Now on ScienceBlogs: Basics: Guest Post 1: Male Reproductive Anatomy
IOPgate: IOP uses memory hole
The Institute of Physics, after calling for transparency, is sneakily altering its statements on the topic.
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
« Naomi Oreskes on Merchants of Doubt | Main | Open Thread 44 »
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: March 5, 2010 8:27 PM, by Tim Lambert
BigCityLib catches the IOP using the memory hole.
William Connolley is not impressed:
What a bunch of slimy little toads: they pretend to believe in openness, they won't tell us who wrote their statements, then they silently airbrush out embarassing words afterwards.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share on: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Comments
The first sentence is unclear. It sounds like IOP is the one using the memory hole.
Posted by: duggie | March 6, 2010 12:13 AM
Umm, yes: memory hole
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| March 6, 2010 2:11 AM
Probably time to let the IoP lie for a bit and sort out whatever led to the statement going out in their own name.
They stuffed up and then made it worse with the silly openess / anonymity contradiction. But hey, if there're the reputable organisation they want to be they'll tidy up the mess in due course and give a proper, public explanation.
There's a slight risk that we're starting to behave like the deniers, getting too interested in apparent anomalies that don't mean anything.
Posted by: inks | March 6, 2010 3:46 AM
Myself, I have way too much professional pride at stake to let this one slide - if criticism of the field in general by the IOP is warranted, they have a duty to their members (and science as a whole) to make sure the criticism is both measured and constructive. That dossier is neither. Let them mull over it by all means, but given that the document as it stands contains accusations based on factual errors (point 5 being the worst example), it should be withdrawn immediately pending revisions.
Posted by: JamesA | March 6, 2010 8:39 AM
Inks.
Your comment:
could be taken two ways...
;-)
Posted by: Bernard j. | March 6, 2010 8:56 AM
Tim, you gonna have another post about Connolley ignoring when NASA does the same thing IOP does?
Posted by: bill | March 6, 2010 12:08 PM
ah ok; i was thinking of it the wrong way
Posted by: duggie | March 6, 2010 4:55 PM