Controversy Over Proof that there is no “Climate Crisis”
The current issue of Physics and Society contains a mathematical proof by Christopher Monckton that there is no “climate crisis.” (report) One might expect intense scientific debate to follow. The opening rounds however, have centered on “discourteous” behavior by administrators of the organization behind the publication. It’s gotten personal.
Physics and Society is a scientific publication from the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society (APS). The Council of the American Physical Society, administrators of APS, added a disclaimer at the top of Monckton’s paper, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, highlighted in red.
This 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.
The opposing article in debate in the same issue, A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change, by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz contains no such statement from The Council regarding peer-review or speculation on the reception it should receive from the “world scientific community.”
Christopher Monckton protests in a letter to APS president Arthur Bienenstock, describing the peer-review process the paper was taken through in some detail. In summary response to the disclaimer, he states: “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.”
“Having regard to the circumstances,†he adds at the end of the letter, “surely the Council owes me an apology?”
Monckton also requests the name of The Council member or advisor behind the disclaimer as well as details of the disagreement if the “offending red-flag text” is not removed “at once.”
Introductory comments by the issue’s editor confirm that Monckton’s paper was invited and considerably weaken The Council’s contention regarding scientific consensus.
The critical scientific question is whether “greenhouse gases,” particularly CO2, have been driving climate change. This is the bitterly contested issue in public debate directly related to the politics of national and international regulation of the use of carbon-based fuel; the environmental benefits of high taxes and gasoline prices, carbon-credit trading, etc. Much of Monckton’s paper is dedicated to criticism of views expressed by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading proponent of the view that human activity (“anthropogenic CO2 emissions”) is the primary cause of global warming.
According to the editor:
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.
The editor’s view is well-supported.
A recent poll among the 51,000 earth scientists and engineers of The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (Canada), found that only 26 percent attribute global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels. This follows a significant effort to demonstrate that Al Gore’s famous “the debate is over” statement, claiming that there is scientific consensus behind his global warming political agenda, is false. The Oregon Petition gathered signatures from over 30,000 qualified scientists in the US supporting the statement:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The Manhattan Declaration is capturing broader endorsement from climate experts and other scientists, professional engineers, economists, policy experts, and others in 40 countries. In part:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
…That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
I have sent messages to two staff members at the American Physical Society asking for the specific basis for The Council’s statement that Christopher Monckton’s conclusions are “in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community.” The evidence so far suggests that The Council’s definition of “the world scientific community” may be limited to the few controlling authors and editors of the IPCC reports that Christopher Monckton criticizes in his paper. I will be more than happy to publish The Council’s response to my inquiry if and when they reply.
Possibly related posts...
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
Even the term “skeptic” is a ruse Martin; implying that man-made global warming is established theory or at least the “consensus” among scientists. The only consensus there was; was that the end of the 20th century was a little warmer than the beginning.
I know I’m late to the party with this comment, but it’s as plain as the nose on my face that the ‘disclaimer’ was added under pressure from members of the Society who cannot tolerate any divergent opinions. Especially since the society made a big show of saying they were re-opening the debate about man-made climate change because a growing number of their members were not in full agreement with the AGW ‘consensus’. Then to turn around and slap this disclaimer on one of the papers after the fact is just plain weasel-y.
I’m a skeptic about man-made climate change. I’m not in possession of facts that could prove one side or the other in the debate. But I’m mightily concerned about the tendency of those who believe in man-made climate change to suppress any discussion of the issue – in my experience, that kind of suppression leads to bad things. It makes me wonder why they’re so afraid of allowing discussion and debate – seems more than a bit rigid and dogmatic.
[...] a Hollywood blockbuster culture. Sorry I don’t have the link for that. But here’s a link to a post on a scientific journal article which proves that manmade global warming is pure fiction. Here are some excerpts: The current [...]
Physics and Society published an issue with Monckton’s paper in it for the purpose of starting a debate. As the editor rightly pointed out – there are many in the scientific community who do not agree with the IPCC (and Al Gore). I think it’s pretty obvous now that someone on the APS Council has gone to extraordinary effort to manipulate the lame-stream media – to discredit the paper, its author, and the publication its printed in; in a bold-faced effort to stop the debate and discussion. We’re seeing politically controlled science and politically controlled journalism at its worst.
He’s British. He’s a Lord. He can – and will – be disregarded by many, simply for that. But he has nailed his flag to the pole and rightly dares his critics to use Science, Mathematics, Reason, Economics, to show he is wrong. He doesn’t rely on his ‘Lordliness’ in the manner that his critics Appeal to the Authority of nameless IPCC functionaries.
Climate Change is the great scam of the 21C. The flurry of Carbon Credit Policy will penalise the poor, the ordinary, and enrich the powerful. It is a brilliant answer to the democracy of the ‘market economy’, replacing market forces with Government Central Control. Everything, every household decision is to be determined by Government.
In Australia we are dashing headlong down a hill to the most egregious depths of State Control – along with the lies and mendacities and coercions – ever seen in a Western country. Even light bulbs do not escape. The taxpayer is being forced to give other tax payers free murcury filled light bulbs (a one-off). They do not come with warning that every light new, eco-friendly, long-lasting (but ten times more expensive) expired light bulb put in landfill will poison 30,000 litres of ground water.
Good Lord no. That would raise alarm bells and we can’t go scaring people with small matters when we already have the biggest ever scare campaign going.
Our Government has given millions to a foriegn country to produce ‘hybrid’ cars for us (disregarding our own car manufacturers) that will run on electricity. They will, they say, reduce the need for high-priced petrol. No mention that the electricty is to be produced by coal-fired powerplants and the electricity prices are skyrocketing. The new electric powered cars will cost more to power than petrol cars and place a huge demand increase on power stations that produce carbon emmissions along with the electricity. And they will charge extra to the consumer because of the Carbon Credits they will have to purchace, a licence to pollute. Not that the current electricity powerplants can cope with present demand. Think how it will be when the car/transpot power demand is added to the load. And don’t look to Nuclear power in Australia. That is vorboten by ze decisions of ze Central Controller Guvmunt.
British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: ‘Uphold Free Speech or Resign’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1755503/posts
There have been many reports of a top-down political control action related to the “science” of global warming, effectiving government agencies (NASA, EPA, you name it), university research (controlled by federal funding), and scientific organizations such as APS (whose leaders are often academics, subject to funding and promotions, etc.) There are too many of these reports and too much of this non-scientific stuff going on to ignore. American science is being transformed into the equivalent of Soviet science, as mentioned in:
Norway Should Apologize for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/19/norway-should-apologize-for-the-2007-nobel-peace-prize/
I was going to post saying that it seems that global warming is bad for science: the response to Moncktons data seems to me (admittedly a layman) to be profoundly unscientific.
for example:
“in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”
I’m pretty sure that opinion is not science.
“This article has not undergone any scientific peer review”
Wouldn’t it be more “scientific” to point out the errors in Moncktons work which lead The Council of the American Physical Society to disagree with it?
The failure of The Council of the American Physical Society to point out any errors suggests to me an inability to do so.