Bishop Hill In retwardian, "grossly misleading" means "correct"
Aug 21, 2014 Climate: WG2 Climate: Ward Matt Ridley Further to this morning's post about Bob Ward's New Statesman attack piece against Matt Ridley, take a look at this. In his article, Ward said the following:
...Ridley's article suggested that “there is no global increase in floods”, and “there has been a decline in the severity of droughts”. Both statements were grossly misleading. Climate change is increasing global average temperature, but its impact on extreme weather differs across the world. Some regions are becoming wetter while others are becoming drier.
Ridley's claim about drought was based on a paper that did the rounds of the internet a few months back. The key graph is this one:
;)
Fraction of the global land in D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate), D2 (severe), D3 (extreme), and D4 (exceptional) drought condition (Data: Standardized Precipitation Index data derived from MERRA-Land). The decline in drought incidence seems pretty clear to me and I said that it was amazing that Ward would try to suggest otherwise. Ward's response to this was to tell me to "ask the authors".
Now in the past Ward has tried to wriggle out of dilemmas like the one he found himself in by pointing me to related, but largely irrelevant papers, hoping I would lack the inclination to spend the time reading them (example here). However, once bitten twice shy and I don't fall for this trick any longer. So when he told me to "ask the authors" it seemed to simply be a trick out of the same drawer. I therefore asked him to explain his point rather than wasting my time. This was the answer:
Why not ask Doug Keenan to work out if its a statistically significant downward trend?
So, gentle reader, when Ward said that Ridley was being "grossly misleading" in saying that there had been "a decline in the severity of droughts" he was actually agreeing with him. Lest the point be lost on you, Ward agrees with Ridley that the severity of droughts has declined. He just thinks that maybe the decline is not statistically significant. He hasn't demonstrated this of course, but I guess Ward has always felt that evidence is an optional extra.
Nevertheless, the point for readers to remember is that when Ward says someone is being "grossly misleading" he means that they are dead right. The London School of Economics must be very proud.
Reader Comments (19)
Ward is a propagandist for the "cause".
What else can you expect?
It would take some time and energy to compile a list of Ward's 'greatest hits' - false claims over the years.
The list is getting long.
Here is what the IPCC says about floods:
"In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale."
More or less exactly what Matt Ridley says. So it appears that Bob Ward thinks the IPCC is 'grossly misleading'.
Ward's "wet gets wetter, dry gets drier" meme debunked on global and local scales:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/did-we-say-wet-becomes-wetter-and-dry.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/new-paper-finds-wet-get-wetter-and-dry.html
The "wet gets wetter, dry gets drier" memes are very popular with alarmists, as if the CO2 effect is sentient, seeking to make the climate worse on purpose.
Bob Ward is a highly paid Spin Doctor. He has neither the ability nor the inclination to seek out the facts.
His job is to obfuscate, deflect or mislead when dessention appears in the public domain.
He is one of the guardians of the fundamentalist climate alarmism. He is the spokeperson for climate version of "Al-Qaeda".
Truth doesn't matter they are saving the planet from evil people!
In the light of damning evidence, perhaps Stern should be asked whether the Institute approves of Ward's conduct.
The London School of Equivocation, Ward style.
Bob Ward's job is to make Michael Mann look like a nice calm, well-adjusted, reasonable and truthful individual.
He's very good at it.
When I read the piece in the Staggers this morning I was struck by the wording of this statement [mybold]:
This is because, if you were to tell Ward that the horrendous Winter the US had last year was an indicator that AGW is on the wane; or that the cold Summer being experienced in Canada this year was the evidence that AGW was waning, he would tell you that AGW is a GLOBAL phenomenon and that REGIONAL experiences don't count.Let's face it, Ward is no more than ATTP - on steroids; a professional troll; and qualified to be a member of the oldest profession in the world.
"Climate change is increasing global average temperature,..."
What an odd statement. I thought that the establishment conventional wisdom was that increasing global average temperatures were causing climate change, not the other way around. Is this a radical change of position or just ill thought out phrasing?
Ward's approach is strikingly similar to Gordon Brown's, in other words one in which truth is essentially irrelevant. The key point is to take a simple message and repeat it relentlessly. When called up on the inconvenient reality that it is wrong, do it again only louder.
It seems extraordinary that reputable scientists apparently lend their weight to this crude and blatant distortion of what, in scientific terms, should be a dispassionate readiness to assess a host of complex, frequently contradictory data.
Ward looks more and more like the Damien McBride of the Global Warming establishment – without, unfortunately for him, either the intelligence or the charm – charm, that is, of the sort the Kray Brothers were so ready with.
We should have Ward permanently stationed in front of a bird chopper, the wind from his whirling dervish impersonation might increase the energy output fractionally, or, with luck an unfortunate deceased raptor might hit him with sufficient force to knock him off his perch..
If you "ask the authors' you might get this...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/climate-scientists-laid-bare-%e2%99%aa-feeelings-nothing-more-than-feelings-%e2%99%ab/#more-114714
LMAO warning - you may need to sit down before reading this.
LSE as the "venerable institute" cannot cosy up k-daffy anymore, they must look for other low hanging fruit.
The warmish thieving scam must provide them with some soulace
Ward is earning his keep as the dancing monkey for his boss's Grinding Institute.
Considering the reaction, this climate jihadist Ward is doing remarkably well.
"Climate change is increasing global average temperature, but its impact on extreme weather differs across the world. Some regions are becoming wetter while others are becoming drier." --Bob Ward
In other words, when Rain God angry, his mighty wrath can be made known by too much rain or no rain, caused by higher temperatures, even though global temperatures are flatlined. This Rain God (aka Carbon Dioxide), himfella cunning and powerful! Bob Ward, not so much.
Matt is right. When someone says 'go and read xyz paper' or 'ask the author', it means he fully acknowledges he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Simple rule : dismiss out of hand anyone who can't explain his own point.