Via The Corner;
19 July 2008
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com
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. Itsconclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Societydisagrees 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
Biff,
Gore is like the old dog that won’t quit humping your leg. His EU supporters want their US equipment orders. The Oil money Chain is going to be broken (US–ME–EU) with out Gore.
I think AGW got a shot over the bow when a NY Dem triggered a California Bank Failure.. ODD
Ccon,
Unlike scientific decisions, good Management must make decisions with a 55:45 probability. That’s why Management must stay away from science.
The Climate Computer Model Trend lines look simular to data output from an Analog Low Pass Filter. Of course Low pass filters in the analog domain can’t be rigged.
Tim Lambert is a fool. He claims that Moncton’s paper contains factors pulled from the air. Maybe John Cross could favor us with an explanation of how the models account for cloud formation and distrubution, since a 1 percent difference in cloudiness will have as large a effect on the climate as doubling of CO2? I know that Tim Lambert, Computer Scientist, won’t, because he can’t.
Whether I agree with Moncton or not, he should not have such a blaring disclaimer, after doing what APS asked him to do. APS could have just as easily posted/published a paper with the opposite conclusion and included the normal disclaimer.
APS is already embroiled in a federal lawsuit because it “says one thing to the public,” while “doing the opposite in-house” and then trying to emit some strange theories (excuses) to make the “n’er shall the twain meet” meet.
The next step is trying to run from it all and hide (as in APS probably will not speak or respond to inquiries on this global warming controversy). I know from personal experience.
Biff, that’s a great link. I’ll add it to my bookmarks on AGW. It helps explain why I can’t find a single earth scientist whom I’ve met who, having reviewed the subject, believes there’s any merit in this hysterical AGW nonsense.
Tim Lambert makes his first mistake in his dismissal of how the Kelvin scale is described. I don’t think he paid much attention in his first year physics. His math is also abysmal, as far as I could tell, because my eyes kept rolling towards the ceiling.
And by the way Phantom, I already said it’s an obvious threat to their business model. I think they may have leveraged their theories just a tad too much…
Porter and ET, I think your assessments of the situation sound quite reasonable. APS big wheels in a panic because their funding could be threatened.
IF this is the case, if their funding is threatened by people like Monckton who raise reasonable doubts about AGW, to me that would indicate the amazing hollowness of AGW as a hypothesis. They would have to -know- its total crap for them to fear one guy writing one little paper that much, for them to so overstep the bounds of good manners.
People who know their hypothesis is sound do not fear criticism, they embrace and invite it. Albert Einstein didn’t make a career out of running from critics of relativity. He spent most of his time trying to figure out if he was wrong.
AGW doesn’t hold up under even semi-disinterested criticism. Did the entire continent of Africa become uninhabitable when the Vikings were FARMING in Greenland, in places now buried under glaciers? I hope the lot of these pricks in the APS hierarchy get ulcers worrying about it. Verily, the wages of sin.
I’m thinking of getting a bumper sticker made up: “Honesty is currently unfashionable. Count your change”
Meanwhile over in China old Dr. Evil who started all this bulls..t sits laughing and loading, his bank accounts around the world as number 1, Fat Albert, and number two, Sokookie do the Chicken Little in Gulfstreams around the world. What is happening that people believe these charlatans over scientists with real credentials.
Citing Tim Lambert in trying to dis-prove the “AGW Deniers” is a very good way of doing just the opposite.
Tim Lambert has no credibility on the topic, since he “unfailingly fails” to question blatant holes in AGW theory while at the same time questions whether Kelvins are properly expressed (in AGW critical papers).
The man is a blatant hypocrite and thus a scientific fraud!
Besides, he’s just a computer scientist, so what can he have to say on the topic of climate change—right??
Note- my last sentence in the previous post is a poke at the AGW priests that continously degrade the status of anyone who criticizes AGW whilst they confer Bishop status on any six year old who takes to the street preaching AGW.
Tim Lambert had one success, he reviewed a paper and found that Ross McKitrick had used degrees instead of radians in a calculation regarding distribution of urban heat island warming, as opposed to CO2 warming. This is the kind of thing that “computer scientists” know and work with frequently. The result of his correction to McKitrick? Well it made his case stronger. The correlation between the “warming” measured by Hansen and location of human economic activity (read cities, farms, airports, etc) rose. McKitrick published a correction based on Lambert’s criticism which still stands. The paper’s broad conclusion is the same as Moncton’s, that warming due to CO2 is about half of what the scare-’em-into-the-dark-and-cold warmies like Lambert would have you believe. I haven’t seen the first peer-reviewed rebuttal of McKitrick, nor even a coherant case against it made in the warmie blogosphere. In fact Gavin Schmidt even said the reason he was ignoring the paper was due to the tone of McKitrick’s press release. Some refutation.
Frenchie77: You are making a classic ad-hominem argument. You don’t like Tim Lambert so he is wrong. Is there anything wrong with his analysis? In regards to Kelvins – yes it is a minor point, but he is correct in what he points out.
Tim in Vermont: The key point in what Tim Lambert showed is given in the revised paper by McKitrick – to quote: “Removing economic effects drops the average trend from 0.27 to 0.18°C/decade, not 0.11 as before. “.
So before they were arguing that if you remove the economic effects then the warming is reduced to 0.11 which is less than the “accepted” global increase. Now they are saying that if you remove the economic effects then the warming is reduced to 0.18 which actually agrees very well with the accepted IPCC value.
Regards,
John
John Cross you can make all the theory sound sweet except none of them match reality. When you decide to leave your little nest and join the real world we can all have a good laugh at our human gulibiltiy. Arguing over degrees vs radians etc is pointless when in fact all the evidence is opposite to your pet theory. I know you are against industrialization and that is your right. If that is your choice stand on that not some geopolitical scam dressed up in scientific terms.
To use an old hillbilly expression. John yer dog you call AGW won’t hunt.
Your repeated agruing for AGW reminds of the old Monty Python skit where the fellow bought a dead parrot.
“This parrot you sold me is dead”
“No ‘e’s not ‘e’s just restin’.”
“His feet are nailed to the perch”.
Ahh John Cross, I thought my post might get you out!
Ad-hominem – No, I don’t think so. I specifically criticse Lambert BECAUSE he is a hyprocrite. I don’t have to attack the credibility of his arguments as he has done that himself, through his hypocrisy. You should look at your definition of ad-hominem again!
He does not follow a scientific method, thus has no scientific credibility, and thus I give his refutations no credibility (as he is purposely trying to undermine the scientific process). It could be that he gets the odd thing right (once in a while as Tim in Vermont) points out. But then again, 1000 monkeys…..
BTW – I didn’t say a word about whether I like him or not, I don’t even know the man.
should read: (once in a while as Tim in Vermont points out)
sorry, bracket in wrong place
Frenchie77: The classic ad-hominem is that you disagree with an argument because of what you feel is a personality trait as opposed to the strengths of the argument.
The fact that you feel that Tim Lambert is a hyprocrite has no bearing on his critique of the Viscount.
Regards,
John
John, that would be the question. Is Lambert’s criticism accurate or not? I’m certainly not going to take Lambert’s word for it, am I?
Tim in Vermont just made some pretty serious non- ad-hominem statements about Mr. Lambert’s lack of credibility. Comments?
John Cross – I am not going to get into another fruitless arguement with you, this time about what an ad-hominen attack is. So I’ll leave it at this and if you still think its ad-hominem, well then enjoy your club of one!
Suffice to say, I am not critiquing Tim Lambert’s personality, nor I am critiquing any of a number of non-related points about Tim.
Tim’s hypocrisy has EVERYTHING to do with his scientific credibility.
He is:
1) trying to undermine skeptical arguements via minor (typos) and often unrelated points that completely miss the overall crux of the arguement.
2) ignoring much larger holes in AGW theory that form the basis of the theory!
All the while, people like you come along and say “Tim Lambert has refuted this”. Do you understand that you cannot claim to be scientifcally credible at the same time as you act in a manner which is not scientific! This puts his hypocrisy into the logical line-of-fire and why it is not ad-hominem.
I can’t beleive I had to explain this!!!!
There is a reason for everything.
Some day we will all find out just who JC is, why he trolls, who may be using him(bankrolling?), but mostly – what is his(their) “purpose” in life.
There may be far, far deeper roots than someone just having fun. After all, what kind of a human being would waste time, life arguing black is white – using Popular Science like logic, usually found in issues left lying around in Arts Faculties’ coffee rooms ?
And, as someone commented earlier, Al Gore is just like the dog that won’t quit humping your leg.
I noticed the red text changed today:
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters…(garbage about reaffirming the official position).”
I wonder why it is they don’t feel the need to point out that articles aren’t generally peer reviewed at the start of articles which agree with the “official” stance.
What the hell is a scientific society doing having an “official” stance anyway. . . Reeks of lack of science to me.
KS: You said “I wonder why it is they don’t feel the need to point out that articles aren’t generally peer reviewed at the start of articles which agree with the “official” stance.”
Perhaps because most are not given a major press release that says (and I quote) “proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal”.
Given what was put out in the press release there was no choice.
Regards,
John
Frenchie77: You apparently do not understand what an ad-hominem is. Here is a definition for you to consider:
…. (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.
Even if I accept your argument about Tim Lambert’s supposed hypocrisy (which I don’t) it is still an ad-hom since it does not address any of his criticisms of the Viscount’s paper.
John-
Mr. Lambert’s first mistake, as I previously stated, is in describing the Kelvin temperature scale, as “Kelvins” the lazy man’s terminology for something of which he knows not what he references, known, formally, and more precisely, as degrees from absolute zero, on the Kelvin scale, as postulated by Lord Kelvin, or “degrees, Kelvin”. It is a term of precision, not as displayed by Mr. Lambert, his lack thereof.
In the first equation that he “attempts” to refute, Mr. Lambert addresses “forcing” of temperature. He failed to understand the definition of “forcing” and in turn recognize the equation as a measure of “acceleration”,or, if you will, the change in temperature due to the “force” of CO2’s ability to radiate energy, in this case, heat( there is a constant for this gas, can’t remember it at the moment, but it is stultifyingly low, as compared to the powers it has been given). The change in atmospheric temperature due to this “acceleration” is, of course, utterly untestable in the lab or in real life, so, therefore, we must take their word on it. “Honest”.
Pick a better researcher, this one doesn’t understand the complexity of that which he seeks to “define”. Keep in mind, if you use Hansen, you are travelling in the wrong direction on the intelligence scale.
Good luck, and don’t trip over your thumbs.
Porter: The NIST describes the kelvin as follows:
The 13th CGPM (1967) adopted the name kelvin (symbol K) instead of “degree Kelvin” (symbol °K) and defined the unit of thermodynamic temperature as follows ….
Regards,
John
A palpable hit, forsooth … ad hominum as well.
Cheers
John Cross @7:36 “….damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument”
Coulnd’t have said it better myself, oh wait – I did (Frenchie77@11:35) “…This puts his hypocrisy into the logical line-of-fire…” but you just can’t see or admit it! A perfect qualification for an AGW supporter.
It’s hard for science to speak the truth when it’s all muffled in sh^t and Tim Lambert is doing oh so fine a job of muffling!
John-
Thank you for the link, I guess I learned from an old fashioned physics professor. I’ll try to stay more “au courant” in the future in my use of terms describing base units.
(not supposed to do this at work, more later)
Porter
Frenchie77: Let me get this straight – you now agree that it is an ad-hom? As you point out – what you wrote is almost identical to the definition. You pointed out character flaws which are not relevant to the argument that he makes.
As I said before it does not matter if you think he is a hypocrite unless it refutes the specific points he makes.
Porter – your welcome – thanks for the civil discussion.
Regards,
John
Actually, John Cross is, as usual, full of shit. He made the argument from authority – “Monckton is wrong because Tim Lambert says so”. To which Frenchie merely pointed out that Tim Lambert is not a credible authority. That’s not ad hominem, nor is it anything other than sound.
What’s that you say, John? You never said Monckton was wrong? Good point. Why do you lack the integrity to say what you believe? And why should anyone follow a link to a totally discredited source like Tim Lambert? I haven’t read what he has to say, either. I know from experience that he’s exactly like you – a complete shithead who will say absolutely anything without regard for the truth.
Is there actually any reason to doubt Monckton’s position? I’m not asking John. I’m asking someone who might know.
et: You are correct, I did provide a link to Tim Lambert. I would never ask anyone to take my word for anything (or Tim’s word either). Instead I provided a link so people can evaluate the information for themselves. The fact that you did not do so speaks volumes.
Regards,
John
John-
Sorry for the delay, long day…
My original point regarding Kelvins being moot now, although it really did have me peeved as being a lazy short cut, I just didn’t know it had been codified (old prof said it was for convenience sake by the modernists, he was waiting for them to shorten another point to just “Eigens”, no help and I digress).
I have an answer, and a definition of why I am a skeptic. But it’s time for chow. I’ll be back…
OK, sleeves are up.
The problem with most of these arguments that attempt to assert “global warming” by anthropogenic factors, for me at least, is their overwhelming simplicity as a defined energy equation. My philosophical premise, or hypothesis, stems from the basic belief that if you are going to posit that any energy injected into a closed system that results in that same system reacting in only one way, you had best account for all energy sources coming in, and out , and balance them in your result. This must be done on a macro as well as micro scale.
So, here is the first conceptual hurdle, to define CO2 as a culprit in an energy equation, given it’s Plandts number at altitude, assumes that the concentration of the gas ,in atmosphere, always reacts at its maximum heat transmission, and has no other influences. This, for me, is particularly difficult, be cause it almost assigns CO2 the ability to act as a noble gas. It doesn’t, it can’t, unless you put it in a bottle. It’s presence then is, by nature, in statistical flux around a certain balance that is multidependent both on an energy level,and, the simplified carbon cycle.
That’s my first hurdle, and I cannot get around any of the arguments presented, as yet, that this can be ignored, other than for my own good.
I hope this explains, to a degree, from where I sit. If you want to battle on the “proof” of Lambert’s, I’ll have a go. But, keep in mind, Ch. Monckton does address some
of the energy equation to which I refer, albeit not as thoroughly as he should. (I want some solar energy fields addressed, thank you!).
If you can’t figure out how clouds are made, but you “know” what they do to the Earth, then we have a problem. And yes, it’s another energy equation.
That’s the start of my complaints about this subject.
Ok, John?
Hi Porter: I am not sure if I am following you. You talk about a Plandts number which I am unaware of. Is it a form of the Prandtl number?
If so I would say that it (i.e. the heat transfer component) is only part of the issue. The main forcing from the greenhouse effect is the re-direction of longwave radiation that the atmosphere intercepts.
Regards,
John
John-
Prandtl, precisely, sorry, I was thinking about Planck’s Constant at the same time I was typing and lo, that’s what got typed.
The reflective nature implied, by what you are talking about, and me, but in a round about fashion, is attributing something as a minor component of the atmosphere powers that are either radiative, or simultaneously, transparent. It’s concentration is such that cannot do both, it must transfer that energy in some fashion ( a force acting upon matter, or “forcing” as it is called) to another body. That’s the energy equation on which I keep falling back. It’s incomplete as argued, as I understand it to date, and seems to deliberately omit some key factors that should be added to the equation. Also, the warming evidence on other planetary bodies within our solar system needless to say, is a bit more than just inconvenient, but that’s a late arrival to the argument.
rather than chase this thread into the archives, email me at mel191 “at” earthlink “dot” com, and we can follow up if you would like. Warning: major spam filterage, just follow the request form stuff and I’ll get it.
Porter
Since you already have Lord Monkton’s material, John, and since I made no reference to any other material, there was no reason for me to link to anything. What speaks volumes is the fact that you will not admit that you were wrong when you falsely accused Frenchie of ad hominem. You really are a dirty, dishonest little excuse for a man, aren’t you? Feel free to lie about that. And be sure to extend your regards to me.