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.
Terri Jackson, IOP Energy Group “founder” and a key proponent of various IOP pro-skeptic initiatives, is using her past association with the group to advance her new career as a “climate realist”. Her IOP affiliation is hammered in every interview and profile, and was listed with her signature to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Challenge open letter to the U.N. Not only that, it’s the sole affiliation given for her upcoming stint as featured speaker at – wait for it – the upcoming Heartland Institute sponsored climate conference in Chicago, where Jackson will join U.K. contrarian heavyweights like Piers Corbyn and Lord Christopher Monckton.
Meanwhile, disturbing indications have emerged that the IOP submission may have been leaked in advance to Monckton, raising new questions about the legitimacy of the submission and the process behind it. It’s high time the IOP stopped clinging to the pretense that all is well and started cleaning up this mess.
I first read about the IOP’s dodgy submission at William Connolley’s Stoat blog. In an apparent rush to judgment, the IOP discerned in the stolen emails “worrying implications” for “scientific integrity in this field”. For example, on data requests for tree-ring proxy data (presumably referring to requests made by self-appointed climate auditor Steve McIntyre to CRU scientist Keith Briffa), the IOP said:
Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information. [Emphasis added]
No actual evidence for this extraordinary statement was proffered, but presumably this “evident reason” is belied by Briffa’s referral of McIntyre to the original researcher, not to mention McIntyre’s possession of the data in question all along. And it was only one of several statements that appeared to try and convict CRU scientists before examination of any supporting evidence.
It turned out this nonsense was likely drafted by one Peter Gill, an oil industry consultant, confirmed climate skeptic and member of the three-person energy sub-committee of the IOP science board, as discovered by BigCityLib and detailed in an article by David Adam of the Guardian. In a fit of supreme irony, IOP has refused requests for crucial details of the provenance of the submission or the names of the other two sub-committee members responsible, although they have released no less than three evasive clarifications of the matter. Apparently transparency is only for those scientists under baseless attacks, not the attackers.
Along the way, Connolley asked plaintively how Terri Jackson might fit in. It seems that Jackson and Gill have been a tag team at the IOP’s Energy Group (initially dubbed the Energy Management Group) since its formation in 2002, both serving three-year stints as group chair. The pair ran amok, pushing a not-so-hidden climate contrarian agenda, to judge from past Energy Group newsletters. The January 2007 newsletter featured a rapturous account of an IOP presentation by Piers Corbyn, while July 2007 brought glowing reviews of books by Henrik Svensmark (cosmic rays) and Halibullo Abdussamatov (global warming on Mars).
Eventually, the IOP came to its senses and wrested control of the Energy Group from the pair, but not before Gill managed to install himself in 2007 on the newly formed energy sub-committee of the IOP Science Board. In a parting commentary in the October 2008 newsletter, Gill acknowledged that his anti-AGW views were leading to mounting complaints.
This being the case under the past Chair [Terri Jackson] and under my Chairmanship we have allowed debate on anthropogenic climate change and the representation of different sides of the argument. Indeed the discussion of energy and climate change is written into the subject listing part of the Constitution of the Energy Group. However there are those who do not want to allow discussion of the possibility of the causes of current climate change to be anything other than anthropogenic in origin and in any case believe that we should leave any discussion of climate change to the Environmental Group. I believe however that this is unhealthy for science in general and physics in particular and wish to seek the views of the Members on the matter at the AGM for the guidance of the new Committee.
And then things seemed to have quietened down, while Gill bided his time until the opportunity presented by the CRU inquiry.
Meanwhile, Terri Jackson seems to have no recent official connection to the IOP (except possibly as an ordinary member). She did, however, start popping up at the then brand new ClimateRealists.com, pushing her IOP connection and spouting Moncktonian nonsense in a letter to the Belfast Telegraph, reprinted at CR in February 2009. (CR’s most famous correspondent is the ubiquitous Piers Corbyn).
In late 2009, Jackson signed on to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, an open letter organized by Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition. That letter claims that there is a lack of “convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes.” The list of signatories once again gives Jackson’s IOP affiliation, but also identified her as director of a brand new group:
66. Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
A recent profile in the Irish Times News is little more than a wrapper for Jackson’s rambling thoughts. It consists mainly of an extended quote covering several columns, one standard contraian talking point per paragraph, as described by Martin Porter in his Greenman Blog. Much of it could have come straight from Monkcton’s Science and Public Policy Institute; indeed, she refers to Monckton as “my colleague” and points to the SPPI website along with ClimateRealists.
The final paragraph reads simply:
More on this topic when Terri returns from the 4th World Conference on climate change to be held in Chicago in May.
Sure enough, there she is on Heartland’s list of featured speakers, along with several of her new friends from SPPI, as well as the International Climate Science Coalition and its affiliates. In a typically brazen effort to mislead, Heartland lists her simply as “Founder, Energy Group at the Institute of Physics”, and doesn’t even bother to mention the Independent Climate Research Group. This is the norm for Heartland; other examples of missing affiliations include Tim Patterson (Chairman of the International Science Coalition), Roy Spencer (chair of Climate Science America) and Ian Plimer (Australian Climate Science Coalition).
All of which leads to perhaps the most disturbing part of this story. In comments at RealClimate, Donald Oats said this (h/t Greenman):
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. It sux.
Monckton’s tour began in early February late January, well before the parliamentary submission deadline of February 12. And the IOP submission wasn’t released to the general public until the end of that month, along with the other received submissions. (It was sent on February 10, and may have quietly appeared on the IOP website at that time.)
So could Jackson have acted as a go-between, keeping Monckton and the SPPI up to date? It certainly seems like the right question for the IOP to be asking Peter Gill, and it’s only one of many they should be putting to Jackson herself.
And if the IOP won’t, perhaps others will have to do it for them.
Deep Climate 
Nice bit of work.
Here’s another blogger who noticed some of hte same things:
http://thesnufkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/deniers-in-institute-of-physics.html
[DC: That’s the post I linked to and where I first saw the reference to Donald Oats’s observations. But I had to track it down the original to RC myself. Still, I forgot to give GreenMan the hat tip, which I meant to do and have done now.
Terri Jackson’s appearance on CCC open letter and the Heartland conference list of speakers are highlighted here for the first time, as far as I know. At least I sure hope so – otherwise, the IOP has been turning even more of a blind eye than previously thought. ]
An earlier post, same blogger, about the IOP
http://thesnufkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/who-nobbled-institue-of-physics.html
Terri Jackson giving a talk at a Heartland gig? Why, you could knock me down with a feather.
Oh, hang on, perhaps not given the comments here…
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407763
…where Jackson, Gill, and Boehmer-Christiansen have it out with another commenter.
Thesnufkin’s pretty active over at the Guardian’s comments, by the way.
What about this TERRY Jackson :
“Terry Jackson of the Institute of Physics in London, the founder of the Energy Group, and a physics teacher at Belfast Institute Further and Higher Education for 30 years…a member of the Women’s Engineering Society”
‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims’ http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
I can’t find her name in the WES.
And she’s a physics teacher ?
How about this :
“I am not a medical expert, but I am a scientist dealing in climate facts – not suppositions.”
TERRI JACKSON Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Bangor http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/scientists-see-signs-of-global-cooling-14502380.html
Can anyone find any details about that group ?
That link also contains supporting mails from Gill.
[DC: So far, I haven’t found any online presence. The name doesn’t appear in Jackson’s earlier writings, as far as I can tell, so this September 2009 reference appears to be the earliest, followed by the ICSC open letter. When I have time, I will search the UK corporate registry – maybe it’s a new charitible entity. ]
It would be a great thing if IOP came clean about this. It would reveal a lot.
But somehow I feel they just hope it will all blow over. The irony.
Thanks for the info, DC.
Some of the stuff in the Irish Times interview is just embarrassing:
“The contribution of man-made carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is minimal with about 108 gigatons of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared with an overall total of
2,700 gigatons.”
WTF?
Terri Jackson and Peter Gill both put in an appearance in this comment thread last year:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comments.asp?storycode=407763
There she is known as Avril Terri Jackson and bemoans “the incident last year when Nigel Lawson was prevented from speaking at the Institute (of Physics) on his climate change book in spite of having the support of the then chair of the Energy Group Peter Gill.”
There you have a Nigel Lawson connection.
IOP are going to regret ever having submitted “evidence” against CRU. On the up side, they have hurt the cause of those in denial about AGW with this fiasco, and Ms. Jackson is certainly not helping. And another plus, is that the rot in their institute has been exposed. IMHO, I don;t think that IOP has an ax to grind here, rather it seems that they have been hijacked by rogue elements. Then again, maybe I am being naive.
IOP really need to regroup and gain control back of the Institute. Let the travesty of what is going on at IOP be a lesson to other scientific institutes and societies. The denialists hijacked a journal paper in the past, now they are after the societies/institutes.
DC and others who have worked on exposing this fiasco, thanks!
Now let us hope that the media pays attention and that someone really holds IOP accountable. Still waiting for confirmation from IOP on who wrote the draft of their evidence to parliament.
The asymmetry in the reporting on the antics of the deniers by the media continues to astound me.
Is Terri Jackson actually employed by the Belfast Metropolitan College (formally Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education)?
Here is a link to the College’s code of conduct:
Click to access Staff_Code_Conduct.pdf
Look at Section 4:
She is not acting in accordance with Section 5 either. Seems to me someone over in Belfast should be raising Cain about her dishonest behaviour.
> someone over in Belfast
Seems to me someone in the UK could do that… not necessarily in Belfast 🙂
There’s another interview/op ed (I linked it at stoat earlier in the week) where she says that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the first half of the 20th century than today …
And other bizarre claims.
> more CO2 in the atmosphere
> in the first half of the 20th century than today
That’s Schoolmaster Ernst Beck’s nonsense. Adequately taken down at the Wabett a long long time ago.
If she really wants to be known as supporting this stuff, good for her… this is psychiatry, not even patho-climatology.
[DC: It does make one wonder how many other school teachers, besides Beck and Jackson, are foisting this nonsense on impressionable students. ]
No sign of the ‘Independent Climate Research Group’ listed in either the Companies House webcheck facility, or on the Charities Commission website.
Perhaps it’s all in her mind…
Jackson may have dropped the ICRG idea; at least, I see no reference to it in the January Irish Times article. Much better just to bill herself as “founder” of the IOP Energy Group, I suppose.
Two more links, if you can stand them.
1) Jackson (or TJ, under the handle Phylat12) on atmospheric residency time of CO2 (5-6 years apparently):
2) Another ClimateRealist article reprinted from Belfast Telegraph. Some of you may have already seen this breathless account of the 2009 Heartland conference in New York.
But the CR preamble is interesting – Jackson complains her article was “suppressed” when the South London branch of the IOP refused to print it in their newsletter.
The BT described Jackson as follows:
Terri Jackson is a Queens graduate physicist, climatologist and formerly founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London.
A climatologist … wow.
Nice find, DC!
Somebody should forward a link to this post to the chair of the Commons committee. It is in their interest to get as full a picture as possible with regard to who is behind some of the submissions received.
They are getting desperate. That photo is obviously not Terri Jackson, it’s Myron Ebell in a blonde wig.
Here’s an archive of past newsletters of IOP Energy Group.
Note that (Terry, Terri, Avril Terri) Jackson, as of Issue 4, in 2002, was OK on this, so must have had a later epiphany.
Presumably, reading through those newslatters might offer more clues.
[DC: Yes, that’s the same archive referenced above, although I haven’t read them all.
It seems that she came to her contrarian position later. The piece you point out, though, does seem to betray a poor, “cart before the horse” understanding of the subject, even if she does support the AGW scientific position.
However, there is little of her own writing on the subject in subsequent newsletters, although in one newsletter (Spring 2005) Jackson appears to bemoan the fact that the U.K. had signed on to stringent “Koyoto” targets, while the U.S., India and China had not.
The newsletters do have much contrarian commentary from at least 2004 on, from Richard Bloodworth and especially Peter Gill.
Aside from the newsletters mentioned above, the September 2005 newsletter is real eye-opener, with a review of Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (by Bloodworth) and a long piece by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of Energy and Environment. Peter Gill introduces the piece by calling Boehmer-Christiansen an “editor of an environmental journal” and a “green” who had “special access to the IPCC for many years”. The piece itself (all three pages, with citations to the likes of Robert Carter, William Kininmonth, Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick) was a rebuttal a previous newsletter piece by Energy Group members Simon Roberts and Jake Hacker.
It’s hard to believe that Jackson, who was still Group chair, would go along with this merely in an effort to provide balance.
At some point, I may do an overall summary of the evolution of the Energy Group as evidenced in the newsletters. I hope you’ll forgive me if I wait a bit for that, though. ]
“Terri” Jackson looks like a dude in drag.
[DC: Perhaps. But no there’s no need to speculate further in that direction, if that’s OK. Thanks. ]
Yep, not funny. The problems with her head are on the inside.
The problems with her head are what is missing from the inside.
I think it’s pretty clear that Jackson is on the fringe, even for climate contrarians/”skeptics”. That’s evidenced, for example, by her Beckian take on CO2 variation (also echoed by Canada’s own Tim Ball).
The IOP should be very concerned about her misleading use of IOP affiliation to lend her unscientific views more authority. Clearly a volunteer stint on an internal committee should not be used outside the context of internal IOP communication. I wonder if the IOP has any policies in place for this sort of thing. If not, they should.
That’s just one more question that needs to be asked and answered.
That’s why DC’s shining the light is so important. Just get the facts out and let organizations decide whether this is fair use of their good names.
I would assume that they would fill such a volunteer position would be like most organization; you welcome people who offer to do the job because then you don’t have to persuadce someone who is more reluctant to commit to it.
Most volunteers are well-intentioned, but occasionally a group finds itself saddled with someone who is crooked, or has emotional or mental problems, or who, in this case apparently, has an undesirable agenda.
Having spoken privately to some senior people in the IoP, it seems that they are very aware of this problem and are trying to do something about it. However, what I’ve been really disappointed with are their responses to members, including myself, who have complained about this issue. The IoP’s public responses have tried to brush it under the carpet and pretend that everything is fine.
I don’t understand why they won’t publicly criticise their own procedures and the evidence submission that they produced.
[DC: I would go further. If “senior people” were truly concerned (and well they should be), they would take steps to withdraw the submission and launch an internal investigation.
If the Science Board continues to refuse to assume responsibility, then action should be taken by the governing Council or the executive. The Council meets four times a year, but as a non-member I have no idea when the next meeting might be. An emergency meeting of the Council to deal with the problem would not be unwarranted.
By the way, I recommend to all readers your cogent point-by-point criticism of the submission. ]
Andy,
I have had the same problem with the response to emails, which seem to be:
“nothing wrong was done”.
I can only hope something is stirring behind the scenes – as this is something that will haunt the Institute for years unless action is taken.
I’m a bit confused:
If you Google ‘Helen Roe’ at Queen’s Belfast you get this:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/gap/Staff/AcademicStaff/DrHelenRoe/
i.e. the Home Page for DR Helen Roe PhD
Yet if you look at the invites to the NottheIPCC conf you get a picture of someone purporting to be Helen Roe [i.e. no PhD credential and yet all the other confirmed speaker’s credentials are clear and present on the page] who to me just looks…older!?
http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/speakers.html
Is it me or is this odd?
[DC: The Heartland Institute is sloppy – they missed a few PhDs. Helen Roe has some interesting co-authors, as seen at the web page of another Heartland speaker, Graeme Swindles. Five of the papers are collaborations with Tim Patterson of Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada), three of those with Roe. Patterson, of course, is a longtime associate of PR climate disinformation specialist Tom Harris; he is chair of the International Climate Science Coalition and science “advisor” to Friends of Science since the beginning. And, yes, he too will be at Heartland.
I notice that the trio have apparently received NSERC support (Canada’s main government granting agency). It would be interesting to follow that up.
The Conservative government has been accused of packing NSERC with dubious members – for example, Christopher Essex of “Taken by Storm” fame and Mark Mullins, formerly executive director of the Fraser Institute. (Good grief, I just noticed that last appointment – is there no end to this nonsense?!!) ]
Hi, just thought I would pop over to see what all the fuss is about over here. The comments above look all kind of conspiracy theory-ish.
Can anyone summarise exactly what the deal is?
[DC: Just so everyone knows where you are coming from, here are previous comments at Physics World:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965#comment6152
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965#comment6165
Key quote:
You don’t say whether you are a member of the IOP, but I’m guessing not. Actual members of the IOP seem to have a lot of problems with the antics of these climate contrarians passing themselves off as spokespersons for the IOP and putting forth views (not to mention bogus sience) with which the most IOP scientist members disagree.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965#comment6170
]
Clarification: I’m a lapsed member of the IoP. Still have the Tie though.
All this has got me interested again.
GSW laments over at physicsworld.com that “Ad Hominem attacks don’t play well.”
Rather odd, this after not too long after GSW said on the same thread that:
“Fat Al Gore can do what he likes with his billions.”
Enough said about GSW’s alleged integrity and impartiality.
Sorry GSW, this IOP fiasco is not playing out well, and you are not helping their cause. You can deny that too if you like, but the damage is done and the shenanigans of denialist elements who have infiltrated IOP have not gone unnoticed by its members and others.
I finally got a few minutes to study the upcoming Heartland list. A few tidbits:
George Allen:
http://www.energyfreedomcenter.org
http://www.energyfreedomcenter.org/about/staff/
This is a relatively new one, listing only George Allen (ex-Governor of VA), and Alexandra Liddy Bourne, who worked for Allen, was at ALEC, and then Heartland, plus presumably some busy website people.
Alan Carlin, US EPA (ret)
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/an-epa-economists-climate-complaints/
http://sites.google.com/site/carlineconomics/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
Gerald Marsh (labeled U of Chicago, although I don’t see him in he Directory)
http://www.gemarsh.com/
When the (non-climate-savvy) editors of the APS Forum on Physics and Society (APS FPS) were looking to get Pro- and Con- articles, they were having a hard tiem finding Con-, so they asked around.
Marsh gave them a list that included Monckton.
Nome of the others were interested, but “Dr Monckton” as they addressed him, was happy to do so.
Mostly, it’s the same old gang, with a few new faces.
Gerald Marsh has a very tenuous connection with the University of Chicago (the only one I can see is the 1970s accelerator project as seen in this 1977 paper).
He is retired from Argonne National Laboratory.
Alan Carlin, of course, did jump out at me as a new face. You forgot the most important link of all, however.
https://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/
Well, I was in a hurry, and I suspected you’d remember that one 🙂
Note, since it seemed most relevant there, I added a post at Andy’s blog about the ways that various science societies work when faced with such issues, including examples when subunits of societies get “hijacked”, either accidentally or purposefully.
Put another way, the IOP is not an isolated case.
John and Deep – FWIW I was a neighbor of G Marsh, and he has thought at least since 1995 or so that the climate scientists are all wrong. Last I heard, he was still waiting to see “more data” before he believes in AGW. He worked at Argonne NL, and has been a strong nuke advocate forever. At least he opposes burning coal.
John M. – Speaking of neighbors, what part of Western Pa are you from? I grew up in Ingomar, just north of Pittsburgh — beautiful country.
Wexford, part of the same NA school district…
My older sister graduated from NAHS, but we moved into Pgh in ’64, so I just missed it. Hmmm, the Biddles, Craigs, and Halls lived near Wexford…
So imagine my surprise when, just as the Inaugural parade was ending on 1/20/09, I watched the NAHS marching band go by, tiger and all…
Just a correction that the profile of Terri Jackson was in the Belfast “Irish News”, not the Dublin “Irish Times”.
[DC: Oops. Fixed. Thanks! ]
> Helen Roe
Waitaminute — are these really the same person?
The parliamentary enquiry was a successful and predictable whitewash. No real probing questions asked, and, perhaps worst most of all, they didn’t even hear evidence from McIntyre, surely the central figure, whether or not you like him.
@Punksta: McIntyre should be glad he wasn’t paid attention to. After all, the dear man submitted FALSE evidence (such as a completely wrong figure), and never bothered to inform the committee, despite being informed of his error.
Marco: Even if that were true, the fact that he was left out makes the whole thing sham.
And what are the details : what is the wrong figure, and when and how and by whom was he told?
What is the big deal with the IOP?
All it did was state the obvious – the mainstream climatology profession is riddled with political corruption. Anyone who sincerely believes AGW is serious, should welcome a cleanup and disciplining of the crooks at CRU and elsewhere, so that AGW theory ceases to be tainted by political bias.
Marco,
McI apparently did submit a correction. Although on his site is does not specify at CA when this was done.
Regardless, his evidence was clearly ineffective at swaying or influencing the committee’s findings. Nor was the evidence submitted by McKitrick, Mosher and other contrarians.
The reason is obvious to all except the contrarians, the reason being that they had (and have) nothing.
The committee had been informed of the mistake in detail by someone else, anyway. Do you have a link to where he says he submitted a correction, by the way?
Hi J Bowers,
McI provided an update to his 26 February post (which was about his IOP submission).
Here it is:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/26/mcintyre-submission-with-figures/
Note the update does not contain a date, nor does he say when he is alleged to have submitted the correction. All we know it must have been after 1 March b/c that is when TomP told him. As far as I know TomP was the first person, an outsider (!), who noticed the error.
Maybe the HoC S&T committee site has some information on when corrections were submitted?
On a related note, Eli has an update in which he provides info on CRU’s debunking, again, of nonsense put forth by CA in their submission. They are not amused, nor are they amused with Pearce.
You have it wrong Mapleleaf : the reason the commitee wasn’t persuaded, was because it was a phoney investigation – a whitewash designed to clear the CRU crooks regardless.
Troofer-isms. Keep denying. The Moon landings happened, frightfully sorry to disapoint.
Ooh!
“… The current interglacial has lasted for some ten thousand years—about the duration of past interglacials—and serious policy considerations arise as it nears its likely end. It is extremely unlikely that the current rise in carbon dioxide concentration—some 30% since 1750, and projected further increase over the next few decades—will significantly postpone the next glaciation….”
Click to access 0801.3830.pdf
CLIMATE STABILITY AND POLICY: A SYNTHESIS
Gerald E. Marsh
Argonne National Laboratory (Ret)
ps, that was blogged as of January 2008.
http://www.gemarsh.com/archives/92
Offhand I don’t know when it was written.
The Marsh PDF is dated January 23, 2008 according to the document properties.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/07/iop-sees-errors-of-its-ways.html
Yes, just a matter of time before the IOP got back into political line and defended the corruption of climate science on which alarmism rests.
Good for the IoP. A shame it didn’t happen before that stupid and ill informed submission to the Commons Inquiry was made. Little doubt the Science Board wishes that, too.
Now the IOP just needs to something about Terri Jackson, who recently endorsed Tom Harris’s Climate Science Register:
Nice touch, that, adding “climate” to the name of the group. Of course, the IOP should disavow Jackson in no uncertain terms and object forcefully to the misrepresentational use of their organization’s name.
To deal just with the question of the IOP submission on Climategate instead of speculation you may be interested in the truth that I detail at: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/20/that-iop-submission.html
although given the decided views of many perhaps not.
PFG, why should we believe anything written in that blog written by that well know denier liar Montford.
Try again and start being honest about things. Isn’t there a saying, “birds of a feather flock together”? Seems like it applies to AGW deniers too.
[DC: I think Gill is referring to what he wrote himself, in his letter disavowing authorship of the IOP poistion. Of course, even if Gill didn’t write the draft that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. ]
“you may be interested in the truth that I detail at:”
Really? Truth?
The truth is that you aren’t the IOP and cannot talk for the IOP.
The truth is that your work (whether you intended or not) was taken as such.
Nothing there seems to indicate these truths are not such.
Mark
What a strange comment. Peter links to a posting where he says that he said nothing. Then you say “You…cannot talk for the IoP”.
I can’t see that there’s anything to disagree with here.
Questions, so far unanswered:
1) Who were the other members of the now disbanded Science Board energy sub-group?
2) Which of them wrote the IOP “climategate” submission?
I wonder if Gill and Montford will directly and unambiguously answer these two simple questions?
Exactly … he denies direct authorship, however it’s clear he had input.
The membership of the IOP Energy Sub-group of the Science Policy Board has changed over the years but it has generally always increased in numbers. When it was recently disbanded there were about a dozen members. As far as I was aware there was no secret about membership of the Sub-group. However for reasons that I do not know the IOP has not provided a listing anywhere to enable it to become public knowledge. This did not seem to be an issue when we were making submissions to government on wind energy, the revision of the Renewables Obligation Certificates, dealing with nuclear waste etc. So when it became an issue on the disclosure of climate data from CRU it caused IOP a problem. Basically as the names of the Energy Sub-group are stored on data bases and permission has not been asked to make the list public IOP would have been breaking the law to divulge the names without prior agreement of everyone on the list. Whilst I had no objection to my name being made public I do not know whether this is true of my colleagues or indeed whether it would have been practicable for the IOP to contact everyone in the short time available after David Adam’s initial enquiries. Given that IOP has decided not to retrospectively ask all those involved for permission to provide their names I would be just as guilty as IOP if I were to provide the names here. I would of course love to do just that for no other reason than to demonstrate that I was the only vocal sceptic of the anthropogenic explanation of significant climate change on the Energy Sub-group. For the same reason I cannot give the name of the lead author of the submission.
It is very clear that most if not all of my ex-colleagues have tended to favour the explanation of global warming based on increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is also very clear that my ex-colleagues had concerns about the activities at CRU irrespective of their individual attitude to the science of climate change as expressed in the submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
It seems to me somewhat hypocritical that whilst hiding behind names like dhogaza people are keen to know these names but are rather shy to reveal their own identities. It is also a pity that although I stated my involvement in the change (elimination) of one single word in the original draft of the submission friend dhogaza still claims I had input! However if Mr, Mrs or Ms dhogaza actually took the trouble to read my words on AM’s blog he, she or it would be in no doubt what influence I would have like to make (but didn’t) as I copied the e-mail text providing my substantive comments there.
Finally Mark is right about one thing. I cannot talk on behalf of the IOP without prior agreement which I have not sought. It is simply against IOP rules. This is one of the two things that David Adam appeared not to know when he telephoned me at home to quiz me about the IOP submission.
Just as I thought, no unambiguous and clear answer from Peter to two very simple questions. Maybe Andrew Montford can do better? Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot is it?
Peter, I find it laughable and hypocritical that you and your team attack CRU et al. for not being transparent enough, while you and the IOP continue protect the identity of those who wrote the report.
You say “….whether it would have been practicable for the IOP to contact everyone in the short time available after David Adam’s initial enquiries.”
Surely time is not an issue now?
You also say “Basically as the names of the Energy Sub-group are stored on data bases and permission has not been asked to make the list public IOP would have been breaking the law to divulge the names without prior agreement of everyone on the list. “
More squirming. I think it is very obvious that people should be informed as to who is responsible for the misinformation contained in the IOP submission. What do you mean when you say “breaking the law”, or are you referring to the rules and regulations of IOP? If the latter, then what you wrote is misleading. Given that you are so keen on transparency and accountability, how about you ask them for permission? You could always be a whistle blower you know….
Why the secrecy? What is the energy sub-committee to hide and why? I see no more than a merry dance and weak excuses to avoid answering two very simple questions.
As for your ridiculous assertion (and strawman argument which is also invoked by Watts) about monikers, you fail to see that who dhogaza is is not important nor is it relevant to this discussion, but who actually wrote that report and who influenced the content of that report is relevant and is important. I fail to see how you cannot grasp that, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
And you honestly wonder why no-one in the know will take you and your fellow “skeptics” seriously and are reluctant to trust you?
DC: Is FOIA an option here? Or is it not applicable to groups like IOP?
> It seems to me somewhat hypocritical that whilst hiding behind names like dhogaza people are keen to know these names but are rather shy to reveal their own identities.
A tu quoque that clashes with the belaboring of the response.
“It seems to me somewhat hypocritical that whilst hiding behind names like dhogaza people are keen to know these names but are rather shy to reveal their own identities. “
From the IOP website’s front page:
“We are a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. We are a leading communicator of physics to all audiences, from specialists to the general public.”
From the About Us page:
It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.”
It seems disingenuous, or at least lacking appropriate consideration, to suggest that there is a comparison between a private individual with no input into policy, and a large organisation which enjoys at least some influence over policy and therefore needs to be accountable. I find the IOP’s secrecy baffling, and somewhat hypocritical given the transparency demanded of the likes of Phil Jones and CRU.
“This did not seem to be an issue when we were making submissions to government on wind energy, the revision of the Renewables Obligation Certificates, dealing with nuclear waste etc. ”
Were there implications or accusations of fraud or scientific misconduct in those submissions? Were there any individual scientists being hauled in front of the very same legislators who had imposed data restrictions on them in the first place and were looking at their entire career being thrown to the four winds amidst possible scandal?! All of that for doing his job!!
In fact, Peter Gill had already mentioned he was in the SB energysub-group in one of the newsletters, if I recall correctly.
We should not confuse the secrecy surrounding the IOP submission, which was done on behalf of the members of a large organization, with the desire of individuals to express themselves anonymously. There is no parallel whatsoever.
It would also be good to remind Mr. Gill and everyone else that the IOP submission was an unseemly rush to judgment that accepted as fact various unfounded accusations and interpretations from Steve McIntyre and others.
For example:
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
[Emphasis added]
The falsity of these implicit accusations had already been demonstrated here and elsewhere, even before the various “climategate” investigations.
I’m not hiding behind my nick, google will send you right to my name e-mail address, and with a little persistence, my home phone number, home address, etc.
You have heard of google, right?
What a strange comment Bishy.
You quoted me but didn’t.
“You are not the IOP…”
Was the quote you missed out.
So “the truth” remains hidden behind secrecy and clique.
Rather ironic that the report this clique spewed out was railing against that very thing in another.
There’s that plank in the eye again…
For those ignorant of the Data Protection Act law please see: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_1
By the way Deep Climate is quite correct in that I mentioned my membership of the Energy Sub-group in the Energy Group Newsletter to encourage members of the Energy Group to raise matters of interest or concern through myself.
Peter,
I’m still not convinced that the DPA applies to the IOP (a charity).
You could still be a whistle blower. There is good whistle blower protection in the UK. This is important, and you have the opportunity to do the right thing for the right reasons.
Anyhow, barring that there is always FOIA…maybe someone will be forced to pursue that.
Peter, Oh and I forgot to suggest WikiLeaks…..
“For those ignorant of the Data Protection Act law”
You mean those people like Steve McI who thought that they were being unlawfully denied when spamming FOIA?
Or how about those people who broke that law distributing the private emails from the CRU?
And isn’t your diatribe about dhogaza just exactly the sort of thing that you’re now using the DPA to “defend” yourself with?
Plus that act doesn’t stop the person or people saying who they are in this debacle, does it.
What have they got to hide?
Just ask them to ‘fess up and the DPA doesn’t get a hook-in.
PS can you elucidate exactly which bit of the DPA is the problem here. Because a lot of it is irrelevant in the case of a letter by a body politic like the IoP.
Mark,
“Plus that act doesn’t stop the person or people saying who they are in this debacle, does it.
What have they got to hide?”
Excellent point. If there is nothing to hide, then why all the squirming and stonewalling? People simply want to know who authored the IOP submission.
Aye, as far as “personally identifiable information” goes, “I wrote that” is rather benign, surely?
After all everyone who wants to register a copyright has to say they wrote it.
I also wonder if Pete has stuffed himself right into it.
After all, it is still an ongoing demand for all of Mann’s emails with several other named scientists.
Apparently not a problem here for the IoP or Pete.
Or, indeed, Bishy.
So how about giving us all your emails, Pete, about people who discussed the issue of the letter?
Or is such demand OK against the IPCC and supporters, but not for you?
I have also stored the names of the members of the now disbanded Energy Sub-group of the IOP Policy Board in my personal and my company’s computer systems in various forms. Consequently, quite apart any ethical considerations, I and my company would fall foul of the DPA if I were to reveal the names that everyone so desperately wants.
I suspect that, having seen the mountain of false statements and insults on the Internet about me, my ex-colleagues are likely to be reluctant to offer their own names up to share similar abuse.
I could be wrong but I suspect that IOP is not classed as a public body for the purposes of the FOI. If I am wrong then one has to wonder why someone like David Adam did not use FOI to obtain what he was after in his various contacts with the Director for Communications and External Relations.
Well, either those signers were a bunch of denialists and don’t want to admit it. Or they are alarmists who called out the ethics issues and then don’t have the guts to stand behind their work. Either way, Pete, your buds look wimpy and evasive.
BTW, I actually had no problem with the hardhitting criticism of CRUgate.
Peter me old son, the ” mountain of false statements and insults on the Internet” that you so fear are as nothing to the same that you helped propagate, lest you forget.
“I have also stored the names of the members of the now disbanded Energy Sub-group of the IOP Policy Board in my personal and my company’s computer systems ..”
By taking data from the IOP and sorting it on your personal and company computers I think you might have already fallen foul of data protection laws.
“Consequently, quite apart any ethical considerations, I and my company would fall foul of the DPA if I were to reveal the names that everyone so desperately wants.”
This doesn’t seem to be a problem when “unearthing fraud” at the IPCC or CRU.
And since you have those names, why not ask them whether they want to hide their identity and if they do, what they are afraid of.
After all, you do not wish to labour under the stigma of not being as open to discussion as the CRU in the chosen emails appear, do you?
Or maybe your complaint of secrecy in the emails from CRU only applies to OTHER people?
Hypocrisy?
“I could be wrong but I suspect that IOP is not classed as a public body for the purposes of the FOI.”
didn’t stop people from outside the UK demanding UK departments data and time.
And in what way is a University a public body that the IoP isn’t?
Pretty damn similar.
“I could be wrong” should be “I’m probably wrong, but I want to hide”.
Is the IOP funded by taxpayers. or given some other state-granted privilege like universities?
If so, they should be just as subject to having their business exposed as universities are.
The OIP’s basic error seems to be that it broke ranks and dared to criticise the pervasive dishonesty in the IPCC camp, thereby failing to fall in line with the parliamentary and other cover-ups of Climategate.
[DC: Further unfounded accusations deleted.]
The false statements amount to you being accused of writing something you agree with …
The latter, of course, is what Peter so desperately wants us to believe.
>(Q)uite apart any ethical considerations, I and my company would fall foul of the DPA if I were to reveal the names that **everyone so desperately wants**.
“Everyone” is a bit far-fetched. “So desperately wants” is psychologizing.
Handwaving ethical considerations does not suffice. What ethical considerations, exactly?
How can what is in black-and-white in the Climategate leak be called “unfounded” ?
[DC: Edited – you’ve had your say. Enough on “dishonesty” and “fraud”.]
No, Punksta, it’s rather more like IoP in the guise of Pete here are operating under a cloak-and-dagger like law of Omerta. The exact same issue that they have written a letter of condemnation about.
So it’s OK if they do it, bad if anyone else does it.
This is called Hypocrisy.
But you’re the poster boy for that, punksta.
[DC: I think we need to distinguish between Gill, and the IoP itself. By removing Gill and others from the Science Board, the IoP has sent a strong signal that these “skeptics” do not speak for the IoP.
That doesn’t excuse lack of transparency on the IoP’s part. But it is up to the disgraced ex-board members to come forward and tell their side. Somehow I doubt they will. ]
Pressuring Pete here has led to some revealing statements being made by him. However, it is not going to get us anywhere.
To those of you posting from the UK, please consider following through on exploring ways to formally request the names from IOP. There has to be a legal way of obtaining those names, whether it be through FOI or other legal means.
If I were in the UK I would do that, but alas, I am not.
This article states “The Guardian contacted several members of the board, including its chairman, Denis Weaire, a physicist at Trinity College Dublin.” So presumably the Guardian was able to get the names somehow.
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2010/03/uk-institute-of-physics-clarif.html
[DC:The board is smaller now. But the IoP does not make it easy to ascertain the list of ex-members. They even block archive.org.]
Here’s one man who has or had membership in the Energy sub-group in his CV:
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/materials/staff/roberts.html
And another, though I do not see a date for either:
http://www.phy.hw.ac.uk/contacts/JWilson.htm
Through the pressure that I am under (as pointed out by Maple Syrup) I have to reveal that the membership of the IOP Science Policy Board is not a secret. It can be found at: http://www.iop.org/about/governance/science/page_38759.html
Mark:
Unless the IoP receives tax money or is in some other way privileged by the state in the way that universities are, then no matter what they said, it is no more a matter for the public than the affairs of your local tennis club. I have asked before if the IoP is thus privileged, but as far as I recall, noone has advanced any such evidence.
Well Peter, you probably thought posting that link to the Science Policy Board got you off the hook. But unless you were trying to provide hints about this claim made by David Adam in The Guardian on 4 March 2010:
“The IOP added that the submission was approved by three members of its science board, but would not reveal their names”,
the link you provided is of no use. It does not include names of the people who authored the IOP submission, nor does it contain names of the people on the three people sitting on the energy sub-committee of the science board, nor does it speak to the “provenance of the submission” (quoting DC), nor does it specify the names of the three members of the science board who approved the IOP submission.
So we are looking for five more names in addition to yours– two from the sub-committee, and three from the science board. Well, make that six. Can you please confirm or deny whether Monckton had any hand in the conception, editing or writing the report?
We are also getting conflicting and confusing messages from the IOP and you Peter. They say (from the Guardian article by David Adam on 4 March 2010) that:
“…its evidence was based on suggestions from the energy subcommittee of its science board. It would not reveal who sat on this sub-commitee, but confirmed that Gill was a member.”
Then a spokeswoman for IOP is alleged to have claimed that:
“Gill was not the main source of information nor did the evidence primarily reflect his views…”
Then, you (Gill) are quoted as saying that:
“Gill told the Guardian he helped prepare the submission but many of his suggestions were not in the final document.”
There is only one way to clear up this mess, a full declaration by IOP, including the science board and the energy sub-committee. Some early drafts of the document in question would also be insightful, as well as email correspondence pertaining to the drafting of the submission.
Sorry everyone. Messed up the HTML tags…aargh!
Definitely time for a holiday.
[DC: I fixed the previous comment. ]
If Maple Syrup was right about the number of people on the Energy Sub-group of the IOP’s Science Policy Board (he isn’t) then having seen Jolly Hockey Stick’s suggestions of the 6th August I wonder why he she or it is still looking. By the way I can confirm that Lord Monckton is unfortunately not on the IOP’s Science Policy Board and has regrettably never been a member of the Energy Sub-group either. Consequently what could have been valuable input from him has not been available to IOP. Whilst I know that this is going to be a great disappointment to the readers of this blog, it is nevertheless the truth (of course dogma gazer will know that this claim must be a lie). Finally elsewhere I have explained that the Science Policy Board approved a draft of the submission that had not yet incorporated my own substantive comments. At the time I took this to mean the whole Board had approved the submission. Certainly I have not been given any names other than that of the person who signed the covering letter.
[DC:The issue is not whether Monckton had input. The issue is whether there was a leak in the IoP submission process that directly or indirectly made Monckton aware of the contents of the submission before it was officially released. ]
“If Maple Syrup was …”
Stop right there. Been taking lessons from Monckton? Will it be “Ya-boo” next?
Dear Peter,
Perhaps one or more of us is being obtuse. As HollyStick pointed out, no dates are provided on Wilson’s and Roberts’ web pages. Are you trying to tell us that you (Gill), Wilson and Roberts were in fact on the energy sub-committee at the time the IOP submission was crafted?
Anyhow, earlier on this thread (August 5, 2010 at 2:44 pm ) you said that you do have the names but that could not release the names b/c of alleged issues with DPA:
“I have also stored the names of the members of the now disbanded Energy Sub-group of the IOP Policy Board in my personal and my company’s computer systems in various forms.”
and now your are claiming on August 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm that:
“Certainly I have not been given any names other than that of the person who signed the covering letter.”
Please do make up your mind Peter. Which of the above quotes is the truth , or are both of them not to be believed? This merry dance of yours, while entertaining, is rather silly, and is not harming your already tattered credibility, but that of the IOP too.
Could not resist posting this wonderfully fallacious statement by Gill that came across today:
“Poor old CRU have been seriously hacked. The emails and other files are all over the internet and include how to hide atmospheric cooling.”
Pete Gill, November 2009
Nicely sums up your position…..do you honestly think/thought that the divergence problem refers/referred to hiding cooling in the instrumented record? 🙂
Corrigendum to my post made on August 10, 2010 at 2:15 pm:
“This merry dance of yours, while entertaining, is rather silly, and is not harming your already tattered credibility, but that of the IOP too.”
Should read:
“This merry dance of yours, while entertaining, is rather silly, and is not only further harming your already tattered credibility, but that of the IOP too.”
At least JB I have resorted to humour rather than serious vitriolic abuse that characterises a lot of the comments on climate blogs. For our friend ML please note that the quote “Certainly I have not been given any names other than that of the person who signed the covering letter.” applies to the members of the Science Policy Board who actually agreed the submission. I was making the point that whilst the make-up of the Board is well known and published I have not been told how many members of the Board agreed the submission but only that the Board had agreed.
The statement: “I have also stored the names of the members of the now disbanded Energy Sub-group of the IOP Policy Board in my personal and my company’s computer systems in various forms.” is clearly referring to the Energy Sub-group names that I was advised by the IOP at the time had for some reason never been published publically. So to answer your question both of my quotes are the truth.
For reasons previously given I cannot quote further on HS’s research into the make-up of the Energy Sub-group but my comment on numbers if ML is only looking for three stands. What I can say is that if you were able by some other means to identify every other ex-member of the disbanded Energy Sub-group of the Science Policy Board you would not find another sceptic. That is why it was important to those wishing to sabotage the IOP’s submission were eager to strongly associate my name with it even though my contribution was to delete one word.
I shall now leave this blog for good. Cheers to all of you.
Dear Peter,
Hope you come back at least one more time to read this. Mea Culpa. I apologize– you are correct that I mangled the two comments made by you pertaining to the energy sub-group and the Science Policy Board.
Serves me right for rushing things before heading out of town tomorrow.
When you say “if you were able by some other means to identify every other ex-member of the disbanded Energy Sub-group of the Science Policy Board you would not find another sceptic”, surely that does not apply to Terri Jackson?
I find it curious how statements made by you here and elsewhere on this IOP fiasco are at odds with what IOP has stated, not to mention the information contained above and in Adam’s article.
Anyhow, thanks for nothing I guess; and congrats on some fine obfuscation and evasion.
[DC: I’m not sure that Terri Jackson was ever a member of the Science Board Energy sub-group (as opposed to the separate IoP Energy Group she takes credit for “founding”), but in any case she was long gone by the time of the IoP submission, as far as I know. It would however be interesting to know whether she was updated by one of the sub-group members before the release of the IoP submission. ]
The only “bias” in the IoP submission seems to have been its failure to play along with the basic whitewashing agenda of the parliamentary enquiry regarding the UEA whistleblower – concerns over the sabotaging of the science process by the pre-committed alarmists of the IPCC cadre.
I am also still awaiting to hear if the IoP receives any government handouts or other favours as UEA does, and is thus a matter for public concern, just as the misconduct at UEA is – or whether this is just part of the attempt so well documented in Climategate, to block informed sceptical views from being brought to the public’s attention.
[DC: As far as I know, the IoP’s was the only submission where the authors were completely unknown with no accountibility or transparency concerning the submission process.
The IoP does benefit from defacto subsidy in the form of tax breaks. I believe such organizations should be more accountible and transparent. Similar logic applies to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is highly secretive about its finances and activities, yet has charitable status in the U.K. Besides it’s hypocritical for the authors of the submission and the IoP to call for such transparency at UEA and then show so little of it themselves. ]
“Unless the IoP receives tax money or is in some other way privileged by the state”
It does receive tax breaks.
It also recieves many benefits (very similarly, many businesses receive state benefits: incorporation is a common one).
Many of the breaks far more valuable than ones received by, for example, UEA.
How much money and tax breaks does the UEA receive, and how much does the IoP receive?