BigCityLib catches the IOP using the memory hole.
William Connolley is not impressed:
What a bunch of slimy little toads: they pretend to believe in openness, they won't tell us who wrote their statements, then they silently airbrush out embarassing words afterwards.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The ever-vigilant BigCityLib has spotted some revisionism by the Institute of Physics: they have silently updated their "clarification": the link http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html now points to a statement dated 5th March, instead of the original, which was 2nd march. What a bunch of slimy…
[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…
A headline stolen blatantly from HH. But it seems rather applicable to the Institute of Physics. The Grauniad are still pushing them (go big G!) but the IOP are stonewalling: they won't say who wrote their pap; but it seems one Peter Gill was involved.
In an apparent attempt to take the Irony Prize…
Afterlife? What afterlife?
Religion has always fluorished in ignorance. What is it but a collection of stories and claims to explain the mysteries of life — wherever there is something we don't understand, that we lack real knowledge about, there is a priest ready to rush in and fill the gap with a…
The first sentence is unclear. It sounds like IOP is the one using the memory hole.
Umm, yes: [memory hole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole)
Probably time to let the IoP lie for a bit and sort out whatever led to the statement going out in their own name.
They stuffed up and then made it worse with the silly openess / anonymity contradiction. But hey, if there're the reputable organisation they want to be they'll tidy up the mess in due course and give a proper, public explanation.
There's a slight risk that we're starting to behave like the deniers, getting too interested in apparent anomalies that don't mean anything.
Myself, I have way too much professional pride at stake to let this one slide - if criticism of the field in general by the IOP is warranted, they have a duty to their members (and science as a whole) to make sure the criticism is both measured and constructive. That dossier is neither. Let them mull over it by all means, but given that the document as it stands contains accusations based on factual errors (point 5 being the worst example), it should be withdrawn immediately pending revisions.
[Inks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/iopgate_iop_uses_memory_hole.ph…).
Your comment:
could be taken two ways...
;-)
Tim, you gonna have another post about Connolley ignoring when NASA does the same thing IOP does?
ah ok; i was thinking of it the wrong way