Monckton continues to entertain:
Dear Professor Serene – A Fellow of the APS has drawn my attention to a new policy apparently adopted by the Executive Board of the American Physical Society, to the effect that every paper published in any APS journal must in future carry a disclaimer to the effect that it has not been peer-reviewed. The Executive Board appears to have acted thus because Lawrence Krauss, a notorious, Marxist political activist who found uncongenial the conclusions of a paper by me that appeared in the July 2008 issue of Physics and Society, came under pressure from his political faction to undermine and repudiate my paper by means other than the usual scientific debate. Krauss was not able to debate the content of my paper scientifically, since it was beyond his expertise.
Gee, and I thought Krauss was a theoretical physicist. Krauss also publicly defended evolution against the people trying to push Creationism into science classes, so maybe that makes him a Marxist in Monckton’s eyes. Feel free to speculate in comments if you can explain where Monckton’s delusion comes from.
Monckton continues with:
It was Krauss who ordered a disclaimer to be posted above my paper, saying a) that it had not been peer-reviewed, when it had been;
No, it hadn’t
b) that the majority of international scientific opinion opposed its conclusions, when he had no scientific basis for that statement;
Actually he did. See, for example, the IPCC report
and c) that the Council of the American Physical Society disagreed with my paper’s conclusions, even though the Council had not in fact met to consider my paper.
But the Council had already resolved that
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Under pressure from me, and from numerous Fellows and members of the APS, two of Krauss’ three falsehoods were removed, but the falsehood about the paper not having been peer-reviewed remained in place. The paper had in fact been meticulously reviewed by an eminent professor of physics, who was also the review editor of Physics and Society. He was fully competent to conduct the review, since his intention was that my argument should be understandable to any physicist, whether or not he or she were a climatologist.
This is editorial review, not peer review.
I am concerned that the Executive Board has now either prevented peer-review from taking place in the APS’ journals or insisted, as Krauss did to his great discredit, that its editors should lie to the effect that papers with which the APS Council might disagree have not been peer-reviewed, even when they have been.
Just in case there was any chance of Serene taking him seriously, Monckton finishes with:
Therefore I invite the Executive Board, however tempted it may be by the lavish taxpayer funding available to those who genuflect to what is no more than a quasi-theological belief that the increase of one-ten-thousandth part in the proportion of the atmosphere occupied by CO2 since 1750 can somehow put the planet at serious risk, to resist the State-subsidized ending of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, to reconsider the Council’s policy declaration in favor of the new faith, and to allow open, scientific debate on alleged (but non-existent) “global warming” and other scientific issues within the pages of its journals without posting silly, unscientific, and mendacious disclaimers over learned papers, such as mine, that its editors have commissioned, reviewed, accepted, and published.
Geepers, I wonder what Monckton’s score on John Baez’s crackpot index is up to now?