As W.S. just told me by e-mail, these predictions of mine came true a few hours ago: see The Sydney Morning Herald.
I was almost sure that I would be right and he would be chosen as the winner because I know quite something about the corrupt atmosphere of the blinded and semi-educated individuals who have overtaken similar pop-science prizes.
In the fast comments, Fred had some doubts about my prediction incorporated in the title:
Fred: So far he is just a finalist in the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge award category and the max prize is $10,000. He may not get anything, and nor should he as his website is not an unbiased presentation of climate change knowledge. As you imply, the explanation is always twisted to fit a predetermined answer. And he never says "we don't know enough to decide".I agreed with the appraisal but not with the prediction:
LM: Thanks for the explanation, Fred: I was actually uncertain whether he would get $240,000 or whether the money is shared by all the winners.I still think that the explanation of my prediction is a valid one. Papertiger made a good point that his award for the kook could make his fellow alarmist kooks jealous and upset which could be a very good thing: division in the ranks. ;-)
My bet would be that he's more likely to win than not. His being a finalist is a sign of perversion in the competition and because AGW is a big perversion by itself, such pathological hints are going to be amplified by positive feedbacks. :-(
How do you feel, all Lamberts, to be a third league now? :-)
Instead of congratulating someone which would be truly inappropriate, cynical, and unethical, let me express my deep condolences to Archimedes and all his fans (and all fans of science) – because his famous trademark has just been brutally humiliated and desecrated.
And Cook, now you're not just a regular crackpot but a corrupt one. A few years in prison have been added to my Excel table next to your name.