Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations | Main | Standing on the shoulders of pygmies »

Me and Bob

Bob Ward has written an article in Comment is

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (47)

A clear sign of the importance of your book, and the concern with which they have regarding your report on the inquiries. Bob Wards piece is clearly aimed at providing ammo for the Wiki editors and at a pre-emptive strike against your report. Pretty much what you'd expect if the PR machine funded by 'Big Climate' was at least attempting to do its job properly.

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Why does Ward not wait for the report and judges it on its merit?

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

Great news... even if it is a bit of hatchet job. Plus commentators all get a mention...

I haven't read Montford's book, but I do look at his website (mainly for amusement). It is all insinuation, conspiracy theory and bad-mouthing of scientists. It also contains remarkably little actual science.

The honour...

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Ward is poisoning the well, as he is paid to do. Yes actually paid by some very rich outfits.

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRhoda

Projection by AGW promoters is becoming more and more shrill, even as it becomes more pathetic.
Ward is a well paid promoter, indeed.

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

He doesn't actually attack the main thrust of HSI, namely the hockey stick. It is all about your add-on chapter about the Climategate emails.

This sort of pre-emptive strike at your GWPF report shows how concerned the alarmist numpties such as Ward really are.

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Small point, in line with Guardian's headline/byline writing rules then mentioned on this blog, they have kept to their promise to use "sceptics" - previously this would have been "deniers".

Aug 19, 2010 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Get over to the Guardian everyone and comment (unless, like me, you’ve been banned from Comment is Free for life). Numbers of comments, and “recommends” on the comments, suggest that the readership of Guardian Environment is huge.
True, the most popular articles are on subjects far removed from climate change. (Currently, Guardian readers are being invited to reduce their carbon pawprints by cutting down on washing, and three of the six most popular articles are about sex and bicycles). So pop over there now and give the poor things something serious to worry about.

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

We have been here before.

I detect a deliberate and concerted effort on the part of the eco-numpties to discredit another perceived threat to their discredited ideology.

"Who will rid me of this meddlesome bishop?"

"We will", replies McIntosh, Ward, et al.

..... and so a cunning plan was hatched.

Unfortunately, this plan only discredits the Scottish Review of Books. They have been delibrately used in a botch attempt to discredit BH.

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"Sex and bicycles?"

You guys really are agile.

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

Ooh, someone has rattled Bob's cage...

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Lish

Thanks, Guardian, for some useful publicity for HSI and the forthcoming review-of-reviews.

The best comments on the Bob Ward article are those that quote Fred Pearce against him, and also the recent Guardian debate. Plus dismissing him as a PR hack.

Isn't it time the Guardian did a formal review of HSI ?

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohninLondon


As I have said in the past CiF stands for Censorship is Frequent.

You can repeat the experiment I did.

Set up two accounts, one pro AGW and one sceptical, and see how long before your comments start to be censored.

My sceptical account was stopped within 24 hours of commenting, my pro-AGW is still open many months on.

Also take a look at the large turnaround in sceptical accounts names on CiF compared to the old laggardly pro-AGWers who haunt the climate change blogs at the Guardian. That is further proof that there is something seriously amiss about the way that comments are moderated.

It all points to the fact that Guardian is delibrately stopping CiF user accounts and censoring comments that goes against the editorial line on climate change.


Aug 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac


Yesturday you was givin out about de awful spelin on a tread.

Today, you is usin bad grammur.

It is not Me and Bob.

It shud hav bean Bob and mee.

Awl in favor, say I

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

The Wikipedia stuff is EVIL!

According to Wikipedia policy blog entries can not be used as sources so this is a great way to feed the AGW side of the discussion on the book on... surprise Wikipedia! So far there have been very few negative reviews of the book so far in Wikipedia acceptable sources. Voila! A great new addition to the WP article.

Aug 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom H

Let us be clear: from Global Warmmongers, it's praise when the comment is made "..... has a history of omitting evidence to suit his arguments". He's setting you on a par with the Hide the Decline gurus.

Aug 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

It does not help Bob cause that he started be claiming there hack on CRU but produces no evidence for this claim, given that no investigation has found any. It would suggest that Bob is himself happy to promote ‘disinformation’ to further his own views , ironically exactly what he is accusing other of doing .

Aug 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

The piece is headlined: Andrew Montford who is conducting an investigation into the UEA inquiry has a history of omitting evidence to suit his arguments

If this is not true, you've just been libelled Mr Montford!

BTW, isn't this the Bob Ward who, at the Monbiot-chaired public meeting, admitted that he hadn't read any of the emails in question?

Aug 19, 2010 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPogo

Pogo. No that was Bob whatsisname (Watson) , the chief scientific adviser to DEFRA.

Aug 19, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Thanks Phil... "Too many Bobs" syndrome obviously! :-)

Aug 19, 2010 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPogo

Followed the story on CA, WUWT etc for three years or so and bought your excellent book which I read in nearly one sitting although I was familiar with most, but not all of the facts.
No such thing as bad publicity especially in the Guardian and from the Grantham institute.
I know who's side I'm on and, of course, science not propaganda will win in the end.

BTW also read John Etherington's ' Wind Farm Scam '. I only wish our Coalition Gov. would read it before it's too late.

Aug 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterG.Watkins


I didn't realize you'd been banned, what a pity. Their loss, frankly.

Aug 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

In the interests of openness and journalism, would the Guardian be interested in a response from the Bishop?

Aug 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Look on the bright side - it's only the Grauniad. It's not like anybody with a brain will believe it.

Aug 19, 2010 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

Bob Ward: Grant seeker, bed-wetter and turf protector.

Aug 19, 2010 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered Commenter"Dr." Karl

See my comment on Ward's piece.

Aug 19, 2010 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander

Surely, a good chance to see if Bishop Hill, is allowed to comment again at CiF

Maybe James Randerson, (guardsian) will come back to explain the 'moderation' policy...?!

Aug 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

The moderation policies on CiF are highly dependent on the articles author.
From my experience, Monbiot and Pearce seem to be most sensitive to even mild criticism.

Aug 19, 2010 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris S

It's amazing that Ward is promoting Fred Pearce's excellent book on the same page as his ridiculous piece, as he obviously hasn't read it. First time I've actually posted on CiF and sure enough my third comment was deleted. (I've joined The Club !)
I warmed to Fred at the Monbiot debate and was impressed with the hatchet job they did on CRU and all its works (ably assisted by McIntyre and Keenan of course).
Almost at the end of his book Fred says ' Finally, Climategate raises questions about the IPCC report-writing process, in which many of the emailers have been involved . Governments set up the IPCC more than 20 years ago to get scientists to speak with one voice on climate change. But often there is no clear consensus . Scientists are trained to disagree, but they have sometimes become drawn into what amounts to a political process of cobbling together bogus consensus. That is both bad politics and bad science'.
I bet Bob Ward didn't pick up on that bit !

Aug 19, 2010 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

Thanks Philip.
Barry Woods, Chris S, I’m fairly sure the moderation policy is independent of the journalists. Monbiot once got annoyed at me and threw around accusations of astroturfing, but I wasn’t penalised. I was banned for life “due to repeat problems with personal abuse”. (I called Abraham the Monckton slayer “stupid” on a Monbiot thread. That’s the Monbiot who refers to us as “bullshitters” and “scumbags”).
I suspect what gets you banned is multiple reports of abuse from angry warmists. I doubt whether the moderators go into it very deeply. I never report abuse, even for comments hoping I die, or casting aspersions on my virility, or expressing the desire to “roger” me. They’re a funny lot, warmists, when the heat gets to them.

Aug 19, 2010 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Why now, maybe not the report....

But the new statistical paper, that discredits the statistical methods used to produce the hockey stick....

I wonder if James Randerson (guardiuan) will be back defending the CiF moderation 'policy':

An ealier thread:

Bishop Hill reply to the Guardians James Randerson was priceless:

"I left a comment on an article in which Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign.
I said that Monbiot should resign.

I was put on moderation for being abusive.

George still seems to be writing for the Guardian though."

Aug 19, 2010 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Bob Ward uses the word "Conspiracy" three times in his article. Yet he states :
"The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, with amazing timing, was officially launched by Lord Lawson of Blaby just three days after the emails first appeared on the web on 20 November 2009"

Amazing timing? Is it a conspiracy?

Aug 19, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterandyscrase

It seems that a concerted effort is underway against the HSI.

But why all the effort if the book is laughable?

I think your eminence's arrows scored some very direct hits...

Aug 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterDennis

It never fails to amuse me that the 'recommended' counters on CiF always show a strong skeptical bias. It must infuriate the moderators!

Aug 19, 2010 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Andy, I think Bob Ward was definitely trying to intimate what you suggest. But the poor man was also I'm sure constrained by the thought that Lawson might just know his way around the libel laws better than some of his softer targets. The unfairness. All he's trying to do is an honest day's sliming, as Steve McIntyre calls it, and he's stymied by these petty legal details.

Aug 19, 2010 at 8:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

andyscrase wrote: "Bob Ward uses the word "Conspiracy" three times in his article. Yet he states :
"The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, with amazing timing, was officially launched by Lord Lawson of Blaby just three days after the emails first appeared on the web on 20 November 2009"

Amazing timing? Is it a conspiracy?"

The GWPF should sue. Seriously. What evidence does Bob Ward have? None. Exactly the same evidence for his accusation of 'hacking' and 'stolen'.

Pure PR slander.

Aug 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

Chris S have to agree with there , the irony is Monboit loves to get down and dirty , who can forgot his attempt to claim that climate sceptics should be treated like Holocaust deniers or the old don’t care about the climate because they’re going to die soon. He is a classic bully that loves to dish it out , but runs to mum/moderators when he gets any back.

Aug 19, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Why does Ward not wait for the report and judges it on its merit?
Had to think for a mo what that was about... ah yes, of course, Bob's pre-emptive strike, to try to stop people even reading your forthcoming report... "remarkably little science"... like the reviewer who didn't need to read your book before reviewing it.

It would suggest that Bob is himself happy to promote ‘disinformation’ to further his own views , ironically exactly what he is accusing other of doing .
FIRST SCOUNDRELS' RULE: attack an innocent who knows your misdeed, and attack him of the very same misdeed.
SECOND SCOUNDREL'S RULE: attack pre-emptively, don't give your innocent victim a chance to inform anyone.

In the bad old days when I was a warmist because I believed the scoundrels, I "knew" that Monckton simply wasn't even fit to be looked at. It took me a surprisingly long time to disabuse myself of all that...

...ah, but I did.

Aug 19, 2010 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterLucy Skywalker

If it is not "Me and Bob", as Peter Walsh says, it is not "Bob and me" either. Methinks tis Bob and I.

Aug 20, 2010 at 12:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterHector M.

As a title "Bob and Me" is OK because in this case the Bishop is the object being written about, surely? " Me and Bob" is just a colloquialism of the same, I would say.

Aug 20, 2010 at 9:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Someone at the Guardian, commenting about Andrew:

Knowles2: Why does he needs a invite, if he willing to argue his case, this comment board is open an free to post, an he could make his comments an replies to the articles in the comment section. Right here an now. He could actually engage the audience an the author in a discussion

There no need for a seperate article, where he will not doubt rather rubble on about his theories an conspiracies rather have a debate an a discussion about them.

A response allowed there:

Knowles2 ironically for your idea Montford is banned from posting on CIF, so he can’t reply to this article on here ,he has replied on his own web site , you could always go there and read it.

My very short, polite, comment, is still held for moderation...

So it seems that The Guardian has zero intelectual honesty, still

Aug 20, 2010 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods


You may have missed my last line on spelling and grammar.

I wrote, quite carefully, "All in favor say "I"

Get it?

Peter Walsh

Aug 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

I love playing the anagram game.

I note how so many of the contributors here have a nice warm fuzzy feeling for the Graudian.

So, I've been playing with the letters and have come up with something for it.

But first, I had to use the facility loved by Climate Scientists which is referred to as smoothing, or is itsomething else I can't think off offhand.

Anyway, I have smoothed the letters of the Graudian and added in another "R" to round it off, so now we have Grraudian.

That helped me a lot, believe me.

It works out:

"Durian Rag"

So you can see, with a little bit of adjustment here, and a liitle bit of adjustment there, you can come up with whatever you want

Easy, why didn't I think of that before!

I wonder what else we can all come up with?

Maybe the Bish will offer an autographed copy of his HSI as a prize

Aug 20, 2010 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

Ward raises the issue of the Shaopeng Huang borehole paper and to be honest I cant remember what The Bish said about this paper in the book. However the point about the paper is that it showed a medieval warm period and it was presented to The IPCC in time for the same AR that featured Mann's Hockey stick. I dont think Huang's paper got a mention. Ward then says Yah boo sucks to the Bish because a recent paper by Huang showed that today's temperatures are warmer than the MWP. Once again the issue is that there IS a MWP and that in The Hockeystick there is NO MWP Doh!

Aug 20, 2010 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

A good idea to ask for a response opportunity from the Grauniad. Have a chat with Richard North at EUref as he has experience with the process after his spot of bother with the Moonbat over there.

Aug 22, 2010 at 4:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterJabba the Cat

RETEPHSLAW: "I love playing the anagram game"

'Guardian': 'a uni grad', 'Dr. Iguana', 'dung aria'.

'The Guardian': 'aidant rehug', 'airgun death', 'gaunt haired', 'indurate hag', 'naught aired'.

'Aidant rehug' captures what the paper is all about (albeit at the cost of a rather rare word). And 'gaunt haired indurate hag' is a fine description of the paper's modal reader.

[My thanks to whoever wrote the invaluable Unix 'agm' utility.]

Aug 22, 2010 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterJane Coles



Peter Walsh

Aug 22, 2010 at 7:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>