What are carbon (CO2) emissions folks scared of by refusing to publish ANY calculations challenging premises?

Question

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/

Answer 1

That's an excellent link, and clearly shows that within the APS there is discontent with the official position on agw.  That discontent is not in itself surprising...how long can you silence the truth and life-long work of notable physicists, and expect them to concur with lies?   Those who are expressing discontent have come to realize that agw science is nothing more than a political scam, and have decided to speak out about it.  Good for them!  One wonders why the APS has taken the anti-scientific view that they have.

Answer 2

This is the problem with getting your science news from a conservative media outlet.  It's wrong.

Monckton's paper was simply submitted to be published in the APS newsletter.  In no way was it a peer-reviewed paper, or even ever intened to be peer-reviewed.  It's just a newsletter story, and that's all it ever was.

Eric C - I didn't say anything about the author.  I simply stated the fact that the paper was not peer-reviewed, nor was it intended to be.  I pointed out the many flaws in the paper itself in several other questions.   This question did not ask 'where is the paper wrong?'

Answer 3

The earth is heating up - it has been doing it for centuries. (Read your history books) There was a continental ICE SHEET COVERING A LARGE PART OF THE US. It is gone. I would assume

I THINK AGW reasoning is it must have been all those campfires ;)

Be honest. If you are trying to make money make something that is practical, and works, that people want. Do try to lie to me. Theft by deception is still theft even though you used no force.

What heats planet Earth? Hmm. – the Sun

What has Solar Cycles? Hmm. – the SUN

What is a small contributor to Carbon Dioxide in the Air? Hmm – MAN

What is insignificant to planet temperature? Hmm. CO2. CO2 levels rising precipitate temperature declines.

Does something look backwards in this equation? AGW - you should have presented your lies at the very least in a more systematic method, or chosen a more practical villain than Carbon.

I would have chosen better spokesmen also R.Kennedy, A.Gore, and Lieberman - what a joke.

Argue all you want. I am a meat eater. I do not eat Air. Put some cold hard facts in front of me that Global Warming is Man-Made. Don’t put a bunch of manipulated computer models in front of me. I can program too – would you like a flower?

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

They fear repercussions.  Meaning they fear others who challenge them in an aggressive manner.  When they say they have the evidence, does everyone come rushing in?  No, look what happened to Galileo when he said the Sun not the Earth is the centre.

If say that an oil company's money is at stake if there is irrefutable evidence that burning petroleum is totally responsible for nature's problem, would they want that report to be published?

As well there have been news articles that it is better to drink beer than it is to exercise, or that pizza can fight cancer.  But the underlining truth about the articles that makes these reports nonsense.  Many of the people claiming global warming may want to make sure that their numbers are correct and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Besides, do you think they want to be right about global warming, that it is happening?

Answer 5

Apparently many do not know what "peer reviewed" means, including the Viscount.  Having one "eminent physicist" review a paper does not count as peer reviewed.  I have published in APS journals.  Generally, you may have one colleague review a paper before it is submitted which it sounds like is what happened with this paper.  Then there is generally 3 reviewers who then usually nit pick on every minor detail.  Three or four revisions are not uncommon.  For some reason Mr. Monckton does not think his paper needs to go through this process to considered peer reviewed.

To answer the question, there are many published calculations in real "peer reviewed" journals.  Generally a subscription is needed to read them or you can try your local university library.

Answer 6

Dana's response is typical.  Instead of offering a critique of Monkton's work, he tries to discredit the author.  If it is not peer reviewed (an  eminent Professor of Physics had in fact scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail) then were is he wrong.

As for the APS statement ""Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." that really says a lot.  Will this be half a  degree or five?

Answer 7

The only thing "The Register" prove is bad attempt to try and put spin on a story that is already dead.

It was posted in a small section by an individual editor who put in a false statement, and will probably be looking for a job soon.

If the APS had removed the article then the cry would have been conspiracy, cover up etc etc.

Answer 8

I don't think they're scared to publish any calculations; what they're scared of is publishing something that is unreviewed, probably wrong, and then having people accept it as fact.  If Monckton doesn't want to have a disclaimer, nothing is stopping him from submitting his paper to a peer-reviewed journal and then going through the standard process that the rest of us have to go through.

Answer 9

The APS did publish the calculations, which is fine.  The problem arose when unscrupulous anti-AGW folks started posting lies about it all over the Internet.  They claimed it was A) Peer reviewed, B) The APS had changed position on AGW, and C) It was mathematical proof that the IPCC was wrong.  All 3 of these were blatantly wrong and they besmirched the reputation of the APS.  For the sake of it's membership base, the APS newsletter editors had to take immediate action to correct the lies.

It's sad that the anti-AGW crowd can't be honest and simply say a debate on AGW was published in the APS newsletter.  Then let people read the material for themselves.

Boatman - here's some links to get you started on seeing the bogus math used in the paper:

http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/0...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

We'll probably never read any kind of comments about this paper in an actual scientific journal, because they don't have time to deal with every error made by non-scientists writing op-ed pieces.

Answer 10

I only have one question... is the article correct or incorrect? Guess we need to wait a while for it to be "peer" reviewed.