nuke
vimto1
no2liberals
Robert D
Murder of Ravens
Beto Ochoa
swampie
theobromophileMost readers here are familiar with Lord Monckton’s stance on the matter of global warming, or anthropogenic climate change. His chastisement of those who are promoting the many myths and deceits of earth’s cyclical patterns is approaching legendary status, especially in the gathering of climate change opportunists in Bali, and his exposure of the faulty methods of the UN’s IPCC reports in 2001 and 2007.
Lord Monckton recently issued a report to the American Physical Society, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, and if you will notice, at the top of the report, is a red lettered disclaimer from the APS about Lord Monckton’s report, with no attribution as to whom authorized the disclaimer.
Not one to permit an arrogant statement to go unanswered, after complying with all procedures and protocols for publication, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley responded with an email to the President of the APS. I can only hope to provide a future update to this post, with the reply from the APS leadership.
19 July 2008
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.comArthur 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
Source.
Why would the APS add such a disclaimer, knowing the nature of the Viscount, as one who will not back down? Are they perhaps attempting to force an issue where they can discredit or minimize the Viscount’s status? Or are they required to put up such a cowardly and flimsy disclaimer, by their dark overlords from the religion of Goremonism?
Regardless, the ball has been returned, and is in the APS court. I will be watching for any foot-faults.
For your viewing pleasure, one video presentation in two parts, based on Lord Monckton’s work.
Thirty Five Inconvenient Truths Part 1.
Thirty Five Inconvenient Truths Part 2.
*ADDENDUM* Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year.
Filed under: Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder, News and politics, global warming hysteria, n2l, science and research
Posted at Watts Up With That:
I am most grateful to Anthony Watts and to hundreds of members of the APS who have been in touch today, and also to those who have commented above. Whatever the failings in my paper (and I have no doubt that it will be torn to shreds by way of a rebuttal in the next issue of Physics and Society – and that is how science ought to be done), the unethical and discourteous conduct of the APS has revealed a well-organized nastiness at the heart of “official” science that, more than anything in my paper, discredits the “global warming” alarmists’ cause. Thank you all, once again, for your very kind support. – Monckton of Brenchley
Quite a discussion there between Lord Monckton and people questioning his paper/those supporting his paper.
Good snag on the link there, Swampie.
Gah. I’m still trying to work my way through the formulas.
/It’s been awhile since my science courses.
I’m not prepared to get into the formulas.
I would probably screw up, and the amount of time it would take to reach that conclusion, would really piss me off.
I love this guy’s writing, and he has another good one up.
Patriotic Gore and other global warming mongering.
Chemical breakthrough turns sawdust into biofuel.
Bring on sawdustmachine.
Heh. I foresee crying about deforestation, though.
/I’ve got one of those fast-growing trees from hell we keep cutting down and it keeps springing back. A veritable wood machine. Those and dog fennels (hate them dang things!) will probably do nicely.
Not to mention the freakin’ tree limbs the giant oak and pecan trees are always tossing at us, our vehicles, and our roof.
A video for n2l.
Dunno ’bout old n2l, but I’ve been to many of them places. I forwarded it to SwampMan to try to ignite an urge to travel again.
I figured it would be familiar territory for the gang down south. I didn’t know there was a Frisco in Texas. I’ll stop referring to San Fran as Frisco in the future.
I posted a video very similar to that back in March.
Frisco, Tx is just up the road from me by about fifteen minutes.
Ain’t nothing like the San you know.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/moncktons_fantasy_world.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/more_monckton_1.php
http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html
As for taking notice of anything that comes out of ‘WattsUpWithThat’ – the site redefines ‘delusional’.
P.S. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/20/irony-gate-viscount-monckton-a-british-peer-says-his-paper-was-peer-reviewed-by-a-scientist-how-droll/
MA,
Not certain what your motive for posting your comment about another blog, or all the links, is.
I’m fully capable of discerning for myself, who is or is not delusional.
On the issue of Lord Monckton’s treatment, in regards to his article, I am also fully capable of discerning an arrogant and undeserved insult. That the leadership is so invested in promoting AGW, that they can’t allow anything that challenges the view they are so invested in to be published, without making total asses of themselves, speaks volumes about the insecurity the APS leadership feels on this topic.
Lord Monckton’s comment,
should cause any reasonable person to view the IPCC report with a critical eye. Even more so, when one considers that scientists didn’t write the IPCC report, but bureaucrats at the UN.
Even with all this, with thousands of scientists, from many different disciplines, having disagreements on the effects of man on the weather, the tired expression of a world wide consensus on AGW settling the matter, is totally absurd.
Solid theory should stand up to tests, time after time. The current AGW arguments continue to fail those tests.
yeah, but, but, but….the debate is OVER!
The Goracle says so!
I ain’t heard no full-figured opera singers yet.
/henh
there should be severe penalties for people who deliberately decieve.
whether they have nobel prizes or not.
Hmmm… severe penalties for people who deliberately decieve???
Sounds to me like the McCain/Palin team will have some jail time to serve…