Monday Mirthiness: a new ‘Stern version’ of ‘Hansen’s Bulldog’

Over the weekend, David Rose published a scathing expose of Lord Stern’s Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) and it’s misuse of scientific literature (claiming works as their own) in order to secure funding.

Dr. Richard Tol, who had the misfortune of having one of his papers misused said:

‘It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.’

Yes, yes it does, despite initially saying this:

Last night, CCCEP spokesman Bob Ward admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming credit for studies which it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.

Bob Ward went on the offensive Sunday after the piece aired, to defend the indefensible, It’s what paid attack dogs do, we’ve seen it before. Josh was inspired, with a little help from me to render this cartoon:

bob-the-stern-bulldog

Some backstory; Bob Ward is playing the role formerly pioneered by weirdo-recluse “Tamino” aka Grant Foster who once claimed to be “Hansens Bulldog“. The difference is that Bob Ward is paid to act that way, “Tamino” isn’t (at least that we know of, but given the surprises this year from the Wikileaks email, anything is possible).

On Bishop Hill’s blog, Bob Ward’s views were previously tagged as so “out of this world” (plus being tagged as part of a punk rock band in his early years), that he reached “alien” status.

Ergo, we have little green alien bulldog.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness: a new ‘Stern version’ of ‘Hansen’s Bulldog’

    • Roy, and you put the money in your kid’s bank account, and since your kids didn’t do anything wrong, it would just be cruel to make them to give it back and separate them from the money, even though it was illegally obtained.

      • And it would be cruel and unfair to separate children from their parents just because you want to send them to jail for doing something illegal. If that reasoning works for those who break our immigration laws, why not for those who break other laws like robbing banks?

      • And Roy, if you wake up tomorrow and read about me landing in jail for robbing a bank, can I point to you as my inspirational accomplice?

      • “noaaprogrammer October 24, 2016 at 8:10 pm”

        Of course not!

        If you can’t talk your way out of being arrested, that is your fault only.
        Can the police help it if Roy is so believable?

  1. The Left is incapable of distinguishing between imagination and reality.
    Please Google “Denier Pride”, which I published in May.

    • And that is such a simple distinction! Worse is that they cannot distinguish between descriptive language and figurative/poetic language – figures of speech mean nothing to them. Invariably they fail to distinguish among different figures of speec. Yet, if only they were clear about the difference between synecdoche and metonymy, they would not be in need of having pins stuck into them to distinguish imagination from reality.

  2. All within CCCEP involved with this blatant fraud of using other scientists work to steal money from the tax payer should be prosecuted.

    I say steal because to obtain money under false pretences is theft by deception. There needs to be an in depth inquiry into what, if any, role Lord Stern played in this and what he did or did not know. Those responsible need to face long prison sentences. All those who have knowingly financially benefitted must have that money clawed back using the ‘proceeds of crime’ act. Any university which has knowingly been used to funnel money must be charged with money laundering – and perhaps even if not, as there are plenty of innocent people who have been hung out to dry and left penniless using this legislation.

    I can see how Universities which have become slaves to Post-Modern Science can end up believing that lies and deception to promote the ’cause’ and to obtain money to further it might see that as acceptable – lies and deception to promote the ’cause’ and to obtain money to further it might see that as acceptable – but they need to be disabused of that without delay. If LSE, or any other college, university or academic institution is found to have been party to this then any resulting prison sentences need to be harsh ‘pour encourager les autres’ to become honest as quickly as possible.

    If CCCEP benefits from charitable staus then the charity Commission in the UK needs to act swiftly to remove that status and consider if trustees are fit and proper people.

    I am – as you have probably gathered – disgusted by this behaviour.

    • I am equally disgusted that you will be disappointed. Nothing will happen. Stern and Ward et al will continue to enjoy their ill-gotten gains,

  3. And this just in from the future. A newflash from 2100:
    Last night, a spokesman for the now non-existent climate alarm consensus admitted it had ‘made mistakes’, both in claiming that we would potentially see catastrophic warming in the 21st century and for convincing everyone that 97% of scientists agreed that such a catastrophe would take place – when now, no such scientist can be found. ‘This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said.
    He then added, “but, thanks for all the free money. Sorry that we didn’t spend it on anything useful to humanity.”

  4. It’s a shame people are so quick to jump to accusations of fraud. What happened in this case can reasonably be viewed as some entries in a document of over 500 entries being erroneous. There is no evidence this was done willfully or that it affected the CCCEP’s funding in the slightest.

    Exaggerating every single thing into accusations of major fraud is a reason “skeptics” get the reception they get. People who don’t already agree with you will likely not believe these recent accusations. If they look look at what the facts of the situation are, they will almost certainly not believe the accusations. That’s because people are just taking the worst possible interpretation as gospel truth while doing nothing to show that interpretation is correct.

    If you want to see a more fair depiction of the facts of this situation are, I encourage you to look at my summary here. I don’t think you’ll find anything in it to be incorrect.

    • Read it. I think Tol himself rather got the better of you on your blog. Hepburn was not affiliated with CCCEP until 2010. The paper was published on line in 2008 before CCCEP existed. Independent experts you quote say that is the date of record, even if the print version came out in 2009. Ward admits mistakes were made in identifying funding, but not concerning this paper. But here the mistake was claiming partial credit when none was due, NOT funding. At my alma mater, this incident would be grounds for immediate expulsion, or faculty termination. Period. You should not be trying to polish this turd. It is what Tol called it under UK law.

      • Rud Istvan, this point by Richard Tol doesn’t affect the point of the post. Yes, Tol highlights another reason listing this paper as a CCCEP publication was wrong, but my post says listing it was wrong. One could find a hundred more reasons why that paper shouldn’t have been listed, but the result would still be the same – me agreeing the paper shouldn’t have been listed.

        Trying to find more and more reasons to support a point we agree on won’t affect the points we disagree on. Namely, I argue this could simply be an honest mistake. The list has hundreds of entries. Some of them should not have been included. That doesn’t mean they were included to defraud anyone. It means someone messed up.

      • Brandon,

        “That’s because people are just taking the worst possible interpretation as gospel truth while doing nothing to show that interpretation is correct.”

        I might take your complaint more seriously if you didn’t champion assuming the reverse . . as though people are obliged to treat wrongdoers as innocents;

        ” Some of them should not have been included. That doesn’t mean they were included to defraud anyone. It means someone messed up.”

        Sorry, that’s not what it “means” to me, slick . . ; )

    • I am additional reporter on David Rose’s article. Brandon S’s argument rests on two things: first, his not having read or understood the article; second, his ongoing petty grudge against Tol.

      As was explained to BS on Twitter, close to 10% of the papers claimed by CCCEP as their own product — 24 out of approx. 260 (more in which the date details are not published are being investigated) — were completed, submitted or published before the CCCEP opened.

      It is logically impossible for research to have been commissioned, executed, completed, written up, submitted to a journal and published before the institution that ‘supports’ it has opened.

      The defence Ward offers, and Brandon repeats, is that the inclusion of these papers in the list is a “mistake”. Try submitting a tax return with 10% “mistaken” receipts/invoices in your own favour. Try applying for benefits with 10% false information. Try to explain having obtained credit with 10% false information. You would not be given the benefit of the doubt BS believes the CCCEP deserves. .

      But could the fact of these 23 papers be a mistake, perhaps caused by some process, in which someone innocently includes them after scanning another list, and copying every entry with the year 2008/9? No, because the CCCEP is claiming that these papers were produced under its ‘auspices’, and/or under its funding. If the CCCEP is not keeping an account of what it is supporting, by submitting these entries, it is inventing what it has supported, taking from others to claim what it is not due.

      Finally, BS claims that the list includes entries which are marked to indicate that the CCCEP didn’t *financially* support the work. This is true in only 2 out of the 24. Meanwhile, the CCCEP still claims that the 2 papers were nonetheless produced under its ‘auspices’ — whatever that means. According to Tol, and the director of the project which *did* fund the paper in question (Athoff et al), it doesn’t mean anything. This leaves BS’s claims hanging on 1 out of 24 papers falsely submitted. And there is more to come…

      Great care has been taken to make sure of our facts, and the analysis has taken a long time to produce. Accordingly, we have pulled *many* punches in the article. It is a shame that Brandon has chosen to nit pick at his own misunderstanding, and at his injuries sustained picking fights with Tol.

      • Ben Pile, you are fabricating claims. You say:

        I am additional reporter on David Rose’s article. Brandon S’s argument rests on two things: first, his not having read or understood the article; second, his ongoing petty grudge against Tol.

        Without the slightest basis for either of these claims. I did in fact read the article, as demonstrated by my ability to quote it and accurately summarizes arguments from it. As for my views regarding Richard Tol, I do think it is shameful “skeptics” promote and defend him and his work when his work is horribly flawed. That doesn’t mean I’m acting out a grudge though.

        One could just as easily make hand-waving dismissive remarks about you in the same way you’ve done here. They could also just resort to throwing out insults almost the moment anyone disagrees, as you did on Twitter. That wouldn’t make them right. It would make them people who have no interest in a real discussion. As for your claim:

        But could the fact of these 23 papers be a mistake, perhaps caused by some process, in which someone innocently includes them after scanning another list, and copying every entry with the year 2008/9? No, because the CCCEP is claiming that these papers were produced under its ‘auspices’, and/or under its funding. If the CCCEP is not keeping an account of what it is supporting, by submitting these entries, it is inventing what it has supported, taking from others to claim what it is not due.

        You ask if this could have been an honest mistake then say no, yet the reason you give is isn’t even a reason. The CCCEP could well keep track of publications it is connected to like this and inadvertantly add papers it shouldn’t. It’s called a mistake. When making a list of hundreds of entries, a person might add items they shouldn’t. You offer no reason that cannot be true.

        Ultimately, that is all this discussion comes down to. Items were included in a list which shouldn’t have been. People like you say this is fraud or something along those lines. People who don’t share your biases say it was just an honest mistake. You have no evidence to contradict that position. All you have is bias, spin and the same ESP that leads you to make false claims about me.

        Finally, two thoughts. First, please do not refer to me by my initials. I find the connotation unfortunate. Second, I cannot make any guarantees about responding to commenters here as every comment I have submitted landed in moderation. That makes it difficult to participate in any discussion. For anyone who would like to hear what I have to say about anything, I suggest commenting at my site where comments will appear in a timely manner.

      • Brandon S claims “The CCCEP could well keep track of publications it is connected to like this and inadvertantly add papers it shouldn’t.”

        First point first — who keeps lists of things they ARE NOT connected to — e.g. Anthoff et al — such that when they are required to compile a list of things the ARE connected to, they ‘accidentally’ include the former? And who would make that mistake in at least 10% of cases?

        The fact is Brandon simply does not know what he is talking about, and was in such a rush to score points against Richard Tol, he did exactly what he accuses Tol, Rose, the other parties making the same point in the article, including former ministers and academics, and me of doing, namely: rushing to make accusations without foundation. Rather than *asking* any of us what the basis of our argument was, he rushed into his Tol-hate-rage, and ignored the evidence I posted to Twitter, leading to his being blocked because he whinged and whinged and whinged when I accidentally dropped the word “be” while quoting him. It seems he is less inclined to forgiveness than he claims.

        Brandon continues, “People who don’t share your biases say it was just an honest mistake. You have no evidence to contradict that position”.

        Brandon does not know what he’s talking about. Least of all what evidence I have. He should follow his own advice.

      • There are citations without dates? Every professional society for which I have prepared papers, either for peer-reviewed journals or for refereed conferences, provided preparation instructions / style guides, with explicit instructions on citations, which were to include the date of publication. It is also the way I was taught to provide references while in school and at university. I guess grant requests aren’t as rigorous.

    • Brandon–“It’s a shame people are so quick to jump to accusations of fraud.”
      ME–Of course the first fraud was the Stern report. Well, actually the first fraud was Al Gore’;s climate scam which brought us the Stern report and thousands of other parasites.

    • So your saying that a group that supposedly deals in science. A science in which the details of numbers and mathematics are the corner stone. Can’t even manage to handle their simple clerical affairs accurately. Got it!

    • Yes Brandon, it could all be an accident, with a few unintentional errors among 500 entries. I’m sure you can find numerous examples of similar mistake, right? Must happen all of the time. Go ahead and list some.

      I’m in the midst of two proposals myself listing hundreds of projects that people in my firm have worked-on. Can you guess how many times we’re accidentally claiming credit for the work of others? Hint: it’s less than one.

    • “Brandon S? (@Corpses_no_Logos) October 24, 2016 at 12:45 pm
      It’s a shame people are so quick to jump to accusations of fraud. What happened in this case can reasonably be viewed as some entries in a document of over 500 entries being erroneous. There is no evidence this was done willfully…”

      If I had included one such erroneous claim in an official paper, I’d have been called on the carpet and ripped to pieces, and likely kiss that year’s merit goodbye.

      One erroneous entry claiming responsibility for someone else’s research, might be considered an oversight, though it is still a grievous error.

      Two entries that are erroneous, claiming responsibility for someone else’s research, would be considered a severe travesty deserving discipline, public apologies, demotion or served notice; and if funds are involved, likely investigations by Inspector General or District Attorney.

      Two separate application submissions, each with multiple erroneous entries claiming responsibility for the work of others or involves duplicitous date changes is sufficient to consider the submissions as criminal intent to defraud.
      Whether Inspector General, Attorney General or District Attorneys; the situation requires legal investigation and follow through.
      Acquitted, then everything is fine.

      Though with authors complaining of damage and large funding grants involved, an acquittal is hard to envision.
      Normal grants would require payback, with interest and the company would be banned for a period of time from seeking more grants. Any definitive illegal actions performed by individuals would be turned over to prosecutors.

      Face it.
      Someone and their team plus their superiors are responsible for writing the application and certifying the accuracy of the application.
      The person(s) who prepared the application, their superior and the senior officers who approve and sign the application have certified the document’s accuracy and legality.
      Whether in government or in public corporations, all rules of accounting and contractual authority apply.

      That climate team or leftist elitist views regarding special pampered treatment as if they’re wayward grade school kids, who accidently committed a booboo when legal or ethical issues arise, are completely false.
      Bob Ward and whoever prepared or signed these submissions deserve to be treated equally with everyone else that are caught filing false papers for monetary gain.

  5. Most “renewables” firms, their promotors and “scientific” advisors are scamsters. In it for the money and in the same mould as Enron.

    • As has been mentioned in an earlier post, taking the ‘E’ out of CCCEP shows what’s really going on here. Putin’s poodle would be more like it. “Lang may yer lum reek” as they say aboard the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov.

  6. Bob Ward was the drummer for Subway Sect, one of those bands that never made a penny but successful artists cite as influential. He then drummed for Dexys Midnight Runners, leaving the band just before they recorded their break-through hit Geno.

  7. Someone familiar with the details should make a formal complaint to the police. If fraud has been committed there is a case to answer.

  8. Sounds like they found that while trying to inflate their own balloon with their hot air they found that it was insufficient.
    A bit of “fact checking” to their claims supplies the “pin” to their reputation.
    Only those more interested in the politics than the science could ignore this.

  9. “….This is regrettable, but mistakes can happen… We will take steps over the next week to amend these mistakes,’ he said….”.
    Surely this is a breach of Law and should be pursued with vigour and I assume amending these mistakes means returning funds (ha ha). A new low has been set but I am sure that can be beaten.

Comments are closed.