Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes...

Recently, the Institute of Physics in the UK contributed to the parliamentary enquiry into the CRU issue in the UK.

The statement has been picked up by deniers here and elsewhere as a major issue for Phil Jones et al. As always, deniers are deniers and tend to shoot themselves in the ass.

One of the major claims of the IoP submission was a call for openness. Fair enough. However, it went further into the realms of denialism making what are essentially claims of scientific misconduct (i.e., cherrypicking).

Of course, the IoP is a major organisation representing Physicists in the UK and this would be pretty damning if widely accepted. However:

The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work. The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries. An institute spokesperson said the submission was "strongly supported" by three members of the board. "All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously."

dinky

The call for openness...

The institute supplied a statement from an anonymous member of its science board, which said: "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious." It added: "The points [the submission] makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practised openly and in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong."

Evan Harris, a member of the science and technology select committee, said: "Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise."

...is a pretty restricted one. Only applies to others and not themselves. Who were the people who formed this submission?

Investigations are continuing, but it appears that the submission to the parliamentary enquiry was sourced from a small group of 'sceptics' within the IoP. Specifically members of the Energy Group. Who'd have thunk dat?

The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services.

According to Gill, Crestport offers "consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says that it has worked with "oil and gas production companies including Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman".

dinky-link

This will rumble on, and I expect that the IoP will be pretty embarrassed by this fiasco. They have already tried to clarify their position, but the pushing of denialist views (and Peter Gill has wacky views, lol) by what is meant to be a respectable scientific organisation will come back to bite them.

Sometimes it's good to give the kooks the stage.

As always, enjoy.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by melatonin]

The term is climate realists

reply to post by melatonin


Oh! The worry of those implications.
It seems that is all they seem to trade on these days regarding the CRU hack.
Oh! The worry.

The institute's submission, to the science and technology select committee, said the emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) contained "worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field".

I have a pretty simple solution to eradicate worry.
Show the research that is fraudulent that justifies the worry in relation to the integrity of the research undertaken and published by the field.

Oh! The worry!

This is the the real worrying here!

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change. www.guardian.co.uk...

No implications here. Plain and simple.

But the deniers won't be quote mining for implications to worry about amongst that lot will they!

S and F.



[edit on 5/3/10 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by melatonin

 

Oh! The worry of those implications.
It seems that is all they seem to trade on these days regarding the CRU hack.
Oh! The worry.

Aye, it's pretty sad that all they really have is repetition of unfounded assertions of wrongdoing.

A simple vacuous smear campaign.

The IoP have been busy editing the submission on their website to make it slightly less kooky. The real submission can't be altered, though.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


In the context of the enormity of the issue Mel, it is far worse then sad. Far worse when you think about it in detail.


It is worse that the science takes another blow when you realize it is being made to look like it is punching itself in the face.

The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work.

So even if there is no real finding against CRU, they will fall back to this position and punch the "science board" that in reality already seems rather shady.
The spin will be that the review process was as fraudulent as CRU was accused as being. Again the science related to the reality of climate change takes a hit without it even being addressed.

Lets bet a beer on it dude!

Originally posted by atlasastro
The spin will be that the review process was as fraudulent as CRU was accused as being. Again the science related to the reality of climate change takes a hit without it even being addressed.

Lets bet a beer on it dude!

It's been a PR game for a while now, as the anti-science hordes can't compete on a scientific level. They have little more than distortion and FUD. They will use all the same mechanisms that creationists have used to foster some illusion of controversy.

Honestly, AA, I wouldn't worry too much about anything beyond the science. While people can be all ostrich-head-sand-like, many will. Reality will catch up in time.

Kick back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Sometimes it's good to give the kooks the stage.

The kooks in the IoP, CRU, or the IPCC?

Seems the IoP is about as inept as CRU and the IPCC at applying basic ethics internally before criticizing those who've pointed out that the king's got no clothes.

Is it breeding or the environment?

(Welcome back to the stage.)

reply to post by atlasastro

The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.

No mention of causation? I wonder how they would suggest we "act accordingly?"

jw

[edit on 14-3-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by melatonin

Aye, it's pretty sad that all they really have is repetition of unfounded assertions of wrongdoing.

A simple vacuous smear campaign.

The IoP have been busy editing the submission on their website to make it slightly less kooky. The real submission can't be altered, though.

Aye.

It's terrible when your member ship speak differently from the "truth" the leadership wishes to push off on the gentry.

Just as the IPCC is being undercut by individual members, despite the "consensus," you cam only keep up the sham facade as long as the rest go along.

When the wheels fall off the bus, it stops going.

jw