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The American Physical Society alleged that Lord Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered was not peer reviewed when Monckton in fact thoroughly revised his paper in response to APS peer review.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?
Re: Evan Jones – ‘The “consensus” is that ice ages are a result of positive feedback loops from increasing albedo due to increasing ice cover.’
There is a huge logical fallacy there. At the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago – atmospheric CO2 levels were low, atmospheric water vapor was low and the earth’s albedo was high. If “orbital forcings” were weaker than the positive feedbacks, it would have been impossible to come out of the ice age. Conversely, it would be impossible to enter an ice age for the opposite reasons.
What is clear is that ice ages begin and end in spite of feedback, not because of them.
AGW will flip just like the PDO. I expect to see a large number of peer reviewed climate science papers claiming the sharp cooling confirms that climate change is ravaging the planet. The IPCC AR5 report will claim the sharp cooling was predicted by GCM’s. A new field called Climate Chaos will be established. Of course rising CO2 has to be kept as the main problem.
The real test of faith in AGW theory may be coming up shortly. If the current cool trend continues throught the coming winter, there’s going to be hell to pay with the 30 to 50 percent rise in heating bills because of rising energy costs. It’s going to become very easy for even the least educated to figure out that there’s a flaw in AGW theory as they sit shivering in the dark. The climate scientologists had better begin thinking about where they are going to be employed when the dung hits the fan.
The APS has completely disrespected Lord Monckton with this fallacious politicized statement heading his invited and peer reviewed scientific paper disputing the IPCC’s view of climate sensitivity. Though, I’m not surprised, I cutoff my membership to most technical societies years ago. They’re agenda is to the status quo and bottom line first, and their member’s second.
Though it seems to be a cyclical change rather than random. I’ll wager it has as much to do with Milankovitch cycles as it does with TSI, and the positions of the continents at any given epoch. The latter pretty much dictating global ocean currents as far as scope, as well as changes in earth orbit due to offcentering of mass.
Given that they’ve taken the extraordinary step of explicitly stating that they disagree with the conclusions of Lord Monckton’s paper (all of them?) it occurs to ask if this implies that they agree with all of the conclusions of every paper published with which no accompanying disclaimer is posted? Doesn’t the fact that they ‘disagree’ with the conclusions mean that it was reviewed, otherwise what is the basis for the disagreement? If they actually do disagree with all of the conclusions, why did they publish it in the first place? Certainly seems to me to be plowing new ground for a publisher of a ‘scientific’ journal. I think it is incumbent upon them to publish more explicitly what they disagree with and why.
Having trouble sleeping tonight (something that seems to occur with increasing regularity as I ‘mature’) I re-read the paper and, out of curiosity, ran the equations using the figure of 7000ppmv CO2 as existed millions of years ago (good thing we weren’t around back then because, as I understand it, CO2 becomes toxic to humans at around 5-6000ppmv). I used that figure based on the IPCC graphic showing past CO2 and corresponding temperature. The equations( with feedbacks as calculated by the IPCC) yield an expected increase in forcing of around 17.6 W/m2 increase over pre-industrial CO2. Then using the IPCCs methodology I came up with a temp increase of 54C (interestingly the no feedback temp increase was only about 5.5C). I’m sure I’ve done something horribly wrong in my lack of sleep induced stupor.
mondo (18:57:08 ) :
Grant Hodges: You say: “Mike Asher and Anthony Watts have changed the game through their blogs and the truth may out yet!”
. . . . give credit as well to Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick . . . Roger Pielke Sr.
REPLY: McIntyre and McKitrick are the pioneers, and they deserve more credit than I on many fronts – Anthony
Certainly! These men have all put the common good ahead of their reputations. That’s what’s important to me.
In his video Lord Monckton stated he was not a scientist. Yet his paper demonstrates a strong knowledge of math and science. As I understand it, he was also the former science and technology advisor to Margaret Thatcher. In my opinion he is well qualified for the title “scientist”. This is a stark contrast to Al Gore.
I was also delighted to read Lord Monckton’s letter to two US senators admonishing them for trying to stifle freedom of speech. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20513
It’s sad that two US senators must learn about the US constitution from an Englishman.
Ed Darrell (05:04:15)
Fair challenge by you – I always try to keep my antenna up (hence the caveat in my post) – and I was recalling an article from earlier this year. Having been back over the article the key phrases used were different – here’s the verbatim – “…you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION.” (PLEASE NOTE ‘SCAM’ IS NOT MY WORD BUT A QUOTATION).
Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/550481/the-mammoth-global-warming-scam.thtml
Apologies for any misleading comments in my earler post.
All I would ask though, is that both the proponents of AGW and the sceptical side publish all their data, theories, models, approaches, practices, analysis, conclusions and anything else relevant on the climate warming issue in order that scientists, from every discipline, can chose to subject such work to rigorous and proper scientific challenge.
That we all keep an open mind and try and find some balance in our judgement.
That policy makers then set out – what the problem is, what the options are and recommend to us, the people that they serve, what we should do about it before we make such enormous decisions that will affect the next generation.
Is that too great a request?
“It’s going to become very easy for even the least educated to figure out that there’s a flaw in AGW theory as they sit shivering in the dark. The climate scientologists had better begin thinking about where they are going to be employed when the dung hits the fan.”
One could envision them trying to keep their hands warm by standing around barrels of burning IPCC reports.
Patrick Henry asked:
It’s way less than that. Since the last Ice Age, the sea level has been slowly rising in an asymptotic-like curve. The current extremely small annual rise is entirely attributable to nature, and none to human activity: click
I know this is off topic.But I think relevant on how AGW believers react to anything the Viscount writes.He is very disliked by the AGW crowd.I know since I have posted a couple of his papers at certain AGW dominated forums.
Below is an example of reactions AGW believers gave to a paper the Viscount wrote.It is a sad testament to critical thinking.
I posted a paper that Lord Monkton wrote in september 2007.At a forum known to have a lot of AGW believers in it.The replies were insulting,irrational and plain stupid.
I created a thread at my forum.For the purpose of exposing vapid AGW argumentation.
Here is the beginning of the first post.It is actually next to the last post in the thread at my forum.Post #3 is at the top.Sorry for the mix up.
The first post:
Science and Public Policy Institute
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
Written by Christopher Monkton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
(The rest of the post was NOT posted here to save space)
Post # 2 :
“It’s warming up because I’m getting hotter. I just keep adding more muscle and flowing hair to my already steamy bod. Don’t look now.. I’m meltin’ all the ice. And I’m not stoppin’ cuz ur jealous. ^_^.
Live wif it.”
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=78
The link goes to my forum.There you can read the absurd replies to the Viscounts paper.I posted at the forum I visited..The really sad part is that at least two of them are ….. SCIENTISTS!
I have seen many similar replies on a paper I posted at the very same forum.It was over a paper Dr. Glassman wrote titled: The Aquittal Of Carbon Dioxide
I would think reasonable counterpoints is a better idea than ad homeniums and personal attacks with name calling.
Paul, yes I believe it was Thursday, I read recently if the sun were not to shine for 96 hours the world would freeze….seems as tho 12 hours is enough here.
Jeff,
Bistable can be cyclical. There are nonlinear systems, for example with a delayed feedback, that show linear behavior with low feedback, switching to bistable, periodic behavior when feedback increases (or delay), and eventually purely chaotic behavior. A very simple experimental setup to demonstrate this uses a light source, going through a Fabry-Perot interferometer (two paralel mirrors of equal reflectivity), followed by a photodector, which then drives the spacing between the mirrors of the interferometer, via an electrical delay line. Since the transmission through the interferometer is a nonlinear function of their spacing, you have a nice little nonlinear system that can show the transition from linear to chaos, through different stages, one of them being periodical bistability.
Final comment about ice ages: there is no consensus on the mechanism, even though there is a quasi-consensus on the source of their periodicity (ie. Milankovitch). There is also no consensus, and in fact no satisfactory explanation, for the large variation in atmospheric CO2 between glacial and interglacial. Much remains to be learned about the carbon cycle, and its interaction with climate.
sunsettommy says: “I would think reasonable counterpoints is a better idea than ad homeniums and personal attacks with name calling.” True…but it gets a little tiresome to respond to all of the garbage that appears on the internet or in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter or whatever. Scientists already have their hands full responding to the garbage that actually gets through the peer review process without trying to focus on this other stuff.
That being said, here is a good start at dissecting the Monckton paper: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php Having now wasted about an hour of my life reading through Monckton’s paper in detail, I think Tim is basically right in all respects here. Of course, there is lots of other littler problems that Tim doesn’t even bother to mention. The Monckton paper is pseudoscientific gibberish, pure and simple. And, if the skeptic community wants to be taken at all seriously, I would strongly suggest they distance themselves from it as rapidly as possible!
Evan Jones,
Your example of albedo causing a positive feedback during the ice age is a correct observation. We do not have a quantitative analysis of the causes and dynamics of the Ice Ages, so it is hard at this point to put a number at the contribution of the ice albedo caused positive feedback. Our understanding of the causes of the onset of ice ages – and interglacials for that matter – at this point is somewhat skimpy. The standard argument that it is triggered by the Milankovich cycle and then re-inforced by ice albedo positive feedback has a first order plausability, but needs a lot more quantitative work to be accepted as a solid explanation.
This however has nothing to do with the plausability of CO2 causing a net positive feedback through increased evaporation leading to runaway global warming.
Ice cover is very stable for centuries and the effect of changed albedo
could take many years to accumulate. Water vapor on the other hand is very transient, can move geographically, can convert into precipitation, or clouds and could become a factor for negative rather than positive feedback. If higher temperatures and higher water vapor content in the atmosphere do not cause a positive feedback rather quickly, then it probably do not cause a positive feedback at all.
Fortunately Nature provided a rather forceful experiment to demonstrate that temperature increase and the resulting water vapor evaporation does not lead to runaway heating. In 1998 the strong El Nino effect caused a spike in global temperatures. I also remember that 1998 was an unusually wet year. This was a perfect time for water vapor caused positive feedback to assert itself, if indeed it existed at all. This, as you all know, did not happen. When El Nino ended, global temperatures quickly returned to their pre El Nino values and – as many of the readers of this blog know – have – on average -not increased since.
“As an example, the BBC – once a bastion of independent thought – is completely sold on AGW. To that end they commissioned a global warming “drama” which will transmitted here in the UK this week….”
Indeed. I had occasion to trial their complaints line recently when they made a particularly controversial comment about the Perito Moreno glacier. My complaint included the following line:
“..The BBC has now got a strong reputation for presenting environmental
issues in a highly partial and biased manner. Your funding by the
British taxpayer carries with it an obligation to present balanced
information – how much longer do you think you can continue to cheat
your audience in this way?”
You might like to hear part of the response:
“…We appreciate the importance of presenting information fairly and your
email underlines the fact that many licence fee payers suspect the BBC
of having an agenda. I can assure you that is not the case – we try to
report all opinions and facts…”
They don’t try as hard as Jeffrey Marque obviously does to consider both sides of an argument! Their reply suggests that the BBC is getting inundated with complaints on this subject, and is responding by putting their fingers in their ears…
As an educated guess, I’d say it’s because animal life bounces back more quickly than plant life as ice recedes. So more exhaled CO2 from insects, mammals, etc.
Joel Shore claims to be a scientist. But what “scientist” writes like this:
Sorry, but I can’t take Timmy’s blog seriously either, because it begins its long and venomous rant by demonizing those who disagree with him as “right wing blogs.” Excuse me, but this site is not a “right wing blog.” Mr. Tim is suffering from psychological ‘projection’ — imputing his personal faults onto others.
That is not science, Mr. Shore. That is partisan advocacy, pretending to be science. Another crack in the crumbling AGW facade, no?
Back down off the personal attacks please~charles the moderator
snip, no personal attacks please~charles the moderator
Great skepticism is the correct response honest people have to papers from others who exaggerate their credentials and tell fibs about their achievements.
When is Monckton making stuff up, and when is he not? How can one tell, without great skepticism?
If his case is so good against global warming, why does he make stuff up?
That’s called academic fraud. In the UK, it may not be a big deal. Among deniers of warming, it may be cute. Under U.S. law, were it federally funded, it would be a crime.
You need to carefully consider: How much of what Monckton says, that you give credence to without a second thought, is pure fiction? Do you have anything riding on quoting the man, like your reputation, or a grant, or your life?
At least with Jon Lovitz we knew it was a fictional, comedy character.
If “orbital forcings” were weaker than the positive feedbacks, it would have been impossible to come out of the ice age.
Oh, I agree.
I wasn’t saying they were weaker. I was only saying that Milankovitch cycles alone were not enough to produce an ice age without the contribution of positive feedback.
What is clear is that ice ages begin and end in spite of feedback, not because of them.
I don’t see why orbit can’t do or undo the effect of feedback cycles.
We didn’t think you’d let the facts get in the way of any of your rants, seriously. Someone interested in the science would read around politics on blogs, as we do on this blog and most others that are more bent on denigrating Al Gore than talking science. [personal attack snipped]
Both sides BACK IT DOWN ON THE PERSONAL ATTACKS~Charles the moderator
It’s going to become very easy for even the least educated to figure out that there’s a flaw in AGW theory as they sit shivering in the dark.
They will be the very first to smell a rat.
It is the “educated incapacity” crowd that will hang on for dear life. (The spiffier the degree the greater the love of the counterintuitive.)