Bishop Hill reports:
…there was a debate at the Fisher House / Von Hugel Institute seminar “Global Warming & Equitable Development: the Ethical and Political Priorities” last night, and MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen was invited.
Chaired by Rowan Williams, with a panel of: Lord Deben, Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof Peter Wadhams (Prof Physics & Head of Polar Ocean Physics Group, Cambridge), Professor Sir Colin Humphrey (Cambridge), Prof John Loughlin Von Hugel Institute), Prof Chris Whitty (long job title – govt advisor) & Peter Lilley (late addition, not advertised), plus a paper by Prof Emeritus Tony Kelly (Cambridge) read by his son as he was unwell.
I’d expected this to be a bit of a greenfest with Lindzen as the token denier but it wasn’t at all. The panel was quite balanced in representation of “warmist” and “denier” viewpoint as was the audience, and it was quite a civilized affair.
That is, until Bob Ward got onto Twitter afterwards…..
Twitter / ret_ward: .@mehdirhasan But why have …
Bob Ward @ret_ward .@mehdirhasan Yet another example of the media hosting a falsely balanced debate about climate science instead of covering the real issues.
Mehdi Hasan Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan @ret_ward 1) Not true at all. Its not a ‘balanced debate’. Its a fair but tough interrogation of his views. I’m not neutral on this.
Bob Ward Bob Ward @ret_ward .@mehdirhasan But why have you made Lindzen the focus of the debate? He no longer contributes to the science and is irrelevant to policy.
Mehdi Hasan Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan @ret_ward But he’s not irrelevant to the world, is he? You (and me) not liking his views doesn’t make him disappear, does it? Or his claims?
Mehdi Hasan Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan @ret_ward Which ‘sceptic’ would you like me to interview? He’s more credible than the rest. Or is your position, no intvs with them, ever?
Ben Pile Ben Pile @clim8resistance Oh, look, Bob Ward @ret_ward trying to close down debate and discussion again. The self-appointed censor has no shame. @mehdirhasan
Richard Lindzen – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.
Bob Ward – Grantham Research Institute on climate Chnage and the Environment
Background
Bob joined the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) from Risk Management Solutions, where he was Director of Public Policy.
He also worked at the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, for eight years, until October 2006. His responsibilities there included leading the media relations team.
He has also worked as a freelance science writer and journalist.
Bob has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry.
He is a Fellow of the Geological Society.
Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these.
UPDATE: Bishop Hill writes in with a clarification.
These are actually different debates. Bob Ward is trying to punish Mehdi Hasan and Al Jazeera for hosting Lindzen at the Oxford Union tomorrow. The Cambridge event was yesterday.
Prof @Richardabetts (Met Office) said of Bob this month:
“Once again I seem to have attracted the disapproval of the climate thought police”
https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/290510275508072448 …
full story here
https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/290426341600419840 …
also Prof Richard Betts speaking of Bob Ward (see url above)
“It’s the 3rd time he’s tried to tell me what to say or not say. He didn’t respond to rational argument the 1st two times.”
Prof Richard Betts (Met Office, Head of Climate Impacts, IPCC Ar4 & Ar5 lead author) has previously also said to Bob Ward
“you seem to be trying to shut down legitimate scientific debate,which is unhealthy.”
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/11/climate-doomsday-clock-winding-down/#comment-37232 …
Bob Ward. Legend.
Bob Ward states
“He (Richard Linzen) no longer contributes to the science and is irrelevant to policy.”
I could equally argue that Bob Ward has never contributed to science and only relevant to the politics where is lack of balance is well known!
I love this — a classic case of projection. What Mr Ward’s unconscious mind knows all too well is that it’s not Lindzen who’s unqualified, but rather that — by his own standards — it is he himself (with his unfinished Ph.D.) who should bow out of the discussion.
Headline: “Non-Qualified Self Appointed Climate Scientist Tells Qualified Climate / Atmospheric Scientist He’s Not Qualified”.
He’s like Pachauri. A non climate scientist (are there really any climate scientists?) proclaiming who is qualified to be one.
When do the Heresy Trials start with Algore as Chief Inquisitor?
palaeopiezometry.??????? huh
Does anyone know what that is?
Message to Bob Ward: Please read THIS and then shut your yap.
And I thought my scientific credentials were spotty. Bob makes me look like a scholar.
If professor Lindzen is not qualified to comment on matters of atmospheric science, i’d like to know who is.
WTF is “palaeopiezometry”.
p.s. I don’t really want to know, so I didn’t look it up. It just sounds silly.
Bob Ward must have slept through most of his geology classes.
Who’s Bob Ward?
Pathetic tweet. Pathetic censor.
Yikes, a media hound saying Lindzen isn’t a scientist?
Oh that is very interesting, a PolySci guy saying that an Atmospheric Physicist isn’t qualified to comment on climate! Course they say the same thing about engineers, geologists, geophysicists, physics and chemical PhD’s, forestry PhD’s, meteorologists and anyone else that doesn’t “follow the program. So if you don’t have an Arts or PolySci degree you don’t count. (No insult to any of my Artsy friends or any other Arts Student – the world needs you to offset the the technocrats like me 😉 )
Here is a fun Delingpole essay of “What on earth is Bob Ward”.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058818/what-on-earth-is-bob-ward/
…and for a simple summary from Pielke Jr.:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/hiding-behind-bob-ward-at-lse.html
So, “He no longer contributes to the science and is irrelevant to policy.” would match only with Bob “Barking Mad” Ward.
It seems that our venerated Royal Society, up holder of scientific excellence, the scientific method and scientific integrity needed a Department of Propaganda headed by a failed palaeopiezometrist.
Little wonder that it degenerated to it’s present position and there seems little chance of it being Nursed back to health with the present regime.
“He no longer contributes to the science and is irrelevant to policy.”
Translation: He no longer supports the collective.
But surely, given his background and scholastic achievements, Bob Ward is eminently more qualified than Professor Lindzen to comment on climate change.
(Do I really need to turn sarc off?)
Bob ‘fast fingers ‘ Ward profession is spinning for his pay master , in other words its his job to lie in support of those that pay him . Setting aside that in pratice his often not very good it , the reality is there are recently dead hamster that carry more authority to know who is and it’s in a position to provided valid evidenced on this subject, than Bob.
Love the comparison of CVs. What a larf.
Why is it ‘”warmist” and “denier”,’ not “alarmist” and “skeptic”?
“palaeopiezometry”?
Hi Anthony
small correction?
the twitter discussion with Bob Ward, is about another debate that Richard Lindzen, Mark Lynas, Myles Allen, Medhi Hasan and David Rose are having this coming Friday night, at the Oxford Union.
Bob is complaining on twitter to Hasan (who is speaking against Lindzen!) that he should not have the debate!
Bob Ward @ret_ward
.@mehdirhasan ‘Sceptics’ like Lindzen crave publicity from the media because they cannot get other scientists to take their views seriously.
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan
@ret_ward Yes but they do get the public to take them seriously. Which is why they should be held to account. Get out of your bubble!
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan
@ret_ward Ah, patronising me. Ok. Btw, you guys are doing a GREAT job with your current approach: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-fatigue-sets-in-the-world-cools-on-global-warming-8513826.html … Well done (!)
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan
@ret_ward Which ‘sceptic’ would you like me to interview? He’s more credible than the rest. Or is your position, no intvs with them, ever?
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan
@ret_ward But he’s not irrelevant to the world, is he? You (and me) not liking his views doesn’t make him disappear, does it? Or his claims?
—————-
look like Bob Ward has just annoyed someone on his own side! again!
Barry Woods – I’ve made an update for clarity in the head post. I’ve been invited to the Oxford Union as well, I wonder what Bob Ward will have to say about that? – thanks
OMG Look who’s talking…a freelance writer dissing a world reknown MIT professor… Wottahell does Ward think he is? He’s not even fit to tie Lindzen’s shoelaces.
These are actually different debates. Bob Ward is trying to punish Mehdi Hasan and Al Jazeera for hosting Lindzen at the Oxford Union tomorrow. The Cambridge event was yesterday.
REPLY: I’ve made an update to the head post. I’ve been invited to the Oxford Union as well, I wonder what Bob Ward will have to say about that? – Anthony
Very helpful to see the two thumbnail bio’s, thanks.
What’s intriguing are the tweets by Hasan and especially Pile. Kudos to them both.
Wow, a fellow geologist fallen to the dark side.
I can’t even find palaeopiezometry on the web, what the heck is palaeopiezometry?
REPLY: I found a single mention in this book, section 9.10 : Deformation Microstructures and Mechanisms in Minerals and Rocks
By Tom G. Blenkinsop
http://books.google.com/books?id=SAo7QZ80vPsC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=palaeopiezometry&source=bl&ots=wOb4w8KY_F&sig=huBEPimE3xYNIpcoLfFm3a5UUdY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I8Q4Uf6NMomrqAHRrYHQCw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=palaeopiezometry&f=false
This comment on the Bishop Hill blog from “Mac” might be relevant:
So, my choices of climate scientists expertise are between an MIT professor of atmospheric physics with a long track record of scientific academic publications – and a political science public relations writer.
DickF says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:46 am
If professor Lindzen is not qualified to comment on matters of atmospheric science, i’d like to know who is.
Why, Michael Mann, of course! 🙂
Here’s his LSE/GRI page which includes most of his published work from the past few years. He’s a busy bunny.
Lord, save us from the true believers.
Jimmy Haigh says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:32 am
Bob Ward. Legend.
…….In his own mind!
“Bob has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry.”
I am better academically qualified (an aeronautical engineer with an MSc in fluid mechanics) than this climate science “expert”, but would not dream of challenging the rights of the likes of Professor Lindzen to speak freely on a subject in which he is a leading world authority.
I should add that Ward’s page of published drivel should be compared to Lindzen’s page of published, peer-reviewed papers in atmospheric physics over nearly five decades to show just how absurd Ward’s comments are. I posted LIndzen’s page of publications above at 7:41.
A piezometer is a shallow well used to measure the depth to the water table (depth to groundwater). Based on that, my guess is that palaeopiezometry is the study of ancient water tables and / or ancient aquifers.
I’m seeing that my link to Lindzen’s page of published work at 7:41 is not working. Let me try again:
Click here
Re “WTF is palaeopiezometr.”
Obviously measuring the amount of urine contained in the skeleton of AGW credibility …
Pointman
Linden has a deliberate kind of quiet measured delivery that calms the discourse.
He and another skeptic can say the exact same words and it is most often Lindzen’s that I find more easy to follow.
John
Why are the shouty and bossy people in the CAGW debate always on the alarmist side?
Such obnoxious behaviour from the likes of Bob W only helps to further convince me that the alarmists realise their hypothesis is a complete crock.
Sorry that I mispelled Lindzen’s name in the first paragraph of my comment => John John Whitman on March 7, 2013 at 9:24 am
John
So now we know the truth. The whole debate is about politics and not about science and it is now admitted. Poly Sci/Public Policy guy = qualified and MIT professor, peer reviewed author and IPCC lead author = not qualifed.
The only thing that fits to me is its not a debate about science is all about politics follow the money.
Now no one can say that the Observer is a relevant newspaper
Paleopiezometry: the study of primitive PR professionals under immense pressure
Possible definition: palaeopiezometry – measurements of microscopic movements in fossilized wood – or “trying to understand the inner workings of Bob Wards cranium”.
One amusing sociological finding is that job categories are disproportionately filled with persons having names relating to their field. (Perhaps this applies to hobbies as well.)
Anyway, with a name like Ward, he’s aptly doing what he can to ward off the threat. (Like the old Watch and Ward society in Boston, of “Banned in Boston” fame.)
I think there are a large number of credible scientists who study various aspects of climate, Lindzen for example, but I think ” Climate Scientists” are to “Scientists” the way Astrology is to Astronomy. Sort of like a wacky 3rd cousin, except better funded.
I have an unfinished trilogy of books. The first two pages are already written.
I also worked at the genetics lab of the Gulbenkian Institute of Science washing Petri dishes. Which is why I’m qualified to talk about epigenetics and stuff.
There are limits to the ridiculous. Hm aren’t there? Hey… people?
In a way Bob Ward is right–only his ilk are qualified to belong to CAGW, which really stands for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas–perpetrators of death on a global scale.
Professor Lindzen has been honored by being excluded from such rabble.
Thank you Bob Ward for making your position perfectly clear. And thank you, Professor Lindzen, for having the credentials and qualifications to expose their ignoble cult.
Chaired by Rowan Williams, with a panel of: Lord Deben, Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Prof Richard Lindzen, Prof Peter Wadhams (Prof Physics & Head of Polar Ocean Physics Group, Cambridge),…
Rowan Williams? The former Archbishop of Canterbury? They would’ve done better with
Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) or perhaps Robin Williams (or both). At least the jokes would
have been funny, as opposed to the expensive joke that is CAGW.
Also, what does the London School of Economics have to do with the science of climate/weather?
Judging from their Fabian roots, I suspect it’s mostly to do with Watermelon science (carbon
trading, wealth redistribution, et. at.) as opposed to real research….erm, they use models
too?
This is just too rich… we’ve reached the point where an al-jezeerah journalist has to defend the Western ethos of open scientific debate against a British prat. Unbelievable.
PS: palaeopiezometr? that is the study of Italian good ole’ boys, i.e piezoms.
Aw shit! – a low grade geologist opens his big mouth…………. it reflects badly on the better ones! (still, hopefully folk will realise that we do not all have the same level of ignorance and low order communication skills!)
rogerknights says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:46 am
One amusing sociological finding is that job categories are disproportionately filled with persons having names relating to their field.
Re – such as the neurologist dr. Brain and the psychiatrist dr. Dement. (Is there a cardiologist dr Hart?)
Richard Lindzen – Scientist with a considerable pedigree.
Bob Ward – failed academic with a job in PR for his Carbon trader employers
Difficult one that. Hmmm… can I phone an “Atmospheric Scientist” please Anthony?
The guy is a Clown.
[Barry Woods – Top of thread]
I enjoy reading Dr. Betts at BH. Agree with him or not, I class him as a Scientist who spends a full day examining ‘the evidence’. Strange that Ward would publicly demonstrate just how quickly his bullshit PR machine will happily attack ‘Allies’ (in the loosest sense) should they go and ‘correct’ an obvious PR nonsense story in ‘the (legacy) media”.
I don’t think Bob needs that ‘w’ in his Twitter tag
Websters explains that “piezometry” is the measurement of hydrostatic pressure affecting the occurence and movement of water; “paleo” is remote in point of time, involving ancient forms and conditions. So one can reasonably assume that a paleopiezometrist is someone who studies the conditions inside Strom Thurmond when he conducted his record-setting fillibuster of the senate.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-strom-thurmond-bathroom
Hope this helps.
Better to keep your mouth shut and let people to think it than to open it and confirm. Mr Ward would be better off studying camel hygiene than insulting a learned Professor.
It would appear that lying and cheating is the currency used by global warming alarmists.
I wonder what Bob Ward makes of David Suzuki. When was the last time he did any science?
Or Al Gore, not a noted scientist at any point.
Why are the shouty and bossy people in the CAGW debate always on the alarmist side?
They aren’t. Most sceptics can’t get a pulpit, but can you imagine the sky dragon people if they could?
Plus Lord Monckton is a buffoon. Take away the “Lord” and his support would evaporate.
The thing that gets me about Ward and his ilk is that they are so into their AGW theory I really don’t know if they are covering up and aware of the trouble they are in…or just ignorant.
Ward mentioned something about a problem with the met office…..does he really think we are still warming?…or is he lying as part of a cover-up that will only get worse?
His jibe at Dick Lindzen…is it fear? I suspect so.
I wonder if Ward knows the significance of the of the reduced water vapour as reported on here yesterday.
MarkW says: March 7, 2013 at 8:07 am
The Observer is the Sunday edition of the infamous Guardian. And like the Guardian it has an online comment section ironically called ‘Comment is Free’. It may be free, in the sense that you don’t have to pay for it, but free speech is certainly not allowed. For example. any commentator suggesting that climate change has happened before is barred.
Bob Ward published an article in the Guardian (he is allowed to because he is’ on message’) and, not surprisingly, the majority of comments were marked as ‘Comment removed’.
Dolphinhead says:
March 7, 2013 at 10:41 am
>>I don’t think Bob needs that ‘w’ in his Twitter tag<<
That – Sir ir Madam – is very funny!
“Warmist Bob Ward argues that former IPCC lead author Richard Lindzen isn’t qualified to talk about climate science”
Isn’t it the case that 97% of IPCC Lead Authors are not qualified to talk about climate science? Or have I misunderstood the theme of” The Juvenile Delinquent”?
Is Bob Ward related to Bud Ward? If so their parents were not very creative.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a “Sky Dragon Person”?
It pretty much says it all when Al-Jazeera is forcing the Warmist Team to move to more balanced presentation. Really, truly says it all.
MikeB says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:35 am
Oh yes, Comment is Free, not so jokingly referred to as Komment Macht Frei.
DaveE.
It’s fear. They know Lindzen will wipe the floor with them, might as well attack the event.
Bob Ward really has got some cheek to question Lindzen’s authority to even offer an opinion. It would be like me trying to cast doubt on Anthony Watts’ suitability to host his own blog! Quite astonishing arrogance from Ward.
The fear and anguish pervading the Warmist narrative nowadays is really quite delightful.
Once, in fact not that long ago, second rate spin doctors like Ward were un-touchable…my how times have changed!
@DickF says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:46 am
“If professor Lindzen is not qualified to comment on matters of atmospheric science, i’d like to know who is.”
Behind Lindzen at #1 and coming in at #2, Buckeye Chuck and Puxatony Phil seem to fall somewhere in between Lindzen and Ward, with Ward anchoring the #3 position.
The MSM holds Chuck and Phil in high regard.
Mooloo says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:01 am
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen on this blog (or any blog, for that matter) in a long time, Mooloo.
You owe Lord Monckton an apology.
(You should also read what the Viscount writes, or is the level a bit beyond your limited understanding?)
Yet another No One trying to claim his place on the “Climate Change Gravy Train” by name calling and trying to censor debate..Pathetic and who is Bob Ward??? Lindzen a giant, Ward LSE, Ah say’s it all.
Less about science, more about politics and money. No question.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/About/home.aspx
Bob Ward, media apparatchik, employed to massage the meme eg:
‘If the BBC wants to retain the public’s trust in its coverage of issues such as climate change, it needs to place greater value on objectivity as defined by Sambrook, and drop its ill-conceived fetish for impartiality between facts and opinions’.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/bbc-climate-change-the-bbc-is-sacrificing-ob_b_1649122.html
…..that is, as long as one adheres to warmist assimilative dogma.
And the Grantham ‘Research’ Institute, Bob’s institutional home…
‘The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment is a research centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The Institute was established in May 2008 with the support of philanthropists Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham, through their Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment.
Current members of the advisory board include Stern, Rees, Nurse et al. Stern is the Research Institute Chair.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/whosWho/Other/AdvisoryBoard.aspx
This comment in NO way defends Ward
but
Piezometry is a well-established field of hydrogeology – study of standing water levels and their movements by the use of monitored drillholes (piezometers). It is used extensively for many projects (farming, mining, construction etc etc) and provides absolutely critical data
Palaeopiezometry is the study of ancient standing water levels (obviously without 200m year old piezometers !) It may provide data critical to the understanding of geological events
That so many ignorant, frivolous comments are directed at an area of geological science that is not known to the general public (in fact, most areas of geological science are unknown to the public) speaks volumes about the general level of science education. No wonder that the CAGW propagandists have won the “hearts and minds” wars
I have long despaired of any improvement here
Palaeopiezometry: the study of Neolithic fast food products (cf: PiezoHut).
Louis Hoofstetter’s piezometer is properly known as a Casagrande piezometer. It measures pressure in an aquifer under artesian conditions. Paleopiezometry has nothing to do with hydrology. Instead, the procedure measures the ductile deformation of crystals to estimate the loads on large deformed rock masses. A quartz crystal under mechanical stress accumulates a peizoelectric field as do several other materials. In any case, paleopiezometry is a pretty narrow and specialized field of interest.
What’s in a name? (my emphases)
“Dr. Gmelch states that the Ward Clan is acknowledged by other Travellers as one of the “oldest families on the road.” Stating that their name is derived from Mac an Bhaird, or “Son of the Bard,” she suggests that perhaps they took to the road as fugitives from English laws against their traditional, musical profession of singing songs and reciting poetry in the Irish language.
Social issues;
Travellers are said to frequently live without running water or electricity. Their itinerant lifestyle can sometimes result in apparent poor education, as the children cannot always get a consistent education because of moving around frequently. However, due to longstanding verbal and musical traditions associated with Traveller communities, there is widespread and advanced use of vocabulary and social skills.”
Ward: Tinker, guard, marsh-dweller
\’wink’ emoticon here
Just out of curiousity, is a “First Degree” the equivalent of an Bachelor’s or Master’s in the US? Mr. Ward also never finished his Ph. D. I note.
ianl8888 says:
March 7, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Lighten up ffs – there have been nearly 40 million visits to WUWT in the last year – and some of us are, usually, nothing-but-frivolous about all alarmism and the adherents of such. It doesn’t categorically make us anti … well, anything other than alarmism. They deserve all the derision they cannot handle. It’s far, far cheaper than policy.
Here’s some Bobwardian thinking from the soft sciences.
http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Climate-Change-Psychoanalytic-Interdisciplinary/dp/0415667623/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
“Ward studied geology to degree level and has an unfinished PhD on palaeopiezometry, the study of the structure of rocks.”
Well, I have numerous unfinished PhDs on a variety of climate topics, all but none of which I’ve yet to complete starting. /sarc
Don’t criticise his academic level, I heard he just finished his first book.
In fact he starts reading his second book next week.
To Bob Ward – I don’t know what it is exactly that you’re saying but this is what I’m hearing- “please don’t disrupt the gravy train!”
Bob Ward is obviously another climate varmint spreading CAGW disease.
Maybe someone upset him last night but Sir Brian Hoskins was speaking today in Lincoln and said that the Global Climate Models are conservative, do not take the thresholds into account, are likely to be wrong in a way that underestimates climate change and that we will be ‘very lucky’ if things turn out as well as the models forecast.
I love it when scientists dare to tell it how it is.
If Palaeopiezometry is the study of ancient standing water levels, I think that there is now empirical evidence that a Palaeopiezmetrist is a level headed person. You can tell this because when they are standing level faecal matter and dribble emanates from both sides of their mouth equally when they talk. : > )
(With apologies to any other Palaeopiezmetrists)
@Josualdo says:
March 7, 2013 at 10:36 am
rogerknights says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:46 am
One amusing sociological finding is that job categories are disproportionately filled with persons having names relating to their field.
Re – such as the neurologist dr. Brain and the psychiatrist dr. Dement. (Is there a cardiologist dr Hart?)
Try, Neil, David and Mark Hart, MDs and cardiologists all.
Latitude says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:39 am
“palaeopiezometry.??????? huh
Does anyone know what that is?”
Well, I wouldn’t waste time asking Bob Ward…
I missed it but which ward is Bob in and where exactly are we supposed to send the get well cards?
observa says:
March 7, 2013 at 3:34 pm
I missed it but which ward is Bob in and where exactly are we supposed
to send the get well cards?
erm, probably the bass-ack ward, I suspect….
Rehashed for the umpteenth time, but my first impression was that palaeopiezometry was the measurement of force needed to squeeze old things enough that they emit the particular “Truth” you wanted. Or, maybe not.
Palaeopiezometry is the determination of past stress fields, which can provide major constraints on tectonic models. Microstructural methods have concentrated mainly on measuring differential stress and the orientation of the stress tensor.
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=SAo7QZ80vPsC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=palaeopiezometry&source=bl&ots=wOb4x1NV0J&sig=Ijg7RXtH9aU9dcWotZ8P2DbDAbM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=90M5UffzPIP3rQeTzIC4BQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=palaeopiezometry&f=false
So I’m still unsure of what use it is.
And this epitomizes the fault with the whole “97%” of climate scientists agree” meme.
Because anyone working in a microscopic (good word!) spectrum vague related to climate science sees a chance to climb on the funding bandwagon, whilst they have very little knowledge or experience in matters applicable to the main themes of CAGW.
Whereas an atmospheric physicist such as Richard Lindzen does.
Ya gotta marvel at the hide of this man Bob Ward. He must have known CVs would be dragged out and compared.
Just don’t go asking about Gastroenterologists, Urologists, Proctologists, or Gynecologists…
Lets determine if Professor Richard Lindzen is credentialed enough and has contributed to climate science (even recently),
Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
The Role of Convective Model Choice in Calculating the Climate Impact of Doubling CO2
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp. 1189–1205, June 1982)
– Richard S. Lindzen, A. Y. Hou, B. F. Farrell
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some remarks on global warming
(Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp. 424–426, April 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Distribution of Tropical Tropospheric Water Vapor
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 12, pp. 1643-1660, June 1993)
– De-Zheng Sun, Richard S. Lindzen
On the scientific basis for global warming scenarios
(Environmental Pollution, Volume 83, Issues 1–2, pp. 125–134, 1994)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pp. 353-378, January 1994)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 103, Issue D6, pp. 5929-5942, March 1998)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis
Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417-432, March 2001)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou
Do deep ocean temperature records verify models?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 8, April 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Reconciling observations of global temperature change
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp. 24-1, June 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis
Observed variations in convective precipitation fraction and stratiform area with sea surface temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D16, August 2008)
– Roberto Rondanelli, Richard S. Lindzen
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 16, August 2009)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
Can thin cirrus clouds in the tropics provide a solution to the faint young Sun paradox?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 115, Issue D2, January 2010)
– Roberto Rondanelli, Richard S. Lindzen
Satellite retrievals of (quasi-)spherical particles at cold temperatures
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Number 5, March 2010)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho, Jinwon Kim, Richard S. Lindzen
Space observations of cold-cloud phase change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Issue 25, pp. 11211-11216, June 2010)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Richard S. Lindzen, Chang-Hoi Ho, Jinwon Kim
Observational diagnosis of cloud phase in the winter Antarctic atmosphere for parameterizations in climate models
(Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 27, Number 6, pp. 1233-1245, November 2010)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho, Sang-Woo Kim, Richard S. Lindzen
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)
(The European Physical Journal Plus, Volume 127, Number 5, pp. 1-15, May 2012)
– Richard S. Lindzen
@ Poptech,
Its for sure then, Bob Ward is right Richard Lindzen is not a climatologist.
CAGW Bob does not recognize real scientists.
MikeB says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:35 am
…
Bob Ward published an article in the Guardian (he is allowed to because he is’ on message’) and, not surprisingly, the majority of comments were marked as ‘Comment removed’.
I suggest next time a Bob Ward article appears, WUWT readers organize a campaign to bombard the thread with comments reading ‘Comment removed’.
Don’t any geologists read and comment at WUWT?
http://www.tech-faq.com/piezoelectric-effect.html
——————————————————————-
I knew this but I’ve never heard of Bob Ward.
Delingpole takes a look at Bob Ward in an column entitled “What On Earth Is Bob Ward?”
He was not impressed with the answer he found.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058818/what-on-earth-is-bob-ward/
Piezo – means to press tight. In piezo electric, the force or pressure on the material causes voltage potential I believe. palaeopiezometry must be the study of fossil stuff under pressure.
Piezometers are small boreholes used for measuring groundwater level and pressure, often with an electronic pressure sensor. A piezometric map is a kind of topographical map of groundwater presssure. Very commonly used in hydrogeology to help assess the direction and rate of groundwater flow.
Therefore, paleaopiezometry could be the study of groundwater levels and pressures in the geological past. But a bit of Googling indicates it can also referr to the study of historical pressures in the rocks – eg. the pressures that caused massive deformations.
In any case, some kind of proxies are required. Thus, I think Bob Ward could call on Professor Mann to help him complete his PhD thesis.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist
Why is an atmospheric physicist referred to as a climate expert? He is a specialist in one tiny aspect of climate and has zero knowledge of hydrology, volcanic factors, biological factors or even more basically, pattern analysis to understand whether the climate deviations are real or facile oversimplifications based on linear trends as they were told a quarter of a century ago. This is even before flaunting their ignorance regarding equating the ideas of stability in feedback systems showing no system incorporating forcing is compatible with life on even starting to exist on earth.
The whole climate fraud is based on this con by this tiny and utterly blinkered subset of climate expertise claiming the right to classification as the font of wisdom from the dozens of areas that are truly the factors involved.
As a geologist Ward should know better than be a warmist.
David Cage says:
March 8, 2013 at 1:13 am
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist
…. (rant or sarc, it’s hard to tell) ….
And your point would be? (in particular regarding Richard Lindzen)…
Have a look at the credentials, papers, etc. listed by Poptech above…
Poptech says:
March 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Lets determine if Professor Richard Lindzen is credentialed enough
and has contributed to climate science (even recently)…….
Your first mistake was/is trusting Wikipedia’s take on things/people….
Beware LORD DEBEN, family ties to all sorts of green agendas, also Tim yeo.
I believe I’ve heard about Bob Ward’s amazing cred.
Wasn’t Bob a graduate of Chief Climate Scientist Bill Nye’s in-depth climate training course.
Bill Nye has proven the earth will burn up in….. oooohhhhh………I don’t remember the exact date but……….wasn’t it two weeks from last November?
I think I recall Ward was an honor student.
My information may be out of date.
Oops my error….It appears Ward quit that program, too.
Too much difficult palaeopiezometry science?…………….NAH!
“Was there just no honor in Bill Nye’s teachings?” asks I.
Maybe it was Peter Gleick who was the climastrology professor….I’ll check.
Nope. Gleick’s not teaching honor either.
Looks like Bobby may have developed his scientific knowledge plus his honor and honesty from Al Gore or Michael Mann or Phil Jones or Henry Waxman or……….?
cn
Bill Ward of Black Sabbath knows more about climate than Bob Ward….
Bob Ward is a scientific non-entity, a clever journalist or PR man. I am sure he has done well for the Grantham Institue, for this research body has lived well off the global warming scare and decarbonisation efforts across a whole range od disciplines. Both efforts are now nearing their end and new research issues must be found. Debating with Lindzen was therefore a positive sign, but also an insult to people like Ward who have investd so much in green ideology and scare mongering. It might also be an admission of doubt and possibly failure by the world of policy.
A quick search of AMS (American Meteorological Society) site for Richard Lindzen gives this, http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/publication.html , not the AMS that I searched a while ago, and found many papers by him; I’ve downloaded a few, some ten, technical papers where he’s dealing with specific scientific issues which are not obviously about AGW, but about interesting questions in meteorology, past and present. The AMS site does not make searching easy, but here’s the result of searching articles by Richard Lindzen: http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/doSearch?type=simple&filter=multiple&searchText=Richard+Lindzen&categoryId=allJournals&history=
How dare a mere journalist dismiss him?! 244 citations on a great variety of topics, mostly technical.
“David Cage says: Richard Siegmund Lindzen… Why is an atmospheric physicist referred to as a climate expert?”
Because he is, climatology is a sub discipline of atmospheric sciences. So how did you determine Dr. Lindzen has, “zero knowledge of hydrology, volcanic factors, biological factors or even more basically, pattern analysis” and where did you get such pseudo-criteria anyway?
Bob Ward … reminds me of the old TV series Kung Fu (David Carradine) … where Bob is “Grasshopper” talking to his “Master” (Richard Lindzen)!