Wednesday
Apr142010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Times debate
Apr 14, 2010 Climate: CRU Media I'm doing an online debate for the Times website tomorrow at 3pm. The theme is "The Climategate inquiry: can we trust the outcome". Opposition is to be confirmed but I understand they're trying to get Bob Ward.
Reader Comments (36)
Bob Ward?
That'll be nice. A particularly egregious bully and a PR man (from the Grantham Institute, Lord Stern's scamming outfit) masquerading as a "Climate Scientist".
Take some bullshit repellent.
Bob Ward........you should ask him about his profile on Tvchix.com!
[snip] Bob Ward.
Oh how you must be relishing such an encounter Your Holiness. Here's what I'd do if I were fortunate enough to be in your shoes.
Why should we trust the outcome Bob Ward? Explain to me this profession of climatology you defend as science, and upon whose statistically insignificant results you advocate. Derive for me your proof of AGW based on the "basic physics" so often quoted by Bob Ward types. Show me your empiric observational evidence, and not your computer models.
"The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth."
Dick Feynman, Proper Scientist, describing the principle, almost the definition, of science.
Bob Ward is the living embodiment of the sayings that 'money talks' and 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'. He is merely the propagandist for his paymasters and has to keep 'on message' for them. Bob Ward is the PR man for the Grantham Institute, which with the other Grantham climate change endowment at Imperial College are bankrolled by the Granthams to the tune of £24 million. The Granthams also bankroll WWF, Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Woods Hole Research Institute and a host of other eco-advocacy groups.
Whatever Ward says, it's always appropriate to add 'Well, he would say that wouldn't he?' I'm surprised that journalists are so lacking in discernment as to invite spokesmen who are simply paid to say what they say as PR men.
This sounds extremely good! By “Climategate inquiry”, which is being referred to—parliamentary, Oxburgh, Russell (or all of them)?
Don't expect any reasonableness, fair-mindedness, or intellectual honesty from Bob Ward. Expect soundbites, "think of the children" arguments, and appeals to authority. The best style to debate him is probably Marc Morano's,
Richard at EuRef has an interesting assessment:
However, while the failures are obvious and manifold, there is something of the Curates's egg in the report. For instance, there are the references to the equivocal nature of the science. In selecting the appropriate data, "a great deal of judgement has to be used", says the Panel, what to use and discard are "all matters of experience and judgement" and "the potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area."
These comments need to be put in context with the second of the Panel's conclusions. Surprise is expressed that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods was not carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.
There would be mutual benefit, the Panel says, if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.
Such is the nearest thing one finds to real criticism, but the lines are broad and reading between them suggests the recognition of a major failure in the use of statistical techniques.
Thus, we can put together a picture of the selection of data requiring "a great deal of judgement" which is extremely prone to selection bias, which was then subject to statistical techniques without the input from professional statisticians. And on top of that, there is an acknowledgement that judgemental decisions made had not been properly recorded, so that the work could be replicated by others.
bish, just want to say i heard u on bbc last nite aussie time and u have come a long way media-wise. excellent and on point. pity lustig threw in a loud-voiced 'what will it take' line at the end, after hearing what u explained was lacking in the report. what don't they get?
[Snip-venting]
Bob will expect you to apologise to CRU, you know: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100034453/climategate-cru-whiter-than-er-whitewash-as-world-laughs-at-agw-scam-apologists/
I'm sure you'll do very well, especially if If it is Bob Ward you are up against.
As he is a bureaucrat before he is a scientist, he will in all probability make the mistake of under-estimating your grasp of the material.
Whatever, best wishes.
Yer Grace:
Good luck, but if it's Bob Ward don't get complacent. He'll come armed with talking points, distortion and innuendo. You may already have noticed his contribution at Climate Audit on this thread:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-to-hide-the-trick/#comments
Whoever is your opposite, don't let him frame the discussion or define the terms. Ignore the distracting questions. I'm very much reminded of Ben Kingsley's character in "The Last Legion" confronting the usurper Odowaker:
Kingsley/Ambrosinus: " That would be a grave error, Lord Odowaker."
Odowaker: "who are you?"
Kingsley/Ambrosinus: "Kill the boy and you make a martyr of him, and Ceasar's ghost will haunt you ever after."
Odowaker: "Is that so?" (he took the bait)
Kingsley/Ambrosinus: "Read the signs."
Odowaker: "What signs?" (pet crow flies in)
Kingsley/Ambrosinus: "Do not mustake it, Lord Odowaker. If you hear one thing then hear this: what now happens in this room will echo across an empire. A city may be won by blood, but it takes a man of vision to rule."
Odowaker: "All empires are built on blood."
Kingsley/Ambrosinus: "People will judge you."
Odowaker: "The people will thank the gods they survived to serve their new master. Now I ask, who are you?" (twice, now the question is asked)
Kingsley/Ambrosinus: "Will they respect a ruler who so feared a Roman child that he had to butcher him?"
Odowaker: "Perhaps the boy is more use to us alive." (point taken, and now Kingsley answers the question).
Odowaker never had to study rhetoric or debate, I gather. Make them answer your questions and address your issues. Get the point across that there is a parliamentary election soon. What is decided by the British electorate will echo across the world. The British can decide the American elections in November.
Unrelated:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8615789.stm
don't talk about the science... he will destroy you... pr spin
talk about the politics of AGW...
ie IF they really believed it, they would not be doing carbon credits, etc..
All the public will hear is an authoritaive voice - Ward. belittling a unknown conspiracy scientists - bishop..
be ulra polite, calm reasonable.
talk about the failure of windfarms, the loss of remaing energy intensive manufacturing industry in the UK.. ie cost of co2 emmission forcing the companies abroad (a la corus)
where they pay no such co2 emmissions.
etc
Your commentary on yesterday's BBC segment went well Andrew.
What would an Oxburgh Panel inquiry(sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry) into alleged pharmaceutical industry maleficence look like and would BBC & Times Online followers be pleased with the findings?
I suspect Bob Ward would only need to quote the previous commenter "don't talk about the science... he will destroy you " to prove his point!
I think it would be worth pointing out that the Secretary General has so far totally ignored the Copenhagen Climate Challenge at http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/ .
If the UN and others are so confident their conclusions are correct, why have they been so afraid to share the basic data underlying their claims? The lack of response from the Sec Gen speaks volumes.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
Roger Pielke Jr debated with Bob Ward and Robert Muir-Wood at the Royal Institution earlier this year - there's a link to the audio recording in the comments on this thread on Roger's site:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/update-rumble-at-ri.html
(also, regarding the comment above, I think you should definitely discuss the science)
@Robert E Phelan
"Get the point across that there is a parliamentary election soon. What is decided by the British electorate will echo across the world. The British can decide the American elections in November."
Hey Robert - How does that work?
Vote Blue (the Cameronian Party) - get Green
Vote Yellow (little Cap'n Clegg & the Dims) - get Green
Vote Red (The Labour Pain) - get Green
Vote Green (Stabber Lucas) - get Green
So it's either BNP (OK, better a bunch of old fashioned fascist thugs than a bunch of dangerous eco-fascist greenie thugs - but I still won't vote for THEM) or UKIP. If I get a UKIP candidate to vote for. And will anyone notice?
This will echo across the world? Hmmm.
Hope so but not holding my breath.
I've just had an email from Bob Ward complaining about the comments on this thread. Could I ask every one to calm down.
"I've just had an email from Bob Ward complaining about the comments on this thread."
They really dont' like this 'free speech' business do they?
Good luck. I would take the opportunity to mention CA and SM and comment on the cowardly non-mention of him in the Oxburgh "independent" "report". I'd suggest not mentioning your book as that comes across as a bit tacky - I'm sure someone else will mention it! The link for the debate is here.
Some quote about "heat" and "kitchen" springs readily to mind in the case of Mr. Ward...
Will this debate be turned into a transcript to be read after? Be handy for my wikipedia article about this blog
Well he is in a position of authority..
I have no such position..
In fact I am censored/moderated/abused at every turn, (Guardian, Greenpeace, BBC, RealClimate, Conservative Home!, the blue blog (official tory!) labour list, etc)
I have NO voice at all, just must listen to state sponsored propaganda:
When I say don't talk about the science, it is a response to that is exactly what the enquiry has done...!!!! Not talked about the science!!!
Talk about the consequences of the 'science'
The science is out there, the IPCC has been shown to ignore any non 'believer' science..
when I say talk about the politics.. That is very relevant, because the IPCC/CRU personnal (lead authors, etc) are the problem..
The IPCC is supposed to review ALL the scientific literature.
Yet for poltical reason they have cherry picked it, pal reviewed it, and spun it...
Bob Ward in my mind is part of the establishment that is making people fearful for their future (needlessly)
This is what a believer said to me on a website: (her caps)
WHAT THE SCIENCE HAS ALERTED US TO IS THE FACT THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN INTERFERING WITH THE NATURAL CYCLE OF CLIMATE, AND THAT OUR ACTIONS ARE TIPPING THE CLIMATE INTO A STATE THAT HASN'T BEEN EXPERIENCED SINCE...PERHAPS BEFORE LIFE ITSELF BEGAN. THE NEW CLIMATE STATE COULD BE INHOSPITABLE TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH. THAT'S NOT A VERY ENTERTAINING THOUGHT
my response:
I do feel sorry for you if you really believe that.
please calm down.
I am also not confused... I am sure I know as much or more about the science as you do. I definetly know more about modelling complex non-linear chaotic systems in computers than you do..
I could choose to hang about sceptic website, as you could choose to hang around RealClimate.
But that does not make a reasonable debate, just descends into political point scoring.
If you read working group 1 reports, the problems here are very much recognised by the IPCC scientists.
The problem is politicians do not understand the, if, but, coulds, may bes of science and it is all turned into we ARE going to melt soundbite. Of course whilst flying the world in their private jets.
Even Phil Jones has said that the current period of warming is not unprecedented, also that the rate of warming is not unprecedented. The earth has been warmer before, and warmed quicker before all naturally..
I remember when we were in a cooling period, and the media and scientific papers - (Nature included)were gettin over excited about an approcahing little ice age.. ie is the human race cursed to folllow it is geting colder, extrapolate linearlly into the future - we are all going to freeze....
Followed by it's warming up again, extrapolate linearlly into the future - we are all going to fry..
Even now, the 'scientits' and the acknowledege climate science is not settled that their are many unknowns, say we can't explain it (the climate) it 'must' be human.
Any scientist will recognise that is a position of ignorance, which will actually prevent any body looking for any other explanation. If their was ANY actual human signatiure due to CO2 identified by now, I'm sure it would be shouted from the rooftops.
'Must' is the issue.
I thought we had progressed from the middlke ages as a species.
"The crops are failing, we don't know why, it 'must' be witches, burn the witches!"
If, for arguments sake, man made CO2 was the problem why is every politician, corpoartion doing exactly the wrong thing.. you should be fighting them, not sceptical member of the public.. Talk about the 'political science'
ie bio fuels..
Bio fuels may be more sustainable than oil. ie you can grow it..
But IT produces just as much CO2 when you burn it!!!.
I though we were supposed to be reducing CO2..
Sustainability is another (important) issue but it has nothing to do with the CO2 debate.
Biofuels, when you take into account the energy of production, etc (note who is producing the biofuels - no other than 'Big Oil' - 'Big Energy' now - who are making billions) produce more co2 than oil, especially if it encourages people to use it more becaus it is 'Green'.
Think Al Gore, Tony Blair, Obama flying around the world in the co2 emmiting private jets - but its ok because it is bio fuel..
This shows the ignorance of politicians, JUST as MUCH co2 is being emmited.
And yet, because of Bio fuels, hundreds of millions of the world's poor are in food poverty, because the price of grain has doubled or tripled because of so called 'green bio fuels' And of course the EU is sanctiioning the destruction of the bio diversity of pristine rainforests, to grow monoculture bio fuels!!!
that is beyond satire, beyond farce.. and very sad to an old environmenatlist..
A 45 trillion carbon economy is around the corner, the multinationals, big corporations, 'BIG ENERGY', lots of bankers getting very excited, hedgefunds, 'carbon offests, carbon trading - almost designed for fraud - (oh they were - enron invented it) by the money mking opportunities, and governments (tax rises - because we are saving the planet - how can a voter disagree with that)
None of it will reduce CO2 in the slightest, the elite rich will just get richer, the worlds poor will suffer, you and I will pay a few more taxes, we will survive.
So if you really believe that we are all doomed, join this sceptical person in lobbying government, etc. that what they are doing is NOT going to solve the problem.
As I said, I have many friends in climate research ( one even has a % of climategate emails in their name) I have friends/relatives that are senior greens.
I am trying to get across to them, don't wake up in ten years time and think - 'What have we done!!' when the penny drops are the sceptics were proved right on the above issues - how many millions will have starved.
I can sit around the dinner table with these people, look after each others young children.
Yet the debate I get into when I try to discuss things with 'believers' is I am an enemy, deliuded, big oil funded 'deniar'.. ( a truly appalling word used to attempt to close down debate)
Which is appalling.
sorry for the long post.
My mp's response to if you look at their website no censorship.
next sentence. Sorry that you comments were removed?!
Poor old Bob Ward.
Highly paid professional advocate, honoured by the MSM with the oxymoron "Climate Change Expert". PR man & talking head. Available for every TV and newspaper debate to defend the indefensible.
Mr Ward, your position is highly privileged, and I dare say there are many contributors here more highly qualified, and with a far more profound knowledge of the science you lay claim to than you, who will never have the opportunities to speak to the masses that you take daily for granted.
If you are upset by some of those comments here, from legitimate members of your audience, then perhaps you are in the wrong job.
You don't need advice from me, but here it is anyway.
Do not respond to provocation.
Do not get engaged in some tussle to 'win the spin', 'win the moment', 'win the soundbite'.
I am greatly impressed by what you have contributed, and by your general approach.
I wish you well for the online session. Step by step....
So Bob Ward doesn't like the comments. Pity him. He's the PR man for a so-called 'research' institution that is being bankrolled by the same couple, the Granthams, who are bankrolling WWF, Greenpeace, The Union of Concerned Scientists and other eco-advocacy groups to the tune of £165 million. And let's not think that the Granthams are remote from The Grantham Research Institute or Bob ward: they both sit on the Advisory Board, along with Carter Roberts, President and Chief Executive Officer of WWF in USA and James Smith, Chairman of Shell UK ('Big Oil'!), and billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham sits on the Management Board alongside Bob Ward and Nicholas Stern.
For plain stupidity and childishness was Ward's comment yesterday - not the one about the apology, but the sentence before:
"The Panel has carried out a thorough investigation of the evidence, and anybody who simply rejects these findings will show that they are motivated by prejudice and ideology rather than by scepticism and a desire to uncover the truth."
It's a case of 'point weak, shout loud'. So he doesn't like ad hominems, does he? But he can dish them out, because that is about the most snide and broadest ad hominem you can make, saying that if you don't accept a rubbish weasel-worded report chaired by a man who is up to his neck in vested interests then you must be "motivated by prejudice and ideology".
Oh, I suppose all those eco-fanatic organizations being bunged tens of millions of pounds by the Granthams aren't motivated by prejudice and ideology then?
I find that totally baffling. As long as no actual libel is involved, why does he care what a bunch of commenters on a blog think of him?
[BH adds: There is no need for people to be offensive.]
After listening to the Bishops interview describing the clear ommisions in the scope of these investigations and hearing about the avoidance of David Hollands submission by Russell, I think a good point to get over is the fact that these investigations are so limited - what is the CAGW community so scared of?
How can the basis of the CAGW philosophy be so robust if it can't be allowed to be tested outside these timid inquiries?
Jeremy Grantham, Bob Ward's paymaster via the Grantham Foundation, who bankrolls all those eco-advocacy groups, says
“…climate change is turning into the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. I wanted to invest my money in places where it might actually help tackle that problem…the environment, especially climate change, is going to be the central issue for all society, including business, politics and the economy. Capitalism and business are going to have to remodel themselves and adapt to a rapidly changing and eventually very different world…Humanity…don’t understand how frightening the numbers behind climate change really are. What’s more, the people who can count, the scientists, are paralysed with fear about overstating their case. They have consistently understated the risk and so allowed politicians to ignore it…Our species is very bad at dealing with issues like these, so the outlook is bleak.”
So he bungs tens of millions of pounds into promoting climate alarmism. No motivation by prejudice and ideology there, then.
Speaking as an Australian, Mr Ward's reaction to the comments here strike me as being rather quaint and oh so British!
Re: Martin Brumby
"Hey Robert - How does that work?"
You're right, lots of bad choices. Just like here. It doesn't matter who you vote in, just vote the incumbent out. If there is a blood bath among MP's they'll get the message. Vote the same silly [SNIP]s back in and nothing will change. Vote them out and the Americans will be encouraged to do the same.
As for Bob Ward's e-mail, that's a gambit. I don't know much about Mr. Ward but I intend to rectify that situation. From what I've seen so far, I don't much like him.
I've just had an email from Bob Ward complaining about the comments on this thread. Could I ask every one to calm down.
Why doesn't he post?
Oh, what do you know...Bob Ward's paymasters Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham are on the National Council of WWF in USA, and Carter Roberts, President and Chief Executive Officer of WWF in USA is on The Advisory Board of Bob's employer, The Grantham Research Institute. Now, there's a surprise!
To quote Neil Innes, 'No matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.'
The Englishman has a refreshing take on the report, and the reports of the report.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/008558.html