Two days ago I posted on this story in this blog related to APS opening up debate on climate change. It appears Lord Monckton did in fact have his paper, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, reviewed by APS, and he drafted revisions per that review, after which the paper was accepted by APS for publication. Yesterday, APS put this disclaimer in red over the paper on their website:
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.
Monckton writes:
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.
(h/t: David L. Hagen)
More excerpts from the blog Uncommon Descent are below:
PeerGate review scandal at American Physical Society
The American Physical Society alleged that Lord Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered was not peer reviewed when Monckton in fact thoroughly revised his paper in response to APS peer review. Monckton immediately demanded retraction, accountability and an apology.
The Editor of the American Physical Society’s Forum on Physics and Society launched a debate on global warming, inviting Lord Monckton to submit a paper for the opposition. After news that a major scientific organization was holding a debate on IPCC’s global warming, someone at the APS posted an indirect front page disclamation plus two very bold red disclamations in the Forum’s contents, and into the paper itself:
————————-
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
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.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley . . .”
————————-
Alleging that a Peer of the Realm violated scientific peer review – when in fact Lord Monckton had spent substantial effort responding to the APS’s peer review – is just not done! As circulated by Dr. Benny Peiser to CCNet, and as noted by Dennis T. Avery at ICECAP,Lord Monckton responded immediately, emphatically demanding redress and an apology as follows:
—————————
Lord Monckton’s letter in response to APS web page statement:
19 July 2008
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
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
———————————–
Monckton’s demand for redress and an apology from the APS is being picked up on the internet.
How will the American Physical Society respond to Lord Monckton’s procedural and scientific gauntlets?
As of noon on Saturday July 20, 2008, the offending paragraph in the table of contents had been removed. However, this offending paragraph was still very much evident in Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Revisited. It was also evident in the Forum’s full PDF of its July, 2008 newsletter Physics and Society Vol 37, No 3, p 6.
The APS’s PeerGate scandal may well prove to provide much greater publicity and serious examination of Monckton’s thesis than if the disclaimers had never been posted. It also exposes the superficiality of statements by executives of the American Physical Society and other scientific organizations supporting the IPCC’s global warming. Those statements were typically not submitted to the rank and file for scientific peer review, nor were they typically voted on by the rank and file. Whatever will come out of this PeerGate Scandal?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems that, while we have ‘messed with Mother Nature’, we can never, ever mess with Father Gore.
The following link is only slightly off topic, but I thought it would be meat for the visitors of this site, of both sides. A few words from a former model maker who seems to have taken the road to Damascus and been converted.
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/07/climate-models-dont-work-australian.html
How can the executives of the APS ever get invited to cocktail parties of the scientific elite if they don’t hold the “correct” opinion? And they might just find their offices moved to the boiler room of they continue to point out that temperatures are not warming. I think they know which side of their bread has the butter on it.
“Uncommon Descent” ? ! ? ! ?
If you had not pointed it out, I would never have found out.
From the moment I found out, I didn’t bother to read.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Pity such important issue has to go through such channels…
JFA in Montreal
Uncommon Descent? You’re kidding, right?
REPLY: Typical Boris, go right for the taunting, ignore the content. The tip came from a commenter. I used it, get over it.
From the original post on this issue, I found the following comment:
Manfred (00:29:40) :
I have seen on a AGW defender website, that they have started an email campaign against Jeff Marque.
We have seen how effective this was during Anthony’s recent poll.
I think the majority of scientist prefers to have an open discussion.
Manfred goes on to suggest that readers here also let their feelings be known on this subject by sending emails. The following is an email I’ve just sent as suggested. I’ve sought to keep the text neutral so as to keep the focus on support for a continuation of this debate.
jjmarque@sbcglobal.net
azwicker@pppl.gov
krauss@case.edu
ams@physics.wayne.edu
I applaud the bold initiative of Jeffrey Marque, one of the editors of the newsletter of the Forum of Physics and Society, for opening the pages of the newsletter to an open public debate on the scientific merits of different views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
At a time when science is being dangerously corrupted by dogmatic politicization in which differing views of AGW are viciously attacked through appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, this move represents the truest spirit of scientific inquiry. In placing this discussion in the pages of the newsletter, the public, both scientist and layman, can see the purest expression of peer review over the coming issues as opposing views on the significance of man’s influence on the changing climate are presented and reviewed on their scientific merits.
Regards,
Leon Brozyna
One overlooked aspect of this entire “climate change” farrago is the destructive effects it has on the souls of those who lie to support it.
These are not simple lies. They are what Dante described as “complex frauds”. catholicfundamentalism.com is one of the few sites that frequently considers the ultimate fate of those souls who have embraced the “complex frauds” of man-made climate change for personal gain.
Indeed, it may be that those stalwarts who tell the truth about this vast deception are earning “heaven credits” at a very rapid rate.
wouldn t “PEER” review require Monckton to be a “peer” to who ever did the review?
REPLY: They invited him to submit, that would be acceptance as “peer” enough. Not only that they had at least one of the members review the paper, and suggest changes. If they didn’t think the paper or Lord Monckton was worthy of attention, they would not have bothered.
I’m curious how the APS managed to survey the “world community” of scientists during the last 48 hours, and determine that we “overwhelmingly” disagree with the article. Neither I nor any other scientists I know were contacted by the APS in regards to this matter.
Is it OK for the AGW faithful to lie in defense of their belief system?
I think, perhaps, it all depends on what the definition of “peer review” is.
Realistically, while Lord Monckton’s paper has been reviewed and accepted for publication, it hasn’t really been peer reviewed as such…..in other words, there has been no opportunity for any and all interested scientists to read, discuss, object, and point out flaws, if any.
While I’m not so sure that there is much (or indeed, any) value in peer review anymore, I’m inclined to accept this definition.
Of course, if we use this definition for peer review here, we need to use it elsewhere as well, meaning certain papers by Mann, Hansen, Briffa, Thomson, Jones, etc haven’t really been peer reviewed either as they have yet to make the complete data and methods available for an honest and full reading/review of their papers.
Re: billadams comment; George Orwell put the idea very succinctly.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
sod wouldn t “PEER” review require Monckton to be a “peer” to who ever did the review?
I understand that the person doing the reviewing was seriously outranked, but if Lord Monckton is willing to overlook it, I fail to see why we should make an issue of it.
After all, it must be difficult to find enough lords well-versed enough in the arts to effectively peer review it.
Only the climate science/agw crowd worships (screaches?) the concept of peer review this way.
Other science fields actually accept things like valid arguments and logic.
The problem with peer review is that the peer reviewers are all AGW advocates…
The skeptic horde is at the city gate and the defenders fear is palpable.
This is really starting to stink. These AGW alarmists are only making it tougher on themselves when they eventually have to turn and face reality.
“no opportunity for any and all interested scientists to read, discuss, object, and point out flaws,”
That never happens in real life. When Science or Nature asks you to submit an article, THEY select who reviews it. Just because someone is interested doesn’t mean they are allowed to comment. In fact, if it is a climate paper, pretty much all papers are reviewed by the same people … the ones who came up with the AGW hypothesis in the first place. So there is no way you are ever going to get published there if your hypothesis is different from theirs.
Though not quite the rank of Viscount, for a Peer with scientific credentials perhaps APS might consider recruiting
Lord Robert May, Baron of Oxford
However, could Lord May provide objective scientific peer review, considering his stated position that “within the scientific community there is no questioning of those facts” (“Climate change is real, is humanly created”). See: Lord Robert May : The Science of Climate Change and his characterization of “a traveling road show of dissenters”?
This kind of reaction should be expected in the current climate.
The warmers are very convinced of their view and they believe questioning the science will just delay action on greehouse gases and that will just make the resulting catastrophic warming even greater than they expect.
It is going to take a long, long time to convince them that they are in error.
They certainly cannot face it yet and, hence, the angry reaction and the need to rationalize any other viewpoint as funded by the oil industry. It is an emotional reaction not a scientific one.
It will take a lot of self-reflection for things to change versus new papers being submitted.
I commented to Joe Romm, Climate Progress, that I disagreed with his letter writing approach to the various levels of management of Mr Marque. I added the science should be strong enough to stand open discussion, and if open debate was discouraged it indicated the science may not be valid.
The comment went into the moderation bucket for eternity. Anthony et al, I ask, was that a threatening comment?
If He/they can not stand anything less than 100% agreement, then their science appears to be seriously flawed.
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
Seems Eisenhower is proven correct every day as the anti-science brown shirts wrangle in the non-believers.
David
Richard DeSousa The problem with peer review is that the peer reviewers are all AGW advocates…
Yep. It’s a major problem in medicine as well….specifically in the entire realm of “public health” and anything regarding pharmaceutical trials….both aspects of medicine that overuse torturous statistical manipulation and often have “special interest groups” external to the field heavily involved.
In fact, it’s actually a worse problem there, with reviewers often being directly in the pockets of the drug companies quite openly and nobody bats an eye.
If you want to see what will happen in Climate Science publication in the next decade or two, take a good look at The Trouble with Medical Journals by Richard Smith.
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” – Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet
crosspatch That never happens in real life. When Science or Nature asks you to submit an article, THEY select who reviews it. Just because someone is interested doesn’t mean they are allowed to comment.
Heh. Agreed, although I would imagine that any interested party that reads a paper after publication and submits a rational (and justified) letter refuting it would get a fair hearing. Not giving it a fair hearing would be problematic, as several journals (including Nature and Science) have published fraudulent papers in the past. Those papers were only caught after the fact by outside readers.
That would be the portion of the process I consider the actual peer review…the portion where a few hand-picked reviewers look the paper over for obvious errors I consider to be editorial review (albeit with external “experts”), also known as CYA. 😉
I am most grateful to Anthony Watts and to hundreds of members of the APS who have been in touch today, and also to those who have commented above. Whatever the failings in my paper (and I have no doubt that it will be torn to shreds by way of a rebuttal in the next issue of Physics and Society – and that is how science ought to be done), the unethical and discourteous conduct of the APS has revealed a well-organized nastiness at the heart of “official” science that, more than anything in my paper, discredits the “global warming” alarmists’ cause. Thank you all, once again, for your very kind support. – Monckton of Brenchley
Every once in a while you get to approve a post that makes moderating worthwhile.
Monckton and Jeez,
Great stuff. Great paper. Proud to have read it. Proud of this site for publicizing it. The desperation of the AGW crowd is amazing. The APS management attempt to mold opinion before the reading of the submission tells all that we need know.
Mike Asher and Anthony Watts have changed the game through their blogs and the truth may out yet!
Grant Hodges