Wednesday, January 03, 2007

The S. Fred Award....


Almost everyone is familiar with Pauli's remark about something that was so off base that it was "Not even wrong". But if there is one thing that the INTERNET has taught us it is that there is a never, never land out there that is far beyond. Whether due to,

  • Zero K memory.
  • Plays solitaire... for cash.
  • Sort of like an inverse Einstein.
  • Suffers from Clue Deficit Disorder.
  • An experiment in Artificial Stupidity.
  • Doesn't quite sample at the Nyquist rate.
  • Unclear which of Newton's three laws of motion keeps his ears apart.
or whatever, there is a call for the author of this year's climate science best. To give you the flavor of what is needed, Eli gives you the Becky, named in honor of

Johannes Goropius Becanus (1519-1572) was a Dutch physician, linguist, and humanist......
Goropius dedicated himself to studying antiquity during this time, and became fluent in many languages. Goropius theorized that Antwerpian Flemish, or Brabantic, spoken in the region between the Scheldt and Meuse Rivers, was the original language spoken in Paradise.
A corollary of this theory was that all languages derived ultimately from Brabantic. The Latin word for “oak,” quercus, Goropius derived from werd-cou (“keeps out cold”); the Hebrew name “Noah” he derived from nood (“need”). Goropius also believed that Adam and Eve were Brabantic names (from Hath-Dam, or “dam against hate"; and Eu-Vat, “barrel from which people originated,” or from Eet-Vat, “oath-barrel,” respectively). Another corollary was the placement of the Garden of Eden itself in the Brabant region. In the book known as Hieroglyphica, Goropius also proved to his satisfaction that Egyptian hieroglyphics represented Brabantic.
Leibniz, himself no stranger to strange ideas about language, is said to have recognized the transcendent quality of this work by coining the French verb goropizer ("goropize") to mean "invent absurd etymologies". So it's fitting that in honor of Dr. Goropius Becanus, an anonymous benefactor has endowed the prestigious Goropius Becanus Prize, awarded to people or organizations who have made outstanding contributions to linguistic misinformation.
The Rabett Institute is proud to open nominations for the first annual S. Fred, named after S. Fred Singer, the fellow with the unstoppable hot air machine who believes, a 1500 year climate cycle rules, still not sure that CFCs have anything to do with ozone depletion and that tobacco smoke is fine for your health (and his profits).

The competition is hard guys, nominated by acclimation are:

but the favorite has to be
  • Monckton of Blenchley whose climate analysis has now found its home in a flying saucer mag.
Nominations close Jan. 21.

36 comments:

Mark UK said...

My vote to Singer. Even if he hadn't written anything at all last year he deserves it just by track record and for being one of the most blatantly dishonest scientists around.

Anonymous said...

Oh, noble Bunny (perhaps we will someday see the Nobel Bunney Prize)

I would nominate Dr. Tim Ball. I don't know if you have a category titled most expanded CV but he would fit nicely in there. Or perhaps his CV is just expanding due to warming temperatures.

John Cross

Anonymous said...

"Or perhaps his CV is just expanding due to warming temperatures."

May also be due to the expanding universe, so it's hard to do a controlled experiment.

Though I suppose one could do a calculation based on the known thermal coefficient of expansion of CV's and the known rate of expansion of the universe -- and known rate of exapansion of ball's CV, of course.

You may be right, given the fast rate of expansion of ball's CV, it would probably "inflation" to account for it (and I think that ended just a few seconds after the big bang), so the thermal theory might be more plausible.

but I'm no expert on this stuff, so perhaps LM might do the calculation and get back to us?

Anonymous said...

I nominate Ken Ring, for believing that because CO2 is heavier than air it can't produce a greenhouse effect.

...and for believing that one can predict weather based on the moon.

Does that make him a Moony? Or just Luny?

Anonymous said...

Not to change the subject or anthing, but have you noticed how Pielke is now making the rounds on the blogs -- having gone into "let me 'splain myself" mode over his "non-skeptic heretic" statement?

I bet he wishes Revkin had left that little gem out of his ridiculous "invisible middle" piece.

How embarrasking.

Hey diddle-diddle,
Here's a riddle,
Who wants to play first fiddle?
When they can be in the middle?

Is just a hey diddle-diddle

stevesadlov said...

You are a vile and mean person.

Anonymous said...

"Mean" is in the eye of the beholder but even a blind man recognizes a fool.

EliRabett said...

Gentlemen, please insult each other with style and vim in an entertaining but trenchiant way, maintaining the standards established by Rabett Run (such as they are...)

Our readership demands no less, all three of us and that includes Mom Rabett, Eli and the Anonymii.

Steve Bloom said...

Steve S., you lead a sheltered life. RP Jr. loves this stuff. All of it. He attaches it to his grant applications. Indeed, I'm confident that he spends a good part of each day trying to think up new ways to generate this kind of publicity. Recall that he is a *political* scientist, not the other kind.

Adam said...

I find it hard to see past Monckton with his low sensitivity but high variability and ice cores from vanished glaciers, contradictions.

Anonymous said...

I nominate Steve S for his lack of appreciation for fine poetry.

Low sensititivity? Monckton?

On the contrary, he seems to have high sensitivity -- to what people say about him. Even threatens libel suits over scientific critiques of his writing.

He is so sensitive, in fact, that I would not be surprised if any day now he said that Bigfoot actually wrote that peice in Nexus that was attributed to Monckton.

Adam said...

Sorry, I meant low climate sensitivity but high climate variability.

Anonymous said...

Point taken, Adam, but I'd still have to say he has very low variability -- invariably wrong.

Anonymous said...

You created a contest called the "The S. Fred Award" and you are cautioning others about "maintaining the standards established by Rabett Run"?!

And wouldn't it be anonymousses?

Like "Hippopotamusses"? and Octopusses?

These are important issues, Eli, not unlike the definition of "non-skeptic heretic".

And shouldn't it really be "nonskeptical heretic"? -- the first word being an adjective and all.

EliRabett said...

Well, I did say our standards such as they were. Where they are is a judgement call.

While Anonymousses is a possible variation, Eli likes the Anonymii as in Eli and the Anonymii.

Anonymous said...

Are there any?

Given your taste in (bad) poetry, I can understand your preference for the rhyme, but that still does not explain the double i.

Besides, Eli and the Mrs makes two Rabetts, so it could just as easily be "Rabetts and anonymousses" and that rhymes too, so it's really six of one and half dozen of the other.



Inquiring minds really want to know.

EliRabett said...

Eli has taste in carrots friend otherwise you and yours are on your own. OTOH, there is a mom Rabett. As to the number of mousses, let me point out the Noble Bunney' first foray into rhyme.

Little Bunny Foo Foo,
Hopping through the forest
Scooping up the field mousses
And boppin' 'em on the head

That's all folks......

Anonymous said...

Ah, now I see, "Eli and the Anonymice"

With that name and song, you could go on tour.

Silly Wabett.

F. Brown said...

Can't resist nominating the inimitable and unparodyable 'Ice Age Now' ['not by fire but by ice']; http.www.iceagenow.com/
for managing both skepticism and alarmism simultaneaously, by the ingenious expedient of ignoring almost anything resembling logic.

Acclamation (note spelling, prof.) may also extend to a 'team of the year' award to the outstandingly opinionated but misguided regular bloggers on 'Climate Audit', who make S. Mc. look worse than he is by attacking those such as Judith Curry, who have the courage to state their own findings, like feral polecats. Perhaps S. Mc. can qualify for a 'shooting onesself in the foot' prize for allowing such invective to go unchecked.

regards and respect,

Anonymous said...

I suspect that even the UFO people could see that something is wrong with Beck's argument about CO2 levels so it might be a bit unfair to put Monckton ahead because of that.

Geoff said...

Hi Eli,

I nominate Pat Michaels for saying climate change is good, but really for every time he opens his mouth (see also Tim Ball)

Nexus 6 said...

My nomination is in.

God.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-nomination-for-s-fred-god.html

Anonymous said...

The Rabett family tree?

EliRabett said...

Burrow.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I don't have my rabetlore straight, but I thought the rabets came out of the trees just before the second t was added to denote a new species.

EliRabett said...

Carrots don't grow on trees you know. Eli's often wondered why his deepest thoughts were ignored, but, in retrospect it must be because others thought that Rabetts grew on trees. Fell off the turnip truck maybe, ok

Anonymous said...

I nominate Michaels for his repeated, blatant purveying of FUD; his influential BS causes much movement of bits and bytes.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

It's amusing that in one breath Michaels makes fun of people who let local weather influence their thinking on climate and in the next breath, he relies on the same fallacy when he implies that the current Colorado blizzard somehow disproves global warming.

Adam said...

The anonymouse who pointed out the UFO people might see through Beck's argument has a good point. I may have to switch horses.

Anonymous said...

"Carrots don't grow on trees you know."

Perhaps not, but rabbits clearly do at least according to Fibonnaci, who used the rabbit family tree to illustrate his now famous sequence.


Another type of rabbitry is also very common.

Anonymous said...

Undoubtedly why some consider rabbits (and rabetts) such a problem -- and ban them from their blogs.

All you need is a couple of rabetts to start, and after they begin multiplying, not even The Exxon-Mobil Steam Roller can stop them.

Thom said...

Can we nominate "media star" Roger Pielke Jr. for his "skeptical herectic" self-gratulatory nonsense?

It's not science, but Pielke tries to position himself as such an expert on all things science that it should gain him notice.

Or how about an award for scientists who are not really scientists but who play one on their blogs?

EliRabett said...

Eli always thought the strong point of Diplom Beck WAS that his opus couldn't fool the average UFO nut. It is a feature not a bug.

Now, to make this fair, we do have to come up with some implausible reason why Nexus cannot nominate God. As you know, God ALWAYS wins. Sort of like Brazil with Pele. (Eli IS an old fun bun)

EliRabett said...

Oh yeah, as an added feature the person who comes up with the MOST implausible reason why Nexus cannot nominate God for the S. Fred, wins bonus Pielke points and can ban Eli for one week from commenting on any blog.

Anonymous said...

Does that include this blog and any others you might start up to evade the ban?
Here's my reason God can not be nominated:

God is too busy whispering Rapturous thoughts into Bush's ear to attend the S. Fred award ceremony. And those who do not pick up their awards are not worthy of them and should therefore never be nominated in the first place.

How many Pielke points is that worth?

So, do I get to ban you from commenting on your own blog (and any you create to evade the ban) if I win? How many Pielke points do I need, anyway?

Fergus Brown said...

Two reasons why God cannot be nominated:

It is well known that God loves all creatures. For evidence, I cite the popular hymn 'All things bright and beautiful'. As Eli the fluffy bunny is undoubtedly a member of this elite group, he must therefore state an interest - it would be too easy to fix the result; therefore, God is barred.

As God is also in the position, being omnipotent, of fixing or screwing the planet's problems at the flick of a proverbial finger, but has chosen so not to do, it must be concluded that God wills it to be so, whatever so is, in past, present and perpetuity. Therefore God knows all the answers. One imagines that knowing all the answers pretty much excludes any candidate from nomination, neh?