The American Physical Society Owes Lord Monckton an Immediate Apology

It is really something to watch the huge number of people in the world getting lead around by the nose on this foolishness. You would not think it possible with all the sources of information we now have in the new "Internet Age' but that is not so I guess.

Check out 'junkscience.com' if you want to be innundated with good information.

SF
Bill

Now comes the old bureaucratic blame shuffle.

Unprofessionalism , (snobbery, disrespect, and outright meanness) seem to be a sign of the times we live in, especially in the circles of AGW proponents. Except for GISS data sets, all other global temperature data sets show at least a flatness to temperature and even cooling over the last 10 years -- but that, of course, is only physical evidence! The computer models created and then data-populated by the same people show warming and then the rest of the scientific community uses these results as if trustworthy. Just throw in the difficulty for outsiders to get their hands on the data sets and methodology used by the AGW proponents, and there you have all the makings of a farce, a fraud, a sham, and a scam. I think that says it.

Do you people know there are at least 3 tropical systems (CO2 + Es2O + Ready Killowat) currently in the North Atlantic Basin to prove your worth?

Lord Monckton, Czarina Sheppard, and King Chanute have yet to predict anything but paychecks from the ExxonMobils which do not deserve apologies for boys being boys. The scientific disciplines involved with global warming requires the normal 5 steps of the scientific method of conservative science and not the 3 step method of "selling used cars, delousing showers, and male enhancement".

A couple days before this brouhaha erupted I came across a brief reference to the Physics & Society undertaking of an open debate on the scientific merits of AGW. I then downloaded the original pdf copy of the newsletter before it was edited.

And then all hell broke loose.

In what has got to be one of the worst tactical blunders by AGW proponents, the governing body of APS disavowed the actions of an obscure newsletter that no one had ever heard of and, to add fuel to the fire, had qualifying statements added to the index of the July 2008 issue of the newsletter as well as to the paper by Lord Monckton. What would probably have passed into silent obscurity after a mere moment of attention suddenly is all over the internet in a firestorm of public scrutiny. A small sample of this attention can be found at Anthony Watts' blog, Watts Up With That?

His first posting of the issue:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/

announced the appearance of the article as first announced at Daily Tech. It also tracked the sudden reversal at APS and the growing controversy can be seen in the over 300 comments this one post has engendered.

With the explosive growth of the controversy, there has now been another post:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-and-monckton-at-odds-over-paper/

to follow the results of the qualifying statements. In the short time this post has been up, it has already resulted in nearly 100 comments.

If nothing had been said, the whole unpleasant affair (at least for an AGW proponent) would have quickly passed into obscurity. However, their tactical mistake in raising the stakes so obviously even led to the action being reported by Drudge (if only for about 12 hours).

Now only the future can tell what will happen. It appears that the original plan was for there to be a series of pro and con articles in Physcis and Society. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the October 2008 and future issues; will they report on a scientific critique of both articles as well as posting new articles or will the poor editor get fired for actually believing that science is about open discussion?

So sad - $hepp is defending a used car salesman or a weather bunny who osmoregulates on his audience and tells them it is rain and trickle down economics:

"By Monckton
July 18, 2008 3:49 AM | Link to this
The childishly petulant tone of this article conceals a deep and proper unease. Temperature has been falling globally for seven years, while CO2 concentration has been rising. A major paper in the current edition of Physics and Society says the UN's climate panel has exaggerated the effects of CO2 on temperature by 500-2000%. So there is no climate crisis. End of scare. Time to write about something else."

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/07/17/president_bush_acknowledges_th.html

I am most grateful to Marc Sheppard for having written one of the best articles on the unethical conduct of the American Physical Society that have exploded on to the internet in recent hours.

Mr. Sheppard is quite right to say that my paper on climate sensitivity has received an exposure far greater than it would have received if the APS had played by the usual rules of academic discourse.

Below Mr. Sheppard's excellent article there is a comment by one "Ozonator" to the effect that I am in the pay of ExxonMobil. In fact my paper in Physics and Society contains a clear statement in the Acknowledgements that I did not receive funding from any source. If Ozonator has evidence that I am supposed have received money from ExxonMobil, I do hope he will provide it, so that I can get my hands on their check. If not, perhaps he will withdraw his unfounded, untruthful, and discourteous allegation. - Monckton of Brenchley

Just a quick look at the Acknowledgements section of Lord Monckton's work revealed: "Any errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding from any source for this research."

The guy takes full responsibility for his work...what a novel idea! And he didn't take money for his research...what another novel idea! I wonder if his opponents could say the same...

AGW, indeed! Can anyone out there tell me why the glaciers that carved out the Great Lakes melted some 14000 years ago. As far as I can tell that antedated the internal combustion engine by some 13900 years. Are the AGW proponents keeping something from us, or have they left something out of their computer models?

This is a note I emailed to a non-scientist friend with whom I have been discussing man-made global warming. It was written before the APS published their disclaimer.

"As an active member of APS for the last 40+ years, I have been astounded at the lack of scientific discipline that the top brass of the organization has shown regarding the CO2/global warming debate.

No matter how the debate turns out, it will be a lasting stain on APS's reputation for their past failure to impose the same scientific standard to this debate that they demand in virtually every other forum. Up until now their position can only be described as abandoning true science and caving to pop culture science. As I have said to you in the past, the present debate is not about science--it's all politics.

Finally the APS has come to a more reasonable position that I and many more have held for some time.

The biggest loss is a diminishment in the ability of science to impact policy. We see too many areas where science has been hijacked by special interests, the media, politics and the entertainment community and rational analysis has been replaced by hype. Perhaps this effort by the APS can help restore the good name of science."

What has been overlooked in all of this brouhaha is that the dissent of the accepted warming paradigm constitutes a direct threat to the goldmine of federally funded research money. A sort of welfare for the academic class. To suggest that AGW is indeed folly is a threat to the jobs of otherwise non-gainfully employable scientists, physicists or otherwise.

I think Ozonator must have attended the Al Gore school of communications. Much blather, little sense.

On the other hand you can deduce discomfort when the Warmists resort to the well worn tactic of personal attacks. I doubt that he impresses many readers when he refers to Lord Monckton as a used car salesman.

Beware of organizations of which you are a member. Too often inattention and lack of time lead to organizations run by a samll cabal of activists. They are committed, they ae dedicated and they care not one whit about open discussion and debate. Their goals vary, at the local non-profit hospital it could be a group held together by the glue of ego and power. Enhancing their own standing or pocketbooks, not healthcare. In religion it could be small cabal of psuedo Chrisitians for instance making the whole of a denomination stand for anti semitism or in fact a small cabal relatively making God stand for conquest thereby not enhancing the spirit of God but rather enhancing their power. So now we come to the quasi academic, perhaps some of the leaders of this organization are lawyers with no scientific training, perhaps the folks who fund various projects contacted these lawyers to explain that funding sources only want the science that supports the answer they were given prior to the research. The search for truth I was taught was at the core of the academic insitution. Unfortunately today these institutions are peopled by folks who do not care about careful study and debate, the truth is whatever it seems at the moment is convenient. These are also the people raised up after the mid sixties, raised with no sense of right or wrong, no sense of honor, but every sense of telling themselves how good they are. This applies not just to science. The great gold standard of the accounting profession Arthut Andersen was brought down by just such people who let their pocketbooks determine their unprofessional judgement. They are of the same time class.

Dan Peterson hit the nail on the head. This is all about money, and it's the tax payers' money. Unfortunately we will not ge able to get a refund.

As for Ozonator, I think you'll find lots of money flowing into the AGW proponents and unless you can prove that Lord Monckton has received funding from Exxon Mobil or any other oil company you need to try another tactic...the truth might be good.

One thing I have learned in my short ife is that when someone is quick to accuse someone else of shenanigans, frequently, it is because the accuser is the one that is guilty. Ozonator, have you considered that the APS may be guilty of taking money from Algore?
Just a thought.
Also, Dan Peterson, I couldn't agree more. It's all about grant money. That's how these academians live. With all due respect to Monkton of Benchly. If RJ Reynolds gave these guys a grant they would produce a study saying tobacco is good for you.

Lord Monckton has just made Ozonebreather's day by commenting on his statements. I wonder if Ozonebreather is a used solar panel, or wind turbine salesman. It just seems to me that the most vocal proponents of AGW are most likely to be the ones profiting from the advancement of the theory. So, Ozonebreather, what is your stake in the advancement of AGW theory? Are your profits threatened by the facts? Have you ever recieved funding from any organisation that advances the AGW theory? You seem to get hot under the coller whenever anyone challenges your belief in this hoax. I just wonder what you stand to gain or lose from it.

Liberals like the Bozonator need not present evidence unless it had been doctored. Repetitive ad-homs being the general level of intellectual discourse, since doctoring evidence takes physical effort.

It seems the only form of debate we can get from AGW proponents is a dishonest one.

I extend my thanks to Marc Sheppard and AT for following up on this "drama".

I have noticed that the Ozonators of the world typically demonize ExxonMobil, a U.S. company. Yet, as of January 2008, ExxonMobil has apparently fallen out of the top 6 oil & gas companies, as listed in the PFC Energy 50 ranking;

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS211318+23-Jan-2008+MW20080123

"Three years ago, the top six names on the PFC Energy 50 ranking of the
world's largest oil & gas industry companies were ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch
Shell, Total, Chevron, and Eni. This year's top six include Petrochina,
Gazprom, Sinopec and Petrobras, National Oil Companies (NOCs), whose shares are
traded on public markets, but which are majority-owned by the governments of
China, Russia and Brazil."

It is high time for the Ozonators to lay off little ExxonMobil and demonize the Marxist/Socialist nationalized oil giants of Russia and China.

Monckton of Brenchley,

Be careful as you sort your mail. What looks like junk mail written in Chinese or Russian or Portuguese may actually be your check.

Dear Lord Monckton of Brenchley and your posse of American Stinkers,

By your misdeeds do we know thee and your well paying accomplices. " Unethical conduct ... my paper on climate sensitivity ... pay of ExxonMobil ... I did not receive funding from any source. If Ozonator has evidence ... If not, perhaps he will withdraw his unfounded, untruthful, and discourteous allegation. Posted by: Monckton of Brenchley | July 20, 2008 07:39 AM".

For example:

One would think our royal would be sensitive enough to detect a spinning chunk of global warming like little ole me. Dolly was failed to be predicted by Lord Monckton with more than enough time to prove his level of competence and to barter with ExxonMobil. "The National Hurricane center has issued a tropical storm warning for the Yucatan peninsula from the Border of Campeche, Mexico ... Dolly is moving toward the northeast at 17 mph, and forecasters expect it to continue moving in this direction for the next two days" ("Tropical Storm Dolly forms in western Caribbean"; AP; /news.yahoo.com, 7/20/08).

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/07/17/president_bush_acknowledges_th.html
"By Monckton
July 18, 2008 3:49 AM | Link to this
The childishly petulant tone of this article conceals a deep and proper unease ... there is no climate crisis. End of scare. Time to write about something else.
By Ozonator
July 18, 2008 5:43 AM | Link to this
"Childishly petulant tone" is another gateway into more crimes against nature with ExxonMobil in the closet. Lord Monckton, it is time to put up or shut up.

Global warming has turned the planetary ecosystem into a kaleidoscope. With or without massive earthquakes, expect Jamaica, Cuba, and the area from Baton Rouge to Houston to be hit by a 1 - 2 category hurricane ecosystem from the main tropical system in Caribbean Sea. The current cluster of potential hurricanes lurking between Virginia and Brazil allow for a better prediction of victims than my earlier posts but may be insignificant compared to the death and destruction the predicted line of earthquakes on a matching tract. The current broad area of low pressure in the Caribbean Sea is the degenerated tropical wave from 7/13/08 that should become a 1 - 2 category hurricane and hit Jamaica, Western Cuba, and then between Houston and Baton Rouge in adherence with predicted hurricane paths (2/13/08) and energy discharges associated with earthquakes (7/13 - 19/08). "III. ... B. North Atlantic Hurricanes for 2008 with potential for Europe, Africa, and South America ... 2. ... a. Havana - Monterrey, Mexico - Baton Rouge and b. Jamaica - Tampa - Palm Beach - Miami ... The taxonomy key of hurricane ecosystems for 2008 with the relative percentage chance of getting wiped out is: 1.6. Mid-Atlantic - Bahamas/Hispaniola - Florida (Palm Beach/Tampa) - Alabama - Ohio - Pennsylvania, and 11%; 1.7.a. Mid-Atlantic - Grenada - Jamaica - Western Cuba - Louisiana - Alabama - West Virginia, 1.7.b. Mid-Atlantic - Grenada - Jamaica - Yucatan - Monterrey, Mexico" ("10th Annual 2008 North Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season Predictions with Related, Planetary Models"; Robert Rhodes, Supplemental; GBRWE 2/10 - 16/08; 2/13/08 ...).

Bad news, we have already seen sympathetic harmonics with a ~3.1 Richter quake in Illinois and a ~5.6 Richter quake off of Oregon. Independent of what was done on 2/13/08,"B. The specifics of the Giulaino - Gansu Model (7/13 - 19/08) of extreme earthquake warnings with included statistics, analysis indicates for regions (magnitude in Richters) are: 1. Moon Walk Model: a. Nicaragua (6+) - Jamaica (5+) - Cuba (6+) - Louisiana (3+) - LABI, Missouri (4+) - Colorado (4+) - Northern California (7+)" ("GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08's Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities"; Robert Rhodes, Supplemental; GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08, 7/12/08)."

Morry Rotenburg, re:"Are the AGW proponents keeping something from us, or have they left something out of their computer models?"

Actually, a lot of things have been left out of the computer models-- "Insignificant" little things like solar cycles and water vapor, the two most important climate regulation systems on the planet. No one can predict to any degree of accuracy when and where a cloud will appear (which is the reason the daily weather predictions become flakey after four or five days), and none of the models account for solar activity.

Aside from these two major issues, there is also the problem that every computer program IS biased-- by the programmer who wrote it. The programmer decides the values of different formula notations, and decides how and when to apply them. Even something as seemingly exacting and innocent as an accounting program is biased by how and when the programmer chooses to "round off" totals. Thirty-one cents rounded down to the next lowest dollar amount isn't much to an individual, but that same thirty-one cents spread over 100,000 customers adds up to $31,000, a considerable chunk of change to add to your operating funds.

All computer programs are biased by the choices of the programmer. So all climate models are, by the fact that the programmer is human and made choices, biased toward whatever the programmer wants to show.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a climate "expert", but I AM a computer expert, and have been suspicious of AGW claims since I originally heard that much of the hoo-raw has been based upon what computer models show.

People who think computers "can't" be biased know nothing about them. They show exactly what the programmer wants them to show-- they can't do anything else. And if the bias of the programmer happens to be in error, then what the program shows can't possibly be right.

The AGW proponents surf the AT, NewsBusters, and any other site that calls their scientific bluff. Rather than argue with facts, they attack the character of those delivering the message. That water vapor absorbs a substantial amount of energy from the sun..more so than CO2 is a given fact. The issue then for the Goreons to decide is...does adding water vapor to the atmosphere from burning hydrogen or more steam based power plants (coal or nuclear) the best thing to do? Why does Hansen and supporters not rail against the generation of water vapor?

With regard to Lord Monckton's paper. I am amazed that his critics, rather than attack the math, the physics, or the chemistry, or the assumptions, they just blubber out ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. They are merely lazy critics or lazy scientists and I, for one, am ashamed that some may have had the same degree conferred upon them as I have. But then we need to keep in mind that 50% of the lawyers, doctors, and yes..even climatologists graduate in the BOTTOM half of their class. How hard is it to go through the paper in detail as Lord Monckton has and argue the merits of the science, the assumptions, the logic? They are experts as well? Apparently not. They are just whiners.

AGW is amateur bozo science. Consensus only works on lunch plans, not the fate of the planet. So many relevant measureable variables are ignored. God forbid they should pronounce..."Duh...we haven't a clue what's causing all this." I recently saw an astro-photo of twin galaxies 125,000 light years apart that are gravitationally distorting one another. We're only about 10,000 light years from the core of our Milky Way. The massive gravity of our galaxy holds this whole sloppy tortilla together like a Cuban smash sandwich. Ya think it might wiggle the sun just a wee bit? Australian Solar Physicists have detected a cyclical solar wobble caused by the tidal gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn's relative orbital positions. The planets pull the sun around like drunken sled dogs, in a gravitational tug of war.
Apparently the sun sits in a huge time-space distortion, a 'pocket' of its own gravity. Like a butt print in a soft cushion. If it gets pulled even slightly out of its comfy dimple...it impacts the solar family in ways we are only learning now. The sun is now unusually dormant. Sunspot Cycle 24 is late in kicking in. A dormant sun implies COOLING. Uh Oh!
Solar physics made a huge leap in the 80's with the SOHO satellite. They're still deciphering the ceaseless flow of new raw data.
They've only recently discovered that extraterrestrial Gamma Radiation directly triggers lightning. Whats that imply? Tell us Oh Goreacle!
Lord Monckton is one of my intellectual heroes. His colorful challenge to pubicly debate Algorevich is a classic. I now include 'fatuous nincompoop' in my daily vocabulary.
On behalf of the cowardly pseudo-intellectual weenies at APS I humbly apologize to Lord Monckton. We're sorry. Please accept this humble surrogate apology from an intellectually honest, truth worshipping, self-educated naturalist to a great man.

Marc,

You ask: "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?"

As a member of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, I will tell you what I believe happened. First of all, yes, I think that the Council was probably unaware that one of its 39 units had invited this person to submit something to their newsletter. Second of all, what happened in particular is that an organization that Monckton serves as "chief policy advisor" for issued this press release: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html whose first sentence reads: "Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports." Now, that is a lot of untruths to pack into one sentence since his paper did not constitute a mathematical proof by any stretch of the imagination, it was not a "major, peer-reviewed paper" but a piece appearing in a newsletter that doesn't even have a peer review process, and third of all, it was not a "learned journal", it was a freakin' newsletter.

At that point, I imagine that even the editor who invited Monckton to submit this article probably realized that he and the APS had been "had". I think the APS now realizes that Monckton was not really trying to convince physicists of his position (and, believe me, his paper won't fool very many physicists) but was instead trying to use the APS's prestige as part of a deceptive propaganda campaign. His paper is still in the newsletter and can still be read by the physicists who normally read that newsletter but now those who come there because they hear about it on the web (e.g., from the website that I linked to) will have any incorrect perceptions of what this paper constitutes...and what its appearance in a newsletter of a unit of the APS means... disabused.

As for the paper itself, I'm curious how you have arrived at your conclusion that it is "brilliant". I am afraid that this conclusion is very different than the one being arrived at by scientists like myself who have read it. A good summary of some of the major ways in which it goes astray is here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php

"A man of Monckton's measure", which would be about 3 inches I guess.

Rob Zerona: You ask "Why does Hansen and supporters not rail against the generation of water vapor?" The reason is that man, at least at the moment, is unable to have a significant DIRECT effect on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through our emissions of it. This is because the amount of water vapor in the air is so much larger to begin with and because the residence time for water vapor in the atmosphere is so short.

The problem with CO2 is both that our emissions are larger in proportion to what is already there and because it has a very long residence time in the atmosphere...which is why we have already increased the concentration by ~35% over the pre-industrial values.

Note that I did say "DIRECT" in caps in the above discussion for a reason: The reason is that we can indirectly affect the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere by our CO2 emissions warming the earth, which then causes the equilibrium concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere to increase (because the vapor pressure is a rapidly increasing function of the temperature). This is called "the water vapor feedback" and magnifies the effect of the warming that would occur due to the increase in CO2 alone.

Thank you Marc Sheppard for getting to the source materials on this dust up.

The lefties (and climate change is a creation of the left), as usual, can't argue the merits so they resort to ad hominem character assassination. When told to put up or shut up re his ad hominem attack, Ozonator spews some incomprehensible gibberish that seems to blame earthquakes on climate change, revealing why he prefers to attack those who disagree with him rather than argue the merits.

Once again I am left to wonder: is this country too stupid to survive?

Uh.....Ozoneater.....I have a little bit of news for you....hurricanes are not, I repeat, are not caused by global warming. They never have been, and they are not today. Also, there is a hurricane season every year, and yes, they happened long before any alleged global warming happened. Perhaps if you look at this; http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html You will see that hurricanes have been around for a long, long time.
You will notice that I am not commenting on Joel Shore's comments. I disagree with him, but he makes his points in a coherent manner, and makes me think. You, Ozoneeater, are out of your gourd, and you make me wonder if you missed your meds today.

And yet, Joel, he was invited to submit this paper, and the article *was* reviewed by an APS physicist, was it not? It seems now that the APS is on the hook to either provide to the author the requested information, or remove the disclaimer. What say you about this?

Certainly, science is a systematic process. If the author's original work is not up to snuff, reject it out of hand. This is why we peer review. But, the paper was accepted, and published. So much caterwauling after the fact gives the appearance of churlishness.

What is it about AGW that causes rational people to appear, well, irrational? Is their no room for good, honest debate on this subject? You may disagree with the conclusions, and you have, but this branding of the original paper is odd, very odd. And it should give pause to anyone in this field. Is this really the state of the field?

Something is wrong here, and has been wrong for quite some time. Since the start of the AGW hysteria (and yes, that is what I now believe this is), the field has been politicized to the point that honest men and women dare not speak truth to conventional wisdom. We no longer are able to argue science based on merits, but must hew to a common party line. Else, we are branded, much like the author of this paper.

It should all be really rather simple: if my science is wrong, prove it. If your science is right, prove it. And go about it in a professional manner. But that is not quite how we do things these days, is it Joel?

This is no longer simply a matter of science. It is a matter of money, and who will win the grants. You and I both know this. You may highlight the affiliations of the author all you like, but who is paying your salary these days? I know, we like to point to the unbelievers and say that they are funded by Exxon, or industry, and frankly, this is a valid critique. But, to be fair, we should also be looking at the money trail on the other side of the debate. All of this reminds me of the cancer research craze in the mid-seventies. If you were proposing anything, you had to at least throw in a sop to cancer research. And today, if you want money, you come down on one side of this debate.

This is all unprecedented, and it scares me a bit. This is not science any longer, it is politics. Good men and women, strong scientists, have been subverted to suit an agenda. At what point will we finally look at all of this and realize the degree to which dogma has perverted our quest for truth? And isn't that what science is about? The quest for truth? Why this defensiveness, then? Theoretically, we are all in this for that same, single purpose: truth.

But, and this is a very hard thing to admit, maybe this is not so much about truth now. For it seems this is more about the agenda, the industry of AGW. And it is an industry. With vested interests, on both sides. The actions of the APS seem to suggest this is the case. Were it not so, I would be a much happier person today. But I am not, for it seems that this is not so much about science, but more about that industry.

I am left with a single question: how did we get to this point?

Rattus Norvegicus...I get it! Norway Rat! Clever girl! A verminous rodent pest that dwells in darkness and feces. I used to shoot them off a dumpster with a .22. No great loss. AGW is a perverted hoax. Green is the new Red.
It was 94 in Philly today. Warming? You betcha. A sudden T-Storm closed the beach. Climate change? Yup. The prognosticators predicted 92. They lied. The storms were unpredicted. They lied. Thats about the educational level of your 'argument'.
Read a 3" thick real science book and get back to me.

Joel Shore said:

"I believe"
"I think"
"probably unaware"
"I imagine"

Well Joel, I "imagine" you are a fellow in the guessing sciences, and one who cuts and pastes the same comment into comment forms on multiple sites. Less than impressive.

I am highly disgusted with the actions of the major peer-reviewed journal known as MySpace which refuses to endorse my Hollow Earth theory which I have repeatedly posted there by their complete permission.

As the Discount Monk of Peter Benchley, I demand at the very minimum an apology from the Directors of MySpace and hopefully a large cash settlement.

- Yours, Sincerely,
Lord High Commander Tidgieford Monk,
Discount Bench of Tiffany's

With all due respect to all participants of this discussion I am just wondering how many of you, including our admirable Ozonator, have a proper training as professional physicists to take part in this discussion? If some of you have how many are trained as climatologists and how many of you spent enough time just to read and understand the gist of Viscount Monkton's article? If you still think that you are qualified to take part please try to answer to yourself what are three factors mentioned in the abstract? Physics is not an easy subject, guys. Being a professional physicist with PhD (but not a climatologist) I estimate that it will take at least 8-10 hours of my time to understand Viscount Monkton argument. To write a worthy rebuttal will require at least 10 times more. I leave this wonderful task to Ozonator. Please write an article and submit it to APS. We will see what happens. To be sure writing scientific articles is much more difficult task than smearing a distinguished physicist and presenting unsubstantiated claims that Viscount Monkton had a paycheck from ExxonMobils.

In the 17th century, there was a speculative craze
in the region of Holland about tulip bulbs. The price
of tulip bulbs was rising as inexorably as predictions
of our planet's temperature. Life fortunes began to be
invested. There must have been council. It must have
been disregarded. Tulip bulb futures were going up. Hurry!
You can guess the outcome.

In the 21st century, there was a speculative craze
in the West about the price of being allowed to emit
carbon dioxide (one of the gases of life). It
swept the (first) world. Schemes to transfer wealth
and other schemes to just make a whole fistful of
dollars sprang forth. Some council was available but
it had no more effect than in the 17th century
Netherlands.

Eventually, this absurdity too crashed and burned.
We have a choice, participate in the insanity or
just refuse. I choose to refuse.

Boy, aren't the AGW crowd ever so rude and defensive. The Earth and Sun will always smack down little ol' mankind when we least expect it. Get a grip! We are insignificant in the big picture and AGW is another attempt be the would be elites to claim superiority over anything. We are small! You (AGWhinners) are small! The earth had to be in a warming trend for us to survive as well as we have. Think about it and take an asprin.

I find it disheartening to see a "concensus" about an outcome from a scientific journal. We can have consensus that the research is incomplete, we can have consensus on areas that need to be studied, but when we have consensus on an answer we have moved into the realm of "social science" not physical science. Secondly, the research being done seems to be molded to prove the consensus as opposed to proving it wrong. Science is about proving things wrong. If we ever find an exception to the theory of relativity we will prove it wrong and there will be no consensus. Just physical proof. In this climate science we find exceptions and these groups are still saying there is a consensus. I'm not sure that is a good direction to travel.

"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."

It means what it says.
Monckton did a puff piece in a newsletter.
Get over it.

If you're confused about the scientific consensus on global warming then...contact your local university science department.

It doesn't matter which one.

They all agree that there really is a scientific consensus on global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Arek says: "Certainly, science is a systematic process. If the author's original work is not up to snuff, reject it out of hand. This is why we peer review. But, the paper was accepted, and published. So much caterwauling after the fact gives the appearance of churlishness."

The purpose of the newsletter is to have a broad debate and, as such (and because of constraints on everyone's time), they do not perform peer review. It is simply not done. If they had rejected that paper based on scientific merit, then I am sure Monckton would have been angry that they did that. So, they allowed him to have his say no matter how poor his article was. However, what they did not anticipate is how Monckton and his associates with misrepresent the paper and what its appearance in the newsletter meant.

"It should all be really rather simple: if my science is wrong, prove it. If your science is right, prove it. And go about it in a professional manner. But that is not quite how we do things these days, is it Joel?"

I agree that it should be that way...and, in fact, it is that way within the scientific journals and such. The problem arises when the losers in the scientific realm try to appeal their case to the general public. This is what we see done in the realm of climate change and also in the realm of evolution / intelligent design.

"You may highlight the affiliations of the author all you like, but who is paying your salary these days?"

If you are asking me personally, my salary is being paid by my employer, a major industrial company...and studying and discussing climate change is something that I do in my free time for which I am not being paid by anybody.

As for the general issue of funding, I don't think that showing fossil fuel industry funding alone is a substitute for explaining why the science is wrong. However, such funding does help to explain why a small cadre of scientists continues to have a considerable media presence even though their views conflict with nearly every major scientific organization.

By contrast, you are trying to use the issue of funding to explain a huge widescale perversion of science that reaches basically every major scientific organization. That is basically a conspiracy theory.

submitted:
July 22, 2008 02:25 PM

Poor Marcy,

How could "THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY" miss everything concerning "Dolly" but ExxonMobil as proof of at least 2 of your American Stinker articles of supreme expertise for Jack Lord?

The continuing global warming "hoax" predicted by me in previous posts has met successfully several requirements for mastery of spinning chunks of CO2 teratogenically bonded with male reduction radio rays from LABI Limbaugh and his boy Ann Hannity.

"Hurricane watch issued for parts of Texas, Mexico
7/21/2008, 1:08 p.m. CDT
The Associated Press"
 
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-107/1216654461149660.xml&storylist=national

Failing to do any prediction, homework, timeline, and providing the start of a wooden fence with standard posts:
Posted by: Monckton of Brenchley | July 20, 2008 07:39 AM
Posted by: Neil F. | July 20, 2008 11:19 PM
Posted by: Leon | July 21, 2008 08:51 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/the_american_physical_society_1.html