Foresight Nanotech Institute Logo
Image of nano

IOP comments on Climategate

The UK-based Institute of Physics (IOP) publishes, among other things, the journal Nanotechnology, one of the leading journals in the field, and has had special issues with papers from Foresight conferences gaoing back to the 90s.

It was thus somewhat surprising, yet gratifying, to find them submitting quite a strongly-worded critique of practices in climatology that echo some of the concerns I’ve mentioned here about the impact of the shennanigans on the credibility of science as a whole:

1. 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.

2. 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. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.


10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. 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.

One Response to “IOP comments on Climategate”

  1. About That Yale Study Of Conforming Identities « Tai-Chi Policy Says:

    [...] of climatologists agree with global warming? No, they don’t. Perhaps the Yale scientists have taken a look at the news (albeit, not the U.S. news) lately? There was never consensus on anthropogenic global warming [...]

Leave a Reply