----- Original Message -----
From: "ken shock"
To:Subject: Re: Viscount Monckton's Remarks - American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:43:13 -0700To: Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society
Lee Schroeder (Chair)
LBNLCo-Editor: Jeff Marque, Senior Staff Physicist at Beckman Coulter Corporation,
1050 Page Mill Rd., MSY-14, Palo Alto, CA 94304, email@example.com
Electronic Media Editor: Andrew Post-Zwicker
I have read your invitation to host open discussion on the IPCC "Warming" conclusions here:
I was very disappointed to see the following disclaimer here, which infers that the discussion you seek is NOT open :
(this extraordinary article should be studied by all addresses - ken)
"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."
Where are we at gentlemen, are we returning to the Dark Ages? You are all very well aware that open discourse on the Global Warming (now Climate Change) issue has been sadly lacking. You should all be aware of how Lomborg was crucified, and are likely aware that he has been vindicated. Such is the state of our society, and our science, when politics is allowed to BARGE into scientific discourse.
I am referring to former VP Gore calling dissenting scientists heretics, for example. Just what is the difference in what happened to Galileo? Someone had a religion that disagreed with the truthfulness of science, and Galileo was punished for seeking truth. So it is today, with Hansen, just last month, insisting that oil and coal executives should be jailed. By this very utterance, Hansen has committed the greater crime against our society and against science. Hansen has written the PM of Australia, the Governor of Nevada etc etc demanding they stop using, and exporting coal - who does this guy think he is??? (and living off the fat of the land as he is)
By the same token, who is it within your editorial process that has specified the language of the disclaimer posted above in red ? Is this disclaimer about science, or the satisfaction of a politically and media inspired public hysteria. What does this hysteria, or for that matter Al Gore, have to do with Physics??
Please show Lord Monckton the common courtesy which he asks for in his letter - attached.
Sincerely, Kenneth Shock, Physicist
Captain Cook, Hawaii
Russell, New Zealand
ps: there is plenty of evidence here, in my 73 page thread, to show that your statement:
Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. Is not correct !
Begin forwarded message:From: "Peiser, Benny"Date: 19 July 2008 10:12:59 PMTo: "CCNetMedia" <CCNetMedia@livjm.ac.uk>Subject: CCNet: THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETYCCNet Xtra - 19 July 2008 -- Audiatur et altera parsTHE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICALSOCIETY---------------------------------------------------------------------------The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate theattached letter which he sent today to the President of the AmericanPhysical Society. Christopher Monckton's paper together with thecontentious APS disclaimer can be found here:The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debateabout the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:Benny PeiserEditor, CCNet-------------------19 July 2008The Viscount Monckton of BrenchleyCarie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UKArthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,President, American Physical Society,Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.By email to firstname.lastname@example.orgDear Dr. Bienenstock,Physics and SocietyThe editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the AmericanPhysical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might beexpected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbondioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. Thecommissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to athorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede toall of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attachedreconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify forphysicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCCevaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itselfclearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediatelyafter a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Somedays later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the followingappeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the websiteof Physics and Society:"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Itsconclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of theworld scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Societydisagrees with this article's conclusions."This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I hadsubmitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientificallyreviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all pointsrequested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted andpublished the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer thanthe original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having beenoffered or having requested any honorarium.Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me havethe name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor toit who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending textto be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings andratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findingswere presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy ofthe text of the Council's decision, together with the names of thosepresent at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluatedor formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientificjustification, 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 noevidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientificcommunity"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American PhysicalSociety disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of myconclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientificgrounds (if any)?Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me anapology?Yours truly,THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY---------------CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. Tosubscribe, send an e-mail to email@example.com ("subscribecambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Informationcirculated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any otherpurposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER:The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and textsand in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect theopinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.We need to remember Von Mises Great Words More so today than ever before:Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigourously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.Pages 514 - 515 of his book titled Socialism. (Jonathan Cape, London.)
P.O. Box 9809
Frenchville QLD 4701.
Street Address : 174 Wooster Street
North Rockhampton. QLD 4701. Australia.
RAHCO Web Site <www.rahco.com>
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ