update 5: Blinder Prat option exercised.

By popular acclaim and via the blinder prat option, Tim Flannery, who ran out of steam, has been replaced by Michael Mann. I may yet get to write my shorest blog ever.

Related articles by Pointman:

Time to cull the prat nominations.

Climate Alarmism and The Prat Principle.

Mullering the data.

Click for a list of other articles.

83 Responses to “Announcing the inaugural Climate Prat of the Year Award.”
  1. CATastrophe says:

    This nomination is so obvious I feel a bit embarrassed putting it up but….Prof. Tim Flannery.

    “TOOTH fillings that Professor Tim Flannery wants pulled from dead people using $2 sets of pliers have a fraction of the amount of mercury contained in energy-saving street lights.

    The Climate Commissioner told the Australian Medical Association fillings should be yanked before cremation to stop mercury getting into the ocean.”

    Second nomination is PM Julia Gillard, an ardent CAGW believer. After introducing the carbon dioxide tax in July, she has the audacity to blame the states for increasing electricity costs.


  2. Petrossa says:

    Sheesh, were to begin. The list is sheer endless. Hansen is to obvious. Mann too. Does it have to be a scientist or can it be anyone?


  3. Bob TI says:

    My nomination has to be Geoffrey Lean, who to quote the Daily Telegraph:

    “Geoffrey Lean is Britain’s longest-serving environmental correspondent, having pioneered reporting on the subject almost 40 years ago.”

    The man has been writing and regurgitating the same drivel for years, has the skin of a rhino or must
    1) Never read the comments section of his posts
    2) Be so deluded that he genuinely believes what he writes
    3) Must have some other motive (apart from his pay-check) to keep on producing the same rubbish.



  4. A Lovell says:

    Bill McKibben
    Paul Ehrlich (A joint award with his wife perhaps?)
    Bono (I’m not sure of his real name!)
    Ed Begley Jr
    Michael Mann (I include him as he has such thin skin I am hoping he might sue if nominated heh.)

    Hansen and Gore are so far gone up the climate pipe that many on their own side would agree they are already honorary climate prats.


    • Paul says:

      Bono is short for Boknob. It’s an old Irish name which describes the person who has made a complete ass of himself at the same time as making millions.


  5. Blackswan says:


    This is a great idea. I agree with CATastrophe – the Flim Flam man is a prime candidate, but I have a personal favourite…….

    Professor Garry Egger of Southern Cross University Queensland Australia.

    In 2010 good old Eggers announced his world-first Personal Carbon Credit Card due for a three-year trial in 2011. Gee Prof, whatever happened to your brilliant concept announced to the world at Cancun?

    “The way the system will work is basically it will involve giving everyone … a carbon card, like a credit or debit card, and they will get carbon units on that card. Then every time they go and pay for their petrol or their power – and from the second year their food – it will not only be paid for in money but it will also come off the carbon units that they are given for free at the start of the program.

    “If they’re frugal and don’t buy a lot of petrol or power or fatty foods, then they can actually have units to spare at the end of a set time period so that they can cash those in at the bank and make money from them.

    “If they aren’t frugal and they are very wasteful and they produce a lot of carbon and consume unhealthy foods then every year they will have to buy extra units. Also over time – as we target lower carbon emissions and increasing health goals – the number of carbon units they are given will go down and therefore the price for the individual will go up to sustain that lifestyle they are not prepared to forego.”

    Something tells me the Prof was a little optimistic – but then it’s easy to be smug and righteous when you are stuffing A$390,000 taxpayer dollars in your pocket for your trouble. And he didn’t even say whether Olympic athletes would get a bigger share of credits than your average couch potato, or what happend to a family addicted to pizzas. If they run out of credits and cash at the same time do they sell one of their kids or a kidney perhaps?

    Yep, the Prof is definitely my nominee for the award, closely followed by the Flim Flam Man who told us our oceans would turn to bacteria-ridden purple slime and that Mother Gaia was on the verge of acquiring consciousness.

    Who the hell ARE these people???


    • PaulW says:

      A question for those more knowledgeable than I.

      Norfolk Island was alledged to be establishing a personal carbon trading system (announced late 2010). Did it happen – if so is it still happening – searched in the usual places and there seems to be no mention of it beyond the announcement.


  6. Clarinda says:

    Another blog I read and respect is The Quackometer – dedicated to challenge the alleged ‘logic’ and efficacy of alternative therapies, homeopathy in particular – it awards duck ratings to indicate the various standings of these cult and sham operatives based on the comparison with current tried and trusted scientific knowledge and rationale. I cannot find a suitable image for Prat – perhaps a polar bear in a bikini. Whatever – a great idea, except I tend to switch off as soon as I detect a warmist or climoprat so you are forcing me to concentrate to nominate a contender.


  7. PaulW says:

    Regarding your funding problem.

    Could I suggest you seek funding from any of the super rich (non big oil) green funding bodies.

    You could seek funding for a paper on the – Effect of Climate Change on Climate Change researchers while studying Climate Change.

    If their funding algorithms is in any way based on a Google keyword search, you’d be in like Flynn.


  8. theduke says:

    Gotta be Gleick, pointman. I mean really, he’s the Usain Bolt of this field.


  9. Petrossa says:

    I nominate Connie Hedegaard (public intellectual according to her wiki lemma) for steadfastly reducing europe’s industries to ashes by insisting on ever more absurd CO2 emission regulation and energy generation methods.

    One woman can destroy an entire wealthy continent. No one can beat that.


  10. Mindert Eiting says:

    Naomi Oreskes, for her Merchants of Doubt, beautifully countered by Robert Zubrin with his Merchants of Despair.


  11. hro001 says:

    Tough one, Pointman 😉 But I think my initial nomination goes to the Norfolk Constabulary (and/or whoever whoever wrote all the PR stuff for their recent decision to “close the case”)


    • Pointman says:

      It has to be a person Hilary, but you can nominate up to five of them.



      • hro001 says:

        I hope I’m not too late, Pointman, but since Mann and Muller have already made it to your list of candidates, I’d like to add the (recently resurfaced) UEA prince of spinners, Neil Wallis (who – considering his history – could well have been the one who wrote all the PR stuff for the Norfolk Constabulary)!


      • hro001 says:

        And I think we need some Canadian content here … so how about David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver (whose accent suggests he’s not as Canadian as Suzuki, but he certainly appears to have a grip on tenure at a Canadian university, and – not unlike Mann – not only seems to think it’s his duty to tell folks whom they should vote for, but also to launch frivolous libel suits against those who do not share his undying faith in their magnificent model machines – and machinations!)


  12. Graeme No.3 says:

    Tim Flannery for sure. He combines Hansen’s ability to make bizarre predictions, Julia Gillard’s truthfulness, and Connie Hedegaard’s regard for the consequences of his policies.

    James Hansen might be the first choice of many, but he’s a sick man. Hansen’s disease of the brain, I think.

    Mann can’t be a candidate. He thinks he is in a class of his own, and it would provoke outrage if he found out that he was being compared to other climatologists.


  13. Edward. says:

    Prof Muller of Berkeley Uni – for egregious self promotion…………………”oh look – I’ve a book coming out, well I’ll be blowed!”……………….er and the wife’s in the biz too.

    Peter Gleick, what a ncut.

    Ronnie ‘LORD’ Oxburgh – UEA CRU – “problem? ……………………………
    “I see no ships”.

    and take your pick here.

    Ow’s about this ‘boat race’?


  14. Well if, as Graeme No 3 says, it can’t be Michael Mann (my first choice) it surely has to be Chris Huhne! Mind you, now he’s gone to ground, perhaps his successor will do if you can’t find him for the presentation.


  15. Peter Crawford says:

    My first nomination is Peter Gleick. Loathsome little man and a monumental prat, I mean what an Olympic standard bungler. He said in his own defence that he needed to advance “the fight against climate-deniers”. If he wants a fight I suggest he sticks his head up his arse and fights for breath.
    I will get back to you with the other four.


  16. Chuckles says:

    Could I suggest a solution to your prize dilemna/impasse. I think it’s desirable that the prize awarded have considerable value, but that it also reflect the absolute uselessness of the recipients labours.
    Perhaps something like this –


  17. Graeme No.3 says:

    Chuckles says: First prize a 50 trillion dollar (Zimbabwe) note. Brilliant! It won’t cost much and it might remind the winner of how much the thing is costing.

    I loved the idea of a polar bear in a bikini, but the cost of all the material is too big for you to bear.

    I was thinking of nominating Stephan Lewandowsky who is a Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia and an outspoken critic of sceptics, but I suppose that he isn’t that well known overseas, fortunately for you. Also, as anyone who has heard him would realise, there is a strong possibility of him being ruled out on ground of mental incompetency.

    I am sorry to disappoint meltemian, but Michael Mann wouldn’t accept this award; it would have to be Grand Exalted Climate Prat of the Century, with diamonds attached, to match his self esteem. Chris Huhne is only one of a series of Ministers in the UK utterly unable to think ahead on the electricity supply, but that probably means the Permanent Secretary is the real culprit.

    Gleick may seem the logical choice, Peter Crawford, after his spectacular blunder but can he keep up the pace for the rest of the year? Yet, had he been nominated by Michael Crawford???

    The fact is that the field is quite crowded, so I shall stick to Flannery as he might be Australia’s best chance of a winner. After all, anyone who can claim that a Carbon Tax is necessary while also saying that it wouldn’t reduce the CO2 level for a thousand years, has to be in with a chance.


    • ” so I shall stick to Flannery as he might be Australia’s best chance of a winner” … somehow I think we should ritually burn a windmill/thermometer and offer them the ashes!

      But as a proud owner of the 100trillion Zimbadwe note, that also seems a good choice.

      Another is that I could try to kill a few butterflies to offset the effects of global warming (the only effect in Scotland is a few species have extended their range north) … and we could give away a mounted butterfly.


  18. Pointman says:

    The nominations so far are :-

    Tim Flannery (3)

    Peter Gleick (3)

    James Hansen (2)

    Michael Mann (2)

    Garry Eggar

    Julia Gillard

    Geoffrey Lean

    Bill McKibben

    Paul Ehrlich


    Ed Begley Jr

    Al Gore

    Connie Hedegaard

    Naomi Oreskes

    Richard Muller


  19. Paul Whyte says:

    I don’t think we should ignore Professor Ian Chubb, Australia’s Chief? Scientist.

    As our “leading” scientist surely he should be upholding the basic principles of the Scientific Method and thereby encouraging an open Scientific debate. For heavens sake surely that’s his job.


  20. Petrossa says:

    I say Mann and Hansen should be excluded as being too obvious. And i renominate Connie again. 5 times. So she wins. What do i win?


  21. Pointman says:

    Anyone know what bra size the average Polar bear would be?



  22. meltemian says:

    I reckon you should have a word with Fenbeagle or Josh. I bet they could come up with a very fetching sunbathing polar bear.


  23. I suggested something very similar (although a bit more highbrow than “prat”) on my blog (now sadly neglected due to work at the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum … I say “work”, but it has all the benefits of real work except pay, pensions, career prospects, bonuses, … it’s just work.

    From memory, Gleich has got to be a front runner this year. Hansen has also been …. well Hansen.


    • Just had a look at the John Harrison award, on Scottish Sceptic (my effort is now on and noticed that Gleich was in the running for both prizes for greatest contribution and worst contribution.

      Looking at the categories, I had allocated for each year:

      – best contribution to Climate Science
      – worst (ditto)

      This doesn’t quite fit this “climate prat of the year award”, but I would still appreciate suggestions of best/worst contribution to climate science as the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum is likely to take on the prize (sadly we little money so only token prizes)


      • Pointman says:

        I originally had three prizes in mind; Climate prat of the Year, Pratto di tutti pratto journalistica (I was on a promise of some sponsorship from my favourite italian restaurant) & Climate Janus of the year award. Went with simple in the end.



      • Pointman, thanks for the reply. I must have started out with a concept like “Climate Prat award … because it was just after Gleich had revealed he was so much of a prat,… but I always felt it would do more good awarding a prize to those who deserved to be rewarded for their effort.

        As I researched contenders, I quickly developed an extensive list which very nearly fitted into a a yearly award with someone notable in most years … but I found the award was for doing something rather than just “being a prat” … otherwise some academics had an unfair advantage.

        Like you I struggled with the name. I wanted one where the name itself did not exclude someone accepting the prize. At the time the Royal Society were being particularly obnoxious. John Harrison is one of the people who should have been recognised alongside Newton, Watts, Faraday, etc., but due to the Royal Society really disliked this mere non-scientists who showed science was not the answer!! So they refused to give him his prize money which they probably still owe. I think we now see the same attitude to sceptics like Watts.

        The other thing I would recommend is not to run it as a poll. That’s because there’s no surprise with a poll because everyone knows the answer beforehand. If you do run a poll, I suggest not being able to see the votes!! … Or like you’ve done, do a two part poll … first one is public, the next is hidden … until all is revealed in a mass blaze of publicity!


  24. Eric H. says:

    How ’bout Barbara Boxer, chair person of the US Senate Environment and Public Works committee who asked John Christy who was lying when he said the surface stations had a temperature bias. Or could it be a web site? Open Minds comes to mind, Tamino would be flattered I am sure. Skeptical Science would be another, talk about irony! Gleick is also an obvious choice, what a competitor in the field of prattery.


  25. Pointman – love the blog, but pale grey on white is only for those with 20/20 eyesight. I really struggle to read it. Any chance you could do it like a book – you know, good old black and white!



  26. Greg, from Spokane says:

    This post is Pointman at his finest. Well done, Sir.

    BTW – here\’s a polar bear in a bikini:


  27. gregole says:

    My vote went to Bill “Weepy Bill” McKibben after an exhaustive weeding out process – they are all self-serving hypocrites, ignoramuses, parasites and enemies of humanity. So what made Weepy Bill stand out prat-wise? Actually, he doesn’t stand out. He simply survived my weeding process which is as follows:

    1. I weeded out elected and appointed government officials including Julia Gillard. Why? I’m not sure really, just a feeling I have that they are somehow all our fault anyway – I mean how did they get into office? And each listed is another nothing, nobody, and more than likely not actually intelligent enough to carry on much about man-made-global-warming one-on-one like a true prat. So I excluded them. Connie Hedegaard throws me though, and she is kind of hot. I think in her case I tossed her because as an ignorant American, I will admit I have absolutely no idea how EU governance works; I don’t actually know what she does or how she got her position; and she is kind of hot. So I didn’t vote for her.

    2. I weeded out global-warming-believing journalists. I figured any actual, employed at a paper, half literate for God’s sake professional investigator and writer would see through this scam immediately, or at least after ClimateGate 1.0. If not, then they are not prats. They are pros. As in bought-and-paid-for shills. A prat, in my mind, actually believes and further, insists that you believe even more that he or she as the case may be, does; hence is a prat.

    3. I weeded out academic crack-pots like Naomi Oreskes, Paul Erlich and academic media whores like Muller and Mann. Again, to me they are not true prats, but paid professionals. After seeing Hansen’s video where he describes how man-made global warming will cause the oceans to evaporate after the atmosphere catches fire it is easy to conclude the man is insane. The insane are disqualified as well by my criteria and he is also an appointed government official despite being mad. He also didn’t get my vote.

    4. Finalists are now Gleick and Weepy Bill. Tough choice as both seem to fit my tough criteria for prat. Just try to image you are at a nice party with Peter and Weepy Bill, and one of them corners you…Ouch!

    Well, after some thought, Weepy Bill edged out Gleick in my mind. Here’s my reasoning: Gleick has been laying low lately and probably with good cause; while Weepy Bill has been on a tear this summer banging on and on tweet after tweet about the awful, awful heat here stateside. He was even able to fit a tweet in on the heat in my hometown of Phoenix Arizona. Of course it’s all crap – it has actually been a mild and somewhat damp summer here in lovely Phoenix – it even rained last night! Even better for the Weepy one – ignorance of obvious contradicting facts simply enhances his pratitude in my eyes.

    McKibben is my man.

    Oh and good timing on the announcement of the winner Pointman. Isn’t 12-21-12 the end of the world according to certain interpretations of the Mayan Calendar. Man-made global warming? Bah! That’s nothing compared to the immanent end-of-times!


  28. Hector Pascal says:

    Another vote for Louise “Barking” Gray. She has effectively closed the Science/Environment section of the Torygraph fo me.

    Another suggestion is Rachel Hayhoe, who comes across to me as an Olympic class nitter.

    Sibelius is for girls. This is Maki Shizusawa. She really is HOT!


  29. Pointman says:

    Ian Chubb goes out, because of not a single first round vote, Louise “Barking” Gray replaces him.



  30. Pointman says:

    Ffs, could someone please give Louise one vote. Gowan, just one vote. Sad bitch or what …



  31. Pat Kelly says:

    Kelpie Wilson (feminist, environmentalist etc) manages to combine prattiness in several different fields in one article. She is too good to overlook and must surely appear on any shortlist for recognition.

    To understand that a tiny embryo must sometimes be sacrificed for the greater good of the family or the human species as a whole is the moral high ground that we stand on today.

    From an article Abortion and Earth to be found at
    The title of the article alone deserves a gong.


  32. Graeme No.3 says:

    As my choice is losing I shall invoke the bad loser’s rule – If at first you don’t succeed, criticise (or in American, criticize, which my spell checker refuses to recognise).

    When you run this election again next year (PLEASE) I think that you should split it into different categories, as the Olympics does with runners. Unfortunately, it looks inevitable that the event could run for years to come, although perhaps less so than we think.

    Thus I see Gleick as more of a sprinter, one brief flash of activity with lots of media attention. Whereas Hansen and Ehrlich are more like marathon runners, for the years of effort they’ve put into the noble sport of Pratitude. My choice, Flannery, would fit nicely into the middle distance category, although it is difficult to allot which event, due to his habit of running backwards (or sideways) at times.

    I’ve just noticed that my spell checker doesn’t like Ehrlich either; obviously a superb judge of the right word!


  33. I nominate Katharine Hayhoe, who stands out for claiming that “Texas winters are getting warmer”, whereas it turned out she was talking about WEST Texas, and had used data only up to 2000, to support a statement made in 2011. For that reason, I suggest the award should have a cherry in a prominent position.

    For runner-up, I nominate Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who puts other alarmist authors of failed predictions in the shade. That shade consists of fine-mesh netting stretched over parts of the Great Barrier Reef, whose demise has been predicted by him MANY times. What a great idea to preserve ocean organisms – hectares of fine-mesh plastic nets – it’s a wonder no-one thought of it before.


  34. meltemian says:

    Could I just point out P that my first choice of Michael Mann as “Prat of the Year” has been vindicated, (always supposing he goes through with it) there must be cries of “Whoa There” throughout the climate science community!


  35. Graeme No.3 says:

    I think that the threat of DISCOVERY will dampen his enthusiasm. This is the who has spent $1 million trying to stop anyone reading his e-mails from the Hockey Stick times, in another case. Ironic that a ‘scientist’ isn’t keen on discovery.

    If he does go ahead with the threat then he will really deserve the title of Grand Exalted Climate Prat.


  36. Hector Pascal says:

    This may help with reaching an objective, scientific even, result.


  37. I can’t believe Julia has so few votes. And Dave Cameron isn’t even mentioned. I think you need a special category for people that have done the most to damage western civilisation in the name of changing the climate.
    ….And where’s the Huhnatic? …..Is he so soon forgotten?


  38. AlecM says:

    Sorry folks, it just has to be an organisation this year. Of the three candidates, CRU, Hadley Centre and Penn State, I nominate the CRU.

    And the reason for this is that the person who founded the modern incarnation of the Unit, Mike Hulme, using Marxist post-normal science principles, has just started a one-year master’s course in environmental sciences and humanities:

    ‘Insights from nature writing and eco-poetry will be considered alongside those of philosophy and science’


  39. Rastech says:

    After about 3 seconds thought, I nominate “All of them”.

    I still have a 50,000,000,000,000 (that looks about the right number of zeros, and there’s probably enough zero’s to go around as a prize) mark pre-Nazi German bank note around the place somewhere for a prize, if it’s suitably unsubstantial nature (a good match for the seance behind anthropogenic climate change) hasn’t caused it to dematerialise since I last saw it.

    Perhaps a suitably cheap enough Zimbabwe Socialist bank note with enough zero’s on it, would be better, and more fitting to the alarmists level of intelligence and their sentiments?


  40. Chuck Nolan says:

    President Obama………….”this is the moment” speech.

    He not only said this but supports the IPCC then appointed people like Van Jones, Holdren and Jackson to his cabinet.


  41. Adam Gallon says:

    Gleick has surely elevated himself above the pack with his latest “Tweet” (Twat morelike!)


  42. Chuck Nolan says:

    I left out Ehrlich (and I’m sure many others) plus, don’t forget He was awarded a Nobel for all of his well documented superior good work saving humanity…saving the earth….saving the poley bears… why did He get a Nobel Peace Prize? (Well at least he would deserve this prestigious award.)

    For obvious reasons, I do not believe ‘climate justice’ could be served without nominating Michael Moore.


  43. Eternal Optimist says:

    think Christmas 1914
    you heartless swine. my great grandad was shot by a sniper in extra time

    but I will put my grief aside and vote for gleick


  44. hillbilly33 says:

    This should drag quite a few extra votes for our Prime Monster Julia Gillard. Background.:-

    Lateline is a Q & A show on our ABC (i.e., employs “Anyone But Conservatives” or sometimes known alternatively by very unkind people as All Bloody Communists). Tony Jones is the host and a foundation member of the LAGS Club (Labor And Gillard Sycophants Club).

    Alan Jones is a radio host of conservative bent who definitely states things as he sees them.
    He interviewed Gillard sometime after her backflip on the election -tipping last minute lie “There will be NO Carbon (dioxide) Tax under a government I lead”! They had quite a stoush on air.

    Later she appeared on the ABC Labor “luvvies ” Lateline.
    (Note: Our Jooles thinks climate change and CAGW are interchangeable terms)!

    TONY JONES: So why do you go on these talkback radio shows if you feel about them as you – well, these unspeakable words?

    PM: Because I’m not going to let people SPEW NONSENSE out into the public uncontested and Mr Jones gets on his radio show and he says things LIKE climate change isn’t real, CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GOOD THING!!

    Come on good Climate Pratters of the world, vote! That has to rocket Julia to the Top !!


  45. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Torn between Hansen, Lewandowsky and Gleick I finally went with Hansen. I admit that prehaps he does not deserve to win THIS YEAR but look at his whole career. If only you had a separate LIFE TIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD!

    So perhaps my judgment is colored — but pity the old man! When Hansen was at the peak of his game who but Michael Mann should appear on the scene, year after year setting new nearly unimaginable standards for prattiness! How unlucky can you get!

    So call me sentimental but I went with Hansen. When Global Warming is dead and buried let not this man go down to hell without his due honors. Let him stand among the flames shouting — SEE! SEE! I WAS RIGHT! AND THEY KNEW IT! I WON THE PRAT OF THE YEAR AWARD!

    Eugene WR Gallun


  46. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    New here. I like your blog.
    Coherent writing, with the right amount of sarcasm peppered in.
    Came here via WUWT & Climate Realists.

    Here’s hoping your Climate Prat Award gets more traction in mainstream media outlets!

    Late the other night I saw a “debate” on the Russian Television English language program “Crosstalk” – discussing the relationship between the “Frankenstorm” Sandy and AGW / Climate Change. David Milne (Botany Prof. in Edinburgh) represented the Warmist Camp. His haughty interjections / interruptions of the other panelists, coupled with his robotic use of the “97% of Climate Scientists agree…” meme earns him a nomination, IMHO.

    Kurt in Switzerland

    P.S. Your recent posting on why there hasn’t been a real debate on climate science is “spot on” — your observations on the trend to indoctrination in education today is EXACTLY the point which Denis Rancourt has been making is his attempts to break the hierarchical mold in Ottawa.


Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] to stop that inevitable escalation. We should help it along by doings things like running the Climate Prat of the Year award. Humour in the face of fanaticism, is guaranteed to enrage a fanatic every […]


  2. […] gregole August 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm Caleb,Simply excellent. And I believe you can still vote for “Prat of the Year” and McKibben is in the running. Vote and see my comments. […]


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: