Bishop Hill Drivel ahoy
Jan 20, 2011 Climate: Ward Greens You always know when the Guardian knows it's publishing drivel. They switch the comments off. Today's contribution from Leo Hickman is one of these, and my goodness you can see why they wouldn't want anyone airing an opinion on it.
It turns out that GWPF has published its first set of accounts and that most of its income comes from donations rather than membership fees. Leo seems to have a problem with this, but I would have thought that the vast majority of charities working in the area of the environment are funded by donations from trusts and wealthy individuals. Or more likely different bits of government.
But more by way of donations than membership fees is all there is to this story, ladies and gentlemen. The rest is just innuendo, in a Guardian-y sort of way. That being the case, guess who pops as the article's talking head?
Yes it's dear old Bob. (Why do the Guardian still treat him as a reputable source?)
Responding to the publication of the foundation's accounts, Bob Ward , policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said: "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."
He continued: "We do not know whether the foundation's secret donors have vested interests in its campaign, which involves disseminating inaccurate and misleading information to the public and media about climate change, such as trends in global temperatures. This is outright hypocrisy from a group that constantly accuses climate researchers of not being open enough."
It's hard to know where to start with this, apart from noting once again that switching off the comments may have been wise. Well-funded? We really need a photo of the GWPF office. That's "office", not "offices", folks. And what about the rest of it? It's hilarious. I mean, we may not know whether GWPF's donors have vested interests (although they say that none are connected to the energy business), but we are 100 percent certain that Bob is funded by a single very wealthy environmentalist. We know that he is on the board of the big-oil funded Science Media Centre.
No shame, some people.
But still the Guardian are happy to publish him.
(With the comments off, of course).
Reader Comments (29)
Any bets went the Guardian goes out of business
Bob Ward ...funded by a Billionaire ...
One day, this silliness will end.
or perhaps not...
80 members would mean it has more members than climate scientists who support the "consensus".
This is good stuff.
I especially like this part:
Yup, just £0.5M of donations and 3 employees to stand up against the £Billions of government and industry funding behind weather scaremongering and climate profiteering.
Also a timely reminder to keep checking the charity commission website for the 10:10 accounts to see who funded the 'No Pressure' sceptic murder flick. I have a letter from DECC's Greg Barker MP with assurances that DECC and the Carbon Trust never gave money to 10:10 - but I'm pretty sure they must have received tax-payer funding at some point - although I expect it'll be well disguised in the accounts if they ever get published.
Bob Ward has become something of a CIF love bunny for some reason, its clear that someone at the Guardain likes him a great deal , given that they went against their own ethics in feeding him an article before publication on the web site, but who and why is a good question?
But he has certainly become favourite ‘uncle’ to go running to when they wish to dish the dirt but keep their own hands semi clean .
…someone at the Guardian likes him a great deal
Uum I wonder.
Will Hutton formerly on the board of Guardian News & Media and editor-in-chief of the Observer, and remains a columnist for both newspapers. He is a member of the Scott Trust since 2004 and a governor of the LSE.
Something about "throwing stones in glass houses" comes to mind Mr Ward
Ah well, your day of doom is nigh.
Enjoy the highlife while you can but don't come begging to my door for a crust or a glass of water.
"We do not know whether the foundation's secret donors have vested interests in its campaign, which involves disseminating inaccurate and misleading information to the public and media about climate change, such as trends in global temperatures.
I thought it was Bobs job to disseminate inaccurate and misleading information
Andrew,
Saying the Grantham Research Institute is funded by an environmentalist does not even begin to expose the tip of the iceberg!
Jeremy Grantham is a marketer and principal in a fund management firm that is very heavy into the marketing of their own "Green Portfolios". What better PR for a "Green Bubble Portfolio" scam than to create your own institute to saturate the media with pseudo-science which lauds your products?
Sorry, but I have to get this off my chest.
I HATE THE GRAUNIAD ! ! !
Better now. Deep breaths.
Do yo think that the Guardian's owners, if they have any money left, might have invested it with Grantham's green portfolios, and therefore they are all mutually dependent (and desparate}?
And then there is the BBC pension fund aswell to consider....
Follow the money, ah Mr Ward? was it like being a patsy to a green portfolio?
Related Topic: Check out AGU board member, Chris Mooney's post "Is Climate Denial Corporate Driven, or Ideological?" all the while shamelessly plugging General Electric a company making money hand over fist through the government mandated sales of CFLs, Wind Turbines and other "Green Products".
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-corporate-driven-or-ideological
Is Climate Realism being corporate driven or are select corporations, NGOs and government entities driving Climate Change Policy for their own enrichment?
A bit OT, but on the topic of GE; my daughter is working on a grade 7 science fair project. I found a wonderful experiment on the CO2 Science web site for her. She's testing how plant growth is affected by different levels of CO2 concentration in the air. To get the plants (peas) to sprout before they go into the "poor man's biosphere" (a number of empty 2 litre coke bottles) we bought a GE "plant light" bulb to act as a grow light. It says right on the box, "plant light 60," and the clerk recommended it. Lo and behold, we get back home and set up what we think is the grow light, only to discover that the fine print on the "plant light 60" box reads; "makes plants look healthier and greener." It's not a grow light at all. Feels like we've been swindled. In spite of this, the peas are happily sprouting. They go into the biosphere this weekend.
Got a link for that experiement B.O.B? It sounds like an ideal experiment to cover these objectives from the national framework for science:
- describe how natural and human processes have changed the atmosphere over time
- explain some of the changes that have led to the composition of the current atmosphere
And the kids would enjoy it. I love hearing them ask, "So why are we worried about CO2?"
Hang on, you mean to tell me that article was generated because the gpwf received a half million pounds in funding for it's financial year???
It seems the real issue here isn't really the amount of money it took in but the fact it's getting funding at all, according to the Eco nuts at the guardian!!
For the love of Allah, these green goons need to have their sense of perspective glands put back in (which were apparently removed at the same time as their common sense glands were taken out! :).
Imagine the outcry if the gwpf had received tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. I'd imagine dear bobs head would explode :)
Regards
Mailman
Btw, is it me or is bob ward turning into the Baghdad Bob of Climate Alarmism? :)
Mailman
Bob Ward’s latest hyperventilation on the GWPF seems pretty much on par for the Guardian. Paradoxically, one recommended first aid response to hyperventilation and asthmatic attacks is to have the patient breath into, and re-inhale from, a paper bag – the raised CO2 level has a pronounced calming effect!
"For the love of Allah, these green goons need to have their sense of perspective glands put back in (which were apparently removed at the same time as their common sense glands were taken out! :)."
They seem to be missing a great deal of subtle mental functions. You can include 'sense of humour' and 'sense of the ridiculous' too.
The article has a whiff of insecurity about it.
Why are they so bothered by the GWPF if it has only modest funding (and £500K is indeed modest) and is wrong about everything?
Why bother writing hit pieces in the Graun at all?
"Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."
What a ghastly hypocrite is Bob Ward. He is employed as propagandist by an organization bankrolled by one man: Jeremy Grantham (OK, two, if you include his wife Hannelore). So if we accept Ward's definition this "means" that Ward himself is "promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners" - two maximum.
Oh, and what about the Guardian? How many members does the Guardian Media Group have? Just one - it's owned by and has to conform to the requirements of the Scott Trust, set up to bankroll the political interests the Scott family. So, by Ward's definition again, it is "promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."
Still, look how far the Guardian has departed from the principles of the Scott Trust's founder C.P. Scott who wrote in 1921:
"Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. “Propaganda”, so called, by this means is hateful. The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard. Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint. It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair."
C.P. Scott would not recognize the current clutch of journalists and editors at the Guardian because they don't hold those values.
Journalists-Guardian Surely an oxymoron.
Don't forget that Bob Ward, is also a board member of the Science and Media Centre and is happy to take funds from EXXON Mobil, when it suits him....
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/funding.htm
and Shell,
and BP
and News International
and New Scientist, Met Office and many more
Bob Ward is listed here
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/smc_board.htm
For Aaliamzen:
Here's a link to the CO2 Science "experiments" page - you might have to scroll down a bit....fun stuff !!
http://www.co2science.org/education/experiments/global.php
“You always know when the Guardian knows it's publishing drivel. They switch the comments off”.
Comments are on at the latest Monbiot article at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jan/21/debate-issues-death-threats
Funders with vested interests?
And are there any parties with vested interests in alarmism, that are funding alarmism? Turns out there are - they're called governments, and their funding is four or five orders of magnitude bigger than all sceptic funding put together. Why is this so seldom metioned?