Then it was revealed that one of the authors of the original submission was linked to the energy industry...but the IOP refused to explain what was going on, even though the original submission was a call for greater transparency...
Well the sticky hole just got sticker and deeper. It turns out that the chair of the sub-group of the IOP also has vested interests; a speaker are the world's major climate change denial conference. Transparency?
And that she seems to use different titles to describe herself; One day she's a physics teacher and the next day she's a climatologist: Well there is a bit of a difference between the two, so some clarity would be nice. Interestingly she lists here qualifications as; MSc MPhil. - so she does not even have a full PhD - nothing wrong with that, but I am sceptical of taking the word of people who don't know the area. Plus she does not list what they are in, and I'd like to know 'cos in my experience when a denialist does not list this sort of information, it seems to mean that is breaks the narrative of them being a big-super-duper-expert.
It also might be the case the the IOP statement was coordinated with Lord Fuckwittinginton Monkton:
Monckton was touring Australia – perhaps still is – and during that tour he made some allusions to Climate Scientists being about to face criminal charges, and also to peak academic bodies having some very interesting submissions to make to the UK inquiry. I don’t know whether the IOP submission or Inhofe’s blacklist were already in the public domain when Monckton made his comments (as digressions in either his talks or interviews; I don’t recall precisely) or whether he was aware ahead of time, but I’ll say this: usually I’m up with the latest stuff very soon after it is made public, yet I missed these two rather big items.
Again - was this the case? Transparency? IOP? Hello? Transparency?
Post a Comment