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
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.