Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32

Date:  October 13, 2008 (original:  July 19)

 

Material below is provided in reverse chronology, from most recent development to initial correspondence.


October 13, 2008:

Christopher (Lord) Monckton's letter to Professor Joseph Serene, APS:

American Physical Society (APS) Abandons Science for Theology.

July 29, 2008:

APS Fellow writes to APS in support of Christopher (Lord) Monckton's position:

Read letter to APS supporting Lord Monckton's position on AGW.

July 24, 2008: (updated July 30)

Christopher (Lord) Monckton responds to critiques of his paper (2):

Several critiques of Lord Monckton's paper appeared shortly after its publication. One from a member of the APS took issue with a number of Lord Monckton's points, including his conclusions. Lord Monckton's response to this critique thoroughly exhonerates his original paper and clearly reveals the errors of Dr. Arthur Smith, APS member, who continued the ad hominen tone set by the original APS disclaimer. [Do prospective APS members have to pass a "sneer" exam to test their proficiency at ad hominen insult?]

Dr. Smith's critique is followed immediately by Lord Monckton's rebuttal in these documents:

A second assault on Lord Monckton's paper arose from a blogger at FalseClimate, a site whose comment board does not allow comments from anyone who does not espouse the AGW theory of the IPCC. It is a site that is both forgettable and lacks credibiity, as it was co-founded by two co-authors of the completely discredited "hockey-stick" curve.  

July 22, 2008:

APS responds by changing disclaimer:

As of this moment it appears that the only response to Lord Monckton's latest communication to the APS concerning their offensive disclaimer comes in the form of a revised, much toned-down, disclaimer in normal text color (rather than the bright red of the original highly discourteous posting):

Considering that a full professor of Physics chosen by the APS did review the paper and through various communications with Lord Monckton suggested changes that resulted in more than 3000 additional words to the paper, the claim that the paper has not undergone "any scientific peer review" is debatable. It is absurd for the APS to claim that it is necessary to post a disclaimer at the head of each article not specifically identified as being reflective of the APS membership's opinion. Claims of consensus of opinions regarding scientific matters are generally inappropriate and not conducive to a healthy atmosphere for scientific inquiry.

The essence of scientific research is the quest for better "truth" in scientific knowledge. Those who believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide (or any other greenhouse gas) have a significant (or even detectible) effect on climate (the anthropogenic global warming, AGW, theory) have consistently attempted to silence opposing views on the peculiar basis that they do not represent "consensus." However, scientific truth is not determined by consensus -- it is determined by sound scientific research based on realistic assumptions and confirmed by observation. The AGW theory (as Monckton's paper demonstrates) not only fails the valid assumption test, it is completely discredited by a host of observational data (uncooperative polar temperatures, missing tropical mid-troposphere fingerprint, downturn in global temperature, cooling oceans, etc.) and new research that clearly demonstrates the claimed scientific bases upon which the AGW theory rests are fatally flawed. Humans are not capable of significantly altering climate. Greenhouse gases are not a signficant climate change force (and never have been in Earth's climate history over the past few billion years).

There is no longer any valid scientific basis for the claim endorsed by the APS Council that "emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

It appears that the APS membership would be well-served to step forward and elect a new Council to represent a more scientific approach to opinionating for the Society.

This entire episode raises more than a few questions that bear on the credibility of whether the views of the APS "governing body" represent the majority of APS members.

  1. What process did the APS Council use to evaluate all aspects of the global warming theory espoused by the IPCC before endorsing it? It is particularly odd that the endorsement came as recently as November 2007 when emerging new research and observations (climate stability/cooling, projected multi-decadal cooling, shifts in PDO & ADO, increasing evidence supporting solar/cosmic link, lack of historic precedent for the AGW climate change mechanism, weakness of underlying IPCC assumptions exposed, lack of corroborating evidence predicted to appear by IPCC AGW theory, and not the least, the shattered basis for IPCC estimates of CO2 climate change forcing mechanism) have been devastating to the AGW theory.
     
  2. On what basis does the APS Council believe that the IPCC AGW theory is supported by "the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community" as stated in the original disclaimer? Where is the evidence for that statement?
     
  3. What role does "consensus" of scientific opinion play in real scientific discourse?
     
  4. What compelled the APS to divert from its very civil original approach to this issue by adding the original, highly offensive disclaimer to Monckton's paper?
     
  5. On what basis has the APS Council determined that the conclusions of Lord Monckton's paper are in "disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community" as claimed in the original disclaimer? (by what method has the Council determined the "opinion" of "the world scientific community"?)
     
  6. What has the APS Council done to provide future contributors assurance that they will not receive the same discourteous treatment given Lord Monckton's paper?
There is little doubt that Lord Monckton's paper will be peer reviewed. We can hope that any competent reviewing process will either establish the paper's validity or lead to modifications that will give us an even better paper with an improved understanding of the feedback processes involved with increased atmospheric CO2.

It is remarkable to witness how any questioning of the IPCC's AGW theory's key underpinning receives such hostile treatment prior to wide scientific scrutiny. Such reaction strongly confirms the growing belief that the AGW theory stands upon a crumbling foundation.

For more on this issue, see this excellent piece at The American ThinkerUnrepentant APS softens but doesn't remove offensive Monckton disclaimer.


July 21, 2008:

Lord Monckton's response to Bienenstock's reply (21 July):


July 20, 2008:

APS Response to Lord Monckton's letter (20 July):


July 19, 2008:

At the invitation of the American Physical Society (APS), The Viscount (Christopher) Monckton of Brenchley prepared a paper for publication in the APS July 2008 newsletter, Physics and Society (P&S). The paper detailed why Lord Monckton "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." Prior to publication, the paper was extensively reviewed in June 2008 by an APS member, Professor Alvin Saperstein, Professor of Physics, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Lord Monckton carefully and thoroughly responded to changes suggested/requested by the APS reviewer.

Subsequently, the paper was published online at the P&S website. However, within days of online publication a statement appeared at the top of the web edition (in red) that both disgraces the APS and insults the paper's author.

The details of that incident are included within the author's email response to the APS, and are shown below. First, is the email Lord Monckton sent to the APS. Second, is a summary of the changes that were made to the paper to satisfy the questions and comments of the APS reviewer.

A clearer version of the original MS Word document prepared by Lord Monckton is available here as an Adobe PDF file.

Original email (19 July) from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the APS concerning their website's treatment of his paper:

Email from Lord Monckton to APS

Summary of changes made to comply with requests from APS reviewer (Professor Alvin Saperstein, Professor of Physics, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan) prior to publication:

Summary of changes made by Lord Monckton to satisfy APS reviewer

Adobe PDF document containing both email and summary.


Copyright © 2008
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved