alexlockwood.net

Courtesy and the Monckton Paper

Courtesy may be a lost art. That’s according to Christopher (Viscount) Monckton of Brenchley, who claimed that the decision of the Committee of the American Physical Society (APS) to retract support for his paper Climate Sensitivity Revisited was ‘discourteous’.

The APS originally published Monckton’s paper in its online journal, Physics and Society, editor Jeff Marque.

Yesterday, APS put this disclaimer in red over the paper:

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.

Monckton writes:

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.

Courtesy vs. Peer Review
Courtesy comes from the old French ‘cort’, meaning court. It suggests good manners and behaviour. Which, as Monckton above clearly believes, invalidates the principles of the APS. An editor made a mistake by misrepresenting the APS position on climate change; the APS are correcting this. There is no discourtesy except in rules outside of the peer-review process.

A number of blogs, including Uncommon Descent and Jennifer Mahorasy, are suggesting that an editor’s feedback is the parallel of peer-review. Others are indicating that this is not peer-review. My understanding of peer-review is that this stretches beyond the feedback of one editor working for the publication.

According to Mahorasy, “The Society should not only apologize to Christopher Monckton, it should remove the “warning” and reread its editorial.” Leaning the other way, Joseph Romm at Climate Progress goes as far to say that the editor of the journal, Jeff Marque should be fired from his editorial position. As Romm says, “one ignorant editor at one unpeer-reviewed newsletter does not explode” the scientific peer-reviewed, literature on global warming. The reason?

Jeff Marque calls for comments, but asks for individuals to “Stick to the science!” Romm suggests:

Uhh, how about this, JJM and JJM’s bosses. Stick to scientists!

Either way, Tim Lambert administers a rebuttal of the science in the paper. As has Duae Quartunciae. This is not the first time Monckton (a journalism graduate) has been rebutted.

Marque reprints Monckton’s critique of the IPCC’s analysis of climate sensitivity, even though NASA’s Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org debunked it two years ago as “sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary,” and Dr. Stephan Harrison has shown Monckton’s articles are “full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples.”

Background: What happened?
Viscount Monckton was invited to contribute a paper to an online journal (one of 39 APS titles) that

It appeared as a reasonably large story, with numbers playing a large role:

• the American Physical Society represents 50,000 physicist members
• It was only in November 2007 that the Society made its position on climate change clear (it’s happening, and it’s happening at an accelerated rate due to anthropogenic causes)
• Lord Monckton was claiming the IPCC was out on climate sensitivity by 2000%

Then what happened?
The blogosphere whirled into action. The more opposed and libertarian sites picking up on the story, with headlines such as: ‘Myth of consensus explodes’; Skeptics Global Warming wrote that, as it appeared, the APS was “opening debate because there is significant presence in the scientific community that do not agree with the findings of the IPCC.”

The APS then retreated from the article pretty sharpish. This disappointed a number of bloggers. Jennifer Mahorasy wrote “I was hopeful that at last maybe there would now be some opportunity for real debate and discussion amongst a mainstream community with some understanding of the relevant science.”

It also vindicated a number of climate bloggers who have been monitoring Monckton’s activity. As Richard Littlemore of DesmogBlog asks:

Why would ANY publication of the American Physical Society solicit an article from someone who is not physicist, not a scientist, who has not even got an undergraduate degree in any scientific field, who regularly shills for a host of oily think tanks spending Exxon’s money on climate change denial…?

Richard also links to a Scotsman interview with Monckton where he says lying for profit is acceptable.

But sticking with the science. As Wattsupwiththat notes,

The APS’s PeerGate scandal may well prove to provide much greater publicity and serious examination of Monckton’s thesis than if the disclaimers had never been posted.

He also suggests that:

It also exposes the superficiality of statements by executives of the American Physical Society and other scientific organizations supporting the IPCC’s global warming.

I’m not sure it does. It more exposes the fact that one editor can do something which makes huge ripples in the media coverage of climate change. And the reason it does, which WUWT says, and I agree with, is “how politically and emotionally charged the issue has become.”

Where I disagree with WUWT is when he says: “and when politics, emotions, and science mix, the outcome is never good.” There is no avoiding this mix. What we need to do is get better at accepting the mix, handling it better.

However, the APS are still to respond formally. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Final word: the rules of courtesy
However, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I was chastized on my previous post by Roger Gay from Men’s News Daily, one of the libertarian writers (that’s the description in the About section of MND) to pick up on the story, claiming that I was both attacking the person (Monckton) and straying off subject (by claiming Men’s News Daily was misogynist) and by being inaccurate (calling MND a “blog”).

So, in all courtesy, as I’m not writing about the science, but about the coverage of science in the media, first the summary, and then some guidelines for courteous reporting:

1. Monckton was invited to provide a ‘contrarian’ perspective on global warming
2. The position on dissensus or disagreement in the scientific community was the editor’s, Jeff Marque
3. The journal Physics and Society did not conduct a full peer-review, only an editing
4. The APS has pulled away from the paper, and reaffirmed its position on climate change
5. Monckton’s science has been critized and evaluated as wrong by a number of sources

And then (guidelines I’ll also try to follow):

1. Don’t jump on one article as proof of blowing the ‘myth’ of climate change consensus, or of ruling out proper scientific scepticism
2. Don’t use sensationalist or misleading headlines, for or against (see Risbey on what accounts for sensationalism or alarmism… if it’s in line with the science, then say it)
3. Don’t attack the person–interrogate what they’re saying
4. Stay on message (I apologise for calling Men’s Daily News misogynist. It’s not relevant if they are; perhaps they may apologise to me for calling me biased? Actually, no, I am biased. Or I’d like to think driven by ethical imperative because I read the science and trust the IPCC, the UN, the Royal Society)
5. Stick to the science…
6. …but also stick to the politics (like glue) and to the emotions (as attitudes need to change)

Got any others?

Related posts:

1. Channel 4 ‘did not mislead’ on global warming Ofcom will rule next week that Channel 4 did...
2. Climate talks end without… any coverage The UN Climate Talks which ran from 2-13 June in...
3. Networked journalism to cover climate change How can citizen media help improve the mainstream and commercial...
4. What materially matters: Ofcom and climate Today's Ofcom bulletin confirms the ruling on the mistreatment of...
5. Twenty years on: covering climate change I wonder what the long-term impact will be on my...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

View blog reactions