Climate change PR chief attacks sceptics

At the weekend, I dared to mention on my blog that most people don't believe climate change is man-made, citing an opinion poll published in the Times, no less.

Bob Ward , Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute (Chaired by Lord Stern, no less!), then left the following comment on my blog.  I think it merits wider circulation.

Here is the PR head of a body that benefits from public money expressing outrage and indignation that an elected official should be even questioning the fact that we are about to spend £ billions on his pet subject. 

Read it for yourself;  The absolutist assertion that there is certainty within the scientific community, when there isn't.  The self righteousness - "your responsibility as a Member of Parliament".  The patronising tone - "help your constituents to understand what needs to be done."

One should not be surprised.  This climate change body is involved in actually making public policy, unlike anyone that you vote for.  In our post-democratic system, how dare those who trouble to win elections interfere with experts like Bob?

When I was a member of Friends of the Earth, I did believe human CO2 emissions were responsible for global warming.  It's just that the facts seem to have changed.  And so I've changed my mind. 

Mr Carswell,

As Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, can I express my shock to find a Member of Parliament so publicly parading his ignorance of climate chnage [sic].

I can assure you that while the UK public may be confused about the causes of climate change, scientists are not. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere should cause the Earth to warm. The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by more than a third since industrialisation. The Earth is getting warmer. All these facts are undeniable. The uncertainties are over the amount of greenhouse gases we will continue to pump into the atmosphere, how much the Earth will warm as a result, and just how big the associated impacts on the climate will be.

Therefore, I suggest that you accept your responsibility as a Member of Parliament by firstly ensuring that you are properly informed about this issue (say by seeking a tutorial from the Met Office or the Royal Society), and secondly by resolving to help your constituents to understand what needs to be done. Better to do that than to continue to promote political denial and complacency through your blog.

Posted on 16 November 2009 08:32 by Bob Ward

Posted on 16 November 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

There speaks a man busy feathering his own nest without regard for the taxpayer...

Posted on 16 November 2009 10:56 by Pete

"...say by seeking a tutorial from the Met Office."

Would this be the same Met office who in:

2007 predicted a dry summer with high temps - it was actually one of the wettest on record?

2008 predicted a mild summer with a few chilly spells - it was a hot summer?

2009 predicted a "Barbecue summer" - er did I miss that, July was the wettest of the Century?

If the MET office has such a spectacular record of getting it wrong regarding year forecasts, how can it predict changes in 50 years time with such apocalyptic accuracy?

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:03 by Paul Williams

What a patronising prat.

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:12 by Curbishly

You are too polite in your comments on this idiot's statement.

It is not so much a cull of these 'advisory' bodies as a total massacre!

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:29 by WitteringsfromWitney

Thhe sleight of hand here is "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere should cause the Earth to warm"

Indeed it should but by how much is the question. Most scientific opinion clusters round about 1/3rd of a degree from doubling CO2, though 1/10th of that would not be surprising. Since in the Medieval warming it was about 2 C warmer it is quite obvious that this is a very minor effect compared to solar variation (which we are currently seeing).

Mr Ward, a former member of the Royal Society, must know this though his boss, Lord Stern's expertise is purely in sucking up to ministers & not in global warming itself. This clearly makes him exactly the person to head that organisation.

"Sir Nicholas Stern made a revealing comment in his OXONIA lecture of January 2006: "in August or July of last year, [he] had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure".
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/01/last-year-he-had-idea-what-greenhouse.html

Lots of cushy government jobs though.

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:33 by Neil Craig

Many scientists(despite the threat to their future funding, and livlihoods) refuse to tow the party line on AGW. Fortunately some put integrity and science before financial gain. http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:36 by AJ

Douglas, I'm amazed at your moderation.. Don't worry - most sane people know that nincompoops like Bob Ward are only blinkered jobsworths. But it does show how vested interests will make the necessary changes to the government machine very difficult. Expect even louder squeals as the funding dries up!

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:38 by Alfred T Mahan

It appears that, according to at least one climate scientist at any rate, that we are far more likely to enter an extended period of global cooling. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3515/Prominent-Russian-Scientist-We-should-fear-a-deep-temperature-drop--not-catastrophic-global-warming

Global cooling is of course far more catastrophic than global warming. (At least with global warming food production would increase.)

I like this quoteÉ"...The Earth is getting warmer. All these facts are undeniable...." in spite of the fact that theres been no warming for 10 years and cooling has started.

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:39 by John Walters

Oh dear. We can expect that a smear campaign against you is being formulated, Douglas.

This jumped up civil servant is hardly an expert on climatology - neither is Stern.

The fanatics are losing the argument and getting desperate as their world taxation policy faces derailment.

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:50 by http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com

I believe Maoist China ran political indoctrination schools for those who dared to question the orthodoxy.

Posted on 16 November 2009 11:55 by It doesn't add up...

The other side of the coin may be to suggest that Mr Ward attends a tutorial with Nigel Lawson and Christopher Booker.

Interesting as ever to note the use of the word "denial" in his last sentence rather than the more accurate "heresy".

Repugnandi sunt citrulli: virides extra, ruberes intra.

Posted on 16 November 2009 12:49 by David Cooper

I am always reminded of the story of King Cnut (Thats how Wiki spells and quite apt)

Man is somewhat arrogant to think the Earth moves to his beat.

We are no doubt overdue another Mt St Helens eruption somewhere in the World - and a bigun will soon chill the place down.

As they have concluded you cant pay off the National debt by taxing cow farts - all energy users - you and me will have to pay for these scaremongers to scare us. ( Through the 80's they scared me at High School that it was the Bomb that was going to do for us)

Posted on 16 November 2009 12:50 by tim byram

Glad to see you put this up.

Note how he shows his contempt for his political foes -- they mustn't dare to even question what he wants to do. No dissent is permissible.

"As Policy and Communications Director ... I can assure you that ... scientists are "

So, a non-scientist, then? For who else could be so confident? Real scientists know better than to be this certain.

Posted on 16 November 2009 14:00 by Roger Pearse

Revoke his research grant and i bet you he will find another earth destroying catastrophy that will need researching (many of these AGW nutters were amongst the ice age mob remember).

This is what happens when you give goverments more power than a town hall clerk.

Posted on 16 November 2009 14:08 by chris southern

Are you aware, that Al Gore himself has also changed his views on the prominence of C02 in global warming?:

http://worldbbnews.com/2009/11/gores-spiritual-argument-on-climate/

The science, apparently, is NOT settled! Mr Carswell, I applaud your sceptical stance.

Posted on 16 November 2009 14:21 by Jay

Is it true that the man advising Brown who wants to force every home owner to install double glazing, is actually linked to a double glazing company?

The Sun is warming up - Fact! Are there aliens living there burning fossil fuels?

Posted on 16 November 2009 14:45 by Batty

As much as I "think" I disagree with you, you are starting to make me think about this issue a little more. My assumption has always been "the science is clear-cut, man-made global warming" is a given. But I'm starting to question my belief in those scientists that say that. I do have issues, specifically with Ian Plimer's scientifically unsound book - the ideas may have been valid, but his scientific methods aren't. But after all that, we will be, at some unspecified point in the future, experiencing a decline in oil reserves so it sort of makes sense to me to reduce my consumption (plastics, packaging, etc.), my fossil fuel use and become more sustainable no matter what the outcome of the great global warming debate actually is. It just seems to make sense to me really.

Posted on 16 November 2009 15:14 by James Bartlett

Mr Ward is not "a former member of the Royal Society"; he is a former employee of their press office, back while the place was run by the abominable Bob May. Ward clearly took a lot of pleasure in appearing on the BBC with the subtitle Bob Ward, Royal Society, and pretending that he was an actual scientist, but I'll bet he is just another media studies graduate, if that.

Posted on 16 November 2009 16:28 by Freddy

Climate Change is becoming the new religion of the 21st century, and non-believers are treated as heretics who deserve to be burnt at the stake!
You must in no way disagree with the new High Priest and his acolytes.

Posted on 16 November 2009 16:44 by Brian E.

It is fascinating to see how anyone who dares to question man-made climate change is subjected to such aggressive attacks.

The false assumption made, as usual, is that you are just ignorant of the subject. These people just cannot accept the truth - that more and more of us are looking into it and coming to the informed conclusion that it is all hugely over-exaggerated.

By the way, today it is the Grauniad attacking you!

Posted on 16 November 2009 18:07 by Paul

The only thing that would tempt me to vote for DC is if he gave an unequivocal promise that if elected he would abolish every quango/ government supported research institute. Those that do anything useful would easily find private funding.

Posted on 16 November 2009 18:28 by eddyh

Professor Richard Lindzen or Bob Ward ? You decide folks......

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

Resisting climate hysteria

by Professor Richard S. Lindzen

July 26, 2009

"A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing."

Posted on 16 November 2009 20:24 by Yorkshireman

"Climate Facists" - its the only description that fits.

Bob Ward is a paid-for lackey whose word I wouldn't take for the time of day, let alone the future of the planet.

The Climate Facists are like the Communists in Eastern Europe - they were all powerful as long as everyone feared them. Then when everyone stood up and had an "I am Spartacus" moment, and laughed at them, their walls collapsed. The Wizard of Oz behind the curtain exposed with their Climate Doom scenarios, based on discredited computer models.

You know they are rattled when they up the ante, step up the indignation. We don't believe you, Bob. We don't believe you "Lord" Stern. Vichy scientists, spin-doctors, we don't believe you.

Posted on 16 November 2009 20:30 by AndrewSouthLondon

This sort of thing if rife. I happened to hear a county chief of police speak the other day. He told everybody about how he wanted to deliver cultural change through social engineering. He absolutely believed he had the authority to pursue this agenda using his position, authority and public money.

I suggested that maybe, if he felt so strongly, he might want to leave his job and stand for parliament. Then, if people didn't agree with him, they could vote him out.

He didn't seem to feel he needed such a thing as public consent before enacting sweeping changes on the county with powers and authority never intended for such use. He was just as drunk on his power and moral indignation as this guy.

Posted on 17 November 2009 00:17 by Cat Out Of Bag

All of the average global temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are readily and accurately calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.

Data sources, an eye-opening graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true .

This research shows that there is no significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other added greenhouse gas.

Posted on 17 November 2009 00:37 by Dan Pangburn

Thanks Freddy for that correction about Ward not being qualified but just a PR flack. Though I am sometimes said to be oversceptical it was the opposite this time.

Posted on 17 November 2009 11:58 by Neil Craig

So this guy thinks all scientists everywhere are in agreement on climate change and he thinks YOU'RE ignorant, Douglas?

It would be laughable if this guy wasn't in charge of something that at least sounds important...

Posted on 17 November 2009 19:46 by Elliot Kane

Mr Pangburn (17 Nov 00:37

Why do your temperature anomalies over the last 100 years differ from other climate science papers (for and against AGW)?

You make it sound like you are all talking about the same thing, when clearly you are not. Your papers link to the source data doesn't work. You are not making things clearer. Looks like deliberate confusion to me.

Either the science is right or it isn't. Belief or denial doesn't come into it. Skepticism is the scientific way, and it works pro and anti AGW.

Posted on 19 November 2009 09:38 by Billy B

The temperature anomalies that I used in the Oct 14 paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true are from NOAA. The various reporting agencies use different (up to about 0.28 C different) temperatures to reference anomalies from. Also, The 5 different agencies are independent, have different sources and reduce the raw data differently. Thus they vary somewhat from each other. For some considerations, I average them all but the satellite data only goes back to 1979. They all usually agree within about +/- 0.05 C after accounting for different reference temps.

The first link in the pdf file didn't work for me either but worked using copy/paste to Google. The rest of the links worked OK for me.

The papers report the discoveries that were made during the research. The first discovery is that a graph of the energy equivalent of the time-integral of sunspot count appears roughly similar to the planet temperature run-up in the last half of the 20th century. The second discovery is a natural temperature cycle of duration 64 years and amplitude 0.45 C due to ocean turnover. When these two discoveries are converted to the temperature anomalies that they are proportional to and added together they, with astounding accuracy, overlay the measured temperature anomalies during the entire 20th and so far in the 21st century.

I really don't know why apparently no one considered the time-integral of sunspots before. Perhaps the scientists that did that work were not as familiar with the first law of thermodynamics as engineers are. I used the time-integral of sunspots which is proportional to energy and allows the use of the first law of thermodynamics. I have found where either time or amplitude of sunspots had been considered and found not to correlate very well but have been unable to find anywhere else that the time-integral of sunspots has been considered.

Posted on 20 November 2009 17:18 by Dan Pangburn

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

"The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)"

Posted on 20 November 2009 22:27 by Yorkshireman

Make A Comment