March 02, 2010 | Graham

Physicists criticise Jones et al

It’s couched in neutral language, but the Institute of Physics, with an international membership of 36,000 physicists has expressed serious doubts about the objectivity, methods and outcomes of the published results and staff from the Hadley Centre for Climate Research Unit.

This is significant, because in the corrupted world of climate science we are routinely told that we should accept facts because one scientific association or another says they are so. While argument from authority is no argument at all, it is still handy from a rhetorical point of view to have an example like this which runs contra to some of the others.

Their position is contained in a submission to the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into the Had-CRU emails.

They also make some good points as these excerpts show. You can read the whole submission here.

“The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”

“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.”

“However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.”

“The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.”

H/T Andrew Orlovski

Posted by Graham at 5:31 pm | Comments (3) |


  1. It is about time the larger body of science raised their voices.The problem is that scientific research is funded by those who have vested interests in seeing AGW caused by CO2 being premoted.

    The really laughable observation was that those who were “deniars” ie sceptics,were whores in bed with the filthy oil moguls,however those very moguls wanted the carbon taxes since they could not only profit from higher energy prices,but trade a new derivative called carbon credits.They get two bites of the cherry.Our Govts solution was to make the farmers pay using them as carbon sinks and the polluters get off scott free.

    Notice how quiet it is now on the global warming front.Terrorism is trendy again.Swine flu,but still pigs refuse to grow wings.Perhaps we need to think up a better scare as they are running out of ideas.

    What do you suggest Graham? Truth Flu? They definitely need a vaccine for that because we are getting up their nostrils.

    Comment by Arjay — March 7, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

  2. If people other than Arjay lob into this particular post it is worth noting that some people have misinterpreted the Institute of Physics stance on global warming, or have deliberately twisted some statements to suit there own preconceived hopes.

    The following link puts the Institute of Physics’ statements into perspective;

    Arjay, the only thing getting up my nostrils is you banging on about all sorts of conspiracy theories.

    Comment by qanda — March 16, 2010 @ 12:29 am

  3. qanda, by your own admission on a previous topic you had no idea as to what had been debated.Could please explain how this has all changed?

    Instead of taking other people’s opinions as fact via reference,put it in your own words.We want specifics and whether or not you understand the topic.

    Comment by Arjay — March 18, 2010 @ 11:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.