Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« In which a BBC presenter reveals what balance means | Main | No false balance at the BBC »
Friday
Mar272015

Bob spurned

Bob Ward's latest attempt to silence dissenters from the climate consensus has ended, once again, in ignominious defeat, with the Independent Press Standards people telling him that his complaint against David Rose necessitated his taking a running jump.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was not upheld.

As I have noted previously, as far as Ward is concerned the process is the punishment, so I think it's likely that he will try this line again in the future, regardless of his failure this time round.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (38)

Thanks. Given the way the BBC have published overt lies as facts, Rose sounds remarkably impartial:

"14. The article had made clear that the Polar Bear Specialist Group admitted that it did not have the necessary data to establish whether the numbers of polar bears was rising or falling. In this context, it had not been significantly misleading to suggest that there was no scientific evidence to establish that the number of bears was declining."

How could anyone raise a complaint at that?

Mar 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

A bit of compassion, please. How would you feel if you were the drummer of Dexys Midnight Runners until they recorded Geno?

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

well it appears that IPSO is ready for an onslaught from the 'thuthers' of man made global warming, and must watch its step.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterpatrick healy

Wonder what it takes for him to be barred as a vexatious litigant

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

The Guardian is of course, outraged.
The first comment sums up the reaction to tolerance of heresy.

It doesn't even occur to them that the article may have been accepted as not false because it was not false.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:22 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

If Bob Ward is the punishment then it must have been a heinous crime.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

He might have lost but there remains the scope to say things like '...... article by David Rose <I>who has been the subject of several complaints of inaccuracy ..... ' and so on.

Just another regularly used way of manipulating truth into lies.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter C

Ward is like Alastair Campbell on a tiddly, tiddly scale. He has seen how the big bullies operate. And he thinks that if he squeaks loudly enough he can be one of them, too. Ooh! Bob! Scary!

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterAgouts

To this day it amazes me that Bob 'fast fingers ' Ward keeps getting paid given his actually not very good .
But I suppose has his master is a very rich man, and hopping CAGW will make him richer still , then what Ward gets is small change .

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterknr

The Grauniad is indeed funny.

In reporting a claim for misleading and inaccurate reporting, the headline reads:

"Ipso proves impotent at curbing the Mail's climate misinformation"


Which is misleading and inaccurate. There is no apparent "impotence". IPSO considered and dismissed.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

The classic comment from the Grauniad is this one:

Bluecloud jhoptoad 2h ago

"Judith Curry isn't a scientist.

She lost that title when she crossed over to the liars and deniers."

Mar 27, 2015 at 5:14 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

unto ward?

At ~ two quid an hour - he is not making the living wage but being greatly distressed with the affliction of oral effusion of stunning incompetence and not to say out on licence. Bob is on a special rate, because the Jezza's green advocacy crony corporation feel responsibility towards promoting, supervision and safeguarding certain underprivileged minority groups, oh and supporting any eco fruit cake they happen to come across.

Cut the green kaka cord and join up with the mortals and once again be part of the human race.

Mar 27, 2015 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Perhaps DR should complain to IPSO about the Guardian article.

I continue to be astonished by the stuff that the Guardian is happy to publish, the activities and character of many of its writers, the nature of its readers if their comments are anything to go by and the fact that the Guardian is the policy document, recruitment channel and guiding light of the BBC.

Mar 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Why the hell, should it be anyone's business what opinions are published in something that I willingly pay for or not. What next, a Book Standards commission to make sure that every book tells the correct story? What is the difference between a newspaper and a non-fiction book someone come up with a convincing argument please?

Mar 27, 2015 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMax Roberts

Emergency Ward IPSO?

Mar 27, 2015 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Gecko: The name 'Bluecloud' rings a bell... Dunggg

Mar 27, 2015 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

I complained to IPSO a couple of weeks ago about the Guardian's lies about Cyclone Pam

IPSO said the Graniaud was not a member of IPSO and were therefore free to tell whatever lies they wanted!

Never mind, I havecalso complained about similar BBC lies!

Mar 27, 2015 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Homewood

Bluecloud is so extreme he's a boon to his opponents.
Remember this?

But debating with a madman tells you nothing of the real world. He's worth ignoring.

Only I can't resist, no. I can't.
It's just so tempting to stoke the fire and pretend the reaction is intelligent.

Mar 27, 2015 at 8:59 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Schrodinger's Cat the bitter irony is that the Guardains influence it not down to the amount of its readers , which are tiny , but that it is part of the very powerful elite it claims to dislike so much .
You are much more likley to see that paper on the organic fair-trade , hand carved , and very expensive, coffee tables of the north London chatter classes who make up this elite , then you will ever see in the front windscreen of transit vans driven by the people the Guardian claims to care so much about . They are the other cheek to the BBC in that rear end .

Mar 27, 2015 at 9:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterknr

The growing detachment from reality by Ward, the Guardian, (and many others, as evidenced by the already thoroughly discredited Mann/Rahmstorf AMOC paper) is quite something to behold. It apparently never occurs to warmunists that even 'average voters' will eventually take note (Gruberism's fatal flaw in the US on Obamacare, now caught out). First rule of holes. If you are in one and want out, stop digging. NOT dig deeper faster.

Mar 27, 2015 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

M Courtney, thank you for those Grauniad links.

I wonder whether Dana managed to write that hit piece without the help of Ward.

Obviously that should be nothing to be ashamed of, as the Grauniad is immune from IPSO complaints and corrections, but it does make me wonder why Ward, Dana and others, are published so frequently in the Grauniad.

Grauniad credibility is matching computer model projections for arctic sea ice extent. Few will miss the Grauniads disappearance.

Mar 27, 2015 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Golf Charlie, I will miss the Guardian's disappearance. It is the broadsheet of record for the left.
It defines the left wing approach to the world - via intellectual discourse and debate.

The Mirror and the Socialist Worker can transmit the conclusions. But the debate happens in the Guardian.

Yet if the Guardian abandons Enlightenment prioritisation of empiricism in favour of a secular faith (AGW) then... the truth will not be sought by the left.
You may think we lefties never find the truth but we do seek it the best we can. But this means we don't.

Ever worked in marketing? The worst thing is to have a stupid competitor. The whole field is skewed to unpredictable irrationality.

Even you on the right ought to mourn the loss of the Guardian.

Mar 27, 2015 at 10:14 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Max Roberts 7:10 PM - "What is the difference between a newspaper and a non-fiction book?"

The Guardian climate stories are generally pure fiction. That is the problem.

Mar 27, 2015 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

M Courtney, thanks for the response. I am centre/right, but hold some 'left of centre' views, which have no relevance to the lack of manmade climate change.

With its private trust fund, and immunity from IPSO, the Grauniad has, on climate change, abused its independence. Making a mistake is human error, to keep making the same mistake, is not human error.

The Grauniad is unlikely to go bust, even if they lost a 7 figure law suit, but Rusbridger's legacy will be ridicule, brought on by the arrogance he so despises.

I have been involved in informal marketing, and do subscribe to Napolean's idea, that you should never interrupt your enemy when he is making mistakes. I note your best attempts to help the scientific understanding, on the Grauniad thread, and thank you for trying, on behalf of humanity and common sense. Unfortunately, those in denial of science, tend to dominate the debate.

Mar 27, 2015 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Read and learn, Bob.
P.S. as a matter of fact, Bob is less than a climate scientist than me.
Bob has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry

Conclusions

17. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required

N/A

Mar 27, 2015 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

I've always tried to adopt common sense views and vote for political parties that do the same. These day, that would place me on the political right, though I have to say that I disagree with a number of Tory policies.

The Guardian is strongly left wing, but though I disagree with much that it says, I can live with it because the paper has a right to support whatever political position it chooses. It is an innovative and lively paper in terms of investigative journalism, analysis and debate and I feel it would be much more popular and commercially successful if it adopted a more balance political position.

When publishing matters relating to climate change, the Guardian seems to abandon the boundaries between opinion, opposing theories, facts and fiction and resorts to relentless propaganda. That cannot be good for honest people of any position in the debate.

I have no idea why the Guardian behaves in this way and why it has a following of the Hampstead elite who seem to believe every incredible word.

Mar 27, 2015 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Golf Charlie, We aren't as far apart as I thought then.
I quite agree with Napoleon's wisdom, that you should never interrupt your enemy when he is making mistakes.

But I disagree that my enemy is the Guardian's current editorial position. We share many similar values.
We only differ on methodology. They believe that it is a matter of "communication".

The divide between the Arts and the Sciences is greater than ever as the media has expanded.
This empowers the Guardian editorial policy, which seems to believe that the world is a social construct. Despite objective (physical) reality existing.

So I fight for empiricism... and am not beaten yet.
My ban on commenting at the Guardian has been overcome, after all.

Mar 27, 2015 at 11:29 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

In the name of science, the people listed below want to shut down free inquiry, free debate, and free speech. It would be wise not to forget their names:

James Hansen, Climatologist; former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology; Director, Earth System Science Center, The Pennsylvania State University.
Joseph J. Romm, Physicist, Climatologist; former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy; founder and editor of Climate Progress.
Kevin E Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Lead Author 2001 and 2007 IPCC report which won a Nobel Prize.
Mike MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director of the Global Change Institute, Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow, University of Queensland, Australia
Greg Laden, Paleoanthropologist, Independent Scholar, Writer at National Geographic Scienceblogs.
Brad Johnson, Science writer; MS geosciences, MIT
Scott A. Mandia, Asst. Chair /Professor – Physical Sciences, Suffolk County Community College
Dr. John Abraham, University of St. Thomas, School of Engineering

Danny Harvey, Professor of Geography and Climatology, University of Toronto, IPCC Convening Lead Author and Lead Author; Deputy Editor of Climatic Change.
Henry Pollack, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at the University of Michigan. Advisor to the National Science Foundation, IPCC member.
Jason Box, Climatologist, Professor of Glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. Co-author of 2007 IPCC report which won a Nobel Prize.
James Powell, Geochemist; former President of the Franklin Museum of Science and former President and Director of the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum.
Bob Corell, Climatologist; Head of US Office for the Global Energy Assessment; former Assistant Director for Geosciences at the National Science Foundation.
Eric Chivian, founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Co-founder of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.
George Woodwell, Ecologist; Founder and Director Emeritus, Woods Hole Research Center.
Calvin B. DeWitt, Environmental Scientist, Co-founder of the Evangelical Environmental Network, President of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists, and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Dr Stuart Parkinson, Climatologist; Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility, UK
Robert R. Janes, Ph.D. , Archaleologist, Museologist, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, Museum Management and Curatorship
Matt Lappe, Paleoclimatologist, Environmental Hydrologist, Executive Director, Alliance for Climate Education.
Sarah Kornbluth, Biologist; Affiliate of Bee Database Project, American Museum of Natural History and Doctoral Candidate, Rutgers University
Sergio Jarillo de la Torre, PhD, Anthropologist, American Museum of Natural History
Simon L Lewis, Reader, Global Change Science, at University College London and University of Leeds.
Roger Fouquet, Principal Research Fellow, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Emmanuel Vincent, Assistant Project Scientist at the University of California, Merced
Jonathan Oppenheim, Professor of Quantum Theory, University College London. Royal Society Research Fellow in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.
David Webb; Emeritus Professor; Previously Professor of Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University
Dr Martin Zaltz Austwick, Physicist, University College London
Mona Mehdy, Molecular biologist, faculty at University of Texas at Austin
Judith S. Weis, Professor Emerita, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University
Jonathan Tunik, Former Evaluation Studies Associate for the American Institute of Physics.
Aerin Jacob, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Applied Conservation Science Lab, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Shaun Lovejoy, Professor of Physics, McGill University, Canada, formerly at the Climate Diagnostics Centre of NOAA
Lindy Weilgart, Professor of Biology, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada
Sophie Levina, MD, PhD and Doctor of Medical Sciences.
Susan Spencer, Solar Scientist, Founder/President of ROCSPOT.org
Erika Crispo, PhD, Evolutionary Ecologist and Biologist, Pace University, NYC
Lucky Tran, PhD, Biologist, University of Cambridge
Damian Alexander Stanley, Ph.D., Neuroscientist, California Institute of Technology
Hanah Chapman, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College, CUNY
Mark Mason PhD, former primate evolution researcher, UC Berkeley
Dr. Nicholas R. White, Independent Industrial Scientist, Albion Beams, Inc.
David Grinspoon, Senior Scientist, Planetary Science Institute; Former Curator of Astrobiology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science
Sandra Steingraber, PhD, Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Department of Environmental Studies and Science, Ithica College, Ithica, New York
Steven R. Dickman, Professor of Geophysics, Department of Geological Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York
Daniel H. McIntosh, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Harry Frank, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Social Psychology, Associate Professor Emeritus of Earth and Resource Science, University of Michigan-Flint
Lawrence Licklider, PhD Chemistry, University of California, Riverside
Andrew H. Maxwell, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Montclair State University
Luca Lombroso, Weather broadcaster, DIEF Geophysical Observatory, Italy
Richard H. Gammon, Professor Emeritus, Chemistry and Oceanography, University of Washington; Former Head of CO2 Research Group, Global Monitoring for Climate Change (GMCC), NOAA, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Julianne Heinlein, Aquatic Ecologist, Research Associate, Department of Zoology, Michigan State University
Andrew S. Johnson, PhD, Research Scientist, Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/03/27/scientists-object-to-intellectual-freedom/

Mar 28, 2015 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Former guardian editor defends Rose in the Comments of dana's article

look up cif commentor - pprest -

Mar 28, 2015 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

clipe.

Cracking stuff from Mme Laframboise, and I fully endorse every word of her withering blast at the climateoiks/piety.

from Donna's link:

Mr. Koch also funds a large network of climate-change-denying organizations, spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science. /quote.

Wow, gee and a bit whizzed - $67 mil' huh?

Yup, that's a considerable sum of money but despite Obamao's best efforts - say it ain't so but it's still nominally a democracy on the other side pond? And, thus - the self anointed climate Star Chamber's - point is?

Because correct me if I am wrong here...............BUT Hansen et al receive £$€ millions p/a from the public purse and billions more from private funding - therein advocates of the green mania - to promulgate and indulge them in their fantasizing green hogwash....
By comparison, Koch Bros funding is a drop in the ocean, but is inversely proportionate to the scale of faux outrage on behalf of the self anointed saviours of the sinecures, comfy fellowships, 5* hotels and 1st class world travel, Mercedes Benz coupes, climate funding.. universe, their Majesties [ref your post] - the aforementioned man made warming advocates/ fantasists.

Such utter arrogance, it's well past the stage of hubris, as now the madness sets in - down in the bunker the incestuous clanship and incessant neurotic yammering induces a groupthink paranoia - "Infamy, Infamy - they've all got it in-for-me!"

Infamy is about right. Kicked, and booted out of the window - the post normal science of man made warming and now the time is coming to throw the trash out.

Mar 28, 2015 at 1:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

At the time I was convinced Guy was guilty and Donna was a cop hater.

The Guy-Paul Morin story By Donna Laframboise

Mar 28, 2015 at 2:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

I have no idea why the Guardian behaves in this way and why it has a following of the Hampstead elite who seem to believe every incredible word.

Really? Because it makes them feel wiser, nobler and better than other human beings.

Mar 28, 2015 at 7:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

I think that, I would very much like Donna on my side, if ever my personal plight - it got as serious as it did for Mr. Guy Morin.

Mar 28, 2015 at 10:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Clipe: the utter arrogance of that bunch of “scientists” is truly mind-boggling! “… cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry…” If they tried to lead by example, it would be something, but, no, they still drive their 4x4s, they still jet hither and thither to many and various “conferences”, they still sit in their climate-controlled offices, they…. Hang on! Climate-controlled offices…? Hmmm. This could make one wonder that, seeing that it is possible to control the climate in such a space, these persons feel that it must be possible to do the same for the entire atmosphere. Could this be the root of all the dross that they are pumping out?

Mar 28, 2015 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

If hte "debate is over" i wonder hwen the debate was?

Only thing I can remember is warmish parasites tossing their alarmish doom predictions over the fence , then scurry back at protective high walls..none of them dares to open up their sites to anonymous posters, the BolshevikBrainwashingCorp up front.

Why is that? Hmmmm...scared of "foul" language hmm...what do we hear then 24/365 from all your channels I wonder.

Mar 28, 2015 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenuNotWarmerDueToCO2

Ward is a distateful individual with a manic personality. I cant imagine how he obtained a geology degree without learning anything about the history of the earth. Here's a recent FT letter he wrote taking exception to yet another contrary opinion, and dispensing financial and market advice to the Bank of England!

""March 25, 2015 11:02 pm

Scientific evidence points to climate change risks that cannot be ignored

Sir, Theo Vermaelen (Letters, March 25) shows flawed logic when he argues that the temporary slowdown in the rate of global warming over the past 18 years justifies inaction in relation to fossil fuel investments. Governments all around the world have examined the scientific evidence and collectively concluded that the risks of very severe and potentially catastrophic impacts from rising greenhouse gas levels cannot be ignored. That is why they are now negotiating an international agreement to limit emissions strongly in order to avoid global warming of more than 2C compared with pre-industrial levels.

Numerous analyses have shown that current known reserves of fossil fuels would generate enough carbon dioxide, if released into the atmosphere, to create a significant chance of warming by more than 2C. Shell, BP and other oil companies have business plans that bet against international climate policy and explicitly assume that energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will be far greater than the carbon budget associated with a warming limit of 2C. This means that many fossil fuel companies may be considered to be overvalued as more countries implement policies to limit emissions. While individual shareholders could choose to take this risk, the Bank of England and other regulators should be investigating the possible existence of a “carbon bubble” that could threaten the stability of stock markets.

Bob Ward

Policy and Communications Director,

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment,

London School of Economics, UK""

Mar 28, 2015 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered Commentermikegeo

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>