Duae Quartunciae has been more patient than me, and found even more problems with Monckton's paper.

Monckton has struck back at the APS. Check out this press release from the SPPI

Said, Monckton elsewhere, "Trying to duck the usual process of scientific discourse by arguments about peer-review procedures is an ad-hominem approach which is not worthy of the name of science. What has happened is that the usual suspects, instead of ploughing through the (not particularly difficult) math and saying what I got wrong and why (which is what Popper calls the EE or "error-elimination" step in the scientific-method algorithm), decided it would be easier simply to lobby the president of the APS, who - instead of consulting me first - instantly and shamefully crumbled."

Since Monckton's errors are so blatant (see above) I think it is more likely that the APS folks noticed them as well.

Reported Monckton, "I've had hundreds of emails from Professors, PhDs and other physicists who belong to the APS, on all sides of the "global warming" debate, saying how dismayed they are at the unethical conduct of their President and Council."

I'd believe him, except that Monckton has a habit of making things up.

Lastly, added Monckton, "One might ask President Bienenstock what steps the APS took to peer-review its own half-baked Council policy statement on "global warming", which is unadorned by even a single reference to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. "

Because nobody could find the IPCC assessment reports without a cite...

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...