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
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.