Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Deep Climate covers the latest in the IOPgate scandal
The controversy over the Institute of Physics biased submission to the U.K. Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee's investigation of the stolen emails from East Anglia's Climate Research Unit is about to get a whole lot hotter.
Of particular interest to Deltoid readers might be the Monckton connection (quoting Donald Oats on 8 Mar):
Monckton was touring Australia - perhaps still is - and during that tour he made some allusions to Climate Scientists being about to face criminal charges, and also to peak academic bodies having some very interesting submissions to make to the UK inquiry. I don't know whether the IOP submission or Inhofe's blacklist were already in the public domain when Monckton made his comments (as digressions in either his talks or interviews; I don't recall precisely) or whether he was aware ahead of time, but I'll say this: usually I'm up with the latest stuff very soon after it is made public, yet I missed these two rather big items.
From what I've seen, Monckton, Plimer, Carter, etc are in frequent enough contact with each other and the organisations that circulate fud as their strategy, that I'm fairly confident Monckton knew ahead of time and was basically boasting.
Politics
Comments
Ha ha, is trick question!
That Monkton, he don't know nothin'.
Posted by: Ezzthetic | March 21, 2010 3:15 AM
And here I was thinking the moonbat was busy fighting those evil 'eco-facists' [sic] on behalf of the UKIP (according to which link, 4 out of 5 people are now sceptical of climate change even though the Guardian poll they use as a source says nothing like that).
Posted by: EoR | March 21, 2010 4:06 AM
Hmmm, interesting. How deep do the links and connections go, and how much do they coordinate their activities? Without saying "it's a conspiracy", it would not surprise me if like-minded deniers/sceptics would seek to amplify their message by co-ordinating. Another thought, just how far has Pilmer fallen from respectability?????
Posted by: Mike | March 21, 2010 5:54 AM
I demand to see Monckton's email.
Posted by: John | March 21, 2010 5:59 AM
This should worry the IOP greatly, even if it is only half true.
It's time the IOP comes clean. It would be nice to see another example revealed of how these things work when denialists infiltrate an institution.
Posted by: Neven | March 21, 2010 9:37 AM
I think the debate could really stand for more transparency, and that the likes of Monckton, Carter, McIntyre, etc. really ought to turn over their correspondence as it relates to climate change for public evaluation. Can we demand any less on an issue of such importance to the public at large???
I know, I know, there is cost to divulging personal correspondence. But what about the cost of climate disaster??? Surely, if they have nothing to hide, there can be no harm in furthering public transparency into climate skepticism. I have no doubt that each will agree.
Posted by: Majorajam | March 22, 2010 7:08 PM
May God have mercy! Monckton is back in the U.S. (Did the British refuse to let him back in?)
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 25, 2010 8:04 PM