My family and me.
[Tags: climate-wonk incest. Everyone else please ignore]
We interrupt your diet of boatie-type news [update: sorry, late boatie news: a great bow-cam video of Champs 6 bumping the Hornets (sorry Paul)] for something related to climate: BigCityLib notices that the IOP (remember that bunch of revisionist fools?) has deleted the Energy sub group:
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.
Or has it? The website still has them [Update: thanks to J who points out that is the Energy Group, not the Energy sub-group of the science policy board, which is apparently a different thing. Perhaps I need to try to understnad their structure. Anyone who thinks they understand it - please comment. Googling around "Peter Gill" found me "http://www.iop.org/activity/branches/South_East/South.../file_29092.pdf" but it seems to have been airbrushed off the IoP website -W] (it would be nice to go back through the internet archive to check up, but the slimey IOP toads block robots in order to hide their airbrushing deeds in darkness; alternatively, they are incompetent. Probably the latter, on reflection).
This all comes from the BH blog, which interestingly has an entire article by Peter Gill explaining how all the crap in the IOP statement is there because he put it in. Full marks for honesty [See update] that man, but none for sanity.
[Updates: I can see this is going to run and run. Hank finds http://www.iop.org/policy/consultations/energy_environment/file_41854.pdf which clarifies the Energy Group / sub-Group somewhat
Update again: I can see I was wrong to praise PG's honesty. As several commenters have pointed out, he doesn't actually admit to having messed with the submission, but is still pretending not to have done so -W]
Environment
Comments
WMC, I think you might need to reread the Bishop Hill link.
My reading is that Gill made several suggestions, but only one, for the removal of a single word in the first sentence, was adopted.
[Oh come now... actually *read* their stuff? Later tonight maybe -W]
Posted by: Slowjoe | July 22, 2010 8:36 AM
Saw this - beer in a stoat - and thought of you.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | July 22, 2010 9:01 AM
The irony of a secretly written submission calling for openness and transparency still appears to elude them...
Posted by: Gavin | July 22, 2010 10:07 AM
Peter Gill: "the only real impact I had on the IOP submission was the elimination of one subjunctive in the first sentence".
Stoat: "the BH blog, ...interestingly has an entire article by Peter Gill explaining how all the crap in the IOP statement is there because he put it in"
???
Posted by: Bishop Hill | July 22, 2010 10:24 AM
I think that you are getting confused between the Energy Group and the Energy sub-group of the science policy board, which is apparently a different thing. You have linked to the Energy group, but it was the sub-group that they claimed to have disbanded.
Posted by: Josie | July 22, 2010 10:31 AM
Here's my take. The energy subgroup was terminated because yes, indeed, Peter Gill was responsible for the IOP statement. Now Gill is saying "no, I wasn't", presumably because he wants us to believe that it was really representative of the IOP's considered opinion. I'm sure he'll also claim that the dissolving of the subgroup was politically driven despite the scientific truthiness of its claims blah blah blah.
(I refuse to read Bishop Hill's blog on general principle, so I'm just guessing - how far off the mark am I?)
Posted by: dhogaza | July 22, 2010 11:38 AM
Think "who will rid me of this troublesome priest"
Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 22, 2010 12:12 PM
Well havign a quick look at the place, it seems Gill sent round an email, thus:
"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"
-----------
WHich as you can see is rather unpleasant and generically wrong, like the IOP submission. Enough of the people writing the IoP submission agreed that most of gill's ideas were included in it, never mind their actual validity or not.
Posted by: guthrie | July 22, 2010 12:15 PM
As a postscript, see:
IOP Energy Group Founder... Heartland
According to Deep Climate,
Terri Jackson has promoted herself (on Tom Harris's list) as:
"64. Terri Jackson, MSc (plasma physics), MPhil (energy economics), Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the energy/climate group at the Institute of Physics, London), United Kingdom.
Note: energy/CLIMATE group....
If any readers know anyone at IOP, maybe an official formal note to Terri (& Tom) might be in order.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 22, 2010 3:16 PM
Assuming Gill is retailing the history accurately, the question really is, who was the colleague he refers to here?:
"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."
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 22, 2010 4:44 PM
I am so tired of the never-ending saga and the endless ramifications of the faux-scandal Climategate. At this point something switches off in my brain whenever it comes up (I suppose my eyes glaze over too). I no longer feel any guilt whatsoever for knowing very little details, except the scientists have been cleared.
Nuff said.
Posted by: toby | July 22, 2010 5:26 PM
Yes, Toby, but you must excuse us obsessives.
Also, some reader whose a member in some science society might find all of this useful. What we're seeing is denialists gaming the rules of these various associations so as to disseminate propaganda employing the association's good name. Its interesting to figure out how they did it.
Posted by: bigcitylib | July 22, 2010 8:21 PM
re: #12
Yes, actually, when I wrote Another Silly Climate Petition..., not only did people in the APS see it, but it got to key people at (at least) 4 other societies that I know of.
The attackers are practiced, the attackees aren't.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 22, 2010 9:36 PM
Peter Gill was sent a draft of the IOP submission, and based on his recommendation, a single word ("could") was removed from one sentence. That is very different from the claim in the post above: "all the crap in the IOP statement is there because [Peter Gill] put it in". The claim is untrue.
And then you guys wonder why skeptics distrust you.
Posted by: Sara Chan | July 23, 2010 7:11 AM
Oh, sara, just above we have his e-mail ...
so no, he didn't edit the draft himself, he just sent along his ideas so that the author could add them, which you claim means Gill had nothing to do with the content.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 23, 2010 9:00 AM
@dhogaza
The quote you give is from 5th February. Keep reading: "by 10th February the Science Policy Board had approved the draft as it was before incorporating the material I supplied on 5th February".
So, yes, Gill sent along his ideas, but no, that did not affect the IOP submission.
Posted by: Sara Chan | July 23, 2010 9:10 AM
"...incorporating the material I supplied on 5th February"
This seems like a straightforward enough statement. Did they incorporate his material (not simply his edit) or not?
Posted by: dhogaza | July 23, 2010 12:10 PM
WMC, I'm disappointed. As Slugger says, play the ball, not the man.
Can you not allow that a sane man can differ from you? Can you not allow that he provided an honest account of events? (Bear in mind that you were praised him for honesty when you thought he was saying what you wanted him to say.)
[Of course sane people can differ from me. But that doesn't mean that someone differing from me is sane. No, I don't think he provided an honest account. I praised him for honesty when I thought he was telling the truth; now it looks rather more like evasion.
The IOP has implicitly accepted this "energy sub-group" was hijacked by septics, because they've disbanded them. Gill is still pretending that hijacking didn't occur. But the IOP still hasn't had the honesty to disown the testimony they provided -W]
Posted by: Slowjoe | July 23, 2010 7:40 PM
Wm. you have it backwards, the energy succubus group was CREATED by denialists. It was a plant designed to influence IOP policy statements.
Gill, whether he likes it or not, was the chair, head, chief of the thing, and responsible for what they did.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 24, 2010 4:47 PM