UPDATE: it seems that Mr. Ward doesn’t confine his accusations of dishonesty to concerned members of the public like Donna Laframboise, he’s going after Dr. Richard Tol as well, complaining to journal editors about Tol’s publications made years ago – see update below.
It seems the irascible Bob Ward from the Grantham Institute just couldn’t handle having climate skeptics allowed to give an opinion before the UK Parliament, so he filed rebuttals to every witness. I’ve been sitting on this over a week, and Donna Laframboise reports that the cat is out of the bag now, along with the skeptic response to Bob Ward, who she labels a “rat-snake” for his intolerance.
Parliament has just published the point-counterpoints, and Donna has let loose with a video response.
- Bob Ward, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment | PDF version (
79 KB) 
IPC0060 | Ordered to be published 04 Mar 2014 - Richard Lindzen – written evidence | PDF version (49 KB) IPC0068 | Ordered to be published 04 Mar 2014
- Nicholas Lewis – written evidence | PDF version (115 KB) IPC0069 | Ordered to be published 04 Mar 2014
- Donna Laframboise – written evidence | PDF version (73 KB) IPC0071 | Ordered to be published 04 Mar 2014
Source of Links above: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-ipcc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter
Here’s Donna’s video response:
and her blog post about this matter:
Bob Ward says I uttered a “a number of inaccurate and misleading statements” when I appeared before a UK parliamentary committee in January 2014. His accusations have no basis in fact.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/05/rat-snake-bob/
========================================================
UPDATE: From Dr. Richard Tol’s website, we have this.
Nick Stern’s attack dog PR person, Bob Ward, has reached a new level of trolling. He seems to have taking it on himself to write to every editor of every journal I have ever published in, complaining about imaginary errors even if I had previously explained to him that these alleged mistakes in fact reflect his misunderstanding and lack of education.
Unfortunately, academic duty implies that every accusation is followed by an audit. Sometimes an error is found, although rarely by Mr Ward.
Here is an example. The left figure was in the Final Government Review Draft of IPCC WG2 AR5. The right figure will be in the published report. Spot the difference?
For all the millions of research pounds at Nick Stern’s disposal, the impact is, well, minimal.
=================================================================
Andrew Montford comments at Bishop Hill that:
Bob’s main problem is that he has only one card to play, namely to accuse his opponents of dishonesty, usually at the top of his voice. In this case, he has accused no less than three people: Nic Lewis, Donna Laframboise and Richard Lindzen.
…
The committee are going to find themselves thinking that he is a bit of a wally. Or a lot of a wally.
See: Whole lotta wally
Keep up the good work Donna.. don’t let the occasional snake bite bother you!
I stand corrected. I always thought he was a snake-weasel-rat.
I had to order Donna’s book “Delinquent Teenager” from a major Canadian bookstore. They hadn’t heard of it. I persisted and received a copy, at great expense. It was worth every penny. So it is a pleasure to view this video and hear Donna rebut Bob so well!
What is apparently evolving in the apologists for the IPCC’s fake fizzicks is a reckless disregard for the truth.
Ward appears to be a master dissembler who may go far in that art form for which any connection with the truth may only be accidental.
Perhaps he should be required to place a more prominent warning on his output, such as ‘ These are the ramblings of a seriously disturbed individual committed to proselytising official untruths’.
A bit unfair to rat snakes to compare them to as despicable a creature as Bob Ward. You might attract ire of WWF!
I sympathise with Donna’s case, but I don’t think childish name-calling helps either side one bit.
Some blondes are pretty smart.
It’s the apparently fluffy cuddy creatures you have to beware of …
Pointman
I don’t have much time for Bob Ward but on this occasion he seems to have a point. On Donna’s site she refers readers to the relevant part of the IAC report as she sees it. What it actuallly says is: “This chapter identifies and recommends ways to address the most significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process”. She then highlights the section of the sentence beginning with the word significant. She is free to do this but she is not free to then reinterpret the sentence to mean “There are significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process” – the sentence in quotes just does not mean this.
Ok, the problem I have with her video is this:
She excised the word most from most significant.
The most significant shortcoming isn’t necessarily significant on an absolute scale; it may be just the most severe out of a list of relatively minor shortcomings. Being a simulation developer and analyst myself, as well as an algorithm developer, I have personally had some of my most significant shortcomings be merely bits of code that are inelegant, non-reuseable or just plain not quite what I intended.
Example: I have mechanized a free-azimuth navigator and now think we’d be better served by a wander-azimuth navigator. It’s a fix that would not improve the quality of the solution, but it would make life easier during e.g. ground operations.
I’ve got a lot of time for Donna. I’ve read her book on the IPCC and I watched the committee meeting and flinched with her over the juvenile and rude attack on her by MP Robertson. My guess is that he was probably acting as Ward’s attack dog.
Donna says that Ward wrote to committee a letter that was considered ‘Peer Reviewed’:
What kind of person uses the imprimatur of so many institutional logos to give his letter authority yet weasels out of any claim against them with his disclaimer? A BULLY.
If Ward had any cohones he would write up the details as to why he thinks the way he does – but he hasn’t, and he can’t.
All the best Donna.
sc. Perhaps, after you have picked fly sh*t out of the black pepper, you can regale us with your glowing assessment of the IPCC and all the greatness they promote. There ARE significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process, and your little segway really doesn’t change that fact. The organization is as corrupt as its promoters.
It amazes me how much time and effort the alarmists waste on “deniers” or skeptics. It’s truly breath taking. I would estimate that 75% to 80% of their time is now dedicated to attacking people who don’t agree with them. If they want to regain the high ground it’s very easy. Start making predictions that actually come true. Explain the processes that created those conditions, allow colleagues to replicate those findings.
The reason skepticism is growing is two fold: one, nothing they ever say comes to be and then they keep changing the goal posts (this doesn’t exactly elicit confidence); two, their behavior against anyone who questions them is downright bizarre and they behave more like cultists than scientists. This latter point seriously undermines their science argument.
I think it’s time real scientists pull the plug on the more radical idiots like Bob Ward who have turned climate science into an outright mockery. Because if they don’t, they risk the possibility that a massive backlash will develop and the people will get rid of the good and the bad.
Responding to sc: It may be that Donna emphasized “significant shortcomings” thus de-emphasizing “the most” part of the sentence, which in my mind implies that there are many more shortcomings than those she is electing to emphasize, in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process…
I think Bob’s problem is that, because he does his lobbying for a living (which is legal), he finds it difficult to believe that sincere and competent people might oppose his views for free.
That they are usually correct is, however, the reason why they can’t be forgiven.
(I’m also one of those people who actually think real snakes are quite beautiful, elegant creatures. I used to keep them. So the comparison doesn’t do it for me. Rats are quite likeable, too, apart from the scaly tails. On the other hand, Madagascan Hissing Cockroaches the size of a small hamster…)
‘Ward, who she labels a “rat-snake” for his intolerance.’
What intolerance?He ‘s not intolerant.He gets paid big bucks to get the message out to the congregation and if someone offered him bigger bucks he would spout the exact opposite and swear blind he never thought anything different and ratsnake is a bit over the top,snake would have been just fine.
…can be found on youtube
Mike Bromley. You are right that there ARE significant shortcomings. And Donna is right about the IAC report and the quotes that she gives on how it was received are telling. But in that case why give Bob Ward an easy way out by quoting a clause of sentence and making it say something that you might wish it said, but that unfortunately it does not. Just saying
We should coin an new phrase for these people “Climate snobs”.
Yes, if you quote a document and leave out a key modifier, thereby completely changing the meaning of the quote, you might be justly described as misleading.
FWIW, the actual quote: “far from being the over-mighty, all-controlling leviathan depicted by some of its opponents, the inquiry shows the IPCC to be an amateurish, ramshackle operation with 10 staff, a part-time boss, and poor public relations skills – struggling with the increasing torrent of scientific studies on the climate, and “sluggish” and inept at responding to publicity and criticism.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7974521/IPCCs-Rajendra-Pachauri-is-damaging-the-world.html
I guess she calls him a rat snake because the 2 animals always conjure up negative images. But I prefer Michael Hart’s comparison. As the other 2, cockroaches have negative connotations. But they are seen more as dung eaters and the hissing variety seems to be exactly what Bob is attempting to do (impotently I might add).
Like many, I watched the ‘rather intimidating’ climate committee review at the time – and again, when it was recently repeated here in the UK on BBC Parliament channel. It is outrageous that Donna, who had volunteered and dedicated her professional time (with her flight funded by a substantial donation plea to us skeptic community) in order to help our UK politicians get a grip on the realities of the CAGW scam, is treated in this way. She certainly will not volunteer again.
To this day I still fail to understand why Christopher Monkton, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole, Nigel Farage or Nigel Lawson were not invited to testify. I would have greatly enjoyed listening to them trounce the bully-boy chairmanship of Tim Yeo.
Great video Donna.
It’s about time we had a ‘Not a lot of people know that actually there’s hardly any man-made CO2 up there in the sky’ conference. Let’s make Thursday 13th March (next week) a worldwide ‘Let off the nearest CO2 fire extinguisher day’ – just so we can all prove once and for all how much difference it won’t make to the weather. Go on – I’m up for it. Say 3.00pm GMT. Who’s game?
The spiral tightens, that this public relations flunky, would go to such idiotic lengths to attempt to discredit parliamentary committee witnesses, indicates panic.
Bob Wards problem is simple, he has a record of being willing to twist, torque and spin the english language to promote his bank account.
A Shill.
Once you establish your willingness to deceive for profit, your ability to criticize the credibility of others vanishes.
Defending the IPCC is a lost cause.
2500 scientists, the worlds top scientists, only peer reviewed published by this date science,
carefully reviewed.All claims of the IPCC, now established as false.
Har har har.
But we have a consensus.
Like the invaluable services of M.Mann, when Bob Ward accuses a person of dishonest behaviour, he promotes their perception by the public as an honest and ethical human.
The most odious project their ugliness upon all who resist their corruption.
I agree (alas).
As regards the complaint that Donna shortened “most significant” to “significant,” if someone says that they are discussing the most significant error in their work then they have implied that there are significant errors in their work. Donna’s point stands.
Rhys – your patriotism is commendable. To minimize your expense, use Amazon – they have it.
that, in the farming fraternity, is called getting sliced off at the knees. But Bob hasn’t got any knees, he’s a Rat Snake. Hilarious. Good on Ya Donna.
The problem with Ward’s critique about Donna is not being a rat snake, but being extremely stupid. “Being successful overall and having served society well” does not contradict “having significant shortcomings in every major step”. And, from the former, you are entitled to think in closing the IPCC as the best solution, or to praise the IPCC. Is a matter of opinion – for everybody except the most stupid.
@ sc says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
‘that you might wish it said, but that unfortunately it does not’
You are 100% right sc that’s a mistake.I felt a bit uneasy watching the vid’ and on reflection I don’t think it becomes a person of Donna’s stature at all.
Let’s have a look at what the text says below that, shall we?
First:
Scoping transparency. Does it invalidate anything? Not that I can see.
What else? This:
Oh, hell. Just read the whole thing yourself. If you can find and summarize any truly significant issues, you’re more patient than I am. What I’ve read so far looks more like analysis meta-issues than actual analysis issues.
I always preferred “Rat Bastard”.
Pardon the formatting. It looked ok when I copypastaed it.
Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:03 am
“Ok, the problem I have with her video is this:
She excised the word most from most significant.
The most significant shortcoming isn’t necessarily significant on an absolute scale; it may be just the most severe out of a list of relatively minor shortcomings”
Then they should not have used the word ‘significant’. If one says that he is discussing the least important significant shortcoming ever discovered, he/she still has implied that there are significant shortcomings. You are doing the wishful interpretation, not Donna.
Old Josh cartoon of Bob Ward:
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/download/Right_of_reply.jpg
BOB WARD IS NOT A SCIENTIST: HE IS JUST A MOUTHPIECE FOR CLIMATE HYSTERICS
Bob Ward does this all the time: popping up like a bad smell on TV (he practically lives in the Newsnight studio) and radio and now in committee whenever a rent-a-quote spokesman is needed to talk about “Climate Change” “global warming” or whatever it is they’re calling it this month. He’s a PR man, let us remind ourselves, not a scientist (although he can claim an unfinished PhD thesis in Palaeopiezometry). His job – for which he no doubt receives a salary much bigger than any of his opponents, is by its very nature about swaying public opinion using traditional PR techniques like exaggeration, blustering and economy with the truth. It’s not like Ward spends his days poring over radiosonde data or measuring ice caps or poking around in polar bear poo. He’s a hatchet man. He’s quite good at it. That’s probably why they chose him. Because he looks a bit like an angry pit bull and he’s quite a scary thing to confront when you’re up against him in a debate, trying to get awkward scientific truths across like the fact that so-called “Global Warming” hasn’t actually happened since 1998.
Bob Ward is not afraid to play dirty. One of his favorite tricks is to deploy the Press Complaints Commission weapon. He has inflicted this torture device more than once on Christopher Booker, reporting him for some doubtful inaccuracy or other which the PCC almost certainly won’t have either the intellect or the ideological neutrality to judge fairly, but which will result in his unfortunate victim being tied up for days answering pointless questions about tiny details for the PCC’s kangaroo court.
For further stories about Bob Ward in action, read Bishop Hill – another victim of Ward’s vicious campaigning. The Bishop also rightly condemns Ward’s disgraceful – and quite possibly actionable – assault on the distinguished and thoroughly decent Professor Bob Carter on the above-mentioned ABC radio suck-up.
It’s about time someone complained about the Grantham Institute’s pathetic inability to provide anyone – other than the inevitable Bob – to debate with them about climate.[ Are you listening,BBC?] If the Grantham Institute insists on having Bob Ward going around in blogs and in the media seeking to criticize anyone’s work so recklessly — then they have an obligation to come out from behind him to actually engage in intellectual debate. The alternative would be to inform Mr. Ward that they do not wish to back up his various attacks.
Apparently, they can’t or won’t put someone up. I have debated Mr. Ward before and, not surprisingly, he was unprepared to actually debate. So I won’t bother repeating that experience again.
This is more than I ever wanted to write about Bob Ward. Why did I do so? Because as we approach endgame in the the biggest fraud in history, people will understandably want to know how this massive fraud was able to penetrate so deep into the public psyche.
My initial response was: “That is a very attractive snake who looks nothing like Mr. Ward.” In fact, I don’t think it’s a rat snake at all. Here’s a pic of a rat snake:
It obviously bears a much closer resemblance.
But an even bigger problem with the video is that rat snakes are beneficial creatures that reduce the population of disease-carrying rodents. Physical appearance aside, Mr. Ward is NOT a rat snake.
Theo Goodwin. Agreed but regrettably this is not the problem. Donna concludes her piece with the following sentence.
“Rather than double-checking what Chapter 2 of the IAC report actually says, rather than spending five minutes with Google investigating how the IAC report was widely perceived, Ward is capable of imagining only one possibility: opinions not shared by him are wrong.”
Under Chapter 2 is a clickable link that takes you to page 13 of the IAC report which is what she relies on. The full sentence reads as follows:
“This chapter identifies and recommends ways to address the most significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process, based on the Committee’s analysis of current IPCC practices, of the literature on assessments, and community input.”
She highlights in yellow “significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process”
It is clear that, however you spin it, this cannot be read as: “There are significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process” (even if there are).
I will not comment further because, despite appearances, I am not interested in supporting Bob Ward.
I just don’t understand the tactics. Why use part of the sentence in this way when there was so much more that could have been used instead – not least the way in which the IAC report was perceived?
Ulick Stafford (@ustafford) says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:52 am
“A bit unfair to rat snakes to compare them to as despicable a creature as Bob Ward. You might attract ire of WWF!”
Some years ago (1986) the “WWF” changed its name (except in North America). Wildlife is not the focus of the group, now known as the World Wide Fund (for Nature). This is an elitist group formed by European royalty and money changers that need a cause for their guilt-relief efforts. They are more familiar with “funds” than with animals. If the animal isn’t cute and cuddly (Panda, baby Elephant, Dolphins) it is unlikely to be a concern of these people. A survey of WWF’s leaders would likely show that greater than 97% could not identify a rat snake. I’m not saying I could either before trying to figure out why Donna choose this particular snake. They are not noted for venom or fangs.
The Royal Society has put up a forum to receive questions about climate change, which they will then answer. They are searching for a way to dialogue with the public at large. It sounds like they will also use this to refine their answers/spin in a new move to ‘inform’ the world of the need to act immediately. Here are the two links. The one to the Google moderator has already closed for comments as of today….http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
http://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=20f7fa
Rat snake Bob meets mongoose Donna.
Hmm, looks like an IMG tag gets stripped out. How about a link?
http://wallgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Albino-Texas-Rat-Snake.jpg
@nutso fasst – Your picture looks like a Sesame Street character! 😉
http://www.amazon.ca/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394042400&sr=8-1&keywords=the+deliberate+corruption+of+climate+science
From Merriam-Webster.com. Look it up if you want the other meanings.
If you’re going to note that which word (of many possible) was used as being more important than a dropped modifier, I think we’re done here.
Here’s the conclusion from that report, in full:
This sounds more in the line of offering improvements to a work in progress than raising the red flag that something is badly broken.
Feel free to offer your own interpretation.
Bob Ward is a wilful idiot and a bully. Donna is (IMHO) attempting to get him to let loose an even more intemperate tirade. When he does this, it will be with even less thought, and with more techniques from the bully’s playbook… at which point she’ll have the opportunity to pull his alleged arguments apart.
As for leaving out the word “most”… you’re kidding, right?
None of the above is meant to suggest that the IPCC review process is good or bad. Just that the report that Donna is reading doesn’t come to the conclusions she does.
You’re kidding, right? I mean…right? I did offer an example that illustrated just what the excision of that word could mean, in terms of the meaning of the quoted passage. You did read that, right? I mean…right?
Yeah, leaving out “most” does nothing, other than to completely change the meaning.
Great, Donna!!:] But I like snakes and rats are smart, hw How about we just call him a$$hole!:]
I love all this,
Mr Watts,
Donna,
Jo Nova,
Steve Mcintyre
and all the others, you have become a well oiled machine.
[let’s not go there – Anthony]
It seems rather unfair to slander the Gonyosoma oxycephala in this manner.
;->
… after all this time…there’s not one iota of proof
and they keep proving it
Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:07 am
So, you claim that someone can state he is presenting the least significant example and then deny that the example is significant? You are at war with the plain meaning of the word ‘significant’.
Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:07 am
As for leaving out the word “most”… you’re kidding, right?
You’re kidding, right? I mean…right? I did offer an example that illustrated just what the excision of that word could mean, in terms of the meaning of the quoted passage. You did read that, right? I mean…right?
Yeah, leaving out “most” does nothing, other than to completely change the meaning.
Yup, I read it. I also think that whilst your argument was cogent, and in your quoted example, relevant, in the case of a report such as the one she quoted (or mis-quoted, depending on your point of view) quoting or otherwise of that one word does not destroy her evidence or her argument.
In legal language, it would be a deal-breaker. In true scientific language where every single word carries the same weight as every other (or at least should), it would render what she said completely irrelevant.
So, yeah… you’re kidding, right? But perhaps it would have been better to say “I hear what you’re saying, and it is a valid point, but doesn’t appear to me to be as relevant as you think it is, nor does it completely change the meaning under these circumstances.”
Could have saved myself a lot of typing and you a bit of heartburn (for which I apologise if it did).
Just got to love that video!
Eugene WR Gallun
Dagnabbit, it seems my green snakeskin belt post was truncated. Booo 😉
Ward is the Baghdad Bob of climate.
Well delivered, Donna! Well delivered! (just watched the video)
Ok, I admit that I was set off a bit, there. Perhaps a bit different wording… 🙂
Did you read the conclusion? Do you agree that it seems to be at odds with her summarization?
Let me encapsulate what I have said up until now, for clarity:
“Most significant issues” and “significant issues” generally mean different things. The most significant issue may have great overall importance, or it might not. Examining the conclusion of the report, it seems that none of the most significant issues are critically important, but the report emphasizes they should still be addressed.
Disagreements?
Further signs of increasing panic on the part of those on the foundering ship of global warming. Neither BoB Ward nor Mike Mann has a life jacket, and they know it.
Oh Donna how could you? With two words condemn two species and one sub-species ie Rats, Snakes and Rat Snakes by comparing them with the great pustule Bob Ward?
Oops I’ve just offended pustules? 🙂
I say turn tables on these AGW creeps. Everytime they seek out a public forum, send in protests and points of order showing where they have misled, over stated, claimed awards not theirs, are paid schills, etc. to be placed in the record.
Nothing personal he is just doing his job , which ironically is ‘paid shrill’ .
Bob ‘fast fingers ‘ Ward continues to take Graham for a ton of cash for producing a ton of trash .
Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:07 am
As for leaving out the word “most”… you’re kidding, right?
You’re kidding, right? I mean…right? I did offer an example that illustrated just what the excision of that word could mean, in terms of the meaning of the quoted passage. You did read that, right? I mean…right?
Yeah, leaving out “most” does nothing, other than to completely change the meaning.
So, in short, the IPCC has decided to eliminate the “most” (in someone’s judgement) significant shortcomings and leave the only the “significant” ones to behind to obfuscate the results of the assessment process. I rather doubt that the omission that word would be one that Mr. Ward would really want to emphasize if he really though about it. Donna’s excision of “most” actually makes the passage read as being written by a more responsible crew than your example would imply. There’s an old saying about straining at gnats while swallowing camels that applies here.
Arrgh. “…and leave the only the “significant” ones to behind to …” -> “…and leave only the “significant” ones to behind to …”
CAGW appears to breed rat-snake-ism.
I am not certain however, whether that is a significant problem or a most significant problem.
The sentence “This chapter identifies and recommends
ways to address the most significant shortcomings in each major step of
IPCC’s assessment process, based on the Committee’s analysis of current
IPCC practices, of the literature on assessments, and community input.” as found in the “Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC” only implies that each step in the process has shortcomings. It does not state it. Nor does it state or imply that any of the shortcomings found are significant. If some steps have no identified shortcomings, it is not inconsistent with the quoted sentence as the “most significant shortcomings” of that step would be simply be “identified” to be zero. It is a general statement of the chapters purpose and has nothing to do with results found.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree in general with Donna’s opinion of the IPCC but it is important to be precise to avoid being eaten alive by the likes of Bob Ward.
Donna,
Great initial testimony and rebuttal. My donation money was well spent I see. : )
The snake thing in your recent video is weird; I strongly recommend you drop it in the future. It detracts.
But if you insist to do that sort of thing then I would recommend using a character out of literature. Liken Bob Ward to Grima Wormtongue who was the disturbingly duplicitous counsel to King Théoden in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Two Towers”.
John
Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:37 am “Most significant issues” and “significant issues” generally mean different things.”
A distinction without a difference. Or perhaps a quibble without a difference. Or perhaps a distraction without a difference. How about some of you smart people get back to talking about something substantive and quit quibbling and distracting; unless of course that is your intent.
Why are you being unkind to rats?
Hi Slartibartfast! I’m fascinated by your negative attitude here. I mean, are you one of the consensus brigade? I bet you are. That being the case, how come – unless I missed it – you haven’t commented on the second of Donna’s links, the one to what the press thought of the IAC’s report: http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/media_reactions_iacreport.pdf
I’d like to think that some of these people can’t design fjords, but they can read a report – and comment on it.
Sasha says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:55 am
“BOB WARD IS NOT A SCIENTIST: HE IS JUST A MOUTHPIECE FOR CLIMATE HYSTERICS
Bob Ward does this all the time: popping up like a . . . .”
I’m with you 100% Sasha. The gullible and hoodwinked ‘believing’ masses need to be given some simple facts about CAGW truths.
From BW’s submission statement:-
“The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy………… is funded by ……. Munich Re.”
So a clear conflict of interest from a company desiring climate alarmism to drive up insurance premiums.
http://www.adbi.org/files/2011.12.07.book.climate.change.asia.pacific.countries.adapt.pdf
Let’s save time and refer to the now standard “inaccurate and misleading statements” counter-assertion from alarmists as “IMS”. As in “In response to my testimony, Bob Ward dropped the obligatory IMS without supporting it.” Or “Bob Holdren dropped another unsupported IMS, this time on Roy Spencer.”
It’s a dumb, transparent, bureaucratic technique and deserves a boring, three letter acronym so as to highlight its thoughtlessness and commoditization.
Three cheers to Mongoose Donna
for her great exploits against rat-snake Bob.
(with apologies to Rudyard Kipling’s Rikki Tikki Tavi) See”
re: Phillip Bratby says March 5, 2014 at 11:21 am
Why are you being unkind to rats?
Disease carriers (literally: carriers of dis-ease)?
(Full English: “Because they are carriers of disease?”)
.
Bob Ward and is a well known attack dog and a generally nasty piece of work.
Thankfully he’s not that bright and regularly makes himself look silly.
sc, Slartibartfast, etc., while I appreciate your gentle sentiment to keep everything as honest as possible, I disagree with your nitpicking characterization of Donna’s use of the IPCC quote. If I write, “This chapter identifies and recommends ways to address the most significant weeds in each bed of my garden” and do not add a qualifier such as “if any”, am I not stating that there are significant weeds in each bed of my garden, weeds worthy of a chapter’s worth of addressing?
In fact, the chapter cited goes on, as promised, to identify and make recommendations to address what it characterizes as significant shortcomings in:
> Scoping
> Author selection
> Sources of data and literature
> Handling the full range of views
and regarding which it concludes that improvements are “both possible and necessary” but which Slartibartfast characterizes as insignificant in comparison to Donna’s omission of the word “most”.
And in addition to using “their own words”, Donna has written a whole book on the subject that delves far deeper and uncovers flaws of greater significance. She is well qualified to characterize the IPCC as she does, quote or not, don’t you agree? Why divert attention from the beam in Ward’s eye to the purported speck in Donna’s? She is talking 9-11 and you focus, Nuccitelli-like, on something far less significant and germane than waterboarding.
Donna, love the video and your “wise as a (rat) snake and innocent as a dove” delivery! Thank you. Soldier-on!
The most damning of shortcomings in the IPCC’s process was addressed by neither of the three witnesses. This is that its assessment reports provide a policy maker with neither a logical nor a scientific basis for making policy but is worded in a deceptive manner that appears to do so.
Just checked Bishop Hill, anyone who maybe interested in some other Bobisms, look here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/display/Search?searchQuery=bob+ward&moduleId=1282578&moduleFilter=&categoryFilter=&startAt=0
The list is quite long.
Whenever I see the name Bob Ward, I am reminded of Uriah Heep
One of Charles Dickens fauning characters.
That is how i imagine Bob to be, serving his master whilst grovelling.
Loathe as I am to revert to the vernacular, of all the possible adjectives
that are available, “Bullshiter” out performs any other at my command.
Estimates of unnecessary deaths from cold in Britain have grown to as many as 50,000 as pensioners are crushed by escalating energy costs exacerbated by a green energy response to the CAGW scheme:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204541/Deaths-cold-hit-2-500.html
Meanwhile, CBS reports the EU imports more than a third of it’s crude oil from Russia, further imperiling reasonably priced energy as most indications point to another decade or more of cooling temperatures (as well as 17.5 years without warming).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-russian-oil-trump-possible-european-sanctions/
I would suggest Ward is a very dangerous man, particularly if you, a family member or a friend is living on a pension across the pond…
I think I’ve pretty well read all the comments here and I haven’t seen any discussion on the ethics of someone writing a letter (paper! Peer-reviewed even!!) that prays in aid SEVEN leading companies, yet uses a disclaimer to say they are not responsible for the comments of the author.
If I was the CEO of one of these companies I would be heartily dis-chuffed to find someone taking my company’s name in vain in this way. (For those that can recall: this was a defence used by Douglas Bader when being charged with abusing lines of command in equipment supply – Ref: Reach For The Sky).
Is there no one on this blog with some kind of qualification in ‘ethics’ who could comment? Something that Bob ‘Logo’ Ward would understand?
Imnsho the term “each” is the dealbreaker – it means there are shortcomings in EACH step. Donna is correct.
John Whitman says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:11 am
Donna,
Great initial testimony and rebuttal. My donation money was well spent I see. : )
The snake thing in your recent video is weird; I strongly recommend you drop it in the future. It detracts.
But if you insist to do that sort of thing then I would recommend using a character out of literature. Liken Bob Ward to Grima Wormtongue who was the disturbingly duplicitous counsel to King Théoden in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Two Towers”.
Nice, I often compare Jay Carney to the “Mouth of Sauron.”
michael hart says: @ March 5, 2014 at 9:12 am
I second everything you said. I happen to be very fond of rat snakes. My Black Rat Snakes will chase the copperheads away so they are very welcome at my farm. I really like the Scarlet King Snakes too but they are further south.
Bob Ward on the other hand can stay in England.
This seems very unfair to rat snakes, they didn’t do anything wrong.
GeeJam says: @ March 5, 2014 at 9:28 am
…..It is outrageous that Donna, who had volunteered and dedicated her professional time (with her flight funded by a substantial donation plea to us skeptic community) in order to help our UK politicians get a grip on the realities of the CAGW scam, is treated in this way. She certainly will not volunteer again.
To this day I still fail to understand why Christopher Monkton, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole, Nigel Farage or Nigel Lawson were not invited to testify…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is very simple. She was a woman and had called the holier than thou IPCC a ‘Delinquent Teenager’ and they wanted to trounce on her for her uppitiness.
Equality doesn’t apply to females especially when you are talking about older powerful men.
It doesn’t look like Donna is going anywhere soon.
From her post:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/02/23/judith-curry-free-speech-champion/
“The past week has been insane. Among the things on my plate: ………….
…. •assembling and testing software, green screen technology, and lighting intended to turn my home office into a mini broadcast studio (2014 is the year I try to learn to love video)”
==============
It would appear she is just getting started, and we just watched her first video ?
Well done, Donna!
I had a pet rat snake as a kid in South Carolina. It was grey and brown – not the pretty green color of the species in the video.
Gail Combs says:
“Equality doesn’t apply to females especially when you are talking about older powerful men.”
I think it’s power, period, not ‘equality’. Malcolm X said: “Power never steps back, except in the face of more power.”
You’ve got to force them back.
Réaumur says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:53 am
I sympathise with Donna’s case, but I don’t think childish name-calling helps either side one bit.
I truly believe Donna is a person of integrity and as such has been shocked by the total lack of honesty from people on the AGW side. Bob ward has done something that Donna would never do; that is lie, blatantly lie and seemingly is able to do so with ease to ensure his side keep pushing their agenda.
As a colleague says the left have an infinite capacity to lie, be cruel and practice intolerance of all but their own ideology..
Donna is absolutely correct to call him a rat snake or something along the lines that describes him as a liar. Good for Donna.
Yes, very unfair to both rattees and snakes, however…
I, like Donna, am sometimes accused of being a “conspiracy theorist”. I don’t mind. Better, IMHO, than being a conspiracy practitioner – especially a paid one, like ratsnake 😉
“Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:37 am “Most significant issues” and “significant issues” generally mean different things.”
That’s what I love about Warmists, when their backs are against the wall (e.g. no Global Warming for 17 years and 6 months) they immediately go into deflect, distract and obfuscate mode.
It won’t do them any good in the end, and I think they know it.
dbstealey says: @ March 5, 2014 at 1:10 pm
….I think it’s power, period, not ‘equality’. Malcolm X said: “Power never steps back, except in the face of more power.”
You’ve got to force them back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On that I will certainly agree but the 6 foot plus WASP males have a physical advantage over the rest of us.
Men are assertive. Women are aggressive.
Men are passionate. Women are emotional.
Men steer. Women support.
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.” ― Rebecca West, Young Rebecca: Writings, 1911-1917
Thank goodness I have seen a change in this attitude in my lifetime but the attitude does still linger.
Slartibartfast says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:37 am
Let me encapsulate what I have said up until now, for clarity:
“Most significant issues” and “significant issues” generally mean different things. The most significant issue may have great overall importance, or it might not. Examining the conclusion of the report, it seems that none of the most significant issues are critically important, but the report emphasizes they should still be addressed.
You have switched from talking about significance to talking about importance. Because you made this switch, I can agree with your position. You were interpreting the word ‘significance’ as if it were the word ‘importance’.
However, Donna remains correct on her use of ‘significant’. Ward used the phrase “most significant” and, in so doing, he implied that the topic is significant. Donna was entirely correct to use the word ‘significant’. Had Ward introduced some scale of relative significance, then Donna would have been required to refer to that scale. But Ward did not. Do not blame Donna for the author’s inarticulateness.
Are we discussing climate or grammar now? Confused.
Rat snakes are a rather large family; most of them with a quiet temperament and are one of the snakes most amenable to becoming pets.
In Virginia, a very common rat snake variety is the black snake; it does show rat snake marking when very young, but becomes a solid shiny black as it ages, well except for it’s belly. When taking Scouts hiking or camping I would catch most rat snakes we might spot and let the scouts see them up close and perhaps handle them. Yes even wild snakes can often be caught without crushing their neck, as depicted on TV. Slow careful handling and it is a rare rat snake that over reacts.
Sorry Donna, rat snakes just don’t deserve the Bob Ward sobriquet. As another commented above, wild rat snakes are tremendous vermin killers. Having rat snakes around one’s house is the classic good new/bad news syndrome. Rat snake presence means good news that they’re consuming small vermin (and birds if they can), the bad news is that there are enough small vermin to attract the rat snakes.
Now if I was to nominate a snake deserving of a Bob Ward expletive name it would be the American Northern Watersnake. While they eat small rodentia along with fish, frogs and other small critters, Northern Watersnakes have a very unpleasant attitude often delivering painful bloody bites to the unwary or over curious.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030034
http://www.virginiaherpetologicalsociety.com/reptiles/snakes/northern-watersnake/northern_watersnake.htm
Preferably, leave poor critters out of the discussion; Bob Ward is just an unpleasant mess one finds on their boots whilst wandering otherwise bucolic neighborhoods. Don’t get in cars or walk indoors until one scrapes off and washes away the waste.
Thank you, Donna. Your video was a treat to watch and listen to.
Some day I’ll learn how to be soft-spoken in my arguments. You’ve shown how effective that is. I was actually scooted forward on the front of my seat.
Brava!
Bob Lard seems fitting (BH typo)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/3/5/whole-lotta-wally.html#comment20802651
Bob Ward cannot debate skeptics because he is a ‘wanker’. I am Mr. Ad Hom and I don’t give a rat’s arse.
Right now I am a bit busy but I wonder where his private investments are? His pension scheme? etc. Always follow the money before looking into his objectivity.
Slarti and others;
I’m puzzled. Donna highlights portions of the IAC report, but includes far more than just the portion she highlights.
You are the ones seeking to slice and dice quotes so they’re misrepresented.
It does and they do? That’s a new language development. Alarmist spin?
Significant issues are significant issues.
Most significant issues are the most significant issues of a number of significant issues; they are still, all of them, significant issues. Most doesn’t make the meaning different, it just references a selection of significant issues.
Oddly, the dictionary reference I came across:
At Merriam-Webster.com; did you purposely skip the four initial lines for ‘significant’ or was that just an example of your reading skills?
What’s next? Counter-clockwise spin with a jump?
Bob Ward is still a jerk and Donna LaFramboise did a terrific job; both at the horribly run Yeo meeting and in her follow up rebuttal.
@Slartibartfast March 5 10:37 “Disagreements?” Yes, absolutely.
“Significance” and “Insignificance” are mutually exclusive properties. A particular thing cannot have both.
“Significance” is a quality possessed by things which are “significant”. Insignificant things cannot be even relatively significant because, quite simply, they are altogether “insignificant”.
The phrase “most significant” can only refer to things which are already acknowledged as being significant. One can talk about the least significant of a number of things which do possess significance but one cannot attribute significance, even comparatively, to anything which is by its nature insignificant and therefore bereft of any significance.
One cannot meaningfully use the phrase “most significant” to describe anything insignificant. It can only be used to describe something which has obvious significance.
LOL ok Anthony.
Too funny.
Great video Madam Laframboise.
Ha!
The only ‘power’ I see they have is the ability to run and hide DEEPER into an organization! Witness, as examples #1 and #2 Obama and Holder surrounded veritably by a praetorian guards* designed to keep the rabble a safe distance back and contained!
.
.
*The Praetorian Guard (Latin: Praetoriani) was a force of bodyguards used by Roman Emperors. per wiki
Seeing beyond this, as the point where sceptics start to fight back with a little reframing of the debate that needs to turn the tide. Invoking of images to lance the pustules that form and discomfort science, Bob Ward is just one of them, so rat snake is a lady-like repost.
Global Warming Nazi’s however fits these bully boys like a glove, for they are the ones denying, lying, and smearing, the last resort of the scoundrels, and of course not forgetting the Cook’s and Nucittelli’ dressing themselves in the paraphernalia! an inconvenient truth/selfie if ever there was one.
No wonder the GWN’s are getting so snaky and nasty.
Keep up the pressure.
I like these contributions, very telling.
Jeff says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:08 am
Sasha says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:55 am
and the summing up by
Rud Istvan says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:37 am
among others – food for thought.
My thanks !…. If we have to win for the integrity of science, then win we will, and for those sad pustules climate seems to be siding with the sceptics, no wonder they are frustrated angry GWN believers.
“Rat-snake” is probably one of the nicer things she could have called Sideshow Bob.
This will be my last CAGW parody. CDs of the videos will shortly be available to buy from my website http://nearwoodmusic.co.uk/Climate.htm
Profits will be donated to Mark Steyn’s defence fund against Michael Mann.
God bless you Mr Watts, and your erudite contributors.
I am trying to resurrect the Daily Bayonet’s nickname for Donna, “Minx the Merciless”; anybody with me?
sc says: March 5, 2014 at 8:55 am
“What it actuallly says is: “This chapter identifies and recommends ways to address the most significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process”. “…..
“but she is not free to then reinterpret the sentence to mean “There are significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process” – the sentence in quotes just does not mean this.”
Well I’m sorry sc, but if it says they say “most significant shortcomings” then I read that to mean there are several significant shortcomings and they are addressing the “most significant” of them. If they meant to say “address some non-significant shortcomings” then they should say that.
Keep up the good work Donna.
I have not read all of the comments here today but because of this article I decided to do some investigation about Donna Laframboise. Well!
I just watched a 1-hour video of her being interviewed about her book “The Delinquent Teenager”, an expose on the IPCC, an excellent assessment. Donna, not a scientist, uses flawless reasoning like a good lawyer and looks into the entire IPCC policy development process.
It is fantastic.
What a calm, measured, communicator. Where have I been?
My apology to anyone who may have already posted a link. I am very busy tonight and have not read this blog to it’s entirety.
The problem I have with every alarmist there is, is that they seem either to have forgotten or ignoring, choose which, the fallacies of Theories of Science. Any scholar, or expert in any way, not being willing to use proper Theories of Science when presenting their thesis, should and would in normally case be regarded as dishonest and unqualified for their work.
I’d follow Dr Roy Spencer on this and use the term ‘Climate Nazi” since this is apposite and will not reflect badly on rat snakes. The Nazis used exactly these bully boy tactics and thugs to carry out their propaganda campaigns.
With regards to Bob Ward. Take that smirk off his face and he has that Homer Simpson look about him. Now where have I seen that before? Do some of those alarmist clowns share some form of common gene? They act and look alike.
At LSE from 1961-64 I was taught by giants of the economics and statistics worlds. Almost all of those who taught me were not only leading academics, they were also advisers to governments and/or business. I learned to see economics not as an academic pursuit, but as a tool to change the world.
I have the impression that that once-great institution has become less rigorous in recent decades. If Bob Ward is an indication, the rot has gone far further than I feared.
Brilliant video from Donna. I’m an instant fan.
The video would be much more effective if Donna’s lips moved in synch with the sound.
I got that effect using IE 8 … runs smooth using Chrome though. Did not try Opera …
The eerie similarity of Donna Laframboise’s cadence, accent, and mannerisms – yet radically different nature of her commentary and worldview – make her a perfect antithesis to the late Carl Sagan’s bat-crazy wife Ann Druyan.
“To silence criticism is to silence freedom”-Robert Hook.
Réaumur says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:53 am
I sympathise with Donna’s case, but I don’t think childish name-calling helps either side one bit.
I second that.
Bob Ward is using sleazy tactics: nitpicking inaccurate statements and ignoring the rest that are factual in order to insinuate that the entire testimony was inaccurate.
Donna LaFramboise’s response, unfortunately, was a misfire. Bob Ward is partially right on a very specific point and Donna’s rebuttal shows that she overinflated the meaning of a sentence in the IAC report. Her statement means something quite different than what the IAC report says.
Donna’s statement: “…the IAC…said that there were significant shortcomings in every major step of the IPCC process.”
IAC report: “This chapter identifies and recommends ways to address the most significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process…”
The fact that the IAC report “addresses…shortcomings in each major step” indicates there were a lot of shortcomings. Donna gets this right. But “Addressing the most significant shortcomings in each major step” does NOT mean that there were significant shortcomings in every major step. It means that they only addressed what they thought were the most important ones in each step. It wasn’t an assessment of the quality of the shortcomings–some of them may have been very minor. It was a statement that they were only addressing the ones they thought mattered the most in each step.
Donna’s rebuttal was not good. She would have done better to parse her misstatement more carefully and reiterate that the IAC report found numerous shortcomings, then highlight several of the accurate and substantial statements she made and point out why Bob didn’t address those (they were true), then explain his game: attacking one (partial) misstatement in order to cast doubt on the rest which are accurate.
Because this is really a serious matter, although Donna Laframboise treats it in this matter, I do hope Donna has written to the UK Parliament about Bob Ward and expressed what she has in the video to the Committee to which she gave testimony.
What sort of person is Bob Ward when he could not even be bothered checking the facts?
Perhaps that, in itself, tells us exactly what sort of person Bob Ward is… incompetent and petty.
Has he apologised to Donna?
sc;
As a retired long-time English editor, I have to tell you that you are flat-out wrong. For there to be the most extreme examples of anything, there must be some of that thing. She lists them. If you give a list of the most expensive cars in the world, anyone is perfectly correct to characterize all those cars as expensive, and report you rated them so.
Mervyn;
I doubt the most industrious researcher could locate any apology by Ward to anyone, ever.
So we have trolls carrying on about “missing modifiers”-sc, slartibartfast et aliter- and we have discussions about whether it is appropriate to compare Mr Ward with some chicken shit snake like a “rat snake”?; an appropriate comparison is with a really dangerous snake (like the Brown, or the King Brown). If he is as described, use an appropriate DANGEROUS snake to complete the comparison.
Too much of the (useful) aggression in this posting has been deflected by BS.
Bob Ward is the Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute, a “research department” at the London School of Economics (LSE) funded by an American hedge-funder called Jeremy Grantham.
Now for those with some time on their hands check out this hedge fund. Look at their holdings. Can you see OIL? Tobacco? Big Frankenfood? Below are just SOME of their stock holdings.
Here is an item from 2011 on Bob Ward, Grantham, BIG Oil stocks, etc.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/10/warding-off-the-deniers.html
Tobacco, Grantham, big oil and all that.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/08/masters-of-hypocrisy-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
Bob Ward works at a institute that is funded by part funded by money from big oil investments. How does Bob Ward the hypocrite feel about this. Bob and Dana Nuttercelli aren’t really worried about global warming.
GRANTHAM MAYO VAN OTTERLOO & CO LLC – sample of 2013 filings
http://www.j3sg.com/Reports/Stock-Insider/Generate-Institution-Portfolio.php?institutionid=5682&DV=yes
Dana Nuccitelli works for the fossil fuel services company Tetra Tech
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-oil-and-gas/
Correction:
“Bob Ward works at a institute that is
funded bypart funded…”Go DONNA!
Bilious Bob has raised his nasty head yet again acting as the Grantham flunkey for the Church of falsified projections. The IAC report, to everyone except the most deliberately obtuse, couldn’t be clearer.
To all reasonable people (regardless of their position regarding CAGW) the report is unambiguous, in that there are “significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process” and chapter 2 of the IAC report “identifies and recommends ways to address” those it considers to be “major”.
MP’s should now decide whether Bilious Bob, in making accusations which misinterpret someone’s words to Parliament, is also misleading Parliament.
Anthony and co take note. Bob Ward should really take a close look at where the Grantham Foundation gets some of its MONEY. Big oil, tobacco, mining and forestry to name just a few. I am not familiar with some of the companies on the link below so maybe others can find more tobacco, oil and gas companies.
[Brackets & bolding are mine]
Here is the environmentalist Jeremy Grantham on why he is stepping up his efforts for the care and protection of the environment. He also attacks the CAGW sceptics.
Ohhhhh Jeremy. What can I say? LOL. It’s just toooooo easy catching these people out. How can they say these things with a straight face????
Like I said before NEVER listen to a word these people have to say. They don’t really believe in the things they say. They are not really worried about global warming one bit. They are worried about money and appearing to be concerned citizens and want the world to see them as doing something important for the protection of the Earth while financing and receiving funding via its exploitation and pollution. There is a word for that and it’s at the tip of my tongue.
Then withdraw your investments in these fossil fuel companies!!!!!!! Sheesh.
His investment company invests in oil exploration companies, refiners, distributors, shale oil companies, coal mining companies, cigarette producers and mining. Yet Jeremy is an environmentalists who attacks sceptics. I am beginning to understand how this thing works now.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352662/000107261313000232/0001072613-13-000232.txt
Let’s do the math.
Jeremy also tries to justify his oil and coal investments. The point is HE should either invest and stop preaching or preach and stop investing. He cannot be both. A clergyman can moralize to us but cannot be a clergyman who visits prostitutes regularly. When he is caught out he tries to remain as a clergyman while openly admitting he will still visit prostitutes. Why can’t Jeremy see his predicament??????
It’s not like she compared him to the Unabomber or anything.
Hi!
“Negative” as in declining to go along with a consensus?
You must be relatively new, here. Although I am not now a frequent commenter, I have been in the past. “Consensus brigade” doesn’t really describe me in any way. If you want to review some of my prior comments, they can be easily found.
Because like everyone else here, I comment on those things I choose to comment on, and leave the rest to others.
I hope that this helps.
Great video from Donna! I’m a long-term follower of her work in print and online – so it’s good to see her prepared to stand up for the truth she delivered to the fools at that Parliamentary Committee (which I watched live here in the UK). Donna – you go, girl!
Paul Westhaver says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Thanks for posting that video of Donna exposing the IPCC. I’m watching it now. She raises very good points, but likens what the ipcc does to a trial determining whether or not CO2 is guilty of causing climate change. But, the ipcc had already decided that CO2 was guilty. What they are purporting to do is determine the extent of its’ guilt. It’s a kangaroo court, in other words.
Lauren R. says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:52 pm
“The fact that the IAC report “addresses…shortcomings in each major step” indicates there were a lot of shortcomings. Donna gets this right. But “Addressing the most significant shortcomings in each major step” does NOT mean that there were significant shortcomings in every major step. It means that they only addressed what they thought were the most important ones in each step. It wasn’t an assessment of the quality of the shortcomings–some of them may have been very minor. It was a statement that they were only addressing the ones they thought mattered the most in each step.”
I’m inclined to agree with Brian H (March 6, 2014 at 12:26 am) and thus disagree with your interpretation. But this episode does reinforce my view that the word ‘significant’ should be avoided in any technical report except when used in the specific statistical sense.
It is as clear as day that the IAC is saying “most significant” short comes! This is completely different to them saying “there were significant” short comings!
So this what Donna said:
Donna Laframboise was asked by Mr Stringer why she thought the organisation should be abolished. Her reply was extremely misleading: “When the IAC [InterAcademy Council] reported in 2010, it said that there were significant shortcomings in every major step of the IPCC process.”
And this is why she said it:
Chapter 2 of the IAC report is titled Evaluation of IPCC’s assessment process. Its first paragraph includes this sentence: This chapter identifies and recommends ways to address the most significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process, based on the Committee’s analysis of current IPCC practices, of the literature on assessments, and community input. [p. 13]
A Rat Snake trying to call others names by the sound of it.
““Ward’s first two pages are a covering letter bearing seven institutional logos.”
Reminds me of banana republic dictators, their uniforms replete with medals and ribbons…
Another victim of Bob Ward
***
ATheoK says:
March 5, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Rat snakes are a rather large family; most of them with a quiet temperament and are one of the snakes most amenable to becoming pets.
***
There’s an old black snake on my lot that over the yrs I’ve handled so often it doesn’t even flinch when I pick it up — usually to get it into cover away from my cats. Not a hint of fear or aggression. OTOH, the water snakes along the stream attack instantly if threatened.
I wonder ‘weather’ Bob Ward has shares in Risk Management Solutions Ltd. where he used to be Director of Public Policy.
————————-
Now here is a bit of coincidence.
Slartibartfast, (who hadn’t the common courtesy to address me by name in his response to my comment) had this to say:
Of course you are free to comment on whatever grabs you, but the fact that you have chosen to ignore the full picture leaves you open to the accusation of ‘cherry-picking’ only those things you think support your argument. And there was I thinking that C-P was a hanging offence….at least when carried out by sceptics. Funny old world…
I sent Dr Ward a few questions. Although I was quite polite, I doubt he will answer.
1. Can the global warming hypothesis be refuted ? If so, what would it take ?
2. What is the ideal average temperature for the planet ? Does it correspond to the 1961-1980 average as used, if I remember correctly, by some datasets ?
3. What causes (possible) extremes of climate events given that there has not been much warming (none according to IPCC) in the last 15 years ?
4. Should we not be able to predict (possible) extremes of climate if the mechanisms are known ?
5. When did the Little Ice Age end ?
6. What caused the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century ? Was the rate of this warming not the same as that from 1980 to-1998 ?
sc, Slartibartfast, John Rice, and Lauren R. are clearly correct in their criticism of the Laframboise rebuttal. Here’s why:
The word ‘significant’ is a relative term. like ‘tall’ or ‘expensive’, when used in any context except the mathematical one – just as its synonyms ‘meaningful’ and ‘important’ are relative terms. It clearly was not used with its statistical meaning in the passage in question – it could not have been. Just as the tallest person in a class might not be “tall,” and the most expensive car on the used-car lot might not be “expensive”, so the most important result in a study might not be “important”, the most meaningful stanza of the poem might not be “meaningful”, and the most significant flaw in any given step of the process might not be “significant”.
If you find that counter-intuitive, then consider how the AIC report actually concludes: “The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to be sound, although significant improvements are both possible and necessary for the fifth assessment and beyond.” If the word ‘significant’ is interpreted in the absolute sense throughout, then this sentence would be self-contradictory: the process cannot be both “sound” and have absolutely significant flaws in each and every step. If your position rests upon the findings of a report, you had better not adopt an interpretation of that report which commits the authors to a self-contradiction.
Moreover, the sentence in which the phrase “most significant” appears is perfectly compatible with there being NO significant flaws in some steps of the IPCC process: the class designated by “most significant” may be empty; it might designate an empty set. Selecting the most notable quotes from each Act of Othello is compatible with selecting no quotes at all from some Acts. None of this is the slightest bit unusual in English usage.
It is therefore misleading to omit the word ‘most’ in the manner that Laframboise did, and to characterize the conclusion of the AIC report as she does. Whether her conclusion stands on other grounds – I believe it does – is beside the present point. The point I would like to reiterate – since I have issued this warming previously on this website, to no avail – is that Laframboise has a habit of taking quotes out of context and giving them misleading implications. She has been (successfully) sued for defamation over this in the past. Personally, I find this habit of Laframboise of being too-clever-by-half disappointing, because on the substance of both topics she has publicly taken positions on – gender issues and global warming – I happen to be squarely on the same page as her.
Grant A Brown: You say it was misleading of DL to omit the word ‘most’. Well, using my Mk I eyeball I didn’t see that it was omitted, it merely sat to the left of the highlighter used. As far as I was concerned it (lack of highlighter) did not alter the meaning of the sentence, it merely drew my eye to it. It’s not, like, someone deliberately removed a word, or a proxy series (or even added one or other) in order to completely and deliberately change a report/whatever, is it?
Jimbo says:
March 6, 2014 at 3:38 am
“JEREMY GRANTHAM – 15 April 2013
“There are five times the amount of proven carbon reserves as we can possibly allow to be burned if we want to remain under 2C of warming, which is now not even considered to be a safe margin. We must burn just a fifth of what’s there.””
…so the other four fifths stay off limits, like under federal lands in USA, reducing supply, at constant demand, making the price of the resources Grantham owns shoot through the roof…
Please forgive the slight, Harry. This is a discussion forum, and I am not using my real name (obviously!) so I tend to overlook the fact that others are.
I am concerned only about those accusations that actually arise, Harry, and not so much about those that are merely possible.
“Cherry-picking” is a particularly inapt possible accusation, here, because my only argument is that Ms. Laframboise has mischaracterized the document she’s quoting. As I have read said document, and completely viewed her response, whatever else she has to say about this or any other matter is irrelevant.
That’s where I am coming from. I’m not defending Ward or the IPCC, nor am I claiming that anything else Ms. Laframboise has to say is faulty. Just this video.
Harry: Laframboise omitted the word “most” in her original testimony to the Parliamentary Committee (see the text at 0:47 of her video). Moreover, in doing so she misrepresented the IAC’s statement of objectives (from the beginning of the document) as their findings or conclusions. I hope you understand the deception now.
Grant A. Brown says:
March 6, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Wow.
50,000 people will die over 2013-2014 winters in the UK alone specifically and directly due to the high-energy policies demanded by the CAGW religion, and all you can address is the one word “must” in one witnesses’ testimony that condemns the policies that led to those deliberate deaths.
Rather, you claim that one word then becomes a “deception” ??
Well done Donna — I recently asked my 9 year old grandaughter how much CO2 she thought was in the atmosphere , as she has had ” natural disasters” lesson ( !?) and after a pause said 50% ?
@Grant Brown
3/6/14 1.46
The most significant shortcoming in your comment is the use of the word ‘deception’. Of course it was not the only significant shortcoming in your comment. Therefore I could easily have written that your comment contains significant shortcomings although I choose to address the most significant shortcoming. It could not be clearer from the IAC report, to anyone who understands the vernacular, that it found shortcomings but only addressed the most significant. Donna is right and for Bob Ward to misinterpret her words is something which MP’s will now have to consider. The only deception is one which misrepresents Donna’s words in a defamatory manner.
As you can see from my quotes and business references Jeremy ‘BIG OIL & GAS’ Grantham is concerned about climate change / global warming. So much so that he has, through his investment company, invested hundreds of millions in fossil fuel companies and rakes in the profits. I don’t know why people find this so discomforting, what’s there not to like? He follows the money while I actually do get power outages for being and I am a sceptic.
DirkH, as you know I don’t listen to a single thing the bloody hypocrites have to say. Jeremy Grantham is among the worst hypocrites this world has ever known. He really is that bad. Just because he makes a lot of money he thinks the rest of us are stupid and can’t see his brazen double standards. He should be ashamed of himself. His grandchildren will cower in shame. 🙁
“Here is an example. The left figure was in the Final Government Review Draft of IPCC WG2 AR5. The right figure will be in the published report. Spot the difference?”
Yes. The right most AR5 data point moved from about 4.8 to about 4.7 degrees.
But I don’t know what that means.
Late to the party as usual. I will try to return tonight or this weekend to do this properly, but for now a relatively brief comment to Slartibartfast et al. Slart challenged us to find and summarize any truly significant issues and then tried, along with others, successfully I might add, to pretty much whitewash the report’s findings. For starters, here’s a link to the full report. Your link was just to part of it. Anyhow, as you requested, here’s a summary of the “most significant” findings I wrote back in 2010:
• High confidence in statements for which there is little evidence
• Strayed into advocacy
• Not adhering to IPCC mandate to not be policy prescriptive
• Excessive reliance on unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature
• Not following procedures for citing grey literature over 99% of the time
• Failure to make avoidable revisions
• Lack of transparency in many IPCC processes and procedures
• Failure to adhere to established IPCC processes and procedures
• Critical review comments on controversial issues not adequately reflected
• SPM is too political and unduly emphasizes what is known, sensational, or popular
• SPM process can be influenced by political motivations and vulnerable to manipulation
• Confidence scales to characterize uncertainty used inappropriately
• Uncertainty guidance applied to vague statements that cannot be falsified and for which there is little evidence
• Unwillingness to share data with critics and enquirers and poor procedures to respond to FOI requests
Do any of those qualify as “truly significant” to you Slart? This is déjà vu. I spent way too much time 3+ years ago commenting here on the contents of the report (probably 10,000+ words in 40+ comments wasted on the largely irretrievable). The bottom line is there are very “significant shortcomings” throughout the IPCC’s assessment process. I actually bothered to read the report (I’m starting to think Donna and I are the only ones who did) and in that first comment I made you’ll see that I offer 28 quotes from the report regarding significant issues highlighted by the IAC (in one of my later comments I offered the summary above). Here are just two of them:
Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.
IPCC’s mandate is to be policy relevant, not policy prescriptive. However, as noted above, IPCC spokespersons have not always adhered to this mandate. Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility. Likewise, while IPCC leaders are expected to speak publicly about the assessment reports, they should be careful in this context to avoid personal opinions. The opinion of an IPCC representative can be interpreted as the official IPCC position, regardless of how the representative voices his or her views.
I took on an admittedly nasty persona in that thread, but having dealt with that cast of characters for several years, it’s routine to fight fire with fire. Now back then, and at that particular joint, I expected almost exclusively misinformed participants, but I am not used to visiting here and seeing false claims made without someone having correctly and directly call it out with the easily available evidence, in this case, the report itself. WUWT?
Having read the comments above, I conclude Slartibartfast et al. have missed the mark widely with their assessment, and worse, it seems none of you bothered to read the report and instead hung your hats on minutia and conjured conclusions. Donna simply highlighted the near verbatim correlation and, I repeat, here’s the bottom line:
THERE ARE “SIGNIFICANT SHORTCOMINGS IN EACH MAJOR STEP OF IPCC’S ASSESSMENT PROCESS.”
She was well aware of the “significant shortcomings” when she made her comments and comparisons. You were not. And by the way, read the snake’s full quote. What you are quibbling with isn’t even Bobby’s beef. He labels her reply as “extremely misleading” because it “is not a mild criticism” and “suggests that there are serious reasons to be careful about the conclusions of the IPCC process.” Damn straight there are “serious reasons” (otherwise known as “significant shortcomings”). One man’s whitewashed recommendations to ensure “future success” is another woman’s “scathing critique” I guess. If you’re honest with yourself though, I think you know whose assessment better mirrors reality, and that’s the AGW story in a nutshell. Delusion vs. Reality.
So much for a relatively brief comment. Just one more bit. Since Miss Laframboise is the subject of this post, I repeat my related observation from that 2010 thread:
On a related side note, I am guessing that Donna Laframboise is wildly cheering the IAC report as her effort has been apparently vindicated. She received much grief for her citizen audit report card on IPCC usage of grey literature. If the IAC numbers are correct, it turns out that she was being too conservative in her numbers (WG1 she had 7% grey vs. 16% for the IAC; WG2 she had 34% grey vs. 41% for the IAC; WG3 she had 57% grey vs. 64% for the IAC). For all three groups she and her group underestimated the use of grey literature, yet her report was met with ridicule and scorn. Go figure.
Sorry for the snark. I’m just frustrated seeing her knocked about unjustifiably. Cheers!
This implies a sinister motive that doesn’t, in actuality, exist.
Thanks for that. I simply Google-searched the string in question. It didn’t occur to me, frankly, that I needed to expand the scope beyond that section.
That is as may be.
I read the section I linked to. Obviously I didn’t read the whole report.
I was in fact hoping for a more informed response than mine, because the part of the report I read issued what sounded like a very mildly phrased set of recommendations for improvement. Perhaps that, to academia, is a stinging rebuke. I really can’t tell. I am an engineer, and not working in academia. We tend to bring the smack a bit more obviously when someone is wrong.
Thank you for your response, though. I will give it more consideration.
Don’t know if anyone’s observed this, but the rat-snake analogy with Bob Ward is an insult to rat-snakes everywhere. After all, rat-snakes can’t help what they are. Bob Ward has choices.
Jeremy Grantham is like a Hollywood actor: someone who presumes they know about science because they’re surrounded by fawning sycophants who tell them they are right about everything.
In Grantham’s case, he is one of those fortunate individuals who has a knack for picking good investments. So he believes it follows that he understands the plante’s climate drivers. Pure hubris. Grantham presumes that because he is fortunate enough to be right in one area, that he is right about everything. But the real world never works like that.
Grantham surrounds himself with servile flatterers like Ward [and Zeke Hausfather, of the Grantham-financed Yale Media propaganda outlet].
But these people will never get into a real, moderated debate with anyone who knows a little bit about science. Like Hollywood actors, they are entirely motivated by their True Belief. They believe; that is enough for them, and the real world be damned.
But that is not enough for scientific skeptics, who have plenty of questions that Grantham and Ward hide out from discussing. Because their Belief is enough. They don’t need facts.
Slartibartfast,
Late returning again, but hopefully you’ll see this. I appreciate your thoughtful response. I did not mean to imply a sinister motive, but did mean to imply that you and others had not exercised due diligence in your assessment of this situation and had offered unsubstantiated criticisms. I had seen you make comments such as these:
This sounds more in the line of offering improvements to a work in progress than raising the red flag that something is badly broken.
None of the above is meant to suggest that the IPCC review process is good or bad. Just that the report that Donna is reading doesn’t come to the conclusions she does.
Examining the conclusion of the report, it seems that none of the most significant issues are critically important, but the report emphasizes they should still be addressed.
“Cherry-picking” is a particularly inapt possible accusation, here, because my only argument is that Ms. Laframboise has mischaracterized the document she’s quoting. As I have read said document, and completely viewed her response, whatever else she has to say about this or any other matter is irrelevant.
Others said much the same. Of those quotes of yours, the theme that is most bothersome to me is the matter-of-fact statement stating the report doesn’t come to the conclusions that Donna offers and that she mischaracterized it. And since you said you had “read said document” I felt that labeling your efforts to “pretty much whitewash” its conclusions was thus warranted. In your reply you said it was obvious you hadn’t read the whole report, but as noted above, you said you had.
I am glad to hear that you will give the matter more consideration. In my opinion, the report was indeed a stinging rebuke and her descriptions of it were spot on. I feel that, given her tremendous efforts, she has not gotten the credit she does deserve, so I found it impossible to sit on the sidelines watching her receive criticism she did not deserve. Thanks again for your response.
I wanted to communicate this information to Donna and Richard but could not find email addresses. Perhaps someone here can help.
It appears that Grantham exists entirely within the LSE. It is not a separately incorporated entity. Hence its employees are actually employees of the LSE and bound by the LSE’s conditions of employment. One of those conditions is contained in “The Ethics Code and Ethical Guidelines” available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/policies/pdfs/school/ethCod.pdf
Excerpts from this policy document include the principles:
” Intellectual freedom: we will defend and promote the
freedom to pursue, advance, and disseminate
knowledge and ideas.
• Respect: we will treat people with dignity, promote
equality of opportunity, and celebrate diversity.”
Ward’s attack dog treatment of Tol would seem clearly to be inconsistent with these principles (although, consistent with previous bullying tactics of Mann, Jones et al).
The policy also states:
“Every member of the School community is responsible for upholding the Ethics Code. Breaches of
the Code may be treated as offences under the existing disciplinary mechanisms for students and
staff.
Those in leadership positions have a particular responsibility to set an example in their conduct and
to promote and support good ethical behaviour.”
If Ward is acting as reported by Donna and Tol, then he is getting very close to the wind with regard to the LSE’s ethics policy. Any allegation of misconduct would need to be treated seriously under the LSE’s disciplinary mechanisms. Stern himself, being in a leadership position, has “a particular responsibility”.
I read the entire section I linked to. That’s all I ever intended to lay claim to. I thought (laziness on my part for not checking) that’s all there was to it.
Your conclusion is that the entire report amounted to a stinging rebuke. Mine was that it seemed pretty mild. If you’re right, I submit that my cultural translation isn’t very good, because my idea of a stinging rebuke would have been worded a bit more forcefully. Possibly that’s how things are in academia, though.
I’m now considering giving Ms Laframboise’s works a read.
Thanks for your time.