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.
And Jeffrey Marque, the APS forum editer who allowed its publication is this guy.
10 comments:
Sounds, I must say, like this fellow's no slouch. Maybe he was hoping for a smackdown of the deniers in an open debate. Problematic politically, but if this was the case I could see where he might be coming from.
It looks like the editor prefers practical applications to academic study, which might mean he could not properly assess Monckton's paper.
Dawg,
The problem is there is literally no point in debating Monckton. In fact, within the relevant sciences there are no real Deniers. If they wanted a real debate, they might get someone like Pielke Sr. (or maybe even Jr.). Or even someone like W. Connolley who is on the more conservative end of the consensus (thinks Hansen has gone wonky).
bigcitylib: It's always this way with you Gore kool-aid drinkers. No need to argue with Monckton: why, that would be to actually DO science!!
No, just blow him off, say his views aren't shared, etc. None of that "arguing on the merits" stuff, none of that showing him EXACTLY where he is wrong, nahhhhh!
Because we're dealing with "post-normal" science here!
No real climatologists among the deniers? Then what about Solomon's book, "The Deniers"!!
As for real debate, when will Gore debate anyone?
Then there's that little matter of Mann, Hensen et al. cookng the books, hiding their datasets and algorithms etc. Full disclosure used to be SOP among real scientists, but not among the AGW debate deniers.
Oh btw: bigcitylib. Did you read this:
"With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. 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. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)"
So: after inviting debate, and after working with Monckton to make his article more accessible to those unfamiliar with some of the physics, the Editors of P&S cavalierly diss and disavow the article --- without offering a word of substantive rebuttal or analysis???
YOU CALL THAT SCIENCE??
YOu say there are no Real Deniers. Then, why does P&S disagree with YOU????
You sir, stand revealed as a mindless tool.
A rebuttal would be a waste of time.
It is innumerate drivel based upon false premises.
I think the plan was to solicit a series of these things so they could be refuted in detail. I suspect OTOH that the strong reaction to Monckton was a surprise to Marque. As John Mashey noted there was an almost as wacky "global cooling" paper in the prior issue, albeit by a retired physicist with no public profile. Monckton, by contrast, is not a physicist or scientist of any kind, and could be guaranteed to go out and promote his piece to all Wingnuttia the moment it appeared.
I offer a conjecture; see Deltoid, #2 for details and URLs.
1) In 2004, University of Hartford (UHA) (CT) Physics Professor Larry Gould likely heard talks that included Cristy & Lindzen, and became convinced that AGW was a hoax, etc. in 2004, he was the Chair of the APS' New England Section (NES).
2) Lately, he's been co-editor of the APS-NES newsletter, and has been writing very strong anti-AGW editorial material, promoting Monckton, "Great Global Warming Swindle", Steve Milloy, etc.
3) Following the Heartland climate conference in NYC in March, Monckton came to give a talk at UHA. One might guess who would arrange that. Gould speaks glowingly of Monckton's talk.
4) Then, this article pops up in APS' FPS, with Monckton claiming it was requested. One wonders who got the FPS to request it, since FPS is normally commentary written by physicists for the FPS membership. [I'd wondered from the beginning why on Earth they would seek Monckton to write an article. Right now, I doubt that they did: I'd speculate that Gould proposed it to them. Then, SPPI's Robert Ferguson was poised to blast it to the Web, including a logn quote from Gould.]
5) While Marque wrote the intro, the other FPS Co-editor Saperstein "reviewed" Monckton's article, and his review made it clear that he had almost no familiarity with even the basics of climate science issues, like difference between feedback and forcing.
H/T: Ian Forrester for pointer to Gould
One may recall Napoleon's comment:
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
Here, I conjecture we have some of each.
Among the kool-aid drinkers, not a single substantive rebuttal to Monckton.
Not one.
Very telling.
very Stalinoid.
Monckton has been refuted:
- in 2006, for earlier version of this, by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate.
and this time, just to name a few offhand (there are likely many more, but why bother):
- by Tim Lambert at Deltoid
- at Duae Q
Quite often in this turf, when somebody says "X doesn't exist" they really mean:
- they haven't looked for X
- and they're probably incompetent to understand X
- and quite often, are afflicted with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger, a common malady, which is curable, except that those most afflicted seem not to wish to be cured :-)
Post a Comment