Climate For All

An All Around Science Blog

Statement from the IoP

In a IoP statement, the following was written:

“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.”

I stress this section for one and obvious reason. The Information Commissioner(I.C.) finds lack of compliance and it extends beyond the CRU itself.

The implications are quite apparent and the logic of the I.C. is spot on. Forget about finger pointing and name calling, etc. This statement is a call for the scientific method to bear the weight of the truth and not the wishings of a few men to convey a certain truth that they wish to project into the scientific community.

This statement by the IoP for open exchange of data and procedures never should have had to be made. The hacked e-mails surrounds the possible reason why the emails were hacked in the first place. A man of some integrity, but lacking scientific knowledge asked for data to be submitted for review and he was subsequently treated in ways, as mentioned in those emails, quite negatively.

If the scientific method had truly been applied here and the data been revealed to be scrutinized and reviewed and tested, the scientific community wouldn’t have to defend itself. Yet, for reasons that are not forthcoming, all of science now bears the weight of scrutiny for the lack of openness.

Science. Without it we would had never made the advancements in todays society without it. Science can’t be shamed or embarrassed of its truth. It just is. But a few men decided not to reveal the truth, or exaggerate the truth or not reveal the whole truth, solely for purposes that over time, we might begin to understand.

This statement by the IoP will help achieve a step in the right direction to that understanding, of how men of science, ventured away from the scientific method and how science as a whole may feel vindicated by upholding to the standards of science that were established hundreds of years ago, yet may still live on today, because of this statement.

Good Day,

David Alan

I posted this comment on Real Climate and Gavin S. , the apparent owner of the site had this to say:

“If the statement had just stuck with calling for openness and transparency, it would not have received the attention it did. No-one disagrees with the basic principle. But the passage you highlight conflates a number of issues and casts completely unwarranted aspersions on the international community of researchers and the IPCC. Please explain how anyone in the US for instance, is bound by any UK FOI request? No possible issue that the IC may have had with how one person’s UK FOI request was handled at CRU has any relevance to the international community of scientists or how IPCC’s conclusions were arrived at. This paragraph simply takes an widely reported (but rather ambiguous statement) by the IC and spreads guilt by association to everyone whose email was hacked. This is a completely inappropriate statement for the IoP to be making, especially since they appear to have performed no investigation of the issue themselves. – gavin]”

Completely unwarranted aspersions ?  Facinating! After that posting and resulting response from Gavin, several others had said some things about my post and here are their comments and  my reply to them:

Nick Gotts says: “I would have thought, that as a “man of science”, you would have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with these facts.”

You say I should acquaint myself with the facts. The section of the IoP statement that I address is where it says: “The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner.”

You also make mention of an article in the Sunday Times.

I don’t know if this is the same article you are referencing, but in it, and here’s an excerpt from that article:

“Professor Jones denied that he had tried to prevent alternative views being published by influencing the process of peer review under which scientific papers are scrutinised.

He said: “I don’t think there is anything in those e-mails that supports any view that I have been trying to pervert the peer review process . . .” He added that it “hasn’t been standard practice” in climate science for all data to be disclosed.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Conservative Chancellor and a leading climate sceptic, said that those who wanted to check the university’s research should not have been forced to resort to making requests under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Phil Jones himself mentions that he influenced the process, but not to prevent alternative views. So he says. The fact remains. He acknowledges he attempted to influence the peer review process.

Thats the facts.

In addition, Hank Roberts in comment #310 says: ” The IoP got it wrong; David Alan repeated the IoP error.”

Gentlemen, I feel this is one of those elephants in the room moments. If Phil Jones says he tried to influence the peer review process and the I.C.O. says that he wasn’t in compliance, where can you sit there and say there is an error by either me or the IoP ? I don’t know how it can be more concise.

Let me remind you gentlemen.. and ladies, that the statement made by the IoP and my remarks regarding this whole affair are not to place blame, but to bring back credibility were credibility lacks because of this self evident disclosure. ‘Men of Science’, and I include myself in this discussion, must learn from the mistakes of others or we are bound to repeat them. The scientific method must be applied to all sciences, even climate science, as I am surely aware Phil Jones is at this very moment.

David Alan

After some more digging into this story, I went to the IoP website and found this bit of news :

“The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which has become the focus of media hype.

We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.
IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now.”

So,  the Institute of Physics, believers of AGW ,  feels that it is necessary to provide transparency, but in their efforts to do so,  have alienated themselves in the process.  If believers of AGW are willing to throw them under the bus,  what chance do skeptics have to avoid completely unwarranted aspersions ?  The answer is simple. None.

This running dialog I’ve presented is a case study of how those under the influence in the belief of climate change, wish to be heard and defend that belief in climate change.

  • There are no completely unwarranted aspersions. But when left with nothing else left to say…. Say exactly what they are guilty of.  Must say, that is a nice tactic.
  • If you hear the words ‘check your facts’ and you have … It usually means that they refuse to believe anything other than the brainwashed concepts they refuse to let go of.  Denial comes to mind.
  • If someone refutes ones comments and provides no evidence, usually means that they don’t know what they are talking about.

In climate science and those that perpetrate the fallacy of it, this is business as usual.  Its like those funny tubes that as you try to grab a hold of it, it just continues to slide out of your hands, no matter how hard you try to hold it.  Slippery suckers.

I’ve been asked what my involvement is, and why I bother to, to confront the believers of man-made global warming.  My answer is simple. Simple and honorable folk around the world have been lied to. A certain number of scientists and those that support them, in regards to defending and supporting anthropogenic global warming, have had their 20 years of fame and fortune.

Its time that it ends.


One response to “Statement from the IoP

  1. Miriam Robbins May 28, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Heh am I actually the first comment to this incredible writing?!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: