Thursday
Mar032011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill DownWard
Mar 3, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Ward A thread for those who want to discuss Bob Ward's recent piece at the Guardian, complaining about the Johnny Ball piece on the Daily Politics.
Interestingly the criticism is that nobody challenged Ball's views. This is odd because there was a studio debate immediately after Ball's recorded piece, but even then it's hard to take the article seriously when Ward and his ilk consistently refuse to engage in debate with sceptics because the science is settled.
Perhaps if the BBC were to hold a debate so that Ward could challenge away to his heart's content?
Reader Comments (35)
Just a quick note , CIF is clearly still very touching about the fact it send Bob Ward a certain persons article before it was published on CIF, for a unknown reason. So be aware if you mention this unethical practice, your post will be moderated.
Otherwise its Bob in attack dog mode and no attachment to reality is required.
Any evidence of an apology or acknowledgement from Ward over his deliberate evasion of the truth over percentages of CO2 that are man made?
I am sure that Ward thought carefully before demonising Andrew Neil, so why did he do it anyway?
It is like watching a goalkeeper repeatedly punting the ball into his own net. His own team will stop giving him the ball.
No mention of Philip Hammond's assertion about wind turbine subsidies, I notice...
There is no point trying to debate with Bob Ward. The man is an idiot.
Anyone who can complain about Ball asserting that "only 4% of the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere is put there by man", when none other than DEFRA supplies information for schools that states 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by man, isn't worth listening to.
Papers have challenged his assertions on CO2 exchanges but he ignores those. Papers have challenged his assertions that non absorbed CO2 simply stays in the atmosphere to build up concentration.
Ward is not a scientist. He is a PR turned activist possessing a partisan obsession with destroying anyone who disagrees with his side, not because they may be wrong, but simply because they are not on his side. He is given far more air time than he deserves and his behaviour undermines science.
That link to the DEFRA sponsored educational material on CO2...
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html
Hi Bob, past evidence suggests you read this!
Perhaps you could give some advice on good sustainable investments in the green economy?
You have the Jonah touch, everything you touch turns into a smelly, dead,, beached whale, that somebody else has to clear up, at their expense
The Grauniad is having a bit of a reality dysfunction. It takes a story about people attacking Ball and turns it into a story where the Bob, and the Grauniad's band of (unmoderated) believers attack Ball. It could just have ignored the original story, but now it's left a trail of examples of how climate extremists will attack anyone who dares defy the consensus. It's a novel way to do PR and kill a story.
More good PR for the LSE, just when they need it. Bob really is a class act - further evidence that the LSE have to be pickier about who they take money from.
Wildly off topic but this is fun. I went nuclear as the saying goes
http://my2050.decc.gov.uk/
The Bob is a class act. He's a PR hack working for a rather wealthy bubble speculator using the Grauniad to tell the UK's state broadcaster what their editorial policy should be. High on chutzpah, low on irony.
SandyS --
From your link: "The Department of Energy and Climate Change is keen to engage in an open and transparent debate around the choices and trade-offs the United Kingdom faces to reach the 2050 emissions reduction target."
But probably not so keen on debating whether such targets are worthwhile.
PR at the LSE are in crisis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12642636). The boss has been forced to resign because of his dealings (in his official capacity) with Muammar Gadaffi. This is clearly a job for ---Bob Ward! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It's PR Man!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/9813330
Deniers lack all scientific credibility and only exist because Exon-Mobil and the sinister Koch Brothers give them a lot of money.
They should not be appearing on the BBC at all.
So lacking in substance and so empty of meaning are these stooges that 'denier' is too small a word for them.
That suggests they've given it some thought which they haven't, unless mindless screeching discredited talking-points from the loony right blogosphere is thinking.
'Corrupt mendacious idiots' is much more to the point.
In the words of prominent Global Warming activist Margaret Thatcher they should be denied the oxygen of publicity.
That's you told....
LSE = Libyan School of Economics
Bob Ward's 'rant' should have made me angry - but it was so ridiculous it just made me laugh!
Is this Mr Ward (and the AGW movement's) "Joanna Lumley" moment ?
For those who may have passed this by, One Mr Woollas - immigration minister for the last government - was publically humiliated by well know UK institution - Ms Lumley - into changing government policy on settlement rights for ex-soldiers of the British Army.
This looks like AGW bullies and attach dogs ganging up on popular and well loved UK institution Mr J Ball. Bad move in my book, well bad for them anyway.
SandyS says - "Wildly off topic but this is fun. I went nuclear as the saying goes
http://my2050.decc.gov.uk/"
I notice there's a "Like" button on the site, but Id' bet there'd be a lot more hits on a "Don't be ridiculous" button.
Amazing to see the faithful on CIF collectively laying into the BBC for having the temerity to show a tiny glimpse of an opposing view!
What intrigues me is that the 'recommends' for the comments show a strong bias the other way - even my little remark last night about 'Baghdad Bob' has around 10x the approval rating of the warmist comments around it - I'm surprised the moderators put up with it!
Here's my 2050
http://my2050.decc.gov.uk?shared=true&user=&percent=4&s=33222030330333
My comment that it was a fatuous exercise and CO2 was good were ignored, wonder why.
The funny thing is, is that The Guardian has a Freedom of Speech online section. (Yes, I laughed as well)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/freedom-of-speech
Here we have the Guardian hosting comments by Bob Ward who is calling for those who he disagrees with to lose their voice. Irony doesn't do justice to describe such nonsense.
The Guardian's editorial response to attack all who voice dissent over climate change reminds me of a Mark Twain quote, "One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain't nothing can beat teamwork."
Bob Ward and the Guardian's Environmental team deserve each other.
At the end Andrew Neil said to Johnny Ball, "You must come back" - the discussion afterwards was only long enough for a couple of patronising putdowns from Hammond & Darling.
I look forward to Ball v Ward.
Ward is a scientist [geologist] with an unfinished thesis on palaeopiezometry, so he is able to understand climate science. He also headed the media team at the RS for eight years until 2006.
What s happened is that he has lost objectivity with the programming preventing hom from having a different viewpoint.
I was amused how Darling tried to imply that Ball's scepticism stemmed purely from the GCSE textbook. Desperate, indeed.
For a failed scientist name of Bob
PR is the only real job
With funding at LSE
Coming mostly from Gadaffee
Or even the climate change mob.
I look at the careers of David Bellamy and Bill Oddy and I see two not too dissimilar people, both keen on wildlife, both very funny and one seems to get dragged into every wildlife program on BBC, and the other hasn't been seen on BBC since he came out as not supporting the global stupid consensus.
As an occasional commenter here, can I just say that I'm embarrassed to share the same surname as Bob Ward.....
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/gaddafigoesgreen
'The Libyan government has announced the creation of what it claims is “the world’s first sustainable region”. It’s backed by architects Foster and Partners, enthusiastically endorsed by Sir Nicholas Stern – and directed by the Colonel’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.'
We're dealing with fascism using the mantra of sustainability to gain power, rather lack of it so the people starve/die from hypothermia in countries like ours.
Hi, How is this statement supported ' Ward and his ilk consistently refuse to engage in debate with sceptics because the science is settled. ' ?
@Hengist
I think the Bishop means 'Ward and his ilk consistently refuse to engage in debate with sceptics because "the science is settled" [ as far as Ward and his ilk are concerned].
Correct me if I'm wrong, Bishop.
"Foster and Partners"
There was a news item yesterday about their development at Masdar, in Abu Dhabi. It is, of course, 'zero carbon' although no-one bothered to ask or explain how this was possible. What they really meant, I think, was that non-electric cars were banned, but that isn't quite the same thing...
Link
That's the same Bob Ward who debated with Bjorn 'skeptical environmentalist' Lomborg at the RS on the BBC last summer, isnt it?
@Hengist
You are no doubt aware that Lomborg believes in AGW, so cannot really be classified as a wholehearted CAGW sceptic, but he is sceptical, he says, of the currently orthodox ideas for dealing with what are considered to be the problems.
I watched Johnny Ball, and was struck by his boundless optimism. "The world will be their oyster," he said of today's children. One never hears such refreshing optimism these days. It's all unrelenting pessimism, about everything, everywhere.
@Frank Davis
Try Matt Ridley's 'The Rational Optimist' (book or blog) to cheer you up. See blog link on RHS of Bishop Hill
Is that the only answer I am going to get? It's perfectly reasonable of me to ask for what supports the proposition that ' Ward and his ilk consistently refuse to engage in debate with sceptics because the science is settled. ' But all I've got is Messenger repeating it. Where I come from, supporting one's proposition means more than just repeating it, and if you can't do better, in this case the proposition is to misrepresent Bob Ward.