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
Print
