Duae Quartunciae has been more patient than me, and found even more problems with Monckton’s paper.
Monckton has struck back at the APS. Check out this press release from the SPPI
Said, Monckton elsewhere, “Trying to duck the usual process of scientific discourse by arguments about peer-review procedures is an ad-hominem approach which is not worthy of the name of science. What has happened is that the usual suspects, instead of ploughing through the (not particularly difficult) math and saying what I got wrong and why (which is what Popper calls the EE or “error-elimination” step in the scientific-method algorithm), decided it would be easier simply to lobby the president of the APS, who – instead of consulting me first – instantly and shamefully crumbled.”
Since Monckton’s errors are so blatant (see above) I think it is more likely that the APS folks noticed them as well.
Reported Monckton, “I’ve had hundreds of emails from Professors, PhDs and other physicists who belong to the APS, on all sides of the “global warming” debate, saying how dismayed they are at the unethical conduct of their President and Council.”
I’d believe him, except that Monckton has a habit of making things up.
Lastly, added Monckton, “One might ask President Bienenstock what steps the APS took to peer-review its own half-baked Council policy statement on “global warming”, which is unadorned by even a single reference to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. “
Because nobody could find the IPCC assessment reports without a cite…
Monckton’s letter to the APS is pretty funny. Monckton doesn’t understand what peer review means. Let me just quote John Mashey on Saperstein’s review:
The reviewer was Co-editor Saperstein. The words in black are from him, and they include, with [notes by me]:
“Fig. 7 is clear. Make more of it: it contradicts the GW claims.”
[no, it doesn’t]
“Other anthropogenic forcings”: What is meant by his? Why are they net-negative?
“Forcing”: I don’t understand why forcing can’t be measured. that shows I don’t understand the difference between solar flux incident on top of atmosphere and “forcing”,…
“Feedback”: I don’t know the difference between “forcing” and “feedback”. If “forcing” is not just external energy flux, than I would assume it includes “feedback”.
[Well, do I need to articulate the level of climate science competence displayed? Of course, the Viscount labels this “peer review”, which of course shows what he knows about peer review.]
Update: From a Creationist blog, a response from Arthur Bienenstock, President of the American Physical Society:
Thank you for your message concerning the American Physical Society’s treatment of the article by Lord Monckton in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society. I am writing to discuss issues raised by some of you.
Some of those writing to me have claimed that the American Physical Society is censoring Lord Monckton’s article in the Newsletter of the APS’ Forum on Physics and Society. That is far from the case. The article has been presented and retained in the form agreed upon by him and the Newsletter’s editor. You will find it readily available on the APS’ website in that form.
Indeed, there was absolutely no censoring. The APS did not even do a scientific evaluation or peer review of the article. Lord Monckton’s presentation of the interaction between him and the editor indicates clearly that the editor’s review was aimed at ensuring the clarity and readability of the article by the intended audience. As Lord Monckton points out in his covering letter to me, “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.”
That is, the review was an editorial review for a newsletter, and not the substantive scientific peer review required for publication in our journals. No attempt was made to analyze the scientific substance of the article and no censoring was performed. As indicated above and in Lord Monckton’s letter to me, the article appears in the form agreed upon by Lord Monckton.
Some people and news services misinterpreted the Newsletter publication of one editor’s comments and Lord Monckton’s article as a retreat by the American Physical Society from its official position on the contribution of human activities to global warming. Consequently, the APS felt it necessary to ensure that its official position was known both to those who logged on to the APS website and those who had followed a link to Lord Monckton’s article on our website and were unaware of the context in which it appears. That is the origin of the comment that appears at the top of the article on the website. I am sure that you would not want the Society’s position to be misunderstood in this important matter.
I hope that this clarifies matters for you. Let me thank you again for your interest in the American Physical Society’s activities.
And Monckton’s inevitable response:
I have had your notice of refusal to remove your regrettable disclaimer from my paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Since you have not had the courtesy to remove and apologize for the unacceptable red-flag text that, on your orders, in effect invites readers of Physics and Society to disregard the paper that one of your editors had invited me to submit, and which I had submitted in good faith, and which I had revised in good faith after it had been meticulously reviewed by a Professor of Physics who was more than competent to review it, I must now require you to answer the questions that I had asked in my previous letter, videlicet –
[repeated stuff snipped]
7 If, as your silence on these points implies, the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, please explain 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 (let us have no more semantic quibbles about the meaning of “scientific review”);
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)? And, if the Council has not in fact met to consider my paper as your red-flag text above my paper implies, how dare you state (on no evidence) that the Council disagrees with my conclusions?
8 Please provide the requested apology without any further mendacity, prevarication, evasion, excuse, or delay.
Finally, was the Council’s own policy statement on “global warming” peer-reviewed? Or is it a mere regurgitation of some of the opinions of the UN’s climate panel? If the latter, why was the mere repetition thought necessary?