NEWSFLASH: Andrew Weaver & CBC drop his claim to Nobel fame

One of Andrew Weaver‘s prime cheerleaders over the years has been the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). With only one previous exception of which I am aware, they’ve never failed to mention – and/or visually feature – his unearned Nobel laurel, which was featured (albeit falsely and grandiosely) in the judgment.

To the best of my knowledge, Weaver was (and evidently still is) associated with the University of Victoria. Yet the oh so diligent (or geographically-challenged, you may take your pick) CBC seems to think he’s at the University of British Columbia:

If you have six minutes and 31 seconds to spare, you can listen to Weaver in all his error-riddled, sometimes bumbling, self-serving glory here.

UPDATE 02/12/2015: If you would like to spare yourself the assault on your ears (and intelligence!), the awesome Alex Cull has kindly provided a transcript of this particular demonstration of Weaver in action.

See also my comment and questions

Perhaps the CBC researcher(s) did not actually read newly-minted Judge Emily’s bizarre judgment, in which the CBC itself received no less than ten honourable mentions, including:

[65] On December 2, 2009, Dr. Weaver emailed the CBC an undated article** sent to him by [Federal Green Party MP -hro] Elizabeth May, titled “And now to discuss those hacked emails”, which included the comment:

Strange, isn’t it that media are not wondering about who hacked into the computers and who paid them? Or why Dr. Andrew Weaver’s office in Victoria has been broken into twice. My guess is that all the computers of all the climate research centres of the world have been repeatedly attacked, but defences held everywhere but East Anglia. [emphasis added -hro]

** I’ve no idea whether or not Judge Emily and her mouse (and/or the CBC) sought out the full content of this “undated article”. However, I am aware that May is one who – to the best of my knowldedge of her performances – has rarely demonstrated any ability to read for comprehension prior to issuing her opinions on Climategate fallout and/or related matters. Nonetheless, my intrepid mouse has discovered what may well be the full (December 3, 2009) content (pdf) of May’s meanderings on this matter.

FWIW, if you happened to miss it at the time, you can see May – teamed up with the equally Green, George Monbiot – in losing action against Bjorn Lomborg and the UK’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson during the course of a December 1, 2009 Munk Debate.

Here’s a quick fill-in the blanks exercise:

Having tried, in vain, to peel a spitting-mad ——- off the ceiling, I ask […] whether he ever feels like chucking it all in and stomping off to a quiet corner with a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.

“Absolutely,” he says. “Retiring with a bottle of Jack Daniel’s sounds good right now.”

[…] sputtering words like “unbelievable” and “dictator” and “shocking affront to democracy,” says he hopes the opposition will force Harper’s minority government to fall. “He’s got to get kicked out. This is Canada, not Zimbabwe . . . or maybe it is.

“It’s all about not wanting to do anything about the issue,” —— says of the Senate sabotage. It’s about pandering to the oil industry, […]

If you happened to guess “Andrew Weaver”, give yourself three stars! One wonders if his next “libel suit” will be against the writer of this November 2010 piece.

Perhaps Weaver’s definition of “democracy”, is not the same as yours and mine. Then again, perhaps he’s just one of those “free speech for me ‘n my friends, but not for thee” kinda guys, eh?!

It seems that, during the trial, one of the rather unfortunate points of contention (the “revisionized” and foggy version of which Weaver was still flogging in yesterday’s CBC radio interview), hinged on whether or not Weaver had uttered that which had been attributed to him by the writers of the four allegedly defamatory National Post articles, i.e whether or not Weaver had actually spouted any disparaging words against the fossil fuel industry (and/or variants thereof) and whether or not he had accused this scurrillous group of responsibility for the alleged breakins at his UVic office.

That Weaver has what the Brits would call “form” in such matters, as clearly demonstrated in the above example – and in several other articles entered into evidence which Judge Emily, in her newly-minted wisdom, chose to ignore (for want of a better word) – did not appear to influence her judicial opinion.

That Weaver and his like-minded pals had freedom to characterize Climategate in such demeaning and derogatory terms – more than two years prior to the Norfolk Constabulary’s completion of their “investigations” (the results of which ultimately amounted to ‘not proven’) seemed to have been immaterial in the eyes of newly-minted Judge Emily.

My view, FWIW, is that (for whatever “reason”) Weaver chose to embark on a course equivalent to making a mountain out of virtually invisible molehills. And for this the faux Nobel Peace Prize winning Weaver was awarded $50,000?!

Amazing. Simply amazing.

One thought on “NEWSFLASH: Andrew Weaver & CBC drop his claim to Nobel fame

  1. As I had noted in an update, today:

    If you would like to spare yourself the assault on your ears (and intelligence!), the awesome Alex Cull has kindly provided a transcript of this particular demonstration of Weaver in action.

    One of the things I’ve noticed in the last five+ years since I stepped onto this particular battlefield, is that when “climate scientists” (and/or facsimiles thereof) choose to preface their remarks with phrases such as:

    “… it was very clear…” [and/or particularly -hro] “Yeah, let’s be very clear…”

    which Weaver indisputably did during the course of this interview, the very last thing one should expect in the words that follow is … well … “clarity”.

    And if you read Alex’s transcript of this interview, you will see for yourself that – in this regard – Weaver most definitely did not disappoint!

    Incidentally … speaking of “transcripts” … During this interview, Weaver makes a point of handwaving at those (presumably) entered into evidence at the trial; yet he invariably fails to provide any useful (and/or meaningful) pointers/links thereto!

    Was Weaver – not unlike newly-minted Judge Emily – speaking only of the four (and/or excerpts therefrom which can be found in her “judgment”) that she, apparently, chose to take into consideration?

    If so, considering that two of these dastardly four articles were dated in late January 2010 (i.e. long after the Copenhagen flop) one has to wonder about Weaver’s (new, improved and/or “revisionized”?!) claim during this interview:

    So there was a sequence of four of them, around the time – around the time that the Copenhagen meeting was about to occur. So this is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of Parties was in Copenhagen. It was a big meeting, there was discussions there for the carry-on for Kyoto, and of course it was a bit of a failure, that meeting, but it was around that time – a sequence of stories, and one was called “Weaver’s Web”, the second was called “Weaver’s Web II” and then there was two following up, where one’s claiming I was calling for the leader of the IPCC to resign and I was jumping ship – just complete fabrications.

    Let’s set aside the highly uncharacteristic understatement of Weaver’s contention that “Copenhagen […] was a bit of a failure” and take another look at that which (as I had noted in my previous post) for some unfathomable reason Judge Emily chose not to take into consideration, i.e. Weaver’s undisputed:

    “I would have argued [IPCC Chair, Pachauri -hro] was the wrong appointments to begin with and I think he has crossed the line, and I would agree it’s time to move on. So let’s have them move on, not because of the latest Himalayan thing, because he should have moved on two years ago after last IPCC report was done. With too much power at helm for too long there is a danger you start to believe you’re invincible. But I agree he should move on.”

    I know that if I had been in Weaver’s shoes, at that point in time, considering that Pachauri had made it quite clear that he had absolutely no intention of “moving on”, I most certainly would have chosen to walk the plank, so to speak, rather than stay on-board under such an incompetent “Captain”.

    This being the case, in my view, the National Post via Terence Corcoran’s January 27, 2010 assertion to the effect that Weaver was “jumping ship” gave Weaver far more credit for integrity than Weaver obviously deserved.

    Considering all of the above, what do you think?!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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