Bishop Hill That IoP submission
Jul 20, 2010 Climate: Parliament Do you remember the Institute of Physics submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry? The institute's criticisms, being so strongly worded and coming from such an important body, were seen as highly significant. The opening gambits of the paper gives a flavour of the rest:
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 coordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.
Soon after the submission appeared, things became a little heated. Without warning, the IOP issued a clarification, stating that it still officially believed in global warming. Then a story appeared in the Guardian, linking the paper to a known sceptic named Peter Gill, a member of the IOP group responsible for the submission.
The Guardian reporter, David Adam, made much of Gill's involvement, entitling his article "Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission" and quoting statements Gill had made on the subject of global warming. This was despite the fact that the Institute had told him that Gill was not the main author of the submission nor did it mainly reflect his views.
In the wake of David Adam's insinuations, Peter Gill was the subject of a great deal of blogospheric flak but chose not to respond. Now, however, he has decided to tell his side of the story and what follows is a guest post.
===============================================
CONTRIBUTION BY PETER F GILL
I have been involved with the Institute of Physics (IOP) for over 40 years and have served on many committees and formations in various pro bono capacities. However in what follows I am only providing my own views and I am not talking on behalf of the IOP or indeed any faction of its membership.
Firstly I wish to avoid some confusion on my most recent pro bono posts with IOP. I was Chair of the Energy Group, one of some 50 subject groups within IOP, for a three-year stint that ended in October 2008. I was also a member of the Energy Subgroup of the IOP Science Policy Board from its foundation until it was disbanded in June 2010 as a direct consequence of Climategate. It has been the role of the Energy Subgroup for over five years to make submissions to government on energy related matters.
In November 2009 I sent the following e-mail to Robert Kirby-Harris, CEO of IOP:
Dear Bob,
You will recall that I pointed out that some time ago IOP's stance on anthropogenic climate change, particularly in terms of suppression and censorship of contrary views, risks bringing the IOP into disrepute. Now you will see all over the Internet the consequences of Phil Jones activities at CRU of which the following is typical: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
By the way although IOP would not give a platform for Nigel Lawson to speak please note that Nigel and Fred Singer will be debating climate change at IOD tomorrow night with Mike Hulme (ex Tyndall) and Michael Grubb (Carbon Trust).
Regards Peter
I received no reply to that e-mail.
In late January/early February 2010 I had a telephone discussion with Peter Taylor, author of Chill - A reassessment of global warming theory on the question of submissions to inquiries on the Climatic Research Unit following the disclosures in November 2009. I pointed out that in my view it was doubtful that IOP would make a submission given its support for the AGW hypothesis and the recently displayed attitudes. Peter indicated that he would be submitting and since his views are similar to mine I decided not to submit on a personal basis.
On 3rd February 2010 I was very surprised to receive an e-mail from IOP's policy officer, with an attached first draft of an IOP submission to one of the inquiries, which had been prepared by one of my colleagues on the Energy Subgroup without any prior discussion. I was busy at the time but said that I would dig out the notes I had made last November and make my substantive comments in a few days' time. This would still have allowed sufficient time to allow the draft to incorporate these well before the deadline. In the meantime I made one e-mail comment direct to the lead author to the effect that in the first draft's first sentence "The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries, they could have worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context", the word "could" should be cut.
None of my colleagues on the Energy Subgroup share my strong sceptical views on AGW as far as I am aware and indeed a number of them are vocal supporters of the AGW hypothesis. However it was apparent in the subsequent revisions of the draft submission that there was considerable concern about the apparent lack of scientific integrity displayed in the disclosed e-mails.
On February 5th I sent the following e-mail around the Subgroup (repeating my earlier comment direct to the lead author for all to see):
Dear XXXX,
In the first sentence of your draft you mention that "unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries, they could have worrying implications..." I feel strongly that the word "could" should be deleted. The reason is simple if the e-mails are not forgeries then we should all be shocked and the implications are indeed grave.
I have now consulted the notes I made months ago on the topic. The first thing to say is that I have only looked at a tiny amount of the information available. For a start there were well over a thousand e-mails. What initially struck me was the unpleasantness of it all and in particular the gloating over the death of a dissenter. The latter is of course not relevant to the enquiry.
In generic terms I regard the following as matters undermining the integrity of science and the scientific method:
- manipulation of data to produce a required rather than an actual trend. The evidence for the latter is contained both in e-mails and in the computer code and notes within the computer code disclosed
- attempts to undermine the reputation of dissenters from hypotheses favoured by CRU
- attempts to sully the reputation of scientific journals that have published material provided by dissenters from hypotheses favoured by CRU
- evidence of the peer review process being compromised
- evidence of inappropriate pressure being applied to professional bodies for unscientific purposes
- a pattern in a number of exchanges that leads the the conclusion that politics often lead the science at CRU
- illegal and wholly disreputable behaviour in respect of FOI requests
I strongly suspect that some of the above could lead to prosecutions. It is therefore worth mentioning that the enquiry should be careful not to prejudice any legal proceedings against a number of individuals whether concerned with the misuse of public funds or indeed many other matters.
I have not attempted to incorporate the above in the draft for the moment for two reasons. Firstly I feel sure you would do the job quicker and better than I and secondly I prefer to first await reactions from the Sub-group. I should say however that as I gleaned my generic points from rather random opening of e-mails etc it would take some time to annotate the points with references to specific material from the 60 plus mega bites available.
Regards Peter
As it turned out some of the themes I had listed had already been picked up by others and incorporated in the draft. In the opinion of the lead author some of my other points required "independent" verification. However by 10th February the Science Policy Board had approved the draft as it was before incorporating the material I supplied on 5th February that had not been covered by others. Whilst there may have been time to make further revisions before the submission deadline this was considered risky. I was told that the reason was that a number of individuals in the IOP hierarchy were against submission from the start and any delay could result in a reversal of the decision to make a submission. It is also noteworthy that every member of the Sub-group was circulated with the following e-mail on 10th February:
10.02.10 - Lords issue warning over 'Climategate'
Press Releases - Alerts - Environment Agency
Cost of not preventing and adapting to climate change could be ‘dangerous’
An influential coalition of peers led by Environment Agency chairman Lord Smith has today voiced concern that the continued media furore around climate change science could lead to a disastrous delay in action to prevent dangerous climate change and adapt to its consequences.
In a letter published in today’s Daily Telegraph, the group of 15 Lords - which includes Government advisers on climate change such as Lord Stern, Lord Turner and leading industrialist Lord Browne plus CBI boss Richard Lambert - expressed concern that ’climategate’ threatens to undermine “progress towards, and public support for, a global deal to reduce emissions building on the Copenhagen Accord.
The letter urges “the media, the public, policy makers and the scientific community to calm their nerves and take a proportionate look at the evidence as a whole. What the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows is that climate change is happening and is very likely to be caused by human activity.
"Yes, there is uncertainty in the science, and there probably always will be. But the uncertainties are not primarily about whether or not climate change is happening, but about how fast change will come and how bad it will be.
"The challenge is one of the management of risk, and none of the evidence implies that we can be confident that the risks are small. On the contrary, taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that the risks are major and delay in action is dangerous.
"We must maintain our resolve to focus on the real issues. What matters is how we get global emissions to peak and start to decline in not much more than a decade; reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050; how we shift to a low carbon economy; how we will adapt our communities and infrastructure to more extreme events, such as flooding, drought and sea level rise; and how we will change behaviours and values so that we can all live in a cleaner, more sustainable world.
"We should not gloss over the problems that have occurred in the past few months. There are important issues about scientific process and conduct that must and will be addressed by the IPCC and the University of East Anglia. Openness to scrutiny is important both for the integrity of science and public confidence in it. But equally we should not let them prevent us from getting on with the jobs that really need doing."
Lord Smith added:
"Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. In the UK we are likely to face hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters and more extreme weather events such as flooding, drought and heatwaves."
The Environment Agency, as the leading environmental regulator for England and Wales, regulates nearly half of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and is playing a key role in tackling climate change and helping people and wildlife to adapt to climate change.
Remember that for the reasons given the only real impact I had on the IOP submission was the elimination of one subjunctive in the first sentence!
Nothing else happened as far as I was concerned until early March when, out of the blue, David Adam, a Guardian reporter, rang me at home saying that he had been speaking to IOP HQ who had suggested that he speak with me about the IOP's submission to the Select Committee. I asked him to ring me back after I had spoken to the Director of Communications and External Relations. There were two reasons for this, neither of which I shared with David Adam. The first was that I suspected that IOP HQ would not give out my details without prior reference to me. The second is that it is forbidden for an IOP member to speak on behalf of IOP without specific permission. I discovered that David Adam had been zealous in his pursuit of information about the make-up of the Energy Subgroup and the main author of the submission. Apparently he already had my name and the name of a committee member of the Energy Group. It seems likely that Mr Adam did not appreciate the difference between the Energy Group and the Energy Subgroup of the Science Policy Board at least at the beginning.
It transpired that, although the membership of the Science Policy Board is in the public domain, for reasons unknown to me the membership of the Energy Subgroup of the Science Policy Board has never been public knowledge. Consequently, without obtaining the permission of everyone on the subgroup, the IOP could not respond to Mr Adam's requests about the members and the lead author as it would be breaking the law (Data Protection Act).
When I spoke to the Director of Communications, I was told that the IOP had issued a "final" statement to the Guardian explaining that my role had been very limited. I therefore e-mailed David Adam to the effect I had nothing to add to what he had already been told. Had Mr Adam telephoned me back as arranged I would have confirmed that my involvement had been extremely minor. However he did not call again. In writing his piece, he no doubt relied on Internet or other research. His Guardian article was picked up all over the world with the usual consequences in blog space.
It would be more than a little interesting to discover how my name became associated with the IOP's submission at all as no IOP Officer admits that he or she was the source of this information. It seems likely to me that whoever told the Guardian almost certainly did so to discredit the submission by associating it with a sceptical view of the AGW science; in fact the bias of the subgroup is in the other direction. Nevertheless, it was my colleagues who were largely responsible for the submission, a document that, frankly, I would have preferred to have been stronger. What is clear is that the saboteur was successful, not least because the IOP appeared to lack transparency by not listing the contributors to the submission.
While I took the flak on the Internet (first 4 pages of items if you Google: peter gill cru physics) the IOP simply stated that I had only a minor role in the submission and that it as an organisation had no doubt about the science of anthropogenic climate change. Until now I have not responded to intemperate remarks made in blog space resulting from David Adam’s article.
On 25th June all members of the Energy Sub-group received the following e-mail (partial text extract only):
Following the meeting of the Science Board on 17 June 2010, it is with regret that I announce that the Energy Sub-group is to be disbanded, immediately. This, as you can imagine, is a direct consequence of the Climategate affair."
To which I replied:
Folks,
Long before the Energy Sub-group was formed I was on an e-mail list providing input to IOP submissions to government. At that time a final draft document would eventually be produced by our contributions for submission. However we frequently found that the document actually submitted had been severely edited by IOP HQ. The Energy Sub-group has not suffered in this way in its submissions and our deliberations have been transparent at least to ourselves. This situation now ends with the decision to disband the Energy Sub-group. By taking individual advice but not sharing it around the process is damaged.
As the person who took all the flak for the IOP's submission, even though my substantive contribution was not included at all, I imagine that the IOP will continue not to wish my name is associated with any submission in future. However as I am no longer bound by collective responsibility I may consider defending myself without of course naming any of those involved in the submission to the Select Committee. If any of you are in doubt about the extent of abuse piled on me just google my name plus Physics and CRU.
Two final comments: (1) We have all given our time free of charge in quite a number of submissions for which the IOP has gained many brownie points. It is significant that the Science Board has chosen not to thank us for that work but to dismiss us in a a way that suggests blame. (2) Almost certainly someone within IOP decided to sabotage our submission to the Select Committee by telling the Guardian Newspaper that the document was strongly influenced by a climate sceptic (me). That person has been extremely successful as our submission is virtually ignored by the Select Committee.
Regards Peter
Reader Comments (63)
I think the issue not that the Guardian acted like they did - who is surprised by that?
The issue is I think, that there was not another mainstream publication that would respond and carry a "de facto" rebuttal.
The balance and checks in the MSM are corrupted in favour of CAGW.
If there is one thing that you could learn from Alistair Campbell - get your rebuttal in early and strongly. The 4 pages of negative google would have had alternate "positive" links.
This shows how deep the corrupting tentacles of AGW have penetrated even our learned bodies.
I am always amazed at how any physicist could accept AGW. On the other hand, until a few years ago, before I had the time to look into "climate science", I accepted it as real. Also, as physics covers many areas, unless one has expertise in the physical processes that govern the climate, then it is easy to accept the hypothesis for AGW and that the evidence supports the hypothesis. The reality of course is the opposite - there is no evidence to support the hypothsis. If "climate science" functioned as a proper science, then the hypothesis would have been abandoned long ago. Only politics and money keep the hypothesis alive.
If only a physicist of the standing of Richard P Feynman were alive today.
What an extraordinary Machiavellian tale. I am left shaking my head in wonder.
Great post, thank you Peter. Another twist to the plot.
I had almost forgotten what openness and transparency actually is. Thanks Peter.
I was a briefly a member of the IOP in my youth, and I must say I was pleased with their official reaction to the climategate exposure - it had some edge, some sense of scientific integrity (affronted) about it. I must confess to have missed the backtracking, and the effective disappearance of the submission somewhere in a Westminster committee room.
Here is a list of 7 extremely distinguished physicists who don't care much for the climate 'scare the world with this' folks: http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
And here is the list with additional insight into Australian politics in particular (the arrogant way in which the abusive term 'denier' was repeatedly used by the new Prime Minister, put in juxtaposition to these distinguished men) but with wide applicability: http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
So, well done Peter F. Gill - you deserve a salute.
I have now to add the IOP to my little list of bodies most worthy of exploration to clarify how they became to be so easily diverted away from their traditions and roles by the hoo-hah engineered by the IPCC out of really very little of any substance: The Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London, the UK Met Office, and now the IOP. If I were more knowledgeable, and au courant, I suspect the list would be longer.
One of the most heartening things to me at the Russell inquiry was the IoP evidence. It showed that the IoP had not been corrupted. So this revelation of dirty deeds at the heart of the IoP is very disheartening. Does anyone know if the IoP receives Government financial support like the RS does?
On a different note, the IoP ran a series of seminars at the Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF); see http://www.iop.org/news/page_44279.html. The third and final seminar was ‘Climate prediction models: what’s the point?’
It is reported that "Our speakers lucidly presented the scientific evidence showing the anthropogenic effect on the Earth’s climate, looking at patterns through history and the rapid rise in temperature since the beginning of the industrialised era, through to the laws of atmospheric physics and finally contemporary European policy attitudes."
Does anyone know what the laws of atmospheric physics are? I have not heard of any laws of physics that are specific to the atmosphere?
Can any one get hold of the proceedings? It would be interesting to see the scientific evidence showing the anthropogenic effect on the Earth’s climate. I have been asking for this evidence for ages and nobody has yet been able to provide me with it.
Mr Gill
Comparing this with the evolution of another similar, related contentious episode in its whole, it is only obvious that the underlying story is the same.
If there is criticism of the CRU/IPCC/consensus position
If it arises from reputable quarters, and seems to carry substantial weight
... the firestorm of dirt, backroom maneuvers, insults and obfuscation will be so strong,...
that you are likely to forget or lose track of the very original point of criticism.
I tale of dirty deeds.
It would appear that the IoP have an infestation of AGW alarmists. Time to bring in the rat catchers.
Dr. Gill, Thank you very much. Like Jack Savage, I am left shaking my head.
Am I the last to notice that the ever independent Oxburgh was one of the signatories of the Lord's little ditty about Climategate?
hi everyone
i no longer work at the Guardian but i'm happy to respond to this.
There was no plot or conspiracy to the story. I was genuinely interested by the IOP submission and wanted to talk to the person who put it together, because I was keen to talk to anyone with a credible take on this stuff who believed what many of the anti-lobby were saying the emails contained, because i couldn't see it myself and I couldn't find anyone else I considered credible who did either.
Very quickly it became clear that the IOP were unwilling to reveal any details. Off the record I heard from people inside that something had gone wrong in the preparation of the submission. The zealous pursuit described above was my attempt to discover what happened.
Peter is wrong on several points. I was fully aware of the difference between the Energy group and the Energy sub group of the Science Board. No-one at the IOP gave me his home number. A simple internet search on the energy sub-group threw up his name, and no others. And a further search on his name produced an advert for his company, complete with phone number.
I accept that I probably did not discover the whole story of how the submission was produced. That is entirely because the IOP refused to answer my questions, and told those involved not to. Peter was the ONLY person who confirmed to me he had been involved, which the IOP also confirmed. Several times before deadline I told the IOP what I had written, and said I was very happy to change it, I just needed evidence that others on its science board or energy sub group had offered critical input. I was happy to see emails with all personal details removed, if that would help. The press office agreed to this and then changed their mind. They later sent me an anonymous quote from someone saying the IOP should be comfortable about its submission, but nothing on how it was prepared.
I tried to write the story to reflect this continuing uncertainty over how the submission was prepared. Yet, I would argue strongly that there is justifiable public interest in revealing that someone with the views that Peter publicly holds on global warming has been consulted and somehow involved in the preparation of something the IOP subsequently passes off as the views of its members in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.
If Peter, the IOP or readers of this blog disagree, or feel the story was misleading, they only need to contact the Guardian's readers editor, who will investigate and make a judgement. To my knowledge, several months after it appeared, they have yet to do so.
Cheers
David Adam
And they wonder why kids aren't learning science anymore. If you're going to be a self-serving, two-faced hypocrite only interested in power, fame and lining your pocket, then it makes much more sense to study to be a lawyer/politician.
Disgusted, but sadly, not surprised.
David Adam, thank you for clarifying this.
For others, the following paragraph from David's story in The Guardian seems especially pertinent.
It seems everyone agrees that.
"because i couldn't see it myself"
You mean you really don't see anything to concern you in the emails?
Thanks are due to Peter Gill for this fine but depressing account of IOP AGW skulduggery. And, incidentally, David Adam's account clarifies some details but gives emphasis to the conclusion that a mixture of dogma, incompetence and not a little malice led the IOP hierarchy to undermine their submission and to scapegoat Peter.
Outrageous.
And how many more outrageous articles will we have to read before someone is prepared to admit that "the science" is very very far from being "robust" and that we need to think through our multi-trillion spending plans?
David Adam
Seriously, you must read the Bishops book first, then read the emails again.
David Adam: If you can't see what the emails contain, I suggest you read Climategate Analysis by John P Costella, another physicist. Go to http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
This is not surprising, AGW is strong in the IOP, a former CEO is now an influential member of 1.) The CCC with people such as Lord may and 2.) The TSB (Tech Strat Board) that hands out huge amounts of our cash on hair brained environmental projects such as an eco-car made from recycled carbon fibre with a lawn mower engine.
I expect she knows the levers of power in the IOP better than most and wasn't best pleased with the submission.
SDCS
TonyN
You weren't the only one to notice that :-)
Peter Gill,
For some reason this one passed me by so apologies for my late contribution to this thread. If I'd have known about this before now, you can rest assured I'd have been supporting you on the blogosphere. I particularly like Andy Russell's 'guilt by association' hatchet piece in which he clear trie sto show that 'Big Oil' was behind the IoP's submission to the S&TC yet fails to acknowledge the funding that CRU has received from 'Big Oil'.
I'm shocked but perhaps not surprised by the fact that the IoP has chosen to disband their Energy Subgroup. After all they are just clearing up the mess as most institutions who have been shown to not wholely toe the CAGW line would be expected to do once pressure has been applied by their political masters. Did you now by the way that Andy Russell is an alumni of the University of Easy Access?
Now that you no longer have a 'collective responsible' to the IoP's Energy Subgroup would you care to reveal who in your opinion is likely to be the person who 'tipped off' David Adams of the Grauniad and who its was who was the primary author/coordinator of the submission to the S&TC and who approved its submission to teh S&TC on the IoP's Energy Board?
Peter Gill thanks for your contribution. It may not seem like it now but your story will be one of the key factors that eventually helps weed out all the corruption that pervades science at present. Science is having a struggle at present due to its lack of transparency and due to its hierarchy’s seemingly blind acceptance of AGW. However more and more the lifeblood of the AGW movement will be cut off and unless these individuals are moved they may cause terminal damage to science. Science needs to quickly adapt to a new order before social unrest forced by our failing financial systems and ropy government finances force too much money to be diverted from it. We need a science establishment that will stop us wasting money on dead loss projects such as wind turbines and look for better ways of energy production, storage and transmission.
Many people including myself have had a concern that what was uncover at CRU as a result of Climategate, and much that was obvious to the open minded before this, may just be the tip of the iceberg and that unless bodies such as the IOP and the Royal Society act quickly and transparently to correct science the Public will lose faith in it. I like many other thought “at last” a science body has acted in the interests of science as a whole. But alas the wheels of the AGW movement were fast to apply some remedial medicine and have the IOP act to sabotage its own submission.. Of course there is only one medicine that does this and that’s money, and it usually comes via some covert government agent, being themselves paid far too much to think for themselves. Of course the media are always ready to help oil the misinformation, usually out of ignorance.
David Adam thanks for your contribution. The one question I have for you is have you spent hours, days and years studying the actual published evidence for AGW and tried the get anyone to provide real observational data to support the AGW view. If the answer is yes, have you found any, because many of us have spent such time on this subject without finding satisfactory answers? And you don’t need to be a climate scientist to figure much of what’s published in this field is rubbish.
With all due respect to your journalist integrity, I feel that you just like 99% of your colleagues continuously chase the wrong AGW story. This often comes about because journalists have not taken the time to try and understand the story or reference factual data. This is what climategate is about. Manipulation of bogus data to prove a hypothesis that just doesn’t stack up. And all the establishment have done is to try and prevent the public from holding them to account. Not once have any of the inquiries checked the science, and this is simply because most of it is without merit.
Your story was what it was, but it would have been more constructive if you had look at what was written in the IOP statement with a view to seeing if held any merit as applied to climategate, rather than as you did find the sceptic that had managed to bypass the imaginary mainstream view within the IOP.
Dave Adams,
Welcome to BishopHill! It's always good when someone who was directly involved in an incident takes the time to join in on a discussion of that incident.
"A simple internet search on the energy sub-group threw up his name, and no others. And a further search on his name produced an advert for his company, complete with phone number.
"
By chance did you store the search terms you used on Google Search (I presume?) that revealed that Peter Gill was a member of the IoP's Energy Subgroup? Peter Gill is quite a common name so how did you make sure that your further search identified the correct Peter Gill?
“Yet, I would argue strongly that there is justifiable public interest in revealing that someone with the views that Peter publicly holds on global warming has been consulted and somehow involved in the preparation of something the IOP subsequently passes off as the views of its members in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry”.
Ah yes, 2+2=5
“Off the record I heard from people inside that something had gone wrong in the preparation of the submission”.
Yes, and..... waiting on the edge of my chair.
CAGW and its progenitor - radical and extreme environmentalism - have much in common psychologically with the utopianism and inherently anti-democratic and anti-liberty elitism that drove 19th and early 20th Century revolutionaries like Lenin. What surprised me is how many of these early radicals were scientifically trained as engineers, physicists and biologists. (See for example, Pomper's book, Lenin's Brother also the hopeless naivete of truly great physicists like Paul DIrac). IMHO, their essentially anti-libertarian and pro-Statist stance reflects their disconnection with real life. It is not surprising to me that individuals with this mind set have burrowed deep into government bureaucracies, academia, foundations and NGOs. Saul Alinsky knew what he was about and we will continue to pay the price of leaving the machiavellian, anti-democratic elitists unchallenged for years to come. Peter Gill's sad story is, alas, the tip of the iceberg.
Peter Gill,
Were you personally involved in producing this document?
http://www.iop.org/policy/consultations/energy_environment/file_41859.pdf
I see your background is not in nuclear power (mine is - I'm an ex-industry and R&D nuclear physicist), but oil and gas (have worked in this sector as a safety consultant as well)? If so then who on the Energy Subgroup was involved in producing this document?
Could you also enlighten me and others here as to how one goes about being appointed (I presume) and if so by whom to such a 'subgroup'?
“Off the record I heard from people inside that something had gone wrong in the preparation of the submission”.
David Adams was "used" by someone inside. He acknowledges it, but doesn't even see it. His smear of the presentation was exactly as intended by that insider, and exactly wrong at the same time. There is an award winning journalistic lesson here if he would choose to learn it. Instead of finding the real story (How I Was Used by XXXXX To Smear the IOP''s own Submission) he chooses to justify his role as the false messenger.
When will a real journalist get busy and doggedly pursue "Harry" or some of the other loose ends around the Climategate story, instead of just eating the vomit CAGW enthusiasts spit their way?
I am not in the least surprised by any of this.
Big Money Talks. And this is just an example.
For those of you who missed it because you were not in America last year, I present into evidence, exhibit A. The PickensPlan.
Read it carefully and then read about the man behind it. The man himself
It makes me wonder if BP doesn't stand for Boone Pickens. In any case, he wants the US government to fund a massive "alternative energy" grid so he can make more billions.
It is very difficult for large, influential origanizations to maintain their integrity; especially when so many members, today, have none whatsoever. The IOP is not unique and AGW is not the only 'issue'. Many support and maintain the 'Code', others use their organization to make gains for themself only - and that is their only code.
Institute denies censoring 'global cooling' article
13 August 2009
A physicist claims she has been "censored" by her learned society after it refused to publish an article questioning global warming that she submitted to a branch newsletter.
Terri Jackson, a former lecturer at Belfast Metropolitan College, has been a member of the Institute of Physics for 30 years and founded its High Energy Physics Group......
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407763
Pouring cold water on global warming
Global cooling has arrived. Global warming is dead.
By Terri Jackson
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that far from global warming the earth has now entered a period of global cooling which will last at least for the next two decades....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/pouring-cold-water-on-global-warming-14299972.html
David Adam:
Welcome to the discussion, David. It is always enlightening to get the persepectives of the people involved.
Off the record I heard from people inside that something had gone wrong in the preparation of the submission. The zealous pursuit described above was my attempt to discover what happened.
David, this is not meant as unkindly as it is going to sound, but the very way you approached this story betrays your biases and uncritical assumptions. Frankly, I am astounded that you could look at the Climategate Emails and not come away profoundly shaken without having to resort to a skeptic to explain it all to you. When you approached the IoP story, you just knew that there was a back-story of corruption by evil interests. You granted an agent of those evil interests anonymity and you got the lead you knew just had to exist. You were played. Now, what are you going to do about it?
David Adam's contribution leaves me unimpressed. But that is besides the point.
The point is there is no large scale competitor to the Guardian.
If the Guardian is contacting the IoP then we all know what their angle will be, certainly not objective and fair reporting of the issue. If I was the press officer I might be inclined to be the minimum of help. If there was a more sympathetic angle on the phone I might be inclined to help. But there wasn't and there does not seem there will be.
We do not have another organsation balancing the Guardian's bias.
This is for KevinUK
The Energy Sub-group was disbanded following a meeting of the IOP Science policy Board on 17th June. Its ex members were informed of this decision on 25th June. It follows that one cannot get appointed to the Energy Sub-group now as it no longer exists. Coming to your particular question there were are a number of nuclear industry experts on the Energy Sub-group and also at least one opponent of nuclear fission (although a supporter of fusion). Together with my colleagues I contributed to many submissions to government over all the years of the Energy Sub-group and many years before in another grouping. The submissions certainly involved new nuclear build, nuclear waste options etc. as well as renewable and a range of other energy related topics. Following the submission on the CRU affair people in blog space quickly realised that I am a biased unprincipled dimwit who knows nothing about anything especially climate science. As I have only been reading papers on the subject for the last fifteen years and have probably only read about 20 books on the subject I am inclined to agree. At one stage prompted by an unsatisfactory answer to my questions to the IPCC Lead author on sea levels I contacted the world expert on the subject, Nils-Axel Morner. I asked him for a short list of his key papers from many hundreds that he had written. He came back with a page of A4 listing at about one paper per line. At that stage I realised the extent of my lack of knowledge. The same is true in many other related fields. If only I was a climate modeller and didn’t have to worry about mechanisms in the real chaotic world.
I think that David's "emails" he refers to are the emails concerning the IoP statement, not the CRU emails.
intrepid_wanders
read David's statement again:
I was genuinely interested by the IOP submission and wanted to talk to the person who put it together, because I was keen to talk to anyone with a credible take on this stuff who believed what many of the anti-lobby were saying the emails contained, because i couldn't see it myself and I couldn't find anyone else I considered credible who did either.
He was writing there about the Climategate Emails. In your citation he was requesting IoP emails to use as source material. To date, those have not been hacked.
Peter Gill
Thank you for your reply. I asked the question because I'm intrigued as to how one gets involved in this type of process i..e get oneself into a position where on can presumably albeit in a small way get to influence government policy on a matter such as the building of a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK.
I've been researching the whole IoP submission 'fiasco' as our good friend (now ex-) 'Will of the Wiki' calls it and came across this link. In his Stoat thread on this subject I notice that David Adams is happy to converse with DeepClimate and bigcitylib who I've been happy to debate the scienc eof climate chnage with many a time on ClimateAudit over the years.
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/11/bringing-physics-into-disrepute/
Do you know who Jo Abbess is? How dare you agree to appear on a panel with confirmed skeptics the likes of Piers Corbyn, David Bellamy and Joe D'Aleo (you know I'm joking here right?).
I'm afraid to say it Peter but it looks like you've been well and truly stitched up. On the basis that you've said that all the other members of the Energy Subgroup aren't AGW skeptics (I presume they are mostly lukewarmers?) then it looks to me as though someone who knew you were an AGW skeptic has fingered you for the IoP's critical of CRU submission to the S&TC when in fact you barely had anything to do with it. Either that or someone realtibe high up within the IoP doesn't like the Energy Subgroup and so has used this opportunity to get rid of it?
Only David Adams can tell us who the 'insider' is but as a journalist (and 'fine upstanding member of society with high moral standards' as clearly all journalist are and not the 'scum of the earth' as some would have us believe) he is no doubt not prepared to reveal his sources.
I notice that what info there was on the IoP web site that revealed the make up of certain IoP 'groups/sub groups' has now been taken down (time to use the wayback machine perhaps?).
David Adam, thanks for participating in the discussion. You write:
"Yet, I would argue strongly that there is justifiable public interest in revealing that someone with the views that Peter publicly holds on global warming has been consulted and somehow involved in the preparation of something the IOP subsequently passes off as the views of its members in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry."
It has recently been revealed by the hard work of Andrew (our host) that Phil Jones had 'been consulted' and *heavily* involved in the selection of the evidence that Lord Oxburgh reviewed. I'm curious to know whether your journalistic spidy sense has been similarly tingled by this revelation and do you plan to pursue this story with similar vigor?
Jiminy Cricket
The point is there is no large scale competitor to the Guardian.
I will have to disagree. There is the Internet. More and more people are getting their news from the internet, and there are now millions of blogs out there for opinion. And they are not going to pay for it if they can get it free (although they may have to put up with ads). Newspapers have not figured that out yet, and trying to collect money via paywalls will merely make their demise occur sooner. We have gone through a major paradigm shift which is still continuing. The only people who will be able to sell subscription on-line will be purveyors of specialize information such as stock market info. General news will not sell that way with so much competition from others on the internet.
As a writer, editor and publisher, I am fully aware of the changes because I see them in the top line. Today more than half of all copies of my books are sold as ebooks. Five years ago, it was almost none. In five more, I doubt I will have any printed books even though I use POD to do it. The bound printed book is going to become a collectors item soon and all those libraries full of shelves will have to be repurposed. The same for newspapers. News collection will still be there, but the delivery will be electronic, with the business model based on advertizements.
Blogs like Bishop Hill have a far greater impact than anyone could have guessed 10 years ago. And that is probably the major reason why Climategate got to be such a large issue. As much as the Guardian would like to believe otherwise, they are dinosaurs who will go extinct soon enough.
David Adam, if you still have questions re the probably leaked Climate Research Unit files, read Mosher and Fuller's "Climategate, The CRUTAPE Letters" in addition to Andrew Montford's excellent "The Hockeystick Illusion" as was suggested above. I, for one, would be most interested in learning of your thoughts after you have read these two books and ask that you return to Bishop Hill to report on them.
Thank you - kudos to Peter Gill.
Interesting to see in microcosm how the old paper finds itself manipulated and purveying an 'angle' rather than facts, a journalist finds himself no longer working for that paper, and the web chaotically catches up with the facts.
@Don Pablo
I do not disagree with anything you are saying. Except that the Guardian is a brand. Nothing more and nothing less.
That brand has a certain value. Even in the internet age. All I was trying to point out that there is no competition from brands of equal value.
We are on the cusp of the change from printed to electronic media. MSM still do have a head start as far as electronic brand building is concerned. Whether they embrace or screw up is really dependant on their management.
The PR department will still jump (negatively or positively) when a certain brand comes calling, or will distribute their releases to those brands.
BH and others have a little way to go before they cause the ladies of the PR department "to want to have their babies".
Phillip Bratby writes:
"Also, as physics covers many areas, unless one has expertise in the physical processes that govern the climate, then it is easy to accept the hypothesis for AGW and that the evidence supports the hypothesis. The reality of course is the opposite - there is no evidence to support the hypothsis. If "climate science" functioned as a proper science, then the hypothesis would have been abandoned long ago."
I would modfy this claim just a bit. The crucial hypotheses do not exist. The AGW crowd claims that "forcings" caused by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise three or four degrees rather than the one degree rise caused by the CO2 molecules alone. These "forcings" include matters such as cloud formation. Yet the AGW crowd has no physical hypotheses which explain how CO2 affects cloud formation. They rely entirely on models, and models do nothing but make explicit what is implicit in one's assumptions.
What I found so very refreshing in the I0P submission is that they directly addressed questions of scientific method. Most critics of AGW are reticent on the matter of scientific method. The brilliant and heroic McIntyre has no interest in scientific method, even though what he has shown about "hiding he decline" could be taken as showing that Jones and friends played fast and loose with the evidence. Yet it is from the perspective of scientific method that AGW has always been bankrupt. AGW proponents claim to foresee large rises in temperature yet they have no hypotheses which could explain the phenomena of cloud formation. Their so-called predictions of large increases in temperature are based entirely on analytical tools, models, and have no experimental or empirical component whatsoever. I would think that any physicist who looked seriously at their work would be appalled.
I'm afraid Mr Adams that I'm with Shub. The article was designed to play on the deep rooted beleifs of Guardian readers that there is a big oil money conspiracy.
And as for this:
'If Peter, the IOP or readers of this blog disagree, or feel the story was misleading, they only need to contact the Guardian's readers editor, who will investigate and make a judgement. To my knowledge, several months after it appeared, they have yet to do so.'
Do you really presume that anyone other than a true beleiver reads this article with any credulence? Why should we waste our time on propoganda?
Do you actually think that the article is being used for anything more than yesterdays fish and chips?
One of the most irritating aspects of modern jounalism is the incessant need to push an opinion rather than enabling the reader with the facts and allowing them to form their own opinion, I was under the mistaken impression that this was coming from editorial descisions but from the comment above I stand corrected.
'If Peter, the IOP or readers of this blog disagree, or feel the story was misleading, they only need to contact the Guardian's readers editor, who will investigate and make a judgement. To my knowledge, several months after it appeared, they have yet to do so.'
Yet another ******* inquiry? No thanks. Oh but of course the Guardian Reader's Editor has no vested interest and is completely independent. Haven't I heard that before somewhere?
@Lord Beaverbrook: could not have put it better myself. Chips anyone?
Don Pablo,
I am afraid I have been lurking rather than contributing over the last month (family and business issues) but I noted your response to the comment:
"The point is there is no large scale competitor to the Guardian."
I agree with your response that the internet is a foil to this but I also wanted to add that in the UK the Daily Telegraph is the competitor to the Guardian (and the DT is of course the largest circulation of any serious UK newspaper).
The problem is that the Guardian and the DT are both partisan and so they report to an entrenched viewpoint. Articles in the Grauniad are dismissed as pandering to the left wing/environmental/Greenpeace/veggie/pinko's and articles in the Torygraph are labelled as pandering to the BIg Oil/Right Wing lobby. Although I respect their integrity, I feel this even applies to Telegraph contributors such as Booker and North - they are perceived by establishment as tainted by right wing associations.
The internet has been very important in opening up the debate about climate change and this has been critical. However the problem with the internet is provenance. It is difficult for a casual observer to judge the credibility of articles and reporting and there is always a voice somewhere in the noise providing a spoiler (RealClimate springs to mind - if our host is interested I have a nicely documented report on censorship when I tried to post there).
Phillip Bratby asks:
"Does anyone know what the laws of atmospheric physics are? I have not heard of any laws of physics that are specific to the atmosphere?"
For AGW proponents, atmospheric physics is the study of the properties of the CO2 molecule as they are relevant to concentrations of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Everyone agrees that CO2 alone cannot account for increases in temperature of more than one degree this century. To account for higher temperatures, AGW proponents postulate "forcings" which are the effects of that one degree of higher temperature on such atmospheric phenomena as cloud formation. They play with their "forcings" in models. There are no physical hypotheses that explain how CO2 causes "forcings" or how cloud behavior is affected. In sum, AGW proponents have no interesting atmospheric physics.
"Does anyone know what the laws of atmospheric physics are? I have not heard of any laws of physics that are specific to the atmosphere?"
You could start with the Ferenc Miskolczi ( http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate ) and Gerlich & Tscheuschner ( http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/CullingmorefromGerlichandTscheuschner.pdf ) papers.
Perhaps the IOP could grace us with a line by line rebuttal of each.
mr. gill -
thank you sincerely for everything u have written. it clarifies much. as an australian, i particularly thank you for stating in your feb 5 email to the subgroup:
"What initially struck me was the unpleasantness of it all and in particular the gloating over the death of a dissenter. The latter is of course not relevant to the enquiry."
in Australia, the only media to ask for a comment from John Daly's family was a small local newspaper in his home State of Tasmania and i know of no other media anywhere in the world who ever asked his widow, Amy, to comment:
Climate change email cowardly: widow
http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/environment/climate-change-email-cowardly-widow/1686761.aspx
David Adam -
i left school at age 15, with no scientific education whatsoever. i voted Green in the last National Election in Australia, and i regrettably convinced my 92-year-old father that CAGW was "real" in the months before he died. however, i did always recognise that i placed my trust in what the media, in particular the Guardian and Independent, had told me, namely that thousands of scientists corroborated the science behind CAGW.
it took one reading of the Climategate emails and the harry-read-me file to come to the same conclusions as Peter Gill in his 5th February email to the IOP subgroup. i should add the computer code that was released was way beyond my level of understanding.
for you to say:
"...I was keen to talk to anyone with a credible take on this stuff who believed what many of the anti-lobby were saying the emails contained, because i couldn't see it myself and I couldn't find anyone else I considered credible who did either"
says much about the poor standards in journalism today.
to your credit, in your response here, you write "global warming" - tho not man-made or anthropogenic global warming as you should. in the Guardian, though, your headlines have used the general term "climate change" (perhaps the work of editors) including the absurd:
Cutting greenhouse gases will be no quick fix for our weather, scientists say
UK study predicts increased floods and droughts will continue for decades after global temperatures are stabilised
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/17/cutting-emissions-not-fix-water-cycle
global temps to be "stabilised" - what on earth does that mean?
finally, to all CAGW advocates in the mainstream and online media -
be honest and argue for CAGW, if you wish. do not insult the intelligence of the informed sceptics - or even scientifically uneducated individuals such as myself - with quackery about "climate change". equally important - drop the emotional and unscientific "deniers" tag which is repugnant propaganda that has done your cause no good at all.
KevinUK.
Many thanks for your help a few months ago when I was exploring climate change and energy policy blogs. It is good to see that you are still fighting for real science.
These days I spend time on "Science of Doom" when seeking enlightenment. "Skeptical Science" is fun sometimes if only to marvel at the blind faith of the CAGW folks. My favourite right now is "Brave New Climate" that is pushing a nuclear energy "Solution" to the CAGW "problem". While I don't share their belief in an impending climate catastrophe I agree with them when they say that nuclear power is inevitable in the long term.
The UK should be applauded for "Climategate" and the aftermath of cover ups and whitewashes that have magnified the event beyond belief. Sadly, you folks seem to have run out of learned fools bent on embarrassing themselves in public.
The futility of Mankind trying to control climate
On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:
• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = ~1.24⁰C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
If this is really so, then the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.
And now Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.
Theo and Allen:
It seems to me that the term "forcing" has been introduced by "climate scientists" because they do not understand the physics. It is a term that has no meaning in physics. These people invented the term to cover their ignorance. It's like their invention of back radiation and throwing away the laws of thermodynamics. (I hope all those calculations that I was responsible for which didn't account for back radiation are still OK - at least they were validated with extensive experimental data).
As for Miskolczi and G&T, well they are written in such a way that it is almost impossible to make sense of them. People have supported and rebutted them, but the arguments seem to go back and forth (yes it is - no it isn't).
The climate is too complex to be left to "climate scientists" and their invented science and silly computer games.