Bob Ward loses again
Ward 0, Lukewarmers 3
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has issued a ruling regarding a complaint by Mr Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, about an article by Matt Ridley in The Times.
The article in question, “Politics and science are a toxic combination” is here behind The Times paywall and is available in full at The Australian. It discusses the fuss over climate scientist John Bates saying that another climate scientist had his “thumb on the scale”, and recalls some previous examples of dubious behaviour from climate scientists. But please don’t click on the link and read Ridley’s article, because Bob Ward thinks it’s misleading.
IPSO dismissed all of Ward’s complaints, writing for example
While the Committee noted the grounds for the complainant’s disagreement with the columnist (and with Dr Bates) in relation to these matters, the columnist had not failed to take care over the accuracy of these claims, and it did not establish any significant inaccuracies in the column’s discussion of these issues…
His views, however controversial, did not raise a breach of Clause 1. There was no breach of the Code in relation to his discussion of these issues.
This is not the first time that Bob Ward’s complaints have been rejected by IPSO.
Ruling 00685-15 dismissed Bob’s complaint about an article by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday, Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right (if you must read the article, do so with caution and please bear in mind that Bob thinks it is inaccurate). IPSO said that Rose’s article was not misleading, and the complaint was not upheld.
An earlier ruling in 2014 also involved a Rose article in the Mail, “Exposed: Myth of Arctic Meltdown” (I can’t find a link to the text of this article). This was about the claims from Al Gore and others that the Arctic would probably be ice-free in summer by now. Ward made a number of silly complaints regarding what he thought Rose should have written in the article. Again, the complaint was not upheld.
Update, August 2018: Bob Ward loses another IPSO complaint, this time in relation to an article in the Telegraph by Christopher Booker.
Ridley as the aggrieved party is entitled to draw attention to the ruling. But should the rest of us bother with it? Ward’s object is to get attention – so better to ignore him.
I am not sure that attention-seeking is Bob Ward’s primary motive. More likely, by dashing off a missive it will create a right stink. The Times, Matt Ridley and IPSO have all spent a great deal of time engaged in the investigation. The lawyers would have been involved as well. With Bob Ward around, standing up to the climate faith is very costly. Basically, he is the MSM paid equivalent of an internet troll, diverting the conversion away from any due diligence of public policy.
“We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right”
Reminiscent of the Met Office 2 days ago – “We said the Central England Temperature record showing 2007-2016 was the warmest decade in over three centuries… but we’re only 0% sure we were right”
Thanks to xmetman for spotting:
A correction was made at 12:30 27/07/17 removing a reference to the Central England Temperature record showing 2007-2016 was the warmest decade in over three centuries as it is not correct.”
Osseo, if he was just a random nobody I would agree with you. But he’s employed as a spin doctor by one of our leading climate research units and universities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul. Surely then all the more reason to ignore him. There’s nothing more galling to a leading climate research unit and university than to be shunned. By all means point out obvious lies or misunderstandings (leading climate research units and universities like them even less) but opinion pieces can safely be ignored (unless you are into stick poking).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Disagree with all who say this shouldn’t be here. It’s excellent news, that shows UK law is not a total ass when it comes to press freedom and concern for accuracy. Shout that from the rooftops.
I agree Richard. Let anyone publish what they like, so long as it’s not obviously and deliberately disruptive. I have often championed dissent and those that practice it on sites such as this. Even someone shouting insults can be amusing if their”efforts” are left up for a short time so that everyone can laugh. I suppose such items are moderated out here – spoilsports!
I even feed trolls (being one myself elsewhere).
Does this site delete very many posts?
That is something I have not noticed.
The Grantham Institute has two scions, one at LSE, under the chair of Lord Stern and the other at Imperial, under the guidance of Sir Brian Hoskins. Bob Ward is Director of Communications for both.
They are currently seeking to fill four lectureships:
Job Title: Lecturer in Climate Change and the Environment – 4 posts
Department: Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Faculty of Natural Sciences
Salary: £46,970 to £52,350 per annum
It seems they are seeking political scientists…
“The successful candidates will have a broad knowledge of global climate and environmental issues and an awareness of relevant government and business interests, preferentially having provided advice on such areas to stakeholders in government and business. Evidence of attracting research funding and/or bids for other financial support, or an equivalent measure of impact, together with experience of planning and undertaking effective collaboration with external partners, are also essential.”
They are a progressive institution:
“Committed to equality and valuing diversity. We are also an Athena SWAN Silver Award winner, a Stonewall Diversity Champion, a Disability Confident Employer and are working in partnership with GIRES to promote respect for trans people. The College is a proud signatory to the San-Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which means that in hiring and promotion decisions, we evaluate applicants on the quality of their work, not the journal impact factor where it is published.”
There is an interesting advisory board, which includes Sir Ed Davy, the co-executive director of Greenpeace, the much travelled (literally and in the NGO world), Jennifer Morgan, the presidents of the US NGO’s WWF-US and Environmental Defense, Lord Rees, Lord Stern, Lord Browne, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and other members with a commercial interest in CO2 policies:
Lots of economics, social justice and modelling. Pure climate science? Not so much.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh, also on the advisory board is Potsdam Director John Schellnhuber, climate advisor to the Pope. Until last year Lord Stern was on the science advisory board at Potsdam, as was the aforementioned Jennifer Morgan, a former advisor to Professor Schellnhuber whilst in charge of international climate matters for WWF and also an advisor to Tony Blair.
The Grantham Institute has major input into UK policy via membership of the Climate Change Committee, notably Sir Brian Hoskins and previously for some time, economist Sam Fankhauser, (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sam-fankhauser-137b1ab)
Fankhauser was at one time working with Lord Stern at the IdeaCarbon Group, where ex-IPCC boss Christiana Figueres was also gainfully employed before the UN job:
LikeLiked by 1 person
remember the punishment is the process.. and it also will deter others, who don’t have the resources to defend themselves, and to make editors nervous/shy away form these areas.
when UEA went after Delingpole
The first complaint from UEA was this:
“In particular, the complainants were concerned that the blog posts described Professor Phil Jones as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”. They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews” –
The Press Complaints Commission ruling explains it’s decision on the first blog post with evidence provided by the Telegraph:
Through its correspondence the newspaper had provided some evidence in support of the statements under dispute, and the columnist had included some of this evidence in the second blog post under discussion. In relation to the columnist’s description of Professor Jones as “FOI-breaching, email-deleting”, the newspaper had provided extracts from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”, and another email in which he had written
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”. – Press Complaints Commission ruling
Absolutely give Bob ward attention about his.. Grantham should be embarrassed by his actions.. but, again, the punishment is the process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ward carries out these assaults on free speech and rational thinking as part of his description.
It is interesting to see how intertwined and lucrative the climatocrats really are…
This story is now in the Press Gazette:
Bob Ward is trying to cover up all the environmental malfeasance which has happened over many years. It will never work. Perhaps he would like to wriggle out of why CO2 levels were 4500ppm during the Ordovician Ice age. CO2 levels so high yet it was so cold! And today’s levels just 385ppm! He needs to be careful as people are already angry about being duped by the environmental movement.
He finally won one:
Bob is trying to keep the sinking ship of bogus climate science afloat.
Why doesn’t Calamity Bob persecute people who claim Arctic sea ice is rapidly disappearing? His chances of making that stick would be better than his usual failure rate.
Bob Ward will keep coming back. The strategy appears to be to make it hugely costly for any newspaper to challenge climate ideology.
The only comfort is that it demonstrates alarmists cannot win on a level playing field, so they the use effort to nobble valid criticism, including creating prejudice against opponents.