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
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”