Bob Ward's @ret_ward Retwarded thinking again

From CliScep, our “little green mann” Bob Ward is at it again.

Does Bob Have a Problem With Gender Equality?


I only ask because, as a female sceptic myself (and very much not alone in that respect) it would seem from his comments that he likes to think that a vast majority of climate sceptics are male; even worse, crusty old white balding men not dissimilar to himself. As principal evidence for his theory, he points to the predominance of old white men at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which Bob also appears to have a problem with, probably not entirely related to its supposed glaring gender imbalance. But hey, that’s as good a reason as any to have a go at them, so Bob dutifully decides that he’s going to report GWPF for the crime of being dominated by old white male climate sceptics – and gets short shrift from the Charity Commission who tell him:

there are no legal requirements around gender balance in governance and that under s20(2) of the Charities Act, the Commission is precluded from interfering in the administration of a charity.

Bummer. Never mind. Bob is many things, including some which rhyme with his Christian title, but he is never daunted, no siree. Bob is the self-appointed slayer of ‘sceptics’, the Chief Holder to Account of Deniers and it is no problem whatsoever to re-appoint himself to that role even when he suffers the odd catastrophic set back.

Thus, he drones on,

The Foundation may be dominated by older men because climate change denial is simply not popular among women and young people. Numerous studies have suggested that climate change ‘sceptics’ are usually older and male, with political views that place less value on the environment. However, recent polls of the UK public suggest that there is little gender difference among the small proportion of the population who are hardcore ‘sceptics’.

A tracking survey commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy showed that, in March 2017, 7.6% answered “I don’t think there is such a thing as climate change” or “Climate change is caused entirely caused by natural processes”, when asked for their views. Among men the figure was 8.1%, while for women it was 7.1%

So Bob advances a reason why old men might dominate at the GWPF then shoots down his own pet theory in the very next sentence by quoting a survey which shows that, in the population in general, there is not much gender difference among those people who seriously question whether man has dominated recent changes in climate. Having failed to validate his supposition, he then weakly suggests that “it is the men who are most vocal about their [climate scepticism] views” and that those men “tend to lack any training or qualifications in climate science, but still appear to believe that they know better than the experts”. Which is odd really. Because this describes Bob to a tee, barring the minor detail that he is not a climate change sceptic but an avid believer in the unquestionable authority of The Science.

Notwithstanding the fact of Bob’s oldness, his maleness, his lack of expertise, his apparent chauvinistic and dismissive attitude to female climate change sceptics, he then launches into a tirade of accusations about the chauvinistic attitudes of old, white, male climate sceptics, whose bigoted views apparently are directed at women climate ‘experts’ in particular, suggesting that these old, white, male ‘non-experts’ may be resentful of the fact that cleverer women in the know are telling them things they don’t want to hear. He really is a card is our Bob.


Does Bob Have a Problem With Gender Equality?

Bob Ward

Josh is on the case:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Schrumpf
March 1, 2018 4:35 am

Aren’t climate alarmists mostly old, white, angry males? Is this yet another case of projection?

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 1, 2018 6:09 am

Yr: “…old, white, angry males…”
Well, judging by the public face of the Gaia hustle–Al Gore–I’d say there’s a little more to your typical “alarmist” than their inevitable, privileged-white-dork, mummy-centric, can’t-get-a-date, testy-milquetoast, superannuated-platitude-mongering-party-line-hack-goin’-through-the-motions personal qualities. In particular, based on a close examination of Al Gore, we can also say that your typical, lefty-puke Gaia-freak is:
-a brazen-hypocrite carbon-piggie
-an in-your-face, greenwashed money-grubber
-an alpha-cad who dumped Tipper, but kept his newly-acquired, Hollywood air-head circle of private-jet, jet-set, fairweather friends.
-a truly strange weirdo who paid Naomi Wolf really big-bucks to publicly call him out as a “beta” weenie, while in the midst of a Presidential campaign.
And, oh by the way, Bob Ward, hasn’t it been the hive-chekist bully-boys, and not us “good guy” Lovers of Liberty and ethical science, who have been beating up on extraordinarily accomplished women–Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Susan Crockford, come immediately to mind–for the “sin” of courageously buckin’ the hive’s psuedo-religious, Lysenkoist, Gaia-cult, flim-flam orthodoxies?
And, oh by the way, did I mention that Al “Stretch Marks” Gore (talk about an ol’ fart!) is a horror-story mass of impacted, male-pattern cellulite-deposits?
And, finally, Bob, could you do your readers a favor and, in the future, employ both hands at the keyboard when you peck out your little gibbering-geekball, “PC”-gotcha!-wannabe diatribes? Thank you in advance–you disgusting little wanker! :

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 8:41 am

You need to learn how to express yourself more forcefully and directly. You are excessively subtle. There’s no room for timidity in the climate trenches! 😉

Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 9:36 am

James Schrumpf:

Aren’t climate alarmists mostly old, white, angry males?

That’s rich coming from a denizen of den___ism! OK, if you want to attack “al___ists” [realists] for their anger and other traits they have no control over, then let’s examine your “side.” I wonder if it’ll look quite so white-as-snow under scrutiny, hmm?
Turns out it does. White and male as snow. It only took five seconds of googling to find this Anatomy of Den___ism, the very first line of which is:

– Skeptics make up virtually the whole retired-white-male half of the Earth’s population.
– To a very close approximation, everyone on the left is a believer, while everyone on the right isn’t. What better proof could there be that the climate issue is really about politics—not science—for skeptics?

– Skeptics are continually pressing for a scientific debate.
– That’s because they can’t debate the political reality: that climate change necessitates a new world order.
– They’re left with no choice but to attack the weakest link—the science—instead.

You forced me to go there, James.

Is this yet another case of projection?

I know I am but what are you?

Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 9:53 am

D J Hawkins,
isn’t alone. I have that problem (being too polite for my own good) too, I’ve been told.
After five minutes straight of what to me seems like spittle-flecked hate-invective, I’ll finally pause to check my temporal artery pulse and my friends will just gently laugh and say, “Tell us what you REALLY think, Brad!”
I’m trying, I’m trying.

Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 10:00 am

Hey D. J.!
Kinda see where you’re comin’ from. So, like, I’ve been doing some real thinkin’ on how to up my game, and everything, and the best I’ve come up with, so far, is a little zinger that, I hope, inflicts a sting, but in a high-toned intellectual vein that is, at once, both sciency and chemical-formula-like, and, therefore, sure to impress–indeed, flummox mightily–all those ivory-tower, hive-bozo, Mr. Smarty-Pants spouters of phoney-baloney, B. S., hive-science jargon and cant, who are envious, agitpropper-wannabe, dismissive critics of my little act. Here goes:
“Bob Ward is a de-oxy oxy-moron!”
Whaddyuh think, D. J.?

Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 10:27 am

I, for one, would like to express my profound disappointment in the fact that Brad Keyes neglected to point out the most obvious failure of Ms. Jessop’s analysis above. Namely, that her assumptions about gender identification apply to Bob Ward. Just because Ms. Jessop is enslaved to the cis-normative, biologically-determinant gender identification paradigm of the patriarchy, does NOT mean that Bob Ward is as well.
“She” (one must assume Jessop identifies as “she” based on her comments) deigns to conclude that Mr. Ward’s statements are about the false socio-hierarchal construct of parternalistic gender-, racial-, and senesce-identity. And from this she believes she has a platform to disagree, simply due to her biological privilege.
Well, Ms. Jessup, Bob Ward is clearly talking about the problem with climate skeptics who IDENTIFY as white, male, and old. Since no one has any input in choosing their own biology, clearly it follows that Mr. Ward is not gender-shaming, race-shaming, or age-shaming people for something they can’t change. No, he’s calling out the climate skeptic community for CHOOSING to identify with the progenitors of all that’s evil and wrong with the world today.
Seriously. This is so basic. How could she have missed it so badly?

Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 11:57 am

Mike please don’t hold back on your next comment! Just let it out and express yourself.

David E. Hein
Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 12:10 pm

Mic (Mike) drop….

bit chilly
Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 12:44 pm

that will be one of the posts of the year for me mike, love it 🙂

Reply to  mike
March 1, 2018 2:49 pm

I think part of the reason old white men are denialists is that we had to work out in it in the 50’s and 60’s. We had to put up then with all the “new Ice Age is coming” drivel. We heard our dads, uncles, and grandparents laughing about how this reverses every thirty years or so.
Made us a little more skeptical about all these catastrophic tales of the future – because we heard them so often when we were young.
Oh, note: my grandparents and uncles were all farmers. Climate and weather were critical. And 110 years later, they’re still in the same places, planting the same crops. And asking me (the only one with an advanced degree) if I believe in CAGW. They assume it requires an advanced degree to be that stupid.

Reply to  mike
March 2, 2018 12:57 am

‘sceptics’ are usually older and male, with political views that place less value on the environment.

Bollocks !
I have always been concerned about the environment, clear air and clean water. The trouble is the alarmists do not even know what the word “clean” means any more. They think it is something to do with the amount CO2 something contains.
The problem is it is now impossible to identify myself as an environmentalist because of all the unscientific, irrational BS that word now implies.
The fake alarmism means that many decisions are being taken of totally skewed and misplaced priorities. This is often counter to the best interests of the environment and many other factors.

Reply to  mike
March 2, 2018 4:50 am

Mr Keyes, you reminds me of the old line by Dan Ackryrod(another great Canadian eh): “Brad, you ignorant slut”.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 1, 2018 8:55 am

And when they say, “We must get-by using less” what they mean is “Everyone else must get-by with less.”

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 1, 2018 9:24 am

So we can have more.

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 1, 2018 10:34 am

Their unofficial motto:
“One for all, ……and the rest for us.”

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 1, 2018 10:01 am

You forgot … “Christian” … which is another label applied to we AWFUL skeptics. You know, anyone who believes in a “sky daddy” is a denier. Is clearly anti-science (like in the Middle Ages,before books were mass printed) . And should be burned at the stake … like they tried to do to Galileo [sarc.]. Yeah … ya got me. I am just like Oprah … waiting for a sign from “God” before making weighty life decisions … like whether to put solar panels on my home. Hey! d’ya wonder whether this UUuuge winter storm is a sign from “God” that CA’s “never ending drought” is STILL over? Did our Jesuit Gov. get the “message”?

Reply to  kenji
March 2, 2018 8:22 am

Now Kenji, I have to disagree with you on they Climate Faithful’s (and Leftists in general) attitude towards those who profess a belief in a god. After all, the Left positively revere and will tolerate no disrespect directed at the followers of Allah. And this attitude goes for nearly EVERY religion… except Christianity.
That reminds me. What do you think the GOOGLE doodle will celebrate this Easter instead of the Christian Holiday?

Reply to  kenji
March 2, 2018 9:10 am

How about Eostre, the namesake of the appropriated holiday.

M Courtney
Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 1, 2018 12:11 pm

It’s the internet to blame.
Almost all the commenters on the internet are mostly old, white, angry males.
Even on Autostraddle, probably.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 2, 2018 2:03 pm

It’s a known fact that 97% of Sceptics / Deniers are old, white, bald, men, who have no expertise in anything to do with the real world (eg. science). (Do I need to add ?)

Radical Rodent
March 1, 2018 4:39 am

Josh, as usual, sums it up so succinctly.

Reply to  Radical Rodent
March 2, 2018 8:21 am

Josh is the MAN!

Richard Woollaston
March 1, 2018 4:42 am

Another example of playing the man (in this case men) and not the ball.

Reply to  Richard Woollaston
March 1, 2018 9:48 am

Mark Maslin, who never stoops to ad hominems (God forbid!), once said something wise enough to validate the old adage about “from the mouths of complete and utter mora…”:

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When you can’t win on the facts, pound the man. When you can’t pound the man, pound his business associates, family, past girlfriends, the Che Guevara poster on his wall… pretty much anything you can poke a hole in.
But today, I can pound the facts. So I will. I’ll pound them ad pulverem.

Phil R
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 1, 2018 10:44 am

Boy, talk about incoherent and rambling…I tried to read his article, but couldn’t get through it. Seems to think an awful lot of himself, though.

Reply to  Richard Woollaston
March 1, 2018 10:03 am

Ha ha ha … that’s FUNNY! and actually quite insightful.

March 1, 2018 4:43 am

Bob has many problems.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  DaveS
March 1, 2018 1:56 pm

I’m not a therapist, but I play one on the internet. How can I help you with your myriad psychological problems, Mr. Ward?

Hocus Locus
March 1, 2018 4:54 am

Props for Christopher Booker: Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink. a 123-page exposé-extravaganza of climate alarmist goopthink gorgonzola.

John Harmsworth
March 1, 2018 5:00 am

AGW is total groupthink.
Except for the think part.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
March 1, 2018 11:15 am

LOL. +2

Reply to  John Harmsworth
March 1, 2018 12:46 pm

groupdumb would be more apt.

March 1, 2018 5:01 am


March 1, 2018 5:08 am

Did Judith Curry have a sex change operation?

Ben of Houston
Reply to  RAH
March 1, 2018 5:19 am

If she had, it wouldn’t be any of our business to pry anyway.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
March 1, 2018 8:44 am

Make a joke and there is always someone that doesn’t get it!

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Ben of Houston
March 1, 2018 11:49 am

Sorry if dry wit doesn’t come across to well in a pithy text reply, RAH.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
March 1, 2018 12:45 pm

My apologies for the misunderstanding Ben. Bound to happen at times in this medium and sometimes I can be a bit myopic when I get involved before I have adequate caffeine in the system.

Reply to  RAH
March 1, 2018 6:26 am

Or Susan Crockford.

Reply to  MarkW
March 1, 2018 7:15 am

Crockford is not a ‘skeptic’, rather a evolutionary biologist who has compared polar bear activists’ prognosis and the reality.

March 1, 2018 5:15 am

A lot of projection there it appears A good article Jaime.
Annie…Old, White, Female…Grumpy old Woman!

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Annie
March 1, 2018 9:44 am

Kathleen… Old,Red,Female…Grumpy Old Squaw

Reply to  Annie
March 1, 2018 11:30 am

Ally…Thirties, White, Female…Grumpy. 🙂

March 1, 2018 5:18 am

Well, isn’t AGW theory known to cause gender confusion?

Reply to  McLovin'
March 1, 2018 6:27 am

Allegedly, global warming is going to turn all sea turtles female.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  MarkW
March 1, 2018 10:53 am

And with a few males to service them the population will explode.

Phil R
Reply to  McLovin'
March 1, 2018 10:53 am

Please, let’s use the correct psychiatric term as listed in the APA, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders;” gender dysphoria. Used to be called gender identity disorder, until the post-normal social theory progs got involved.

March 1, 2018 5:35 am

Bob ward works at the lse in London. After four days of snow wothmain line stations and airports closed plus many roads I doubt if he has even managed to get into work recently let alone been able to travel to an international conference

March 1, 2018 5:46 am

“The other side has a lot of old white males so our view on global warming is correct” argument. How very scientific, Bob

ivor ward
March 1, 2018 6:09 am

Poor old Bob. He has to keep his non-job somehow. Old white male Jeremy Grantham needs his ego fed.

March 1, 2018 6:10 am

Remember Bob , fast fingers, Ward is actual paid to hold and promote such views. He is the very thing has called others, a professional troll.

March 1, 2018 6:13 am

Pot -> Kettle = Black

March 1, 2018 6:22 am

This is fun. Check out the contributors to RealClimate:
All 8 of them. 100% White. 100% male. And I’m pretty sure 100% over 50, at least two over 60.
The most promenent female climate scientist I know of is Judith Curry.

March 1, 2018 6:22 am

Ward is engaging in the cliched progressive litany on those they disagree with–racist, sexist, homophobic. . .all without any real reason why their opponent actually fits any of those categories. Are there more men in climate sciences? Is it any different than the issue that sciences tend to have rather more men, generally?

Greg Woods
March 1, 2018 6:23 am

Well, I am old, I suppose, white, and male, and if anyone asked me, I would say that I don’t ‘believe’ in climate change, I know that it happens….

March 1, 2018 6:28 am

Want to know people’s faults? Listen to what they complain about. So often they believe they see in others what is glaringly obvious about themselves — to everybody except themselves. Bob Ward is a perfect example.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Gary
March 2, 2018 7:01 am

One gets that same question about evolution, too: “Do you believe in evolution?” Funny no one ever asks “Do you believe in gravitation?” or “Do you believe in thermodynamics?”

March 1, 2018 6:30 am

When you’re involved in a career, you go along to get along. When you’re older you have the opportunity to think independently, and you begin to parse the bulls^^^t. Glad to see that the women get there too.

March 1, 2018 6:33 am

If women are to be taken seriously in STEM fields they are going to have step up more to question obvious political/advocacy bias campaigns like climate change manipulation and stop being used by such schemes. That means more visibility than Judith Curry by the way.

Leo Smith
March 1, 2018 6:39 am

Since I started to take donations on my site
I was amazed at how few donatees were clearly identifiable as female. 1% or thereabouts.
Make of that what you will.

Phil R
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 1, 2018 11:03 am

Maybe they’re offended by your “shameless plug.” 🙂

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 2, 2018 2:38 pm

“I was amazed at how few donatees were clearly identifiable as female”
I thought you were the donatee.

Gary Pearse
March 1, 2018 6:49 am

Jaime, I’m an old white guy who is a scientist and engineer and actually happens to have also studied paleoclimate some 60 yrs ago before it was taken over by the marxbrothers.
You picked up on the smaller picture of gender (which today is a more complex matter than mere boys and girls) but missed the much bigger picture of old white men and “diversity” that excludes this leperous category from the club. This, if I may wade into shark infested waters, is probably because you are a woman, comfortably snuggled into the fold. You only have a glass ceiling to break through. Even my pointy hard head would have trouble with the newly constructed reinforced concrete ceiling old white men have to contend with. This is why all the likes of Ward have to do to deligitimize a viewpoint is to note that it is held by old white men. He was actually kindly making sure that you were considered part of the club. That he will one day be an old white man himself is what he doesn’t seem to realize.
Analyzing the indictment of old white men, it seems we are being blamed for creating the nefarious Age of Enlightenment, Modern Science and Technology, the Industrial Revolution, the World Economy, Capitalism and Prosperity …I thought I had argued quite convincingly that I’m not THAT old.

J Mac
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 1, 2018 9:51 am

I resemble that remark….

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 1, 2018 10:46 am

Gary, notwithstanding the fact that I didn’t specifically make the case for ‘old white men’ in science, I’m very well aware of the increasing discrimination that they face courtesy of the progressive liberal agenda which is now sweeping through academia, tearing down barriers for all manner of ‘disadvantaged’ groups (including the intellectually and academically challenged) whilst busily erecting brick walls and concrete ceilings for the despised social grouping labeled ‘privileged white male’. The hatred runs deep. Science itself, originating overwhelmingly via the efforts of old white (now dead) European and American men presents an ideological challenge to the post-modernists. They want to ‘own’ it by making it more feminist, diverse and inclusive, but when they get close to it, they begin to retch at the foul odour given off by its privileged white male colonialist roots and lower branches. Climate alarmists in particular love quoting the ‘overwhelming evidence’ upon which rests The Science of AGW, but they are blissfully unaware that much of it is not ’empirical’ or that the ‘data’ (raw, directly observed, unprocessed) which might constitute such empirical evidence is so often discarded in favour of alternatives (like model output, ‘adjusted data’, statistically generated probability distributions etc.). Perhaps this is just as well because ’empirical’ is far too suggestive of ’empire’, as in British, as in racist, as in colonialist, as in patriarchal.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
March 1, 2018 2:29 pm

SCUM don’t get invited to the diversity club.
(Straight Conservative Uncolored Males)

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
March 2, 2018 7:38 am

I stand by Marx (groucho’s flavor):

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
March 2, 2018 1:50 pm

Not to mention that as far back as Francis Bacon, “empiricist” was often the same as anecdotal. Bacon himself ranted against the “empiricists” because they would generalize from some single observation. Modern “post-mordernism” and all the associated “post(s)-” are comparable to the scholastics, who Bacon also despised. The irony is that despite his work, science has become largely “scholastic” – i.e. academic. A scientist attached to a university – an official “academic” – gets special considerations in many areas simply because of the claim to be “academic.”

March 1, 2018 6:50 am

It’s tough being a grumpy old white male sceptic, especially when you have two physics degrees and you fail to have gone bald.

March 1, 2018 7:14 am

Weird how people who claim to care about gender equality constantly judge other people by their gender and not by their views. It’s the same when supposedly “anti-racist” people judge others by their skin colour and not by their character.
Maybe i’m a bit too radical here, but in my opinion if women have less representation in a workplace or somewhere, it’s only a problem if those women were unjustly held back by force. If however women in general don’t want to work there, then there is not much you can do except encourage them. But it would be unjust to forcibly try to hold men back and choose women just because of their gender. Only personal skills should matter. Today we however seem to be obsessed about having exactly 50%-50% presentation, and if that does not happen, the world ends.

Reply to  Fredar
March 1, 2018 7:27 am

I’ve always found it fascinating that the people who shriek the loudest that they aren’t sexist, will turn around and declare that if you are a woman, you must think like this.
Likewise those who proclaim themselves not racist, will turn around and tell minorities how they must think and act, if they are to be true to their race.

Reply to  MarkW
March 1, 2018 2:43 pm

Should minorities transcend their cultures and find success on their own terms, they stop being useful political tools for the so-called progressives, and might even *gasp* start voting conservative.

Reply to  Fredar
March 1, 2018 2:31 pm

The pursuit not of equality, but of equivalence.

March 1, 2018 7:32 am

You could say, Bob is sofa king we taught it?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  RWturner
March 2, 2018 7:06 am

Good Lord, one never knows where one will find an Aqua Teen Hunger Force Fan, eh?

Ian H
March 1, 2018 7:32 am

If a large enough bunch of old white men believe something then I’d say it is probably true. Say what you will about old white men, they have been around the block a few times and are not stupid. Old white men have a lot of experience, are generally calm and rational, think for themselves, and can spot a bullshitter a mile away. And since they are already social pariahs these days by the mere fact of being old white and male, they are remarkably resistant to social pressure. If a couple hundred old white men tell you something, you’d be a fool not to take it seriously.

Reply to  Ian H
March 1, 2018 10:43 am

If old white men are as stupid as they are portrayed to be, then why according to the complainers do they hold the all positions of power?

Phil R
Reply to  rocketscientist
March 1, 2018 11:09 am

Very interesting question. I think it’s a tacit admission that not only are the complainers stupider, but that they’re even too stupid to realize it.

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 2, 2018 7:13 am

I don’t think the argument is that they are stupid. The argument is that they have ” political views that place less value on the environment”, that they lack moral sense, compared to young and women (supposedly), and will have interest prevail over the right thing (Remember “exxon knew”). This is fairly compatible with holding position of power.

Reply to  Ian H
March 2, 2018 7:26 am

I don’t trust old white male to be right.
However, I trust young whatever-color whatever-sex to be wrong.
They lack experience, are emotional, have no clue about the real outcome of good intents as they also lack historical and political culture, are prone to groupthink and radical simplistic views (i.e. black OR white, with no grey nor black AND white), etc.
On any issue, the side with larger youth support is wrong, but has time running on its side, unfortunately

Bill Murphy
March 1, 2018 7:39 am

Afraid I fit Ward’s profile all too well. At least it’s no longer fashionable to pick on the Irish…

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Bill Murphy
March 1, 2018 9:31 am

Just wait, boyo. 😉

March 1, 2018 7:40 am

Along with the tired Communist play, that we are all oppressed by Judeo-Christian White males,
there is another piece of rhetoric being played, yet again. But this piece of rhetoric is a confusing two-step.
First: “everyone knows man-made climate change is happening; what is wrong with you?”
Then: “Who are these so-called skeptics? You must be a special expert to be able to speak to whether there is climate change or not, and the experts have spoken. so be quiet.”
Well, which is it?
Is it as plain as the nose on your face?
Or, does it take an expert to recognize and understand it?
we need to start calling out these various foolish pieces of rhetoric.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
March 1, 2018 9:56 am

Sort of like “The children aren’t going to know what snow is” because of (supposedly human induced) global warming (when we were experiencing winters with relatively little snow) vs. “heavier snowfall is “consistent with” (supposedly human induced) global warming” (when we started having winters where we were getting buried with snow).
Logic and reason don’t apply, and contradiction is just fine as long as it supports the “cause.”
We indeed need to continuously point out the contradictions, hypocrisy, foolishness, and the like, until the less informed start to realize what a crock of steaming excrement it all is.

D. Cohen
March 1, 2018 7:44 am

The alarmists really are in sad shape if all they have left is this sort of ad-hominem nonsense. It is a transparent attempt to change the subject and my sympathy goes out to them.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  D. Cohen
March 1, 2018 8:01 am

Then you are a better man than me. I have only contempt for conmen.

Reply to  D. Cohen
March 1, 2018 2:49 pm

As I like to say, the wounded beast roars loudest just before it falls down.

Mark - Helsinki
March 1, 2018 8:04 am

Bob is far too busy popping off bottlecaps with his face to look at the science.
having personally dealt with him on twitter some time ago, I can say my own experience was that he is actually not only non credentialed, but utterly bereft of understanding on climate science, he’s a link spammer

Christopher D Hoff
March 1, 2018 8:08 am

Isn’t Micheal Mann also a balding old white male, the same policies should apply to him and his cohorts.

March 1, 2018 8:28 am

As a happy, old, white, male, I have a slightly different perspective. In the early 60s I was drilled on the scientific method, every year I was in high school (biology, chemistry, physics). After all these years, those fundamental ideas have stuck with me, skepticism, emphasis on replication of experimental results, and all the rest. To have someone say the ‘science is settled’ is anathema to the scientific method, unless you have refined things beyond theory in physical laws, and even then there is room for refinement. If other old, white farts were trained as I was in high school, it is no wonder that as a group we tend toward the ‘rational skepticism’ end of things.

Tarquin Wombat-Carruthers
Reply to  haverwilde
March 4, 2018 11:47 pm

+ many!

Jim Fitzgibbons
March 1, 2018 8:42 am

Hopefully, I am wrong in linking Retwarded with retarded. With that stated and as the brother of a developmentally disabled person I offer the following . . .
“ Everyone knows words can hurt. For people with Down syndrome and their families, the history of “labels” is not a pleasant one. People with Down syndrome used to be labeled “idiots, morons,” and “imbeciles” by both society and the medical profession. The label evolved into “Mongoloid, handicapped, mentally retarded, retarded,” and then for short, “retard.”
Today, these labels are considered politically incorrect, hurtful and dehumanizing. As award-winning actor, parent-advocate, and Global Down Syndrome Foundation International Spokesperson, John C. McGinley has said, there is no difference between derogatory words used to label ethnic or religious minorities and the words used to label people with Down syndrome. As with people advocating for ethnic or religious minorities, there is a movement (led by Special Olympics) to end the use of derogatory words such as the “R” word – ‘retard.’ “

Reply to  Jim Fitzgibbons
March 1, 2018 9:35 am

“there is no difference between derogatory words used to label ethnic or religious minorities and the words used to label people with Down syndrome. ”
Well, the fact is, there is a difference. Most ordinary words can, and are, used as derogatory, too
Some people ARE retarded, or blonde, or WASP, or bald, which is not per se derogatory, just a description. It becomes derogatory when applied … well, derogatory.
Like, in the ret_ward rant. He just has to eat the food he meant for others, now.
“people advocating […] to end the use of derogatory words such as the “R” word – ‘retard.’ “ are just … progressives (and THAT was derogatory )
I could understand if people were were advocating the end of derogatory use of the ‘retard’ word, or any other for that matters. Strangely enough they don’t.

Reply to  Jim Fitzgibbons
March 1, 2018 9:54 am

SouthPark is a show that almost always uses childish, crude, and sometimes disgusting humor to keep a portion of its audience entertained. Sometimes the show uses situational/story line humor to make an overall humorous point relating to their view of how societal norms are used/abused/misunderstood.
The evolution of specific descriptors, as you noted, is real; it will keep happening. SouthParks “Fags go home” parodies this reality and ties it into current society. Please take the time to watch the “Fags go home” episode of SouthPark. Myself, and the people that I know best are analogous to the fags (totally clueless bikers). You (Jim) are analogous to the principal and the community leaders that are looking for a good reason to be upset.

Jim Fitzgibbons
Reply to  DonM
March 1, 2018 5:48 pm

DonM: Hardly.

Reply to  DonM
March 2, 2018 5:49 pm

so you don’t think I could hang with the clueless bikers?

Reply to  DonM
March 5, 2018 9:48 am

Rob, catch the perspective. no one said ALL bikers are clueless. seems you are saying NONE are.
(and jee whiz, you must think it is O.K. to spend $15 to 45K on a carbon dioxide spewing hobby toy. I think that it is O.K.. Others don’t. I think the others that don’t are generally hypocrites. Which side of the line (at this point in time) do you stand on?)

March 1, 2018 9:05 am

I thought , given his enormous influence on the debate (in the UK at least ) that I ought to find out more of his credentials as a scientist . The profile from LSE is interesting :
“–Bob joined the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in November 2008, shortly after its launch.
He also holds the following positions:
Policy and Communications Director for the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy;
Bob joined the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) from Risk Management Solutions, where he was Director of Public Policy.
He also worked at the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, for eight years, until October 2006. His responsibilities there included leading the media relations team.
He has also worked as a freelance science writer and journalist.
Bob has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry.
He is a fellow of the Geological Society, a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and a member of the American Geophysical Union. Bob is also a member of the board of the Association of British Science Writers and a member of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Public Relations Association.–”
Not much evidence of actual relevant scientific expertise there, in the sense of occupying academic positions teaching science, but give the fellow the benefit of the doubt : what publications can he claim?
A reasonable number , but mainly , as his job title suggests , in the field of public relations and renewables advocacy.
There was one paper in 2013 in Climate Change which discusses the application of modelling to the prospects of staying below 1.5C and it is an interesting paper with a model that appears to work well up to 2000, however Ward is not the lead author and seems to have been tacked on the end because the funding was partly from the Grantham Institute. Although the paper is paywalled you can download the supplementary details and might be worth looking at more closely – although no doubt out of date by now.
Incidentally why is it OK to publish papers that have been funded by the proceeds from a hedge fund manager who expects to earn greatly from the taxes on emissions but totally illegitimate to publish research part paid for by , say , an oil company ? Either all or none would be fair would it not?

Reply to  mikewaite
March 2, 2018 3:37 pm

MikeWaite, Ward isn’t a scientist he’s a PR guy

March 1, 2018 9:41 am

Bob Ward is paid handsomely by the Grantham Foundation- an Alarmist group.
He is simply a puppet, parroting his master’s bidding.
He is a brainless troll.

paul courtney
Reply to  Bitter&twisted
March 1, 2018 11:11 am

Bitter: Now I’m with you. He’s just another communications major who thinks he looks great in a white lab coat. Hey, now that I think of it, ALL those lab coats are white. CliSci seems to have plenty of money to keep communications majors on staff, yet the problem with climate science (so I’ve heard) is failure to communicate. What’s up with that (to coin a phrase)?

Reply to  paul courtney
March 1, 2018 2:55 pm

They leave the Comm majors to do the wet work while they go off to their next paid vacation, er, climate convention!

J Mac
March 1, 2018 9:56 am

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” SOP – Alynsky’s Rules For Radicals

March 1, 2018 10:26 am

Deplorable Climate Scientists Have Destroyed Credibility of Science
Here at CO2isLife we have always maintained that CAGW isn’t a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Science is an unbiased, impartial, objective, blind and unbelievably politically incorrect process. Science is the search for truth, no matter how ugly, racist, sexist, homophobic or politically inconvenient it may be. The facts don’t give a damn if … Continue reading
Can You Spot the Racist?
Where were the 500 Women “Scientists” when we needed them? The above videos highlight just how dangerous it is to entrust a Nation to Progressives. They have no principles other than those that gain them power. One day they are creating the KKK to terrorize the black community, the next day they are offering addicting … Continue reading

Leo Smith
March 1, 2018 10:28 am

Maybe its because old white males are the ones who actually got to study science PROPERLY

March 1, 2018 10:50 am

So, does old age cause climate denialism? And only males are at risk? The CDC needs to get involved in this.
Climate denialism — the next major health crisis for aging men. Drug companies, welcome aboard the money train here. Does my health insurance pay to treat this? Can I claim disability because of it?
Just thinking outside the box. Did I say “thinking”? I meant “joking”.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 2, 2018 6:59 am

I love your point.
Does baldness increase the risk?

Bruce Cobb
March 1, 2018 11:37 am

Bob’s convoluted, irrational “thinking” is indicative of the same characteristic malaise that all Believers have: an inability or unwillingness to use logic, and favoring the irrational. It is the old classic/romantic split Robert Pirsig talked about.

March 1, 2018 11:49 am

If someone tries to use the age, gender or race of an opponent to convince you that their opponent’s arguments are wrong then beware. It means that the opponent has the stronger arguments. What they are asking for is that you not give that person justice because of their age, gender or race. Just like in the novel To Kill a Mocking Bird where a black man was convicted on the word of a white man even though it was clear that the black man could not have committed the crime due to a physical disability. Why did the jurors not acquit? Because he was one of ‘them’. In the book the jury deliberated a long time implying that some of them wanted to acquit.

March 1, 2018 12:52 pm

Don’t forget Bill Nye. He was attacked for being white and male. Funny how those he supports turned on him.
Bill Nye “Is Not The Right” Guy Would Prefer an Ice Age Over the Current Warming
The liberal crocodiles are continuing to circle Bill Nye, as the campaign to undermine him from the left continues. First the “March for Science” was displeased that he was too white, male, rich and presumably heterosexual, and wasn’t the best face for their “progressive, inclusive, diverse and nondiscriminatory” march. Now the ultra-liberal New Republic Magazine has their knives … Continue reading

March 1, 2018 12:53 pm

Deplorable Climate Scientists Have Destroyed Credibility of Science
Here at CO2isLife we have always maintained that CAGW isn’t a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Science is an unbiased, impartial, objective, blind and unbelievably politically incorrect process. Science is the search for truth, no matter how ugly, racist, sexist, homophobic or politically inconvenient it may be. The facts don’t give a damn if … Continue reading

Reply to  co2islife
March 1, 2018 2:58 pm

Pure science is on nobody’s side, else it’s not pure science.

Reply to  drednicolson
March 1, 2018 3:00 pm

Pure science is on the Data’s side. The numbers speak and the scientists listen.

Reply to  drednicolson
March 2, 2018 6:52 am

Pure science is on the side of those siding with pure science; sure, that’s a tautology.
At science shop the sign reads:
“in god we trust, all other bring data. Guess and model not accepted”

March 1, 2018 1:18 pm

Group Think does not have all that much ‘think’ involved in it.

March 1, 2018 1:47 pm

I’d really like to believe that global warming, IFF it exists as described in popular literature on the subject, has discrete and scientifically discernible causes and effects which can be clearly discerned, logically described, successfully and in some measure addressed. I’ve spent many years doing real, useful, rigorous science for a living, and I’m not alone. Why, I wonder, is discussion of this subject so deeply shrouded in sanctimony, hyperbole, and outrage? What could be more likely to turn off rational citizens than that?

Northern Eye
March 1, 2018 1:49 pm

Hmm – I’m a female and hard core skeptic (PhD in earth science). I must be incapable of understanding the subtle arguments of the opposition, or weak and bamboozled by old white men, or be a self-loathing male supremicist, or whatever…. (sarc off).

Gunga Dn
Reply to  Northern Eye
March 1, 2018 2:19 pm

I’m an old white guy .
(Well, mostly white. I do a few spots and patches that aren’t “white” that my wife would like a doctor to take a look at.)
I’ve never met “Northern Eye”.
From her comment, I can only surmise that one of my minions has failed in its mission.
I will toss more Twinkies with eyeballs at her.
She will succumb!
(Am I supposed to turn “sarc on” before I turn “sarc off”? 😎
PS Does a “8-)” qualify as a “sarc tag”? 😎 …er… 8-( … uh … OK. I give up.
(Double negatives, double positives, not sure how they apply to sarcs 8-)(

March 1, 2018 2:06 pm

When gender or race politics is all the left has they are out of ammo .
Actually a growing number of young people have figured out the global warming con – game
so all those white mammas and papa’s can hand off the truth torch knowing it’s in good hands .
One thing is for sure over 99.99 % of all people have no idea or care who Bobby Ward is .

March 1, 2018 2:34 pm

This is all a bunch of juvenile name calling.
Grow up people.

Reply to  TDBraun
March 1, 2018 3:04 pm

Sometimes ridicule is the only proper response.
You party-pooping ageist, you! 😉

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  TDBraun
March 1, 2018 3:55 pm

They started it.

Reply to  TDBraun
March 2, 2018 5:53 pm

oo er u calln a joovenile?
gr’p yerslf….

John Williams
March 1, 2018 4:48 pm

At least the Texas school system has the gender thing all figured out. Now they can cancel all girl’s sports and save a lot of taxpayers money by simply calling it the Wrestling Team.
In my day we filled out forms to participate in sports that asked what sex we were. Then they changed it to gender. Are they even allowed to ask for that?

John Williams
Reply to  John Williams
March 1, 2018 4:49 pm

Oh, what a shock. the person won two years in a row!!

Reply to  John Williams
March 2, 2018 6:42 am

When I was in high school, I was assigned to the boys team, I wasn’t given a choice.
I was definitely born too soon.

Reply to  John Williams
March 2, 2018 6:43 am

Just outlaw this sexist system of by gender/sex competition, and everything will be fine. Well, except of course women will be wiped out of most sports (and men from a few other sports) for all practical purpose. Few sports, like shooting, curling or diving, chess and electronic sports, could have no issue.
But, eh, that’s the price of gender/sex equality

Javert Chip
March 1, 2018 6:07 pm

What the hell?
I wake up this morning to this WUWT thread, and initially assumed it was satire. I have no idea who Bob Ward or Jaime Jessop are (the more I read, the less I want to know), but one (the female) accuses Bob (apparently an old, white male) of assuming most climate skeptics are old white males.
Everybody on the planet knows most of the people on both sides of the argument are old, white & male. Bob (whoever he is) wins this argument, which Jaimie appears to be having with herself.
Have we had any “women against heat” marches? No
Have we had any “Mexicans against against heat” marches? No
Have we had any “blacks against heat” marches? No.
Polynesians against heat marches? Are you kidding?
Frankly, nobody give a crap (unless you are getting grant money…), and even the white guys are losing interest.

Reply to  Javert Chip
March 2, 2018 2:32 am

Did you actually read what I wrote Javert? The subtlety seems to have escaped you?

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
March 2, 2018 3:58 am

Should I unfollow Climate Chicks now, despite all the laughs their Tweets bring me? 🙂

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
March 2, 2018 6:10 am

Gender identity is verboten.

Reply to  DR
March 2, 2018 4:58 pm

In matters very personal to me, gender is highly relevant. I believe that my children appreciate my revealed preferences.

March 2, 2018 3:27 am

I count 6 women and have run out of fingers and toes for the men in the comments above. Similar figures for all the other posts today.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Bertrand
March 2, 2018 5:31 am

You counted 20 men and concluded they are responsible for 344 million views on WUWT? Your finger count is more credible than the survey cited in the article? 8.1% men and 7.1% women
Bertrand? a.k.a. Bob Ward

Reply to  Bertrand
March 2, 2018 6:44 am

Bertrand, so what?

Reply to  Bertrand
March 2, 2018 6:44 am

BTW, how did you assign the various pseudonyms?

Reply to  MarkW
March 2, 2018 12:27 pm

I didn’t assign the pseudonyms.
A binomial test on just this thread gives p < .01 under the null of no difference between the sexes.
Assuming it's a random sample (which it may not be in that men may be more likely to post on message boards), why isn't this a way to examine whether there might be a gender bias? Seems better to base one's views on some data rather than just throwing around opinions and the odd cherry picked counter-example.
I didn't make any comment on the old, or political views.

March 2, 2018 5:24 am

Brilliant, but may I point out that
>>Notwithstanding the fact of Bob’s oldness, his maleness, his lack of expertise, his apparent chauvinistic and dismissive attitude<<
You forgot baldness.

Reply to  Cube
March 2, 2018 7:11 am

Ah, yes, I did, in that particular sentence, though I make up for it elsewhere: “. . . . . . even worse, crusty old white balding men not dissimilar to himself.”

James Schrumpf
March 2, 2018 6:52 am

I visited the link for the Wave 21 survey, and found, unsurprisingly, some shenanigans with the reporting about it. There were two questions identified as being about “climate change”: how concerned is one about it, and what were the perceived causes of it. While 71% of respondents were at least “fairly concerned”, when it came to causes, the report said that “total human activity” was at 43% and “total natural processes” was at 14%. However, these were the actual results:

Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes 4
Climate change is mainly caused by natural processes 6
Climate change is partly caused by natural processes
and partly caused by human activity 43
Climate change is mainly caused by human activity 29
Climate change is entirely caused by human activity 14
I don't think there is such a thing as climate change 3
Don't know 1
No opinion 1
Total Natural Processes 10
Total Human Activity 42

Looking at those results, it’s apparent that only “entirely caused by natural processes” and “mainly caused by natural processes” were counted as “Total Natural Processes,” and “mainly caused by human activity” and “entirely caused by human activity” were counted as “Total Human Activity” (though they got the wrong answer somehow when they added 29+14; should have been 43% instead of 43%).
They left out the 43% who responded “partly caused by natural processes and partly caused by human activity.” The actual results should have been reported as “10% at least mostly caused by natural processes”, “43% at least mostly caused by human activity”, “and 43% partly caused by natural processes and partly caused by human activity.”
Does that mean the “both” respondent put the blame at 50% each for natural vs. human processes? Seems like a very poorly-worded question, and notice that CO2 wasn’t even put forth as a cause, but was rolled into “human activity.” That response should have been left out altogether, since the entirely/mainly qualification covered the same ground.
Also amusing was the response to the “carbon capture” questions. Only 4% “knew a lot about it”, with another 18% “knowing a little”, but a whopping 60% “never heard of it” and another 19% was “aware of it but didn’t know what it was.” For the support question, 54% were listed as “total support” with only 7% as “total oppose.” Yet another 38% that didn’t get mentioned neither supported nor opposed. I’d call that as 54% support and 45% not-support. That’s a pretty high level of support though, considering that only 22% knew anything about it at all. The power of the media, I suppose.

andrew dickens
March 2, 2018 9:04 am

In the UK (where debate over GW/Climate change is banned by order of the BBC), I have never met a woman who was a climate sceptic.
In the UK climate scepticism seems to be almost exclusively a old, male thing. Please feel free to prove me wrong, females of all ages and young men.

Reply to  andrew dickens
March 2, 2018 9:21 am

“Please feel free to prove me wrong, females of all ages and young men.”
Actually Andrew, I think it would be more encumbent upon you to demonstrate that your lack of ever meeting a female climate sceptic in the UK is proof that they don’t exist.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
March 2, 2018 4:24 pm

Apparently as a female sceptic you also don’t understand how science works.Well done.

March 2, 2018 3:55 pm

It is certainly worth us considering demographics
On the Alarmist side we have
: Subgroup#1 Professional PR people who work for lobby groups funded by oligarch’s named Jeremy Grantham who happen to run enormous Green-Hedgefund’s (oh that describes Ward)
On the Skeptics side we have
: None in Subgroup#1
…. Indeed very few PR professionals work for Skeptic bodies ..Maybe I’d count Marc Morano , whereas on the Alarmist side there are literally hundreds of these people :sitting close to the top of multinational eco-lobbyists like GP, WWF, FoE, the Futerra PR agency itself , There are whole building full of different green lobbying groups eg ECIU, Carbon Brief etc.
I am guessing the salary pool of Alarmist PR professionals is 100 to 1,000 times bigger than that paid out to Skeptics

March 2, 2018 4:30 pm

We skeptics SHOULD consider things like If our demographic has enough women or artists or teachers in ? and whether we should do something about it.
There are different types of skeptic, depending on their involvement
#1 Normal people who have the life experience to know that the lib-establishment plays us false narratives. In my area that is the majority of engineers and older people , whether they are male or female; they know that when Greenblob sells something as magically bad/good, that means is something to be suspicious of..they know solar/wind power is not magic and only exists cos of subsidies the public pay for.
#2 Blog followers/activists.. People like me and you that take a close interest and will travel to lectures/debates
We have to recognise that, most of us do seem to be male engineery types
Though we know somefemales hide behind male pseudonyms
I’d say generally ..all experienced engineers are Skeptics
… whereas almost all ARTISTS are alarmists except for Josh, and people like Scott Adams (Dilbert creator)
… We have to accept that in the education business there is tremendous intimidation against skeptics, so skeptical teachers have to stay in the closet
.. 95% of media people are lib-establishment so are alarmists
#3 The high level people – The scientists, publishers, politicians who have a high profile
People like Antony, Dr Roy Spencer, Curry, Nova , Andrew Montford etc.
There certainly are women, but at a conference a woman would be more likely to be only person on a panel etc.
Whereas for alarmists A lot of their high level people ARE women. There is no intimidation of them , things like the “think of the children narrative” sits well with them
…. In our culture some topics are more favoured by women : yoga, cooking, languages (not necessarily thru genetics etc. ..everyone is equal and has a free choice)
Note how anti-MMR fanatics are much more likely to be women, and they’ll be other similar examples.
So BW is wrong to suggest that when a movement has a high number of females that makes it something that will be proved right.

March 2, 2018 4:53 pm

Maybe, as a (slightly) manic (former) beancounter I am being a tad biased, but I believe it is worth checking data claims against the original data. I have examined Bob Ward’s following claim.

A tracking survey commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy showed that, in March 2017, 7.6% answered “I don’t think there is such a thing as climate change” or “Climate change is caused entirely caused by natural processes”, when asked for their views. Among men the figure was 8.1%, while for women it was 7.1%.

From the data in the tracking survey, I found (in ascending order of importance)
1. When rounding, use the conventions of rounding. 8.17 – (46+43)/1090 – and 7.16 – (37+41)/1090 – round to 8.2 and 7.2.
2. When opinion poll experts take time to weight their results for accuracy, one should not take the raw data. On this basis, Ward should have reported 6.7% for females, 7.6% for males and 7.1% overall.
3. If males tend to be more sceptical of climate change than females, then they will be less alarmist than females. But the data says something different. Of the weighted responses, to those who opted for the most extreme “Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes“, 12.5% were female and 14.5% were male. Very fractionally at the extreme, British men are proportionality more alarmist than British women than they are sceptical. More importantly, British men are slightly more extreme in their opinions on climate change (for or against) than British women.
I have the links to check the data for yourselves. My summary table of the opinion survey is below.comment image

Pamela Gray
March 4, 2018 8:50 am

I am a global warmer. I believe it is warm and it may get warmer. This isn’t just my belief. All paleodata indicates it should be warm right now. Who the hell says it should be colder right now????
That said, some thousands of years from now, it will get colder.

Verified by MonsterInsights