The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology

American Thinker ^ | July 19, 2008 | Marc Sheppard

[neverdem]

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has penned a letter to the President of the American Physical Society demanding that an offensive disclaimer to one of his papers be removed from the APS website or justified to his satisfaction. And he's also expecting a well deserved apology for the horrendous mistreatment the Society has recently subjected him to.

First, the editors of APS newsletter Physics and Society invited Lord Monckton to present them a paper explaining his disagreement with the AGW findings of the IPCC.  And the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher happily accepted the offer, submitting a brilliant, must read article excoriating the UN lapdogs, both for their deliberately obscured methods and their gross exaggerations of green house gas impact on global temperatures.

Then, despite the Society's official position that evidence of mankind's influence on Earth's climate is "incontrovertible," the newsletter's July 2008 edition contained Jeffrey Marque's editor's comments which welcomed the reasoned debate Lord Monckton's paper would "kick off," allowing that:

"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 the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

And, indeed, when Monckton's piece was published together with a countering IPCC lovefest by David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz, it made for quite the balanced presentation.  In fact, there was even some buzz about the blogosphere that the 50,000 member APS might be "reversing its stance" on climate change.

But a few days later, Monckton's paper was suddenly and inexplicably branded with these scurrilous prefacing words, emphasized in red:

"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."

An outlandish disclaimer, particularly considering that the paper had been reviewed by one of APS's own scientists, and all requested clarifications were duly incorporated by the author. 

And lest there remain any doubt as to the APS position, its homepage prominently included this reassurance to the green masses with similar dispatch:

"The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

‘Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.  The header of this newsletter carries the statement that ‘Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.'  This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."

So much for reasoned debate, but just what the hell happened?  Are we expected to believe that the "Council" was somehow unaware of P&S's invitation to Lord Monckton, a well-known "denier" of AGW dogma? Perhaps, but my Bravo Sierra alarm suggests that they were just as likely "convinced" post-publication -- by the same pathetic political forces that taint the science of the IPCC -- that there can be but one "truth" about climate change.

While the Viscount tactfully chose the word "discourteous" in describing the treatment he'd received, far harsher adjectives certainly come to mind.  The crimes against progress feckless scientists the likes of the APS "Council" are guilty of know no ample punishment.  There should be a special place in hell for each and every one of them as penance for the offense of falsely empowering the laughably inane yet widely accepted fantasies of Al Gore alone.

But inviting a man of Monckton's measure to participate in an evenhanded analysis of both sides only to summarily demean the very position they requested of him is beneath the dignity of any true society of science.  And to continue beating the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community" drums when 32,000 scientists officially dissent and no warming measured since 1998 further betrays their corruption.

These are desperate times for the alarmists, and they are resorting to desperate measures.  But I suspect they'll soon regret the attempt to turn Lord to Pawn.

Here's the full text of Monckton's letter, courtesy of Benny Peiser.  And if you haven't already done so, I implore you to read the brilliant article at the heart of this little drama.

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,

President, American Physical Society,

Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

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 which 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

Posted at 09:16 PM | Email | Permalink

[aruanan]

I dislike the smug AGW true believers and their anti-capitalist solutions, but I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity. If the answer to both questions is yes, then I want to know what solutions are most practical.

A. if AGW is occurring--the amount of warming that could possibly be due to the incredibly tiny amount of man-processed CO2 is swamped out by the noise of the system and the slight warming starting in the late 1800's that stopped in 1998 started long before man-processed CO2 formed a significant portion of an insignificantly small fraction of total greenhouse gases.

B. if it poses a significant threat to humanity--No one has ever shown that temperature increases of several degrees C can pose any significant danger to humans. Such temperature increases have occurred in the past without any contribution by humans and things were fine. No ice caps melted away and no ice sheets slid into the sea. The warming periods were marked by more, rather than less, clement weather, longer growing seasons and at higher latitudes. The real danger is in a drop in global mean temperature of several degrees C with the resultant reduction in arable land and shortened growing seasons and drier climates.

[supercat]

I dislike the smug AGW true believers and their anti-capitalist solutions, but I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity. If the answer to both questions is yes, then I want to know what solutions are most practical.

The only way meaningful research can be conducted is if AGW 1.0 thoroughly denounced as a hoax. Otherwise, politics will sabotage any efforts at finding the truth.

[Tax-chick]

I still want to know if AGW is occurring, and if it poses a significant threat to humanity.

From whom do you think you could reasonably expect to learn this information, with any degree of reliability? Stargate Command? NUMA? The UN? (But excuse me, I fall into parody with that last ...)

The current "scientific" fiasco is the best available to humanity. Under the circumstances, the only reasonable assumption is that "solutions that are most practical" will be produced by an unfettered free market of individuals who would like themselves and their assets to survive any potential environmental outcome.

[aruanan]

The current "scientific" fiasco is the best available to humanity.

Actually, no. The best available to humanity is found in the scientific literature, not in the politically-motivated way some folks are spinning a very few of the studies to support an otherwise untenable hypothesis. Some of this "best available" can be found HERE at CO2Science.org.

[PapaBear3625]

‘Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'

Notice a key word missing here. They say that humans are affecting the Earth's climate. They do not say humans are SIGNIFICANTLY affecting the Earth's climate.

The whole thrust of Monckton's article is not that there is no effect, it's that they are grossly overestimating the effect

[Tax-chick]

Thank you very much for offering better information.

[TChad]

From whom do you think you could reasonably expect to learn this information, with any degree of reliability?

If I spent about a year digging into the science, I might be able to satisfy my own curiosity about AGW. That will not happen. At this point I don't trust those on either side of the debate to be honest and thorough, and I am fed up with gratuitous assertions.

So in answer to your question, I don't really expect to find that pony.

[Tax-chick]

Life is full of missing ponies, and we’re all gonna die anyway, eventually. Have a Guinness!

[grey_whiskers]

That’s exactly the letter Lord Peter Wimsey would have written, had he taken a First in Physics, rather than History, at Oxford. I have not yet looked at the Viscount’s educational background, but I’m about to.

I don't know -- it strikes me more of Pickled Gherkins (the Visount Gerald St. George, his nephew).

And where is Harriet Vane in all of this?

Obligatory Physics Reference (from Gaudy Night):

"Who mentioned Planck's constant a little time ago?"

"I did, and I'm sorry for it. I call it a revolting little object."

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

What, are you channeling [various now-banned contributors to crevo threads] now?

Full Disclosure: That's what scientists *ought* to do; but too often, the 'error checking' feature of science comes not from an abstract devotion to truth, but a devotion to intellectual pride -- "I'm right and *you* were wrong."

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Life is full of missing ponies, and we’re all gonna die anyway, eventually. Have a Guinness!

I second the motion!

(and they're perfect for this controversy, because you can drink them warm OR cold.)

Cheers!

[TChad]

Have a Guinness!

Lovely idea, but I gave up adult beverages.

[supercat]

They do not say humans are SIGNIFICANTLY affecting the Earth's climate.

Further, the term 'significant' itself needs clarification. Suppose, for example, I have a card playing program. After running it, I make a small change to the seed for the random number generator. Have I "significantly" changed it?

On the one hand, I've totally changed the sequence of deals the program will produce. On the other hand, unless there was some defect in the generator, my change probably won't have affected the aggregate statistical properties of hands dealt.

I would suggest that even if humans are significantly changing the climate, they are not doing so in such a fashion as to have any predictable effect. It is probably true that had there not been so much CO2 in the atmosphere, some places that received rain today would not have, and vice versa. But so what? That a particular action may have random effects on already-random behavior shouldn't be any cause for concern. The behavior is still neither more nor less random than it was before.

[Tax-chick]

are you channeling [various now-banned contributors to crevo threads] now

Is that where that came from? At least it wasn't the Ghost of Al Gore!

[savedbygrace]

Ah, The Guinness Solution.

[Tax-chick]

Can’t hurt!

[iopscusa]

Thanks for pointing out my hyperbole re:
Al Gore and Rachel Carson should be tried for crimes against humanity or genocide

[PapaBear3625]

I would suggest that even if humans are significantly changing the climate, they are not doing so in such a fashion as to have any predictable effect. It is probably true that had there not been so much CO2 in the atmosphere, some places that received rain today would not have, and vice versa. But so what? That a particular action may have random effects on already-random behavior shouldn't be any cause for concern. The behavior is still neither more nor less random than it was before.

The things that needs to be proven in order to justify spending US taxpayer's money to combat "global warming" include

1. That the changes to the global climate will cause net harm to US citizens. This would be determined by adding up the costs of harms and the values of any benefits (milder winters in places currently having harsh winters) and seeing if the total comes out to a net cost
2. That the changes to the global climate are PRDOMINANTLY caused by human activity, and
3. That the costs of the remedies are less than the cost of the harm that would result from simply doing nothing