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.
