Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

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

Powered by Squarespace
« The press conference | Main | Jones in El Pais »

Quickfire Bob

I'm off to the big smoke this morning, but I leave you with another example of Bob's superfast typing. This time it's his comment on the notice I posted, pointing readers to the Guardian article.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (147)

trolls love attention.

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

"You've no idea what, if anything, I'm denying, yet you call me a denier?"
Sep 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM | Cumbrian Lad

If you actually side with science, and agree that we are responsible for a significant part of the temperature rise since we started releasing increasing quantities of CO2 into the air, and that the temperature rise we our causing is going to have serious negative consequences in the (relatively) near future, both for us and life on Earth, then I am deeply, humbly sorry.

However, seeing where you post, I considered your total agreement with this to be extremely unlikely, in which case....


Sep 13, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

I seem to have stumbled onto a merry-go-round can someone turn the volume up on the accompanying circus music.

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

Although I know nothing, I have high confidence that, were The Bishop not otherwise engaged, he would have called a halt to this occasionally amusing game of ping pong. I've got a megre crust to earn now so, fortunately, I must leave this addiction behind (for now at least!). Toodle pip.

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterMeIKnowNothin'

As an aside..

Anybody remember my link to Futerra..

Rules of The Game - Climategate doc.
New Rules;New Game
Sell The Sizzle, etc...

Well the co founder Ed Gillspie, writes for...

wait for it....

The Guardian...

Also, part of a group ( a director) called Sandbag, promoting Carbon Offsets (and selling tonnes of CO2)

A co director - of Sand Bag. is Mike Mason - co founder of Climate Care. (and still MD).

Climate Care being bought by JP MORGAN CHASE Bank in 2008 (no doubt as a nice earner, post causing a financial crash)

Mike Mason, on the losing side of that Oxford Climate debate, where all he could do was abuse Lord Monckton...

Ed Gillspie, is also a commissionar for the London Sustainability Commision.

What a small incestuous world, 'the climate change' industry is

Haven't started on the other directors of Futerra yet......

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

"So you've no idea what you said."
Sep 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM | GrantB

It's pretty obvious from my full and frank answer to your request, that I have a good grasp of the thrust of my own comment. That I can remember the gist, if not the exact words, and even have enough confidence in my own memory of it, to give the maximum possible information to allow someone more skilled than I to try and find it. Even though, given where I am posting and my stance and attitude, it is very likely that said person would be hostile to me.

To say I have no idea what I said, is patently incorrect and contradicts the entire response I gave you.

You, sir, are dishonest in the extreme in your assertion.

If you have integrity, you will now apologise.

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

z etc
Don't forget to slam the door really really hard on the way out.

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth


Ok, I see now. Well anyway, I still think it's pretty tasteless of you to announce to a whole blog (you lot) that you presume to understand everyone's position here. If you're having trouble with people wrongly assuming things about yourself, then you might just want to hold back on the 'denier' talk a bit. I'm fairly certain that you would have a fairly low comprehension about just what each individual here denies, what they accept, what they find to be uncertain, etc. Equating 'you lot' with the umbrella term 'denier'... there's no information in that... the only thing one can infer from such a statement is detection of a lack of appreciation or acknowledgment on your part about the complexity of reality. Not a good look, to be honest.

Cartoons are fun, but they're only ever meant to be fun. People who take cartoons seriously... well I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterStu

z's -

given where I am posting and my stance and attitude

Perhaps you could try sitting down and changing your posture.

You really are a treasure aren't you?

Sep 13, 2010 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

Dear @ZedsDeadBed

You said :

''If you actually side with science, and agree that we are responsible for a significant part of the temperature rise since we started releasing increasing quantities of CO2 into the air, and that the temperature rise we our causing is going to have serious negative consequences in the (relatively) near future, both for us and life on Earth, then I am deeply, humbly sorry.''

Perhaps you should consider the logarithmic effect of Warming by CO2. The relationship is not linear. The bulk of Warming by this minor trace gas is caused before a pre-industrial level of 285 ppmv is reached. Doubling or tripling CO2 levels will only have one consequence: Lush vegitation.

This may help:

Of course the present increase in CO2 may actually be an out gassing due to a warming ocean system due to long planetary cycles rather than warming being caused by CO2. Certainly the apparent warming is no longer in lock-step with CO2 and has not been so since 1999. The year on year increase in the delta between the two was not and could not be predicted by the GCM's used as a predictive device.


Sep 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDropstone

The Moving Finger writes, and having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

- Omar Khayyam (c.1038-1123)
- Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883)

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

I said:

"People who take cartoons seriously..."

Well, Josh can take cartoons seriously. But he's a cartoonist.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterStu

"Perhaps you could try sitting down and changing your posture.
You really are a treasure aren't you?"
Sep 13, 2010 at 2:54 PM | GrantB

Stu - the total lack of honesty and integrity of characters like this on this website, the readiness to condone and accept it, and the rarity with which people like this, and extreme and clearly wrong views are actually challenged, is why I have no problem lumping you all in as deniers.

There may actually be the odd 'innocent' reading this who I'm insulting along the way, but they're few and far between.

If one flicks back through the threads, one does not have to go very far at all to see junk science unchallenged, deception supported, extreme and morally wrong views unjudged or even condoned.

And ironically, most of you consider yourselves sceptics, yet apply no scepticism at all to views you feel support you, or at least are your enemy's enemy.

When you apply even a fraction of the criticism you subject climate science and its proponents to, to your own house; recognise and tackle the deep flaws which appear here every day, then I may think twice about tarring you all with the same brush.

Until then, if you fail to demonstrate otherwise, I have no problem thinking of you uniformly as a bunch of deniers.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

And this is how governments admit they were wrong,without admitting they were very wrong indeed.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterobnob

Stop feeding the troll. Think of the kids :)

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman


If you were green, narrower at the top than the bottom, with a reasonably roomy inside, you'd be a wine bottle. Lot's of assumptions there, each of which could branch into a complex set of factors which could indicate that you are not in fact a wine bottle, but possibly a corkscrew or a refractometer. That's the trouble with assumptions you see.

Now I think MeIknownothing is correct, we should attend to the subject the Bishop left us with, and save our bread for the ducks, rather than the trolls.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad


"Stu - the total lack of honesty and integrity of characters like this on this website"

Maybe you could start by pointing out where Andrew himself has shown a lack of honesty or integrity, since this is a community which deals in commentary on his point of view, or points of interest.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterStu

Bob Ward gets around..

I hadn't realised that he was also on the board of the Science and Media Centre...

Where Fiona Fox nis the Director..
who infamously on Newswatch (23/04/2010) said:

“it is unnecessary....misleading...inaccurate... to always have a sceptic to balance the views of the climate scientist” Fiona Fox – Director, Science Media Centre

"Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact. On Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

As far as Bob's speed of response is concerned please remember he has the additional power of psychic skills to forewarn and forearm his responses:

"Saturday 16th October 2010

Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic Perspectives

10.00am: “Great Expectations: some psychic consequences of the discovery of personal ecological debt", Rosemary Randall, with discussants Margaret Rustin and Bob Ward. Followed by a general discussion"

Initially I was surprised to see Bob's name on this agenda but from a quick look at Wikipedia there certainly seems to be strong crossover between psychic and climate skills:

"....Critics attribute psychic powers to intentional trickery or self-delusion.[4][5][6][7] In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."[8]...."

(h/t geoffchambers elsewhere in the diocese)

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Cumbrian Lad

Hi Zed, welcome back, missed ya!

Tsk! That'll teach you to forget to clean your rifle barrel! ;o)

I'm all for exposing the idiocy but I'm not going to permit ZDB to monopolise my time, nor do I think we should let him (ZDB/ZBD/Zebedee from Magic Roundabout, French children's programme; Zed's Dead Bed; noun, French: lit; masculine) monopolise the focus of Bish's blog comments.

I feel ZDB's comments, rather like Bob Ward's rather peculiar and easily dismissed rantings, should be left as free-standing testimony to ZDB's mindset; divorced from the subject, devoid of substance.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH


I would not normally attempt to even try to communicate with you but here goes.

You say "You lot amount to a handful of cranks with a take on climate change which stems from: gullibility, financial or political motivation, denial of complicity, fear of change, bias confirmation, poor source selection, and in the case of some commentors here, varying degrees of outright madness."

I would like to explore where you are coming from here, because I do not see any of that lot applying to me.

My position as an AGW sceptic (denier in your terms) is based upon:
2 hard science degrees.
Over 30 years experience in heat transfer, fluid flow etc, including comples computer modelling (but not in "climate science"}.
Over 3 years studying "climate science", the AGW hypothesis and evidence for AGW. In that time I have found no evidence for AGW but plenty of evidence of the application of bad scientific methodology and sloppiness which would not have been tolerated in my work.

So what is your position (presumably an AGW believer) based on?

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Dear @obnob.

Yes. That is how I read the Spellman Telegraph article as well. Quietly going into reverse gear while offering a sop regarding adaptation (to future problems that may or may not happen).

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterDropstone

Zed Dead-Head threw a little hissy-fit on a previous thread when I played around with his name. He accused me of hurling ‘insults’ around. Bad me.

Unfortunately, when I pointed out it was in response to his use of the word ‘deniers’, he went quiet. Very quiet. I just assumed that his lunch was over, or that the nurse had come round with his medication.

Imagine my surprise today to find out that Zed Dead-Head has now happily embraced the whole concept of insulting everybody with the use of the word ‘denier’. He's fine with it. No problem. Not worried at all about the connotations of Holocaust-denial. No sir.

Since Mister Dead-Head has now decided that anyone who doubts ANY aspect of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a denier, I suggest that we now adopt a term for those who unequivocally support it.

How about ‘hysteric’?

Global warming Hysteric. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Never mind all the dreadful historical connotations of the word. Dead-Head has established we don't need to worry about any of that kind of stuff.

Hey, aren't insults fun?

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record


Something like that, I maybe extended the metaphor to things like wheelchairs and other things I don't use as well.

Don't forget brain. Sceptics need them, believers don't. What was the Royal Society's motto before it went all post-normal, and why is it considered 'anti-science' to follow that honorable old tradition?

bonus word. Anticpation. Only 2 days to go, then we'll see if Mr Ward's head explodes.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer


"it's absolutely from the heart".."allow me the vanity [to] play the devils advocate"

It's not devil's advocacy if you believe it.

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

What company helps pay BOB Wards salary? (keep reading ;) )

I bet BOB Ward doesn't mention this, when discussing big oil denial industry with his 'climate change ' mates..

Bob is on the Board of The Science and Media Centre - see above...

Have a look under funding.....

Can you spot it...

YEP, the big oil denial machine supposed leader, climate change activists (and Sir John houghton.s) favourite love to hate, fossil fuel climate change denying, oil company...


Have to laugh really.. as are...


as are:

Met Office
Department of Energy and Climate Change

and many more...(News International, Times, etc)

All contributing to Bob Wards salary....

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Be careful Philip

Only a climate "scientist" can really have any understanding of the physics and statistics involved in climate science

So unfortunately your credentials are of no relevance whatsoever

Just covering ZDB's objection before it arrives

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen lewis

You can tell the Bishop's away, can't you..? :-)

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Ref Bob Ward..

Or do you just get expenses if you are on the board of the Science and Media Centre, or just Kudos...

Could be EXXONMobil, are only helping to pay Fiona Fox's salary....

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Sorry folks but I must address Miss Zed:

I belive we are wrong about you, I do not believe you are intelligent. I believe you are a very well educated but empty headed seeker after attention and probably a social misfit with nobody to talk to.
You have no knowledge of the science (hence you have never once made a post with any scientific content) and you probably adhere to the CAGW group because it gives you some feeling of belonging.


If you do nat make such a post (which would enable us to engage with you in true scientific debate) then I will add my name to those asking for you to be banned from Bishop Hill because basically dear you just come here to take the p**s

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

SL, "Only a climate "scientist" can really have any understanding of the physics and statistics involved in climate science."

That hurts, I only have a degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics. (Ebers-Moll equations and Fick's Law anyone?)

I didn't know climate science demanded a higher level flummery and blatherskite. (Well I did actually!)

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac


Maybe she could help us to understand why Bob Ward being funded by Exxon, BP, and Shell doesn't make him a shill for Big Oil, but everyone here who isn't funded by these companies... is.

I'm confused...

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterStu

Dear Miss ZDB, attention seeker, Truro: what are your views on the recent McShane and Wyner debunking of Mann et al?

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

The comments on this post are becoming REALLY boring and the arguments are getting nowhere. Why don't you all go off and do something else instead?

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Hey Messenger!

Think how pleased his grace would be if we got rid of Miss Zed before he got back?

Sep 13, 2010 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

The HockeyStick is unimportant.

There never was a HockeyStick.

There never has been a HockeyStick.

There never has been a Medieval Warming Period.

Current warming is unprecedented in human history.

Ignore those counter-revolutionaries who insist otherwise. Death to the 'Deniers'!

Onwards Comrades, to the glorious future we are building, one energy subsidy scam at a time.

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record


You claim to "wanting to tackle deniers head on", but although you are a very fervent poster at times, I have not seen anything of substance coming even close to tackling anything being discussed here, nor adressing anything of relevance to a sceptical stance in the wider sense.

But I have read endless postings from you with various attempts of name calling and other ad hominems, and a lot of wishful fantasies about the characters of persons with whom you seem unable to communicate meaningfully.

I tend to go with Dung here, and I even don't believe you are capable of even phrasing the scientific pro-AGW arguments properly, much less than understanding any of the criticism and counterarguments.

I thing you are just one more CAGW-supporter memorizing some of the memes, and repeating them here (and elsewhere).

You know, using the term 'denier' is a give away, and repeatedly doing so as center argument just reinforces that impression. And at the few occasions you tried to make statements about the science, it just got worse, meaning revealing your ignorance.

Possibly that is why you avoid tackling anything relevant here ...

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

Does anyone know if his Bishness has heard anything more from the Gaurdian's editor about how Mr Ward managed to seemingly had a response prepared to his article before it was published ?

I would love to see the wording on that one.

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris

Messenger, I couldn't agree more with you. In particular, the insults aimed at ZedsDeadBed above are not only counter-productive but also tedious in the extreme - not to say decidedly peurile at times.

OK - ZedsDeadBed doesn't seem to have realised that his posts would be far more effective if he were to drop ALL use of the "D" word. Perhaps he doesn't care though, and he just wishes to provoke a reaction. In which case, to state the bleeding obvious, "Don't feed the troll!"

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Boyce

Paul, I promised to stop feeding the troll, but he keeps coming back and ruining this site. Sorry if you think my responses are peurile. But the last time I mocked him, he went away. I was hoping it would happen again.

It is very difficult when the vast majority of posts become his witless drivellings.

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

if you mock him, the troll will go away HAPPY, with proof of how abusive/stupid all those 'deniars' are..

Rule 1: Don't feed the troll
Rule 2: see rule 1

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Dear Andrew

I don't think that it has been mentioned here yet, but The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford is cited as an authoritative source in a letter in today's Financial Times from David Hall headed "Grape Alternative".

Kind regards

Mike Post

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post


Let me guess who Z is. I bet you it is U142 from those heady days with jolly old Richard Black when topics were deliberately lead to personal insults and other nonsense when the arguement was completely lost. Probably coming out of the Science Media Centre which is the UKs version of Fenton Communications.

Just pat them on their heads and push them along to a support centre somewhere, I'm sure some kind sole will give them something warm to drink and a kind word.

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterKamboshigh

Barry is right, Ignore him.

Sorry, Dung, while you got most of ZDB's personality profile correct, it is a he. About 30, well educated in a not-so-first-rate third-level such as UEA. Working in some corporation somewhere with little advancement.

I find his comment of Sep 13, 2010 at 2:03 PM most interesting:

No idea. You're having problems coming to terms with your sexuality maybe?

Freud would call that "Displacement."

However, his real goal is to disrupt us to show he has "power", whatever that may be. So just ignore him.

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Mike Post-
Can you expand on what the Financial Times letter says, as there is a paywall,

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

I think the peurile bit is aimed at me.
I spoke what I believe to be the truth. I also repeated what I have said before which is that all his posts should be responded to by asking for an (any) opinion he has about the science.

Sep 13, 2010 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

"I bet you it is U142..."

A.k.a. 'yeah-whatever' - it fits.

I note Barry Woods's comment above, and will heed from now on. I suggest we all do the same, however annoying he/she gets.

Sep 13, 2010 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Don Pablo ^.^

Was glad to see a post from you (I was getting worried). I didnt get the "he" wrong. Miss Zed commented that we didnt know if IT was a he or a she so I decided to give IT a balanced response (plus it allowed me to use the word "dear")

also "However, his real goal is to disrupt us to show he has "power", whatever that may be" equates to "taking the p**s" in my book.

The point is that people do not ignore IT, if I had come online and nobody had responded to ITs comments I would have said nothing.

In my view:

Rule 1: Ignore IT
Rule 2: If someone has already responded to IT then ask IT to make a scientific post.
Rule 3: Refer to rule 1


Sep 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung


With pleasure.

David Hall points out that the proxies for the past millennium are in short supply and that a previous FT correspondent should not dismiss English viticulture records lightly because they have two attractions:
1. They have instinctive reference as temperature proxies.
2. They are free from statistical enhancement.
The alternatives offered by, what David Hall describes as, "serious scientists" lack these attractions and, according to A. W. Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, have eliminated the medieval warm period.

Sep 13, 2010 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

Someone tell EXXON, they are paying for Bob, over at the Sceince and media centre....

Why ExxonMobil must be taken to task over climate denial funding
ExxonMobil should keep its promise by ending its financial support for lobby groups that mislead the public about climate change, writes Bob Ward

EXXONMobil help pay the salaries of the Science and Media Centre...

Fiona Fox - Director - Science and Media Centre
Bob Ward on the board.

Sep 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.