The greatest scientific scandal ever?

Physicists as deniers?

peer review racepeer review race
Could it be that the scientific community are not all charlatans? That they are realising that a scandal of immense proportions has been enacted under their noses? That we may have been experiencing a natural warming period? That they are able to criticise climate scientists who have thought that the end justified the means and, to this end, manipulated data and crowded out non-believers?

Watts Up With That reproduces an amazing submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology committee investigation into the CRU e-mails. This is from the Institute of Physics, which is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. 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.

Here are some quotes:

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 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.

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 CRU on the other hand tried to mislead the committee.