Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 24 - michael hart on
    COP 23
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Royal Society on climate change | Main | Bob wants Benny to break law »

Pielke Jnr on Bob

RP Jnr has also been reading Bob Ward's article in the FT and picks up on many of the same points I did, including the oddity of a publicly funded university - LSE - spending money on employing a political "attack-dog", as Roger calls our Bob.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (27)

And another lovely RPJ graphic, chihuahua security, very funny!

Sep 29, 2010 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Is he an LSE funded attack dog, or an asset management funded one? Presumably Grantham's endowment covers staff costs?

Sep 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Just found this: a couple of weeks ago (15th Sept) Bob Ward also published a paper, which "highlights a series of "serious and systematic errors" in an article that was published in the Australian journal 'Economic Analysis and Policy' in September 2008 by Professor Robert Carter, who is a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation."

The press release is at:

Bob Carter's response is here at:

Bob Carter's original paper was published two years ago, so it seems to me somewhat odd to launch a counterattack now - could it be the GWPF connection?

Sep 29, 2010 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

Why does Bob have a pay check? Surely they notice.

Sep 29, 2010 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Hamlet gave us this;
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
In more modern parlance; learn when to keep your trap shut.

Sep 29, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

It appears to be assumed that Bob does these things as part of his day job. How can we be sure? Is this the only possibility?

Sep 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

The Bob speed typing trials (sponsored by the Guardian) were performed around 4pm on a weekday, if I remember correctly.

By the way, does Bob run the typing courses offered by the LSE? I presume that LSE is some form of secretarial school - do I have that correct?

Sep 30, 2010 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

The only possibility? No.

Another one is that Bob is fabulously wealthy and pays his supposed employers handsomely to be allowed to be their PR bloke.

Far fetched? Maybe, but it certainly makes more sense than the idea they are paying him for such a service.

Sep 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

Roger Pielke has correctly characterised Bob Ward but curiously concludes that the GWPF policy recommendations are flawed, without stating what they are and why they are flawed. He is also apparently content with clearly dubious inquiries- this is unacceptable- the GWPF is defending the entitlement of the British public to a fair inquiry.

Sep 30, 2010 at 12:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Pharos, I don't think that's quite fair to Pielke Jr. His piece confines itself to commenting on Bob Wards poor argument rather than expanding on Roger's own reservations on the GWPF report. His position on the inquiries I think is that he thinks they were flawed, but energy is better spent on more positive things than re-running what everybody knows were poorly conducted whitewashes. I'm looking forward to his debate with Benny Peiser; I suspect it will be very well mannered, and will cover interesting areas of real debate. I hope it will be a good pointer to what is possible with mutual respect and open debate.

Sep 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

My only question is how Bob Ward gets his drivel published every time when sensible letters rebuking his nonesense get spiked?

Sep 30, 2010 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Maynard

LSE, too much money in the kitty?

Sep 30, 2010 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterIanB

bish -
u will be so pleased when u wake up!

WUWT: Royal Society blinks – embraces sceptics and uncertainty

congrats to u and others for your tireless efforts to save science from dogma.

Sep 30, 2010 at 3:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Cumbrian Lad, I'm with you on the evaluation of Dr Pielke Jr's reaction to the inquiries. Here's a direct quote:

My judgment is that the inquiries did not go very far in restoring trust among many, but at the same time, this situation does not justify a new set of investigations. At this stage, these are issues for the scientific community to deal with, not governments. So I disagree with Lord Turnbull's conclusions.
Without saying "whitewash" explicitly, he agrees that the inquiries did not meet their objectives, which was to demonstrate convincingly that the CRU conducted themselves in a proper scientific manner, or to expose misconduct. I would agree with him that further inquiries are unlikely to resolve the situation. As to whether the "scientific community" will actually deal with the issues, I am not sanguine; but perhaps today's Royal Society statement is a step towards a more reasoned approach to the topic.

Sep 30, 2010 at 4:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterHaroldW

Bob Ward is quoted in the Guarniad concerning the RS Climate Change Guide, and given more opportunity to denigrate the GWPF.


Sep 30, 2010 at 7:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

It makes no difference waht "Bob the Knob" (a quote from WUWT not my invention) thinks. Anyone one of now can cut and paste those paragraphs with authority.

Letters to MP's
Guardian Comments

The real "doom" (we are all going to die by 2050) merchants have a problems. And Bob Ward's response is irrelevant. One presumes the two linked members did not employ mass hypnosis on the others.

And a final point, I have a suspicion that somewhere somehow someone at a very high level has had a quiet word to give this a green light or some impetus.

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrain Cohen

Not only is Bob Ward a world champion typist, but he must be a leading contender in the reading stakes. He described the new RS guide as "excellent" and "an authoritative summary of the current state of knowledge". Hmmmm

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Alex Cull,
Bob Carter has just published a new book i assume that is the reason

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterChuck

I see that the usual suspects had a hand in the RS report: Hoskins, Mitchell to mention but two; and even Ms Fiona Fox.

It wasn't exactly written by a panel of unbiased scientists.

But why Ms Fiona Fox? To keep the message on song perhaps.

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The Guardian piece was written by Duncan (10:10) Clark and, apart from Bob Ward, includes a comment from Solitaire (Futerra) Townsend. Oh, and there is a picture of some endangered Polar Bears.

Not exactly Pulitzer Prize material.

Sep 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

The RS report states in the introduction "the aim of this document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers."

In the conclusion it states "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century."

In between there is no evidence. It is all based on calculations and climate models. We know that climate models are not evidence. There is no strong evidence. Therefore the conclusion is invalid.
It is the usual argument of ignorance.

Sep 30, 2010 at 8:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

WUWT: "Royal Society blinks – embraces sceptics and uncertainty"

The Guad on The RS report...

“The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

The article also quotes Bob Ward:

“Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute, described the new guide as ‘excellent’ and ‘an authoritative summary of the current state of knowledge’ .”

Until I've read it, I'm left wondering if the RS produced two reports!

Sep 30, 2010 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete

Don't forget the history of the Grantham Institutes, there are two such bodies with slightly different names:

Imperial College, London
Mr. Grantham will sit on the management board of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, along with Imperial's Rector Sir Richard Sykes who will chair the Board; Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund; and Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense. Imperial's Dr Tidu Maini, Pro Rector for Development and Corporate Affairs, and Sir Peter Knight, Principal of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, will also be on the management board.

London School of Economics and Political Science
The Grantham Research Institute is home to climate change and environment research at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The Institute is chaired by Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the 2006 Stern Review, and brings together international expertise on economics, finance, geography, international development and political economy to establish a world-leading centre for policy-relevant research and training in climate change and the environment.

The Institute has been funded by philanthropists Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham, through their Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. It works closely with the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. A shared advisory board oversees the work of both Institutes.

So we have Environmental Defense and WWF-US impacting on UK Climate Policy, via two major UK educational establishments. What a Trojan Horse.

The Grantham's total investment of over £24 million, made through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, is one of the largest private donations to climate change research.

Stern is a major player in a carbon trading company,, his colleague Fankhauser is on the UK Climate Change Committee and many others of that committee are associated either with LSE or Imperial.

Sep 30, 2010 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterDennisA

LSE wouldn't be doing this were it not for the MILLIONS pumped in by Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham. The Granthams bankroll the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, WWF, the Environmental Defense Fund and other eco-fascist advocacy groups. They have pumped £12 million into Bob Ward's employer the Grantham Research Institute in the last couple of years. Money talks. Grantham's investment company manages $100 billion in assets. Jeremy Grantham said in July 2010 "Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future." He is going to make a lot of money out of it.

You see, Grantham is a dyed-in-the-wool eco-fascist greenie. He also said the following ghastly stuff in his article 'Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes': "The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was manmade...Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers.

"Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for … what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results.

"Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down.” "

This deluded man, I'm afraid, is Bob Ward's funder.

Sep 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

@ Philip Bratby "In between there is no evidence. It is all based on calculations and climate models. We know that climate models are not evidence. There is no strong evidence. Therefore the conclusion is invalid. It is the usual argument of ignorance."

Quite so. There are 59 paragraphs. Paragraph 2 states "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity" and paragraph 57 states "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century."

As you say, precious little evidence in between. Keep up the matra and eventually everyone will be fall into line.

And what about uncertainties? A tiny change in albedo due to clouds will have a massive effect, and what do they say about that? "...projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor."

'consequences for estimates of climate forcing' is, in context, a bit of an understatement. The consequences are that no estimates of climate forcing whatsoever can be relied upon, simply because 'current scientific understanding of this effect is poor'.

And I think the Met Office ought to heed the following:

"The ability of the current generation of models to simulate some aspects of regional climate change is limited, judging from the spread of results from different models; there is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change..."

Sep 30, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

OT – but just went to Budiansky’s blog ( and then had a look at Roger’s blog ( :o)

Sep 30, 2010 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterH

Bob Ward ...bought and paid for by a billionaire .....sez it all ... : )

Sep 30, 2010 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered Commentermicky d

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>