Bringing Physics Into Disrepute

I first commented on the suspected link between the Institute of Physics and the noted Climate Change “sceptic” Piers Corbyn in a previous post :-

http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/02/fred-pearce-still-crucifying-phil-jones/

One of my commentators challenged what I had written, so I edited it out, awaiting the opportunity to discover more.

More has now been uncovered; not my me, I hasten to add, but by another commentator :-

http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/06/institute-of-physics-nosedive/#comment-600

Following the link given, I find this :-

http://www.weatheraction.com/

“Thursday 11 Mar 2010 : Welcome to WeatherAction – world leaders in long range weather and climate forecasting : Piers Corbyn reveals revolutionary forecast concepts at special conference Oct 28th : The panel at WeatherAction’s international conference, Imperial College London Oct 28th : R to L. Hans Schreuder Analytic Chemist of ILMCD, Peter Gill – Physicist, Fellow of the Energy Institute and Member Inst of Physics, John Sanderson Physicist Pres Royal College Of Science Assoc, Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist founder WeatherAction, Prof Phillip Hutchinson Energy expert, Dr David Bellamy naturalist, Gabe Rychert Climate Realists.com. Joe D’Aleo of American Meteorological Soc & Dr Kirill Kuzanyan Solar Physicist (Moscow/Beijing) contributed by live Web-link. Sammy Wilson DUP MP also spoke on the political problems of ‘Climate Change’. (*) ‘Warmers’ flee from challenge to present evidence for CO2 case. (*) CO2 theory refuted by science fact : Piers Corbyn Opening remarks – We stand for Evidence based science : http://www.kane-tv.com/wa/piers1.html : Sammy Wilson DUP MP blasts the hypocrisy of the ‘Global Warmers’ : http://www.kane-tv.com/wa/sammywilson.html

Would that be the same “Peter Gill – Physicist, Fellow of the Energy Institute and Member Inst of Physics” who advised on the composition of the Institute of Physics submission as evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the “goings on” at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the University of East Anglia (UEA) that was heard in Parliament on 1st March 2010, and which featured oral evidence from Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser as well as disgruntled questions from Graham Stringer directed in a targeted, pointed, singling-out fashion towards the bowed-but-not-broken Professor Phil Jones, details of which can be found here ? :-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html

As remarked by El Stoat :-

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/the_iop_fiasco.php

“It reads like a gift to the septics and it could easily have been written down to the septics dictation; indeed, it very probably was.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission

It certainly makes me question whether the Institute of Physics needs to question whether somebody may be bringing the Institute of Physics, and indeed, the whole Science of Natural Philosophy (Physics), into disrepute.

Piers Corbyn’s theories, though elegant and articulate, have been shown to be apparently unreliable and seemingly not useful. His position of vehement opposition to the great body of knowledge that is Climate Change Science seemingly takes him to that mental space of “denial” of the evidence, and he has apparently taken several other people there with him, in his organised association. This is not an appropriate position from which to conduct proper Science, in my view. It is more a state of mind, I feel, that is normally treated with pharmaceutical chemicals and one-to-one private counselling.

This apparent insertion of Climate Change “sceptic” views into the House of Commons Inquiry, utilising, or perhaps abusing, the vehicle of the Institute of Physics seemingly as a pretext for assuming authority on the subject, should, to my mind, be named “scandalous”.

I once considered membership of the Institute of Physics. I shall not now. I hope a great many Members reconsider their position, also.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *