Bishop Hill IoP clarifies its submission to select committee
Mar 2, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament The Guardian reports that the Institute of Physics has issued a clarification of its submission to yesterday's select committee:
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....
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."
This is very interesting. I think I follow developments on the climate front as closely as anyone, but I can't say I've heard anyone suggest that the IoP was saying anything more than it actually did - that the climategate affair had worrying implications for the integrity of climatology.
In these circumstances, one also wonders who it was that "forced" the IoP to issue a clarification.
Reader Comments (44)
See. Told you. Nothing wrong with my Phil.
That "forced" caught my eye as well. Internal pressure perhaps?
The Holy Inquisition?
The last days of AGW are going to be full of this sort of back filling.
Look what Joe romm did to Andy Revkin, his formerly trained pet journalist, when Andy dared to listen to, and quote from, people Romm did not approve of.
And then there is Dr. Curry and her inconvenient essay.
Message to AGW apologists: One cannot have sytemic failures in the process that do not impact the work product significantly, as well.
The basis of AGW- that we are facing what is the start of an apocalyptic climate change caused by CO2- is bunk.
Most institutions now follow the Politically Correct agenda on many topics.
Most of the time this does not affect their day-to-day activities - so for example the Girl Guides HQ can have a glorious policy on "diversity" and ordinary Brownies can still have Church Parade and bake cakes.
I guess the IoP is facing a moment where the PC agenda (AGW) is in direct conflict to their raison d'etre (Physics). We are seeing a power struggle.
Climategate could be a Stalingrad moment - the climatistas are not defeated, but they are in retreat now. Let's keep on the attack and thanks once again to Bish for your hard work. You can walk tall.
"The science is settled."
"The basic science is well enough understood."
Whatever next?
I'd say that it is just more administrative/bureaucratic english, and that the later section not quoted above, makes that clear.
They are not making any claims about the science being done, they have grave reservations about the process.
'It reflected our belief that the open exchange of data, procedures and materials is fundamental to the scientific process. From the information already in the public domain it appears that these principles have been put at risk in the present case, and that this has undermined the trust that is placed in the scientific process.
These comments, focused on the scientific process, should not be interpreted to mean that the Institute believes that the science itself is flawed.'
The title of the article is interesting but being 'forced' to say " 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." seems a rather universal and vague statement that few would disagree with.
And as you rightly say, having to say it only adds fuel to the fire.
Talking of Joe Romm there is a bit a flare up between him and Roger Pielke at the moment.
I guess the submission written by the IoP committee upset a few fellow members.
I suspect the 'post-normal' theme, I bet they are getting a piece of the CAGW pie:
(UK Charity Commission records of IoP)
Year Income Spending
12/31/08 £6,237,640 £14,902,270
12/31/07 £5,891,158 £14,406,412
12/31/06 £5,141,472 £13,385,816
12/31/05 £2,872,000 £10,503,000
12/31/04 £1,912,000 £7,530,000
Or, maybe just UK inflation...
Perhaps a little look over here http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ might clarify matters. I'm sure they wouldn't want to do anything to endanger those government grants.
Oops, sorry, someone got there before me.
> In these circumstances, one also wonders who it was that "forced" the IoP to issue a clarification.
Easy. Irritate emails and letters from the inhabitants of realclimate, where the IoP submission was labelled as denialist and worthy of complaint. Come to think of it, didn't Frank O'D suggest in a comment on this blog that the IoP submission was driven by a denialist agenda, and perhaps submitted by some gang of denialists who had seized control of the IoP?
FWIW, there was nothing that I could see in the IoP submission take expressed any position for or against AGW. It was all about the process of data collection and publishing, rather than the results.
It seems there is some discord in the institute. If the integrity of climatology is in question how can they be so sure that "we need to take action now to mitigate that (climate) change"?
"Official positions" seem to be based more on politics than science. The rank and file it seems deal with science and the governing committees with politics.
Long time follower of your writings.
Upsetting isn't it?
Lindzen and all the others seem not to exist.
The clarification seems to suggest the underlying science is 'settled'.
Maybe the IoP has the same pension fund as the BBC.
I think several comments on blogs have taken an overly strong reading of the IoP submission (not the bloggers, just the responses to posts). That prompted my comment on Josh6 which said (I think) pretty much what the IOP have clarified.
There is no disconnect between the acceptance of a current need to take action and a questioning of the behavior of the scientists. This is a very important point in the scientific domain (rather than the political/policy game)
The practice of hiding the detail of a method is (and was admitted by Jones) not beneficial in the sense that a robust theory can look after itself. Transparency in the method will improve the method. This is not really a matter for sensible argument (and that was the IoP's submission)
It is a much less clear cut question as to how valid the conclusion of this science is. The IOP has previously formed an opinion on that (probably following the evidence from the IPPC) and in reflection of a non-trivial proportion of it's membership. There is a non-trivial body of evidence to suggest that climate is not static, and some physics based models which only work if CO2 is invoked. Not much new is known to suggest that the data is any different now compared with 6 months ago. No alternative temperature reconstructions have yet been accepted as moving the science forward, so the evidence is unchanged. The quality of the evidence is in question, but not by enough to justify a change in policy.
Despite what the Bish says, I can't fail to see comments such as 'Richard' as being the cause for the IOP having to issue a clarification. I am disappointed that there are veiled accusations of bias being made here.
Money, it's all about more money for the world's bankrupt government.
Yer Grace
Punch Magazine is sorely missed.
Did you have a spike in visitor numbers after posting Josh's tank cartoon?
[BH adds: Not that I noticed]
"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."
Really means money.
Yer Grace
Perhaps more disgruntled than 'gruntled' emails to the IOP prompted this "forcing''. Then again, it may have been demanded by peer reviews.
Their comments today are what we all have heard at every turn for years: ANY mention by ANYBODY about something negative to AGW was REQUIRED to be closed out with some paean to the global warming crowd - to make sure no one thought the author or speaker was a denier. It was - and is - a CYA statement, one that they are so used to giving, but didn't put in for once, because they were tired of sucking up to the true believers - but then someone in their midst pointed out that they had left themselves wide open. Ergo, an addendum.
[Hahahaha - I haven't put "paean," "ergo" and "addendum" in anything before. Please don't think I am putting on airs.] And may I say that the science of global warming is settled and there is a nearly universal consensus on this issue.
NOT
We all need to get used to the idea that our jobs are not as important as not being yelled at by Michael Mann.
NOT
I agree with Sean Houlihane that any attempt to give the impression that the original IoPs submission undermines the basis of all climate science is a silly position to take, it clearly didn't do that.
However I think the thing that worries the activists in AGW, and prompted the "forced retraction" spin by the Guardian here, is that that the original IoP submission gives the lie to the claim that there is largely nothing to see in the emails but minor issues - the IoP unambiguously says "if" the emails are genuine then UEA have a deep problem with their scientific practice.
I still take issue when scientific orgs start pronouncing on political points which the IoP and others tend to do on climate, "mitigate that change" is a vague enough blank cheque to please most activists.
Of course there has been pressure but...
Doesn't the need to make this statement show how corrupted and how corrupting Climate 'Science' has become? The IoP cannot make a simple submission of the ethics of the scientific process without it being subsumed by AGW?
What is happening to science?
I can support Liverpool instead Everton, it does not invalidate the way I believe the sport of football should be run. Why are the rules always different for Climate 'Science'
It is not hyperbole to state that Climate 'Science' is corrupt and corrupting. And more and more people can see it...
There is no doubt in my mind that climate science has been hijacked. The question is who are the real hijackers?
Sean Houlihane The practice of hiding the detail of a method is (and was admitted by Jones) not beneficial in the sense that a robust theory can look after itself. Transparency in the method will improve the method. This is not really a matter for sensible argument (and that was the IoP's submission)
NOT BENEFICIAL??? IMPROVE THE METHOD??!! WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
How can a theory be "robust" when the "detail of the method" is hidden? When that happens "the theory", (read temperature trends), are not worth the paper they are written on, much less the basis on which to commit trillions of dollars of public money, shutting down our power generating infrastructure and moving us back to the stone age.
Not much new is known to suggest that the data is any different now compared with 6 months ago.
True but what is now known is that data is crap.
No alternative temperature reconstructions have yet been accepted as moving the science forward, so the evidence is unchanged.
Because the bloody thick headed stupid deniers, or those who are crooked and willing to sell our future for 40 pieces of silver, will never accept the abundant temperature reconstructions which show that todays warming is in no way unique!
.The quality of the evidence is in question, but not by enough to justify a change in policy.
Its just a smidgen less is it? What would be enough to wake the warmists from their brain dead stupor?
. I can't fail to see comments such as 'Richard' as being the cause for the IOP having to issue a clarification. I am disappointed that there are veiled accusations of bias being made here.
Bias? The managing committee issues a statement "The institutes position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, (changing? bloody hell - who would have known) and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."
When some in the Institute of Physics state that the integrity of scientific research in the climate science field is in doubt and its credibility of their use of the scientific method is in question, how on earth can the managing committe state that we need to take action to mitigate that change? How will that action be any more effective than throwing rice over your shoulder or doing a rain dance? Just because it will cost trillions of dollars more?.
@Richard
I have got a great wheeze we could do. At all the major climate conferences we set up a roulette wheel in the lobby. You are not allowed to look under the table to see in any way how the wheel works. It looks like it works well, we can even produce a few studies to show it is completely fair...
BUT you are not allowed to look yourself, because the wheel is actually driven by step motors and a cunning controller console (shaped in the form of a miniature Russian pine.)
It seems to me at climate conferences, climate scientists will have no problem with this and we could seriously clean up.
See you forget climate 'science' has its own rules. Let's use them to our advantage.
Jiminy,
You would need a robust construction.
I think well seasoned pine could be used for the table legs - for longer life perhaps Bristlecone Pine may meet your needs. Maybe not perfectly straight but they do add a rather sporty flavour.
For the table face you really must have something unique. The Russians apparently have this market cornered but I have a contact in Yamal who can supply a one-off.
Jiminy Cricket you are assuming that warmist climate scientist gang are gullible believers of their own spin, rather than the con-men they obviously are.
Your scheme might work with the duped tree hugger, cheer leading, screaming, empty headed crowds outside the conference. In the conference they are busy constructing their own money spinning roulette wheels, complete with Russian pine shaped controller consoles. And they have already done quite well by them so far.
Richard,
A longer response on my blog where can better format my answers.
Full response on my blog
Conclusion, what are you asking from the IoP today
Should they say that change is not happening?
Should the focus be on adapting to the inevitable changes?
Should we just ignore it all and carry on regardless?
Should we assume CO2 is not a problem and focus on sustaining a larger population?
Should research focus on long term cost efficiency?
Maybe they will discuss questions like this, on the assumption that the IPPC reports are complete fabrication, or maybe they will turn their attention instead to asking how to improve the science. That is a question for the next 6-12 months at least, and is not covered in any way by the scope of their submission to the CRU leak inquiry.
Jiminy Cricket - and others - have, I think, nailed this one by asking 1. What is it about climate science which requires a learned institute to explain why the norms of science - as clearly put forward in the IoP's initial submission - do not, apparently, apply in full to the practices of various scientists in the field? and 2. What is it about the science and the politics behind this particular theory (of AGW) which require a learned institute concerned, I assume, above all with the purity and transparency of science to assert that "something must be done", in this case, to mitigate climate change?
Frankly, I was surprised that the IoP made such a clear and unambiguous statement of scientific principles and practice in the first place. Like every other organisation of "professionals" in the UK the IoP pays enthusiastic lip-service to fashionable crapola. For instance, promotion of "diversity" ( http://www.iop.org/activity/diversity/index.html ) gets pride of place (well, second place) on the IoP's website, eleven places above its role in "promoting physics and supporting physicists in academia and research" which, I would have thought, should be at no.1.
Sean, your questions presuppose firm evidence when that doesn't exist. I do not see how scientists can see the problems in the collection and massaging of data, the UHI and land effects, poorly sited temperature stations, the lack of cloud data and models with huge error bars and incorrect predictions, and come to ANY conclusion that is more robust than a guess.
First establish quality standards for climatology data gathering. Redo the databases. Start looking at the data and see where it leads. That's 3-5 years. Meanwhile spend all the money that is being spent on teaching AGW in schools and the general public and solar and wind subsidies and dedicate it to 1. clean water in the underdeveloped nations 2. access for the elderly in every country with cold snowy winters. In my part of London, a posh part I might add, the elderly were trapped in their flats for almost three weeks as none of the pavements or streets were ever ploughed or gritted. A small number will never go out again, and a great many are now fearful and only go out with trepidation. This suffering is real and it is happening now. The millions spent on endless reams of half baked theology masquerading as science being sold to Joe Bloggs and his kids is an affront. Oh-oh I meant to be dispassionate. IMHO.
Perhaps the problem is, to quote Obama, that AGW has become "too big to fail" and must be bailed out. With more money, of course.
Schiller it can’t be wise throwing good money after bad but it does remind me of the giant thermometer we see outside churches indicating how much money they have raised. Perhaps a similar indicator outside CRU would be appropriate.
I'm told this was an example of three deniers in an "energy sub-group" who wrote the thing up and slipped it past the upper echelons at IoP. "Infiltration" of the same kind the APS experienced back in 2008. IoP is pretty embarrassed about the whole thing.
Coniston, Yes, for sure the academic institutions ought to be pressing for a more thorough approach to gathering data. Justifying the expenditure today should be easier (maybe).
Spending money on enforcing the AGW message, not really the IoP's call, but yes, it has probably run it's course for now even if you believe the message
I'd quite like to keep the subsidies on GSHP installations since I'm not on mains gas. Subsidies on any energy saving improvement (like insulation) which break even in a couple of years - good too.
I think the only part which you mention that isn't simply a political policy decision would be that the scientific community which is not directly involved ought to be emphasising the uncertainties, UK winters won't become snow free even in the south without a 5 degree warming. Out ability to predict weather events is becoming worse.
This post on Roger Pielke Sr's blog guest-post-by-chick-keller-on-the-content-and-tone-of-my-weblog shows the sort of questions that are relevant to the scientific community at this point in time.
It is likely that even if they are not direct recipients of climate money, their sponsors (especially energy companies) are probably so worried about being associated with any anti-AGW groups that they threatened to withdraw funding. You all remember what happened when the press got wind of Heartland getting a small sum from Exxon. Both were put through the wringer for that. Thus, the clarification to a statement that was already very clear.
The IOP is being amusingly opaque on the provenance of its submission given the preachings contained within it, isn't it?
Frank,
I don't understand what you mean. Preachings?
Just to be fully informed on the IOP position, I found this contact person.
So, I've emailed Mr Winters for a copy of the full policy briefing.
I am curious to see if any IOP members peer-reviewed any IPCC documentation.
Also, if any of those reviewers blew off himalayan glaciergate or any of the other problems that have arisen.
from the IOP website:
"For the full policy briefing note or to contact Professor Joanna Haigh, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Head of Physics at Imperial College London, please contact IOP Press Officer, Joe Winters:
Tel: 020 7470 4815
Mobile: 07946 321473
E-mail: joseph.winters@iop.org"
I am sorry to see that the Institute of Physics has clarified its statement. For a minute I thought that there was some intelligent life out there, but no. Cowards. How can they possibly think that these levels of CO2 are dangerous? Physicists can surely calculate, and count, and have A levels? How disappointing. The girl on the Scottish ski-slopes, looking at the level of snow this season and declaring 'I don't believe in Global Warming' has more intelligence.
"There is no disconnect between the acceptance of a current need to take action and a questioning of the behavior of the scientists."
This is akin to describing as the Grand Canyon is just another hole in the ground. We are, in any case, far beyond "questioning". The case for CAGW, it is now clear, is based on utterly discredited practices by the climate scientists involved that corrupted the actual science in which they were engaged. To admit this and yet to continue to support the conclusions of these same scientists isn't just "disconnected", it borders on the downright schizophrenic. It amounts to rebuking the engineers for choosing shifting sands for a foundation while at the same time exhorting the contractors to go right ahead building the skyscraper.
I read some of the more rabid eco-fascist blogs earlier, who seem overjoyed with the IoP clarifications, spinning it as a climb down and as some sort of victory. I do think that there has been some pressure exerted from on high though in an attempt to tone it down. Fortunately I have read some blog entries from members of the IoP who say their leaders don't speak for the wider membership and that serious concerns still remain unanswered.