The “Bish” – Andrew Montford Appointed GWPF Deputy Director

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is delighted to announce that Andrew Montford has been appointed as Deputy Director.

Andrew Montford is a writer specialising in climate change issues and is best known as the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion and author of the blog Bishop Hill. He is the author of several GWPF reports, including its first one, on the Climategate Inquiries. He appears frequently in the media as a prominent sceptical voice and critic of current policies.

Andrew will play a key role in the GWPF, working closely with the Chairman and Director.

In recent years, the GWPF’s influence has grown rapidly among UK and international policy makers and the news media and it is widely regarded as the world’s leading think tank on global warming policy issues.

###

I for one, extend my sincerest congratulations, as I’m sure many WUWT readers do as well -Anthony

Advertisements

90 thoughts on “The “Bish” – Andrew Montford Appointed GWPF Deputy Director

  1. Ha, not one of them a climate scientist. The GWPF are always spectacularly wrong whenever they say anything about climate

    [from a man who apparently thinks he’s always right, but has to use pejoratives to get his points across in comments -mod]

      • If you look below, you’ll notice that he was very successful in hijacking the thread. If you see a troll, it might help to ignore it and proceed with the real thread.

        I don’t remember who said it but it sounds about right: “Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

      • when the hoax dies, gwpf is out of a job too.
        the ecosystem of activism produces nothing but petty tyrants and tantrums – unless it can be considered entertainment.
        the founding fathers did have something to say about the populatoin of parasites it breeds:
        “…a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

    • You don’t need to be a rocket scientist – to know a rocket has failed to take off.
      Likewise, you don’t need anything more than a school education, to know the global temperatures failed to warm as predicted.

      • I only have a Scottish secondary school education and I became a sceptic many years ago. But then I’m naturally sceptical. Sometimes I’m sceptical of my scepticism, then I wake up.

    • A loud statement robinwhitlock, but no details are forthcoming……., why is that Robin?

      Dr. Hansen is NOT a climate scientist, as he is a trained Astronomer. Care to prove me wrong?

      Right now you look like a drive by troll.

      • Sunsettommy,
        Indeed, many who publicly call themselves a “climate scientist,” have academic backgrounds in fields that are, at best, only related to climatology, meteorology, or atmospheric physics. Some even have backgrounds in English, which would seem to make them better qualified to be journalists. But, because the so-called climate scientists rely on the Scientific Method and mathematics, there are many who don’t call themselves climate scientists who are quite qualified to critique their work.

      • The above is in response to Clyde, not David. I was referencing Pachuri, the railroad engineer and part time porn novelist.

      • @David Middleton,

        the late David MacKay was a mathematician, a green, and an extraordinary realist who examined climate change from a simple arithmetical perspective and concluded that renewables are nonsense.

        And if you have never watched it, please do, it will be the best 15 minutes devoted to establishing a glimmer of sanity amongst the green horde.

      • Mathematicians can do magic (nature) tricks with numbers (as we’ve seen in the climate domain) – are they mathemagicians?

    • As a physician and scientist with more than ten years spent reviewing the evidence and arguments around climate change/global warming, and with a very detailed knowledge of the writings of the highly esteemed Andrew Montford, I can only conclude that Mr. Whitlock forms his opinions in a vacuum or perhaps has them handed to him pre-formed by some like thinking alarmist cult. They are certainly not grounded in evidence.

      • AP,
        I have been accused of “reading from a script” by liberals. That would really seem to apply to Whitlock! He hasn’t come up with anything original and doesn’t even try to defend his statements when shot down.

      • When you want to know what a liberal is up to, check out what they are accusing others of doing.

    • RW666,
      I thought that I would let you know that your army hasn’t shown up yet. Are you going to call off the ‘war?’

      • Sunset
        “By the way you could get involved in it.”
        From your GWPF link
        “After review by the panel, all submissions will be published and can be examined and commented upon by anyone who is interested.”
        I made a submission. No submissions have been published.

      • OK, I think I’ve asked this several times here, but here goes again:

        Can anybody provide a DEFINITION (as opposed to opinion etc.) of what exactly constitutes a “climate scientist”? What precludes certain experts from being “proper” climate scientists or “real” climatologists?

        When the term is bandied about by the alarmists, it seems that anybody who doesn’t support their agenda is not “real” or “proper” or “qualified”, but anyone (that’s almost ANYone) who does is “one of our top” or “world expert” or similar superlative.

        To me, this is the biggest unsolved mystery of the whole field. Just WHO is supposedly qualified to provide the “expert” commentary? Any takers?

      • “Just WHO is supposedly qualified to provide the “expert” commentary?”

        Warmists frequently say that only persons who have published in a peer-reviewed climate-related journal qualify.

    • “robinwhitlock1966 May 2, 2017 at 8:54 am
      Ha, not one of them a climate scientist.”

      Not one of who/whom?

      Another specious claim from a gender incomprehensible trollop who is unable to write simple understandable sentences.
      No substance, no clarity, no basis in fact.

      When, where and why does being a “climate scientist” matter except when illustrating one of the most anti-scientific scams of all time?

      ” The GWPF are always spectacularly wrong whenever they say anything about climate”.

      Another specious claim without proof, reference, evidence, rationale or logic.
      Such absurd posturing and projection from Robinlackwhit causes us to reframe their accusations as trollop personal projection.
      i.e. Robinlackwhit is incapable of accuracy, especially when science is replaced by personal insults and absurd opinion.

      • According to them, the only way to become a “climate scientist” is for those who are already members of the club, to vote you in.

      • Too bad there couldn’t be reverse bad apple phenomenon, assuming a realist could fake being an alarmist for long enough to join the granfalloon.

    • The Hockey Stick Illusion was an excellent book that reported a scientific fiasco. Why don’t you read it?

    • Robin Whitlock … Andrew Montford has a degree in Chemistry. I believe that makes his scientific credentials more ‘sciencey’ than yours. And from what I’ve observed, here, the last few days, YOU are always spectacularly … and ridiculously … wrong whenever YOU say anything about climate.

  2. The Bish has been completely absent for many many months from his own blog, which gets the intermittent Josh cartoon but nothing else.

    • True – I’ve been missing him, and it looks like that might be permanent. Unless he runs a deputy director’s blog there….

    • With this new demanding position that stands to reason for his absence. I’m sure he heard about it month’s ago and has been preparing for it.

      • “Real” climate scientists always have lots of time for tweeting, giving interviews to sycophants, attacking people who ask questions, etc.

      • I hope they’re paying him what he deserves. He occasionally commented on how the blog subtracted from other parts of his life.

  3. Hey Steve! He owes you nothing. If he wants to post that’s great. If he doesn’t post? He’s got a life.

    Bye the way, he told us he would be posting intermittently.

  4. First congratulations, second does this mean the GWPF are finally going to start tackling the climate extremism in the Scottish parliament, or is this appointment purely for the benefit of those south of the 10C isothermal?

    • @Scottish Sceptic

      Scottish climate extremism is fundamental to the SNP. They need as much ammunition as they can muster to terrify many unwitting Scots to keep them in power.

      The SNP were a joke when I was young in 70’s Scotland, and remain so today.

      I am planning to retire to Scotland in the next few years, in many ways I hope for Scottish independence shortly, as I will be able to buy a shooting, fishing and recreational estate for tuppence ha’penny. On the other hand, I wouldn’t wish the penury it would impose on my fellow man, so I’ll be happy with a modest, detached 3 bedroomed house.

      Perhaps we’ll meet for a dram one day.

  5. I hope Robin Whitlock steps up his game and contributes the best he has to offer.
    I am baffled as to why he is holding back.
    He purports to be armed with an overwhelming abundance of wisdom, understanding and science and yet he is reluctant to openly share and subject his best material to public scrutiny by those who he obviously believes are inferior and in need of education.
    Why not help out the less informed?
    Why are so many highly knowledgeable alarmists so shy?

    • Those are good points. I for one would like to see researched and data based facts, something I can reference on my own.
      Until Robin and others have something demonstrable, I’m just going to have to believe my lying eyes.

  6. By now we REALLY need some unbiased science to be commissioned. Or a proper public debate. Or some testing of AGW predictions like the tropospheric hot-spot….

    • Dodgy, I have to agree. The current crop of self styled ‘climate scientists’ have screwed up the data, the models and the science ( I use the last term loosely) to the point were it will probably be the middle of the next ice age before it is straightened out.

  7. Congratulation Andrew!

    I wondered why your blog got quiet,been enjoying the David Appell post you made a few years ago,where David stumbled all over the place. Also have your Hockey Stick Illusion book,been reading it.

  8. It’s quite a good idea to check out the CVs of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council before shooting off at the mouth.

  9. And what happened when the GWPF TRIED to get a climatologist on board (Bengstrom (sp?))? That warmists berated him out of the position.

  10. For several years, “Bishop Hill” was been among my top three places to visit daily. I still drop by from time to time to see what the blokes are up to.

  11. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Anthony on his congratulations to Andrew Montford. Rod

  12. Congrats Andrew. I proudly have a Bishop Hill link on my desktop next to WUWT. The GWPF list of Professionals provided by sunsettommy is an impressive list of scientists. It includes one of my favorites from the international scene Henrik Svensmark. His theories on cosmic rays and clouds has always struck me as more believable temperature mitigatior than CO2.

  13. I g’gld “Robin Whitlock” and here what he says about himself: “My name is Robin Whitlock. I am a freelance journalist with a special interest in environmental issues and renewable energy. I have numerous published articles to my credit and write regularly for a number of renewable energy websites. I am also a writer for Renewable Energy Magazine and a sub-editor for Renewable Energy Focus. I am currently based in Bristol, UK. Besides renewable energy and green issues I have a wide variety of other interests which includes World War 2, mythology and folklore, gardening, railways and lots more besides. You can also reach me on either of my two email addresses, which are: robinwhitlock66@hotmail.com and robinwhitlock1966@gmail.com Thanks!”
    Where’s his formal training in Climate Science? Talk about the pot trying to call the kettle black!
    He’s just another Alarmist foghorn.

  14. Robin,

    Your comment sounds like the ‘ol so familiar call to (your) authority. So yesterday.

  15. G’g’ling Andrew Montford, he has a Degree In Chemistry …. one of the ‘climate Sciences’. Robin Whitlock appears to have no Degree whatsoever, let alone one in a Climate Science.

    • Robin’s LinkedIn page says : BA Hons Psychology & English Literature, 2008, Bath Spa University. Robin, himself, previously said his best skills were writing and persuasion which he would use. Don’t expect any science from him.

    • IIRC AM is also a qualified accountant. A person who would know how to find discrepancies and systematic fiddling in numerical records

  16. What a pity that the beginning of the thread was hijacked by a futile discussion with a troll, and what a shame there was no link in the article to Montford’s blog
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

    now more or less dormant but for years the main British climate sceptic blog, and possibly the best blog for civilised discussion (sorry Anthony) due to its very British acceptance of political difference.

    Montford’s Hockeystick Illusion is an extraordinary book, in that it manages to make the abstractions of higher statistics exciting. But his other writings like Hiding the Decline, the Yamal Deception and Caspar and the Jesus paper are also a joy to read -, like Sherlock Holmes or John le Carré, but with real villains.

    • I agree, it is a shame.
      Surely the best response to an idiotic post like this is to ignore it, and to get on with discussing the subject of the original post.
      Chris

  17. Andrew Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ is a superb contribution to the history of science – beautifully written, meticulously researched – it alone guarantees the man a place of honour at any gathering of good men and women concerned about the corruption of science in general, and the shoddy work and shoddy machinations of the CO2 Alarm brigade in particular. The GWPF have gained a fine, penetrating intellect and communicator, and I have high hopes of great good to come of this. Well done Benny, and any others involved in making this appointment!

  18. So what if the Bish is not a ‘climate scientist’? , I wouldn’t care if he were a patents clerk

  19. This is good news indeed. Congratulations, and thank you for all of the thoughtful work.

  20. This is like teh guy on Oregon who is being sued for practicing engineering in public without an engineering degree

  21. Congratulations to Andrew Montford and to GWPF. Andrew’s contribution so far has raised the level of the debate as much as it has also raised my understanding of the statistical issues involved in the Hockey Stick controversy (which is a lot!). We can expect great things to come from Benny, Andrew and the whole team at GWPF.

  22. I too enjoyed the debate at Bishop Hill, and am pleased that Andrew Montford is going to join the already impressive team at GWPF. I have used a number of Andrew’s publications to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of intelligent friends who (because they have lives to live, jobs to do, children to look after, other controversies to join) have absorbed what the MSM gives them on global warming/climate change.

    In reply to Geoff Chambers, there was (I use a past tense simply because there has not been much action on Bishop Hill for a year or two) something a bit ‘British’ about the discussion; perhaps it was diffidence about discussing politics (and religion too – both subjects traditionally banned at the dinner table, for fear of swordfights). Maybe there will be a PhD in the subject, when the world looks back in wonder at this extraordinary episode in the history of ideas, and the history of science.

    Even the trolls were quaintly non-American. Remember the Dork of Cork?

    • ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’, we’ll never be free of them if history is a guide (even more so if it is erased).

Comments are closed.