"The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" is full of crap himself. Before casting a wary eye on his new ribaldry, however, let me direct you to yet another dismantling of his "thesis" -- this one by Deltoid at ScienceBlogs: "Monckton's triple counting."(Even more debunking here.)
But I digress. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, as he prefers to call himself, or TVMOB, as I will call him because, damn, the acronym is just too sweet, has penned an epistle to the president of the American Physical Society, which you can peruse here [PDF]. (Please note that the picture on the right is not TVMOB nor do I think he would ever participate in this.)
TVMOB is displeased with the new APS disclaimer on his article: "The following 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."
TVMOB writes, "This seems discourteous." You see, TVMOB holds the view that peer review occurs if his article gets suggested edits by a co-editor who happens to be a scientist.
Let me not make the obvious point that being edited by an editor ain't scientific peer review. You can read the editor's requested edits on page two of TVMOB's letter [PDF]. Anybody who has actually been peer-reviewed will note that the proposed edits aren't anything close to what a peer-reviewed set of comments looks like, especially for an analysis as flawed as this one.
Since TVMOB's letter is straight out of Monty Python, let me rather make the point in kind that a peer is "a person who holds any of the five grades of the British nobility: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron."
By that definition, I am sure that TVMOB's paper was not given proper peer review. Indeed, I'm not certain TVMOB has a proper peer on this Earth. Perhaps Senator Inhofe or President Bush.
But pity the poor modern British viscount who whines in his letter, "I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium." Join the club, buddy. Since when do you think scientific newsletters pay you a nickel? Oh, I forgot. You aren't a scientist.
I especially love the conclusion to his epistle:
Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask 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; 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)?
Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?
Yours truly, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Pistols at dawn, perhaps?
One denier website actually labels this "PeerGate scandal." But I believe they have missed the irony.
Should you be interested in learning more about TVMOB, go to the Science & Public Policy Institute website where he is Chief Policy Adviser. You will learn he has astonishing scientific credentials such as a "Nobel prize pin," because he commented on the IPCC Fourth assessment report. This has "earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York." Also "his limpid analysis of the climate-feedback factor was published on the famous climate blog of Roger Pielke, Sr." I kid you not.
Monty Python is alive and well. Oh, and TVMOB knows how to use the words "primo" and "secundo" and "tertio." Some of us can only dream of such scientific achievements.
Finally, if his writing has made you a fan of TVMOB, you can go to "HouseOfNames.com" and purchase products labeled with the Monckton family crest, including mouse pads.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Flat
ataventure Posted 5:49 am
22 Jul 2008
Intrigued myself, not to mention skeptical and a bit disturbed, I decided to dig into the SPPI's supposed credibility. Oh Internet, what did I do before I had you? I read up on SPPI's "publications," Monckton's "credibility", and even went so far as to call the offices of SPPI (they don't answer the phone, and they don't have voicemail...). After ten minutes of Google-ing, I smirked, returned to my friend's blog to make some jovial commentary, and scanned blogs for other mentions of Monckton's theory.
Sadly, I could find none! Well, unless they were praising Monckton's debunking of the "Global Warming Scam". Finally. Finally someone intelligent (and published) takes a good, solid look at the loony toon that is TVMOB. Thanks for the article. Keep up the good work.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 12:11 am
24 Jul 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:52 pm
29 Jul 2008
I wonder how many of you writers above are smart enough to publish his nine intellectual books of diversity? There was also his million pound challenge "eternity puzzle", that was eventually cracked by two mathematicians with a computer programme. He's a clever guy, with lots of other works too! Can you do better?
I wonder if you are even smart enough to have read the science in his paper, let alone understand or critique it?
I wonder if any of YOU have made valuable CONTRIBUTIONS to this world, as he has?
Permalink
Notsniw Posted 4:56 am
30 Jul 2008
I wonder if you know that Christopher is a liar who likes to make things up?
I wonder if you know that he falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords?
I wonder if you know that Christopher fabricates his owns Wikipedia entries?
I wonder if you know that Christopher slandered Naomi Oreskes, and has not owned up to the truth?
I wonder if you realise that Christopher can only respond via (IMO) hilarious ad hom attacks, willfully ignoring facts that have pointed out to him?
I wonder if you are Monckton in disguise?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:40 pm
30 Jul 2008
This editor [Me, Jeffrey Marque] invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cf ...
However, later, and clearly against the spirit of this, the on-line newsletter had the following red flag added SOLELY against Monckton's article on the index page, and WITHIN his article. (without consultation with the author)
The following 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.
Monckton protested to APS, and as of July 19 the index was revised to delete the flag, and some time later, it was also removed from his article:
Articles [Index - revised]
A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change. By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. By Christopher Monckton
As of July 31 (EST Oz, 10:30), BOTH articles now contain at their head, a more "carefully worded" disclaimer in normal black font; thus:
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
Quite apart from the fact that existing APS disclaimers and policy WRT to authors views make the insertion of such flags unnecessary, the APS semantics, (Monckton claims that his article WAS peer reviewed), and the APS internal political conflict, the the APS does not appear to have responded adequately to Monckton's complaints!
Watch this space!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh BTW, Monckton's article includes:
Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly-received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture-notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data. Any errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding from any source for this research
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:26 pm
07 Aug 2008
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:40 pm
09 Aug 2008
Permalink
Johnny Cool Posted 12:12 pm
19 Oct 2008
Let me first say that I am a Climate Change sceptic. But I am not anti any-one. I am happy to believe either For or Against IF they can convince me. So far neither party has.
I came across this website after reading TVMOB's (someone's abbreviation above) letter to John McCain. Must confess I had never heard of him so Googled his name to see if he was real and stumbled here.
As far as the arguments above are concerned. There seems to be more personal abuse in the Pro climate change mob than TVMOB. I am not interested in personal abuse or the Monty Python characterisation above which is pretty unrepresentative of some-than can present such a comprehensive paper.
As far as debunking is concerned the maths lost me on line one and statements like:
"Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity"
is bebunking? You gotta be joking.
One of the debunks actually said "Here I confess to sharing a concern with Monckton."
OK, I looked at the Wikipedia thing and was convinced that TVMOB stuffed up here and changed the entry about the "reported" £50,000 libel ( I guess it could have been "reported" some-where or maybe it was wishful thinking). Al Gore is also known to have corrected a few untruths. I cannot see anything wrong with editing your own Wikipedia biography and that one misdemeanour seems to be the only one. TVMOB does not come across to me as an habitual liar.
I think Black Wallaby has a point, cut out the personal abuse and stick to the facts or if they are facts, make them more convincing.
Permalink