Geek slapped

James Wilsdon has set down his views on the Royal Society elections at the Guardian. This has provoked Bob Ward into one of his inimitable responses. Wilsdon, however, seems more than up to the task of fending off the slings and arrows of outrageous Bobisms. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

I'm also pleased to note that my time as director of science policy was less controversial than Bob's own; years later, we were still clearing up problems caused by Bob's ham-fisted approach to the communication of climate science and climate policy; a service which he now provides with his unique brand of terrier-like tenacity for the LSE's Grantham Institute.

Ouch.

Comments

[Richard Drake]

Further highlights from Wilsdon:

Bob, it's been a pleasure to debate this with you. I'm more than happy for you or anyone else to challenge my views. And, I should add, it's a privilege to be be accused of ad hominem attacks by such a master of that craft.

and from Ward responding to David Colquhoun:

The election process for Royal Fellows is consistent with the election of all other categories of Fellows and if you bring it in to disrepute, then you cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Royal Society itself. Is that your intention?

Rather a good question. If Colquhoun answers yes my respect for him will increase.

But most interesting is Wilsdon's characterisation of Ward's 'ham-fisted approach to the communication of climate science and climate policy'. About time.

[JEM]

So Ward does not believe that the RS casts enough doubt on its own legitimacy?

[Tim Worstall]

Yes, Ward. I did something at Forbes pointing out that Grantham was wrong (no, simply, wrong). Ward then tweeted that I was a market fundamentalist.

Well, D'oh!

[Richard Drake]

Reading Tim's cherished memories of the Grantham man, the phrase "form an orderly queue" springs to mind.

[Jack Hughes]

I'm saddened to read Athene's stuff about diversity in science.

Firstly because I naively hoped she meant new fields of study or new approaches in existing fields.

But no it's the olde Diversity 1.0 stuff about women with a cursory mention of race/colour. Very cursory - looks like an afterthought.

What really saddens me about this is that I hope she wants a world where people can advance on their own ability and work. A colour-blind, sex blind world of double-blind tests where people, theories, academic papers, everything else, is selected on merit and merit alone.

A Royal Society for networking and schmoozing is the opposite of this. Even if she gets more women and black people in the inner circle it's always going to work against people who live outside London, people who cannot attend meetings, and socially inept people.

Sad.

[Ben Pile]

I don't think it can be fair to put responsibility for all the "RS's ham-fisted approach to the communication of climate science and climate policy" down to Bob, as Wilsdon does... The nonsense was only slightly moderated after Bob. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/10/what-next-for-the-royal-society.html

[Greg Cavanagh]

Bob's statement to James is that "it's always been done like this. If you didn't like it, why didn't you change it while you were director?". A good question.

I get a strong sence that there is a lot more behind the scenes than what is being presented.

[Richard Drake]

Ben: I totally agree. But what Wilsdon says of Ward is both accurate and richly deserved. As Greg says, there is no doubt much we don't know. But when did one RS upholder of consensus last say something this true about another? I certainly felt an immediate need to encourage all concerned :)

[Russell]

Given Prince Charles FRS's embrace of homeopathy and suspicion of GM crops , I suspect the RS wants Andrew in to give Paul Ehrlich someone he can talk to without boring the other members.

[Jack Savage]

It is rare to discover an invariable guiding principle in life, but I have had no problem now for years with:

"It is impossible to be too rude about , or to, Bob Ward."

[Stephen Richards]

Ouch, that's gott hurt a little. Poor old Bob's ego.

[KnR]

Its one thing that has always surprised me that Bob 'fast fingers ' Ward is actual no good at his job of spinning and BS'ing , and yet he continues to have no issue finding work.
Its not has if there not plenty of people out their who work has professional liars ,and AGW attracts them like bee's to honey , so why do they keep using him ?

[flaxdoctor]

KnR,

I've always assumed Comical Bobby's continued employment in a role he's so patently unsuited and unqualified to do simply MUST be a black ops job by the malign forces of Big Oil.

[Jimmy Haigh.]

I can't find a link to Bob Ward's reply. Is it somewhere in Wilsden's article?

[Messenger]

Jimmy Haigh
The answers from Ward are in the comments under Wilsdon's article in the Guardian (link in post above)

[Jimmy Haigh.]

May 7, 2013 at 7:41 AM | Unregistered Commenter Messenger

Thanks!