Institute of Physics on Climategate

Here’s something rather astonishing.

The Institute of Physics, has made a statement about climate science.

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

IOP issued a no holds barred statement on Climategate to the UK Parliamentary Committee. Here’s the key passages:

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

Clearly a sleeping giant has awakened.

Andrew Bolt muses:

This submission in effect warns that this recent warming may not be unprecedented, after all, and those that claim it is may have been blinded by bias or simply fiddled their results and suppressed dissent.

I’ll repeat: Climategate reveals the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.


About these ads

151 thoughts on “Institute of Physics on Climategate

  1. Let’s hope this is the first of many such statements. Too bad so many scientific organizations are so heavily vested in the AGW narrative.

  2. wow…that is fairly amazing. do they have a history of being politically motivated at all? in other words, can they be dismissed for a clear bias in one direction or another?

  3. The ball is now in the Climategaters court. The IOP states that the issues are issues of adherence to scientific method, not issues about climate science. Climategaters have done everything in their power to avoid discussing scientific method. They have refused to explain why they lock away parts of their science and why they will not speak candidly about their theories. They face the daunting task of learning the vocabulary of scientific method in record time.

  4. What really surprises me about this whole thing is the lack of noise from the media. Yes – there are the occassional reports, but, frankly, given the SCALE of this thing I’d expect wall-to-wall coverage from all kinds of angles. The general collusion of the media is running in second place for the scandal of the century. At least the Piltdown man was reported.

  5. I wish this would go away before most of NE Oregon is littered with the
    carcasses of dead wind turbines.
    Another hole in the wall of the AGW fortress…
    The Keep being a house of cards…

  6. In true science there is only the quest. Not advocacy based on preconceived notions of how the world should work, which inevitably leads to various forms of confirmation bias. I was trained a physicist and it’s no surprise to me that they are the foundation of the movement to clean up the image of true science.

  7. Your first line is so true, and on more than one level, who would have thought, a charity without a left wing agenda!, great news for the taxpayer, the momentum is growing, perhaps emails, and letters to all MPs/ senators and reps from as many of us as can, just incase they only read “news”papers, give them links to here and the other spearheads of this expose.

  8. Wow! I may have to join the IOP. It sure beats the APS. Of course, they’re only saying what every other scientist says when they get the facts on this case. It baffles me what’s holding back the APS & other organizations. I guess people still want to publish in Science, Nature & Sci. Am. (of all places).

  9. It appears that the damage that the Team has done and is doing to the credibility of all of the scientific community is finally being felt by the members of that community outside of climate science. I’ve tried to resist getting too excited by any of the numerous individual revelations that have emerged since last November because the response from general scientific community has always seemed rather muted. This one might even get a tingle going up my leg. It’s hard to see how any of the lad’s canned dismissals are going to work against this.

  10. Finally, the broader scientific community is beginning to realize that the AGW alarmism deserves further inquiry.

  11. Obviously the IOP is a community of denialists, we must get their member list and ensure that no member get published!

    All sarcasm aside, I have nothing but admiration for any scientific organization that would publically take a stand like this. Would that more thoughts like this would get past the gatekeepers that make up the “leadership” and the editors of offical publications for other organizations maybe a real dent could be made in the politics for this AGW game.

  12. “…unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations…”

    And after that’s been ascertained, I’d just like to see what else is on those servers. I’m sure there’s a lot more than what has been exposed.

    But wow, this is huge. I wouldn’t want to be a climate scientist right now–at least on The Team of climate scientists.

  13. I hope you realize that by quoting Bolt you will be regarded as a drooling, knuckle-dragging mouth-breather by all the hip, sensitive people in the world.

    REPLY: Funny thing is, people say the same thing when he quotes me. – A

  14. This shows that the younger upcoming scientists resent the effect of having an older close knit set of like minded ideologues above them controlling both the data and it’s presentation.

    It is now more in their career interests to reject the establishment and forge new ways forward in the relevant scientific disciplines.

    In retrospect this was inevitable. Ageing dinosaurs like Mann, Jones et al can only control the system for so long and their days are now over.

  15. Another major nail in the AGW coffin (lid starting to get pretty well attached now, me thinks).
    This one is especially important, i.e.:

    Even in a world where much of the MSM continues to have a major bias in the politically-correct direction, no organization which wants to maintain even a shread of credibility as a reliable source of news can categorize or dismiss the IOP as just another small bunch of ”right-wing fringe deniers in the pocket of Exxon-Mobil”, etc.

    Will be interesting to see how the IPCC animal tries to spin this one; even more so the UK Parliamentary Committee. While the wheels of justice do many times grind exceedingly slow, I think (or at least hope) that they are finally in motion. And I’m guessing we’re now at the point where the question is not whether or not Pauchauri will end up being a sacrificial lamb (he’s GOTTA be toast); but rather how many others will join him on the altar. Not sure who all will get thrown under the bus, but we certainly live in interesting times. . . .

  16. Glad to see representatives from the ‘hard science’ of physics shining some light on the climate change superstitions.

  17. Onion (09:13:01) :
    What a bunch of flat earth deniers! I bet they’re funded by Big Oil>>

    You guessed it. Over on RealClimate they’re already bashing the IOP, suggesting it is playing to business interests and so on. They would do well to read through the other submissions on the web site which include over 50 papers. Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. Neither are as blunt as the comments from the IOP, but their message is pretty clear. Science relies on complete disclosure of data and methodology, as well as promotion (not suppression) of debate.

    I’ve been watching these last couple of years as one card after another is pulled from the house of cards, waiting for it to collapse, amazed that it can stand at all. Of the three organizations, none of them have actually confronted the science itself. But they have ALL stood up now and pointedly said “That’s a house of cards”.

    Once those organizations get some press time too, I’m sure RC will be carrying comments tying them to big business as well. The conspiracy must obviously widen until it includes everyone on Earth except the alarmists.

  18. Michael Mann wrote many e-mails that convince us he is unwilling and unable to comply with what these Physicists call doint science correctly. Joe Romm is all over defending him from exposure by the WSJ.
    This fraud is not to be defended.
    The day Mann publically admits what he admits privately, the funding for research for warming and dangerous consequences dries up. Mann is now in the hot seat.

  19. “It is now more in their [younger upcoming scientists] career interests to reject the establishment and forge new ways forward in the relevant scientific disciplines.” – Stephen Wilde (09:34:24)

    Let’s hope that they [younger upcoming scientists] learn to NOT forge their science with fraud but that they use anvils instead that can withstand the pressures of repeated batterings of verification.

  20. 13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds.

    I am 95% confident that this data is robust. We must act immediately,
    stop breeding, and trash our economies. Come on…follow me,
    I’ll save you!

  21. My congratulations to IOP on their honest and forthright summary of what the UEA leak has revealed.

    These revelations will make it much more difficult for policy makers to sweep this issue under the rug as they have been trying hard to do since November 2009.

    I hope the EPA and Congress are paying attention. I do not think Climategate is going to go away anytime soon if we see more prestigious science bodies such as the IOP making such claims.

  22. The Institute of Physics is not just some charity – it is the main professional body for physicists in the UK and Ireland. It is incorporated by Royal Charter. It is able to grant Chartered Physicist status, and, under licence for the engineering council, Chartered Engineer status.

    Considerable weight would be attached to a submission from the IoP.

  23. This is great news, but it is still science by authority. Even before ‘climategate’ the essence of the scandal was there for all to see. The obfuscation had been ongoing for years. The ‘crime’ was obvious to anyone who cared to look! The evidence was more than circumstantial, yet no one (in the MSM, governments or large science organizations) took notice.

    Climategate provided a smoking gun, and all the skeptics said “See, it is just like we said!” Still there was little reaction, with a possible exception in England. Now, because the IOP takes our side we expect the rest of the world to finally notice, and they probably will.

    It is a shame that truth and evidence still account for so little, even in science. When it comes to persuasion, it appears that the ‘correct’ speaker is still more important than the words that are said.

  24. I’ll save RC some trouble and point out that physicists bear much of the blame for the advances that led to industrialization and the modern CO2 emitting era. :)

  25. I went to RealClimate and posted the IOP items listed above in the comments for three threads. I’m sure they won’t survive the scissors. And while they’re probably already aware of them, Gavin can’t say he never saw them. :)

  26. Interesting contrast to Judith’s blog experiment.
    Maybe we shoule expect similar declarations from other organisations such as the Royal Society.

    We’re now getting into “mission statement” territory and though it ought not to have been necessary, it would seem as if some organisations should make a written declaration of the fundemental scientific principles they adhere to and require that their members concur.
    There should also be action taken by the various societies to elect memebres who fall short of the avowed principles of science and the society.
    Such behaviour as we suspect has taken place at UAE shoul also be grounds for dismissal and the revocation of the right to be called “Professor”, tenured or not.
    One begins to wonder, as time passes and more detailes emerge, just how computer illiterate and how methematically illiterate some of these climatologists are.
    It would seem as if some of the computer programs and data processing by UAE was done on a home PC by a novice computer programmer or, at best, by a computer studies student who spends more time in the pub than working. You’d think, with £23million in grants, that they’d do a better job than this.

  27. Ref – Rhoda R (08:50:31) :
    “What really surprises me about this whole thing is the lack of noise from the media…”
    ___________________________
    When the bombs are falling all around you, you head for a shelter underground, get in as deep as you can, and pray pray pray to the ‘One And Only’ –that you’ve denied ever existed since you were 16– and swear that if you’re only allowed to live you’ll be good and go to church (or whatever) every week for the rest of your life.

    The bombs are still falling. The MSM is still crouched deep underground. Still praying, praying, praying. Still promising they’ll do right and be better from now on if they’re allowed to live another day.

    They do not realize that everyone in the bunker is watching them and listening to their screems to ‘Heaven Above’ and the ‘promises’ they’re making if they’re allowed to live.

    The bombs are getting bigger and bigger. More and more is being destroyed above them in the city. But there is a slight change, the explosions seem to be getting farther and farther away from the shelter.

    Soon the explosions are a distant rumble and no danger to those in the shelter. Soon they all know that they survived to live another day. Now, what will the MSM, the fellow praying so loud for all to hear do?

    (Looks and sounds like he’s still in the shelter. Afraid to come out. Only now the loud, frightened, screamed prayers have turned to silence. And everyone can hear the “silence” as they turn their backs and walk away.)

  28. Richard Sharpe (09:17:16) said:

    I hope you realize that by quoting Bolt you will be regarded as a drooling, knuckle-dragging mouth-breather by all the hip, sensitive people in the world.

    Anthony replied:

    <bREPLY: Funny thing is, people say the same thing when he quotes me. – A

    That is funny. I hope you realize that I forgot a smiley and a /sarc above …

  29. Shorter IOP: “It’s the scientific method, stupid!”

    The question in the mind of many skeptical lay-people has never been “how do we prove it isn’t happening,” it’s been “how do we know that the evidence you’re providing makes the case you’re asserting.” Most of what we’ve received in response has been of the nature of “because we said so, we’re really smart, and look at that polar bear on that ice flow!” That’s not science.

    Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Unprecedented, man-induced climate change is an extraordinary claim indeed. Nobody should be surprised that reasonable people would require extraordinary evidence beyond arguments to authority, especially if we’re being asked to re-engineer our entire world economy and society to address the impacts of those claims.

    I’m encouraged that more and more of the scientific community is expressing the interest in fully applying the scientific method to the AGW hypothesis. It’s long overdue.

  30. “davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :
    [...]
    You guessed it. Over on RealClimate they’re already bashing the IOP, suggesting it is playing to business interests and so on. They would do well to read through the other submissions on the web site which include over 50 papers. Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. ”

    This won’t take long. I pity the fools at RC.

  31. davidmhoffer (09:50:52)
    I’ve been watching these last couple of years as one card after another is pulled from the house of cards, waiting for it to collapse, amazed that it can stand at all.

    Remember davidmhoffer there has been a LOT of money invested in this with the intent of making a lot more money. Also a LOT of powerful politicians have nailed their reputations to this particular mast as has the MSM. They have got to find a way to back off without losing money or their reputations. No easy task to do in so little time.
    IMO that is one reason why it still stands.
    Doug

  32. It is easy to e underwhelmed by the the IOP findings since a truly objective scientific organization would have challenged the alarmists decades ago, however the IOP has, somehow, taken a giant step in confronting the carbon credit “industry” just after it has been at its most influential. Now, with the rails greased on a declining grade will the AIP be able to climb on and join the publicity momentum. Not very honorable, but it would show the AIP still has some breathing (and listening) staff left. That would be a very major move as it should have tremendous implications for NASA and the EPA.

  33. “I was trained a physicist and it’s no surprise to me that they are the foundation of the movement to clean up the image of true science.”

    +1

    Very interesting things going on. Physicist pretty much had the charge of the scientific agenda for most of a hundred years, until the environmentalists moved in sometime in the seventies (look for example at the way the editing of New Scientist, Scientific American, etc has changed). While you can accuse physicists of many things, most notably arrogance, they have a near absolute appreciation of data and scientific truth.

    A giant has been awakened indeed, and one almighty battle over the soul of science is about to ensue.

  34. I have a real problems in accepting the present method of “peer review”, that is, review by only scientists mostly with the same discipline training and specialized education. Here I am specifically writing about the M. Mann tree ring proxy for temperature. Was the concept reviewed by biologists to determine whether tree rings would even reflect with any accuracy the ambient temperature at the time of the tree growth? I think not, as there are a good many other factors on which the rate of tree growth depends. Cores of trees are even of less value, as any given tree ring frequently varies in width along its circumference. Cores taken on the same tree rings from other locations around the same tree would indicate other rates of annual growth in many circumstances.

    When the “peers” all belong to the same “mutual admiration society”, of only the same or similar specialist education or training, of what value is the “peer review”?

    When extremely costly (to taxpayers and energy rate payers) governmental policy is going to be the end result of these scientific studies, far more disciplines need to be included in reviews of these studies, whether technically “peers” or not, and completely open discussion and argument should be encouraged, not prevented..

  35. This is the most promising revelation to date, but perhaps still not revealing enough. I would expand their recommendations to include:

    14. It is clear that financial and political interests played a role in creating and feeding the bias revealed in climate science. It is equally clear that many other scientific endeavors are just as subject to the same influence. The academic centers of excellence involved in all areas of research should take this event as an opportunity to look in the mirror and assess the potentials for undue influence of personal, financial, and/or political bias.

    15. Language in some grants “conditioned the results” using phrases such as, “The study shall determine that there is a negative impact on the sex life of the darter snails in Batswana associated with bicyclel riding.” Scientific Journals should require posting of the source and terms of funding.

    Scientists involved in research it should be reminded that failing to prove a theory, or having one’s theory disproven, is never a failure on the part of the scientist, but an advancement of knowledge and truth. Copernicus was wrong, dead wrong, but hardly a failure, rather, an immortal hero of scientific history.

  36. Ten will get you one that this story will never see the light of day in the U.S. MSM. Regardless, poor Gavin Schmidt. Someday (sooner the better) there won’t be anyone left in the civilized world who isn’t on the evil oil company/big business payroll.

  37. This is like watching an old time movie is slow motion. The ‘goodies’ (the real scientific community) have ridden in on their fast horses at the last minute and rounded the ‘baddies’ (the fake scientists) up and put them in gaol. And the good people of the village can now get on with their work. We need a beautiful heroine for Anthony to carry off into the sunset and all would be perfect! (Sorry about that Anthony. Yuk!)

  38. Comment to Rhonda R:

    “What really surprises me about this whole thing is the lack of noise from the media. Yes – there are the occasional reports, but, frankly, given the SCALE of this thing I’d expect wall-to-wall coverage from all kinds of angles.”

    Yes, where is the MSM? This is the story of our lifetimes and I just can’t get over the lack of decent coverage (with the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News).

    But if you read Time, Newsweek, and Scientific American (guilty pleasures – I’m an old guy and I like my magazines…) you will see nothing but scattershot, technically lame, uninformed and slanted coverage of AGW topics. With Climategate they had a great opportunity to change the public awareness and elevate the tone of the discussion. Instead, they stonewalled by their lack of decent coverage, and people like me, who before Climategate weren’t involved and didn’t really care much, were driven to the web.

    Right after Climategate they could have saved themselves by covering it, and covering it in detail and saying “Hey – we reported on and supported this AGW stuff before Climategate because heck, it’s a good story, sells magazines, Al Gore and his movie, Nobel Prize, newsmakers flying around the world…that’s news.” Fair enough. Before Climategate the reporting was slanted toward AGW – back then they got away with doing a poor job of reporting both sides of the issue.

    Now there is no excuse and they need to clean up their act. Right after Climategate they could have said, “wait a minute, there might be something to this skeptic thing…”. But they missed the opportunity and now they just seem complicit in what is growing to be perceived as a gigantic con-job.

    But make no mistake, they’ve always done a poor job of fairly reporting AGW and have always editorialized strongly in support of AGW panic. And then Climategate. The lid got blown-off the publicly funded climate-panic machine and we all got to look inside and see how scientific arguments are weak and how AGW is a money-making operation run by public policy extremists, politicians, and all sorts of international grifters.

    I’ll say MSM is blowing it! I read here recently that 3 million people a day visit this site alone. If say for example, Newsweek were to really report on this story (might as well write-off Scientific American and Time – way too invested in the AGW nonsense) there would be incredible interest and and upswing in their readership. Instead, Newsweek has run a story on Climategate in their latest issue that is weak, misinformed of the latest developments, and really, the best word is just plain lame. And then Sharon Begley (Newsweek science writer) does a piece of character assassination on Bjorn Lomberg dolled-up as a book review of a book critical of him. Incidentally Bjorn has responded to this particular attack in a 27 page point-by-point rebuttal. MSM; they really don’t get it. We don’t want spin and anymore rage-in-the-cage verbiage, and uninformed claptrap.

    MSM in my opinion, manages to get at least some balance into lots of their reporting; and staying on the Newsweek theme, they publish George Will and have published George Will being critical of AGW. Bravo! That’s a tiny start. How about an encore!

    I do not believe the AGW story is going to blow over; and I have to think that writers and editors of MSM are aware of the intense interest in AGW. With the IOP weighing in maybe we will see a turnaround. I’m not holding my breath – but I will be checking this site every day for updates…

  39. I can see that the statement from the IoP is a model of clarity, is concerned with scientific method and the failure of these climate ‘scientists’ to comply with this.

    Compare and contrast with Jerome Ravetz’ rambling essays on this website, characterising climate science as post-normal science – a model of confusion with many unsupported assertions buried deep in its prose

    Science flattens post-normal scientists

    Keep
    It
    Simple
    Stupid

  40. They’re investigating climategate?

    When will they notice Hadley CRU is STILL not responding to FOI requests?

    Maybe the problem is that Al Gore took them and nobody can find him?

  41. davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :

    (…) Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. (…)

    Physics, chemistry, statistics…

    What other scientific fields did these “climatologists” simultaneously declare their mastery of to claim their unquestionable authority? Do those fields have representing organizations that want to join in on the defense of honorable science?

    Too bad “computer science” might not qualify, as the “releasing of all code and data” tends to be frowned on…

  42. I have noticed that many physicists have never been taken in with the climate change nonsense. One can’t practise physics doing things the way the climate community have.

    JMANON (10:23:58) :

    “Maybe we shoule expect similar declarations from other organisations such as the Royal Society.”

    Don’t hold your breath on the Royal Society – it’s been involved in murky dealings simce the beginning of the eighteenth century, and is headed up by IMHO one of the most corrupt scientists in the country.

  43. Wonderful release! Does anyone know how to contact IOP directly, so I can send some low-key encouragement to them, to keep up this kind of information/analysis?

    Mark H.

  44. GregO (11:02:16) :
    (…)
    Now there is no excuse and they need to clean up their act. Right after Climategate they could have said, “wait a minute, there might be something to this skeptic thing…”. But they missed the opportunity and now they just seem complicit in what is growing to be perceived as a gigantic con-job.
    (…)
    ___________________
    Reply:
    Complicit? Actually, they did/are doing everything in their power to obfuscate the contents of the Climategate emails and documents and denigrate all deniers/skeptics/realists/dissidents. They’re so deep in the AGW tank that no light reaches them.

  45. Issued to the UK Parliamentary Committee…………….

    Unfortunately, the leading ‘elite’ of all the UK’s political parties – with the exception of a few notable Conservatives – are obsessed with publicly displaying their green credentials. Consequently, they are mostly card carrying alarmists.

    So, great efforts are going to be made to discredit and/or ignore the IOP – after all, the official line is clearly this: real scientists demanding a real scientific approach should not dare or be allowed to interfere with the political agendas of the muppetry that govern the UK.

    Reading the many posts on Real Climate in regards to the IOP would be funny, if they weren’t so sad. However, it gives a glimpse of the problems that real scientists face when they discuss the subject of climate fraud.

  46. GregO (11:02:16) :
    “I do not believe the AGW story is going to blow over; and I have to think that writers and editors of MSM are aware of the intense interest in AGW. With the IOP weighing in maybe we will see a turnaround. I’m not holding my breath – but I will be checking this site every day for updates…”

    I agree with your comments entirely but I have come to the conclusion that the MSM is only interested in money now and has largely lost its interest in journalism especially investigative journalism, the real reason for their existence. They once proudly styled themselves as the ‘fourth estate’ They have lost all credibility for that claim now IMO.

    Doug

  47. Congratulations to the IOP. Their statement is completely on target. It’s great they focused on the scientific method and not on the science itself.

  48. “David L (11:20:08) :

    Congratulations to the IOP. Their statement is completely on target. It’s great they focused on the scientific method and not on the science itself.”

    Pull the rug under their feet and they fall. What science? Conjecture built upon conjecture. Hansen citing hansen.

  49. Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :

    And another Memorandum to the Committee from a post-graduate student of the UAE who, it appears, is non-too pleased with his erstwhile alma mater!

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0702.htm

    Stephen, did you notice that the Student is a very Pro AGW person and is annoyed that Climategate has brought suspicion on AGW before Copenhagen was signed up.
    Not absolute anger that the Uni and Hockey Team were cheating, just that they got caught.
    Absolutely typical.

  50. kadaka (11:13:08) :

    davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :

    (…) Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. (…)

    Physics, chemistry, statistics…

    What other scientific fields did these “climatologists” simultaneously declare their mastery of to claim their unquestionable authority?
    ————-
    Reply:
    AGWers hate geologists and for good reason, since scientific fraud by AGWers flies in the face of geology that considers the earth way before a thousand years or two. So on some disciplines, the “climatologists” have declared their mastery while completely ignoring others.

    As a new science, “climatology” reminds me of an out-of-control adolescent that has yet to learn the valuable lessons in life. Well, they are about to.

  51. AC, even so his Memorandum is absolutely shattering. The last bit where falsifying data as being SOP at UEA is stunning!

  52. Interesting that this is still a UK based issue.

    There are other science and engineering professional organizations in the world that could chime in, but don’t seem to want the tag of not accepting the AGW theory. What IPO has done is to separate the conclusion (AGW) from the process (scientific method). This approach opens a window.

    It would be good if other scientific/engineering organizations could now step forward in defense of the scientific method (and let the AGW issue alone). The Scientific Method argument will ultimately trump the work to date that supports the AGW theory, because of its shoddy scientific basis.

    Policyguy

  53. Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :
    Stephen, did you notice that the Student is a very Pro AGW person and is annoyed that Climategate has brought suspicion on AGW before Copenhagen was signed up.
    Not absolute anger that the Uni and Hockey Team were cheating, just that they got caught.
    Absolutely typical.

    A true believer. 20 virgins in paradise for that man.

  54. Doug in Dunedin (12:06:22)

    Yes, I saw that. The disheartened zealot is one of the worst enemies to have, and the UEA has got a really good one in this Student. Imagine how you would feel if your tutor had ruined your chances of World Domination and a crack at 20 virgins!

  55. Kadaka;
    Too bad “computer science” might not qualify, as the “releasing of all code and data” tends to be frowned on…>>

    But I think it does, though they like the kind of professional organization that the chemists, physicists and statisticans have (to my knowledge) but they should be waving the red flag too. Any competent IT shop would have has that “misplaced data” and any deleted e-mails on a backup tape provided that the information was on the server for more than 24 hours. They either lack competance, or are being very quiet about what is in their backup tapes. Just as I’ve been asking for physicists in particular to step up to the plate, I wish more people from my industry would step up on this issue as well. If they truly don’t have copies of that data that some researchers can’t find, then I want to know how it is that a government run organization doing research that could affect the lives of billions of people lacks the basic data protections policies and procedures that should be in place. Merrel Lynch (I think it was) faced a court ordered judgment over $1 billion for not doing backup and recovery and documentation of same correctly. There are compliance ande data retention laws in both Canada and the US, and not following them is a criminal matter. I don’t know the law on that matter in the UK, but they are likely similar, and the IT community should be weighing in on this issue if not the science, just as the other professional organizations just have.

    I believe that IOP speaks for professional engineers as well in the UK (uncertain on exactly who that relationship works but there is one). I hope we see something from geologists though, I think that the other major discipline that needs to speak with a single voice.

  56. Stephen Brown (12:26:08) :

    Doug in Dunedin (12:06:22)

    “The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated,…”

    Really?

  57. My faith in the Physics establishment, which was flagging, is beginning to revive!

    But will the broader science “establishment” follow? As hinted earlier in a post on this blog on Prof. Phil Jones’ interview, a critical issue is the undermining of the scientific method. IOP hit this nail on the head:

    Caveats Regarding Dr. Phil Jones’ Phenological Arguments for Global Warming
    18 02 2010

    Guest post by Indur M. Goklany

    The latest Science magazine has an extended interview with Dr. Phil Jones. In this post, I’ll keep away from issues related to Climategate, whether this was a softball interview (given that, for example, there is no discussion of deletion of files, if any) or whether, by refusing to share data with skeptics, Professor Jones was undermining the scientific method (because the scientific method relies, among other things, on giving one’s skeptics the opportunity to disprove one’s conclusions).

    [Emphasis added.]

    There is also a broader issue. In my opinion, the problem is not just with a few climate “scientists” but with science institutions — journals, academies, associations — that have been slow to insist that the scientific method be observed, and in some cases may even have condoned, by their silence, such subversion (by not insisting that the data, codes and methodologies be freely and openly shared, even when they have been paid for through the public purse). Thus comments to the CCSP from me as well as others, i’m sure, asking that this be done for temperature data and trends that were being displayed in various documents it was producing, were to little or no avail.

    The fundamental issue here is how and why was this possible? Is this an inevitable consequence of big science that needs large infusions of dollars, which must almost certainly have to come from the government? Was it enabled by the fact that the institutions — as well as the researchers that depend on them — need these dollars to survive? And since the moneys are coming from public funds, there is a constant need to show that the problems that they are working on are critical to humanity (so that moneys continue to flow “here” and not “elsewhere”? Does this inevitably lead to hyperbole, and a little cutting of corners?

    Although I am a big believer in technology (read my stuff at goklany.org), as a long time bureaucrat, I believe Eisenhower had it right when he said:

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields [and by unvalidated and unverified models] In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity . For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. [And he didn't know the half of that]

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

    * and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    [From http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html; emphasis added]

    Eisenhower’s insight was enabled by the fact that he spent virtually all his working life in the US military — one of the premiere burueacracies (like all successful militaries have to be) — and later the US government (yet another successful bureaucracy, at least at that time).

    Today’s solitary inventor is the scientifically savvy blogger. But thanks to the Internet, (s)he is no longer solitary. And the “solitary inventor” is now part of a vibrant organism propagating information, knowledge and intelligence, even as it attempts to separate the chaff from the wheat. It is this organism that is perhaps the antidote to the scientific-technological elite, which unfortunately seems to have compromised the scientific method and believes that subsidies make a technology successful, forgetting that if a technology isn’t affordable and cannot hold it’s own in the open and free market, it’s no more than a toy (no matter how expensive).

    I am honored to be part of this phenomenon, and a tip of the hat to the “nodes” — Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, the Pielkes, Bishop Hill, Air Vent, Lucia, Tom Nelson, among many others — who have made this possible.

  58. I was wondering about all the people in the educational “pipeline” when this story first came out in November. Imagine having put the time, effort and finance into a PhD in Climatology only to have your “science” turn out to be a proven hoax.

    I wonder how this one will play out in the courts, different countries, different legal systems, quite the mess. Here in the USA I could imagine a collection of undergraduates, graduates and doctoral students all getting together and filing a class action lawsuit against a group of universities foremost of which being Pennsylvania State University. The best strategy to persue in my opinion from the standpoint of the universities would be to attempt to settle out of court. One way or another, there’ll be a lot of money change hands here in the next couple of years.

  59. Rhoda R (12:00:14) :

    AC, even so his Memorandum is absolutely shattering. The last bit where falsifying data as being SOP at UEA is stunning!
    ———-
    Reply: You’re right Rhoda. In fact, it’s so egregious I had to post it here for everybody to read. His third item is:

    3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.

    In compliance, eh? Now if that’s the kind of logic UEA instills in their graduate students, I’m absolutely gobsmacked! No wonder the UEA is having serious problems!

    (BTW, I love the term “gobsmacked”; I’m from the USA but I still love it!)

  60. James Delingpole of the Telegraph has an interesting take on this:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-reason-for-agw-post-normal-science/

    I think he has a point. Ravetz is in his own league – his PNS when practised by scientists gives them a “moral” justification for lining up at the feeding trough of the IPCC and the family do-good touchy-feely scientific trusts, and delivering rice-bowl science. Very scary stuff. We may be seeing a form of western-style Lysenckoism writ large in our supposedly free society.

    I am not happy about this. Many modern young scientists received “Post-Normal Education” in primary and secondary school, where their parents had no idea of the educational progress of their children and school reporting ensured that there were no failures. Everyone a winner, baby.

    With that background, they would be almost certain to embrace PNS, holus bolus. It’s hard to suppress a shudder.

    I hope that the IOP statement will be widely publicised and that some politicians will make it a priority to turn the tide against AGW and all of it’s costly consequences.

    As a footnote, there are imminent elections in the Netherlands. One political party has a terrifying campaign slogan: “Geen kind van school zonder diploma”.

    Yep – you guess right. If they gain power, no child will leave school without a diploma. Wow – they will remove failure from the system (and with it, success). Post-normal education for the Netherlands.

  61. A C Osborn (11:38:19) :

    Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :

    And another Memorandum to the Committee from a post-graduate student of the UAE who, it appears, is non-too pleased with his erstwhile alma mater!

    ————————–

    So frustrating to see a post-doc not take the care to edit out the misplaced apostrophe in the possessive form of “it”: i.e. “Its”. “It’s” means “it is”! My biggest bugbear as a prof is having to incessantly make this comment while grading papers. This mistake occurs at WUWT in every thread, and even -horrors – after submitting one comment I saw I was also guilty. But that happens in the frenzy of blogging here. In a submission by a post-doc to a parliamentary commission one would expect better … but perhaps not from someone who is more concerned that Copenhagen was derailed by than by the actual miscreant activities of the CRU perpetrators.

    The IOP statement is fabulous: it is a no-holds-barred, condensed indictment that covers most of the malpractice so laboriously unravelled by the excellent McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, Id, Eschenbach, Mosher and other participants here and at Climate Audit, and other good sites.

  62. I’m sure they reached their conclusions before Willis Eschenbach posted his essay on Thursday, but it’s as if they anticipated his thoughts. Great minds are converging on the one undeniable truth – scientific method has not been followed.

    The last brick has been knocked out from the whole AGW foundation, and the only thing stopping the ediface from crashing down is the force of will of the army of fanatical alarmists, as together they chant their warming mantra in zen like oblivion to reality.

  63. FTM (13:08:56) :
    I was wondering about all the people in the educational “pipeline” when this story first came out in November. Imagine having put the time, effort and finance into a PhD in Climatology only to have your “science” turn out to be a proven hoax.

    Yes and its even worse because even the children in primary education have had this stuff dunned into them almost from the cradle. I can’t begin to imagine the long tem effects of this. It is criminal.
    Doug

  64. TYPO:

    JMANON (10:23:58) :

    There should also be action taken by the various societies to elect ejectmembers who fall short of the avowed principles of science and the society.

  65. Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :

    And another Memorandum to the Committee from a post-graduate student of the UAE who, it appears, is non-too pleased with his erstwhile alma mater!

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0702.htm

    Here’s the money quote:

    3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.

  66. Kudos to the IOP to be among the first large scientific associations to speak out about the questionable behaviour of the IPCC’s climate scientists. I sincerely hope this open’s the way for other professional science-based organizations to add their voices to the demand for accountability from the CRU and other research organizations linked to the IPCC.

    It still astonishes me that ordinary people cling desperately to the theory of AGW even though they have no economic incentive to do so. In fact there is economic incentive NOT to hold to the AGW theory since carbon taxation schemes are detrimental to the average person. Perhaps people have an inborn psychological need to be fearful of something and since affluence has eradicated all the usual fears of survival, they conjure up a bogeyman.

  67. What will Jeffrey Sachs have to say about this? That the IOP sides with “the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer”?

  68. The really frightening thing is the EU first then the marxist democrats attempted to gain control of our internet, where would we be then? this retreat needs to become a rout, we are still teetering on the brink of sefrdom to Gore and Co. Speaking from Canada but all democracies will be the same, the leaders are worrying about budget deficits, here is a plan, stop giving the UN (and the EU) any funding, stop wages and pensions for all involved in this fraud, prosecute the big fish and confiscated their ill gotten gains, that will help.

  69. NickB. (11:26:32) :

    Finally – FINALLY

    RockyRoad (07:09:36) :
    It was feared right after Climategate that the story wouldn’t have legs. Well, I believe it is running pretty fast right now and expanding daily. These are indeed exciting times!

    Things are developing as I foresaw. Here’s what I wrote at the time, during Weeks 1 & 2 of Climategate, in exchanges with Brendan_H (primarily). (These aren’t all in chronological order.)

    (However, I was a bit “off” in the specifics. I thought there would be more disaffected insiders like Georg Kaser coming forward. Instead, what primarily emerged were new “gate” scandals, in AR4. Nevertheless, I still think that the “tectonic shift” of insider opinion is occurring quietly and that it will be the “sea change” in the debate over warming that will make the difference, not these recent scandals. I.e., even if the recent “gates” blow over in a few months, as warmist forces hope, probably with good reason, the former consensus has been shattered and won’t be able to regroup well enough to effectively marginalize and intimidate cautionary and contrary voices in the scientific community and in the media. Warmist momentum and solidarity has been lost. Hence, appreciation of the wobbliness of its case will grow over the years.)

    SteveS (03:12:58) :

    “On a more serious note: I don’t feel optimistic about this at all.”

    RK: Give it time. The Team has made many enemies in their field. (For instance, that guy Karlen from Scandanavia who got brushed off by T____.) They have been waiting for an opportune moment to strike back and be heard. Now they have it. As some of them speak up, others will be encouraged to come forward. And the strength of their condemnation of the IPCC and the Team will rise, and lots more dirty linen will be aired. It’ll develop along the lines of Watergate, with the public getting hooked on their weekly scandal, and the defenders in the bunker getting more and more implausible and desperate.

    As that happens, the media will be more inclined to pay attention to dissenters. There will be articles exploring, with the aid of graphics, the links (remember that word?) between the Team, the IPCC, and the various gatekeepers in the field. There may even be articles exploring topics like, “What is climate science all about anyway?”

    A tectonic shift is underway. The media’s current silence is an indication that they are re-assessing the situation, and that their treatment in the future will be less outrageous. Even if you don’t grant them any sense of fairness at all, which is silly, you should realize that they have to be concerned about not alienating the skeptical portion of their readership too badly, now that noticeable segments of it are sounding off in their online comments sections. Previously, they were only getting badgered by the enviros, whenever they failed to toe the line. Now, the forces on the contrarians side are coalescing, mainly thanks to internet sites like this, and making their impact felt.

    Brendan H (15:52:09) :

    Roger Knights: “It’ll develop along the lines of Watergate, with the public getting hooked on their weekly scandal…”
    ———-

    It’s also doubtful that many other whistle-blowers are waiting in the wings. Over the years there has been ample encouragement, and opportunity and outlets, for people to spill their beans, so anyone who has wanted to speak up has most likely done so.

    On the contrary, there has been ample discouragement for people to spill their beans, and the encouragement offered hasn’t been much. An op-ed in a right-wing newspaper, or a some-expenses paid trip to an NIPCC conference, or an online petition to sign? These merely brought down abuse and shunning. Some encouragement!

    That’s probably why that Scandinavian Karlen, who was brushed off by CRU, didn’t make a public stink about it. My inference is that there are more like him out there with stories to tell, and that they will come forward now that people are willing to give credence to what they have to say. In addition, critics who have already spoken out but been generally ignored and/or scoffed at will have gained credibility in light of what has been revealed, and hence will be de-marginalized by being interviewed on TV, etc. Here’s what I prophesied:

    RK: “The Team has made many enemies in their field. … They [those enemies] have been waiting for an opportune moment to strike back and be heard. Now they have it. As some of them speak up, others will be encouraged to come forward. And the strength of their condemnation of the IPCC and the Team will rise, and lots more dirty linen will be aired. It’ll develop along the lines of Watergate, with the public getting hooked on their weekly scandal, …”

    Brendan H (15:52:09) :

    “Given the timing of the hack/leak, what we have seen is probably the leaker’s best shot, and there’s unlikely to be much in the way of additional material to maintain a media drip-feed.”

    I wouldn’t be too sure. Additional e-mails involving the team will be subpoenaed by Inhofe’s committee. There’s likely to be embarrassing material in them that will titillate the public, and whet their blood-lust for more.

    Brendan_H: “Remember that the central media drama of Watergate was the gradual exposure of conspiracy and cover-up, and the nightly revelations that followed. In the current situation, no such conspiracy and cover-up has been alleged [sure it has] or shown, nor even any compelling evidence of wrongdoing.”

    Spoken like another Ron Zigler or Rabbi Korff (remember him?)! I hope you get interviewed as a CRUgate-defender on TV: there’s a need for someone to fill those roles, to heighten the absurdity of it all.

    Unlike you, Monbiot has recognized that there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, collusion, and butt-covering among The Team, that the public is going to see it that way, and therefore that a timely abandonment of them and their indefensible activity is the only way for warmism to salvage some credibility from this train wreck. The truth of his insight should be obvious, but if you and your brethren would rather be oblivious, I’m fine with that. Don’t give up the [glug ....]!

    “Just as importantly from a media perspective, the material is being used to support a pre-existing narrative, that climate scientists have engaged in corruption and fraud. That is probably one reason why the wider media is treating the issue with caution.”

    Sure. But now some of them are beginning to think, “Maybe we were wrong to dismiss the pre-existing narrative. That’s what we did with Watergate. We ignored McGovern’s pre-election charges that the break-in had been orchestrated from above because it sounded partisan, outrageously unlikely, and would have brought down obloquy on us if we had entertained the possibility publicly. Mutatis mutandis …”

    Now that there’s been some “hard” confirmation of outsiders’ charges of smug, thuggish groupthink that has been “leaning” on the peer review process, climate critics no longer can be dismissed as cranks. They are going to be given a respectful hearing, at least in a fair number of venues.

    Similarly, scientific societies are going to have to take a serious second look at this controversy, instead of just rubber-stamping the “correct” opinion. Every time one of them distances itself from the consensus, it’ll be newsworthy. Every time a warmist becomes a turncoat, or even merely criticizes an outrageous defense of the Team (like the absurd defenses of Nixon that were offered), it’ll be newsworthy.

    The dam is cracking, the increased waterflow will widen the cracks, the media will like the ratings the drama is getting, more blood will get into the water, the feeding frenzy will intensify, more countries will put a hold on their anti-carbon legislation, more prestigious scientific statesmen and popularizers will weigh in on the side of caution or contrarianism, more hapless/ludicrous defenses of the consensus will be made, and the whole world will grab some popcorn and watch with glee.

    Over the next few years, the warmists will be in retreat and on the defensive, despite occasional blips. The warm has turned. All the sanctimonious viciousness and hypocrisy (“we’re doing real science”) of the enviro-nuts to date will make them wonderful targets for popular scorn and down-peg-pulling.

    “Dr Phil Jones says this has been the worst week of his professional career.”

    So far.

    Brendan H (01:57:26) :

    Roger Knights: “There’s likely to be embarrassing material in them that will titillate the public, and whet their blood-lust for more.”

    “Titillation is one thing, conspiracy another. To get a Watergate situation, you need actual scientific wrongdoing, strong evidence of fraud and collusion, and to date there’s been none of that, nor any reason to suspect any more such evidence in future.”

    The Team stands accused of that and more. Look at some of the bills of particulars that others here have posted, and several newspaper columnists too. Argue with them. I’m convinced.

    RK: “The dam is cracking, the increased waterflow will widen the cracks…”

    Brendan_H: “At the beginning of 2009 a former NASA administrator came out in opposition to AGW, causing enormous excitement among sceptics. As one poster opined: “We are finally witnessing the last gasps of a dying theory.”

    The death of AGW has been regularly predicted for a good while now. Certainly, this email leak is a more serious matter than the views of a retired scientist, and is a setback to climate science, but beware of confirmation bias. My suggestion is that celebration is premature, and may well lead to serious disappointment.”

    I wasn’t among those who made such claims. I’m not inclined to such over-optimism. I can tell that this is different–I can smell blood. A brick has been removed from the wall that protected the team, and it will be much easier to pry out further bricks as a result. Now there is justification for congressional hearings examining the machinations of the IPCC and its failure to behave fairly. For instance, NASA scientist Vincent Gray has complained that he submitted over 1100 comments to the IPCC, all of which were ignored. The IPCC might soon have to justify those refusals. No doubt there are dozens of other scientists whose skeptical contributions were ignored, or whose drafts were high-handedly revised. The IPCC will have to justify those as well. It won’t come out looking good. Thereafter, its endorsement of alarmist findings won’t carry nearly as much weight among the innocent public and opinion-leaders as heretofore.

    This is like the moment Nixon’s taping system was revealed. Until Buttersworth revealed that to the committee, it looked as though Nixon would be able to wiggle out of the affair. After that, the pursuit went into high gear. I was watching at the time and realized instantly, “Now they’ve got him. He can run, but he can’t hide.” I have a similar feeling about this business. Until now the Team was Teflon: accusations slid off them, because of their presumptive objectivity and high-mindedness. Now they are under a cloud of suspicion, subject to subpoena and testimony under oath; they won’t be able to keep their misdeeds concealed from all but their victims. They’re on the run.

    As Monbiat has said, persons like you who don’t/won’t realize the dreadfulness of this situation for your side are living in a fool’s paradise.

    RK: “Over the next few years, the warmists will be in retreat and on the defensive, despite occasional blips.”

    Brendan_H: “You’re assuming that the CRU emails have disconfirmed AGW.”

    On the contrary, I’ve made several posts in the past few days stating that I think the effect of the Team’s fiddling with the measured temperature data is likely minor, and that the overall shape of the blade of the hockey stick won’t be changed much. (I’ve also said repeatedly that there are likely innocent explanations for much of the awkward material in the e-mails.) So I don’t think that AGW has been disproved.

    I see what’s happened as the first step in a lengthy process of objectively and scientifically reexamining the data and reasoning behind warmism, after the Team and the IPCC and peer review have had their halos removed. Their prestige, plus their power and willingness to enforce groupthink by any means necessary, will no longer be factors. Doubters will feel safe to speak out.

    Brendan_H: “But the current crop of climate scientists remain convinced that their science is correct. Whatever happens in the political sphere will not affect the scientific findings, nor, for that matter, the actual climate.”

    That’s naive. Academic and social “politics” already taints their judgment. Until now climate science has been politicized, in the sense that the Team’s paradigm was “enforced” by their mafia tactics and by madly warmist funding agencies, journal editors, and journalists. In such an environment, “Reason comes running / Eager to ratify.”

    Once de-politicalization occurs and marginalized voices can be heard and harkened to without penalty, and non-warmist research can get funded, opinions among climate scientists are likely to shift substantially.

    Of course, for many it will be too awkward to change, because they are so complicit in the shiftiness of warmism’s history. They will hang tough, like the tiny crew of post-Watergate Nixon loyalists.

    PS: I should have said above that the main outcome of Climategate, IMO, is that the Team is no longer trustworthy in the public eye, and that a cloud of suspicion has fallen over peer review, the IPCC, and the consensus, which seems to have been engineered or manufactured. This is where the real damage has occurred, on an intangible level. Therefore, a re-do of the case for CAWG, under neutral scientific auspices, is needed. Plus more transparency, etc.

    Brendan_H: “Its going to take some time for the ‘temperature to cool’ so to speak. Meanwhile it will cost a fortune.”

    Not necessarily. Give Climategate awhile to sink in, and for additional dirty laundry to come to light, and for additional scientists to weigh in against the consensus. The pendulum of alarmism has reached its apogee and is poised to swing the other way. Copenhagen is a dead man walking.

    There is no chance now that the US will pass any major carbon tax without a lot of hearings and scientific investigations first that produce findings supporting alarmism–and that is impossible, if neutral scientists oversee the process, similar to the Wegman investigation.

    And if the US won’t get on board, neither will China and India. So the only money lost will be in Europe, similar to what happened post-Kyoto.

  70. I have no objections to the IOP submission. The policy implications from climate science require it to be held to the very highest standards. We should expect full disclosure, whether from CRU or Climate Audit.

  71. Back in the day, University of Texas, Arlington.

    Dr. Niedderman and others, you got it right or you got out.

    Some Junion year classes were the cull ones, you had to take them and pass them. Looks like the do gooders did away with the cull classes and some culls got PHD’s and wanted things to warm up to their “opinions”.

  72. I submit that the ugly sister to Post Normal Science is the Progressive Political Movement–call it Post-Normal Politics if you will. The two are based on the same slippery slope of reasoning, and have ultimately the same goals. PNS and PNP go hand-in-hand, one feeding upon the other, at the cost of civilized humanity if they continue unchallenged.

    Bravo for the IOP. Now I need to write letters to a few geological societies I know.

  73. “Doug in Dunedin (13:47:00) :

    FTM (13:08:56) :
    I was wondering about all the people in the educational “pipeline” when this story first came out in November. Imagine having put the time, effort and finance into a PhD in Climatology only to have your “science” turn out to be a proven hoax.”

    Imagine having put all the time, effort and finance into named career without noticing how flakey the whole evidence is, how tortured the data is, how badly the programs are written. Imagine having spend all this time in institutions where bosses denounce and silence critical voices. Now imagine what kind of person puts up with all this, an honest person, do you think so? Is it not so that the last honest person has long left that sinking ship? I know i would jump ship as soon as i get any old job offer somewhere else if i were in such an institution. And long before the excrement hits the rotating device.

  74. Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    The claim was that the Scientific method was corrupted. “Pal Review” as claimed by Wegman. “Refusal to release data and methods” as claimed by just about everyone else.

    For years, many institutions and individuals refused to believe it, because of they required evidence akin to a smoking gun.

    It seems that the Institute of Physics has now found its “extraordinary evidence”.

    No matter what the inquiry says – things are not going to be the same again.

    Certainly not for Climate Science, and probably not for anyone else.

  75. I am struck by the similarity between Marxism and AGW:

    1. They both make a considerable amount of sense when reading the theory.
    2. They both fail miserably in reality.
    3. Their proponants resort to forged data to prove their theories work despite the observed results.
    4. The weight of the forged data cannot prevent the utter failure and collapse in reality.

    Despite which:

    The next generation reads the theory, and considers that it makes sense.

  76. Doug in Dunedin (13:47:00) :
    Yes and its even worse because even the children in primary education have had this stuff dunned into them almost from the cradle. I can’t begin to imagine the long tem effects of this. It is criminal.
    Doug

    When children don’t smoke, don’t eat fast food, and have regular bowel movement because of things they were told at school, then I will worry that propaganda works on school children.

    Until then…

  77. Indur M. Goklany (13:03:53) wrote:

    “The fundamental issue here is how and why was this possible? Is this an inevitable consequence of big science that needs large infusions of dollars, which must almost certainly have to come from the government? Was it enabled by the fact that the institutions — as well as the researchers that depend on them — need these dollars to survive? And since the moneys are coming from public funds, there is a constant need to show that the problems that they are working on are critical to humanity (so that moneys continue to flow “here” and not “elsewhere”? Does this inevitably lead to hyperbole, and a little cutting of corners?”

    An emphatic YES! Of course! Absolutely!

    Now…what are we going to do about it? Is there a solution?

  78. [Oliver, I've told you several times that your attempts to hijack threads with your solar theories, that have nothing to do with the thread, are unwelcome.

    You've been warned gently, firmly, and strongly. Yet you've ignored those warnings here again trying to push your solar theories on a thread about a policy decision.

    You are banned for this continued behavior. You are now permanently unwelcome here, all further comments from you will be deleted wholesale. - Anthony]

  79. Vincent writes:

    “I’m sure they reached their conclusions before Willis Eschenbach posted his essay on Thursday, but it’s as if they anticipated his thoughts. Great minds are converging on the one undeniable truth – scientific method has not been followed.”

    I am a great admirer of Willis Eschenbach, as I have said many times. However, there was nothing to anticipate in this case. The IOP statement appeals to the absolute fundamentals of scientific method. The benighted Climategaters are, as I type, arguing that replicating research cannot possibly mean reproducing it; rather, to them, it must mean doing a parallel study on the same phenomena. They are arguing that those who appeal to scientific method are “Deniers.” The truth of the matter is that the Climategaters were practicing Mann’s “ideopathic statistics” as an art form and they cannot believe that the world has the insolence to call them on it. You can check me out by going to realclimate.com and comments 300 and later on Santer’s essay. Many of us have been arguing that the Climategaters have violated scientific method for years, but it takes an organization with the clout of the IOP to get the attention of everyone.

  80. Jim Clarke (15:48:23) :
    Indur M. Goklany (13:03:53)
    And since the moneys are coming from public funds, there is a constant need to show that the problems that they are working on are critical to humanity (so that moneys continue to flow “here” and not “elsewhere”? Does this inevitably lead to hyperbole, and a little cutting of corners?”

    Now…what are we going to do about it? Is there a solution?>>

    There is no solution because the problem is cyclic and repeats itself. The most visible public issue gets the attention of the politicians who provide research funding. I knew a researcher studying polar bear habitat and how it affects population distribution. If he put the words “affects of global warming on” the title of his submission, it had a better chance of getting funded, though it did not change what he was researching. When AIDS was the hot topic, an immunology study that included the words “potential treatment for AIDS” was more likely to get funded though the study was no different. History will repeat itself, and if you want the public perception and politics out of the funding, you have to figure out how to move the research to the private sector.

  81. The tart little saying: “A rose is a rose, is a rose..” helps describe the problem science has with ClimateGate and all that has (and possibly will) follow. To the average occupant of the World “A science is a science, is a science.” and “A scientist is a scientist, is a scientist.” Thankfully, the IOP is at least making an effort to draw a line and make a distinction, finally. For the sake of Science and Scientists everywhere and everywhen, I hope it’s NOT too late.

  82. Linda (09:13:38) :
    Now MSM, are you listening??

    THAT is a very good question. Because with each publication that ignores such a large, recognized institution’s scathing statement, we find journalistic collusion. To pretend this is not a huge blow to UEA and the entire global warming campaign demonstrates meditated ignorance at an astonishing scale.

    A scheme set up to tax the air we breathe has een declared a scientific fraud by an august body of eminent scientists. Networks, the NYTimes, NPR, AP, UPI, Reuters, etc. are going to attempt to ignore this? At the peril of their very existence! There will be no more network news or newspapers or wire services if they attempt to suppress this corruption.

    Good people in media… What side are you on? Truth, or corrupt idealism??

    The epitaph is for AGW, portions of government, and the MainStream Media. “Ignore the truth and perish.”

  83. davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :

    Onion (09:13:01) :
    What a bunch of flat earth deniers! I bet they’re funded by Big Oil>>

    Guys. Don’t you know that IOP is a front for the Independent Oil Producers.;-)

  84. I agree with Andrew Bolt that Climategate represents the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime, but scandals tend to involve either sex or money and I suspect the amount of (taxpayer) money poured into ‘climate science’ had to corrupt the process. Barring the Manhattan project and the space race I don’t think any other scientific issue has soaked up a similar volume of taxpayer dollars. Since the previous endeavours had to work they had to be legitimate. Climate science, however, tends to be based on sheer speculation. A scandal was inevitable. Cross your fingers it starts to unravel.

  85. Roger Knights: “Things are developing as I foresaw. Here’s what I wrote at the time, during Weeks 1 & 2 of Climategate, in exchanges with Brendan_H (primarily).”

    Roger, you seem to have copy and pasted some quotes from an earlier exchange. You make many claims, but I think my original comment here stands:

    “Titillation is one thing, conspiracy another. To get a Watergate situation, you need actual scientific wrongdoing, strong evidence of fraud and collusion, and to date there’s been none of that, nor any reason to suspect any more such evidence in future.”

    To which you reply: “The Team stands accused of that and more.” Well, yes, the “Team” has been accused of many things, but the term I used was “strong evidence”. For some people, the evidence to date is sufficent to start erecting the gibbets and cracking open the champagne.

    Others, not so much. There are many claims from all parts of the spectrum on all sorts of matters involving the behaviour and practices of climate scientists. So let us maintain our sceptic credentials and withhold judgement until the evidence has been thoroughly examined by an independent source.

    And if scientific fraud is uncovered, I’ll join you to watch them swing.

  86. While the IOP is speaking of scientific principles that must be upheld I would still be cautious in how one interprets the IOP’s comments. It could all be a set up for a white wash. Seeming though, it is one baby step in the right direction.

    pwl

    http://PathsToKnowledge.NET

  87. Z (15:31:58) :
    “When children don’t smoke, don’t eat fast food, and have regular bowel movement because of things they were told at school, then I will worry that propaganda works on school children.
    Until then” …

    Ha! Maybe you have a point – the kids instinctively sense BS!! – and ignore all the advice given by teachers – by god you are a cynic!

    Doug

  88. This is all fine, but what I’m finding is contamination and bias everywhere you look. Why can’t people tell you they’ve used a series of different instruments over a period of time and prior to that proxy data for things like TSI? Instead we get manipulated compilations. I’m sorry but the only people listening to this kind of information can handle the full data set with no constructions! Like what’s with the way the GISS temp ‘data set’ is put together?

    Anyway it seems the use of methods that prevent or frustrate scrutiny are becoming common practice and I’m still not sure if its poor mentoring, training or there are individuals trying to force the story one way or the other.

    As a point. Can anybody tell me where to find real empirical ‘radiative effect’ data for CO2 as a trace gas? What I mean is you have one container with air with 0.04% CO2 and another with 0.1% CO2 and characteristic heat absorption properties of it are taken? All I get is condescending simpleton junk that is derived from data that is invalid once extrapolating the properties to the desired state, model derived data, ad hoc backwards assumed to exist data … I am very frustrated with this. Every AGW site says real empirical data exists showing this phenomena but where is it? All I find is either vague references that nobody was able to find a significant effect by experiment or that ‘of course’ this has been proven. I can’t even find anything ‘real’ supporting the mild radiative effect that some skeptics grudgingly assign to CO2. Thanks.

  89. len;
    What I mean is you have one container with air with 0.04% CO2 and another with 0.1% CO2 and characteristic heat absorption properties of it are taken>>

    If only it were that simple. The emission spectrum of earth changes with temperature. The absorption spectrum of CO2 overlaps with H2O and a few other things. So as temps fluctuate, characteristics of CO2 relative to emission spectrum change, Then you need to consider the re-mission spectrum of the CO2 which is based on the temperature it is at. Emission spectrum for CO2 at +20 C is in the absortion spectrum of CO2, But emission spectrum for CO2 at 3000 meters is at a different wavelengths since it is at -15 or colder. So there is a way to answer your question and even test it. But its a bit complicated.

  90. Jim Clarke (15:48:23) :

    Indur M. Goklany (13:03:53) wrote:

    “The fundamental issue here is how and why was this possible? Is this an inevitable consequence of big science that needs large infusions of dollars, which must almost certainly have to come from the government? Was it enabled by the fact that the institutions — as well as the researchers that depend on them — need these dollars to survive? And since the moneys are coming from public funds, there is a constant need to show that the problems that they are working on are critical to humanity (so that moneys continue to flow “here” and not “elsewhere”? Does this inevitably lead to hyperbole, and a little cutting of corners?”

    An emphatic YES! Of course! Absolutely!

    Now…what are we going to do about it? Is there a solution?

    RESPONSE: I am not sure I have a sure-fire fix, because even institutions, like individuals, are corruptible. Perhaps, at best, we are doomed to cycles — a phase of corruption, followed by a clean-up, followed by (one hopes) slow decay, and back again (if we are lucky). One hopes that the corruption phases are short and not too costly for humanity.

    I am sure that when it started, the Church, for instance, was a ray of sunshine. But over centuries it got corrupted, living high of its tithes and donations, selling indulgences, monopolizing knowledge, and suppressing inconvenient truths, even as it did some good no doubt. It was in this phase for centuries also. It’s not clear that it has quite recovered. And when we look around the world we see many places where corruption is endemic — how come they never get cleaned up?

    One way to help out is to have competition and a free market in ideas, knowledge and science. This way there would be fewer shenanigans. But who would ensure such a free market, who would fund and not –sooner or later — want to call the tune?

    Perhaps there should be a limit to the size of grants, or for every grant there should be equivalent funds given to someone else to “disprove” or counter the researcher’s findings, until some figure out how to collude.

    A critical problem is how would it be decided (and by whom) how much funds to give and to whom. It is virtually impossible to expect that people competing for funds will not resort to hyperbole; a few may even resort to questionable tactics, etc.

    Scientists and science institutions already know what ought to be done — insist on adherence to the scientific method; full sharing of all data, codes, methodologies for quick and easy replicability if it is publicly funded or if it is to be used for public policy; replication before use in developing public policies; “disbarment” if these norms are flouted.

    They should also acknowledge that peer review is fine to determine whether someone gets tenure, but not sufficient for making multi-million or multi-trillion dollar decisions. Also they should recognize that an “assessment” for policy purposes requires a CRITICAL evaluation of the papers consulted and should go beyond a cut-and-paste job. This means critiquing everything: the assumptions (implicit and explicit), the methods used, the data collected, the statistics calculated; evaluating whether the results make sense; etc. Certainly, I would not use any model, no matter, how trivial unless it has been validated using “out-of-sample” data. I suspect that many researchers consider these to be “janitorial” duties so don’t put there energies into them.

    While on that topic, grants should reserve a share for “janitorial” duties, so no one can say they didn’t have funds/personnel to have them performed.

  91. Brendan H (17:56:34) :

    Roger Knights: “Things are developing as I foresaw. Here’s what I wrote at the time, during Weeks 1 & 2 of Climategate, in exchanges with Brendan_H (primarily).”

    Roger, you seem to have copy and pasted some quotes from an earlier exchange. You make many claims, but I think my original comment here stands:

    “Titillation is one thing, conspiracy another. To get a Watergate situation, you need actual scientific wrongdoing, strong evidence of fraud and collusion, and to date there’s been none of that, nor any reason to suspect any more such evidence in future.”

    The reply I should have made to that was this: “To get to a Watergate situation – i.e., a long-running house-of-cards public “scandal” — one does not need strong evidence of major wrongdoing. The necessary ingredients are:

    1. Intriguing evidence of scandalous or improper behavior by
    2. An infuriating accusee (powerful vain, pompous, high-handed (“Let them drink Perrier”)) whom the public and the media, or a major segment of it, can come to see as a villain deserving of a comeuppance,
    3. Disaffected or disillusioned dominoes who are prepared to distance themselves from #2 once they sense that he’s vulnerable (blood in the water) or has betrayed them,
    4. Potential embarrassments or worse that a fishing expedition might uncover (fuel to keep the fire going and keep the public entertained),
    5. An official investigation that has the power to take sworn testimony, reduce wiggle room, and encourage wobbly dominoes to fall. (For instance, the former student, quoted above, who wrote to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry, “From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations.”)
    6. A media frenzy (which has started, barely, in the UK & India).

    Brendahn_H: To which you reply:

    RK: “The Team stands accused of that and more.”

    Well, yes, the “Team” has been accused of many things, but the term I used was “strong evidence”. For some people, the evidence to date is sufficient to start erecting the gibbets and cracking open the champagne.

    But I didn’t claim that there was strong evidence they were guilty, I merely disputed your contention that Climategate had no legs and wouldn’t develop into a Watergate situation. For that, an accusation, plus some evidence, plus reason to believe there’s more more that can be shaken loose, is sufficient. You made the following assertions:

    1. “what we have seen is probably the leaker’s best shot ….” So far you’re right, but that doesn’t mean much. Eventually all the internal documents from CRU, which are now in the hands of the authorities, will be examined for evidence of dodginess, and it’s very unlikely that no such evidence will be found. Even if what turns up in non-explosive in itself, it could lead to additional inquiries and searches of the e-mail back-ups at other institutions. The Wang / Jones China UHI data “loss” and cover-up has extremely explosive potential.

    There are others involved with the IPCC and/or CRU who will eventually be interviewed or come forward on their own. The official inquiry has lots of rocks to turn over. Especially after the upcoming elections in the US & UK.

    2. “It’s also doubtful that many other whistle-blowers are waiting in the wings.” What about Harry? We haven’t heard his testimony yet. Or that of the former UAE student quoted above. And we have heard from a few indirect whistleblowers. Georg Kaser came out after Climategate. He had been slighted by the high-handed tactics of the IPCC/Team. Another who had been slighted by that bunch was VK Raina of India’s Geological Survey, whose official report ChooChoo scornfully dismissed, calling it voodoo science. Whistle-blower Cogley (plus Pearce, eventually) then got on the case and exposed Glaciergate. If participants are invited to testify under oath, lots more could be forthcoming.

    3. “In the current situation, no such conspiracy and cover-up has been alleged [sure it has] or shown, nor even any compelling evidence of wrongdoing.” I should have granted your point that this affair is not like Watergate because it doesn’t involve a large, complex, and long-running conscious conspiracy run by one man that would unravel bit by bit, week by week on TV to a national audience, with the conspirators having to fall back to more and more preposterous and indefensible positions. It’s more like a lot of little semi-conscious dodgy doings that collectively add up to scientific misbehavior.

    Still, that lack of parallelism in the crime doesn’t mean that a long-running Watergate-type pursuit-of-the-accused can’t develop. Look at the current situation with Toyota. Because it behaved high-handedly, improperly, and focused on defeating and marginalizing its accusers by any means necessary, and because there was some evidence of a possible coverup of additional embarrassing facts, it supplied the ingredients a Watergate-style witch-hunt. (Remember, I didn’t claim that the Team would lose in the end, like Nixon, only that the scandal about Climategate wasn’t a nine-day wonder, but “had legs” and would blow up into a major affair.)

    (FYI, here’s an article on the background of Toyota’s cover-stories: “Toyota Recalls Traced Back to Cost Cuts, Growth That `Hijacked’ Quality”:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aF0aX8t0Q6lk&pos=12 )

    Brendahn_H: Others, not so much. There are many claims from all parts of the spectrum on all sorts of matters involving the behaviour and practices of climate scientists. So let us maintain our sceptic credentials and withhold judgement until the evidence has been thoroughly examined by an independent source.

    And if scientific fraud is uncovered, I’ll join you to watch them swing.

    I don’t believe fraud was involved, just misbehavior. The accusees got caught up in a fad, wanted to think well of themselves, lacked the common sense to see how “iffy” major links in their chain were, employed sharp elbows, etc., etc. I.e., what the Team has done is far from Nixonian, as I said back in November. Thus, their behavior would be a tempest in a teapot if the stakes were low. What makes their misdemeanor so culpable is what’s at stake — the world economy. Sentries are shot for sleeping on their post because the stakes are so high, not because sleeping is a crime.

    Not that I think they should be severely punished, despite the harm they’d have imposed but for Climategate. The real culprits are the supposedly objective outsiders who should have kept their heads, responded to allegations of misbehavior, and kept things from getting so far out of hand — the media, the editorial gatekeepers, official scientific society poobahs, and funding bodies.

  92. Well this Institute of Physics looks like an outfit that I should join.

    I presently belonga AAAS; which is a political science organisation (apparently); but at least I get to watch their shenanigans, and also to the Optical Society of America, which is a part of the AIP; or may be it is the APS; anyway OSA was one of the original “founding chapters”; and we are a bit to geeky to get invloved in politics.

    But IOP sounds like a bunch that I could respect; since we seem to have similar goals as to science; like watching the chips fall wherever they may.

    With 36,000 members, I wonder how many GES’s they already have ?

  93. “”” Z (15:23:50) :

    Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” “””

    Yes it’s a catchy turn of phrase; but it’s also pure balderdash.

    The requirement for scientific evidence are not predicated on the potential importance or lack therof, for any new idea. The same standards of process and procedure are required of any research.

    For a start, it is often the case, that the importance of a new idea is not at all apparent at the time of its discovery; but only becoems known after much investigation.

    A corollary to the much quoted statement of Sagan, would be, that lesser claims can make do with lesser evidence. No way; the full set of rules should be applied to any claim, no matter its import.

  94. As a scientist publishing in IoP journals, this makes me happy. Regarding MSM: within a few years we may remember Climategate as the moment MSM became irrelevant. Long live the internet!

  95. Roger Knights: “Still, that lack of parallelism in the crime doesn’t mean that a long-running Watergate-type pursuit-of-the-accused can’t develop.”

    That’s a fair point. This scandal has more legs than I originally thought, in the sense that it has sparked the publication of other matters that may have lain dormant, and also generated various official enquiries.

    So this saga has a long way to go yet. Personally, I’d like to think that whatever misbehaviour that has occurred is minor – although Jones’ suggestion to delete emails, apparently to avoid FOI enquiries, is troubling – and understandable in the context.

    And it’s not necessarily the case that the use of “sharp elbows” as you call it was only from one side. Sceptics have also employed hardball in the form of accusations of corruption and fraud. When charges are repeated often enough, some of the mud sticks.

    We are now in a situation where all sorts of allegations are accepted as fact. An all-too-human situation, but very regrettable nevertheless.

  96. Re: Indur M. Goklany (Feb 27 20:30),

    One way to help out is to have competition and a free market in ideas, knowledge and science. This way there would be fewer shenanigans. But who would ensure such a free market, who would fund and not –sooner or later — want to call the tune?

    Perhaps there should be a limit to the size of grants, or for every grant there should be equivalent funds given to someone else to “disprove” or counter the researcher’s findings, until some figure out how to collude.

    A critical problem is how would it be decided (and by whom) how much funds to give and to whom. It is virtually impossible to expect that people competing for funds will not resort to hyperbole; a few may even resort to questionable tactics, etc.

    I propose that funding should go back to a funding of institutions, universities and research institutes. For universities it could be weighted with the number of students, the more students the more the amount handed to each university.
    In this case no centralized scientific overseeing would be required.

    For institutes it should be according to the amount needed for the research, and there scientific boards should be employed by the governments but the decisions should be on the merits of the research, example NASA, DOE, in bulk, not to individual scientists. The governing boards of each institute should decide on the fine structure of the budget.

    The important point is that the distribution to individual scientists and groups should happen with an internal peer group for each institute. Each discipline fighting for its share of the money internaly. There might be corruption and cliques withiin different universities, but there would not be the incentive to come out with a uniform voice from all institutes in order to get funded. Competition would go back to academic issues, and not to how much money one could grab.

  97. Roger Knights (22:21:18) :
    I don’t believe fraud was involved, just misbehavior.

    Maybe you’re right but IF they have received public funds AND deliberately manipulated data to go in line with the warming agenda then fraud is a distinct possibility.

  98. Oh please . . . make government research available to all except where national security is concerned ( yeah yeah I know but it’s still relevant )

    make all scientific researchers work for government alone, or for the private sector, not both as is the case at present. the job satisfaction and security of government work will be balanced against the cash rewards of the private sector.

    all private research is an investment so the results should remain private.

    everybody who pays taxes should have access to the research they are helping pay for.

    government research is always political, don’t forget that.

  99. The measured tone of the IoP statement and its absolute clarity of focus on the abuse of the scientific method by the CRU tells you all you need to know.

    Why isn’t this on the BBC or ITV news? Well, we know the answer in the BBC’s case – they fear for the £££s in their pension scheme.

  100. Why will no -ne take proceedings against these people?

    I am sure many grand juries in the US would be pleased to return a true bill and send the matter on for trial.

    Many petty juries would also be pleased to convict.

  101. So, Anthony –

    How much did you tell Exxon to pay the IOP, anyway? ROFL

    This looks like it could have been composed at any of scores of AGW skeptic sites.

    Bravo, IOP!

  102. The Institute of Physics is the professional body for physicists in UK and Ireland, incorporated under Royal Charter. It grants Chartered Physicist status, and, under licence from the Engineering Council, Chartered Engineer status, normally requiring a Masters degree and relevant professional experience.

    The highest grade of membership is Fellow. Fellows of the Institute of Physics:

    Sir Geoffrey Allen, Chancellor of the University of East Anglia from 1993–2003. Vice-President of the Royal Society from 1991–93.

    Professor Sir Michael Warwick Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1980-86

    Professor Norman Edward Cusack (deceased), Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1981-85. Taught physics at UEA from 1965.

  103. Sir Geoffrey Allen, Chancellor of the University of East Anglia from 1993–2003. Vice-President of the Royal Society from 1991–93.

    Professor Sir Michael Warwick Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1980-86>>>

    Those are pretty serious heavy weights being both Fellows of the IOP and former Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the Uof East Anglia. I can’t imagine the IOP statement going out the door without those two knowing of it in advance and raising a fuss if they disagreed. Its rare enough for one branch of science to so bluntly wave the finger at another, for it to come from a branch of science that counts amongst its members people of this stature from the specific institution itself is even more telling.

  104. The MSM is not picking up on this because William Randoph Hearst showed in the early 20th century that only “Sensationalism” sells, not good news or the truth.

    In addition, Journalists, like the Climate Science community, as a whole, have abandoned the fundamental tenet of Journalism decades ago, i.e. “Report only the facts, and leave subjective statements to the editorial page,” and “the scientific method,” respectively.

    The internet and blogging are replacing “Journalism” and bringing science back to “Climate Science”. Thank goodness!

  105. In light of this extraordinary break with the institutional consensus it is time to demand other physical societies revisit their official statement on global warming.

    For example, the APS rejected in November 09 (prior to Climategate) an update to their statement on climate change.

    The suggestion for the change came from an emanate group of physicists led by Princeton Professor Will Happer. The Committee on Public Policy is currently charged with amending the statement – likely to be another whitewash if demands for transparency are not made.

    It is time to write letters to APS President Cherry A. Murray and politely ask that the Policy Committee take a careful look at the investigations into wrong doing at UEA and Penn State and GISS. And that she consider the profound implications of the UK Institute of Physics statement on UEA and the IPCC. IOP’s scathing statement is extremely important as it demonstrates that independent thinking (i.e. rejecting consensus) is alive and well in one of the world’s most prestigious science institutions.

    Ms Cherry can be contacted here:
    camurray@seas.harvard.edu

  106. As I feared in ” pwl (18:00:41) : While the IOP is speaking of scientific principles that must be upheld I would still be cautious in how one interprets the IOP’s comments. It could all be a set up for a white wash. Seeming though, it is one baby step in the right direction.” it’s now two steps backwards.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission

    The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet.

    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”.

    The submission has been used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the email affair, dubbed “climategate”, shows the scientists did not behave properly and that the problem of global warming is exaggerated.

    The committee held its only evidence session yesterday and interviewed witnesses including Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the media storm.

    In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee “has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.”

    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.”

    The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and “should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed.”

    The statement appears to contradict sections of the original submission, which suggests the emails showed scientists had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that some key reconstructions of past temperature cannot be relied upon.

    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.”

  107. pwl (22:44:18) :

    As I feared in ” pwl (18:00:41) : While the IOP is speaking of scientific principles that must be upheld I would still be cautious in how one interprets the IOP’s comments. It could all be a set up for a white wash. Seeming though, it is one baby step in the right direction.” it’s now two steps backwards. …

    Yes, a clear case of cognitive dissonance there.

  108. The IOP doesn’t believe you should throw out the barrel because of a few bad apples, it’s perfectly happy to squash any bad ones it sees though so they don’t infect the rest or if you want another analogy, don’t fight a losing battle, sacrifice a few soldiers & preserve your ammunition so you can win the war.
    It’s mainly Pro AGW with a strong scientific ethics slant.

  109. I’ve been crossing over to that other blog site(RC), which upholds to standards other than our own regarding this business on climate change, and it has led me to post on my own blog site. If anyone is interested click here.

    Its amazing to me that the IoP had to make a statement to reaffirm to the public that it is also a believer of global warming. I guess when you’re rocking the boat, you shouldn’t do so when you’re in a hurricane.

  110. “””
    The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. “””

    Well it is a “Charity” in the sense that in the USA, it qualifies as a 501-C3 tax exempt organisation; same as the” Northern California Coucil of the Federation of Fly Fishermen” does; or “Friends of the University of Auckland Does; or so I would expect does AAAS, or any other American Science Society .

    Other than that it is an organisation that promotes solid Science in particular in the realm of Physics.

Comments are closed.