American Physical Society stomps on Monckton disinformation — thank you Climate Progress readers

Posted on  

"American Physical Society stomps on Monckton disinformation — thank you Climate Progress readers"

The country’s largest organization of physicists is working fast to restore its good name, which was damaged by one ignorant editor of a non-peer-reviewed newsletter. That editor, Jeff Marque, published a previously-debunked analysis by failed conservative politician and non-scientist Lord Monckton.

The Council of the American Physical Society quickly responded to the uproar over this disinformation by adding a new disclaimer to the Monckton article:

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.

There is no need to waste any further time here debunking Monckton’s sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary,” as RealClimate put it. As the APS makes clear, just because somebody uses a lot of numbers and formulas, that doesn’t make their analysis either scientific or credible.

Thanks to all those who wrote in and helped push the APS to clean up this mess.

For a humorous take on this, see “Irony-gate: Viscount Monckton, a British peer, says his paper was peer-reviewed by a scientist.

Tags:

« »

57 Responses to American Physical Society stomps on Monckton disinformation — thank you Climate Progress readers

  1. Dennis says:

    The APS needs to find a way to come out stronger. There are still a lot of poorly-managed websites, blogs, etc. that are quoting the original dailytech piece. As of this writing, dailytech still has its original article up with only a small “update” at the bottom. I know I will hear about this from the deniers I know — none of whom will read beyond the first paragraph.

  2. Ronald says:

    I heard it referenced on Kudlow and Company on CNBC. I didn’t catch the first statements by one of the quest commentators, but he said this Physics group was going to have the real Physicists look at the evidence again and not just the environmental scientists that was doing it before. Weird how the business world has to cling to what they would like to be true instead of what is.

  3. silence says:

    This isn’t enough.

    The material at http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm still doesn’t have the note, and people continue to cite it.

  4. john says:

    I believe we need to keep the pressure on until the article is formally retracted, and taken down. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world, while the truth is putting on it’s shoes.”

    Only an oak stake in the heart of this egregious lie will kill it.

    Meanwhile, the deniers quote it, the MSM repeats it, and another six months of calamity and calumny is purchased.

  5. paulm says:

    A sad reflection on the media when they jump in with articles like this with out further investigating the background. Especially when they are aware of the history and controversy surrounding the topic.

    You get the feeling that they are doing this on purpose. Thats real sad considering the stakes.

  6. Dennis says:

    There are still a large number of google hits that say APS has reversed its policy, but now I’m seeing a few that report APS says it has not changed its policy. None of the items are from major media outlets. The big test will be the pundits — I bet one of the major conservative talking head/columnists will pick up on this and find a way to fit an appropriately weasel-worded denial claim about APS in a column casting doubt on AGW.

  7. Simon says:

    So the APS administration does not tolerate dissent among its members? Welcome to Green Totalitarianism.

    While some issues may be more controversial than others, scientific understanding depends on free and open debate. Along with scientific understanding, our system of self government requires toleration of dissenting viewpoints.

    Labeling and name calling (“deniers”) stifles free and open debate and undermines science. Instead of name calling and empty rhetoric, why not rely on scientific evidence (if any exists) to overcome skeptics of anthropogenic global warming.

  8. David B. Benson says:

    Simon — The deniers simply have not studied the evidence. You could start with “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

  9. Lamont says:

    I actually agree with Simon that dissent and free speech should be allowed.

    However, it is completely inaccurate to state that APS has reversed anything and the disclaimer should be a bit more prominent directly on the webpages in question.

    Go ahead and keep the Monckton article up, let people read it. However, APS should better debunk it, including the completely false implication that the APS has changed anything about its organizational stance.

  10. Joe says:

    Genuine debate and skepticism is great — indeed is the basis of all science. but merely repeating long-debunked talking points is disinformation and propaganda. No reason for the APS to put up with it, or me.

    Simon’s use of the phrase “if any exists” indicates a complete disdain for scientists, science, and the scientific method. If someone can come up with a better word than denier, I’m all for it. I have tried to introduce the word delayer, but the hard-core anti-science bunch deserve the term “denier.”

  11. john says:

    Simon:

    No one is coming out against free speech or open debate. But passing the Monkton article off as having the APS “change” is simply not accurate. It is APS’s perrogative — and indeed, an act of practicing THEIR free speech rights — to insist on accuracy in their materials.

    One other point, Simon. Science is not an opinion contest — it is not a popularity contest. It is a method that weighs facts and observations, develops hypotheses, rigorously tests them, and formulates theories when they withstand the testing.

    Global warming has gone through this process and emerged as a highly reliable theory. It is, of course, legitimate to challenge this result with alternative hypotheses, but if one wants that challenge to be valid, it must use the same Baconian Organon that real science uses — not the opinions of the uninformed or the willfully ignorant — which seems to be your source of knowledge.

  12. Raven says:

    The trouble is Monckton is primarily a politician and prone to exaggeration to make a point and deserves criticism for his rhetoric. OTOH, the APS response is simply confirming everything that the skeptics have been saying about the politicization of the scientific establishment. If the APS was really interested in science they could have addressed Monckton’s claims by issuing a new release confirming their earlier statement (which they did) and placing a link to that news release at the top of the Monckton article. They could have also indicated that subsequent issues of the newsletter will include a rebuttal of the claims made by Monckton.

    The unsupported appeal to authority that they ended up posting simply indicates that they don’t have much interest in discussing science and would rather push their political POV.

  13. John Hollenberg says:

    > The unsupported appeal to authority that they ended up posting simply indicates that they don’t have much interest in discussing science and would rather push their political POV.

    Ridiculous. The claims by Monckton have already been debunked (see links in Joe’s article), thus they don’t fall under the realm of science. Instead, they have a purely political purpose. I think you are a bit confused about whose aims are scientific and whose are politicial.

  14. Raven says:

    “The claims by Monckton have already been debunked…”

    So what? The realclimate piece is from 2006 and the extended period of non-warming should be prodding true scientists look at whether the sensitivity of CO2 has been over estimated. Perhaps Monckton’s paper does not have merit but it certainly deserves more that an high handed dismissal. More importantly, if the APS publishes a rebuttal then Monckton should be entitled to respond. If the science cannot stand up to challenges by the likes of Monckton then it must be in pretty bad shape.

    Incidentally, claiming that a sceptical argument has been “rebutted” by real climate does not mean much because their rebuttals usually result in the massacre of innocent straw men. The only way to get at the truth of an argument is to have a back and forth exchange of views that allows the reader to make up their own mind instead of being told what to believe.

  15. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    the extended period of non-warming should be prodding true scientists look at whether the sensitivity of CO2 has been over estimated.

    The carbon dioxide sensitivity is decadal, while the extended period of ‘non-warming’ that your refer to is annual at best, and fully expected considering the several large heat sinks we have at our ‘disposal’, namely, two arctic ice caps, polar sea ice, and the deep cold ocean, small parts of which are being ‘disposed of’ on an annual basis.

    This jigsaw rise of temperature, on the other hand, is exactly what we expect. The APS needs to get rid of an editor, and get a new editor to replace him.

  16. John Mashey says:

    Tim Lambert has a good discussion of a few of Monckton’s errors at:

    Deltoid.

    The first comment (H/T dhogaza) has a pointer to :
    Monckton’s letter to APS.

    demanding removal of the warning, noting that he had not even asked for an honorarium for his work, demanding all sorts of documentation from APS about its decision-making, demanding apologies, etc. No surprise to anyone familiar with the Viscount’s past behavior.

  17. Raven says:

    Thomas Lee Elifritz Says:
    “The APS needs to get rid of an editor, and get a new editor to replace him.”

    If they do they then they will have proven to the world that the APS is run by a bunch of religious fanatics that don’t care about the scientific facts.

    BTW – the period of non-warming has been going on too long to dismiss as “weather noise”. A proper statistical analyses that uses real weather noise (as opposed to simulated weather noise) shows that the IPCC projections of 2degC/decade are 95% likely to be wrong. This should be more than enough to convince the true scientists out there that it is time to have a second look at some of the assumptions.

  18. John Hollenberg says:

    > A proper statistical analyses that uses real weather noise (as opposed to simulated weather noise) shows that the IPCC projections of 2degC/decade are 95% likely to be wrong.

    Two degrees per decade??? Where did you get that figure? Peer-reviewed article that supports your claim?

  19. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    If they do they then they will have proven to the world that the APS is run by a bunch of religious fanatics that don’t care about the scientific facts.

    Well, since science is neither about ‘proof’ nor ‘facts’, then I agree with you.

    You appear to be at least several scientific paradigms out of date. Mr. Einstein did away with ‘scientific proof’ and ‘scientific facts’ over 100 years ago now.

  20. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    Two degrees per decade??? Where did you get that figure?

    He heard it on RUSH!

  21. Raven says:

    2 degC/century. A typo which should have been obvious to someone familiar with the topic.

    You can find the analysis here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/

    Various warmers have posted critiques which have been addressed yet the conclusions still stand. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal at this time but the arguments and counter arguments are laid out clearly. That should be more than enough for true scientists that care about finding out the truth. I realize that it will not be enough for activists that see science as a nothing more than a tool to used for political advocacy.

  22. John Hollenberg says:

    > The only way to get at the truth of an argument is to have a back and forth exchange of views that allows the reader to make up their own mind instead of being told what to believe.

    No, the way to get at the truth of a scientific argument is to have it published in peer-reviewed journals where others who disagree can try to tear it down with a carefully reasoned analysis, new data, or re-interpretation of existing data. For example, this eventually led to the discovery of Spencer/Christy’s error in calculations and a retraction of their claim that the satellite data showed the atmosphere is cooling. If Monckton’s article can’t pass muster for the peer review process, why waste further time on it?

  23. David B. Benson says:

    Raven — I fear you have it wuite, quite wrong. Here are the five year averages from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/5yrave.jpg

  24. John Hollenberg says:

    > It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal at this time but the arguments and counter arguments are laid out clearly.

    Anyone can publish any kind of garbage on the web, which is why scientists refer to published, peer-reviewed work. That’s why Joe and the scientists at Realclimate refer to the peer-reviewed work of bodies like the IPCC, and various National Academies of Science. I note the prominent misinformation on the web site you referred to:

    “Evidently, the APS (American Physical Society) is inviting papers to debate a very specific conclusion of the IPCC: 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.”

    They conveniently ignore the entire context of this incident and the strong disclaimer by the APS. What could be a clearer example of the garbage being published on the web?

  25. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    warmers

    You got the memo!

  26. Raven says:

    John Hollenberg Says:
    “No, the way to get at the truth of a scientific argument is to have it published in peer-reviewed journals where others who disagree can try to tear it down with a carefully reasoned analysis, new data, or re-interpretation of existing data.”

    Then why does the does the FPS exist. Here is how it describes itself:

    “The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion.”

    That makes it very clear that there is a place for “discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters” outside of the peer review process.

  27. John Hollenberg says:

    > “The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion.”

    I don’t think they meant to include debunked nonsense in this description, but instead were referring to legitimate differences of opinion among serious scientists. There is no evidence that Monckton meets any of these criteria.

    To get an idea of the views he has advocated in the past, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

    “In an article entitled “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS”, written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that “there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”

  28. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    Then why does the does the FPS exist.

    The FPS exists because RELIGIOUS NUTS within the physics community wants it to exist. You’ll just have to trust me that the American scientific community is now filled to the brim with religious nuts. After eight years of the Bush administration why would anyone think otherwise?

  29. Raven says:

    David B. Benson Says:
    “Raven — I fear you have it wuite, quite wrong. Here are the five year averages from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:”

    The analysis in question only deals with data collected after the latest batch of model runs were put together because hind casting tells us nothing about the reliability of the models. I realize that means there is only 7 years of data but that is where statistics helps because it allows one to determine mathematically whether even a short trend is consistent with the projections.

  30. Ron Broberg says:

    Here is a “peer-review” of Lord Monckton’s article by Tim Lambert (no offense meant to Tim) over at Deltoid.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php

  31. Raven says:

    Thomas Lee Elifritz Says:
    “You’ll just have to trust me that the American scientific community is now filled to the brim with religious nuts.”

    I dislike religious fanaticism of all sorts and don’t distinguish between those who turn to Al Gore for inspiration and those who prefer Jerry Falwell.

    FWIW – I do believe that science is self correcting and that if AGW is wrong or over stated then the scientifist process via the peer reviewed journals will eventually establish this. However, we have activists demanding radical changes to society today based on the assumption that the IPCC consensus is basically correct. For that reason we cannot afford to wait for the self-correcting science process if there is information that the concensus may be wrong.

    That is why I think the recent flat trend in temperatures is extremely important and should not be dismissed as mere ‘weather noise’. If the models are correct then we should see a rapid up tick in warming over the next 5-10 years. If that up tick does not appear then we will need to re-evaluate many of the assumptions built into the models and the policies that were based on those assumptions.

  32. John Hollenberg says:

    > That is why I think the recent flat trend in temperatures is extremely important and should not be dismissed as mere ‘weather noise’.

    But that is what it is! Climate involves observations over longer periods of time (> 15 years), weather is for shorter periods. If you had read any of the articles are realclimate you would know this. Did you look at the 5 year average that David Benson posted above?

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/5yrave.jpg

    I must have posted this reference 4-5 times on various threads at climateprogress for those who refuse to be swayed by information:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

    Have you read the IPCC summary or any of the supporting documents?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    What I see from your posts is someone who is uncomfortable with the scientific evidence and wishes it would just go away.

  33. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    I do believe that science is self correcting and that if AGW is wrong or over stated

    It’s not. If anything it is vastly understated.

    That is why I think the recent flat trend in temperatures is extremely important and should not be dismissed as mere ‘weather noise’.

    Nobody is dismissing it as ‘weather noise’, most people are associating it with, as I have clearly pointed out, annual and multiyear variations in global heat absorption, i.e. – the vast heat sinks which I have already pointed out, the arctic ice, the polar ice caps, and the cold deep ocean.

    This see saw or jig saw in temperature rise is predicted to continue for decades and centuries, until all of our thermal buffers are exhausted.

    This is how warming Earth like planets work, like it or not.

  34. Lamont says:

    1998 was one outlier year, which corresponded to a very strong el nino in the pacific ocean. 2001-2008 were warmer years than any other on record other than 1998.

    Well, the very strong la nina of 2007/2008 is over:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif

    We are also at a solar minimum and the sun is only going to get hotter from now on:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

    Unless we get fantastically lucky enough to fall into a maunder-minimum-like era of lower solar activity and have a few big volcanoes blow off, we’re going to resume annihilating global temperature records soon. 2009 is likely to be the 2nd warmest year on record, and stands a good chance of beating out 1998.

    Very soon we won’t have to put up with this garbage and even on la nina years we will be beating 1998.

  35. Robert S says:

    Mr. Elifritz wrote
    “Well, since science is neither about ‘proof’ nor ‘facts’, then I agree with you.”

    I agree that science isn’t about “proof”, but it certainly is about facts. For instance, the NAS defines theory as follows:

    “In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time.”

    Mr Elifritz goes on to write
    “It’s not. If anything it is vastly understated.”

    It is a good thing you are so sure. We finally have some answers.

  36. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    “In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time.”

    Well then the NAS appears to be just one scientific paradigm out of date, not several as you are. Not bad considering the refutation of ‘facts’ in physics and science is a relatively recent one, born in the internet age.

    Facts are temporary absolutes used as a tool for discussion, nothing more.

    Facts are temporary linguistic devices, they don’t exist in the real world.

    Most modern scientists leave the facts for the courts, and work with data, in order to calibrate their temporary theories of reality. Difficult to understand for you absolutists, I’m sure, but the NAS will catch up with it eventually.

    The IAU claims that ‘dwarf planets’ are not ‘planets’ as well. Silly people.

  37. rayd says:

    Latest info indicate Moncton’s paper was peer reviewed.

  38. John Hollenberg says:

    > Latest info indicate Moncton’s paper was peer reviewed.

    Do you mean it was sent to 3 different independent reviewers who have expertise in the area of climate science? I didn’t think so.

  39. Ron Broberg says:

    If you are referring to the second page of this …

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monkton_letter_pys.pdf

    … that looks like a response to editorial redlining, not scientific criticism.

  40. Lamont says:

    Here’s the global temperature trend with lower and upper trendlines drawn in (green lines). The area in between the trend is weather, while the trendlines are climate:

    http://www.scriptkiddie.org/Warming.png

    You need to convincingly violate that lower trendline for several years to say that the trend has changed (and violate it due to something which isn’t easily explainable like a pinatubo-magnitude or larger volcano).

  41. John Mashey says:

    re: ron Broberg

    It’s not only a response to editorial questions, but if you read Prof. Saperstein’s comments (in black there), it is clear that he doesn’t understand the difference between forcings and feedbacks. That means he certainly doesn’t have a copy of the IPCC AR4 at hand…

  42. John Mashey says:

    oops: rayd
    Viscount Monckton claimed it was peer-reviewed, which just means he doesn’t understand real peer-review.

  43. Steve Bloom says:

    It was a review of a peer. I would hope that would have been clear! :)

  44. paulm says:

    John Mashey Says: ….he doesn’t understand real peer-review….

    No it means something much worse!

  45. Steve Bloom says:

    Exactly, Ron, and thanks for the link. I do notice that Saperstein seems to step beyond editing, though, in his comment on Figure 7: “Make more of it: it contradicts the GW claims.”

    Here’s how Monckton made more of it:

    “Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22 °C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today’s near-record-low concentration. If so, then the instability inherent in the IPCC’s high-end values for the principal temperature feedbacks has not occurred in reality, implying that the high-end estimates, and by implication the central estimates, for the magnitude of individual temperature feedbacks may be substantial exaggerations. Source: Temperature reconstruction by C.R. Scotese; CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner; see also IPCC (2007).

    “Since absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, Figure 7 confirms what the recent temperature record implies: the causative link between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature cannot be as strong as the IPCC has suggested. The implications for climate sensitivity are self-evident. Figure 7 indicates that in the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration was ~25 times that which prevailed in the IPCC’s reference year of 1750, the temperature was some 8.5 °C higher than it was in 1750. Yet the IPCC’s current central estimate is that a mere doubling of CO2 concentration compared with 1750 would increase temperature by almost 40% of the increase that is thought to have arisen in geological times from a 20-fold increase in CO2 concentration (IPCC, 2007).”

    But is any of that right?

    First of all, there’s the small issue of Figure 7 itself. It’s from a denialist source and is not peer-reviewed or even produced by a scientist, although it’s supposedly constructed from two sources that are. So who knows if it’s right, but let’s take it a face value. Of those sources, the one showing CO2 levels (GEOCARB III) was still considered current in the AR4, but the Scotese temperature data was not. So even if the construction of Figure 7 is correct, Monckton is attacking a superseded straw man. Worse than that, he’s doing something quite dishonest by referencing the AR4 analysis and not being clear that he’s comparing it with substantially different data. (See the IPCC’s parallel discussion in AR4 WG1 Ch. 6 pp. 440-1, which includes a similar although much more detailed graphic that Monckton could have used instead.)

    Had Monckton (or Saperstein) looked at the peer-reviewed literature on this subject, it would have been impossible to miss this recent paper (“Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years”) that tied up the last loose ends on deep-time climate sensitivity.

    Neither analysis goes back far enough to cover Monckton’s example of the Cambrian, though, so let’s look at that separately to see if he did it right within his own terms.

    First of all he has a graph-reading problem: His 8.5C temp difference is really 10.5C, although he did get the 7000 ppm CO2 number right. So taking the pre-industrial CO2 level (280 ppm) and the IPCC central sensitivity of 3C per CO2 doubling, we need about 4-1/2 doublings to get to 7000 ppm, but the 10.5C is more like 3-1/2. So Monckton is right! Ah, but there has been some legerdemain. He’e taking the IPCC “central” sensitivity rather than considering the entire range. A number around 2.2C (more than the 2.0C bottom of the range) works very nicely, so we can’t say the IPCC is at all wrong. But actually Monckton did something much worse — his 7000 ppm figure has error bars on the order of +/- 4000 ppm! Now we see why the the IPCC and the paper I linked didn’t try to do anything with most of the Paleozoic: The errors are just too large to draw meaningful conclusions.

    So basically Monckton’s whole deep-time analysis was a fraud from top to bottom. He had to have known that, but I suppose it’s not clear that Saperstein did.

    Hopefully Raven and any other denialists reading this will take the appropriate lesson from it.

  46. john says:

    All the ranting by anti-science deniers above defending TVMOB’s article and attempting to giv eit credibility merely confirms my belief that the APS needs to do more than it has. We’re not dealing with rational people here.

  47. John Hollenberg says:

    I came across another Monckton debunking (of his earlier paper, not the present one) that some may find interesting:

    http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=27

  48. David B. Benson says:

    fact:

    from the Free Online Dictionary:

    1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
    2.
    a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
    b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

    from Encarta

    1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

    2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
    based on fact

    3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

    Them’s the facts. :-)

  49. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    Wow, a dictionary quoter!

    I am so impressed.

  50. John Hollenberg says:

    Realclimate has now added their official debunking of the article:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/

  51. msn nickleri says:

    ThankS

    1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

    2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
    based on fact

    3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

    Them’s the facts

  52. Antony says:

    …”As the APS makes clear, just because somebody uses a lot of numbers and formulas, that doesn’t make their analysis either scientific or credible.”

    Quite true, and this goes for BOTH sides of the argument. Never forget this.

  53. jsamples says:

    The APS is like the old man in the wizard of oz who says: “Pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain.” Or like the cop who says: “just move along – there’s nothing to see here.”

    But we’re all thinking adults here aren’t we… And we know better… Don’t we…

  54. silentsigh says:

    You just have to laugh at Monckton – you cant make this shit up lol. People, take a look at this rap battle between Monckton and Al Gore – it’s great for venting some laughs at the clowns… with a serious message at the end.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o

    spread like wildfire

  55. truthcameout says:

    Sure Lord Monckton is not a PhD scientist, he does however have much more credibility than Al Gore. I seem to be the 1st post here since the Climategate broke. Yes several emails have noted the need to ‘adjust’ the data or the models to make the theory CRU East Anglia wants to prove as true. This appears to be as far from science as Gore’s state of the Earth being a million degrees hot a few miles down. That statement Gore made recently is absurd. Monckton has not let out whoppers that can match that one. Gore has several more that have been debunked. The truth of the ‘inconvenient truth’ is getting more inconvenient every day ….

  56. Unbeliever says:

    Let’s see.

    Take out your calculators, and add up all dead scientists that ever lived in history. Write that number down
    Now add up all living scientists.

    Subtract the number of dead scientists from the number of living scientists.
    There will be a positive number.

    Which is saying, there are now more scientists on this planet that ever lived in history.

    That’s an awful lot of mouths to feed. The money usually comes from the taxpayer.

    Imagine you’re a scientist. You need a salary. There’s stiff competition because there are a lot of colleagues, and there’s a limited science budget.

    So what do you do? Ride with the current flow and try to out-scream the competition? “It can be even worse, give me money, and I will investigate!”
    Or will you take the opposite stand, or skeptic view? “It is not so, give me money and I will seek to prove it”

    Regardless of the subject, which of the two strategies will yield the most funding in your opinion?

    I think I know. But I’ll let you make up your own mind.

    Regards,
    Unbeliever

  57. J. Kross says:

    The unbeliever # 56 gets my vote.