Gore and IPCC Fraud Exposed! Efforts to Cover Up at APS... (Dumb Ox Exclusive?)

Part I : From World Net Daily...
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Lord Monckton (DailyTech.com)

In another strike against the conventional assertion of a consensus on global warming, a publication of an organization representing more than 50,000 physicists acknowledges many members of the scientific community don't believe humans are the primary cause of climate change.

The editor of Physics & Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, says that with his July issue he wants to kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year along with former Vice President Al Gore for sounding the alarm about alleged man-made global warming. Yesterday, in a speech at Constitution Hall in Washington, Gore challenged the U.S. to make a "man on the moon" effort to produchttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife all of the country's electricity from renewable resources within 10 years.

But Physics & Society Editor Jeffrey Marque says there's a "considerable presence within the scientific community" of experts who don't agree with the IPCC's contention human-produced CO2 emissions likely are the primary cause of global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

Dumb Ox contends that "fraud" on behalf of the IPCC is not too strong a word for the way that they exaggerated evidence and basically HID their methodology to prove a pre-determined conclusion. Gore's fraud in his pseudo-documentary has been established as a matter of law by Britain's highest court. Duh.

Read the rest... and read more complete coverage at "Hot Air"...

Part II: Efforts to cover up at APS? (Oxclusive?)


The scientific report in the APS journal that sparked the controversy by Lord Monckton, former chief science adviser to the British government, has generated another huge controversy not widely reported. In the journal, a DISCLAIMER was posted in front of the article claiming that the piece was NOT peer reviewed and that it went against overwhelming scientific opinion--the usual dogmatic unsupported b.s. wielded by the fanatics of global warming socialism.

Well, duh, and if the article wasn't peer-reviewed, what the hell was it doing in your journal APS?

This disclaimer is obviously the work of the ususl leftist sophomoric idiots who act like they can make the world jump with their high school debate tricks. (Unfortunately they all to easily can, because the media and the U.N. lend all their credibility, or what's left of it, to support them.)

Here's Lord Monckton's letter to the APS (this may be a blogosphere exclusive)...


> From: "Peiser, Benny" <>
> Date: July 19, 2008 7:01:16 AM CDT
> To: "cambridge-conference" <>
> Subject: CCNet: THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY �
>
> CCNet Xtra - 19 July 2008 -- Audiatur et altera pars
>
> THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL
> SOCIETY�
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
>
> 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:
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
>
> The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate
> about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here: �
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
>
> Benny Peiser
> Editor, CCNet
>
> -------------------
>
> 19 July 2008
>
> The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
> Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
> monckton@mail.com
>
> 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 artieb@slac.stanford.edu
>
> 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
> apology?
>
> Yours truly,
> THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

Now that's news!

Have a great weekend,
D. Ox

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.