Saturday
Mar192011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A piece of Stringer
Mar 19, 2011 Climate: Parliament Climate: Ward Bob Ward pens about Graham Stringer MP at the New Scientist blog. To tell the truth, I'm not sure what his point is.
Reader Comments (24)
I just love the finishing remark by Ward
I believe that is advice he should take.
Don Pablo:
Presumably by "he" you are referring to Ward, not Stringer.
Perhaps my comment won't get through.. it's too Bob-Wardesque
Why does the New Scientist allow such nasty, snide, put downs masquerading as comment on its website?
A disappointing performance by Bob Ward, privately funded PR attack dog/typing instructor at the Lybian School of Eccentric plagiarized vanity degrees for dictator's sons.
It reads like something from Private Eye's contributor, Phil Space.
As for 'own facts', Bob should be well familiar with those by now!
ZT
"dog/typing instructor"
Not what you meant, of course, but it momentarily conjured up an amusing picture!
Hello, I'm Bob Ward, your dog/typing instructor. Cough, please.
For info: I posted the following as a comment at New Scientist blog.
"everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".
BoB!
And your facts are?
"emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit"
So BoB, you know for a fact that these emails were hacked? Shouldn't you be reporting this to the Norfolk Constabulary who have yet to conclude their investigations.
What his point is, Bishop, is that someone "important" (ie someone who might possibly be listened to) has attacked gorebull warbling.
He must react to that. Pavlov would be so proud of him!
Anoneumouse
BoB! - with two capital B's - is that the Blackadder pronunciation?
In the article BoB refers to
where the supporting facts from AR4 relating to impacts turned out to be grey literature opinions. The concepts of facts and opinions are clearly interchangeable in the mind of BoB.
In the linked article, Ward says
What ‘cost-effective measures’? Is he claiming that renewables are going to save the planet?
What is this assertion that there are ‘cost-effective measures’ that can reduce emissions based on?
Or is it just the usual (biomass-fuelled) boilerplate?
everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
This quote is getting tiresome. It is repeated so often and there is just so much wrong with it.
Who owns the facts in a cop shop? Who determines the facts in a courtroom? Is it fact that we are on the way to a climate apocalypse? Or is the fact that scientists believe we are, and that people bought that fact?
What's worse is that the quote is attributed to a politician. A politician for fr@k's sake! One of those people who create facts by turning opinion into facts!
Facts are what the BoB say they are. He's a PR man. He knows these things. He is a smart fellow telling an elected MP what they should be thinking. What could possibly go wrong with that marketing strategy?
It is notable that Ward shows he really respects politicians more than scientits here and displays his canny eye.
Wards's language is ironcally bereft of ad hom when he knows he is dealing with a (even cursory) power wielder.
Leopard - "scientits"? I think you've just coined a very apposite word.
Bishop, I guess Mr Ward's objective was to make himself feel better. His point is the spin he puts on the facts that, burried under the rhetoric, are not too far (for him) from fairly reported. The job he has is to push water uphill, and I am sure he will be pleased with the way his effort displays his undoubted skills to future potential employers, and maybe he also had this in mind when he penned his peice.
Nevertheless, he will, I guess, be feeling pretty dissapointed by the responses beneath his article in the New Scientist.
Wards's language is ironcally bereft of ad hom when he knows he is dealing with a (even cursory) power wielder.
That just nails it. Bob Ward fears Graham Stringer because Stringer is the kind of person who create facts.
What’s the point of Bob Ward? Good question. He seems to be saying:
1) Official enquiries say there’s nothing wrong with Professors deleting stuff to hide what they’ve been up to.
2) New Scientist readers are too thick or ill-informed to see through his argument.
At the time of writing this, there is not one comment below the article in support of Ward's position.
Booker Buggers BoB
Booker Buggers BoB
Attack BoB now has so many things to pee against, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The New Scientist blog now carries a lengthy and very revealing comment from David Holland, regarding mischievous treatment of his damning inquiry submission.