David Adam, the Guardian's green guru, is on the warpath, in hot pursuit of the Institute of Physics, or at least the identities of those senior members who drafted its statement on climate change.
Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal.
But with Mr Adam and his comrades in the green movement ready to try to vilify anyone who steps out of line on the global warming front, the other scientists involved in drafting the paper are being understandably reticent about coming forward.
The institute says its evidence was based on suggestions from the energy subcommittee of its science board. It would not reveal who sat on this sub-commitee, but confirmed that Gill was a member.
A spokeswoman for the institute said Gill was not the main source of information nor did the evidence primarily reflect his views; other members of the sub-commitee were also critical of CRU. However the IOP would not reveal names because they would get "dragged into a very public and highly politicised debate".
Perhaps this kind of thing might help Leo Hickman and the doubters on the previous thread understand why anonymity is so important.
Of course, statements from expert groups are rarely anything other than the statement of a few influential insiders. The impression that the Insitute of Physics has spoken with one voice is therefore a false one. But the same thing applies to all the other group statements to the CRU inquiry or indeed any those on other aspect of the global warming controversy. Regular readers here may remember my articles on the Royal Society's position paper on climate change for example. I've heard of Royal Society fellows who disagree with it.
This brings us to another interesting parallel between the IoP statement and the Royal Society paper. Because of course, we don't know who wrote the Royal Society piece, although reading between the lines it seems likely that it was written by Sir John Houghton working alone.
I wonder if David Adam will try to find this out too?