Monday
Oct242016
by 
Josh
Josh Bulldog Bob
Oct 24, 2016 Climate: Ward Josh Stern To tell the truth, there has been very little that has piqued my interest in the climate scene since my long break began all those months ago.
But my goodness, David Rose's splash in the Mail on Sunday over the weekend was something else wasn't it? Those paragons of virtue at Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, overseen by our old friends Nick and Bob, have been, well, nicking other people's results and passing them off as their own, the better to fleece the taxpayer of a bob or two (or nine million).
That certainly made me sit up and take notice.
Here's Josh's take...
Reader Comments (118)
@mark
As I said, "intends" refers to "gain" rather than to "deception".
It is for others to judge whether this is mountain or a molehill. I would expect the latter.
My understanding is that the ESRC had been instructed to give Lord Stern a large sum of money, regardless of the quality of the proposal.
Looks like there are certain people deploying the Clinton defence here...it was never their intention to defraud the tax payer and was just a mistake and lessons will be learnt and no money will be refunded nor will anyone be held accountable save for those of the wrong political persuasion.
Oh look...squirrel.
Mailman
Richard,
Quite remarkable. Well done. You managed to get your accusation of fraud published in the Sunday Mail. Now you're saying that you doubt the errors had any impact because the result was largely independent of the quality of the proposal. If so, how can any deception have had any influence on the result and, hence, it can't really be fraud even if it was intentional?
@wottsywottsywottsywottsywotts
You may recall our initial discussions about whether have the IQ to be a physicist?
The defence I offered above would expose a greater scandal.
Richard,
IIRC, you stated that I couldn't possibly be one, which is clearly not true. Whether my IQ is sufficient, or not, I am one. What you say above could expose a bigger scandal, but that would reflect on the funding council, not on the Centre. I encourage you to go ahead with your expose.
I always wonder when the usual suspects rush over to defend bad behaviour, do they do it to protect the cause or because we have a different idea of how honest people should conduct themselves? Do they genuinely think it's no big deal or are they justifying something they do themselves but deep down know is wrong?
I've always thought the 'me too' attribution of names on a paper a bit suspect. It gives a paper more gravitas to be associated with more names and gives the names, more papers to justify their careers. It's almost as if they don't have anything tangible they can point to as evidence they do anything. Is that why the CCCEP has to list anything remotely relevant (or not)? Is it because they've never actually done anything worthwhile?
Oct 25, 2016 at 3:00 AM Phil Clarke:
When trying to put down Anthony Watts, you quote:
"it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century."
"The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago."
Where is the conflict between those two statements?
You also say "so they can dismiss the findings of the world's science academies" This sounds very grand, but the world's science academies all have the same hymn sheet and very often the same core of people. Also the numbers of economists and NGO's in many cases rivals the number of actual scientists. In the main they also control the scientific journals, as a look at the editorial boards will show.
There is a new Stern Review, this time on Research, how ironically appropriate:
https://theconversation.com/stern-review-says-little-about-how-ref-has-affected-teaching-65853
"In the super-inflated market for star footballers, there is one thing a striker cannot do: move his winning goals to his new club. Not so in the almost equally inflated market for “star academics”. Here, researchers can transfer the credit for their publications to a new employer, at least for the purposes of the Research Assessment Exercise, the process of evaluating and ranking all university departments in the UK.
This is just one of the system’s absurdities that the long-awaited review by Lord Nicholas Stern wants to put right. The review, which was published over the summer, made a few well aimed recommendations to correct the most obvious anomalies of the Research Assessment Exercise, or REF.
The REF is a five or six-yearly evaluation of the research quality of each and every university department in the UK by panels of experts made up mostly of academics themselves. A great deal hangs on these evaluations, including institutional reputations, individual academics’ careers, student recruitment and opportunities for further research funding.
What the review refuses to notice is the extent to which the REF has turned academic research from a vocation to pursue knowledge and scholarship into a tyrannical game of “hits” in “top journals”. This has contributed to a massive growth in the numbers of research journals, with about 250 new ones starting every year. The number of published articles has also ballooned to over a million a year. Yet most of them languish unread and uncited."
Ken Rice -- IIRC, you stated that I couldn't possibly be one, which is clearly not true. Whether my IQ is sufficient, or not, I am one. --
You can't possibly be a physicist. You spend all of your time trolling the internet. You're one of the most prolific people blogging/tweeting about the climate debate in the Anglosphere. You're words are to be found on almost every blog where there is a danger that conversation might develop. It's *weird*.
You should take a break. Have a cup of tea. Go for a walk. Get a hobby. You write more than you think. And then you have an overwhelming expectation that people indulge your low-quality bilge, even though you admit on your blog that you're only trolling -- that it's not worth investing any effort into understanding the 'debates' you, or your trol pals enter.
Josh. I doubt that the late great Ernie Wise would appreciate his catchphrase being used by an alien bulldog, especially in this context.
Ben,
You wouldn't be stalking me, would you?
Of course Ken Rice aka "And Then There's Physics", never really intended to steal web traffic from 'Watts Up With That" by having a website called "Wotts Up With That". It was just an unfortunate accident.Could happen to any
dishonest person.As if popping his head up from behind my bins, and between the washing on my line, in my back yard, binoculars hanging around his neck...
You wouldn't be stalking me, would you?
Dennis, you can still download from Heartland a report from Watts and D'Aleo stating it is impossible to claim warming as the data has been so tampered with and so many stations 'dropped out'. But on his blog, a short time after publication and when the BEST results emerged Watts does a one-eighty and tries to rewrite history to pretend that warming was 'never in contention'.
I know, situation normal, but a man of integrity would ensure the report, and its scurrilous accusations of malfeasance, was withdrawn.
And if you can bring yourself to have a look at the WUWT backcatalogue you'll find many threads featuring an outspoken defender of the party line commenting under the name 'Smokey'.
Smokey, aka Dave Stealey is actually the owner of several WUWT user names, dbs, dbstealey being two of the others and it turns out Dave was covertly acting as a moderator on the very threads to which he was contributing shonky logic and even shonkier charts using his Smokey persona. Just to make sure nobody else got a fair shake.
The WUWT site policy warns comments from sockpuppets risk being deleted and further warns that
Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest.
I'm accused of putting Anthony down; seems to me he does a creditable job all by himself.
The CCCEP's accounting is one thing
But have the Stern's predictions come true ? ..It's nearly 2017 ..and I think he was way off
@stewgreen
Pielke Jr checked one of Stern's forecasts. It's only 400% off.
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/790620469686775808
stewgreen, getting predictions right,, has nothing to do with getting paid in climate science. Performance related pay would save taxpayers a lot of money that could be put to better use.
Yes, there is the scandal, the crime, the tort, whatever. Every man, woman, and child on earth has been damaged by Stern, but what's the cure, where's the redress?
================================
Dear Bish, if my article has the effect of hastening your return to regular blogging, it will have been worth writing for this alone. You are much missed.
Pielke Jr checked one of Stern's forecasts
Page Reference? I don't recall such a precise prediction. Dr Pielke is only giving his own paper as a reference and its $35 to read.
Good article, David, and I fully agree that BH should resume.
It used to help keep me sane, but now....
I think I found it.
And in the footnote (27), this methodology is given:
As a first approximation let's increase Stern's starting number (0.2%) by a fixed 2.5% annually since 2006. That's 0.265% (yeah, I know spurious accuracy), even using 0.3% only gets you to 0.269% of GDP.
So I don't know the origin of Pielke's 0.6% global GDP. That would be a rise of 200% over just 10 years. The actual report seems to say 0.5%-1% by midcentury or between 250% and 500% but in 34 years from now. I must be missing something. Anyone help me out? I don't tweet.
Having said that, I found a free copy of Pielke's paper and he makes some valid points about the basis of Stern's extrapolations. Apart from anything else a glance at the Munich Re data is enough to see that trying to make a linear fit to such noisy data is not going to tell you much, as a prediction or as a falsification. Also Stern assumed 'rising global temperatures', when we know that for much of the last decade temperatures were below model projections, even as they now seem to be 'regressing to the mean'.
as they now seem to be 'regressing to the mean'.
Oct 25, 2016 at 5:11 PM | Phil Clarke
"Grantham's investment philosophy can be summarized by his commonly used phrase "reversion to the mean." "Wikipedia entry for Jeremy Grantham
Is it a Freudian slip, that you misquote Grantham when referring to his lackey?
Like many questionable practices, its not so much the initiating "misdemeanour" but the later coverups, attempts to explain away and outright lies that follow that are so insulting and objectionable.
Josh - bulldogs are a well loved and admired breed. Perhaps alien equivalents have similar attributes. Thus bulldogs are being done a great disservice by being linked to Ward. IMO he should be depicted as an alien scumbag.
OMG that Josh drawing is OOO-some !!
ACK 6:35,
1st Para 10 out of 10! No need to try harder.
2nd Para, Slimebag as opposed to Scumbag? Slimatology is Bob Ward's area of expertise, and how Jeremy Grantham's millions are used.
Welcome back Lord Bishop! Andrew, we missed you and your activity on the internet.
llessur? least?
The slime farms must be cleaning their deepest anaerobic sewage lines this week.
All that is needed is a good dose of independent investigation and police involvement.
But is sure sounds like the slime spitters' are desperate to avoid allowing the light of truth into their application and green fund processes.
Any entity that would name itself the CCC(E)P either has a hell of a sense of humor or ought to be treated as the full-on watermelon menace they are.
golfCharlie. Slimebag/scumbag: depends if you wish to stress what he does or what he is.
So, is there going to be a winter this year or not?
(I have DiCaprio on the line)
Depends on his instructions to the pilot..
Ayla, diCaprio has made incredible financial committments to burn as much jet fuel as possible to make the major shipping routes ice free, and safer for seafarers.
It is thanks to Leo that I have never seen an iceberg when sailing in the Mediterranean and I am very grateful for his efforts.
The interesting thing is that the climate true believers can never simply acknowledge a mistake and move on. They seem to always go through stages of blaming the victim, denying that there's a problem, pretending that it's just a minor issue, issuing long winded distractions, and of course much hand waving. Then when the skeptics are once again proven right, pretending that it was their idea anyway.
ACK 10:18 the thing with greenslime and greenscum, is they are both associated with surface layers and photosynthesis.
Bottom-dwelling bog-squatters, releasing noxious sulphurous fumes would seem rather more appropriate, especially for those who appreciate John Steinbeck.
Ayla.
We are starving and many have left our community.
Your absence has been a trial.
We who watch Game of Thrones know for sure that Winter is Coming.
I don't believe AGW occurs in Westeros.
I've long been amused at the similarity in meaning between 'dregs' and 'scum'.
==========
hunter + others
I imagine that Jeremy Grantham believes he is saving the planet, and his name and legacy will live on.
I imagine the people profiting out of his genorosity lie to him aswell.
Bill Gates with his fabulous wealth has tried to help humanity. One of his projects has been Golden Rice. The Green Blob decided they don't like Golden Rice, though millions die for lack of it.
Jeremy Grantham has been ripped off by the likes of Ward and Stern if he thinks his millions have saved lives,, but legally, that is not fraud.
Ayla (halo be thy name).
We were remiss
Has the glorious day come?
We have been in great expectation ever since you informed us you had taken up you bassinet.
If it is/was a girl, did you call it Alyaette?
Hallo, and welcome back, Bishop
For " Nick and Bob" and "nick ...and bob " +1
Messenger
Jeremy Grantham may feel that "nick and rob" is more appropriate, when he reflects on value for money.
You don't think he's made a lot of money on this bubble? Where's the recourse for all those robbed?
==================
Heathen denier contrarians!!!
It was a trick question.
There have been no winters since they were declared a thing of the past.
Ayla, there haven't been many decent summers since we were told we would have to get used to more of them.
So much has not happened since Climate Science started their impractical guesswork.
Poor Ayla
You are confused
Too much methane in your cave? More maternal issues?
T'was not winters that were declared defunct, but snow.
Listen more to your Chief Druid's bucket.
What would she do on December 21st?
Stern's warping of the damage function. Say, it's jest a jump to the left...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkplPbd2f60
Did Lord Stern even write the Stern Review? Well, he gave his name to it of course, but the input came from AGW promoters.
"Walker Institute scientists invited to Stern Review launch" http://www.walker-institute.ac.uk/news/news_stern.htm
"Prof Julia Slingo and Prof Brian Hoskins were invited, as part of the small audience of business leaders, academics, government officials, journalists and senior Cabinet Ministers, to attend the official launch of the Report by Sir Nicholas at the Royal Society, in the presence of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Prof Julia Slingo said: “The publication of this report could not be more timely, given the commitment that the University of Reading has demonstrated by establishing its new Walker Institute for Climate System Research."
Hoskins became head of the Imperial Grantham Institute at the same time as Stern became head of LSE Grantham Institute.
Then we have the Tyndall Centre, started in 2000, by Mike Hulme with support from Pachauri's TERI. This was a spin off, there was a plethora of new climate institutes with government scientists as titular heads. As they are all reading from the same hymn sheet, it helps with the "consensus", when you can claim "the world's scientists agree". Well, 97% of them anyway.
"Government Scientist opens Climate Change Centre" January 2006
Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to HM Government, was in Cambridge on Friday for the official opening if the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research in the University’s Department of Land Economy, or ‘4CMR’ as it will be known."
The Director was Dr Terry Barker. He is now described as a Senior Fellow: http://www.4cmr.group.cam.ac.uk/directory/tsb1
In his opening remarks for 4CMR he said:
"It may seem astonishing, but the global climate models, providing governments with estimates of the costs of climate stabilisation, are nearly all reliant on one year’s data."
He thanked a company called Cambridge Econometrics for their modelling support. He was in fact chairman of the company he was thanking.
At the time of the Stern Review he was at the Tyndall Centre:
"Terry Barker, Rachel Warren, Robert Nicholls and Nigel Arnell were asked for their comments on various parts of the draft Stern report. Finally Terry Barker read and edited the Modelling Costs Chapter of the Stern Review."
He was a Co-ordinating Lead Author for IPCC TAR and for the 4th Assessment also.
Blair and Brown did have some some advice from outside:
http://www.solarnavigator.net/embassies/sir_nicholas_stern.htm (This link also has a summary of the Climate Change Act and links to much of the nonsense at the time, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm)
"LONDON -- Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a British government report said Monday, as the country launched a bid to convince doubters that environmentalism and economic growth can coincide.
Britain hired former Vice President Al Gore, who has emerged as a powerful environmental spokesman since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, to advise the government on climate change -- a clear indication of Prime Minister Tony Blair's dissatisfaction with current U.S. policy."
At Davos in 2007: "Sir Nicholas Stern has spoken out in favour of a global carbon tax, warning that global warming represents "the biggest market failure the world has ever seen".
He went on to help in founding Idea Carbon,
http://ideacarbon.com/about-us/advisory-board/Lord-Stern.htm
He became a climate adviser to HSBC, http://www.philstar.com/banking/412299/hsbc-sees-business-opportunities-low-carbon-environment,
He is a member of the Advisory Panel of the New Climate Economy:
http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/economics-advisory-panel
"We are working with a number of other institutions in various aspects of the research programme, including the World Bank and regional development banks, the International Monetary Fund, International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations agencies and a variety of other research institutes around the world.
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate was commissioned by seven countries – Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom – as an independent initiative to report to the international community."
http://newclimateeconomy.net/about/global-commission
He is on the Advisory Board of the almost now defunct Carbon Capture and Storage Institute set up by Kevin Rudd.
Lord Stern's economy has done very nicely out of the CO2 scares.
Hey, Beth, just this month I saw that show staged. It was pretty bad but a couple of the singers had their moments. Warped me right back to the first time I saw it.
===========================
Notice how the troll, ATTP, dodges Ben's observation that ATTP seeks to disrupt conversation in sp many places into an accusation against Ben. It's like noticing that one's yard always has dog poop left behind after a certain neighbor goes by walking his dog mentioning it to the neighbor and then being accused of spying on the neighbor. Except ATTP seems to be more of a self walking, talking dog.