Primo…Secundo…Tertio! Lord Monckton Exposes Advocates of Global Warming Dishonesty!

Most readers here are familiar with Lord Monckton’s stance on the matter of global warming, or anthropogenic climate change. His chastisement of those who are promoting the many myths and deceits of earth’s cyclical patterns is approaching legendary status, especially in the gathering of climate change opportunists in Bali, and his exposure of the faulty methods of the UN’s IPCC reports in 2001 and 2007.
Lord Monckton recently issued a report to the American Physical Society, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, and if you will notice, at the top of the report, is a red lettered disclaimer from the APS about Lord Monckton’s report, with no attribution as to whom authorized the disclaimer.
Not one to permit an arrogant statement to go unanswered, after complying with all procedures and protocols for publication, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley responded with an email to the President of the APS. I can only hope to provide a future update to this post, with the reply from the APS leadership.

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.

By email to

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,

Why would the APS add such a disclaimer, knowing the nature of the Viscount, as one who will not back down? Are they perhaps attempting to force an issue where they can discredit or minimize the Viscount’s status? Or are they required to put up such a cowardly and flimsy disclaimer, by their dark overlords from the religion of Goremonism?
Regardless, the ball has been returned, and is in the APS court. I will be watching for any foot-faults.

For your viewing pleasure, one video presentation in two parts, based on Lord Monckton’s work.
Thirty Five Inconvenient Truths Part 1.
Thirty Five Inconvenient Truths Part 2.

*ADDENDUM* Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year.

Der Komödiant – Autorenblog – Schreiben um des Schreibens willen

schreibend • meinend • kauzig • kritisch • Aus Berlin. Kurzgeschichten, Erlebnisse, mal getreu der Geschehnisse, mal völlig der Phantasie entsprungen. Schreibend um des Schreibens willen vom Schreiberling zum Autor.


Sercan Ondem

Father Says...

one dad's thoughts on life


everything about career, self-development, productivity & learning


The Circle Is Not Round

The Reset Blog

Start over but don't stop


A topnotch site

My life as Atu's Blog

a small thougt for a big planet of daydreamer

Taffy Toffy's Blog


About life, the universe and everything

Drowning in depression.

Is'nt it great being a human!

%d bloggers like this: