Comments on: A brief account of an aborted contribution to an ill-conceived debate http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4485 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Francois Ouellette http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4485&cpage=1#comment-10643 Francois Ouellette Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:31:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/a-brief-account-of-an-aborted-contribution-to-an-ill-conceived-debate-4485#comment-10643 Hans and Dennis, I think you may be making too much of this. I understand your desire to see the results of your survey being published somewhere (and frustration at not being able to...), but this newsletter may not be the most appropriate place. This is, after all, an obscure newsletter from an obscure forum of the APS. It has attracted much attention because of Monckton's paper, and what was perceived as a change of policy of the APS regarding climate change, but that's what's come to be expected in these blogospheric days... I have personnally written to a person supposedly in charge at the APS Newsletter to inquire about the disclaimer placed on top of Monckton's article (another very weird episode of this little saga). I have received a courteous reply (which I will not reproduce here, nor divulge it's author's name), that, if anything else, seems to indicate that the newsletter is run rather informally. Personnal initiatives were taken in that context, and now they look rather stupid, because nobody really knows who authorized what, and who was entitled to do it!... In your case, why not accept the Editor's wish to have articles about the scientific aspect of the IPCC conclusion, and not about the scientific aspect of the scientist's opinion of it (two different things obviously)? Personnally, I wish that they will keep on publishing more papers, and hopefully from climate scientists too. But I understand that in this politically charged context, no climate scientist (apart from the usual suspects) will dare challenge the so-called "consensus". The social peer-pressure is already way too strong, and this is perhaps the saddest thing about this whole issue. Hans and Dennis,

I think you may be making too much of this. I understand your desire to see the results of your survey being published somewhere (and frustration at not being able to…), but this newsletter may not be the most appropriate place. This is, after all, an obscure newsletter from an obscure forum of the APS. It has attracted much attention because of Monckton’s paper, and what was perceived as a change of policy of the APS regarding climate change, but that’s what’s come to be expected in these blogospheric days…

I have personnally written to a person supposedly in charge at the APS Newsletter to inquire about the disclaimer placed on top of Monckton’s article (another very weird episode of this little saga). I have received a courteous reply (which I will not reproduce here, nor divulge it’s author’s name), that, if anything else, seems to indicate that the newsletter is run rather informally. Personnal initiatives were taken in that context, and now they look rather stupid, because nobody really knows who authorized what, and who was entitled to do it!…

In your case, why not accept the Editor’s wish to have articles about the scientific aspect of the IPCC conclusion, and not about the scientific aspect of the scientist’s opinion of it (two different things obviously)? Personnally, I wish that they will keep on publishing more papers, and hopefully from climate scientists too. But I understand that in this politically charged context, no climate scientist (apart from the usual suspects) will dare challenge the so-called “consensus”. The social peer-pressure is already way too strong, and this is perhaps the saddest thing about this whole issue.

]]> By: paddikj http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4485&cpage=1#comment-10558 paddikj Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:21:10 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/a-brief-account-of-an-aborted-contribution-to-an-ill-conceived-debate-4485#comment-10558 As a follow on to Rich Horton's comment, the editorial process at the APC newsletter seems like a black box - there is no information about the editorial board (or the editorial process & structure, whatever it may be), and there is no way to post comments. Following "the Editors'" decision to place a disclaimer in front of Monckton's article, he wrote a very detailed letter to the APS President wanting to know exactly the process which resulted in the disclaimer. I went over to the APS Newsletter page expecting to see the letter & a response. Nothing. Very odd, in this Internet age of information glut, to run up against a totally blank wall. BTW, Monckton's letter can be viewed by subscribing to Benny Peiser's newsletter: listserver@livjm.ac.uk As a follow on to Rich Horton’s comment, the editorial process at the APC newsletter seems like a black box – there is no information about the editorial board (or the editorial process & structure, whatever it may be), and there is no way to post comments.

Following “the Editors’” decision to place a disclaimer in front of Monckton’s article, he wrote a very detailed letter to the APS President wanting to know exactly the process which resulted in the disclaimer. I went over to the APS Newsletter page expecting to see the letter & a response. Nothing. Very odd, in this Internet age of information glut, to run up against a totally blank wall.

BTW, Monckton’s letter can be viewed by subscribing to Benny Peiser’s newsletter:

listserver@livjm.ac.uk

]]> By: Rich Horton http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4485&cpage=1#comment-10557 Rich Horton Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:49:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/a-brief-account-of-an-aborted-contribution-to-an-ill-conceived-debate-4485#comment-10557 This episode is funny, in a rather sad way. The inability to come to terms with what it means to claim a "consensus" in this context has always been a weakness in this debate. Survey research does have something to say about the matter...its a shame they wont try to learn from it. The claim that your work is "political" is nothing short of ludicrous. This episode is funny, in a rather sad way.

The inability to come to terms with what it means to claim a “consensus” in this context has always been a weakness in this debate. Survey research does have something to say about the matter…its a shame they wont try to learn from it.

The claim that your work is “political” is nothing short of ludicrous.

]]>