LSE Bob Ward: Hurricanes are President Trump's Fault

It’s just the same old Ludacris garbage.

My cup of coffee went cold before I could finish it. I guess I can blame Trump for that too.
/snark

Looks like the Anglican Church branch of Protestantism (Calvinists) are rushing to the forefront to blame humans, individually, on the acts of nature. Of course the members of the Anglican Church will overlook their own membership, like Tony Blair, and blame those they deem inferior and in need of a good and bloody old fashion Crucifixion.
On Monday, young school children will report to their teachers, “Trump Ate My Homework!” and spare the poor dogs of their usual beatings.
Ha hahahaa

According to MeteoEarth.com tracking, the eye of Irma has not made landfall

THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH ABOUT BOB WARD AND THE GRANTHAM INSTITUTE
The Grantham Institute was established in 2008 by Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham, through their ‘Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment’ and with Judith Rees and Nicholas Stern of the Grantham Research Institute behind them. Lord Stern is now chairman of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics.
The Grantham Institute was set up by Grantham to promote ideas that will make him vastly richer than he already is. It is not part of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); it is actually a separate legal entity which does no research and no education of its own . Its ‘task’ is to promote the view point of the person paying its bills. It is actually a marketing company whose sole function is to sell the public on so-called ‘man-made global warming.’
The LSE took the money and turned a blind eye, while allowing an iffy marketing operation to ride on the back of its name, and not for the first time. One day the media may start to call it a marketing company, rather than give it the undeserved scientific credit it pretends to have.
I love the Bob Ward waffle, and his superb ability to hide reality. For instance, his comment that temperature is still rising ‘albeit at a slower rate of increase than previously’ actually translates into between 0.1 and 0.2ºC per century.
Most amazingly, Bob links to the IPCC SREX report claiming that it ‘found an abundance of scientific evidence for increases in heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall.’ In fact, as anyone can check by reading the report, it says no such thing.
You do not need a ‘paper’ to show nearly 20 years of no global warming, just look at the data sets directly. The following tables show the number of years to present when slope is flat or slightly negative and also for when there is no significant warming:
GISS 12, 17
Hadcrut3 16, 19
Hadcrut4 12, 18
But never mind Ward; one might expect a scientist like Chris Rapley to ask himself whether, if something can’t be found, it might be because it is not there.
Rapley is into climate and the unconscious. he recently wrote the introduction (and the Amazon review) for a book on psychoanalysis and climate skepticism.
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/psychoanalysis-and-climate-change-the-doctors-take-over-the-asylum/
Heat which has gone ‘missing’ cannot cause floods plagues and hurricanes, and without floods plagues and hurricanes Bob Ward is out of a job and the rest of us can get on with our lives without being bothered with politicians blathering about ‘sustainability’ and putting our energy prices up. That is the discussion which Bob Ward (and apparently all the editors sympathetic to the climate hysterics) want to suppress.
Bob Ward declares that there are parts of the media that misrepresent the science. That is certainly what he is trying to say, but he fails lamentably to make his case. There are easily attestable facts about the climate and any reader is free to draw their own conclusions. Ward and others are demanding Parliament intervene and legislate in order to discourage ‘deniers’ from expressing themselves.
By failing to defend his position, Ward demonstrates the weakness of his case. By giving space to Ward to expound his weak and undefended arguments, the broadcasters and publishers demonstrate a contempt for free speech and rational discussion.
Brian Cox has been given several editorials, and a talk at the Television Society in 2012, both of which were largely given over to attacking climate sceptics. Sir Paul Nurse had a whole BBC Horizon programme to himself, largely given over to attacking climate sceptics. If there was a case to be made for dangerous man-made global warming, they could have made it but they did not because there is not. All they have got is Bob Ward, failed palaeopiezometrist, and his call for press censorship.
It is a free country and people are entitled to their opinions. That, however, does not mean that all opinions have the same weight.
Here is my issue with Ward’s view of how things should work: Scientific papers tend (as one might imagine) to be quite rigorous. This means that it is unlikely that you will find scientific papers with strong, absolute statements about catastrophic global warming. They will tend to be descriptions of models with uncertainties or some analysis of data (again with uncertainties). One can, however, interpret what the evidence is suggesting.
Even if you are not interested in climate science, everyone should be interested in the attempt to close down debate proposed by Bob Ward, the PR man for the Grantham Institute and its hedge fund millionaire backer Jeremy Grantham, and which is supported by the New Statesman, the BBC, the Royal Society, The Independent, all six British parliamentary parties, the Socialist Worker, and just about everyone else on the Left.
Is it the job of the government to pass laws to dissuade ‘deniers’ and the skeptics from writing what they like? This is not a debate about science, and that is the point. There are many who claim to want to debate this, but are actually not willing to debate the science. They make claims that do not stand up to scrutiny, and it is being carried out in a manner that is not consistent with good scientific practice.
History will note that not one single IPCC warning has ever said what will happen, only what might happen. They agree that ‘climate change’ is real, but have never agreed that it is a real crisis.
Bob Ward’s livelihood is dependent on keeping the public fooled and poor. He spends most of his time these days conducting ad hominem campaigns against those who (heaven forbid!) question the science and the myth about AGW that it is ‘settled’ or that there is ‘consensus.’ He is paid a great deal at the Grantham Research Institute. He does not feel the slightest bit guilty that his lot are causing so much misery for those who now find it impossible to heat their homes or run their car. Not only is he and his ilk responsible for fuel poverty but he is wrecking our manufacturing industries too. One day, there will be no more money and he will have to go and find a real job – assuming he is capable of doing something honest.
Get lost, Ward. we’ve had enough of your lies and your preaching. Your data is either flawed or totally fake, and you know it. And by the way, there is no ‘current warming trend,’ and nobody believes anything the IPCC or the Grantham Institute say about anything.

If anything is placed at anyone’s door for failure, it is the massive cost of climate change policies which should be placed at the door of climate modelers who have so utterly failed to produce anything that reasonably matches reality.

” but there are three ways in which it is making the consequences worse.
First, although the intensity of a hurricane depends on many factors, warmer seawater tends to promote stronger storms. Average sea surface temperatures have been rising, and some parts of the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are warmer than average at the moment, which is a key reason why both Harvey and Irma became so strong so quickly”

In the climate-change realm models describe only the future climate , except it so happens that the weather does not obey the narrative . That said , there will hope that tomorrow will prove the false prophets right .

I used to like this site, but the increase in the number of ad hominum posts is really starting to get me down. If you can counter an alarmist’s statements with reasoned arguments, perhaps it would be better to avoid posting.

If storm intensity is related to the difference between warm waters and cooler air, shouldn’t CO2 trapping more warmth in the lower atmosphere decrease the intensity of these storms?

I do not accept the need for the gold standard of test to be applied to climate science. I merely ask that if companies who supply to low cost product outlets like Poundland have a standard then climate scientist’s work should pass that standard at a minimum.
As for for the comment about Trump we have long learnt to expect that from the organisation known locally as “Laughably Sh!t Eds”. What other educational establishment openly advocates there being no evidence for a premise but it should be blindly accepted anyway. Not even theological colleges demand such extreme examples of blind faith.