Institute of Irony and their War on Science

This post is more to do with how politics can test science, and vice versa.

The issues of the emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, or Climategate, continues to bubble along.  Amongst the evidence submitted to the UK Parliament on the matter was this piece from the Institute of Physics; which points out that

the CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.

and that there is

worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field

and

The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions

After an embarrassing inquiry

The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission

the IoP was forced to issue the following statement

IoP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now.

Meterologist and IoP member Dr Andy Russell felt that they didn't go far enough

if the IoP continues to stand by this statement then I will have no other option but to reconsider my membership of your organisation.

Despite a number of inquiries as to the identity of the authors of the IoP statement the IoP maintain anonymity

The IOP added that the submission was approved by three members of its science board, but would not reveal their names. The Guardian contacted several members of the board, including its chairman, Denis Weaire, a physicist at Trinity College Dublin. All said that they had little direct role in the submission.

As reported by the Guardian anonymous sources from the IoP said that

The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious.

..However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong.

Further digging by The Times forced the IoP to reveal that an "energy consultant" was one of those who had "contributed" to the submission.

MP Evan Harris expressed his concern

that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise

whilst others track the changes made to the IoP statement on the IoP website including this one

Responsibility for the evidence rests with our Science Board, whose members’ names are openly available on our website.

It would appear that the IoP have allowed themselves to be used by a pro energy group and are now trying to absolve themselves of responsibility whilst covering up, which is exactly what they have charged others with.