""...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...."
Posted on 07/19/2008 11:49:32 PM PDT by 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.
"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."
"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."
"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.'
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
We'll see who the rubes are. Don't forget Piltdown Man.
And here I thought the APS is above politics. Silly me.
Here is the statement from the front page of the APS:
“APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
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.”
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGEEmail | Print
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
save
It is never possible for members of a society to credibly debate the existence of consensus among their members. The existence of debate by definition implies a lack of consensus.
List of councillors:
http://www.aps.org/about/governance/executive/councillors.cfm
http://www.aps.org/about/governance/index.cfm
Lets give the APS a word of advice at http://www.aps.org/about/contact/index.cfm
All I get is a swirling coloured screen.
Monckton’s treatment is truly appalling. If he does get an apology (and I don’t see how that can be avoided since the disclaimer was an outright lie) I hope it gets VERY wide coverage.
I thought that the whole point of science was to discover truth, expand our knowledge and encourage original thought. When did it turn into groupthink?
Oh, I don’t know, I really expect this to run its course in the next few years. The wheels on AGW are coming off pretty fast really.
When disruption of the gravy train is threatened...
Time to turn the table and accuse the global warmists of crimes against humanity.
“Time to turn the table and accuse the global warmists of crimes against humanity.”
And while we are at it, we should convict Rachel Carson posthumously for the deaths of millions of people from malaria after the enviro-nazis got DDT banned because of her hysterical beliefs, as posited in “The Silent Spring.”
Both Al Gore and Rachel Carson should be tried for crimes against humanity or genocide...IMO that is the least that should be done. The Enviro Nazi’s need to be laughed at and ridiculed for their idiotcy and criminal results just like the Stalin & Mao democides...100’s of millions murdered by tyrants!
""...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...."
‘The 21st century environmental movement will push more people into early graves than did all of the dictators of the 20th century’
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com
PARK "1. GOOD LORD! GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS VANDALIZE APS.
"...on the denier's side was Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who inherited his father's peerage in 2006.
Lord Monckton is not a scientist, his degree is in journalism and he's a reporter for the Evening Standard, an English tabloid.
Whatever it is that Viscounts do, he may do very well, but he doesn't know squat about physics and his journalism suffers from it.
Worse, somebody fed the media the line that Monckton's rubbish meant the APS had changed its position on warming;
of course it has not. Few media outlets took the story seriously."
Bump for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.