Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Not quite getting the hang of this peer-review thing.
| Quote | DLH: PeerGate review scandal at American Physical Society:
| Quote | The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
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 ...Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology? |
| Quote | Prof. Arthur Bienenstock, President of the American Physical Society:
Thank you for your message concerning the American Physical Society’s treatment of the article by Lord Monckton in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society. I am writing to discuss issues raised by some of you...
the review was an editorial review for a newsletter, and not the substantive scientific peer review required for publication in our journals... I hope that this clarifies matters for you. |
| Quote | The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
I have had your notice of refusal to remove your regrettable disclaimer from my paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Since you have not had the courtesy to remove and apologize for the unacceptable red-flag text that, on your orders, in effect invites readers of Physics and Society to disregard the paper that one of your editors had invited me to submit, and which I had submitted in good faith, and which I had revised in good faith after it had been meticulously reviewed by a Professor of Physics who was more than competent to review it, I must now require you to answer the questions that I had asked in my previous letter, videlicet –
1. Please provide the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it (if any) who considered my paper (if anyone considered it) before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper;
2. Please provide a copy of this rapporteur’s findings (if any) and ratio decidendi (if any);
3. Please provide the date of the Council meeting (if there was one) at which the report (if any) was presented;
4. Please provide a copy of the minutes (if any) of the discussion (if there was one);
5. Please provide a copy of the text (if any) of the Council’s decision (if there was one);
6. Please provide a list of the names of those present (if any) at that Council meeting (if there was one);
7. If, as your silence on these points implies, the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, please explain 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 (let us have no more semantic quibbles about the meaning of “scientific review”);
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)? And, if the Council has not in fact met to consider my paper as your red-flag text above my paper implies, how dare you state (on no evidence) that the Council disagrees with my conclusions?
8. Please provide the requested apology without any further mendacity, prevarication, evasion, excuse, or delay.
Finally, was the Council’s own policy statement on “global warming” peer-reviewed? Or is it a mere regurgitation of some of the opinions of the UN’s climate panel? If the latter, why was the mere repetition thought necessary?
Yours truly, |
|
Yours truly, you mendacious, prevaricating, evasive Dr. Bienenstock.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
