And that is the whole point and what the entire bruhaha was over. A politically corrupt "leadership" tried to take the APS in a political direction. Most of the membership are capable scientists who do not think the role of the APS is to take political positions, except for the promotion of science, and that GCC was certainly not an area where any position was appropriate other than that the best science should be applied to the study of this issue just like any other issue... And that was the second part of the bruhaha that the membership believed that the science that was being reported was of very poor quality.
As for the Lord Monkton issue, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I would point out, however, that the issue regards the behavior of "The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society."
This is a subchapter of the APS whose members are self-selected, and obviously it is attractive to the more politically inclined. It is a sad affair and reflects discredit on everyone. "Physics and Society" is, however, a newsletter and not a technical journal. That gives me small comfort because this rot will obviously spread and those involved are sacrificing their professional reputations in engaging in this nonsense.
Indeed. But the Monkton issue is by no means isolated, and, as the "Climategate" issue reveals, the physicist principles involved have been in the middle of corrupting peer review everywhere they have an "in". It may not yet have gotten to the mainstream journal (though I suspect it probably has). And AGW is also not the only area where highly questionable actions have been taken. Specifically, in the field under discussion on this thread, the physicists have behaved in a very underhanded fashion. Look up and study the treatment given to Peter Hagelstein for DARING to say aloud that he thought that CF (or more accurately LANR) just "might" be understandable and not in conflict with the fundamental laws of physics. A guerilla action was undertaken to deny him his career (and pretty much succeeded).
I'm a chemist, and my own profession is not as pure as the driven snow on the subject (witness the underhanded treatment of John Bockris, also regarding his work on LANR). But I don't think the rot has proceeded as far as it has in physics.