Although I am sure that you had no involvement or knowledge of this newsletter (PDF) prior to its publication, I thought it prudent to make you aware that it is being used to spread anti-science propaganda on behalf of those who reject mainstream science regarding climate change, and is being touted as a representative document from the APS as a whole. Your passion for communicating science and engaging the public is something that a greatly admire, from your delightful Star Trek book to your recent advocacy of Science Debate 2008. In the past you have lent your voice on behalf of science in pushing back against rubbish like Intelligent Design. It is my hope that you will lend it here to set the public record straight regarding this woeful misrepresentation of APS’s stance on climate science.

Gratefully yours,

thank you.. I will.

Lawrence

That was fast!

Sirs,

I am sure you are aware of the grossly irresponsible debate sparked by Jeff Marque. What Marque has done is so beyond the realm of real scientific debate that he should be immediately fired from his editorial position. The world simply does not have time to put up with this garbage.

Thank you,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25719194/

I’m sure convinced. You?

JMG,

Thanks to the link to the article on our Hydrogen future. I noticed there was not a single mention of BEV’s or PHEV’s. The group was headed by a retired Exxonmobil exec. I bet the exec. is just hoping that Congress pushes for Hydrogen so Exxonmobil can keep selling gasoline to an underfueled world for a few more years.

I ask you next to investigate the obviously flat earth.

Time to debunk this “earth as a globe” heresy.

And isn’t gravity just a theory?

I am sure you are aware of the grossly irresponsible issue (vol. 37, no.3) of Physics and Society edited by Jeff Marque. What Marque has done is so beyond the realm of real scientific debate that he should be immediately fired from his editorial position. He is an embarrassment to the scientific profession. The Bush administration has conducted 17 federal studies of climate change. Despite political pressure to conclude the opposite, each concluded that the likelihood was greater than 90% that the cause was primarily anthropogenic. There is not a single reputable scientific study published in any peer-reviewed journal, which disagrees with this conclusion. Yet Jeff Marque implies that there is a debate on this issue, and prints an article by a non-scientist, Christopher Monckton, whose opinions have been thoroughly debunked, to create the impression of a debate. Allowing Marque to continue as Editor of what was previously considered a responsible publication would do great damage to the reputation of the APS.

That is not to say that there is no disagreement about the IPCC’s forecasts. While no one responsible disagrees with the conclusion that climate change is anthropogenic in its primary origin, many disagree over what this means for our planet. Most scientists believe that the IPCC has under-estimated the likely downside scenarios, as the IPCC was subjected to considerable political pressure to do so. It is therefore safe to take the pessimistic forecasts from the IPCC study and assume things will be worse. How much worse is a subject for debate.

If you allow Marque to continue, next he will be suggesting a debate exists in the scientific community about whether the earth is flat, or whether gravity truly exists. Time to salvage your damaged reputation, do the right thing, and jettison Marque.

William C. Eacho
Seal Harbor ME

Thank you for taking the time to send your email.

Please note that the FPS Executive Committee is working on a timely and appropriate response.

Sincerely yours,

Andrew Zwicker
Chair, FPS

Imminent ice-age, among other things.

Not too loud. The deniers will jump on this garbage if they find out about it. I wonder why they don’t publish these wonderful “theories” in peer-reviewed journals. Oh, I forgot about the “peer review” part

I don’t remember reading this anywhere in the short and easily understood climate change statement nor the recent “reaffirmation”. I did, however, read (in the statement) that the evidence for GW was “incontrovertible”. And this:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

Which is fairly unobjectionable, even to “denialists”.

William Eacho said
“What Marque has done is so beyond the realm of real scientific debate that he should be immediately fired from his editorial position. He is an embarrassment to the scientific profession.”

Wow, this is frightening.

I haven’t seen anything of this yet.

This is what science is about, the denial of discussion is real climate propaganda.

[JR: Try reading the links.]

JR: Yes, temperatures have increased within the range Hansen had projected. You can spend all the time you want trying to figure out what the errors are in the Monckton piece, but I don’t waste time anymore on long-debunked nonsense that is far outside of actual observations and establish scientific theory, particularly when it is from non-scientists. Read the new disclaimer.]

As Joe points out, Gavin Schmidt rather thoroughly debunked Monckton’s earlier version of this piece several years ago at RealClimate.

Monckton added a few new bits, but nothing that makes a difference.

But, how could anyone take seriously someone who complains, in the second paragraph:

“The models heavily relied upon by the IPCC had not projected…
(long list of things):

nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto.”

Monckton is correct: Earth climate simulators do not predict what’s happening on Pluto. However, he omitted complaining that the simulations don’t predict the stock market, either.
IF anyone thinks that temperatures on other planets are relevant, see
Skeptical Science, which has a nice list of long-debunked arguments that appear again and again, with brief descriptions and then pointers to relevant scientific papers. In this case, see:
15 Mars
20 planet
36 Neptune
38 Jupiter

Planetary temperatures are always jiggling around, and you can always find some that are warming, and some that are cooling.

650 Brighton Rd.
Kelowna, BC. Canada, V1X 5K5 250 765 8726

American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper

PeerGate review scandal at Applied Physical Society

Will APS redress Monckton’s grievances and apologize? Or persist is declaring any questioning of IPCC is intolerable?

Bravo.

It never ceases to irk me how often scientific data is referred to as a “belief.” Even Al Gore uses this term, and wasn’t it nice of NPR’s Talk of the Nation to have Mr Gore on right before a segment about the marketing of the message of global warming.

No, it’s not frightening. Why would you be frightened of the truth? The truth is, Mr. Jeffrey Marque invited an known propagandist to publish a crank essay in a newsletter associated with a prestigious US physics organization, and portrayed that essay as credible scientific debate. He should be removed from his editorial position forthwith, and indeed, there is no doubt he will be.

What you are suggesting, is rather in the realm of rhetoric, which is about winning an argument, and not getting at the truth (this is why Plato denounced Rhetoric as immoral).

Thanks for learning,

Yeah, that Schwartz article had some doozies in it, but I didn’t know he was a propagandist. Perhaps it was Hafemeister? Monckton and H&S sent in articles, they were reviewed (not formal peer review), and were published with corrections. Despite the informal review, both articles contain some large errors in logic. Newsletter articles are not meant to be perfect (though they may like them to be), and surely you could find major errors in every APS FPS newsletter since the newsletter began.

Despite what you may like to have happen, I am sure APS does not search through realclimate for a “thorough debunking” of everything they publish in their newsletters, and I suspect the real reason you wish to have Marque fired is a vehement distaste for Monckton and “denier” sensationalism (like the dailytech article), both of which are out of APS’s control (can’t please everybody), and are surely not real reasons to have Mr. Marque fired. Sorry.

Feel free to point out to us the ‘large errors in logic’ in Mr. Hafemeister’s and Schwartz’s vastly oversimplified ad hoc primer to carbon dioxide forcing and sensitivity. Be specific.

Removal from his editorial position is not ‘being fired’.

I’m sure they can find work for him in janitorial.

I bears noting that in the same newsletter as the statement of the editor and the article of Monckton is an article by David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz of the physics department at Cal Poly University.

Titled ‘A tutorial on the basic physics of climate change’ it gives a pretty clear and cogent argument about the physical effects when one starts changing the gas mixture in planetary atmospheres.

Their abstract spells it out quite clearly, and I quote

“In this paper, we have used several basic atmospheric–physics models to show that additional carbon dioxide will warm the surface of Earth. We also show that observed solar variations cannot account for observed global temperature increase.”

I won’t bore you with the mathematics but their conclusion is clear.

“Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gases will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”

While the mathematics behind the physics described in this article should be relatively easy to validate, it must be noted that this publication is NOT peer reviewed and therefore not meeting the stringent acceptance criteria of journals or of scientific discourse.

As for the editor and statements made, even in newsletters, societies that engage in engineering and scientific endeavour tend towards staying away from the fringes. I will be the first to admit that this tendency can sometimes narrow innovation and discovery but we do this to maintain focus.

Sometimes radical ideas have to be introduced gradually. Good examples are tectonic shifting of the earths crust and the ability of viruses to move genetic material from species to species.

I would not be surprised if there were some very interesting conversations going on within the APS leadership and should the consensus be that the editor has stepped out of bounds there will certainly be changes.

I think the large error in logic on Schwartz’s part was sending in such sloppy work (I could say the the same thing for Monckton). Unfortunately, the oversimplification was at the expense of accuracy, like oversimplifying so often does. For instance, this:

“Our zero-dimensional box model did not take into account the
following variable factors: Reflection, absorption and emission by
air, aerosols, clouds and surface; Convection of sensible and latent
(evaporation) heat; Coupling to oceans and ice; Variations in three
dimensions;”

I could get into more detail if you wish, but really, it was besides the point (which I suspect was your intention).

“Removal from his editorial position is not ‘being fired’.”

Ah, well, i suggest you tell that to Dr. Romm, as it was his phrasing:

“What Marque has does is so beyond the realm of real scientific debate that he should be fired from his editorial position.”

But really, this is just semantics, and again, besides the point.

and Variable solar flux.

“Feel free to point out to us the ‘large errors in logic’ in Mr. Hafemeister’s and Schwartz’s vastly oversimplified ad hoc primer to carbon dioxide forcing and sensitivity. Be specific.”

I think the large error in logic on Schwartz’s part was sending in such sloppy work (I could say the the same thing for Monckton). Unfortunately, the oversimplification was at the expense of accuracy, like oversimplifying so often does. For instance, this:

“Our zero-dimensional box model did not take into account the
following variable factors: Reflection, absorption and emission by
air, aerosols, clouds and surface; Convection of sensible and latent
(evaporation) heat; Coupling to oceans and ice; Variations in three
dimensions; and Variable solar flux.”

I could get into more detail if you wish, but really, it was beside the point (which I suspect was your intention).

“Removal from his editorial position is not ‘being fired’.”

Ah, well, i suggest you tell that to Dr. Romm, as it was his phrasing:

“What Marque has does is so beyond the realm of real scientific debate that he should be fired from his editorial position.”

But really, this is just semantics, and again, beside the point.

Please do.

I am especially interested in your crackpot theory of variable solar flux.

Can I has better grammar from climateprogress.org (especially when denouncing another editor)?

So I guess your quantum neurolyzer needs a wetware update, huh?

What sort of a biophysicist are you, anyways? Did it even occur to you to send a quick email to the author alerting him of a glaring spelling error?

Do you quote the dictionary as well?

Hello -

Lest you think the antics of wayward APS staffer Jeff Marque will pass unnoticed in the countryside, I want to tell you that I noticed and that I find Marque’s comments to be reprehensible. He has smeared the APS with his off-the-wall, unsupported newsletter opinions and his willingness to play fast and loose with facts, the truth, and genuine scientific consensus.

He cites Christopher Monckton. Come on! Seriously?? I guess he assumes we don’t know of Monckton and his terrible reputation, and yes, Americans do tend to be ignorant of such details. That doesn’t mean you get to lie to them about this issue.

This attack on science heaps disgrace upon the APS. Getting rid of Jeff Marque would go along way toward restoring its credibility, at least with me and other thinking people.

Peer reviewed or not, science editorials must not be concerned about “fair and balanced” issues. That is the realm of propaganda organs like FOX News. In the sciences, data speaks for itself; it is impervious to the influence of opinion…either for or against any particular issue or theory. The science is what it is, independent of whether there is even anybody around to hold opinions about it, pro or con. More, science is not subject to being altered or corrupted by a corrupt political agenda. Conclusions and theories derived from and supported by rigorously executed science are what they are. As an editor of a science publication, Marque should understand this. As a science editor, Marque had a duty to ensure that integrity be preserved. By providing a forum for a thoroughly compromised denier propagandist like Moncton, Marque has lent him a legitimacy that he has not earned. He and his corrupt fellow propgandists will use this newly found advantage to further their work of introducing doubt where none is warranted.

Though Moncton’s “work” has been thoroughly rebutted in the past, Marque (or his successor) may be able to negate some of the the damage that Marque has allowed to occur by dedicating the next issue to republishing those rebuttals. Some aggresively implemented remedial effort along that line is now mandatory, because the denier propagandists are attempting to use this situtation to implicate, and make co-complicit, the entire physics community in a lie and a false representation. To the extent that their lie and false representation succeeds, they will be able to manipulate the political process in ways that ill-serve the world. The APS cannot be a party to such doings, not even peripherally.

Us non-science people just kind of follow the money, and I am sure Mr. Marque’s has rcvd some funding lately from Exxon or BP, whomever.

Sirs,

I was surprised, or perhaps appalled, to see that P&S is now citing scientific charlatans for its articles. How anyone could use Lord Monckton of Brenchley as a source for anything other than scorn or sarcasm in a scientific journal is beyond reason – unless of course there is a naked political agenda underlying the whole ridiculous mess. My colleagues and I, though mathematicians (you might call us physicist wannabes, but that’s a topic for another day), do take seriously our responsibility to keep abreast of the sciences in general. We are dismayed to see the otherwise august body of the APS have its reputation sullied by the buffoonery of a sadly misinformed editor. Do please extend my apologies to Mr Marque if the inclusion of Lord Monckton in his article was meant to be taken as a lark or a July Fool’s Day prank.

Yours,

etc, etc.
Dan Meenan

Anyone writing to debate a denier should move the argument forward: What do we do? (Not all solutions are reasonable imo).

I thought of offering to start a forum on the validity of Velikovsky’s ideas about Venus gallivanting around the solar system 6000 years ago, but decided the climate issue is too serious for joking.

I am a retired physicist. Forty years ago I used to think climate warming was something to worry about in my grandchildren’s old age (if I had any which I now do). Now I see it happening, in my father’s old age.

Saperstein did the “review”, and since he expresses nonunderstanding of difference between forcing and feedback, he is clearly not a climate expert.

DON’Tworry about bugging people at the APS.

I *know* they are aware of the problem.

I suspect there will be some serious discussions about:

- governance
- the exact role of the FPS

The point is, what are you gonna do about it? I don’t know about you, but I’m placing my ‘bets’ on 1) science and 2) rationality, and finally 3) space.

We’re gonna need a real rocket. Not some kind of big stick. The real deal.

I just read the response to the questioning whether so-called greenhouse gases were responsible for the current climate change.

I will set aside the inappropriate language used by the reviewer to criticize one of your editors. It doesn’t speak well of your organization. The search for truth is Helgian in nature in that there is a thesis (CO2 causes climate change) and an antithesis (there is no climate change or its not caused by CO2). In a civilized discussion, neither side is stupid or ignorant. Neither side should be fired. It is part of the process of scientific discovery.

As it turns out there is incontrovertible data that questions the greenhouse gas theory (hypothesis).

As a practicing scientist, not conflicted by a need for government funding, I was as concerned with the “consensus” (the history of science is filled with wrong consensuses) as I was about those who dismiss the effect as being the product of a university system dependent on the bureaucracy for funding. While not a physicist or a climatologist, I can read data. Using exclusively NASA data, I was able to prove to myself that the cause of what we call global warming (which I confirmed) did not correlate well with CO2 (as a surrogate for greenhouse gases). What did correlate well was what is known as Total Solar Irradiance. Still further, the effect was confirmed by juxtaposing TSI data with tree ring data. (Paper available on request)

[JR: I’m glad you were able to convince yourself of something that has been so thoroughly disproven in the scientific literature. I respectfully question why anyone would want to buy your foam given your apparent lack of understanding of the scientific method.]

As scientists, we must rise above politics. In the same sense that the research of Dow Chemical and Big Oil is dismissed as having a conflict of interest, government supported science needs to be especially vigilant. The ranker exposed in the criticism of Dr. Marque seems to me to be defensive and not constructive.

We should be thanking Dr. Marque and Viscount Monckton for their courage.

–
T. (Tim) Thomson
Director of Research
Rogers Foam Corp
20 Vernon Street
Somerville, MA 02145
USA
Phone: (617) 623-3010
Fax: (617) 629-2585
Email: tthomson@rogersfoam.com

The forum’s main focus for many years has been on nuclear weapons, reactors, and proliferation issues; they have occasional letters about more general energy issues and some good reviews of books on other subjects (like climate change) but that really hasn’t been their expertise. It probably ought to be, going forward; I would strongly recommend a re-thinking of their practices in handling contributed articles, to at least include a broader editorial board with real expertise in the areas being discussed. I’m sure they could find many volunteers to help with such activities among the forum membership.

No, the problem is that there is “incontrovertible” (to use APS term) evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and we need to get moving right away to keep the problem from getting a lot worse. It doesn’t hurt that the proper solutions will decrease pollution, move us toward energy independence, improve our national security, etc.

Briefly, I’m suggesting that the newsletter form is now falling in a weird ground in between real journals and blogs. If one wants active discussion, it’s hard to get it in a quarterly newsletter, a moderated blog with featured articles by guests might be better.

Otherwise, they need to get serious on some level of refereeing.

But they are in any case discontinuing the printed newsletter; the main reason for the quarterly publication schedule I believe was the constraints of print, so a blog/online forum of some sort makes a lot of sense going forward anyway. I certainly think it could work with some promotional effort…

In my discussions the concept of using the issue as a vehicle to “decrease pollution and move us toward energy independence…” seems to me to be misplaced. If an issue is serious enough, it should stand on its own.

That’s because the “debate” IS already over as far as whether AGW is occurring:

http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 11/ 17/ must-read-ipcc-synthesis-report-debate-over-delay-fatal-action-not-costly/

(Short of some revolutionary finding that large areas of accepted science are wrong, of course.)

> The history of science (and religion) is peppered with discredited incontrovertible evidence.

In other words, you are saying that no degree of scientific certainty would be sufficient to take action on global warming, because there is always some possibility that it could be proven wrong. A very poor way to manage risk.

He understands the same scientific method I do, which doesn’t include brainless activism such as you charging your minions to harass editors you who publish anything you might disagree with.
This appears to be YOUR understanding of the scientific method:

1. Form clique of friends
2. Announce new “ground-breaking paper” to the press. Announce “result” in soundbite form.
3. Get papers published peer reviewed by friends
4. Go to United Nations and declare “the science is settled”
5. Denigrate other scientists who disagree with you as “Deniers” and in league with [insert scary corporation here]
6. Praise other “independent” scientific papers written by your friends which miraculously support your hypothesis.
7. Repeat the above two processes so that you and your friends get lions share of grant money while your opponents are starved of funding and attention.
8. Hide data/methodology so as to prevent replication. Make sure only copy of data is on a floppy disk and never, ever backed up like normal people.
9. Start weblog.
10. When cornered, declare that “science has moved on”

[JR: That is a new one on me. But you’ll be glad to know that your ill-informed diatribe has gotten you a one-way ticket to moderation.]

Let me clarify this for you: the SCIENTIFIC debate about whether AGW is real is over. Of course, freedom of speech allows any damn fool to post whatever they want, which is one of the reasons for the continuing “debate” in circles outside mainstream science.

It is quite telling how AGWers flee any direct debate and instead insist there is “consensus” and “the data is irrefutable!”, despite the obvious case that so many laymen and researchers disagree.

[JR: Sadly or happily — take your pick — science isn’t based on which side possesses “the convincing argument.” If for instance you ever studied quantum mechanics you’d realize how unconvincing many of its predictions are — so much so that Albert Einstein himself could never accept them, even though they have all ultimately been vindicated by experiment. Sceince is based on facts and observations that support (or don’t support) a theory. The professional deniers are always spoiling for a fight because that is what they get paid to do. They don’t have to worry about the facts or future generations. Anyway, if you actually read this blog, you’d know that I don’t insist there is a consensus or the data is irrefutable.]

I think it is more akin to “flat earthers”.

There is a point at which the vast majority of evidence points in a certain direction, so science really does move on to the more interesting and detailed questions, of “where”, “when”, “how much” and “how exactly” — and leaves “whether” as being answered. THIS is what is meant by “science moves on”. Dragging us back again and again and again to debunk the same old “new” objections, all the while declaring to the public that “the theory is on its last legs” in absolute defiance of what is being published in the mainstream of the field, does nothing but create confusion and devalue scientific effort amongst non-scientists and waste the time and resources of the scientists who have to try to counter it.

T Thompson — unless you can explain why your work is more accurate than Solanki’s work — and unless you have submitted your work to the criticism and deconstruction by experts in the field, such as most professionals have to undergo — then expect people not to take your “proof” very seriously at all. You have roughly the same credibility as an electrical engineer who has “disproved” evolution.

I read your comments to my post and have noticed how you are a prolific poster on your site so I thought I might go fishing for information which is off topic for this thread.

First off, full disclosure - I place myself firmly in the “denier” camp. There are multiple reasons for this that I won’t bore you with, but I do look to keep informed on the subject and am always open to pertinent information. One paper I found quite convincing when I was coming to my position was this one relating to the life time of atmospheric CO2: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

I have tried to find papers justifying the “believers” view that it is 100 to 200 years but have been unsuccessful. The best I could find at the IPCC was that they do not dispute the low end numbers for CO 2 life time of 5 to 10 years: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/016.htm

I’ve asked at AGW blogs and haven’t received a response. I’m hoping to get directed to some papers that are based on empirical evidence illustrating the view for the long lifetime for atmospheric CO2.

I would much appreciate it if you could pass something along so I can evaluate, compare and make a more informed judgement on this one subject of the issue.

If you are honestly seeking information, ask at Realclimate.org. By the way, can you give the citation for where the paper in your link was published (peer-reviewed journals only, please)?

[JR: Since this publication is not peer-reviewed, your comment is irrelevant. It does not take a brave editor to publish long-debunked analysis in a newsletter, just an ignorant one.]