Climate Clowns Grumpy Over New Learning Resource
Climate change “skeptics” are feeling a little down today.
The US government under the umbrella of 13 federal agencies and 24 educational and science bodies just published a brochure called “Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science”.
Guess what? They all agree that climate change is not a hoax.
This 17-page document will be distributed across the nation and covers the basics of climate science, how the energy budget of our planet works and the well-known dangers of climate change.
It is also a calculated counter-attack by the US government on the campaign by the fossil fuel lobby to keep the public confused about climate change.
“There is so much misinformation about climate,” said Tom Karl, director of the government’s National Climatic Data Center. “We want to provide an easily readable document to help everyone make the most informed decisions. Having one product endorsed by the nation’s top federal science agencies, as well as leading science centers and associations, makes this document an essential resource.” Karl said.
Amen to that Brother.
A poll last week showed that Americans were more badly informed about climate science than any time in the last ten years. This is a legacy of eight years of obfuscatation by the Bush administration, millions of dollars of propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby, and criminal irresponsibility on the part of many in the media.
The brochure will be an important resource to undo that damage and is being distributed by teachers throughout the country. It’s also available for free download here.
The most sinister PR campaign in history would of course like to continue spinning the myth of perpetual controversy about climate science, however this learning resource is crystal clear:
“We now know that…human activities—burning fossil fuels, for instance—have had a profound influence on Earth’s climate. To protect fragile ecosystems and to build sustainable communities that are resilient to climate change—including extreme weather and climate events—a climate-literate citizenry is essential.”
The goal of course the industry campaign is exactly the opposite – keep the public confused and misinformed about the most important issue of the 21st century.
The old tobacco strategy that was so spectacularly successful in delaying meaningful regulation of cigarettes was repackaged for Big Oil. The results are seen in every day in newspapers throughout North America.
In contrast, the brochure explains in plain English what we now know about climate science, including the following basic statements that directly contradict millions in messaging invested by the carbon mongers of the world:
- The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
- The impacts of climate change may affect the security of nations. Reduced availability of water, food, and land can lead to competition and conflict among humans, potentially resulting in large groups of climate refugees.
- A combination of strategies is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most immediate strategy is conservation of oil, gas, and coal, which we rely on as fuels for most of our transportation, heating, cooling, agriculture, and electricity. Short-term strategies involve switching from carbon-intensive t
o renewable energy sources, which also requires building new infrastructure for alternative energy sources.
Such plainly articulated facts, co-authored by virtually every relevant branch of the US government, are a welcome change from the impenetrable prose of the IPCC.
The spin-doctors of the world have had a field day with how unbelievably bad many in the scientific community often are at communicating with normal humans.
The professional charlatans who shill on behalf of Big Oil also never break character no matter ludicrous the lines they are given the read. A job is a job – you got a take what you can get in this economy.
However their performance just became a little more implausible for the viewing audience to swallow.
After all, it is relatively easy, in disingenuous kind of way, to cast aspersions on the green motives of Al Gore, or even poorly paid environmentalists.
But the Department of Defense? It seems a bit of stretch that they are part of some grand eco-conspiracy.
But cheer up sad clown. Maybe there will be some work denying the link between exectutive bonuses and corporate bankruptcies.
Credibility Gap
Lol. Tom Karl has about as much credibility as Bernie Madoff. This is a man who fraudulently claimed he received a Phd in 1977-78 and goes around calling himself “Dr.” (including a submission to the U.S House of Representatives) when in fact his highest academic achienment was a Masters Degree in 1974 from the U of Wisconsin. Priceless.
It's you who have a credibility problem
From Chris Horner’s shocking ‘revelation’:
That’s according to North Carolina State University, that is, which is the school from which I found a Karl resume claiming a Ph.D., earned “1977-78”. I first found this on a Johns Hopkins website but,
Did Horner find the resume on the NCSU servers, or on the JHU servers?
after asking Karl’s employer NOAA to clarify where the “Dr.” title they serially tout was earned, that CV has been taken down (but not before I saved the file, of course).
If Horner “saved the file”, then why can’t he show it? Perhaps Horner’s just making crap up?
But how can that be? After all, Horner’s a ‘skeptic’, isn’t he? ‘Skeptics’, by definition, are never wrong! If Horner says he’s a skeptic, then obviously he’s a skeptic, because skeptics never lie, ad infinitum.
— bi
"Dr." Tom Karl
Karl’s misrepresentation is legendary as he has claimed to be a Dr. more times than Al Gore has eco dollars. Karl’s bio in NOAA’s/CCSP’s Unified Synthesis Product (password required-pre Aug 2008) states:
“Dr. Thomas R Karl is Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and is NOAA’s Program Manager for Climate Observations and Analysis. Dr. Karl is author of many climatic atlases and technical reports, and has published over 150 articles in various scientific journals…Dr. Karl has been a Lead Author on several Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessments…Dr. Karl is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union…”
In NOAA’s staff directory he’s listed as:
“Karl R DR 828-271-4476 thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov NESDIS Director, National Climatic Data Center”.
Here is a presentation he made to AMS in 2005.
Here is his testimony to the U.S. House (Wegman Report) in 2006.
As you can see here, NAS has him properly refered to as “Mr”.
To suggest that Horner fabricated this entire story is just bizarre.
You are spreading slanderous lies
Whoever you are you are spreading slanderous lies. There are no misrepresentations on the three cites that you provide. The first two are post 2002, the year in which he was awarded a Doctorate by North Carolina State Univesity.
The third pre-dates his award and thus he was referrred to as “Mr”. Nothing sinister at all, just the rantings of a denier scumbag who maliciously spreads lies without checking the facts.
Facts? FACTS?
Since when do denier scumbags need facts? Why, if they had to base their screeds on facts they wouldn’t have much to put in their comments, now would they?
Dubious Credentials
Karl received an Honorary Degree in Humane Letters in 2002. This is not the same thing as Phd in some scientific field or even an Honorary Degree in Science for that matter. An Honorary degree in Humane Letters is to recognized postnominally by the letters D.H.L or L.H.D. Karl did not seem to have any problem acknowledging this in testimony before the US House in 2002. By 2004, Karl starts playing loosey-goosey and refers to himself as “Dr.” before the US Senate even though his highest academic achievement is a Masters in Meteorology. In 2000, Karl’s CV to John Hopkins University claims a Phd from NCSU from 1977-78. A report last year from NOAA states that Karl has a Phd. Apparently a million dollar+ grant was awarded ($100,000 to NOAA) on the basis that Karl has a Phd from NCSU in 1977-78. Obviously a clear case of blatant misrepresentation. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, neither Karl or NOAA continue the “Dr.” reference as witnessed by the links in this thread provided by Mitchell. It’s too bad posters here resort to ad hominem attacks and the mods do not enforce their own comment policy. I signed up here under the guise it was a place for intellectual debate. Pity.
Grasping at shadows, like Obama Birthers
Karl received an Honorary Degree in Humane Letters in 2002.
An L. H. D. is still a “Dr.”. Not the same thing as a science Ph. D., but still a “Dr.”.
In 2000, Karl’s CV to John Hopkins University claims a Phd from NCSU from 1977-78.
That was not Karl’s CV to JHU. That was just an entry in JHU’s Expert Database, and the ‘NCSU Ph. D.’ thing might have been a clerical error on the part of JHU staff.
It’s too bad posters here resort to ad hominem attacks
Oh, the irony. Why do you deniers keep projecting like crazy?
— bi
In somewhat related news...
In somewhat related news, Tom McClintock said at the Heartland climate change ‘conference’ that it was him, “not Al Gore”, who “discovered the theory of global climate change”, and that he made his discovery in third grade.
This of course means Al Gore and the IPCC should hand the Nobel Prize over to McClintock, the federal agencies should add McClintock’s name to the 17-page booklet in big bold letters, and Svante Arrhenius should be resurrected and forced to apologize for stealing McClintock’s ground-breaking idea.
— bi
Is 'Athlete' the troll formerly known as 'Geologist'?
Is ‘Athlete’ the troll formerly known as ‘Geologist’?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Who Me?
Sorry to disappoint. Since I’m new here I don’t know who ‘Geologist’ is/was but I assume this is a compliment and will wear my new moniker as a badge of honour;-). FWIW, although hardly a hardcore enviromentalist, I am a vegetarian and animal lover. I could not agree more about the Great Bear thread posted above-I wonder if the petition will accept the name Athlete? :-). I have 8-80 foot cedar trees and over 500 shrubs and perenials all on my normal size city lot and enjoy nature to the extreme. I just do not happen to believe that Exxon is the source of all evil in the world or in apocalyptic scenarios for GHG and am willing to have an honest debate. Please CC, if you have evidence to counter my documentatoin above feel free to contribute. I assume it will be more substantial than ‘you are spreading slanderous lies’ or ‘since when do denier scumbags need facts?’ or ‘the ‘NCSU Ph. D.’ thing might have been a clerical error on the part of JHU staff’. Throwing around groundless accusations like these just embarrass your movement.
You can go on all you want
about whether or not Karl is entitled to style himself “Dr”, it won’t change the science. That’s a major red herring. The science is available all over the place, athlete. I don’t know why you would take the opinions of people only peripherally involved (if at all) in the field over the solid research of reputable, practicing climate scientists that has been piling up for decades. Try going to realclimate.org and click on “start here”. Then follow the evidence.
Red herring... and projection
That’s a major red herring.
That it is. Also, ‘Athlete’ keeps crying that others are engaging in ‘ad hominem attacks’ and spreading ‘groundless accusations’, right after doing precisely these things himself.
I’m expecting any time that he’ll complain about “eco-fascists” right before accusing us of using Nazi comparisons. Or spill a lot of ink about the US Founding Fathers and Communism and Islam just before complaining that we don’t ‘focus on the science’. And so on.
— bi
Do you know the difference between lies, truth and slander?
Athlete, or who ever you are, you ciaim: “am willing to have an honest debate”. That is another of your lies.
Your very first words on this blog were: “Lol. Tom Karl has about as much credibility as Bernie Madoff”. That is a lie and is also slander. You do not know what an honest debate is.
As I said before you are just a denier scumbag and you should be ashamed of what you have writtten on this blog.
Slandering a respected scientist will not get you anywhere on this blog. Why don’t you go and post your lies on climatefraudit, wattswrongwithwatt, icecap and other blogs that wallow in your type of dishonesty?
You are not welcome here.
Debate?
To quote your contributions in this thread;
“I signed up here under the guise it was a place for intellectual debate”,
“…willing to have an honest debate”.
You will find no shortage of willing participants if that is what you actually want, although it must be said, most of us can be a bit caustic at times.
Okay, draw your line in the sand. Tell us which parts of the science you accept and which you reject, and then tell us why.
On a tangent to this, you decry the use of ad hominem arguments. Yet, your very first response to Mitchell’s piece focused on the messenger and not the message. So how did you really want to play it?
I Guess Whoever Posts the Biggest Font Size Wins
O.K. Yoy guys and gals win. It doesn’t matter that I link to a Karl CV claiming a PhD or another link from Karl’s own web site claiming the same thing despite the fact his highest academic achievement is a Masters. What really matters is who can yell the loudest and thump on their chest the hardest. I’ll gladly play that game. It just made my job that much easier. This thread was about Tom Karl’s 17 page document and I seem to be the only one who wants to talk about it. How ironic that I’m the one who is referred to as a ‘Troll’ and yet it was all the regulars here who derailed the topic of this thread. I can understand that the AGW alarmists are a little sensitive to credibility issues, what with Hansen and Gavin and Michael Mann and Oreskes and Phil Jones and Wahl and Caspar and on and on and on, but when the evidence is placed right in front of your face you gotta learn to acknowledge it.
Another lie
Athlete (or whoever he is) said: “This thread was about Tom Karl’s 17 page document and I seem to be the only one who wants to talk about it”.
That is another one of your lies. You have said nothing about the document, all you have said are slanderous lies about Tom Karl.
Why are all deniers so dishonest and seem to be completely lacking in understanding of simple English syntax?
Are you dishonest by nature or do you have to work at it?
ad hominem continued, apparently.
And this time you throw some more names into the ring. More is better?
As Ian points put, you haven’t talked about the Climate Literacy document at all. Go on, go back and read your own comments, we’ll wait.
You also attribute the document to Tom Karl when it should be obvious he is at most a spokesman for a group. In your haste to attack Karl, did you neglect to read the document in question? If you had read it, you might have noticed the final page. The document was initiated by the NOAA and the AAAS, “Multiple science agencies, non-governmental organizations, and numerous individuals also contributed through extensive review and comment periods”, until finally it was produced by the US Global Change Research Program. The NCDC is owned by the NESDIS, which in turn is owned by the NOAA.
And still nobody, apart from Mitchell, has read the bloody thing!
Fair Comment
Karl is ‘at most a spokesman for a group’? LMAO. Karl is not just a spokesman but the co-lead author of the report. His own work is also referenced in the brochure. Didn’t realize that this was even in dispute. Obviously I disagree with anything in the report that suggests that Co2 emissions are going to lead to apocalyptic climate change. That being said, the report doesn’t really ever get into detailed specifics and generally speaks in generic terms, probably because it is designed to be an educational tool for all ages. Certainly the 7 point overview of the report on NOAA’s web site are points that nobody is going to take issue with, including all those ‘denier’ scientists. The document ends with the disclaimer
Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation
so I think it’s safe to say that if the document did get into more detail my opinions would be more in line with scientists who were not hand picked here.
Regardless of all that, I must admit the actual document was not my primary concern. What struck me funny was that this blogs stock and trade seems to be attacking the credibility of the messenger and now all of a sudden nobody seems to be too concerned that Karl said ‘There is so much misinformation about climate’ despite the fact that he’s got a lot of “misinformation’ to answer to himself. So in conclusion, to attack Karl’s credibility is fair comment.
Not "fair comment" but just more of your ad hominem attack
You have only one reason for posting your slanderous comments, that is to try and discredit an honest scientist.
The misinformation he (Karl) is referring to is the misinformation put out by denier trolls like you and the other dishonest scientists (for a list just check who was present at the Heartland Conference).
Just what misinformation does Karl have to answer too? He does not have to answer to your slanderous lies if that is what you are referring to.
No reading comprehension skills or just lack of intelligence?
Closing your eyes, denying documents and name calling are not going to make the truth disappear. Your refusal to address the documents linked to at 18:17 on Friday speak to your credibility as well as Karl’s.
Nothing honest to say?
I guess if DeSmogBlog sticks to its comments criteria we will not be hearing from “athlete” again. Why are deniers so dishonest? Oh I forgot, if they were honest they wouldn’t be deniers since it is only by denying the science that they have anything to say at all.
I Really Hate To Say I Told You So
Well looky-looky here. Guess what the cat dragged in today? Congratulations if you said new testimony by NOAA “spokesman” Tom Karl before the U.S. House. ROTFLMAO. That’s right, fresh off the press, submitted testimony by Tom Karl. And how did he identify himself? Hope you’re sitting down. That’s right…THOMAS R. KARL, L.H.D...honestly, Hollywood can’t script stuff this good. As previously mentioned above, the proof is in the pudding and since the allegations were first raised against him last August he seems to have dropped the “Dr.” from his title like he used the last time he testified before congress. So Thomas, welcome home from the dark side. I’m glad you decided to grow a pair. I must say that personally I could care less if the man is a kindergarten teacher or grave digger and agree with you that said what really counts is what the science is and not the credentials of the person talking. My point here was always about losing credibility when you claim something you’re not. Now please, to all you mudslingers who threw groundless false accusations my way, don’t all apologize at once. Tomorrow will be fine.
I confess, I'm mystified.
What does this have to do with the brochure or the current state of knowledge about the climate?
Until you started to get all het up about Karl, I didn’t have a clue who he was. Oh, I had probably seen the name but it had never registered. And more to the point you appear to be dismissing his work and the work he represents not on its content but upon an apparent confusion over customary terms of address.
Ian and Frank have already addressed your points about the timeline and provenance of your citations in your original posts, but you sailed on regardless. And after a tortuous period on the internet all I have ascertained is that is not customary to refer to the recipient of an honorary doctorate as Dr, but neither is it necessarily wrong nor unknown. But I did notice that your source for this blinding revelation has previously earned himself an entry in the DeSmogBlog database, and apparently has not, in the last four months, followed up on his stated intentions despite “already owning the facts”. Was it just character assassination after all?
Then the spokesman thing, tell me, do you know which parts of the brochure, if any, Karl wrote?
After all you seem to be confusing the report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” with the report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” and with the brochure, “Climate Literacy”. So presumably you are also confusing author with co-chair/editor with spokesman.
And now your latest gleeful outburst. Karl was spokesman or the NOAA before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Well, so what? He was either invited or instructed to represent his parent organisation. I fail to see a problem. And he is referred to as L.H.D., again, so what? After all it is your contention that this is the correct form of address, what’s your problem?
Now, what groundless accusations have been made against you? Some may have been less than polite, but groundless?
You're Msytified Because You Clearly Don't Understand
Then the spokesman thing, tell me, do you know which parts of the brochure, if any, Karl wrote?
Saying Karl is ‘at most’ a spokesman for this is like saying Obama is ‘at most’ a spokesman for the U.S. government. You clearly don’t seem to be able to comprehend the invovlement or responsibility of a co-author.
Ian and Frank have already addressed your points about the timeline and provenance of your citations in your original posts, but you sailed on regardless.
Richard, I believe you are sincere here and appreciate that as compared to other responses. Please go back to the start and read everything again (including the links) in sequence. You clearly don’t understand what’s going on here. If you still can’t comprehend this, please get back to me.
Mystified, continued...
Okay, at your behest I have reviewed the threads so far. I found eighteen links 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
We can drop four of them
6 Wikipedia – Doctor of Humane Letters
11 DeSmogBlog – Comment Policy
13 Frank Bi – Related Story
15 Literacy Brochure – 7 points
Following the remaining links, and identifying the documents, results in five duplicates. Remove those and there are nine documents left. In date order they are;
a
NAP
NRC
2001
Mr
b
JHU
Web Archive
31/07/01
PhD, one academic year
c
Energy & Commerce
Tom Karl
25/07/02
Mr
d
Appropriations
Tom Karl
29/06/04
Dr
e
AMS
Tom Karl
25/01/06
Dr
f
Energy & Commerce
Tom Karl
19/07/06
Dr
g
Planet Gore
Chris Horner
10/11/08
Accusation
h
USP
Biographies
01/01/09
Co-Chair, no academic refs.
i
Energy & Commerce
Tom Karl
25/03/09
Mr (LHD)
Before the award of Doctor of Humane Letters, we have three entries, none use the title doctor, and one is obviously an error by an admin drone at JHU. (Nobody does a PhD in a single academic year).
Following the award we have three Dr’s and one Mr, (the USP entry does not use courtesy titles). I’ve already said that the use of Dr for an honorary degree in not customary, but neither is it necessarily wrong, nor is it unprecedented. The right to use the title Dr, is quite frankly a tangled mess.
Then we have the documents;
Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences – co-author,
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States – co-chair/editor,
Climate Literacy – unattributed, spokesman.
Now seeing as you do not wish to address the science, maybe you could show malicious intent? Or should I just stop treating you seriously?
Thanx for responding. You've
Thanx for responding. You’ve put a lot of effort into this and I appreciate that. I’m also impressed with your chart. Unfortunately, you missed a couple of links and when I said go through the sequence of this thread I was referring to your statement “Ian and Frank have already addressed your points about the timeline…” and not the chronological order by date (although that is important too). In addition, I’ll elaborate on a few things to make my point more clear.
As a side note, Tom Karl is a very well renowned scientist within the community (“Until you started to get all het up about Karl, I didn’t have a clue who he was”). He is Director of NOAA, auhor of many important papers and also a Lead Author in IPCC.
I started this thread by showing random examples where Karl is credited with the title “Dr.” and how NAS refers to him as “Mr.” Ian then responded stating my NAS example was from 2001. This point is fair enough (assuming you recognize the Doctorate in Humane Letters he received in 2002 as being able to justify using “Dr.” in an academic document, which nobody does) I just picked a random sample from NAS and didn’t realize it preceded his Honory degree. But as far as I know, NAS has never referred to him as “Dr”.
After Ian and Frank, I responded with more links, the CV from JHU and this one from Karl’s own web site in June 2008. This one is not listed in your chart. Remember, these are links I’ve just stumbled onto over the years. For all I know there there are dozens of documents (it would be amazing if there were not) that claim Karl has a Ph D. To say that the CV was “obviously an error by an admin drone at JHU. (Nobody does a PhD in a single academic year)” is just dismissive and avoiding the point. Remember the reason JHU had this CV was for an application for a million dollar grant which they received. Unless JHU completely fabricated the CV (certainly at least a remote possibiliy) they must have got the information from somewhere. Either way, since NOAA got $100,000, if you were Karl would you not address this? Regardless of all that and the money invovled, if you were Karl wouldn’t you make sure your own organization wasn’t posting documents listing yourself has a Ph D? Remember, this is just one I stumbled upon.
The other link not in your chart (it was actually a “cut and paste”-the link required a password although I have since found another link here) that was not adressed (admittantly I did not explain it very well) was:
“Dr. Thomas R Karl is Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and is NOAA’s Program Manager for Climate Observations and Analysis. Dr. Karl is author of many climatic atlases and technical reports, and has published over 150 articles in various scientific journals…Dr. Karl has been a Lead Author on several Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessments…Dr. Karl is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union…”
In NOAA’s staff directory he’s listed as:
“Karl R DR 828-271-4476 thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov NESDIS Director, National Climatic Data Center”.
This link is from the first draft of the NOAA’s/CCSP’s Unified Synthesis Product report in July 2008. It states on it “Do not cite or quote”. It was shortly after this came out in August that the allegation of misuse of the term “Dr.” came out against Karl. As linked above, in the final report they removed all credentials from everyone. And this is the main (chronological) point that supercedes everything else. When Karl first received a Doctorate in Humane Letters in 2002 he had no problem recognizing the appropriate title. From the 2002 testimony
Born 22 November 1951, Evergreen Park, Illinois. B.S., Meteorology, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb, Illinois, 1973; M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1974, Hon. Doctor of Humane Letters, North Carolina State University, 2002
Then from at least 2004-2008 he refers to himself as “Dr.” Again, the links I’ve shown are just what I’ve come across without doing any real research and I think it’s safe to say they are obviousally just the tip of the iceberg. Then since the allegation was made in Aug/08 Karl has removed the “Dr.” and replaced it wih either no recognition or the proper term L.H.D. Even if Karl’s Honorary was in science (as opposed to Humane Letters) it should never ever be used in an academic situation. Notice Sean O’Keefes bio at NOAA. He has 5 Honary degrees and is referred to as “Mr.”
Right! Where was I?
Okay, first off. When I read/scan a paper or report I don’t pay a lot of attention to the authors name unless it is specifically brought to my attention. I’m not a climate scientist so these people are not my professional peers. I’m sure I’ve encountered his name before, but not attached any significance.
To me the chronological order, is all important, and is what I meant when I mentioned the timeline. It serves to untangle an otherwise obscure mess. Especially where claims of dishonesty relate to an award occurring partway through career.
Yes, I dropped a link between the first list and the chart, it was a mistake, the link wasn’t a duplicate and should have ended up in the chart. ‘Owever! It was a press release. From my own experiences with company “communications” departments, I wouldn’t be surprised at anything that turned up in a press release. I don’t think it can be taken as evidence of malfeasance by Karl.
And yes, I was dismissive about the CV. Look at it again. The periods for the BSc. and MSc. are clearly accounted for. On that basis the PhD was earned in a single year, obviously an error. You suggest that this CV was an integral part of a grant application. I’ve yet to see what the grant was for, or if the CV was part of it. But consider, that a million dollar grant is huge. A grant that size supports labs or departments, it involves many people. Why would his CV have been part of a grant application when he was already a director of the NCDC, except as in a managerial role within one of the agencies involved? Besides which, his publications establish his bona fides as well as earning him that honorary doctorate.
I think it is disingenuous to link to a first draft when the second draft has already been included. Come on, the whole purpose of a draft is to get the bugs out.
Overall, I don’t see a clear claim of having been awarded a PhD, and I do see the use of Dr. Attributing, or not, this to deliberate misinformation depends on the bias employed approaching the subject. I’m quite willing to chalk that up to unconventional or ill-informed interpretation of the rules regarding honorary doctorates. I suspect we will not / can not agree there.
Are we nearly done yet?