Monkton asks for apology for APS disclaimer on his global warming paper

T

tinfoil

Banned
It's sad that scientists feel the need to use disclaimers. If the methodology fails, it should be a snap to discredit it. But what Monkton did was to show how uncertain some very crucial assumptions are according to the IPCC methods. Monkton acted in good faith and honesty made his argument for all to poke at. The blanket disclaimer is designed to allow alarmists, and those afraid of alarmists (for their funding), to dismiss it out of hand. No need to read and consider the arguments. They even used RED to make the point ever so clear. This will serve as the perfect example of the effects of scientific intimidation. The entire APS fears being linked to a denier. Hell, even if they all agreed with Monkton, they'd be wise to say otherwise.

I think it's rude and disrespectful of the APS to have pulled the rug out from under his feet. Why would anyone take the time and effort ever again if this is how the work will be treated?

http://jimunro.blogspot.com/2008/07/viscount-moncktons-remarks.html

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method that the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting.

If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
 
Yep, some changes are going on:

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/07/yet-more-agw-consensus-not.html

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."​


Although the APS has pointed out that "its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large", we are now starting to see the unravelling of the consensus (if indeed, it ever really existed).
Click to expand...
 
Monckton makes a point. If their going to discredit his paper they should not have invited him to submit it or it should have been peer reviewed by creditable APS members.
 
Damocles said:
It must mean global cooling has begun. We'll all be getting mad when we find out it was all a lie and it will be 89 in the summer instead of 90.
Click to expand...

yeah, perhaps one day the "consensus/debate is over" freaks will pull their collective heads out of their asses and stop trying to find out who is to blame and rather focus their time and energy on actually, oh I don't know... solving the problems that foreign energy dependence and pollution present.
 
uscitizen said:
I have been far more correct on national issues than you have.
that is a fact.
Click to expand...

No, actually you have not. I know that line of crap works on the small minded leftists on the site who all like to proclaim how correct they were etc....

But tell me tool... what issues have you been correct about?

That the surge would fail?

That your decade long proclamation of a recession might finally be coming true?
 
1. that Bush would suck as president. Not just once but twice.
2. That Iraq would turn out to be a long quagmire, not a 6 weeks or 6 months thing.
3. That the sub prime mortgage scheme would fail miserably.
4. That personal debt loads would be a big issue.

Your picking of things like the surge and eventually we would have a downturn is pretty pathetic.

If you had been right in the past a surge would not have been needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top