Lord Monckton objects

Lord Monckton handed the IPCC its head in a devasting paper delivered to the American Physical Society. The muckety mucks of that society, afraid of being accused of impiety by the increasingly embattled warmists, posted the paper with the following disclaimer:

“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.”

Lord Monckton is just the tiniest bit pissed - the paper had been scientifically reviewed and revised in accordance with the review by a referee of the APC’s choosing - and fires off a brilliant, and mockingly polite rejoinder. It you like elegant scientific debate, and, hey, who doesn’t, this is a brilliant piece.

Written by jay on July 19th, 2008 with 10 comments.
Read more articles on "Global Warming".

Related articles

10 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Dr.Dawg
#1. July 20th, 2008, at 7:42 AM.

And here all this time I took you guys seriously when you went after Suzuki for his Drosophila research. What does Dr. Fruitfly know about climatology? (snicker)

Better by far to have a lordly title and a diploma in journalism.

Watching the Usual Suspects backpedal on this one has brought a faint smile to my lips. The APS has changed course! Oh, well, no, it hasn’t, but saying so is no worse than the IPCC claiming consensus. Oh noes, they’re picking on Monck!

You guys slay me. “Devastating paper,” indeed. Bring back phlogiston, I say. Those were the good old days.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Dr.Dawg
#2. July 20th, 2008, at 7:46 AM.

Sorry, Jay, wrong link. Here’s the right one:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com jay
#3. July 20th, 2008, at 9:27 AM.

Dear Heavens Dawg you don’t want to bring the throughly discredited IT guy Tim Lambert to any matter involving fact otherwise this happens. Lambert is practically a national institution in Australia: if Tim says something is true there is a rush to find out just how he got “it” wrong and just how wrong he got “it”.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Dr.Dawg
#4. July 20th, 2008, at 1:44 PM.

So what’s wrong with his critique of the gentleman classicist’s faulty math?

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com stephen.reeves
#5. July 20th, 2008, at 2:01 PM.

Have the polar ice caps melted yet ?, it is Mid July already, waiting for the headlines and pictures in the Star and on the CBC showing us the ice free North Pole, and I have hardly used my A/C so far this year in Toronto, even if I do crank it up every time Suzuki shows his mug on the CBC.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Louise
#6. July 20th, 2008, at 4:15 PM.

Speaking of polar ice caps, take a look. It was supposed to disappear, wasn’t it?

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Peter
#7. July 21st, 2008, at 1:36 AM.

I’m with you, Jay, but geez, this guy needs to replace his personal coach. If I wrote a scholarly paper challenging a widely-believed international scientific orthodoxy, I hope I would have the good sense not to sign it “The Viscount Burnet of Ottawa-Gatineau”. Wouldn’t that just leave me easy pickings for scientific establishment toadies named Tim?

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com bobonthebellbuoy
#8. July 21st, 2008, at 5:15 AM.

Well Dawg, whether he’s right or he’s wrong, I’m still looking for a refutation by the people who requested a dissenting view, supposedly reviewed the data (and edited it I might add) and then said we don’t agree with this. Tim lambert isn’t the APS, let the APS stand on its own two feet and explain their actions. Bet it doesn’t happen.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Dr.Dawg
#9. July 21st, 2008, at 4:51 PM.

It’s pretty easy to see what happened.

A newsletter editor thought it would be fun to have a debate on AGW, and arranged for it. Monckton’s paper was edited, not “peer-reviewed” as such.

Then various fanatics (present company always excepted, Jay) did their “Aha! The APS has reversed its position on AGW!!!!!1111!”

I suspect that people started to make inquiries–a lot of them. In their embarrassment, the APS published its red flag. For the record, I think the matter could have been handled better, and I don’t blame our gentleman journalist for being peeved. I think an apology is due, but only for that.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com el Ricardo the smooth man
#10. July 23rd, 2008, at 9:36 AM.

“Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

And who might this heretic be?

“I have a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and have been involved in global warming research for close to twenty years. I have numerous peer reviewed scientific articles dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability and climate change. I am also the U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.”

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/roy-spencers-testimony-before-congress-backs-up-moncktons-assertions-on-climate-sensitivity/

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:




You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .