Deltoid

Maybe, Tim, but the Guardian has spilled the beans - "Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission Evidence from Institute of Physics drawn from energy industry consultant who argues global warming is a religion" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission

Posted by: David Horton | March 4, 2010 9:56 PM

Robert @2 yup, Pielke Snr likes to throw stones, but allows no comments. Same with Spencer, and if you challenge Watts he investigates your IP and makes threats. CA is also going that route.

Anyhow, very interesting revelations about the IOP. This parliamentary investigation so far has backfired on the contrarians, between the IOP fiasco and McIntyre's gaffe, and Lawson making erroneous statements about the satellite temp. record.

People still need to dig deeper wrt IOP and Lawson's group

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 4, 2010 10:42 PM

MapleLeaf@3, McIntyre seems quite gaffe-prone at times. What did he do on this occasion?

Posted by: Lotharsson | March 4, 2010 11:47 PM

Lotharsson,

probably this:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/02/opening-night-reviews-in-the-uk-press/

Posted by: spangled drongo | March 5, 2010 12:14 AM

@Lotharsson: wrong graph in his submission (not supporting his conclusion), and a few other problems with his analysis.

Tom P has made some comments on CA, and also put them on The Policy Lass' homepage.

Posted by: Marco | March 5, 2010 12:58 AM

I predict we'll be hearing an awful lot more about this in the coming weeks.

I highly doubt the IOP's members are particularly impressed about being spoken for.

Posted by: Stuart | March 5, 2010 1:08 AM

For this one, follow The Stoat, as there are numerous loose ends lying around, including Peter Gill LinkedIn, read carefully, or his dandy talk, which had plaudits for E-G Beck's work.

Various other names were brought up, and Guardian's David Adam participates there.

By odd chance, I happen to know various high-up folks in the British science establishment, and I do not think they are amused, especially as some people are only digging themselves deeper.

Posted by: John Mashey | March 5, 2010 2:10 AM

Q196 Dr Naysmith: (member, Science and Technology Sub-Committee, in minutes of evidence into THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

So do you think the Institute of Physics has been a bit premature when talking about the emails? "Worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field," they say, "and for the credibility of the scientific method as practiced in this context." Do you think they are prejudging things?

Professor Beddington: (Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government)

I think they are, in the sense that there is a danger of prejudging things taken out of context. What I certainly intend to do is to have detailed discussions on climate change with colleagues, to have them as open.

Full transcript with other interesting tid-bits here

Posted by: davidk | March 5, 2010 3:12 AM

Speaking on behalf of WattsUp and ClimateAudit, Lambert has refused to comply with our FOI requests for documents and material evidence in Gingerbreadgate. Worse, we suspect he and his associates destroyed some of the evidence.

In particular, he's complied with none of the requests from outside Australia, including those from watchdogs in Ruritania and Utopia.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | March 5, 2010 5:46 AM

Drongo

1. Yep - it doesn't take a whole week to see the passage of three days. Count your fingers...
2. You betchya.
3. Yes indeedy.
4. What, can't you read? See (3) above.
5. No, I do not need you to do so (you're still having difficulties reading, huh?), and anyway it has nothing to do with your long overdue homework.
6. If you have anything further to say, take it to the thread where your abyssmal performance requires a curtain call. Spreading your irrelevant O/T drivel around many threads does not absolve you from your inability to answer basic questions.
7. If you persist in avoiding your homework, I will feel justified in concluding that you have entered into an agreement that I have the right to call victory over you on the matter of sea level rise. And a note to all of your very silent Old and New Bog mates... I know that many of you are reading these threads, so your collective capitulation in assisting drongo will, by extension, subject each of you to the same declaration of having been defeated.

Posted by: Bernard J. | March 5, 2010 7:12 AM

I blogged about this issue too! http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/03/one-sided-transparency.html

How about the IoP setting a good example by starting with how this disputed statement came to be?

Posted by: Anarchist606 | March 5, 2010 9:23 AM

@9 Thanks Marco. Sorry Lotharsson, Ive been offline since last night.

Posted by: MapleLeaf | March 5, 2010 11:50 AM

Last bit from the Nature climate blog linked above says:

Jones wants McIntyre to produce a global temperature record. “Science advances that way. He might then realize how robust the global temperature record is”, says Jones. Asked if he would take on the challenge, McIntyre said that it’s not a priority for him, but added “if someone wanted to hire me, I’d do it”.

Please, someone, set up a tip jar and make him the offer. Payment contingent upon successful publication in a refereed science journal of course: http://lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html

Posted by: hankroberts | March 5, 2010 3:04 PM

hankroberts,

Jones' comment is pathetic, an appeal to 'authority' which has now been found to be seriously wanting. Jones and others obviously can't stand the heat when their methodologies are questioned.

Too long dining at the trough!

Posted by: Dave Andrews | March 5, 2010 4:24 PM

No Dave Andrews, it's not an appeal to authority at all - if anything it's an appeal to see some evidence of competence. Stevie isn't competent, much as you like to imagine he is.

He has experience in a single field which is only one tool of climatology. Leaving all questions of motivation aside for the moment, any ability to see the big environmental (as opposed to economic) picture is severely hampered by his fundamental lack of background knowledge, experience or training.

Posted by: chek | March 5, 2010 5:04 PM

Bernie,

Funny, I thought it was you who brought up SLs on this thread. [as cryptically as possible of course]

Having lost that core argument you rush about setting me "homework" to restore your ego. I do hope your thesis is a bit more logic based.

But you can ask me about that sustained tsunami level. I know you're dying to know.

Posted by: spangled drongo | March 5, 2010 5:13 PM

Dave Andrews - you are trivially correct, insofar as the IOP submission doesn't say anything specific about AGW being real. However you are missing the real point which is that in amongst the hand wringing about how science aught to be done are outdated opinions and misdirections, vis: - reconstruction reliability, when in fact there is no such evidence of any issues in the e-mails. - intolerance to challenge, when even you would get fed up being challenged by people claiming you are lying to them at the same time as demanding all your data. - the claim is made that the information commissioner says the emails show evidence of failure of proper action regarding openness, when the actual reality is that the assistant commissioner made an off the cuff remark to the press which has since been clarified. The information commissioner has made no ruling or judgement of the case.

Aside from that, we're all in favour of more openness, better funding and databases and so on, but people need to actually work to create such things.
Like the clear climate code people, who've done more useful work in the last 6 months than Watt, McIntyre or anyone else who is moaning on the internet.

Posted by: calcinations | March 5, 2010 6:41 PM

Thanks Marco & MapleLeaf - who audits the auditors?

Once I would have thought McIntyre's followers would have tired of being punked by him - don't you start getting a little skeptical after hearing "we've found the smoking gun that disproves it all" for the hundredth time? It reminds me of Lucy yanking the football away from Charlie Brown just before he kicks...

Now I've figured out that evidence of his more-frequent-than-expected incompetence doesn't reduce his competence in their eyes because he's telling them what they want to hear.

Posted by: Lotharsson | March 7, 2010 4:19 AM

el thicko:

I have this feeling

Well that settles it for me. Never mind what the science says, el thicko has a feeling.

Posted by: Dave R | March 9, 2010 6:50 AM

Although in Skeptiverse, Charlie Brown always believes that he actually hit the ball..

Touché! :-)

Posted by: Lotharsson | March 9, 2010 8:40 PM