Since Physics & Society invited a SCIENTIFIC non-politicized debate on Global Warming, the American Physical Society has been running around like a Chicken Little with its head cut off.
I’ve got a plane to catch, so can’t share my observations with you at present, but here’s something which will give you an inkling of how Yellow the Green APS has become.
Benny Peiser, Editor of CCNet has circulated the following letter from Christopher Monckton to the American Physical Society.
CCNet Xtra – 19 July 2008 — Audiatur et altera pars
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate the attached letter which he sent today to the President of the American Physical Society. Christopher Monckton’s paper together with the contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:
The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:
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 [ … ]
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?
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
In the meantime, Steve Milloy of JunkScience.org has offered to purchase Physics & Society and poses a few questions to them.
July 18, 2008
American Physical Society
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
I am writing to inquire about purchasing the newsletter Physics & Society from APS. I very much appreciate the difficult position in which the newsletter has recently placed APS.
The newsletter wants to conduct a public scientific debate on global warming, while the APS’ seems to not be able to run away fast enough screaming, “The debate is over! No debate allowed!”
I would like to relieve you of the burden of this intolerable nuisance publication. What nerve… imagine wanting to debate science! You wouldn’t want to risk your reputation with that.
Please let me know what the price is.
Finally, to purge APS of the undesirables who are out of lockstep with the organization’s position on global warming, you may want to compare your membership list against the 31,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition rejecting global warming alarmism. (See http://www.petitionproject.org )
Maybe you could conduct your own Nacht der langen Messer.
Steven J. Milloy
Gotta fly!. Literally! Bye.
Report This Post