Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:41 AM
Subject: Viscount Monckton's Remarks - American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society

Lord Monckton has held open a challenge to Al Gore for OVER one year - to debate the science of Global Warming (now Climate Change) in any venue of Gore's choice. This challenge has been widely published in the UK and the US.

Al Gore will NEVER debate this issue with a qualified scientist - BECAUSE he knows he will lose hands down......Ken
(please feel free to post or distribute this exchange in any manner deemed of value-Ken)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Monckton
Date: Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: Viscount Monckton's Remarks - American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society

Dear Mr. Shock - Many thanks for kindly rallying to the defence of open academic discourse against what seem to be the maladroit and mendacious attempts of a narrow, political faction to bring the Enlightenment to an end and usher in a new, sullen, Dark Age. For a really good laugh, read the clunkily pompous, mathematically-illiterate statement of the Council of the APS on "global warming". Any mathematician with even the most rudimentary knowledge of chaos theory (and I have considerable experience in modeling chaotic objects, from the Verhulst population model for public-policy purposes to the Mandelbrot fractal for pedagogical purposes) knows that the climate is, in the formal sense, a chaotic object. It is the characteristic of a chaotic object that its long-run evolution cannot be reliably predicted unless the object's initial state is known to a precision that, with the climate, is unattainable, as the formidable Edward Lorenz pointed out in the landmark paper of 1963, published in a climatological journal but not read by most of today's climatologists, with which he founded chaos theory. It follows that any scientific society that, in effect, declares the debate on the evolution of the climate object closed is displaying a hilariously dismal ignorance of elementary mathematics. It is precisely because the climate object and many of its constituent processes are chaotic that it is not possible to predict that a doubling or even a quadrupling of CO2 concentration this century would make any significant or dangerous difference to the climate. Noir is it credible to make any such prediction, particularly given that the CO2 concentration was ~20x today's concentration during the Cambrian era (IPCC, 2001), and yet temperature is thought to have been only ~7 C higher than the present (i.e. well within the high-end predictions of both the UN and the Stern Report for a mere doubling of CO2 concentration: one would have thought that this fact alone would have given one or two of the Council pause for thought).
It is probably fair to say that a majority of the (admittedly very few) papers on quantification of climate sensitivity in the peer-reviewed literature either find that climate sensitivity cannot be reliably quantified or firmly rule out the very high estimates of climate sensitivity that are inputs to, not outputs from, the computer models so heavily relied upon by the IPCC. One cannot - repeat, cannot - reliably model the long-run evolution of climate beyond the Lorenz horizon (about two weeks) using computers or other Turing machines. And climate sensitivity is the only question that matters in the climate debate. If, as I have demonstrated, climate sensitivity is low, then the overwhelming majority (>90%) of papers on "global warming" in the literature become meaningless, because they start by assuming a near-impossibly high climate sensitivity against which the evidence is now overwhelming. The reasons why mean global surface temperature is not rising anything like as fast as the programmers have instructed the models to predict (indeed, in the past seven years the entire 20th-century global temperature increase has been eradicated) are explained in my paper, which demonstrates that there is simply no scientific basis for concluding that high (>1 C per CO2 doubling) climate sensitivity is at all likely. As temperatures continue to fail to rise as the IPCC has predicted, it will slowly, painfully dawn on bodies such as the Council of the APS that their disfiguring attempts to stifle the freedom of academic discourse have damaged the credibility of science, but have had no more effect on the climate than the command of Canute that the tide should not come in and wet the Royal tootsies.
Finally, it may amuse you to know that in 1989 the UN predicted that we had only ten years in which to act, otherwise entire nations would be wiped off the map by "global warming". And, 20 years later, global mean surface temperature is actually lower than it was in 1989. Yet the UN and Gore and the APS Council tell us we have only ten years to act, etc. etc. My own opinion is that scientific bodies should eschew the making of statements demanding political action in consequence of currently-fashionable scientific conclusions. The near-unanimous scientific consensus in favor of eugenics led directly to Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews. The near-unanimous consensus that DDT was bad for you (it is actually safe enough to eat, and, if used only inside dwellings, is environmentally harmless) led to the deaths of 40 million children of malaria - and counting (though at least the WHO, after considerable pressure exerted by me and others, has reversed its murderous, 30-year ban). The similar consensus that HIV should not be made a notifiable disease led to the deaths of 25 million people and counting, with 40 million more already infected. And the dash for biofuels, driven by the "consensus" that increasing the proportion of the atmosphere occupied by a trace gas by just one-ten-thousandth part in 250 years will cause a catastrophe that is almost entirely absent from the peer-reviewed literature, is once again killing millions worldwide, this time by starvation. In the name of humanity, I urge you to call upon the Council of the APS to think again. Do feel free to circulate this email if you like. - M of B

----- Original Message -----
From: "ken shock"
Subject: Re: Viscount Monckton's Remarks - American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:43:13 -0700

To: Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society

Editorial Board:
Lee Schroeder  (Chair)
Co-Editor: Jeff Marque, Senior Staff Physicist at Beckman Coulter Corporation,
1050 Page Mill Rd., MSY-14, Palo Alto, CA 94304,

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 PM
To: "CCNetMedia" <>

CCNet Xtra - 19 July 2008 -- Audiatur et altera pars

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate the
attached letter which he sent today to the President of the American
Physical Society. Christopher Monckton's paper together with the
contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:

The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate
about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here: 

Benny Peiser
Editor, CCNet


19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D., 
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160, 
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American
Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008
edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be
expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines. 

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The
commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to
all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached
reconciliation sheet). 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. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some
days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website
of Physics and Society:

"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."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had
submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points
requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and
published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been
offered or having requested any honorarium.

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

Yours truly,

CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To
subscribe, send an e-mail to ("subscribe
cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information
circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.
The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other
purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER:
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts
and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the
opinions, 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.)


Ronald Kitching
P.O. Box 9809
Frenchville  QLD 4701.
Street Address : 174 Wooster Street
North Rockhampton. QLD 4701. Australia.
RAHCO Web Site <> 

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ