{"id":3125,"date":"2010-03-06T11:08:39","date_gmt":"2010-03-06T16:08:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/?p=3125"},"modified":"2010-07-27T10:20:37","modified_gmt":"2010-07-27T15:20:37","slug":"a-mistaken-message-from-iop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2010\/03\/a-mistaken-message-from-iop\/","title":{"rendered":"A mistaken message from IoP?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Institute of Physics<\/a> (IoP) recently made a splash in the media through a statement<\/a> about the implications of the e-mails stolen in the CRU<\/a> hack. A couple of articles in the Guardian report how this statement was submitted to an inquiry<\/a> into the CRU hack and provide some background<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The statement calls for increased transparency, and expresses concerns about the public confidence in science if the transparency is absent. The IoP statement, however, fails to note that the issue of transparency is far more general applicable than just to mainstream climate science. It should also involve the critics of climate change<\/a>, as noted by New Scientist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The statement also fails to clarify what level of transparency they expect the climate scientists to reach. Which scientific discipline should we use as a role model? I know of none that is more transparent<\/a> than climate science, and in large part that s due to the IPCC<\/a>. Ironically, without this transparency, the climate-change deniers would not get as much ammunition. For instance, note how the attacks on the NASA GISTEMP product have become more vehement in recent months even though the code base and data have been available for years and clearly demonstrate<\/a> that the criticisms are bogus. <\/p>\n

Another question arises is whether the IoP follows its own recommendations in its own publications? <\/p>\n

The statement of the IoP was made on the behalf of its 36000 members, but as a member of IoP myself, this came as a surprise. According to the Guardian<\/a>, there was only a small group of people behind this, and other IoP members<\/a> was obviously not very impressed. The IoP did, however, make a second statement<\/a> after their initial one was misrepresented by the climate-change deniers (there is some confusion about versions<\/a>). <\/p>\n

The irony of this affair<\/a> is that the IoP will not disclose who were responsible for the original statement, thus not living up to the standards they set for others. <\/p>\n

Furthermore, it’s a paradox that the IoP based the statement on stolen private e-mail exchanges, while putting disclaimers about confidentiality, especially as it asks people to delete any e-mail before they go astray:<\/p>\n

This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it<\/strong>…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Transparency is essential for trust and confidence in science \u2013 as in all matters \u2013 but claims about lack of transparency are easy to make. It’s another question whether the alleged lack of transparency in climate science has had any impact on anyone’s ability to verify the science<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Update<\/strong>
\n‘Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission<\/a>‘ in Physics World<\/p>\n

March, 19: Further Comment on DeepClimate.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Institute of Physics, CRU inquiry, transparency<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[35,26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3125","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-communicating-climate","7":"category-rc-forum","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3125"}],"version-history":[{"count":40,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3125\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4640,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3125\/revisions\/4640"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}