CapitalClimate's comment submitted to Revkin's post is quoted below, but there are other interesting comments, as well as one that is particularly amusing. The anonymity of the signature "wmar" creates some ambiguity, but the incoherence, both linguistically and scientifically, points in the direction of one of our favorite squawk radio meteorologists.
As a degreed meteorologist and member of the AMS for over 45 years, I am very pleased to see the Society take a responsible public position on an issue which has serious and far-reaching consequences to society at large. As a former member for over 3 years of Capital Weather Gang and its predecessor web site (author of PM Update Monday-Friday), I repudiate my ex-colleague's ill-advised comments. Freedman's conflation of "clear communication of climate science in the public arena", one of the stated bases of the award, with politics is naive at best. This is especially baffling in light of the fact that he professes to be a student of climate policy. If he can't understand the difference between communication and partisan politics, he should be looking for a new career field.
Freedman's citing of an extremist view from one of the most biased and widely-discredited climate web sites is even more egregious. The only reasonable explanation is that this is some kind of juvenile attempt to gain approval from corporate taskmasters by promoting the same kind of "mushy middle" that you yourself have been rightly accused of advocating by Joe Romm and others. (I was personally a witness to your firm adherence to that false dichotomy in the face of sharp questioning at the DC MIT club seminar series last year.) It's no surprise that IceCrap has returned the favor by prominently featuring Freedman's post on its own main page.
It's hypocritical to argue that Hansen is not qualified for an award because he is accused of having an agenda by some whose own agenda is highly suspect. (Have you investigated the sources of D'Aleo's funding, for example?) The Rossby Medal is not a popularity contest. Either the work is technically qualifying for recognition or not. Denying the honor as punishment for speaking out in the policy arena is just as wrong as denying certification to meteorologists who are not public advocates. On the other hand, D'Aleo's activity with such organizations as the Fraser Institute is far more overtly political than Hansen's. Should D'Aleo's recognition as Fellow of the AMS be questioned because of his political action? What about Richard Lindzen, an outspoken skeptic in such scientific venues as the Wall Street Journal op-ed page and the Larry King show? Are his Meisinger and Charney Awards from the AMS or AGU Macelwane Medal to be revoked? I don't think so.