Guest post by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
UPDATE: A new condensed rebuttal from Monckton for easier reading is available below.
Once again I have much to thank Anthony Watts and his millions of readers for. My inbox has been full of kind messages from people who have now had the chance to dip into my point-by-point evisceration of Associate Professor Abraham’s lengthy, unprovoked, and widely-circulated personal attack on me.
Latest news – sent to me by two readers of Anthony’s outstanding blog – is that Abraham, inferentially on orders from the Trustees of his university acting on advice from their lawyers, has (without telling me) re-recorded his entire 83-minute talk to take out the very many direct accusations of “misrepresentation”, “complete fabrication”, “sleight of hand” etc. etc. that he had hurled at me in the original version of his talk. For instance, he now seems to have appreciated his unwisdom in having accused me of having “misrepresented” the work of scientists I had not even cited in the first place.
Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes. To my own lawyers, Abraham’s retreat will be of interest, because it is in effect an admission that his talk is libelous, and that he and his university know it is libelous. Though his new version corrects some of the stupider and more egregious errors in the original, many crass errors remain, including errors of simple arithmetic that are surely disfiguring in a “scientist” presuming to correct mine.
At several points in the new version, Abraham rashly persists in misrepresenting me to third-party scientists, getting hostile quotations from them in response to what I had not said, and using them against me. He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago, long before he recorded the new version of his talk – he can no longer legitimately maintain that any of his numerous remaining libels is a mere inadvertence.
Plenty of libels indeed remain in the new version of Abraham’s talk: he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me. In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels. And when the courts find that his talk was and remains malicious, then he will have thrown away the one defense that might otherwise have worked for him – that in US law a public figure who sues for libel must be able to prove malice. I can prove it, in spades.
Several of you have posted up comments asking to see the full (and entertaining) correspondence between me, the professor, his university, and its lawyers. The ever-splendid Joanne Nova is kindly hosting the correspondence, so that we can spread the word as widely as possible across the Web to counter the malevolence of the many climate-extremist websites that are now ruing their earlier and too hasty endorsement of Abraham’s libels. Not one of them contacted me to check anything before describing me as “the fallen idol of climate skepticism”, “a sad joke”, etc., etc.
May I ask your kind readers once more for their help? Would as many of you as possible do what some of you have already been good enough to do? Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him – even at this eleventh hour – to take down Abraham’s talk altogether from the University’s servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help.
It is sometimes a cold and lonely road we follow in pursuit of the truth, and the support of Anthony and his readers has been a great comfort to me. Thank you all again.
====================
See also: A detailed rebuttal to Abraham from Monckton
And
A new condensed rebuttal for easier reading is here
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer best quality 000-152 prep resources to help you pass 1z0-051 and HP0-D07 exam in easy and fast way.
As far as I can see, Professor Abrahams still has two presentations on his faculty webpage – his “original rebuttal” and a “revised rebuttal”.
An erudite and eloquent education applied to the professor. More than he received in his “other” schooling, no doubt.
Why sue in the US? The High Court would take an interest, methinks…
I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change. As far as I can tell, Prof. Abraham did a nice job. Please point out where he is wrong.
REPLY: Do try to at least spell his name correctly when insulting him, and do try to read the other article before engaging keyboard. – Anthony
With great pleasure, sent to the above e-mail account.
Dear Sir:
Doubters, like skeptics, have their place but calumnious malfeasance is not acceptable from an educational institution. Kindly remove and rescind the outrageous hit-piece that Professor Abraham has presented, as it sullies what is surely the good name of your school.
Regards
Done and done, 2010-07-14-10:25
Chase him till he falls.
Thank you Lord Monckton
Viscount Monckton, your efforts deserve backup from us, so Email carefully written and sent.
i sent one asking for an online debate between the 2 hosted by the uni’s servers. don’t think we’ll get one but you gotta try.
Jan
When you have finished your “Spelling 101” course, you might want to read Messrs Moshe and Fuller’s book, as advertised here. Then you will be better informed about the peer review process as conducted in the world of climate science.
Sorry Mosher!
Not sure about Abraham’s employer’s funding, but if it is public, as with Mann, perhaps a closer look into the propriety of Abraham’s attack would be indicated.
Public moneys used to discredit a scientist? Discrediting the science is one thing, that’s the job of science… but personal AND inaccurate attacks? Me thinks the public should get their money back.
The criminal behaviors
You can’t unring a bell
An abortion doesn’t undo a rape
If it is out there in writing, offering a change only proves the first redndition was wrong.
I looked a short time ago (15:40 UK time 14 July 2010) and Abrahams appeared to have two versions of his talk posted:
Listen to my revised rebuttal of Christopher Monckton
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Monckton%20Presentation%20June%2022/index.htm
Listen to my original rebuttal of Christopher Monckton
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Original%20Presentation/index.htm
So maybe to announce he has climbed down is premature.
If you cannot argue, sue and censor. Many posters here criticized Mann for demanded his copyrighted image not be used in a video.
REPLY: And friends of Mann, like scumbag Kevin Grandia at the PR firm DeSmog blog, went ballistic when I made the same claim about my image, and my work being used in Climate Crock of the Week. Double stand, pot kettle and all that. Not impressed with your argument. -A
I was stunned by the level of scientific incompetence and the unscholarly tone exhibited by “professor” Abraham. Lord Christopher Monckton thoroughly eviscerated Abraham’s presentation, question by question and point by point.
Abraham’s amateurish “hit job,” probably orchestrated with the assistance and acquiesence of other AGW supporters, once again demonstrates the mean-spirited arrogance of many in the AGW movement, whose final line of defense of a now indefensible theory is the use of lies, distortions and ad hominem attacks. Such is the fallen state of “mainstream climate science.”
Isn’t it extraordinary that despite the extremely obvious devaluation of the term “peer reviewed” to those with an open mind who actually read any of the leaked emails, it can still be used by those with apparently closed minds as though it carries some weight.
If “Jan” does not consider him/her self to have a closed mind, then why respond to this article without apparently reading Chris Monckton’s response to Ass. Prof. Abraham.
Even some of the recent enquiries, a.k.a. whitewashes, agreed that the peer review process was clearly broken.
Here is the link at the University of St Thomas that shows both of Associate Professor John P. Abraham’s presentations.
Original and Revised rebuttal of Christopher Monckton:
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/
There have been two versions of Abraham’s presentation available for some time now. I’m not sure how long they’ve been available, but searching my browser history shows I last accessed the revised version on June 21, 2010, well before Monckton’s official rebuttal was released.
Both versions of the presentation are up for those interested.
Original: http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Original%20Presentation/index.htm
Revised: http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Monckton%20Presentation%20June%2022/index.htm
Lord Monckton — do you have a link to the correspondence. I looked at Jo Nova’s website but could not find it.
Watching this exchange develop is much like gawking at a road accident or a train wreck as one passes by. I try to avert my eyes, but just cannot help myself.
It’s the climate wars equivalent of other guilty pleasures such as that 2nd bowl of ice cream that I should pass up.
To add to my earlier comment, it is hard to see how in any sense Professor Abrahams has “climbed down”. It seems to me he is like John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to fight!”
I took me forever to read. I wish I could write as well as The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. It takes a little man to stab you in the back, in the dark without warning, it takes a real man to face you off and fight in the public light.
Dr. Abraham should have known better than to diddle with Lord Monckton for Monckton is one smart hombre.
…sent to the good Father…
Father Dennis J. Dease,
President of St. Thomas University
Having witnessed the presentation by your Dr. Abraham in regards the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, and Monckton’s rebuttal, I find there to be problems in several areas. I am a follower of the science, working in the scientific arena, and I work with climate scientists so I am familiar with the issues and science presented.
This is Dr Abraham’s presentation:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
In it there are glaring errors which Lord Monckton addresses in his rebuttal:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf
I don’t know where Dr. Abraham gets his funding, but I would be concerned
about your funding sources demanding accountability when personal attacks are involved on “company time”, as it were. Further, his use of resources in that endeavor should indicate increased oversight by your administration in the future.
It may provide some insight into the real science and real issues of climate change and so-called “global warming” if you would periodically reference a website that supports the open discussion of the science involved, along with the political efforts to thwart the efforts of scientists trying to bring to light the facts of the scientific debate.
Please visit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Dr. Abraham is welcome to present his “science” as he understands it. Personal and ad hominem attacks only serve to undermine his credibility, and that of your institution.
Respectfully,
Dennis Meredith
I’ve written to Father Dease asking him to remove both the presentations, to issue an apology and initiate an enquiry into Abraham’s conduct. It’s the only appropriate thing to do, given Abraham’s atrocious behaviour. But, of course, whether he’ll listen or not may be another matter. But he could certainly never claim that he didn’t know!
I left an email expressing that communication between parties is a far better way to ascertain the truth. I tried not to add gasoline to the fire and wished to represent the sceptical side in a courteous manner. I’m not our for vengeance, just trying to have an accurate informed discussion on the topic.
For the sake of our modern society, I think it vital that Lord Monckton pursue this to the end. These issues need to be judged in a court of law, where unlike these government sponsored whitewashes we’ve been seeing recently re. UEA, hopefully all the facts can be disclosed in an open public forum and the duplicity of the alarmists can be fully exposed.
Sir,
as an graduated engineer I am following climate change discussions for years.
What brought me take a closer look on other than the official versions was the alarmistic and arrogant behaviour of AGW proponents.
Weeks ago I was watching a presentation of a Prof. Abraham, which I identified after some minutes as an insult to halfway intelligent people. Had heard today that he has published a revised version and have just checked it out.
It really starts with labelling another individual as “climate change denier”. Don’t need to know more.
This is pure political propaganda through the Website of Catholic university.
It’s even worse:
The world “denier” was used once in history, as far as I know, in the context of “holocaust deniers” only.
Do you really think it is appropriate that a professor of a Catholic university uses such a label to describe another individual at all?
It seems to me, born in Germany, that this usage of such a term is somehow downplaying the crimes of Hitler & Co. against the Jewish people. And this communicated via the Website of a Catholic university. Could it be worse?
In all respect, what kind of students does St. Thomas University think to attract by such propaganda?
Negating climate change? Nobody does it. The opposite is the case. The so-called sceptics are the party saying that climate has always changed. If this expression “negating climate change” is used, it just is political propaganda, lowest level.
If it used by a professor, a person who is by default considered to be an intellectual and to teach young people, i don’t know how this goes together.
Shouldn’t a person who’s profession it is to teach our youth stay away from extreme political standpoints?
Not necessarily as an individual, but as a teacher?
Catholic universities have not been considered to transport political propaganda in the past.
Is this course being changed now?
If not, may you consider to avoid spreading political propaganda throught the university’s Website, under your responsibility?
Thank you for you time.
“Applying an education” is colloquially called “schooling.”
========
Observe a grandmaster carving up a putzer.
So pointing out your egregious and multiple “errors” with references is “libel” now is it? We have a saying in the UK, “all mouth and trousers” which I’m sure Mr. (note: not “Lord”) Monckton will understand as it applies to him.
I’ve taken advantage of the email address supplies urging Fr. Dease to respond that he’ll see Mr. Monckton in court, another saying that I’m sure Mr. Monckton will understand. The discovery phase will be very interesting indeed.
Btw, where is this alleged legal correspondence with Mr. Monckton’s “hard headed lawyers” hiding? It appears yesterday was the last update on Nova’s site and there was no indication of future tense from Mr. Chris, and even Nova’s coterie of commenters don’t seem to be aware of it.
More of your characterisitic bluff, Mr. Monckton?
“Please point out where he is wrong.”
Are you kidding me with this???
I will gladly assist Lord M. as he has done so much to re-balance the science on climate towards common sense and away from alarmism. I just do not know where he gets the energy from.
I’ve just written a (longish) email to Father Dease and hope that it is just one of a deluge. The whole affair borders on the bizarre, and it’s difficult to understand the motivation of Abraham unless there is a hidden source of wealth somewhere!
Robin
Darn.
I was just about to post that I predict that Monckton will not sue, but that Abraham will at some point provide a new version, at which point Monckton will declare victory even if the new version is more precise at demolishing Monckton’s presentation.
“I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change.”
Feel free to post up a link to any papers Abraham has published on climate change…peer reviewed or otherwise…
Rocks, glass houses, and all that….
I hope the cackling hordes of supporters of this sad tale will be as quick to condemn Abraham as they were to worship him.
Sadly, as we know, the truth is of little importance to the “true believers”.
I am honoured and pleased to offer my full support to this cause and my email to Father Dease has been despatched!
Well done Christopher.
We are with you all the way.
I did a quick check of original vs revised presentations by Abraham.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/ has the links to both.
He (John P. Abraham) seems to have left in lots of gratuitous snide remarks.
A simple one that my non-technical wife readily understood was at slide 87/88 (revised presentation) where Abraham implies that Monckton didn’t know that Argos is a floating buoy system — even though Monckton’s presentation makes it very clear that he does know this. This is a very dumb thing for Abraham to leave in, after having received, and assumedly read, Monckton’s June 10th letter.
As Lord Monckton said above, “In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels.”
Charlie
OK, dunnit:
Father Dennis J. Dease
President, St Thomas University
Dear Father Dease,
Some weeks ago, I was disturbed when I played a presentation by Professor John Abraham, hosted on the computers of St Thomas University, entitled “A scientist replies to Christopher Monckton”. It was clear at the time that it contained many untrue statements that were damaging to Lord Monckton, misrepresenting what he has said.
I noticed today (14 July 2010) that the same presentation is still available for viewing with a link labelled “Listen to my original rebuttal of Christopher Monckton”
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Original%20Presentation/index.htm
There is also an updated version which still contains numerous untrue and libellous/slanderous statements harmful to Lord Monckton.
I request two things:
1. This presentation should be removed at once from the servers of St Thomas University, because it contains many untrue and libellous/slanderous statements.
2. An investigation should be initiated into the conduct of Professor Abrahams as his behaviour has brought St Thomas University into disrepute and has made the University a party in publication of libellous/slanderous statements and therefore liable to lawsuits.
Sincerely yours,
Martin H Ackroyd, PhD
Well, that’s progress !!!
Good for you !!!
Dear Lord Monckton.
I sincerely thank you for pursuing the Sisyphusian task of repeatedly stating the obvious. We are many in sweden who admire and love you, and understand the importance of what you are doing to save mankind from unnecessary poverty.
And even tough one man alone cant change the world, you inspire hundreds of thousands to join in the quest for scientific truth and political sanity, against financial hijackers and thiefs.
Thank you.
Jan says: July 14, 2010 at 7:29 am “I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change.”
So, does this mean you believe what is peer-reviewed without scrutiny? That’s unfortunate. Peer-review is, in essence, a demonstration of work and an invitation to be tested. If you have read and studied the issues surrounding “climate science” you would understand that at the heart of the controversy is shoddy work and a refusal to accommodate testing.
I recommend that you become more of an independent critical thinker and less of a sheep.
It says a lot that they had to essentially create a straw-man-army in order to attempt to discredit Monkton, who is not a scientist (and I believe does not claim to be). It is consistently entertaining watching him slap the face of those who claim to be scientists with the backhand of reason.
…and now of course they have to back down from their straw-man-army due to legal concerns, a very poor showing by the alarmists.
I had to chime in, too-
<blockquote cite="
I honestly doubt that continuing to support Associate Professor Abraham in his
dispute with Lord Monckton will reflect well on your institution- or as the old
saying goes, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." As Monckton
points out ,
repeating libels _after_ the target has objected to them, *and documented their
falsity*, constitutes malice. Your trustees may become unhappy with you if you
persist.”>
(here’s hoping the blockquote formatting works- haven’t tried it before.)
Review his writings yourself. Why do you rely on peers to do your reviewing for you?
Well, I sent an e-mail, but it didn’t request the rebuttal’s be taken down. As I pointed out in the e-mail, the university, being a place of learning, should leave the rebuttals up and on-line for all to see and use as a learning tool. It seems the people in the employ of the university enjoy being tools. For example, the difference between academic freedom and the obligation to responsible use of the freedom. Perhaps, they can even start a law school at the university and use this as a case study. Not to mention the climate science behind the talk, rebuttal and response to the rebuttal. The proper etiquette in academic discourse would be another way to use the rebuttals. Already, many Americans have learned a bit about British constitutional law and their forms of representative government and the constraints of the bodies. So, in the end, because the university is an institution of learning, I’ve encouraged them to continue to be tools.
Tom says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:28 am
Why sue in the US? The High Court would take an interest, methinks…
Would that be the same court that called ” An Inconvenient Truth” fiction?
I have looked in earnest for his web site in and on a terribly cluttered www.
Does anyone have it?
Thanks, Paul
Jan says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change. As far as I can tell, Prof. Abraham did a nice job. Please point out where he is wrong.
___
Don’t “believe” anyone. This isn’t a religion. Figure it out. Look at the evidence and remember that correlation is not causation and models are not evidence. And if you want to know where Abraham goes wrong read Monckton’s rebuttal.
Lord Monckton, that is!
Paul
Cry Lord Christopher and St George for Merrie England (with apologies to the Bard).
What a rodgering of a cretin! Trust his university will see the light too. Beauseant the Order of Sovereign Knights of Malta!
Oram
Christopher Monckton it was with interest that I dipped into your excellently written 500 point evisceration of the poor sodding associate professor sinking his battleship. While I haven’t yet had time to read all 86 pages it has been a pleasure. Not only do you hammer him point by point but you also illuminate many of the key issues in the climate debacle oh so very well. It’s quite an education. You might have the basis of a new presentation. I like the format of taking on the alarmists claims head to head, point by point, and holding them accountable for their soothsaying of doomsday without OPEN repeatable verifiable scientific evidence grounded in factual integrity to back them up.
Beyond seeing this as just a battle (or is it really only a minor skirmish) with one lowly associate professor the bigger picture is dealing with this sort of alarmist tripe in a decisive manner. How could this 500 point by point destruction of the alarmist arguments (if they can be called arguments) be turned into a magnum opus that can decimate their alarmist claims once and for all? Assuming that’s even possible it sure would be nice to have VERIFIABLE facts of science rule the day rather than tripe doomsday messages sooth-said from dead tree ring entrails or fabricated with bad statistical techniques (seriously Nasa GISS having one thermometer at Eureka, Canada for a circle of a diameter of 1,200km, might as well just make up the temperature data with dice). As you know the list of their doomsday prophesies goes on and on. Keep hammering it point by point by bloody point. Let’s put enough nails in the alarmist coffin to keep the lid shut and their arguments burred by the cold hard facts of repeatable and verifiable OPEN science.
I encourage you to continue with the full fury of a cat 5 hurricane firing your rational decisive and in-depth approach.
All the best,
Peter William Lount
Vancouver, Canada
ps. Christopher, if you could make your PDF file available as a HTML file with the graphics it would be easier to post it in it’s entirety to my web site: http://PathsToKnowledge.net. Thanks.
Speaking of schooling, I got a kick out of Monckton’s refreshingly large vocabulary (an informal indication of a high IQ):
I have contacted Professor Abraham, and he informed me that the second rebuttal is on his website because it is shorter, has better audio, includes components which the
original did not have, has toned down what might have been interpreted as
sarcasm, and is clearer about some issues.
No climb-down there.
For those interested, the Abraham original is (currently) posted here:
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Original%20Presentation/index.htm
it is 83 minutes and begins…’Welcome everyone to the presentation where I, John Abraham, is [sic] going to ….’
The revised version is currently posted here:
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Monckton%20Presentation%20June%2022/index.htm
it is 72 minutes
There is no explanation as to why there should be two versions.
I am looking forward to the live debate between Abraham and Monckton – presumably as Abraham is an honest and accomplished scientist there should be no reason for the school not to host such an event.
I’m on dial up and on a waiting list for wireless. We here in rural NE Oregon have little access to the internet. Is there some other way to produce this material? I can’t download either though I am fully equipped computer wise to read the material. It just takes too long to download resulting in the dialup connection hanging up on me.
I have sent:
“Dear Father Dennis J. Dease,
I am writing to request that you take down Associate Professor Abraham’s recent talk, which targets Viscount Monckton, altogether from your University’s servers and that you instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what Viscount Monckton said in his talk at Bethel University eight months ago.”
Oh! The revised rebuttal has been up since 22nd June! So not really news.
Pamela Gray,
Do you have cell phone service? Check to see if your provider offers mobile broadband.
My email to Father Dease:
I should like to congratulate you and your institution on continuing to host Prof Abrahams polemic on Lord Monckton notwithstanding its many errors. The liklihood of any sort of libel action is small and I am sure your courageous backing is attracting a great deal of favourable publicity for you, you institution and the estimable Professor.
Keep up the good work and damn the torpedoes!
Remember the words of Stephen Schneider: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
In the world of post-modern science, we must keep our eye on the objective rather than the boring old truth.
Yours aye.
Jack Savage
I’ve sent e-mail to Dease at above address:
“I am aghast that the egregious and libelous statements presented by Assc. Prof. Abraham re: Lord Monckton are found acceptable by the university.”
Steve
I think it is wonderful Asst. Prof. Abraham has brought the debate forward. If I were an Alarmist, however, I would not want him doing the debating. There is far too much that is just plain shoddy, and worse, in the points he makes.
In the prior post some stated Lord Monckton asked too many questions, and should have kept things simpler. I don’t agree. I feel the meticulous nature of his statement displays the exact sort of mind that is needed, to debate the issues involved.
Asst. Prof. Abraham, as a scientist, should have been equally meticulous. He was not. He acted in haste, and now has the opportunity to repent at leisure.
I imagine part of Abraham’s haste was propelled by passion. The topic of Global Warming involves a lot that gets people riled up. I can’t scold Asst. Prof. Abraham for his passion without being a pot calling the kettle black, for I have lost my temper on numerous occasions, while debating this topic. I even was snipped at the Accuweather site, back in the days when Brett Anderson hardly ever snipped anyone.
However there is a big difference between being passionate and displaying malice. As soon as you allow your hot-headedness to brew up hate of the sort that twists Truth simply to hurt another, you are stepping beyond the bounds of civilized behavior.
The best way to avoid making a jack-ass of yourself in this manner is to cling to the Truth. Cling to Truth so hard your knuckles get white.
True scientists are able to debate furiously because they are all interested in the same Truth, and are looking at different sides of the same one Truth. Because Truth is honored, there is always the eventuality that the two sides will work out their differences.
Asst. Prof. Abraham needs to look hard into his mirror and ask himself whether he truly respected Truth, or whether he allowed himself to be warped, and to have his logic warped.
Personally I feel wiser heads should have snipped his comments. He would have been grumpy at first, but grateful later. Or, at least, that’s how I always feel, when I get snipped.
Dear Father Dease,
I suspect that by now you’re somewhat bewildered by the flow of email into your inbox on the issue of Professor Abraham and Lord Monckton. You have my sympathies. If you don’t mind, I would like to offer some unsolicited recommendations.
As I see it, you have a few options open to you:
(1) Back your man no matter what. Abraham: right or wrong. Of course, as a man well versed in morality and ethics, I’m sure you see the problems inherent here.
(2) Cut your losses, and jettison Abraham. Might be the right course, but leaves the rest of the faculty a little jumpy. Besides, Abraham might be right, who knows?
(3) Appoint a commission to conduct an inquiry. Follow the climate change lead of other universities under fire for questionable faculty activity–ensure that no contrary views are presented, and hope that the blogosphere doesn’t notice and the issue goes away. Good luck with that.
(4) Use this as a teaching opportunity for your students. Have Abraham remove the offending material (all the offending material) for the time being. Invite Monckton to your university to debate Abraham (and show him the courtesy you would any other guest), and let the students decide. If, after a student body vote, Monckton wins, then Abraham apologizes and the material goes away for good. If Abraham wins, then Monckton withdraws his complaint and charges of libel.
While it may be too late for it, I think option 4 is the closest you can come to “taking it outside,” without enriching a bunch of lawyers, namely, Monckton’s. No doubt you are looking at other options—equally tough choices that are fraught with the possibilities of painful litigation and institutional embarrassment, but wouldn’t it be nice to take a course of action that might actually benefit your students while doing credit to the intellectual integrity of your university?
Good luck to you, sir.
Cordially,
CDR Mark Bowlin, USN (Ret.)
Pamela: (at 0914)
Do you have a Starbucks or similar coffeehouse that includes Internet wireless? Such things may be in rural areas. They often have the fast Internet where it is difficult to find. A library might have the fast connections as well.
Also, “wireless” is usually a local area network, not an Internet provider. Do you have cable television? Most cable providers include a fast Internet connection.
Pamela-e-mail.me at bushy@mail.org with your contact address and I will send to you on CD ASAP, unless someone closer can do it for you. Am in the uk.
” Jan says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change. As far as I can tell, Prof. Abraham did a nice job. Please point out where he is wrong.”
You are kidding me right? Are you deliberately being a troll?
Read the response to John Abraham’s rebuttal by Viscount Monkton. (You can find the link on WUWT. It is NOT hard to find). You will find hundreds of instances where Lord Monkton shows factual errors, misrepresentations and outright lies by the Associate professor.
In fact the degree to which the very inept professor is wrong suggests that he had never even seen the presentation by Viscount Monkton and had ONLY seen the slides from the presentation, utterly misunderstood many of them, took others of them completely out of context, did not even bother to CHECK with the Viscount and hastily produced his libellous diatribe and spread it far and wide on the internet.
This is evidence of serious professional misconduct and he has brought his University into disrepute.
Do you really think that is a nice job? I think it is grounds for legal action in a court of law to seek redress and damages. The simple fact is, the Associate Professor is clearly very very wrong in a LOT of what his presentation alleges about Viscount Monkton, Viscount Monkton’s presentation and a lot of the science about climate change too.
Oh, sue away. Come on over, bring a box of wigs and lots of exhibits with House of Lords logos and wax seals and ribbands and such. We need the entertainment and you apparently need the education on American libel laws. You wouldn’t be the first self-important half-wit to be schooled by Larry Flynt (though perhaps the first VISSSScount.) But I’ll wager a guinea you puss out and do nothing but flail around with more weaselly questions and flying-monkey e-mail attacks aimed at the man’s boss. Coward, cowardly, cowardice–a white feather for you.
Abraham slaughtered you, or rather you slaughtered yourself and he did the hours of science spadework hang you up to ridicule. You probably didn’t expect that–most of us are too busy to dig up the particulars; we know a mountebank when we see one. That’s what it’s all about, you know–work. It takes time to chase down each lie, and when there are so many it can be daunting. He just took the necessary steps to shut you up. You’ve done some work, too–very impressive! Also very permanent! It takes five lies to justify a single truth even when your audience is lazy and already completely convinced. All that stuff, all on the record, your record: chaotic, inconsistent, bizarre, whinging, clownish, and wrong–and out there for all to see. Is it yours? Do you reject it? Fakes and lies. Props to Abraham for taking the time to organize each absurdity and show clearly that you’re a liar and a cheat as well as a fool.
You must attack, of course; you have no other course. It’s pretty clear you can’t do science–you can’t even do undergraduate math. Nobody else is doing any science you can use honestly (Lindzen and Choi have been debunked and dismembered…maybe you could use them still, maybe more of Mr. Soon’s oily prevarications, but no real science.)
Abraham is fully transparent. Do you claim those e-mails are fraudulent? Do you claim those aren’t your words, your slides, your citations? (where there are citations.) Not one or two or three–I count 22 clear and another 18 obvious and intentional misrepresentations. Not accidents, or vaguenesses, or misconstrued expressions, or cherry-pickings, or rosy-scenarios–intentional misrepresentations. You say libel? I say fraud, lie, fake, cheat, cheat, fake, lie, fraud, repeat if necessary. You were a lawyer–enough to disbar. You were a professor (assistant or not)–enough to fire, tenure or no.
By the way, you’re only a liar and a cheat if you claim to be a scientist–drop any pretense of scientific inquiry and you’re just a fool preaching to a choir of fools. What will it be? Even under the UK’s lord-leaning libel laws, you can’t very well squeal when the speech in question is direct and decisive refutation of your own statements quoted, made in a public forum and distributed widely with your permission. Truth is a defense (if any defense is needed from such puffery) and what Abraham has published is true. I stomached 29 of your questions, and did not find a single attempted refutation of Abraham’s charges in scientific terms–you didn’t even try.
ice9
REPLY: Ah, ranting bluster from an anonymous coward, I say good show lad. Come back when you grow a spine and can say those words with your name attached. -A
” Mike says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:53 am
If you cannot argue, sue and censor. Many posters here criticized Mann for demanded his copyrighted image not be used in a video.”
Mike, you are clearly as ignorant about the difference between rational argument and slander as you are about the science of climate change.
Associate professor is NOT presenting an argument about the science, or moving the science forward at all. He is making a fool of himself and his University by misinterpreting a simple to understand presentation, making hundreds of errors in this and libelling the author.
Associate Professor Abraham has not managed to ascend to the level of argument yet.
Doug Jones says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:39 am
“I had to chime in, too-
<blockquote cite=………
(here’s hoping the blockquote formatting works- haven’t tried it before.)"
Sorry Doug, fail. But the sentiment was good!
Pasted below is a copy of my e-mail to St. Thomas U. I would have sent a copy to Monckton if I had an e-mail address for him:
As a practicing Catholic, I am appalled that one of your ass. profs of mechanical engineering would be preaching Al Gore’s new theoretical global warming ecoreligion. As a retired Professional Engineer licensed in New Jersey, I am dismayed by what seems to be a pile of unproven, unprofessional, non-engineering, unscientific rubbish that Abraham is promoting from your erstwhile distinguished University.
Maybe he would be more credible teaching in your school of EcoDivinity. I sincerely hope that no funds or services were stolen or misallocated from a Catholic University to attack Britain’s distinguished Lord Monckton in such a shamefully vile manner as was done by Abraham recently. I hope you will fully investigate this possibility.
Robert Paglee, Sr.
Mark Bowlin,
I hope your message is read by the good Father Dease. Well done!
The good news is that the warmists after claiming “the science is settled’ and “nothing to talk about” are debating the skeptics. Even better news is that they are really in a pile of sh..t if the best they can put forward is the pathetic attempt by Abraham.
As I said in the original blog:
The first thing I question is what axe does John Abraham have to grind?
It is obvious the purpose of John Abraham’s smear tactic was to discredit Lord Monckton or he would have confirmed his statements with Lord Monckton first.
I’m very surprised Father Dease finds this to be professional conduct becoming a professor of St. Thomas University. Has Father Dease commented on John Abraham’s lack of response and actions yet? [apparently he has not]
=====
John Abraham’s presentation is on the University server and uses the University’s emblem in the slides. Doesn’t this imply John Abraham is presenting on behalf of St. Thomas University and thus Father Dease?
On behalf of St. Thomas, the first thing Father Dease should have done, when first contacted by Lord Monckton, was to request Professor Abraham to post a retraction stating that his presentation “does not represent the views of the University…”.
This is beyond foolish, when will someone at St. Thomas step forward and protect the interest of the University and their Science programs? Or, does the entire faculty endorse Professor Abraham’s methodology and conclusions?
To be honest Lord Monckton, I would be afraid of what I might say to a Provost who appears to have such little regard for the University’s published principals. But, I’ll try to draft and send something proactive later today.
Best Regards,
John from CA
“chek says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:19 am
So pointing out your egregious and multiple “errors” with references is “libel” now is it? We have a saying in the UK, “all mouth and trousers” which I’m sure Mr. (note: not “Lord”) Monckton will understand as it applies to him.”
Now you are just making a fool of yourself. Viscount Monkton IS a member of the House of Lords and IS entitled to use the title of “Lord” as he has this hereditary title.
As for your other desperate attempt to describe Abraham’s Libel as “pointing out your egregious and multiple “errors” with references” I think you have neither watched the full presentation, nor read Lord Monkton’s original response to the rebuttal which points out hundreds of factual errors of the kind that can ONLY come about from not even seeing the full presentation, but only in seeing the slides separately and then misunderstanding them, their context or what was ACTUALLY being presented and then knee-jerking into a wholly inaccurate and error-filled diatribe dressed as rebuttal based entirely on ignorance, malice aforethought and arrogance in equal measure.
At least have the common decency to take the time to educate yourself by reading Viscount (not Mr) Monkton’s response to Associate Professor John Abraham and then come back and apologise for making a fool of yourself.
Could you add a link to the full correspondence referred to in the article?
“Several of you have posted up comments asking to see the full (and entertaining) correspondence between me, the professor, his university, and its lawyers. The ever-splendid Joanne Nova is kindly hosting the correspondence, “
Pamela Gray says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:14 am
“I’m on dial up and on a waiting list for wireless. We here in rural NE Oregon have little access to the internet. Is there some other way to produce this material? I can’t download either though I am fully equipped computer wise to read the material. It just takes too long to download resulting in the dialup connection hanging up on me.”
Pamela,
I have copied and pasted the document into word and saved in .docx (193 KB), .doc (370 KB) and .rtf (804 KB) format. It’s perfectly readable (and you would be able to change fonts and colours to suit you), but alas does not contain the images (graphs, etc) he refers to. Nonetheless, you can probably infer most of that from the text.
If you’d like me to send it to you by email attachment, please contact me here: mickjo at live dot co dot uk, specifying which version you’d prefer, and I’d be happy to send it as an attachment.
Looked at Abrahams. His presentation is terminally boring and I simply could not put myself through it for an hour. He is not a climate scientist but an engineer concerned with topics like fluid flow. Warmists have complained that their opponents are not real climate scientists but now an unknown engineering prof has suddenly been elevated into their august ranks by his libelous talk.
Mark Bowlin says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:36 am
WOW — great post!!!
Thanks Mark,
I’ll take a similar approach.
to: djdease@stthomas.edu, ethicalandsecure@ust.edu, hr_systems@stthomas.edu, sjhuber@stthomas.edu, a9barrettahe@stthomas.edu, jlkreitzer@stthomas.edu, dtshelito@stthomas.edu , amserdar@stthomas.edu, ktischler@stthomas.edu, skimble@stthomas.edu, bferguson@sppinstitute.org
Subject: The Integrity of St. Thomas University is in doubt due to Unprofessional Conduct of Associate Professor John Abraham
Father Dennis J. Dease, President
S. Thomas University
Office of Academic Affairs
Human Resources
July 14th, 2010
Re: Unprofessional Conduct of Associate Professor John Abraham
Dear Father Dennis J. Dease, et. al.,
The recent publication by your Associate Professor John Abraham of his lengthy personal attack (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) against Christopher Monckton based in incorrect, unscientific, and unfounded claims is quite shocking and unbecoming of an academic at a fine institution such as St. Thomas University. I lived in Minneapolis for a time and am shocked. How can your university continue to allow and permit such a hack unprofessional attack presentation by one of your Associate Professors who must uphold the highest standards of academic conduct?
In the best interests of upholding the highest standards of conduct for Associate Professors please take disciplinary action against Associate Professor John Abraham for his low brow unprofessional conduct as demonstrated in his original (as well as in his revised) presentation. They represent not just libel against Christopher Monckton but also put St. Thomas University into a bad light for supporting bad science on the part of Associate Professor John Abraham who gets so many basic points of science WRONG in his presentation as pointed out oh so well by Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal to him (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/).
If Associate Professor John Abraham can’t get the science right what the heck is he even doing teaching at St. Thomas?
What is Associate Professor John Abraham doing an personal attack presentation on St. Thomas University time and with university resources anyway? Does this mean that the St. Thomas University is also perpetrating the libelous attack using bad science against Christopher Monckton as well? I sure hope not for St. Thomas University’s sake.
Please discipline Associate Professor John Abraham forthwith in the strongest way possible and remove the libelous presentation from your servers.
Clearly Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of the St. Thomas University Code of Professional Conduct (http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/manual/files/CodeofProfessionalConductPolicy.pdf).
“Policy Statement. The University of St. Thomas is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in all that it does and expects those who are part of the University community, including trustees, officers, faculty, staff, and students to adhere to such standards in their business dealings. This policy applies to trustees, officers, faculty, staff, students, and others who manage, supervise or conduct
university business, financial and administrative transactions and activities.”
I. … The University will comply fully with all relevant laws and all contract and grant requirements, as well as with its own high standards of integrity and quality.
Trustees, officers, faculty, staff, and students are obligated to avoid involvement in activities, which might conflict, or appear to conflict, with their institutional responsibilities. Decision making in matters in which a conflict of interest may exist, may not only create an appearance of impropriety but may violate the law.
V. The University is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in all of its business practices. It accepts responsibility for the stewardship of resources and private support it receives, which enables St. Thomas to pursue its mission and strategic objectives. Supervisors, managers, or other university officials shall not compel or attempt to compel faculty, staff, students, applicants for employment, or other university constituents to violate a law, statute, or university policy. At St. Thomas, accountability is the cornerstone of ethical business practice,
and the university’s Whistleblower’s Policy is one of the mechanisms for assuring compliance with this institutional value.
Faculty, staff, students, applicants for employment, or other university constituents may make a protected disclosure at any time after witnessing or becoming aware of an improper activity or may do so after the individual knew or reasonably should have known of the protected activity.
VII. c. Non-University Professional Standards. Some professions and disciplines represented at the University are governed by standards and codes specific to their profession (such as attorneys,
certified public accountants, and medical doctors). Those professional standards generally advance the quality of the profession and/or discipline by developing codes of ethics, conduct, and professional responsibility and standards by which their members are guided. Those belonging to such organizations are expected to adhere to University policies and codes of conduct in addition to any professional standards. If a community member believes there is a conflict between a professional standard and University policy, he/she should contact the Department of Human Resources.
The St. Thomas “Discipline and Corrective Action” (http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/manual/files/discipline.pdf) section 2.1.8 of your Policies and Procedures Manual states:
“A. Causes for Corrective Action
Corrective action may be warranted in, but is not limited to, the following situations: unsatisfactory performance; insubordination, mishandling or unauthorized removal or destruction of confidential or sensitive information; theft, dishonesty, or other unethical behavior, such as falsification of records or knowingly and willfully misrepresenting data requested by the University or its agent; possession or consumption of alcohol on university premises or while performing university duties unless during a university-sponsored event; use or possession of illegal drugs on
University premises; impairment of faculties from the consumption or use of alcohol or illegal drugs while on University premises or while performing University duties; blatant disregard for safety regulations; abuse, neglect, mishandling, destruction, or unauthorized removal or use of University property; possession or use of a weapon on University premises; verbal abuse, including bullying; threats or acts of physical abuse; sexual or racial harassment or violence; arrest or conviction of an illegal act, on or off the job, which adversely affects job performance or the University’s reputation; or general failure to observe University policies and procedures.”
Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of the above “Causes for Corrective” action by the many fabricated and libelous statements made in his presentation and his subsequent revised presentation. You may see Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal of 500 points (linked above) for the detailed lies and fabrications of Associate Professor John Abraham. As such disciplinary and corrective action is mandated by your policies.
To comply with libel laws the issues raised by Associate Professor John Abraham’s libelous attack against Christopher Monckton must be dealt with forthwith, by removing the offending materials and issuing a public apology. That might not be remedy enough, firing Associate Professor John Abraham may also be required to ensure the highest standards of professional conduct at St. Thomas University.
It is very likely that Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of any professional associations that he is a member of and as such is in violation of their standards of professional conduct as well. Based upon your Code of Conduct a copy of this email has been sent to your Human Resources department as required by your Code.
The topic of climate is certainly a heated topic and many people, such as Associate Professor John Abraham, have their opinions. However, opinions are no longer enough to carry arguments, especially when those opinions of one Associate Professor John Abraham are so in error and without scientific basis. Verifiable open science needs to have integrity, integrity of the data, integrity of the people involved, integrity of the people involved includes not using ad hominem personal attacks as Associate Professor John Abraham’s entire presentation is against Christopher Monckton. The presentation of Associate Professor John Abraham is hard evidence that Associate Professor John Abraham lacks the integrity needed to be an Associate Professor or a scientist.
I don’t know about you Father Dennis, but to me lying goes beyond unprofessional conduct. It is clear from Associate Professor John Abraham’s presentation and Christopher Monckton’s evisceration of it that John Abraham fabricated many statements. Fabrication is fraud. Fraud is not permissible in science, especially if it’s intentional rather than just a minor bias. It’s clear that Associate Professor John Abraham certainly has bias to the doomsday alarmist cult that claims the world is coming to an end due to human activities allegedly impacting the climate systems, however they have yet to provide any verifiable scientific proof for their claims resulting in them being unfounded as Christopher Monckton clearly demonstrates in his numerous publications. Bias one can deal with in the long term as the facts of Nature will eventually be revealed by scientists practicing open and verifiable science using the scientific method. Fraud via fabrication and personal libelous attacks are another matter entirely. Those that perpetrate scientific frauds or hack personal attacks using bad unfounded claims or bad science must be dealt with using social punishment mechanism in order to maintain the distinct dividing line between those with integrity and those without integrity. Associate Professor John Abraham is clearly in the category of those without integrity for his unfounded personal libelous attacks against Christopher Monckton. Not only that, the revised presentation still attacks Christopher Monckton brazenly adding NEW libelous claims against Christopher Monckton. That demonstrates willful malice against Christopher Monckton by Associate Professor John Abraham and, if St. Thomas University is officially supporting him, by St. Thomas University and, notably, by yourself as well.
It might be best to officially repudiate the unfounded and unwise claims of Associate Professor John Abraham and distance the St. Thomas University from Associate Professor John Abraham’s unscientific and libelous hack attack piece. At least it might be best if St. Thomas University is interested in the values of integrity and honesty in science.
I am a person concerned about integrity in science and that science be conducted in an open and above board manner with integrity. It is very important that the issues about the climate be resolved with hard science not personal attacks and that those making such personal attacks be held to the highest standards of conduct and be punished for their violations of those standards especially when they are in positions of trust as Associate Professor John Abraham as a teacher of sciences. He is supposed to be an example for young minds and the example he sets is that it’s not just ok but authorized by his university that he can make vicious ad hominem personal attacks against Christopher Monckton. If you allow him to get away with this heinous behavior you and your entire institution are supporting the lowest form of non-debate rather than upholding the highest standards of academic excellence, and in which case shame on you all.
I trust however that you will uphold your duty to St. Thomas University and deal with this matter in the appropriate manner to Christopher Monckton’s satisfaction and in a way that not just maintains the integrity of St. Thomas University but uplifts your otherwise fine intuition to be an example of high standards of conduct for other universities in the world showing them that in science ad hominem personal attacks are not just not tolerated by their staff.
All the best,
Peter William Lount
Systems Analyst, Computer Scientist, Concerned About Integrity in Science
Vancouver, BC, Canada
604-736-2461
c.c. St. Thomas University Office of Academic Affairs
http://www.stthomas.edu/academicaffairs/contactus/contactus.html
Telephone: (651) 962-6717
Fax: (651) 962-6702
Room 110, Aquinas Hall
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105-1078
Dr. Susan Huber
Executive Vice President
and Chief Academic Officer
Telephone: 651-962-6720
Email: sjhuber@stthomas.edu
Dr. Angie Barretta-Herman
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Telephone: 651-962-6033
Email: a9barrettahe@stthomas.edu
Dr. Michael C. Jordan
Director of Undergraduate Academic Affairs
Professor of English
Editor of LOGOS
Telephone: 651-962-5612
Email: mcjordan@stthomas.edu
Dr. Joseph Kreitzer
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Telephone: 651-962-6032
Email: jlkreitzer@stthomas.edu
Ms. Debbie Shelito
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Huber
Telephone: 651-962-6720
Email: dtshelito@stthomas.edu
Ms. Ann Serdar
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Barretta-Herman
Telephone: 651-962-6034
Email: amserdar@stthomas.edu
Ms. Kathy Tischler
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Jordan
Telephone: 651-962-6023
Email: ktischler@stthomas.edu
Ms. Stephanie Kimble
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Kreitzer
Telephone: 651-962-6717
Email: skimble@stthomas.edu
St. Thomas University Human Resources Department
University of St. Thomas · Minnesota
2115 Summit Avenue · Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 · USA
1-651-962-6510 · hr_systems@stthomas.edu
http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/default.html
cc. Christopher Monckton, c/o Science & Public Policy Institute
Robert Ferguson
SPPI
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Suite 299
Washington, D.C. 20003
Email Address: bferguson@sppinstitute.org
Phone: (202) 288-5699
If the presentations are on the internet and freely available through UK ISP’s then a libel case can be persused in UK courts, in fact the UK courts are internationally the most prefered for claimants as positive results are more likely 😉 .
It is glaringly obvious from a cursory reading of the Climategate e-mails that the peer-review process in the climate science community was long ago compromised. The “peers” doing the reviewing turned out to be a fraternity of AGW alarmists who did everything in their power to prevent the publication of contrary opinions, going so far as to intimidate and threaten the editors of leading scientific publications who dared to publish research challenging the “consensus.”
Abraham’s paper mâche assault on Monckton’s research, and his character, is straight from the alarmists’ playbook. When the facts are not on your side, resort to character assassination and ignore the growing body of research that continues to unmask the junk science behind the AGW theory, exposing it as the greatest scientific fraud in history.
Thank you, PWL
Sure is a lot of policy. I wonder if four riders of the Green House Gas Apocalypse had such a policy to go by before they designed the “Hockey Stick”. I think this is about 196 days after PM Brown announced the end of the world.
We’re still here!
Ain’t that sumthang!
Paul
Paul
Here’s from St. Thomas University’s website: http://www.stthomas.edu/mission/
Mission “Inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition, the University of St. Thomas educates students to be morally responsible leaders who think critically, act wisely and work skillfully to advance the common good.”
Vision “We seek to be a recognized leader in Catholic higher education that excels in effective teaching, active learning, scholarly research and responsible engagement with the local community as well as with the national and global communities in which we live.
Convictions “As a community we are committed to:
1. Pursuit of truth: We value intellectual inquiry as a life-long habit, the unfettered and impartial pursuit of truth in all its forms, the integration of knowledge across disciplines, and the imaginative and creative exploration of new ideas.
2. Academic excellence: We create a culture among faculty, students and staff that recognizes the power of ideas and rewards rigorous thinking.
3. Faith and reason: We actively engage Catholic intellectual tradition, which values the fundamental compatibility of faith and reason and fosters meaningful dialogue directed toward the flourishing of human culture.
[4. et alii trimmed]
————-
I find these ideals to have been inexplicably ignored in the case of Professor Abraham’s ad hominem attacks.
I too have sent an email asking that the material be taken down and a disciplinary action initiated. It is time to put a stop the personal attack tactics that are showing up so frequently. Time for science and debate to return and replace the religion that is the AGW movement.
Good luck Lord Monckton!
Kenneth Denison, PhD
Thank you for putting up the e-mail address of father Dease: it enabled me to send him an e-mail asking him NOT to remove Professor Abraham’s videos from the university’s servers. If you believe in a free exchange of ideas and criticism, then printing a piece by Lord Monckton that encourages people to stifle openness and criticism, albeit criticism with which you do not agree, can do nothing but encourage censorship, something I’m sure you would find both offensive and unscientific.
But 11 days after Abraham received Monckton’s rebuttal. Monckton gave him 30 days to ponder it before he posted it.
Lord Monckton you are giving Abraham a real spanking.
I haven’t seen anything about the damages. If I remember correctly a libel suit must go beyond determining whether the statements were libelous, as they seem to be in this case, but must show real and actual damages. Am I mistaken?
Earlier today I’d made a comment about how lovely the weather is here at home. Then it was brought to my attention that I’d never written a peer reviewed paper on the subject. So I thought I’d type in and ask, “How’s the weather where I live? Anyone peer reviewed on that?” I really need the info so that I can have something to refer to when making astute comments to my fellows.
Richard Garnache says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:46 am
Would that be the same court that called ” An Inconvenient Truth” fiction?
Actually, what the British High Court of Justice said was that there were nine errors or inaccuracies in the movie, not that the movie itself was fiction.
“He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago … ”
In the USA a defalcation involves misappropriation of funds. It has nothing to do with defamation.
Reminds me of a scene from the end of “People Will Talk” w/ Cary Grant
Shunderson: Professor Elwell, you’re a little man. It’s not that you’re short. You’re…little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn’t touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out…you’re even littler than you were before.
Pamela Gray says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:14 am
I’m on dial up and on a waiting list for wireless. We here in rural NE Oregon have little access to the internet. Is there some other way to produce this material? I can’t download either though I am fully equipped computer wise to read the material. It just takes too long to download resulting in the dialup connection hanging up on me.
If you really want to see the presentations
1) go to an internet cafe and save them on a CD or USB stick
or
2) ask a friend with a better connection to save it for you (CD or USB stick)and mail it snail mail .
“It is sometimes a cold and lonely road we follow in pursuit of the truth” – how true: well said! I wish you well in the coming trials and hope for your success.
Roger Knights says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:01 am
There have been two versions of Abraham’s presentation available for some time now. I’m not sure how long they’ve been available, but searching my browser history shows I last accessed the revised version on June 21, 2010, well before Monckton’s official rebuttal was released.
But 11 days after Abraham received Monckton’s rebuttal. Monckton gave him 30 days to ponder it before he posted it.
==========================================
I only know the last date I accessed Abraham’s presentation, not when it was actually posted. If you know the exact dates that Abraham received Monckton’s letter and when his revised presentation was posted it could be interesting to see, though I see above that toby has allegedly corresponded with Abraham and was told “the second rebuttal is on his website because it is shorter, has better audio, includes components which the original did not have, has toned down what might have been interpreted as sarcasm, and is clearer about some issues.”
I think it’s great that Monckton gave Abraham 30 days to ponder, and potentially correct, his rebuttal. Unfortunately, an equally if not more important academic convention is to cite ones references. Absent this courtesy I don’t think 30 days was near enough time to thoroughly respond to all of the questions in the rebuttal.
Email sent, Sir!
In addition to requesting an investigation I suggested that the University sponsor a debate to give you the opportunity to respond to Dr Abraham in person. I did say I suspected that, given the cowardly way in which Dr Abraham conducted his ambush, that I suspected he would not have the stones for an open, public debate.
Jeremy says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:36 am
It says a lot that they had to essentially create a straw-man-army in order to attempt to discredit Monkton, who is not a scientist (and I believe does not claim to be). It is consistently entertaining watching him slap the face of those who claim to be scientists with the backhand of reason.
_______________________________________________________________________
A scientist is simply a person who honestly follows the scientific method – irrespective of his formal training or qualifications. A person who does not follow the scientific method, or corrupts it, and acts instead as a paid propagandist for a political ideology, is not a scientist – irrespective of his formal training or qualifications. So, objectively, Lord Monckton is in fact a scientist. The AGW “climate scientists” are not.
David S says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:42 am (Edit)
Jan
When you have finished your “Spelling 101″ course, you might want to read Messrs Moshe and Fuller’s book, as advertised here. Then you will be better informed about the peer review process as conducted in the world of climate science.
*********
dude my spelling sucks, I thought you were being ironic and sarcastic all in one post.
ha. you can call me…
Folks should ask for the faculty handbook which is hidden behind a password..
for now
I didn’t cc my note… however it brings yet another dimension to the wonderful array penned above.
ah yes, my “real” name
JamesG says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:22 am
“He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago … ”
In the USA a defalcation involves misappropriation of funds. It has nothing to do with defamation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Wrongfully using public funds to libel or defame would be a defalcation, though I doubt whether that’s what Lord Monckton meant. There is a secondary meaning defalcation = “a shortcoming”, which would also be correct here. However, I suspect it may have been a slip or malapropism for “falsifications”.
Bravo Mosher! I’m still chuckling from the classic video…
gcb says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:21 am (Edit)
Actually, what the British High Court of Justice said was that there were nine errors or inaccuracies in the movie
And went on to say the court did not have time to consider the other [x] number of errors elucidated by Chris Monckton as they had seen enough to be able to make a judgement.
Pamela Gray: I will be home (Oregon) at the weekend. I will see if I can dump all this to a CD or DVD.
If you are interested in that solution, drop me an email: philip @ vogon . net (removing the spaces, of course).
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:44 am
Anne aka Lucy Skywalker, nice well aimed letter. I should think Father Dease is simultaneouly reaching for the decanter and the alka seltzer right about now. 🙂
” Richard M says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:15 am
I haven’t seen anything about the damages. If I remember correctly a libel suit must go beyond determining whether the statements were libelous, as they seem to be in this case, but must show real and actual damages. Am I mistaken?”
As I understand it, an intent to damage the professional reputation of a person through the use of provably false allegations would indeed qualify as libellous to the extent of damages being awarded.
The first rebuttal by John Abraham rose to the level of potentially libellous. Viscount Monkton gave the Associate Professor reasonable opportunity to redress and withdraw or prove the potentially libellous points one by one. The fact that after such opportunity, the Associate Professor continued to apply the provably false allegations against Viscount Monkton raises these points to a de facto libel warranting the awarding of Damages in Viscount Monkton’s favour.
Associate Professor John Abraham has foolishly placed himself legally into a position of dishonour and the courts now can only apply a verdict in Viscount Monkton’s favour.
Thanks for the address for cjdease, I emailed my support for Prof Abraham this afternoon.
“defalcations”? Just what did Abraham embezzle? 😉
James Sexton,
“Well, I sent an e-mail, but it didn’t request the rebuttal’s be taken down. As I pointed out in the e-mail, the university, being a place of learning, should leave the rebuttals up and on-line for all to see and use as a learning tool. It seems the people in the employ of the university enjoy being tools. For example, the difference between academic freedom and the obligation to responsible use of the freedom. Perhaps, they can even start a law school at the university and use this as a case study. Not to mention the climate science behind the talk, rebuttal and response to the rebuttal. The proper etiquette in academic discourse would be another way to use the rebuttals. Already, many Americans have learned a bit about British constitutional law and their forms of representative government and the constraints of the bodies. So, in the end, because the university is an institution of learning, I’ve encouraged them to continue to be tools.”
Excellent use for a bad situation.
toby says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:07 am
To add to my earlier comment, it is hard to see how in any sense Professor Abrahams has “climbed down”. It seems to me he is like John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to fight!”
—————-Reply:
What all this boils down to is one chevalier against another in an epic battle; however, someone should notify this good Professor John Abrahams that in an intellectual battle, he is desperately unarmed.
Steve Milesworthy: July 14, 2010 at 8:25 am
Darn.
I was just about to post that I predict that Monckton will not sue, but that Abraham will at some point provide a new version, at which point Monckton will declare victory even if the new version is more precise at demolishing Monckton’s presentation.
Go ahead and post your prediction. The only thing Associate Professor Abraham changed in his new version was to tone down his superciliousness and delete a few of his less-than-justifiable statements.
If that’s your idea of precision demolition, stay away from det cord and C-4 for a while, okay?
Deleting
done
Dear Sir,
I must confess I am surprised to find myself writing to you concerning the treatment of the British peer Lord Monckton which was meted out by one of your academics, Professor Abraham. Surprised, I suppose, because by rights I should just sit back and let the lawyers work on uncovering the tissue of lies and slander which he terms a “rebuttal” of Lord Monckton’s public presentation opposing the consensus position on so-called “climate change” aka “global warming”. Do you really imagine that a man who was adviser to the great UK Prime Minister Lady Thatcher would be so crass as to make the disingenuous or schoolboy errors that form the basis of Abraham’s assassinative disquisition? Monckton is a first class mind. Are you feeling lucky concerning Prof Abraham’s? I have read Monckton’s commentary on Abraham’s slander. I both understand his anger, and follow his rationale. You had surely better pray that the courts don’t, since Abraham’s own edits to the original both illustrate the prior slanderous character and demonstrate (by their shortcomings) his contempt for the responsibility he holds towards his victim. Should you apprehend it so, we are not considering here a question of free speech; Abraham is free to disagree publicly and to demonstrate his profound contempt for Monkton; he simply should not have contempt for the record and for the truth as he does so. You yourself are free (I believe) to take a hand in correcting this matter, which I hope for the sake of the institution that you represent, and the cause of honest debate, that you will do.
Yours faithfullly, etc
@JamesG, Paul Birch,
There may well be an American legal meaning of defalcation involving misappropriation of funds.
I would however imagine that Viscount Monckton would be unlikely to be using this. The colloquial meaning of defalcation however, is ‘bad faith’, ‘deceit’, ‘misconduct’ or ‘dishonesty’, and I think this more likely?
I’m sure there is another Prof Abrahams video on the net, I recognised his voice, but can’t find the original video. Basically it was a guy who offered four alternatives to the climate debate: 1. Catastrophe was assured; 2. Catastrophe was debatable; 3. We could do nothing; 4. We could do something. By a series of intellectually inspiring steps he came to the conclusion that we should do something about it whether catastrophe was assured or not.
As for Monckton’s gripe with him, let’s have the debate, Monckton has laid out his stall, now Abraham has the chance to respond, libel does not have to have a monetary loss tied to it, it is a law put there so someone’s reputation cannot be sullied by scurrilous writing.
Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable! And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
chek says: July 14, 2010 at 8:19 am
We have a saying in the UK, “all mouth and trousers” which I’m sure Mr. (note: not “Lord”) Monckton will understand as it applies to him.
You have nothing to say at all Chek but you do display your ignorant and rude manner effectively. You obviously have problems.
Doug
I don’t want it taken down. I want it left up and adorned with a lawsuit, an award, a humilated and broken awg freak and an example pour encourager les autres.
So no way I’m going to ask anybody to take it down! That’s not winning – it just leaves him ready to come back another day, refreshed and encouraged by the total lack of consequences.
No- catch and kill, mount and display.
That is winning. Anything else is losing.
What part of playing fair are you still believing in ?- The play fairies are fake.
Dave McK says:
catch and kill, mount and display
I like it!
Well I think a debate would be most.. um.. Scholatic of them – sorry inside philosophy joke. St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian in the tradition of scholasticism. The university is named after him, so it would be very approriate for a debate which sounds a lot like this description of the scholatic teaching method (from wiki)
“The second was the disputatio, which goes right to the heart of scholasticism. There were two types of disputationes: the first was the “ordinary” type, whereby the question to be disputed was announced beforehand; the second was the quodlibetal, whereby the students proposed a question to the teacher without prior preparation. The teacher advanced a response, citing authoritative texts such as the Bible to prove his position. Students then rebutted the response, and the quodlibetal went back and forth. Someone took notes on what was said, allowing the teacher to summarise all arguments and present his final position the following day, riposting all rebuttals”
Sounds similar – but not identical to a debate, or perhaps a thesis defense.
It is interesting, but the idea of working from reason, citing sources for support, etc all had their roots in the early univerities (Thomas was the master regent -similar to ‘the dean’ – at the Paris univerity in about 1270 – founded about 1170). While they were dealing with questions of theology rather then science, the methodology was similar.
AC
Lucy Skywalker says: July 14, 2010 at 11:44 am
I didn’t cc my note… however it brings yet another dimension to the wonderful array penned above etc.
If this is not too personal a question, are you the famous actress Anne Stallybrass?
Doug
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm (Edit)
Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable! And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
The pen is mighter than the pitchfork.
Anyway, your side started it calling for “Deniers” to be put on trial.
If you can’t take it back, don’t dish it out.
At the Monbiot newspaper they are really being mean to Mr. Monkton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham
If, given the irrefutable libel, Mr. Monckton chooses to release the man unscathed, he will have confirmed them in their habits and demonstrated the measure of his own tolerance for dispute. If the AGW clan becomes convinced that even Mr. Monckton can be okie-doked out a a victory even when it is in his lap, then the license is given for unconstrained pillage. Anything that is not winning is losing. Everything not winning is losing.
If Mr. Monckton can not show a monetary award, his entire exchange with Abraham is a colossal expense and waste of time for everybody. And that, sir, is the point of AGW discussion – to waste your colossal time effectively.
This will be a monument, one way or another.
Mr. Monckton is on a cuspy point. The monument will be to his vitality or impotence.
By extension, the lesson to everybody will be that truth conquers all – or that truth, in its strength, is mere vanity, to be discarded in favor of something more sentimental.
I am totally NOT encouraged by a plea from he who possesses the right – to apply social pressure to make it go away.
This is definitely not the mark of a person intransigently devoted to truth – it is the mark of an appeaser trying to find a cheap way out of a battle – while hooting triumphantly.
No, Mr. Monckton- here is how it works in the real world:
Who got the money won.
If you have invested time and energy and mooched the good will of a million WUWT readers in your cause – and if, despite this, you fail to rack up a $$ figure out of Abraham, then you have squandered the last that remains to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
JamesG wrote:
In the USA a defalcation involves misappropriation of funds. It has nothing to do with defamation.
According to my Oxford English Dictionary defalcation does have the same meaning in the UK. Then again, it can be argued that Ass.Prof Abrahams is indeed misusing University funds and resources by his gutter-sniping activities.
Having attempted to read Ass. Prof Abraham’s debunking of Lord Monckton, I spotted quite a few inconsistencies early on, in addition to his many unscholarly Ad Hominem attacks.
The conclusion: One Professor (subtype Ass.) thoroughly shredded, mangled and thrown into the dustbin of climate history.
If this is the best attack US Climate Alarmists can mount against Lord Monckton, it says a lot about the sorry state of scientific learning in the US. Or may be I should write that it shows how few real scientists are behind the Global Warming Scare.
Lord Monckton, please keep up the good work.
Geir Aaslid
Oslo, Norway
Geronimo: “Monckton has laid out his stall, now Abraham has the chance to respond…”
Monckton’s “stall” in this case is a set of largely rhetorical questions, which by their nature are designed to elicit a particular answer, so they don’t really form a case to which Abraham can easily respond.
“…libel does not have to have a monetary loss tied to it, it is a law put there so someone’s reputation cannot be sullied by scurrilous writing.”
It looks like Monckton has chosen to make his reputation the issue. That’s a potentially high-risk strategy, and probably accounts for his reluctance to force the issue legally.
Unfortunately, at the moment he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand, he wants to crush Abraham; on the other, in a lawsuit Monckton’s many public statements and scientific presentations would be at least potentially subject to scrutiny and cross-examination.
So for the time being he has opted for the court of public opinion, by rallying the troops and attempting to force a retraction.
chek says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:19 am
“Btw, where is this alleged legal correspondence with Mr. Monckton’s “hard headed lawyers” hiding? It appears yesterday was the last update on Nova’s site and there was no indication of future tense from Mr. Chris, and even Nova’s coterie of commenters don’t seem to be aware of it.
More of your characterisitic bluff, Mr. Monckton?”
Give her a break. She’s now doubt preparing a piece on it, illustrated with cartoons in that inimitable style of hers.
If Monckton says it will appear there, then have no doubt… it will.
Na na nana nah! You started it.
Did not!
Did too!
Really, Tallbloke? What a fine argument.
Anthony,
Done, as you suggested. I’ll not publish my letter here because it was rather long and somewhat detailed. But I do believe it’s time for a certain Prof. to go travel and meet (or find) new friends.
Brendan H says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm
……….
“Monckton’s “stall” in this case is a set of largely rhetorical questions, which by their nature are designed to elicit a particular answer, so they don’t really form a case to which Abraham can easily respond.”
The questions were formed so no “wiggle room” is allowed. Those weren’t rhetorical questions.
40: What evidence do you have that I said there was “no such thing as ocean acidification” (2)?
50: Please point out where in my talk I said that there was “a conspiracy”
76: What steps did you take to verify that Dr. Monnett knew whether or not I had read his work before you
reproduced his statement that I had not read it?
There are more examples, of course, but these aren’t rhetorical, they are “in your face”, “put up or shut up” questions. Abraham can’t answer them because he painted himself in a corner by being disingenuous. Abraham could have been more ambiguous in his statements, but he preferred the “in your face” dialogue. Abraham got caught overstating and misrepresenting Monckton’s statements and views and reinforced the misrepresentations with the creation of strawman attacks. (and some really poor science)
Really, I don’t believe Monckton is worried about more scrutiny of his public statements than has already been scrutinized.
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Really, Tallbloke? What a fine argument.
Time’s up, that’ll be £20 please.
Professor Abraham’s presentation seems rather biased. He is free to take a pro-AGW viewpoint but as an educator he ought to try and present Lord Monckton’s views fairly before attempting to rebut them but I think Lord Monckton should not be so thin-skinned.
Lord Monckton has given a very detailed rebuttal of Abraham’s criticisms. He should be content with that and not threaten legal action. Many pro-AGW scientists, and campaigners such as Al Gore, could also complain about personal abuse. Some satire and sarcasm are OK since debates on such a vital topic are bound to be robust but going further than that detracts from the science.
Lord Monckton is a brilliant debater and can certainly dish out criticism of those he disagrees with. However he should also learn to take criticism, even when it is unjustified, in a more dignified manner. His threats of legal action detract attention from the masterly way in which he took Abraham’s arguments apart and by appearing to want Abraham’s employers to act as censors Lord Monckton is damaging his own cause.
Done.
As a born and raised Catholic, I am appalled.
Brendan H says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm (Edit)
It looks like Monckton has chosen to make his reputation the issue. That’s a potentially high-risk strategy, and probably accounts for his reluctance to force the issue legally.
Patience grasshopper, The game has just begun.
Go to court and take him to the cleaners. The constant lies, personal attacks, & slander from the AGW proponents are the only thing keeping their point of view alive. Remove their last line of defense which is to discredit those that ask the inconvenient questions. We in NZ now have a very real financial cost as a result of the AGW lies against the wishes of the large majority, and unless someone does something like sue then the rest of you all are going to be pulled into it also without a doubt, it’s just a matter of when. AGW is not about science or the environment anymore, it’s a political issue and facts are not important to those who stand to benefit. You can argue, protest, debate, etc. all you like but it won’t do any good until the people who wish to implement carbon trading realize that there are consequences for fraud and slander. SUE HIM CHRIS!!
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm (Edit)
“Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable!”
Polite has been tried with these types of people. It doesn’t work. All one gets in return is flippant disregard of your views and demeaned if possible or mischaracterized first and then demeaned for the mischaracterization.
I’ll be honorable and gentlemanly with people who exhibit the same behavior. I’ll be crude and blunt with people who exhibit those behaviors.
I tried to watch Asst. Prof Abraham’s 83 minute presentation but gave up after about 10 minutes. I couldn’t even stand the sound of his voice. I reviewed Abraham’s list of publications and I can say this, if you ever want to know about heat transfer in an oven or convection in an air duct he’s your go-to guy.
Then I spent a couple hours plowing through Lord Monckton’s rebuttal. As is typical it was masterfully written. At certain points I actually felt a little sorry for Abraham as he was getting spanked so hard. I truly hope some of the doe-eyed dimbulbs that sat through Abraham’s lecture read Monckton’s rebuttal.
Ironically one of my best friends is also a mechanical engineer who specializes in heat transfer physics. He doesn’t have a lofty title like Associate Professor at some liberal arts school in MN I had never heard of. No…he’s a Distinguished Scientist at Sandia National labs. He thinks AGW is hooey.
In principal I agree with Dave McK. Take no prisoners. The accused should be put to the sword in court.
But I do wonder if it is practicable for Monckton to prove damage. Those likely to believe Abraham probably already heavily discounted Monckton.
In which case we can only regard this as light entertainment.
Any other time I would be shocked by any sane person taking Abrahams side, I read both sides, one is full of drama and lies and then there is Lord Monktons reply, I really feel that AGW is some sort of viral brain infection, they will claim that reducing CO2 will get water flowing uphill again!!
Thanks to the fraudsters the damage to science and higher education is massive, maybe to the extent it will take a couple of generations to repair, I am trained as an engineer, mechanical and computer, I try to apply common sense to what I read, the answer to AGW (destroying the west and giving all our money to India and China to make what we used to but with masses more pollution) is enough proof of a giant scam to me, add in Mr Gore, high priest of AGW, convincing all that the oceans will rise then buying a $8 million waterfront property then I want all involved fired, have their qualifications and pensions removed and brand them as unfit to serve the public for life, they are corrupt and can never be trusted again politicians, professors, teachers the whole sorry lot,. That would also help the deficit worldwide.
Letter sent.
To Lord M, I offer the word “respect”.
To those who disagree, I offer a wisdom derived from the intellect of the much missed Douglas Adams. Excuse me if I quote innacurately, “keep banging the rocks together Guys”, but it is an accurate representation of how I feel when I encounter comments from the RC attack-hounds when unleashed with feral savagery, salilval outpourings, matched only by a total disregard of
Intellectual vigour that completely meets their masters wishes.
Alas for the poor and, I suspect, soon to be abandoned Professor, his only crime was to be sweet-talked into being enrolled into a “Forlorn Hope” assignment that, if it succeeded, elevated him upwards.
‘Tis sad that he never looked at the small print,
Warning,Forlone Hope investments may go down.
Sad!
Lord Monckton is taking it to phase three:
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win
I have no doubt he will win if he chooses the UK courts as his battleground.
Jan says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change.
Peer review? That used to mean something until the climate scientists started corrupting the process. Now it just means you’re on the team.
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm (Edit)
Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable!
Letter writing (now email writing) campaigns are nothing new, and seem to frequently be initiated by eco-interest groups. Do you think it is wrong? If so, wrong for everyone or are you a hypocrite?
Damages are:
1- LEGAL COSTS
rack em up.
seek no excuses to shirk from the task of permanently removing a threat.
defense of virtue is self justified.
One could not even raise a housebroken dog with the default of proper discipline some are endorsing. Get this: it is no kindness to shield a person from the consequences of his actions. Attempts to divert natural feedback fail. Somebody else gets hurt, is all – the wrong one. You are not a better person for ‘forgiving’ – you are a screwed person on the menu for seconds.
I’d hate to see any children raised by parents who are so clueless about how habits are established, nurtured and how they CAN NOT BE BROKEN.
Even if Mr. Monckton emerges as the sole example of virtue-victorious in this entire tragedy – there is no fighting a current that consists of a dissipated generation for whom reality is merely an alternative life style and where reason is merely a potential option for discussion.
We may just need a dose of Armageddon to clear out the pretenders – for those pretenders are the manure that fuels the decline in the global standard of living and value of life.
So far I have heard only 3 people acknowledge that failure to put a stop to it is necessary and sufficient to ensure it continues and expands.
Dave McK says: Damages are: 1- LEGAL COSTS
Yes, though often legal costs are not fully reimbursed. The defence would be able to play the line in mitigation that Monckton had in his many fulsome diatribes sometimes overstepped the mark either intentionally or unintentionally. That would be a much more difficult case to win than one that simply proved damaging misstatements by Abraham. It would also be open to the defence that the legal costs were self-inflicted and unnecessary since there was no other material damage.
gcb says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:21 am
Richard Garnache says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:46 am
Would that be the same court that called ” An Inconvenient Truth” fiction?
Actually, what the British High Court of Justice said was that there were nine errors or inaccuracies in the movie, not that the movie itself was fiction.
Actually the court found the film to be “Political Propoganda” – which is why UK schools can not show it unless the counter claims are also shown.
“an Inconvient Truth” a POLITICAL PROPOGANDA FILM not a science based objective documentary at all
Well I have emailed as per Lord Monckton’s request. Having met him when he came to Adelaide, and given everything he is doing for my family (not personally, but for what we collectively believe in… or don’t believe as the case may be), I am more than happy to do something in return for him.
Alan Wilkinson says:
July 14, 2010 at 4:30 pm
What you say is true on the face of it.
Under the table these facts are known by all to be true:
-legal charges are whimsical and arbitrary
-all issues of fact can be settled by discovery process- cheaply- and Mr. Monckton has, essentially, prepared an interrogatory that serves the purpose with his letter to Abraham.
-the only issues of a libel proceeding are the statements made and the veracity of same, so florid prose on any other occasion not directly referenced by statements at issue are irrelevant and will not be entertained
Furthermore, this case is eminently decidable by summary judgement once discovery has recorded the facts as indisputable.
Winning is what one should be looking at excuses for doing – finding ways.
There are no play fairies. This is not entertainment. This is not a drill.
Monckton doesn’t need to take it to court: if he can actually have published an academic paper supporting his views, then the “Science has Spoken”.
Threats of legal action are Monckton’s admission that he is unable to refute Abraham’s points.
JOSH!
Please draw a cartoon of Lord Monckton, with everybody gathered for the hunt, mounted in scarlet coats and johphurs.
The hounds will be baying and Lord Monckton will be saying “Let’s bark from here and not actually chase the fox and we’ll just say we caught him!”
James Sexton: “There are more examples, of course, but these aren’t rhetorical…”
Some of the questions are rhetorical.
“31: Does the slide show a rise in sea level since 1993 at a rate of ~1 ft/century?
35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area “is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007”? Hint: The slide is below.
44: Is it not correct that the application of multiple trend-lines with arbitrarily-chosen endpoints to a single stochastic dataset in such a manner that conclusions are drawn from the slopes of the arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines when compared with one another is an impermissible statistical technique?
72: Did I at any point in my presentation state that Dr. Monnett did not believe that polar bears might drown at some future date if the regional warming in the Arctic continued and the sea ice in the Beaufort sea began to decline?”
“… they are “in your face”, “put up or shut up” questions.”
And also leading and complex questions.
“6: Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation?
16: Would it not have been fairer if you had verified Dr. Soon’s data instead of sniping at his funding?
65: Since the “commitment” upon CO2 stabilization over an entire century is just 0.5 C, would you not agree that the “commitment to future climate changes” will be small indeed?
133: Are you aware that the Antarctic has been cooling throughout the past 30 years?
138: Were you telling the truth when you asserted that I had said there were only four scientific papers cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Climate Assessment Report? If you were not telling the truth, why did you lie?”
The larger point is that Monckton is not presenting a scientific as much a polemical case. That’s his right, but Abraham has no obligation to respond to a polemic.
“Really, I don’t believe Monckton is worried about more scrutiny of his public statements than has already been scrutinized.”
Scrutiny on blogs and newspapers is one thing; scrutiny in a court quite another.
Dear Associate Professor Abraham:
Your Lord Monckton did burn,
The difference between evidence and prediction you must learn.
I suggest your expertise in thermodynamics be applied
To flipping burgers and things fried.
And before you again attempt intellectual hari-kari,
Consider heeding the advice of Dirty Harry —
“A man’s got to know his limitations”.
Here’s another pointer:
Giving them the option to take it down ‘because it’s the right thing’ is unacceptable strategically because they might just do it. Then what do you have? You have a record of them being good guys and doing the right thing, belatedly, but doing it.
If you want to win, instead you want them to take it down in response to a legal order to take it down. Then what do you have? A legal order, is what. A response to avoid consequences, not to be good guys. But more than that you have a thing called ‘precedent’. That’s what American courts run on.
This catfight on the internet better show some real results or a lot of us are going to regret the opportunities wasted. Talking about it is the way to avoid doing something.
Monckton is not Churchill, but this is still a war, if undeclared so far. With no leader, no example, no precedent of right over wrong in this story – there is nothing to work with still. It is, as described, entertainment – at very very very great ultimate expense. The whole world will be paying for this show for a very long time as it is.
Please, whoever has a chance, slay this thing!
As a lurker on this website (and I learn a lot), I finally decided to act on this one but kept it lowkey.
“I have watched the first video produced by Associate Professor John Abraham attacking Lord Monckton, and read the detailed response. I have had the opportunity to hear Lord Monckton speak and am aware he is meticulous in his presentation and makes it very clear to his audience that they need to check out the scientific facts for themselves, not be swayed by him or any other person speaking on anthropogenic global warming. Associate Professor John Abraham’s diatribe was exactly that, and has done nothing to enhance the cause he espouses. His video added nothing to scientific evidence but simply damaged his own reputation.
I would also suggest that these videos have done immense damage to the reputation of your university. You have complete control over whether you support your staff member or not, but as a University Dean I do feel you have a responsibility to support credible science and insist your staff do the same. Perhaps the best answer may be to ask Lord Monckton to come to address your staff and students on the scientific evidence on anthropogenic global warming and I suggest you also ask retired meteorologist Anthony Watts from Watts Up With That http://wattsupwiththat.com/ to give a presentation as well, I think the two presentations would be very enlightening to you, your staff and students.
Good luck in the court case,
Regards
One canceled speaking engagement would suffice for monetary damages and thus qualify for damages in the States. Not even that, one canceled engagement of any kind with even the remotest chance of monetary gain would suffice. True, he may not win much money, but I don’t believe money is the point. I believe the viscount is simply attempting to get the facts established in a court of law or by admittance of the university and the assoc. professor. That said, if the viscount wishes to pursue the case here in the States, he shouldn’t rely on his legal advisers across the pond. We do things very different here. But, I’m sure he knows that already.
LMAO
Get ’em annoyed, get ’em frustrated, get ’em angry, then annoy the living hell out of ’em to be victorious. Sun Tzu was a troll. :p
[snip -comment denied. Fake email address. IP address resolves to Christchruch, NZ but .com address given resolves to San Fransisco- see the policy page ~mod]
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable! And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
__________________________________________
Better metaphorical pitchforks than actual.
“A woman in the US has been injured when a bomb disguised to look like a box of chocolates exploded in her face, reports say.
The woman, aged in her 60s, reportedly received the parcel at her home…. reports have suggested the woman may have been targeted because she is married to an oil executive.” http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7928778
I and friends have been the targets of attacks concerning another issue. And yes there was physical damage done.
At least Lord M and the people at WUWT are staying within the law and conducting themselves as gentlemen.
done – I cced Professor Abraham so he can comment.
If the Trustees of the university have advised Prof. Abraham about the talk then they are aware of it and still allowing it to be hosted on the university website. Universities have lots of money, researchers not so much. This should maybe be an interesting point for your lawyers.
There seem to be a lot of indignant mutterings over at NZ’s Hot Topic
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
my point-by-point evisceration
Thank you mi Lord!
Please feel free to do as William Tecumseh Sherman did to raze the South and hasten the end of the Civil War: he burned Atlanta, tore up the railroads, leveled the factories, burned their crops, and ended at the Atlantic by burning Savannah.
“The utter destruction of [Georgia’s] roads, houses and people,will cripple their military resources… I can make Georgia howl!”
~~William Tecumseh Sherman
Photo of Sherman’s men destroying a railroad in Atlanta.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Sherman_railroad_destroy_noborder.jpg/536px-Sherman_railroad_destroy_noborder.jpg
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
After the burning of Savannah Sherman sent a letter to Abraham Lincoln:
“I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty guns and plenty of ammunition, also about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton.”
Lincoln replied the next day:
“Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift – the capture of Savannah. When you were leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honour is all yours; for I believe none of us went farther than to acquiesce. And taking the work of Gen. Thomas into the count, as it should be taken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obvious and immediate military advantage; but, in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important new service, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole – Hood’s army – it brings those who sat in darkness, to see a great light. But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave Gen. Grant and yourself to decide. Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army – officers and men.”
……re-recorded his entire 83-minute talk….
Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes.
This is funny!
Look back Mr. Monckton upon the ascending smoke of that burned city!!!
William Tecumseh Sherman after burning Atlanta:
“……We rode out of Atlanta by the Decatur road, filled by the marching troops and wagons of the Fourteenth Corps; and reaching the hill, just outside of the old rebel works, we naturally paused to look back upon the scenes of our past battles. We stood upon the very ground whereon was fought the bloody battle of July 22d, and could see the copse of wood where McPherson fell. Behind us lay Atlanta, smouldering and in ruins, the black smoke rising high in air, and hanging like a pall over the ruined city. Away off in the distance, on the McDonough road, was the rear of Howard’s column, the gun-barrels glistening in the sun, the white-topped wagons stretching away to the south; and right before us the Fourteenth Corps, marching steadily and rapidly, with a cheery look and swinging pace, that made light of the thousand miles that lay between us and Richmond. Some band, by accident, struck up the anthem of “John Brown’s soul goes marching on;” the men caught up the strain, and never before or since have I heard the chorus of “Glory, glory, hallelujah!” done with more spirit, or in better harmony of time and place.”
~~Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman, Chapter 21
I can’t understand why Abraham has been allowed to keep his page on the university web site.I didn’t have to watch Abraham’s video,it’s all covered in Monckton’s answers.He has plainly told Abraham and the head of the university that Abraham’s presentation is a lie,obviously Monckton is telling the truth,not too hard for him to prove.Why all the furphy about libel and such?It boils down to who is lying?Monckton has proved Abraham lied,so the university should make Abraham remove the parts where proof of lying is evident.A lot of the stuff written by Abraham could come under misunderstanding,no basis for removal,but this?
Abraham falsely stated that “Remember, Chris Monckton’s never published a paper in anything”
(37), when he knew or negligently and recklessly failed to check that – to take two examples –
Lord Monckton had published papers on the determination of climate sensitivity in the UK’s
Quarterly Economic Bulletin and in the American Physical Society’s reviewed newsletter, Physics
and Society, and that inter alia His Lordship has given faculty-level physics seminars on
determination of climate sensitivity as well as public university lectures on the climate, and has
xiii
led international scientific discussions on climate sensitivity, and has published academic papers
on subjects such as the theory of currencies, and has addressed delegates at several UNFCCC
climate conferences, and will be presenting a paper on reform of the IPCC at the annual
Planetary Emergencies session of the World Federation of Scientists later in 2010.
End
Abraham said
let me know if I was off base; was I convincing or not convincing?
End
He may have been convincing until Monckton published his reply,now he has been shown to be telling lies,and he has no comeback?
Christopher Monckton should put his money where his mouth is and sue John Abraham and the University Of St. Thomas if he truly believes he is right.
I highly suspect he won’t be taking legal action, though. While you all might think Christopher Monckton is a scientific genius – and Good Lord, nobody else does – the courts, however, would take a very dim view towards Monckton’s rubbish.
I am surprised to read that Abraham’s excellent presentation was a “diatribe” and full of ad-homenim attacks. Am I the only one who remembers Monckton’s inital response was to attack Abraham’s appearance (“an overcooked prawn”) and polite Minnesotan vocal manner?
Why can’t Monckton, point-by-point, address the points made by Abraham? Why is he asking “questions” instead of actually addressing facts such as his lack of citations, inability to contact scientists to see if he has correctly understood their work (ironic, seeing as he demands this from Abraham!) and deliberate use of misleading graphs?
I simply believe that if Monckton were right he wouldn’t be demanding academic censorship or threatening court action. He would, in a gentlemanly manner he seems incapable of, address Abraham’s criticism point-by-point instead of engaging in a 446 question gish gallop.
His main goal seems to be removal of Abraham’s presentation, as if Abraham’s crime was simply to criticise him.
andyscrase – from the site and their call for support to Dr Abraham
“Gavin July 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Gavin Schmidt
NASA GISS
unreservedly support”
Looks like Gavin found some spare minutes of his time to dash off a few words to an unknown NZ alarmist site.
E-mail sent. Thank you C.M and A.W for all your work.
andyscrase says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:03 pm
There seem to be a lot of indignant mutterings over at NZ’s Hot Topic
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
======
my post on NZ:
John from CA July 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Most here fail to understand the dignity that was respect in Science. Your support for pigs is making Science a barnyard fume offensive to all but those who never learned to smell.
Science is not an new toy in Social Media yet [some] Scientists will redefine this.
Sorry Anthony,
My response on NZ is not in keeping with the spirit of this site.
I’ll resist in the future but its difficult in the face of such swill.
John from CA
Why do I get a picture of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza preparing to charge academia rather than a windmill.
Monckton is making himself look silly – bullying instead of calm discussion.
Melinda Houston: What a ridiculous, dripping post you make.
“I simply believe that if Monckton were right he wouldn’t be demanding academic censorship or threatening court action.” I suppose all opinions except the overwhelmingly accepted ones should go through proper channels like “peer review”? I can’t express my complete contempt. There, now you have been “peer reviewed.” If I wasn’t inspired before, I am now.
Melinda Houston
I’m guessing you didn’t read Monckton’s reply to Abraham.He does address point by point.
As I know the man is not an idiot,I don’t have to go to the bother of verifying what Monckton states in his reply.
eg
Abraham states Monckton never published a paper,Monckton says he did.
Tell a lie about one thing,cannot be believed on anything else.
From Lord Monckton to Mr Abraham
By now, is it not all too painfully apparent to you that you have not conducted yourself in a manner that is appropriate to your station as a lecturer at a University?
You will surely appreciate that if I had done to you what you have tried to do to me you would be justifiably disconcerted; and you will note that, apart from a single angry statement for which I apologize, my public response to your less than honest talk has taken the form of a mild-mannered and straightforward refutation of your falsehoods, too many of which seem more than accidental.
End
Lord Monckton erupted (human thing to do)
Lord Monckton apologised,gentlemanly thing to do. So your post is a bit out of date.
ice9 says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:39 am
Lindzen and Choi have been debunked and dismembered
This is the first I’ve heard that. Did you contact them to tell them what you’ve found? Because I haven’t heard of an erratum for their work.
ROFLOL,
The wankers on NZ deleted (censored) my post.
I guess the site is “stupid is as stupid does”.
So much for free speech on NZ. Its very sad when kiddies in a sand erase toys they can’t understand.
I’m done toying with ornaments on the “green” — odd dreams await; night all.
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm
And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
No. You are reminded of 1776.
Melinda Houston says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Melinda, did you read the questions Monckton asked? Or did you just skim over them. Within the nearly 500 questions, there is virtually a “point-by-point” rebuttal. For instance, when Monckton asks questions such as 80: If you agree that the graph shows what I say it shows, why did you snidely remark, “On this slide he
says, ‘Sea ice is growing in the Beaufort Sea’: I’m not making that up” (15), if one does a bit of research, you’ll see Monckton was correct.
Another example, when Monckton asks, 276: Do not Petit et al. (1999), in common with Genthon et al. (1987); Fischer et al. (1999); Clark and Mix (2000); Indermuhle et al. (2000); Monnin et al. (2001); Mudelsee, (2001); and Caillon et al. (2003: op. cit.),
say that in the paleoclimate temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentrations followed suit?, he’s actually giving you the scientific studies you can verify for yourself showing he was correct.
Really, you should read Monckton’s rebuttal to Abraham’s critique. Abraham critiqued Monckton, but it wasn’t the real Monckton he critiqued, it was Abraham’s fabricated Monckton he critiqued. I watched Abraham’s slide show and listened to him blather and knew in less than 5 minutes into the show he was making sweeping generalizations and characterizing the generalizations as quotes and contextually missing what Monckton was saying. You can call that a scientific rebuttal if you wish, but when one has to resort to characterizing someone else statements to a 3rd party for the purpose of publicizing the 3rd parties response, alarms should go off in your head. Again, you should read Monckton’s rebuttal. He made numerous scientific statements posed in the form of a question. After reading the rebuttal, I’d suggest you look up some re-runs of a game show called Jeopardy. Or maybe do that first. The game show will warm you up with simple little statements formed as questions and then maybe you can work yourself up to reading Monckton’s rebuttal.
Best wishes,
James
Malcolm Ross, I have to use you as a foil, but I could be talking to 7/8 of the commenters here.
As pointed out by toby and a few others:
Does everyone assume that if Christopher Monckton says Abraham climbed down, Abraham climbed down?
The original presentation is still there. He’s revised it, sure, but hasn’t removed the original. He’s sharpening and perhaps even toning down certain aspects of his argument to focus on what he believes are his most critical points.
But a climb down?
I ain’t seeing it. And you wouldn’t either if you’d look and stop taking Christopher Monckton’s word for everything.
Oh, and hear, hear, Roy:
When I said 7/8, I probably overstated. There are more than a usual number of commenters here not blindly supporting Monckton.
I like Christopher Monckton. I find him incredibly entertaining and sharp. I think he is knowledgeable on his subject matter. And I think Abraham acted questionably by posting this attack without giving Monckton a chance to comment on the particulars beforehand and maybe assisting Abraham in correcting any unfairness.
But Monckton is a public figure and in the thick of it. S—- happens.
I’ll be very surprised if Monckton launches, and wins, a libel suit.
In Britain, Monckton is used to libel laws being heavily weighted toward the offended party. In America, not so much.
Chek:
“Mr. (note: not “Lord”) Monckton”
WTF? He is the hereditary Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and has been since his father died. Apparently “chek” misunderstands the nature of membership in the House of Lords since 1999.
Again- warm-mongers are pathetically ignorant. About everything.
—————-
“Defalcation:” In the US has come to mean embezzlement. In the UK retains its older, more general meaning of “an abuse of trust or confidence.”
““Gavin July 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Gavin Schmidt
NASA GISS
unreservedly support””
Well, Gavin is unraveling the tattered shreds of whatever remains of his credibility by “unreservedly supporting” that ignorant bozo’s farrago.
Bohemond, I’ll just call him “Mr. Monckton”, “Christopher Monckton”, or even “Monckton of Brenchley” if he prefers, because while I believe CO2-forced warming is not a threat to humanity, that every man is born legally equal: I don’t acknowledge titles by birth.
Earned titles are another matter. So if he can get himself elected to the House of Lords, I’ll be all over using the title.
This is not a slight to Monckton. It is a showing of respect to the natural rights of man — to the Enlightenment.
The way some are talking about Monckton puts me in mind of a story about George Washington, a true story.
The Ambassador to Brittan was sent by George Washington to England. The Brits put a picture of George Washington in the outhouse specifically for his visit. They were all anxious, watching him, waiting for him to retire to the outhouse. He finally did. On returning they said to him, “Did you see George Washington in the outhouse? Isn’t that the right place for him?” He replied, “Why yes, I did see it. And yes it’s the perfect place for it,” an answer which took them aback. He continued, “It’s the right place because there’s nothing like a picture of George Washington for scaring the shit out of a Brit.”
😉
Monckton will not sue because he has a long record of distorting conclusions, incorrectly quoting figures and selectively including facts, all of which will take about two months of witness questioning to go through. He also had is backside spanked in the UK courts on An Inconvenient Truth (yes I know a few here like to think not, but I’m proud to say my children are now committed eco-freaks having watched the movie seven times at their primary school 😉 ).
He also has a long record of failures to bully institutions into taking action against employees of theirs who disagree with Monckton.
In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. I look forward to the article “Monckton Climbs Down” when the inevitable happens.
As to Monckton demanding you deluge the University with emails, he’s just a pathetic and shameful bully who hates free speech except by himself.
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
You are a pathetic bully Anthony Watts. These are my personal comments done in my personal time using PCs that are provided for reasonable personal use by employees, contractors and visitors to the Met Office.
REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A
If you just have a blog policy that says “no dissenting opinions allowed” then that would be a little clearer.
I used to post quite regularly at climateaudit and never got this treatment. I had lots of constructive and polite debates there with people such as Steve Mosher. I learnt a lot there that helps me do my job better. I’ve learnt little here.
Why not be honest, Anthony, and simply filter all dissenting opinions out.
[REPLY – We never edit out dissenting opinions that are either constructive or polite. ~ Evan]
Mark Bowlin says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:36 am
“(4) Use this as a teaching opportunity for your students. Have Abraham remove the offending material (all the offending material) for the time being. Invite Monckton to your university to debate Abraham (and show him the courtesy you would any other guest), and let the students decide. If, after a student body vote, Monckton wins, then Abraham apologizes and the material goes away for good. If Abraham wins, then Monckton withdraws his complaint and charges of libel. ”
Absolutely brilliant advice.
It’s blatantly obvious that Watts and Monckton are not interested in science at all. This attempt to silence a real scientist who thoroughly debunked the charlatan and exposed his many many many lies and distortions, is beyond the pale.
“REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A”
Sorry, Anthony. I sincerely admire you, but this is starting to look like a RealClimate Gavinesque commentary trainwreck.
Give the man the benefit of the doubt that he’s not wasting his employer’s time and posting during in between breaks while diligently putting out quality long range winter mis-forecasts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/03/final-score-for-the-met-office-winter-forecast/
Steve Milesworthy – regarding your comment “In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. ” In Canada, we would simply call you childish, ignorant and rude. I hope your children don’t end up like you.
I think, under other circumstances, it could have been inappropriate for Anthony Watts to reveal Steve Milesworthy’s place of work.
What of a soldier or postal worker using government facilities to access a blog? They’re often allowed to, and should their workplace be revealed just because they post something the owner of the blog doesn’t like?
It’s not like this was a threat against anyone, or even libel. Rather, it was expressing an opinion.
That said, Steve Milesworthy of the UK Meteorological Office is a total jackass and the context is important. What government employee, funded by the taxpayer in a government agency whose mandate includes a serious study of climate and related environmental issues, publicly writes with pride:
On that basis, I can understand, with reservations (I wouldn’t have done it), why Anthony revealed Milesworthy’s place of employment, because his pro-government indoctrination stance. Of his own children no less.
I think Milesworthy’s quasi-fascistic glee in announcing with pride his own children’s successful ecological indoctrination by the government is, by itself, sufficient fodder for an excellent article in any of the major dailies’ environmental sections. Christopher Booker would rightly have a field day with it.
Sir, did you not feel any shame talking about how the governmental has successfully indoctrinated your own children, even if it’s with something you ultimately agree, or does the smiley face indicate how thrilled you are it is so effective?
Oh SM, posting from the UK Met Office. Of course.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more…
1. Google “censorship site:http://wattsupwiththat.com”
Plenty of talk on this site about censorship, with a common theme of accusing other blogs of censorship for removing comments. I’m somewhat surprised, then, to see how many commenters seem to think demanding the removal of a presentation from a university server is OK. (And Anthony by default since he’s allowed the guest post.)
2. Can’t help but comment on those last two comments, where A claims that if you’re writing emails from a publicly funded body, you have no right to express a view. What the hell???
Dan, there are commenters here (above, myself being one of them) who have expressed discomfort with requests to force the removal of Abraham’s presentation from the university server.
If it is libelous, then that can be taken up with the courts, if Monckton goes through with his intention to do that. I suppose his rebuttal could be considered a “libel notice”. I’m not a lawyer, but at least it’s fair warning.
Whether the university itself should step into a fight between two men, which is at least partially about science of critical importance to the world, is another matter. I don’t like the idea of it making its decisions on something like this on outside pressure.
So I grant you point 1, and just say that some AGW skeptics agree with you.
But as an individual, Christopher Monckton feels he was libeled, and I can understand why, if he can convince the university or Abraham to retract the presentation, he would want to. That doesn’t mean they should, but I suppose from his point of view it’s worth a try. If nothing else, if he does go to court it will show he gave Abraham every reasonable chance to mitigate damages.
As for point 2, I hope that wasn’t Anthony’s point. Anthony does make it very clear in the “Policy” section of this website that anonymity is not guaranteed and, further, under what circumstances he would be particularly likely to publish someone’s identity. So I think he has given warning on this. I’ve also seen him comment about this in several places in addition to “Policy”.
However, some employers do allow use of computers for reasonable personal use. It may bother Anthony that this includes taxpayer computers, but it is a fact. The military is one example I gave above. In my limited work experience, this was allowed by a government department I worked for (in the lunch room, on breaks).
Call it part of the compensation package, because really, people like to be connected nowadays, and these sorts of initiatives are important for employee retention and morale. We live mostly in free nations where a robust discussion of ideas should be encouraged.
If an employer allows an employee to use their work computer during personal time to participate in political or scientific discussion, is this really so bad? I think it is commendable provided it isn’t one-sided.
To me it isn’t the fact that Mr. Milesworthy used a government computer itself that’s the problem, it’s that he works for a government agency responsible for studying and influencing government environmental policy, and he’s just thrilled at how successful the government is at indoctrinating young Britons including his kids. He seems to think showing this same biased pro-AGW theory movie seven times to his children is appropriate.
I found that a remarkable admission.
Anthony, this is just a suggestion: “Policy” may confuse a few people, because some might skip that link on a site like this thinking it’s “Environmental policy that you recommend” or something like that.
The term “Comment Policy” is used on some blogs, and the internet standard for this type of thing for a website would be “Terms” or simply “T.O.S.” (for Terms Of Service). it’s your blog, you can keep it however you want, but you may want to consider one of those phrases in lieu of “Policy”.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Finally, Dan, I’ve both agreed with and disagreed with Anthony, and I’ve rarely if ever been censored here. I notice comments critical of AGW skepticism here all the time.
For the record, now that I am under siege, my local primary school does *not* show films as lessons – thank goodness – I was trying to be humourous. I teach my kids to question everything, and I hope they will learn to make their own decisions about the big moral questions.
SimonH says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:12 am
“I’ve written to Father Dease asking him to remove both the presentations, to issue an apology and initiate an enquiry into Abraham’s conduct.”
Okay Simon, I will go out and buy the brushes and whitewash right away 😉
PS. none of my scientific papers are in the slightest bit alarmist, and one of my roles (as discussed at climateaudit) is to better document the science process so that it is more open – my interchanges at climateaudit were useful to my job despite the odd spat, and I thought the surfacestations project was a good idea.
Your lordship, I have sent an email complaining to the University about the presentation. I personally would not request it to be removed, but expressed my disgust at the conduct of Mr. Abraham.
A public debate between the two of you would seem to be the best way to settle the scientific questions at hand.
On another note, I must agree with Mr Watts for disclosing the person’s place of work. If you are going to launch strong personal criticisms and attacks on people, do it from a non tax-payer funded computer. Especially if the topic at hand is climate change and your own employer has been proven utterly incompetent at predicting it!
I am not familiar with the vagaries of British peerage so I have no idea whether Viscount Monckton is entitled to be called Lord. What I do know is that I am a free man and call no one “My Lord”. I also know that if I met Viscount Monckton I would bow and say: “My Lord’! That is an earned title!! I hope I meet him!!
I normally would suggest that Professor Abraham put up a birdfeeder and tend it instead of the world’s business since he is so obviously an example of what is wrong with academia in the United States, but in this case he should go out on his deck and lounge on a chaise. The birds will gather. The vultures will circle.
John from CA says:
July 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Thankfully for Abraham, and the principles of academic freedom, libel laws aren’t as crazy outside the UK as they are within it.
The university will, and should, toss the protests of anti-science meatpuppets in the bin where they belong. Thankfully he’s receiving quite significant support from [snip]
[Reply] Keep it polite. RT-mod
Sorry, but Prof. Abraham was on target. To ask the President of the University to shut him down while crying for openness from scientists is low, IMHO. Anyway, with other readers of Hot Topic I added my voice in support of Prof. Abraham.
Dear Wim,
perhaps you can help me with this passage .. I sent it to Johm Abrahams yesterday and didn’t get an answer (which is okay, I bet he is quite busy).
My intention was, that even before we can start discussing science, we have to talk about attitude (and yes, I would aggree that many writers here have issues with that as well, why can’t people present their facts in a clear and polite way and most importantly leave opinions and emotions out of the discussion, since it is complicated enough?)
Here is a passage of the email I sent to John:
I agree, that Sir Houghton now denies to have made such a statement. However there is a document showing such a statement. We could argue semantics if the statement there and the supposed statement told by Monckton are indeed similar enough (in which I am not at all interested).
Or you could explain to me on what basis you dismiss the one of the sources. You might have a good reason for it, but I hope you see my point, that the explanation so far is not sufficient. And any neutral observer would draw the conclusion, that you and Sir J. Houghton are indeed incorrect.
Together with a link to the document:
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf
Can you at least see in this example, that the facts presented by J. Abrahams (he asked Sir J. Houghton who denies to have made such a claim) are not enough?
(Not by accident I picked a very easy example, with two clear contrary statements, which are not very necessary for debate of global warming – it’s a very good starting point)
Wim Prange says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:49 am
It’s blatantly obvious that Watts and Monckton are not interested in science at all. This attempt to silence a real scientist who thoroughly debunked the charlatan and exposed his many many many lies and distortions, is beyond the pale.
@Ken says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm
“– bullying instead of calm discussion.”
Pretty rich from a cult led, run and filled with blustering bullies and frauds.
Christoph: thanks for the civil reply. Last time I came here, no-one was so gracious. It gives me hope, even if we disagree.
“If, after a student body vote, Monckton wins, then Abraham apologizes and the material goes away for good. If Abraham wins, then Monckton withdraws his complaint and charges of libel. ”
This misses the point completely. The abuse of science is usually decided by scientists, or by investigative committees of scientsts, not by student debates. Besides, I would guess Monckton is the better debater. Why should Abraham allow his opponent to choose his best weapon?
Abraham basically accused Monckton of misrepresenting the published papers of scientists to make false claims. I think he made a convincing case – of course, you are at liberty to disagree with that.
Monckton clearly has most to lose. Attacking climate change is his main meal ticket. Contrary to what he claims in this post, the University of St. Thomas is not backing down, but are allowing Prof Abraham to keep his original rebuttal, snark and all, on the faculty website.
Monckton has a clear choice – as he is not a scientist or belong to a scientific institution, he has no recourse to ask that institution to investigate the competing claims. As well, recall how convinced people on this site were by the clearing of Michael Mann by Penn State!
His only recourse, it seems to me, is to the courts – which will be long, arduous and run the risk of expensive failure, leaving him worse off than before. Otherwise, he could just continue to proclaim his rectitude, and move on. My advice to him would be to take the second option.
Why not be honest, Anthony, and simply filter all dissenting opinions out.
[REPLY – We never edit out dissenting opinions that are either constructive or polite. ~ Evan]
The threat to expose information about the writers of dissenting posts will stop people posting.
If Anthony had wished to email me and ask me to expose my location, or at the very most publicly stated the type of organisation from where my post came, then that is fine in showing up any “agenda” I may be perceived to have.
I assume that most posters’ anonymity is respected if they prefer not to give their full names.
But my opinions are expressed as personal opinions, and can only be expressed openly by being circumspect.
I apologise to Anthony for calling him a lickspittle. Reading too much of Monckton’s flowery language put me in creative-insult mode.
Steve Milesworthy,
“In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 –”
Well Steve, I found only 1 reply to ice9’s diatribe, and that was a one sentence reply to a ludicrous claim made, not against Monckton, the subject of this blog, but bizarrely against Lindzen and Choi. And you know what? The diatribe of your hero, ice9 was so beneath contempt, that nobody even bothered.
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:39 am
If you just have a blog policy that says “no dissenting opinions allowed” then that would be a little clearer.
I used to post quite regularly at climateaudit and never got this treatment. I had lots of constructive and polite debates there with people such as Steve Mosher. I learnt a lot there that helps me do my job better. I’ve learnt little here.
Why not be honest, Anthony, and simply filter all dissenting opinions out.
===================================
That would be RealClimate.
Well, thanks for clarifying, Steve. Your sarcasm escaped me. Obviously that is much better. I’m glad to be mistaken on that point, for obvious reasons.
As you’ll see, I had no major issue with you using your employer’s computer with their permission, if not actually on the clock at the time, and if the exact same permission would be given to a person with a view opposing yours (with no retaliation at work).
Well it helped that I halfway agreed with you, although not on the climate science itself, assuming you believe CO2 is a significant and dangerous forcer of global warming.
Dave McK: July 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm
If, given the irrefutable libel, Mr. Monckton chooses to release the man unscathed, he will have confirmed them in their habits and demonstrated the measure of his own tolerance for dispute. If the AGW clan becomes convinced that even Mr. Monckton can be okie-doked out of a victory even when it is in his lap, then the license is given for unconstrained pillage.
One evening, I watched the Duty Officer chastise a pilot who persisted in taking a transmission oil sample from the helicopter before each flight.
Since the oil was sampled every 50 flight hours, taking an additional sample was unnecessary, and was against facility policy. Doing it wasted oil, and, since the drain valve wasn’t designed for rapid opening and closing (as the fuel sump drain valve is), excess oil usually formed a large puddle beneath the aircraft before the valve closed, necessitating a Spill Response (thanks, NJDEP).
The pilot had been told every day for two weeks to desist. When the Duty Officer saw him crawl under the aircraft to open the transmission drain valve, he walked out onto the ramp, grabbed the pilot’s heels, yanked him from beneath the aircraft and delivered a right cross to his jaw.
From that night on, that particular pilot was a model of decorum.
As the Duty Officer explained to me as he passed me on the ramp, “Sometimes, ya just gotta lump ’em.”
Joe Spencer says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:19 am
John from CA says: July 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Or , enthusiasm aside, perhaps it was just the language.
===========
I agree and, not that its a good excuse, I didn’t realize at the time I posted that the comments sections was for “We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University”.
I also realized this morning that the blog software they are using drops comments that receive too many negative votes. I’m reasonably sure my comment got the max so — “Stupid is as Stupid does” applies to me.
@ James Sexton
I scrolled down to the last comment on this page then slowly scrolled up until I reached a comment that actually refered to any of the points Monckton makes to see if I could research it.
“For instance, when Monckton asks questions such as 80: If you agree that the graph shows what I say it shows, why did you snidely remark, “On this slide he says, ‘Sea ice is growing in the Beaufort Sea’: I’m not making that up” (15), if one does a bit of research, you’ll see Monckton was correct.”
OK I am not a scientist but let’s do a bit of research –
Question 80 is contained in the “Extent of Beaufort Sea Ice” section and includes questions 78 through to 85.
Re. questions 79,82 and 83 –
Monckton states that his graph represents a “22-year period” “22 years” and “almost a quarter of a century”. He also states “that it is an abuse of statistical technique to rely on very short periods of observation”.
Well first off the graph is clearly labeled 1991-2003 which, if my maths is correct, amounts to only 12 years. Secondly, why does Monckton refer to the “Aristotelian logical fallacy” when that is precisely the mistake he is making himself ?
Re question 81 –
Monckton asks why Abraham did not contact him to obtain a citation for his graph (which I suppose you could argue is fair enough comment) but then continues to provide no citation. Well luckily Abraham was able to track it down and here is a link to a pdf of the actual paper containing the original graph –
http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2005/Geolphsical%20Research%20Letters/dec/2005GL024483.pdf
Re question 80 –
I have just read the whole paper it is only 5 pages long. Some of it is highly technical but I believe I can make the following points –
The actual graph that Monckton has copied is Figure 4. and shows concentration (extent) and draft (thickness) of pack ice at one site over a 12 year period. There are 2 trend lines on the graph, 1 show’s a slight upward trend for ice concentration and 1 show’s a slight downward trend for ice draft. The graph also shows monthly data for concentration and draft.
Note that: no particular element of the graph is given prominence, the graph only covers a 12 year period, the graph does not show trend lines for seasonal concentration and draft (which is very important – see figure 5 for instance, showing ice concentration in September with a downward trend) and the graph is only one element within a paper, that is itself only one paper amongst many others, that only refers to a particular set of data, from a particular site up until 2003.
Now what does Monckton do with this graph ? He takes it completely out of context, draws a thick red line over the concentration trend line, adds the words “Sea ice extent in the Beaufort Sea is growing” and states ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 0:28:35 ) “…the Beaufort sea has shown if anything a slight increase in the amount of sea ice available over the last 30 or 40 years, so there is no basis whatsoever for his suggestion that the polar bears were having to swim up to 60 miles to find ice. The whole story was a fiction…”
“30 or 40 years” ? No 12 years !
Also the graph show’s a trend line AVERAGE over 12 years. It does not show a trend line average for PARTICULAR TIMES of the year. Do Polar Bears exist in an alternate universe where they are swimming towards sea ice averagely in over 4000 days all at the same time ?
This is classic cherry picking and over simplification. Monckton is using slight of hand combined with a erudite and convincing stage presence to fool the audience.
Anthony, you posted this “A stasi-esque master list of skeptical scientists” about the PNAS paper. If you are so concerned about the potential for harrassment, why do you post Monckton’s invitation to harrass Abraham? “Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, … to instigate a disciplinary inquiry.” It’s just an attempt to bully an opponent into silence.
Let me get this straight. Lord Monckton ( not his real name) advertises himself a Catholic and proclaims that Parliament has no authority, that only the Queen does.
What happened to the last one of those?
Dear Dr. Dease;
Regretfully, Dr. Abraham’s attack on Lord Monckton represents an abuse of academic freedom and— unless authorized— a usurpation of the University of St. Thomas’ reputation and resources in what is clearly a personal vendetta.
It would be wise to disengage the University from this unfortunate partisan episode before it spirals further out of your control.
Very truly yours,
Chek at 8.19 am july 14
Are you English? You clearly don’t understand an old English saying.
It is NOT “All mouth and trousers” it is “All mouth and NO trousers” meaning someone full of loud mouthed oral aggression but without the balls for a fight.
Get it now ?
The request for many to contact Father Dennis J. Dease is a mistake and should be recognised as such (a double-strikethrough of the blog text between “May I ask your kind readers” and “a real help” would be nice).
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and St. Thomas University have already access to all the necessary resources to get to the bottom of this dispute in a legal manner, amicable or otherwise, and personally, I have a strong distaste for internet campaigns of all sorts.
Quentin says: “Monckton asks why Abraham did not contact him to obtain a citation for his graph…”
I don’t get this. A similar point came up over at Deltoid, where someone said:
“most scientists would at least write an email requesting citations.”
My reply: no, they wouldn’t. Same as any academic, they would expect properly referenced work to be the norm – not to have to chase people asking where they got their information. We fail undergrads for not producing properly referenced work.
How does Monckton expect to be taken seriously if he’s asking others to contact him for reference details? As I say, without proper referencing, if he was doing an undergrad course he’d fail it.
Joe Spencer says:
July 14, 2010 at 2:23 pm (Edit)
chek says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:19 am
“Btw, where is this alleged legal correspondence with Mr. Monckton’s “hard headed lawyers” hiding? It appears yesterday was the last update on Nova’s site and there was no indication of future tense from Mr. Chris, and even Nova’s coterie of commenters don’t seem to be aware of it.
More of your characterisitic bluff, Mr. Monckton?”
Give her a break. She’s now doubt preparing a piece on it, illustrated with cartoons in that inimitable style of hers.
If Monckton says it will appear there, then have no doubt… it will.
It has.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths
Not sending a letter
catch and kill, mount and display, Indeed!
Lord M , Finish him!!
Has Anthony Watts sent an email demanding Father Dease both launch an academic inquiry and remove the presentation from the internet?
I’d be very interested to learn the answer to that question.
I’m guessing … no.
Quentin Wallace at 6:26 AM gives a serious and hard-hitting critique of a memorable part of Christopher Monckton’s presentation regarding sea ice in the Beaufort Sea.
AGW Skeptics pride themselves on being being able to think objectively, without bias.
While I am inclined to agree that AGW is a misguided theory, and that the truer risk is another ice age because we are near the end of an interglacial period assuming past trends hold, I can’t help but believe he has been fair in his criticism.
Will Christopher Monckton explain these discrepancies to us? If in error, will he admit this error and revise his rebuttal? If correct, will he demonstrate where Wallace has gone wrong?
Dear Christoph Dollis,
In review of the cycles, I may have misunderstood the authors on the various web sites, which is all I have available, is the Earth’s elliptical orbit is in our favor of sustaining some of the global warming and the axis tilt is at a favorable 23.5 degrees.
The missing element for sustaining global warming as we know it for the last 2 decades is a favorable sunspot cycle totalling between a total mean of 650 to 950. We are looking at less than 200 total sunspot mean for this cycle that began 30 months ago.
According to Joseph D’Aleo, this cycle will have a twin. If it has two more siblings like it in size, we can and will know that we are in a mini-ice age for the rest of this 100 years.
Considering the size of the world’s population, global this and global that will be another story like “The Tower of Babel” handed down through generations.
It will get rough and tough!
There are herds of deer in Alaska where Bucks are taking on doe likeness. Is this protection against growing wolf packs following man as he moves south? I would love to be around to record that history. We may be seeing the actual adaptation of a species for the next mini-ice age.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Thank you for the information, Paul.
That was very interesting.
I do not know whether we are nearing the beginning of an ice age (I still remember the late 70s when our teachers were trying to scare us with concerns of one — well, that and the nukes, which were real — no slight to my teachers themselves, they were great). I am sure, however, that the next ice age, when it comes, will bite.
Seeing this comment thread, I am a little mystified by the love affair people here have for Monckton. Sure, he has a compelling oratory style, but just because he sounds good on video doesn’t mean he’s automatically correct. His “Response to John Abraham” doesn’t read as well as he speaks, in fact it reads like a haphazard pile of failed attempts at baited questions. It makes me wonder whether people here who unabashedly praise Monckton’s response has even read it.
For instance, question 17:
>Please provide a full academic resume [which was in italics for some odd reason]. Though you have described yourself as a “professor” (3, 62) more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?
What does that have to do with anything? Even if it was relevant, why is calling yourself a “professor,” when you in fact are a professor, a problem? And question 60:
>in 2005, the very year Gore was making his movie with its menace of an
imminent 20 ft sea-level rise, he bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis Tower, San Francisco
Again, what does that have to do with anything? Is Abraham now responsible for Gore’s property-buying decisions? It seems to me that Monckton is flinging hundreds of irrelevant nonsense questions rather than straightforwardly rebutting anything Abraham states.
Earlier in the thread some people claimed that Abraham’s presentation was boring, as if that somehow removed all merit from his arguments. What about this blog’s insistence that Abraham’s presentation be removed? At worst, Abraham is guilty of being slightly snarky. Maybe he should have contacted Monckton before posting his presentation. But he clearly avoided making any statements about Monckton’s character and only attacked his presentation (the main reason why Monckton is so unlikely to win a libel suit). What’s worse is people here are calling for the university to discipline John Abraham. The hypocrisy (remember how everyone jumped on Mann for getting that youtube video removed?) and attempt at censorship here is completely disgusting.
I quite enjoyed doing the research on the “Extent of Beaufort Sea Ice” section (Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 6:26 am) so I thought I might check out some more of Monckton’s questions/assertions.
A section that caught my eye was “Arctic sea ice extent”, “30-year loss of Arctic sea ice” and “The Greenland ice sheet”.
Preliminary thoughts on this section are centered around: the use of graphs out of context to give false impressions, the difference between AREA (sea-ice extent) and VOLUME (area x draft (depth)) and whether this could be a source of any misrepresentations (if they occur). I’ll need to find all the papers cited in this section first and have a read. I may be some time.
In the meantime here are 2 that jumped out at me that Abraham didn’t respond to –
Re question 455 –
“…are you not truly astonished to find that in the Central England Temperature Record, compiled since 1659 and, because of its latitude and other regional characteristics, a reasonable proxy for global temperature anomalies, shows that in the 40 years 1695-1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, Central England temperature rose by 4 F°, a rate eight or nine times greater than the warming of the 20th century?”
Erm No I am not astonished because –
1. How one set of readings taken in the Midlands of England in the 15th/16th century can possibly be described as “a reasonable proxy for global temperature anomalies” is beyond me.
2. A quick search will also reveal such information as “Between 1723 and the 1760s most observations were taken not from outside measurements but from indoor readings in unheated rooms, and thus are of little or no use.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
I think we can probably conclude that Monckton’s assertion that “Temperature rose 2.2 C in the 35 years 1700-1735” is at best tenuous and at worst just wrong.
Re question 456 –
“…why were you silent when confronted with the above visual evidence, from the US Department of Defense, showing that half a century ago its DEW-line early-warning radar stations were standing proud of the ice, while now the allegedly melting ice is accumulating rapidly around them?”
Well probably because this is a ridiculous statement to make.
A number of points –
1. They are built on the ice.
2. They have been abandoned for I think 22 years.
2. Any object just left sitting on ice will sink over time.
3. I could go on here but it is just plainly silly.
Haha it’s not just me – In the process of searching on the net I came accross these 2 blog posts that address the same 2 questions in further depth –
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-goes-up-often-melts-down.html
Admittedly these 2 were quite easy to criticise.
Damn I’ll have to get researching fast on the above sections.
And another thing – Am I the only one who is bored with all the – lawyer/libel/defemation/apologise/pay money – talk ?
Erm what about the science ?
Alex said:
I think Anthony Watts is more giving his ally and friend a forum to defend himself, rather than taking sides (beyond that).
In the first Monckton rebuttal response thread, Watts pointedly said he had no dog in the fight. My comment at 8:30 AM obliquely touches on this point.
Other than this and your giving Abraham’s presentation more credit than it may deserve, a point you made is well taken: Monckton’s good rebuttal points were obscured unnecessarily.
The comments here generally have the same level of content and style as Lord Monckton’s science. It’s sad that, rather than defend his work, he diverts the issue from subject content to personal reputation.
There’s a lot of comments about the presentation and the rebuttal, but there are clear indications those commenting failed to read both, and possibly neither. It’s a very long, and a very weak, thread. It’s another brick in the wall for Anti-Science Syndrome, imo.
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
2. A quick search will also reveal such information as “Between 1723 and the 1760s most observations were taken not from outside measurements but from indoor readings in unheated rooms, and thus are of little or no use.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
Don’t come to WUWT and post rubbish without a citation, and from Widipedia. There is no supporting citation on that claim. Provide it, or troll inabsentia.
Matt: July 15, 2010 at 7:19 am
Chek at 8.19 am july 14
It is NOT “All mouth and trousers” it is “All mouth and NO trousers” meaning someone full of loud mouthed oral aggression but without the balls for a fight.
In the interest of trans-Atlantic etymological comparison, the Murrican equivalent is, “Don’t write a check with your alligator mouth that your hummingbird ass can’t cash.”
owl905 says:
“It’s a very long, and a very weak, thread. It’s another brick in the wall for Anti-Science Syndrome, imo.”
The marker for the ‘Anti-Science Syndrome’ is heavy censorship by climate propaganda blogs like RealClimate, climateprogress, and the rest of that ilk that refuses to allow polite, sincere and on-point comments out of moderation.
For example, if I made a comment similar to yours at RC, CP, etc., it would be censored out of existence. That is “Anti-Science,” no?
Yes.
John McManus: July 15, 2010 at 7:15 am
Let me get this straight. Lord Monckton ( not his real name) advertises himself a Catholic and proclaims that Parliament has no authority, that only the Queen does.
Lord Monckton (his real title) states correctly that Parliament does not have the authority to revoke a personal gift from the sovereign. There. *Now* you have it straight.
What happened to the last one of those?
Which — Catholics, Parliaments, or Queens?
@ Tim Clark
OK sorry for inadequate citation. But I think you will find it is not rubbish. The following links will confirm the Wikipedia entry –
http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf
See page 2 and 3 English temperatures: Difficulties of standardization of diverse records.
and –
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf
See the Introduction on page 1.
Vigilantfish says:
“Re the Monckton-Abraham online confrontation, I just saw the following posted over at Climate Progress (apologies if this info has been given before):
Andy Gunther says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:28 am
Joe (and all):
I sent an email in support of John Abraham to St. Thomas University and he responded with a request that indications of support for his efforts to debunk Monckton be sent to Dr Susan Alexander (slalexander@stthomas.edu), who is managing the University’s response to Monckton. You should follow up on what is happening with Abraham, and I encourage all CP readers to send in a message of support for him to his institution.”
Alex: July 15, 2010 at 11:02 am
Seeing this comment thread, I am a little mystified by the love affair people here have for Monckton. Sure, he has a compelling oratory style, but just because he sounds good on video doesn’t mean he’s automatically correct. His “Response to John Abraham” doesn’t read as well as he speaks, in fact it reads like a haphazard pile of failed attempts at baited questions.
Ever been cross-examined by a lawyer?
Anyone got any rebuttals to my previous posts –
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 6:26 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm in response to Tim Clark says: July 15, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Scientific rebuttals that is ??? Anyone ??? I thought that was what this is all about ??? Christopher Monckton ??? Anyone ???
Abraham’s amateurish “hit job,” probably orchestrated with the assistance and acquiesence of other AGW supporters, once again demonstrates the mean-spirited arrogance of many in the AGW movement, whose final line of defense of a now indefensible theory is the use of lies, distortions and ad hominem attacks. Such is the fallen state of “mainstream climate science.”
Deep, poignant irony in that statement.
A little bird I know has whistled in my ear and indicated that the St Thomas adminstration is going to ‘invite’ Anthony and Lord Monckton to remove this thread.
I hope that Anthony and Lord Monckton have the courage to refuse the ‘invitation’.
The college may not have a legal grounds to do so.
This is really up to Mr. Watts.
Reason being, laws and blogs and first amendment rights.
If we have all complied with the rules and passed editor review, well, I have rights too.
The college needs me for their public relations director. I was one at one time at a church college that finally made university status.
Christian academia is a place that is focused on its God given mission. Dr. Anderson disrupted that at the worst time, Summer semester.
Easy answer, take a chill pill. Christian academia don’t Like our breed for they are more interested in moral issues in an academic climate. And sometimes, the other way around; Academics in a moral climate.
It was all peaceful up to a few weeks ago. Now it is summer, the profs are out and about and the administration was on a light schedule.
All threads run their course. People move on. The college just needs a few more coffee breaks, a few more group luncheons, a few trips to the museums and parks and don’t sweat this small stuff.
We will leave like vultures for the next piece of Road Kill in the very near future.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
My earlier reply got moderated out; what was offensive about saying something like: “what a cry baby, while Abrahams attacks the errors and methods in a talk, Monckton attacks the man, at the same time insisting that it’s he that’s being attacked.”
[snip – well one truth we can tell you is that you keep changing screen names “ccpo” KO, etc. – read the policy page.
Apparently you learned nothing from this admonition awhile ago.
“Reply: Sure. You follow rules and instructions of the blog and moderators or your posts don’t see the light of day. This is a moderated site. Hiding behind a Korean proxy server may keep you anonymous, but it doesn’t help your posts get through. EOM ~ charles the moderator. ”
~mod]
What a riot! It is an invariable reflex of humbugs that whenever either their arguments or authority are openly challenged, they puff up and threaten. I guess, it is important for a humbug to silence critique, because the humbug has no interest in getting to a common understanding. Why doesn’t Monckton just respond to Abraham’s objections point by point? Monckton apparently prefers to consult lawyers, rather than scientists, when he frames his “rebuttals.”
I agree with Monckton that Abraham damaged Monckton’s reputation. In a court, however, Monckton would have to demonstrate that Abraham lied, before Monckton could demonstrate libel. Good luck with that! Reread Abraham’s piece. Where did he lie? Just because you may not agree with what Abraham said or that he either contradicted or undermined what Monckton said, doesn’t mean Abraham lied.
Can you see a difference between the approach of Monckton and Abraham? Monckton claims Abraham has committed libel. To show that, all Monckton needs to do is show how Abraham damaged Monckton’s reputation (Abraham did damage to Monckton’s reputation in my eyes, did he in yours? If Abraham was ineffective in your eyes, I assume you think there was no damage, so no libel.) and that Abraham lied about Monckton’s argument. (Just identify the lies you have in mind.)
What’s up with that?
If there is libel, then Monckton should just sue. He doesn’t need to solicit an email spamming of St. Thomas University on this website. LOL. Asserting, here, that he may sue is just a pathetic, blustering, posture that any humbug might strike when contradicted or critiqued. I still await any analysis of the flaws in Abraham’s critique.
REPLY: And friends of Mann, like scumbag Kevin Grandia at the PR firm DeSmog blog, went ballistic when I made the same claim about my image, and my work being used in Climate Crock of the Week. Double stand, pot kettle and all that. Not impressed with your argument. -A
Anthony using words like scumbag? Anthony Well Played…. Nice to see you taking off the gloves and rattling your sabres. Well played indeed.
Now on to Eudoxus….
I’ve said it in here before…
Confucious said thousands of years ago…
It is better to keep your mouth shut or pen quiet, and let people assume you are a fool,
rather than to open your mouth or rattle your pen and remove all doubt.
Apparently you missed that lesson, numerous times….
REPLY: And it got me a public flogging in posts dedicated just to that one comment over at DeSmog blog and at Huffington post. Very thin skinned. One word, and they have to scream for worldwide attention. Quite funny, and telling. -A
Ken says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Why do I get a picture of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza preparing to charge academia rather than a windmill.
Monckton is making himself look silly – bullying instead of calm discussion.
Perhaps Ken, He like many others who stand for honesty, integrity, and truth in education and science are tired of the constant lies and attacks by slimeballs like Abraham.
I personally hope Christopher takes him and his school to court and sucessfully sues them for everything they have and they have to close their school to protect society from scumbags like Abraham.
Christopher,
Just a reminder sir,
As you so eloquently put it in your address to the Heartland conference in 2009:
Magna Est Veritas, Est Pravelbet
It was true several thousand years ago, and it is true today.
Anthony, I’m sure you have noticed that James Hoggan the founder and director of desmogblogg.com is a public relations (aka truth twister) master. He twists the truth for Gore quite often.
The word you chose is actually way too mild for anyone who represents that website of evil but I promised you I would use clean language so we’ll just leave it at that. 🙂
I just got this blurb from the science skeptic site…. And they’re calling Monkton a whiner…. ha ha ha ha this is funny
Facebook page to support John Abraham
There is now a Facebook page to support John Abraham. Specifically, it’s called Prawngate: Support John Abraham against Monckton\’s bullying. Many thanks to Dan Moutal, creator of the Irregular Climate podcast and Mind of Dan blog.
The word I’m hearing is that St Thomas University is solidly behind John Abraham so I\’d like to think all the support expressed at Hot Topic has made a difference. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone to drop by the Facebook and add your support.
For the record, Prawngate refers to Monckton’s initial response to John Abraham’s response. Most striking was this sentence:
“So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.”
As Dan points out, it’s quite extraordinary that someone can throw out an accusation of ad hominem while making an ad hominem attack in the same sentence. Hence Prawngate is born.
REPLY: Looks like the work of Tim Lambert. Heh, they cite this Pajamas Media article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/monckton-at-last-the-climate-extremists-try-to-debate-us-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true
For all the [people] who think only someone who is published in a peer review journal is bonafide to discuss scientific rhetoric.
where would we be if the other side had corrupted the process back in Einstein’s day and said only people with purple labcoats can speak before the halls of Academia.
Where would we be if the halls of Academia had told Sir Isaac Newton that had he not written a peer review journal he couldn’t put forth his treatise on gravity.
Where would we be if the halls of Academia had not let Socrates speak without writing a peer reviewed journal first.
Using the “you haven’t written a peer reviewed article” so therefore you are invalid, is only a recent phenomenon.
It is used quite heavily since the ACGW zealots corrupted the process and removed the majority of unbiased editors and reviewers from the process and put in all their own buddies. So now they can say if you haven’t written a peer reviewed and published journal in a climate related science journal you are to be shunned and ignored because they know that they have all the editors in their back pockets.
Attention; Dean and governing board of St. Thomas,
The Abraham of the Bible obviously followed God’s leading and was willing to follow him all the way to the sacrifice of his son.
The only thing Professor Abraham has sacrificed is the dignity, honor, and good name of St. Thomas.
He made one insulting diatribe and then after Christopher Monkton outted him he leaves a rebutted redaction on his site that has removed some of the libelous statements but has left many others in and added more.
If you stand behind Prof. Abraham then you are risking the reputation, and financial stability of your school via lawsuit.
It’s bad enough the whitewashing in GB over Phil Jones and now the one at Penn State over Michael Mann, please, I beg you be a man of integrity and distinct moral character and sanction Professor Abraham.
If you don’t want to do it for anything else, do it for the students who look up to their place of education.
I myself am a 50 year old college student who wishes I went to college many years ago when I was younger, as I for one am tired of the selling of the soul of education and science in America in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Sincerely,
Bradley Blosser
Anyway, I reckon its only a matter of time before someone finds out that John Abrahams made up all those nasty emails from scientists, you know, the ones that say, “Monckton is wrong”. Yep, he only pretends to ask them, and then he just makes up the replies and passes them off as the real thing.
You know, the same as all those climate scientist make up the temperature data – you should see their phone bills – they have to talk all the time so that the different temperature records agree closely enough, but not so closely that people get suspicious. Can’t use email – people might steal them. They made such an effort leading up to 1998 and then they realised they had to throw in quite a few years with no warming, or people would start to think, “Hey, how come these guys say its heating up when its not getting any warmer?”.
There is another clever ploy these dastardly “scientists” use – they make lots of different models, with all sorts of projections, and even though the physics is exactly the same, these models spew out a whole range of results, as if to suggest that the people who make the different models really are working independently of each other, even competing, they’d have you believe – no ain’t that a laugh?
It is shameful the way our “universities” (and I use that term loosely) have sicked the attack dogs onto his lordship. That John Abraham, you should have heard his talk – it was vicious. Didn’t address any facts, just one personal attack after another on the viscount. And nit-picking! “This graph doesn’t look the same as this one”, what a load of tosh. It is typical of the pettiness of the AGW bullies and liars.
You go, Steve Milesworthy! Shame on you Anthony. BTW, I’m using a University of Western Australia computer to send this comment in support of open and robust academic debate.
[REPLY – Well, gosh, we don’t mind so much that they make it all up. We only want to know HOW they make it up and what they make it up FROM. Preferably without having to file FOI requests (not that that does any good). We call that one “Scientific Method” in these here parts. Google it. (And, yeah, come to think of it, I’d be very, very interested in seeing some of those phone bills!) ~ Evan]
I’ve looked at both Abraham’s presentation and Lord Monckton’s response. All I can say is that to a reasonable person it appears that Abraham’s presentation is an objective analysis of Monckton’s points.
I would certainly encourage Lord Monckton to take this matter to court, as it would certainly serve to further expose his misunderstanding of the science of climate change to the public. It might also demonstrate the hypocracy inherent in a man who misquotes and defame’s others, but is unable to engage in debate on the very issues that he champions.
I must say that whatever the personal feelings of Professor Abraham towards Lord Monckton, there is no hint of malice in his presentation.
Monckton does no research, he publishes no peer reviewed material. He is in short, an embarrassment.
[REPLY — Well, he certainly embarrassed the IPCC by pointing out they did their own sums wrong in AR4 regarding sea level and had us all drowning in our beds. (The IPCC made the correction.) ~ Evan]
I am new to this – maybe I have posted the following comments on the wrong blog/thread ?
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 6:26 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm in response to Tim Clark says: July 15, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I would like to be challenged. I am not absolutely sure I am correct.
Anyone ?
Or direct me to someone who will ?
Where did this global warming begin?
1700 with the restart of sunspot activity.
Who is making a mint of money off this?
People who convinced college students, Congressmen and world leaders (educated people) that the earth was warming up due to too many cows, industrialization and people, an inconvenient truth.
They have built an Enron stock market based on this idea.
The IPCC gained control of our government in 2004 when President Bush placed us in their hands. Thus, Science is settled. Might as well shut down NASA, NOAA and live off Marvel Comics.
The IPCC study is the lead control document in all US documents dealing with National Security, FEMA, all the way down to our Municipalities.
They control our research funding, they are in our universities, colleges, secondary and private schools and all the way down to our youngest children.
Who is the IPCC? The lead man is out of India, the home of a cast system that is still in place.
The IPCC hope to gain control of us in Copenhagen last December and PM Brown was saying we are all going to die. We are still here.
Someone in Siberia unplugged Mann, Hanson and Jones last Nov. 21 and evened the battlefield. Thank you hackers.
Each institution has gathered around their “hockey stick” mathematician and thought it best to protect them. Considering each country’s labor laws and federal employment processes and procedures, the best we could hope for would be an early retirement for each of them.
Having watch the process a few times, the government employee has to pretty much kill or steal to be fired from a federal job slot. The process is enormous and set up to totally protect the employee no matter how much they are paid or how sorry they are.
So here we are. Two good people slugging it out. A college is involved. Numerous blogs and very good people slugging out over the truth.
In this closing comment;
There are no sunspots to speak of. Global warming, based on normal sunspot cycles will not return for 30 to 40 years.
The USA winters have dropped 6 degrees in the last six years. I expect them to drop to between 22 and 29 degrees for the next three decades
The overall US temps have dropped 2 degrees. They are still in the 50s. I expect these to drop into the mid-40s. There is nothing to back me up except history.
Drought will be severe worldwide and crop lost will be severe as well.
Most monthly data is ranked and can be played with on a link inside NOAA.
The world temps have peaked and appear to be dropping. NASA has not updated their chart in two years for it is based on man-made global warming.
Glaciers should be melting, though there should be a slight growth in glaciers closest to the Arctic and Antarctica Circles and higher elevations.
They are still skiing in the Alps and Australia just had its worst winter in 130 years.
There should be a slight growth in glaciers there.
Greenland, much like Glacier Bay’s fjord glacier should be melting. It takes a mini-ice age to replace them. There is something to pray for.
Enough said.
I still hold to a hurricane season of 7 storms of 50/50 mix of tropical storms and hurricanes.
Global warming is over for the rest of my life.
You will need food storage, heavy clothing and winter sleeping bags for your home and auto and “off the grid” alternate heating.
Thank you for this forum.
I await the next thread.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Lord Mockton is an idiot and it’s about time that someone called him out on his unsubstantiated and far flung theories and accusations. I find it ridiculous that he has to get his lawyers involved rather then let the facts sort themselves out. How can one person make all kinds of accusations and statements but when they are called out on them rather then having a debate they have to take the low road and try and make them simply disappear.
Evan – Well, he certainly embarrassed the IPCC by pointing out they did their own sums wrong in AR4 regarding sea level and had us all drowning in our beds. (The IPCC made the correction.)
Actually Stefan at RealClimate spotted it earlier, without making a fuss, and without staking a claim to the Nobel.
Despite claims to he contrary, His Lordship has published no papers in the peer-reviewed literature. The Editor of the APS newsletter where he posted his Climate Sensitivity nonsense gets ticked off when people describe the artice as peer-reviewed, as it was not.
[REPLY – Thanks. That’s very interesting. (But note, for the record that Stefan merely forwarded the info along. It was spotted by an alert poster.) But why was it not corrected immediately rather than being left for the dreaded Monck to notice and publicize? ~ Evan]
Dave P: July 16, 2010 at 6:33 am
How can one person make all kinds of accusations and statements but when they are called out on them rather then having a debate they have to take the low road and try and make them simply disappear.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Whatever made Associate Professor Abraham think removing a few libelous statements and making some minor changes to his presentation would fool people?
Re John Brookes
Very well said. The bit that I like best is those vicious scientists making this up since Tyndall or Arrhenius. It must be a secret society worth another Dan Brown book.
I imagine they planning it back then: “Look, here’s the plan: we come up with a fake paper now and then so that they eventually add up to this warming stuff. People will freak out, and in a century or two we’ll be swimming in research fund money! It’s fool proof!”
I.m surprised at the number of pro Abraham comments making it through moderation. Well done folks.
I had a snark from someone calling himself “A” a while ago about Hot Topics thread supporting Abraham. “A ” said that sending an email showed so much more comm ittment than signing a petition. My response could not have been moderated out as I was polite and constructive. Must have just been lost.
Let me point out “A” that Hot Topic specifically suggested that no campaign to flood St.T’s inbox ( denial of service) should be conducted. A polite way is a single thread that will be sent through when done. The thread is much more than a petition . People are submitting thoughtful comments. Locations show the worldwide support Abraham has and the qualifications some include shoe a cosmopolitan well educated cohort.
As a Catholic (traditional) I was perplexed at how a Priest like Fr. Dease could behave in such a non-Christ-like way. ‘I was’ that is until I performed a background search on Fr. Dease. From now on I will refer to the man as Dease as the man behaves far from that of a Father unless his son’s name is Damien.
But make your own decisions about Dease. Here is a link that I found to be quite informative about Dease —
http://www.docsociety.org/saintthomas.html
I encourage all, Catholics in particular, to take a few minutes to read up on Dease and see for themselves the damage he has inflicted on a once Catholic University.
After reading this link it became quite clear why Dease would defend someone with the obvious lack of decency and character that Prof(?) Abraham displays.
Once again as a Catholic, I was considering writing Dease’s Bishop but after reading the above link, it became apparent that would be fruitless. Dease has removed any higher Church officials from a decision-making position of authority from St Thomas while installing individuals that support questionable institutions such as the vehemntly anti-Catholic Planned Parenthood to the Board of St Thomas.
I applaud Lord Monckton for taking on this evil disguised as a Catholic Institution and truly hope the good Lord’s lawsuit will result in St. Thomas losing every penny (including Dease’s multi-million dollar contract, travel expenditures and elaborate housing) they have been given by those trying to destroy the Church and replace Christianity with the worship of power and wealth thinly disguised as climate alarmism.
Smooth move, Hugh.
Extend the ad hominem to the University´s president.
As stated by Abraham himself, “point and counterpoint are the standard in academic discourse”. Anything seems to be fair game here to avoid this. Anything BUT checking whether Abraham´s assertions about the content of Monckton´s speech were accurate.
Way to go, folks.
To Christoph Dollis,
I checked out your thoughts.
Using “Ice Age Earth, Late Quaternary Geology and Climate” page 3 for one.
If we peak sometime soon, I don’t know yet, guess soon, next 1000 years, there is a steady decline towards one half of an ice age that takes about 10,000 years. Then there is a gradual decline into a full ice age over the next 90,000 years.
We really don’t stay out of an Ice age very long.
In summary, we saw the first melt, deluge about 16,000 years ago that wiped life off the map in the Caspian and Black Sea area. About half of the Ice Mass was gone around 10,000 years ago, but enough to leave 8 feet of sediment in the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys around 6000 years ago.
These are estimated dates based on Carbon Dating of objects found under the sediment.
Speculation holds that the Noah epic was 16,000 years ago or about 8,000 years ago. The 16,000 year ago flood is favored to allow for the migration of the story to all parts of the world, to include American-Indian tribes. They (12 known groups from England to the Americas) all tell the story about the same.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
You say climate-extremists
“careful avoidance of any debate”
Yet here you are attempting to censor that very debate
“Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him – even at this eleventh hour – to take down Abraham’s talk altogether from the University’s servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct”
Kettle meet Pot.
Jeremy Thomson
“May the Farce be with you!”
Excuse me Alexandre.
Did Abraham not start this trite politics of personal destruction against Lord Monckton?
Did Dease not support this questionable behavior by Abraham?
Are you suggesting this is proper conduct by a university president….much less a supposed priest?
And after this sorry display of character assanination by a University, are there still those that say this is about ‘the science’ and not politics?
Yes, I’m quite sure you would like for those that disagree with your politics of personal destruction to roll over and ask for another attack. Well sorry, that dog won’t hunt any more. Abraham and Dease opened this can of worms. And only through a sincere apology to Lord Monckton can Abraham and Dease put the worms back in the can. Short of that, they can expect to reap exactly what they sow in a court of law and the court of public opinion.
There is no doubt in my mind you aren’t the least interested in the accuracy of Abraham’s verbal assault on Lord Monckton. You would prefer that this sordid display had ended with Abraham’s snarky original video character assaniation of Lord Monckton. Do you really think post climategate that you can continue this charade of attacking those that disagree and then playing the victim when cornered? Does your conscience never weary defending those that personally prosper on the gullibility of others?
This post and thread are overflowing with arguments addressing the supposed accuracy of Abraham’s assertions. What more can be added? However, very little was offered in the way of Dease or his involvement which roused my curiosity. If you are interested in challenging accuracy, perhaps you would prefer challenging the assertions made in the link about Dease. Hopefully you will find the excercise enlightening. You might just begin to comprehend the uncomfortable position Abraham, with Dease’s full support, has avoidably placed Lord Monckton. Or is your feigned outrage at ad homenin attacks only confined to those with whom you politically agree?
Science. Substance.
Monckton regularly encourages his audiences to check the science themselves rather than take his word for it. Abraham did this, even going as far as contacting the scientists on which Monckton based his lecture (the ones that were cited). 99.99% of this thread is devoted to talk of libel and lawyers, announcements of support, and name-calling – at the request, and by the example of the Viscount of Brenchley.
There has been in no way any discussion of the scientific points raised by Abraham in this thread. It’s virtually all meta here. And so is this post, in keeping with the theme.
It would behoove Monckton – and the denizens of this board – to deal substantively with the arguments instead of whining about the tone in which they were delivered. Abraham and his university have replied to Monckton, and have rightly given his laboured, repetitive, bully-boy tactics short shrift.
I viewed the first version of Abraham’s rebuttal video, by the way, when it first came online, and managed to slog through most of Monckton’s recent, turgid distraction. Judging by the comments here, I might be amongst a small pool of people who have done this much.
I’ve reviewed parts of other of Monckton’s presentations for myself – that which was referenced. I didn’t need Abraham to tell me what I’d already determined, but I applaud him for tackling Monckton’s rhetorical ‘science’ so extensively. Until I see a substantive reply from Monckton, I’ll be ignoring his antics and hopefully soon forgetting the disgust they have engendered. Perhaps y’all could petition his Lordship to do that instead of clamouring for censorship.
To: Quentin Wallace
Appreciated your comments but I’d like to suggest you investigate what other sources
have to say on these subjects – i.e. what do the various proxy temperature reconstructions show for global temperatures in the early 1700’s or what are the results of other ice extent measurements for the Beaufort Sea. You could also look at the papers that cite the 2 papers in question using Google Scholar and see whether they support or rebut the original papers.
It will be very good if many independent investigators do a good job of presenting a balanced view on the issues brought up in the Monckton Abraham debate.
What would also be good is if someone could answer the damning criticisms Quentin Wallace made of Monckton’s representation of his data.
It’s not the end of the world to acknowledge error. But not doing so while criticizing in detail someone else’s errors… well, you tell me what that is.
The cause of science is truth. substance, when will good people all stand against the lies. Silence is acquiescence to lie. Even Einstein was wrong, but he did not malign others.
barryb: July 17, 2010 at 10:58 am
Monckton regularly encourages his audiences to check the science themselves rather than take his word for it. Abraham did this, even going as far as contacting the scientists on which Monckton based his lecture (the ones that were cited). 99.99% of this thread is devoted to talk of libel and lawyers, announcements of support, and name-calling – at the request, and by the example of the Viscount of Brenchley.
Associate Professor Abraham contacted one of the scientists, several third parties who were *not* the scientists, and some he did not contact at all. In no way did he contact “the scientists (plural). In those cases where Abraham made contact with *someone*, he misrepresented Lord Monckton’s stance.
There has been in no way any discussion of the scientific points raised by Abraham in this thread. It’s virtually all meta here. And so is this post, in keeping with the theme.
The scientific points are not the subject addressed in the post. There’s plenty of science being discussed in the other posts here, though.
Until I see a substantive reply from Monckton, I’ll be ignoring his antics and hopefully soon forgetting the disgust they have engendered.
So, you either did not read his reply, or you did not understand it. My condolences on your upset tummy — tried milk of magnesia?
Nice try at misdirection from the topic, BTW. I give it a five out of ten — would have been higher, but your ennui came across as forced…
We have a problem. A University is offering it’s name and web site to smear a political opponent. The Head of the school really doesn’t appear to care about what Monkton supporters think. Many have sent direct messages.
I still suggest direct messages and have each message openly be carbon copied to a member of the board of trustees.
The trustees are the only group that can put heat on the Father Dease. It only takes a short e-mail from a connected donor to ask what is up with thise use of the school to smear people.
Helen Thomas was committed to a century as a news reporter from the Whitehouse.
One of the Hearst daughters that is not employed by the news empire sent a note to the media conglomerate and asked the Hearst family name not be smeared by Helen. She was fired on a Sunday.
Bill Tuttle says: July 18, 2010 at 2:37 am
Hi, not sure if you read my posts here that respond to actual scientific claims made by Christopher Monckton ?
My responses were in no way complex, esoteric or difficult to understand.
They seem to have been ignored ?
I would like to be challenged on them.
If you think they are in the wrong thread maybe you could direct me to the correct thread and I will gladly post them there.
So I started to listen to Abraham’s updated presentation- he restated Monckton’s disagreement now being with “almost all” instead of “ALL” scientific organizations- and then it looks like he inserts a section about John Houghton’s statement regarding a disaster being needed to get people to listen, and what a fabrication that is.
Perhaps Abraham should have read this article: http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf
Abraham wants to claim for certain that Houghton never said what Monckton reported in light of this? How could he? Certainly not because Houghton had never expressed the sentiment before.
It seems Abraham hasn’t learned anything about the need to make precise statements, especially ones that convey a view that is 180 degrees from reality.
I won’t waste any more time with Abraham at this point.
@Bill Tuttle.
You have clearly not viewed the video, or paid attention if you did. I have bolded the names of the authors Abraham contacted, who wrote the papers that Monckton cited, and who replied to Abraham.
Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by Polar Bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (2006), C. Monnett and J. Gleason
Norris & Rosenstrator (2002)
Esper & Schweingruber (2004)
Kiegwin (1996)
Johannessen (2005)
Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea level rise (2008), C Domingues et al.
What the sun-spot record tells us about space climate (2004), D. Hathaway & R. Wilson
IAU (2004) [This is Monckton’s reference for a conference held by the International Astronomical Union]. Abraham contacted the president of the IAU, who chaired the conference.
On sea ice, Abraham contacted the chief scientist, John Walsh, and the director, Larry Hinzman at the IARC, from where Monckton had copied a graph claiming sea ice had been steady for a decade.
Monckton references a graph from Uni of Colorado on sea level (<a href=http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg.this one). Abraham contacted the researcher who maintains that grapg, W Pfeffer.
Sometimes Abraham searched for other papers or web pages by the authors Monckton cited, and discovered they were saying the opposite of what Monckton claimed.
Where Monckton did not give any references, Abraham hunted down recent papers and sometimes contacted the authors.
The replies were very consistent – “Monckton is wrong.”
I wonder how many of these authors Monckton contacted before misrepresenting their work.
But back to your point – you are quite wrong. Abraham contacted many more than “one” author. Clearly, you are another who hasn’t viewed, or didn’t pay attention to, Abraham’s presentation. I expect this is common deficit amongst the majority of pro-Monckton commenters here. So here’s the original presentation again.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Original%20Presentation/index.htm
Oh, I agree. I was replying to a Monckton supporter who said:
“This post and thread are overflowing with arguments addressing the supposed accuracy of Abraham’s assertions.”
I appreciate you verifying the invalidity of that statement.
Having reviewed Abraham’s presentation again, I can see not one example of offensive or libelous language. Abraham often says that Monckton is ‘mistaken’, or has ‘misstated’, or implies that he doesn’t cite, annotate or use values properly. And that’s it!
That such tiny sparks can ignite such a bonfire says more about the tinder than the flame.
Nor does he care about Monckton’s overwrought, fussbudgety list of complaints. Why on earth would he take seriously a minor celebrity challenging one of his scientists on science and scientific conduct, let alone that celebrity’s fans?
barry,
With all the spin going on, it’s hard to believe your claims that those authors all contradicted Lord Monckton, who is a stickler for accuracy.
So to see if there were leading questions asked by Abraham, let’s see all the relevant communications between him and the others. Until then, you’re just throwing out gossip based on hearsay, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Stickler? He even got the gender wrong on an author he cited (cf Tim Lambert’s debate with him).
Smokey, have you seen Abraham’s presentation at all, or are you, like Bill Tuttle, blowing smoke? Seriously. Have you?
Abraham provides copious scientific references and gives Monckton a lot of concessions. Is Monckton disqualified because of his lack of credentials? No, says John Abraham. He looks directly at what Monckton claims and goes to the sources where possible. It’s pretty reasonable language, the tone of the commentary is relaxed, not aggressive and not at all inflammatory. The fuss being made about it is a complete overreaction, and the scientific point-for-point he encourages has been choked by this preposterous action to censor free opinion.
Check it out before you comment.
There are many other “plots” that you could be “unmasking” other than this global warming “conspiracy” that has been going on for 150 years or so.
Who shot JFK?
Where are the space aliens at area 51?
Sept 11 is a government plot.
AIDS was made by “crafty” Pentagon scientists to exterminate blacks, etc.
Monckton rebutted Dr. Abraham twice. Why can’t Abraham rebutt Monckton twice?
Monckton is a mouthpiece for the Russian propaganda and probably Gazprom.
However, all of a sudden the Party Line is changing. Instead of putting Monckton on Russia Today, the RIANOVOSTI are quoting American government scientists.
Last winter, Monckton even said on Russia Today that “Russia is twenty times more democratic than Britain.” Russia is ruled by the former Chairman of the Board of the monopoly Gazprom. Putin is head of the ruling Yedinstvo party. Gazprom owns much of the media.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/07/lord-christipher-monckton-issues.html
When the party line changes, the Russians throw their stooges under the bus.
Izvestiya (3-19-92) famously reported:
[KGB chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ ‘crafty’ plots were fabricated in KGB offices.
During the 1980s, the Soviet state security, the KGB, orchestrated the infamous “AIDS made in America” campaign of defamation against American scientists via their media stooges. In 1987, the famous Soviet physicist Roald Sagdeev, who recently criticized Attorney General Cuccinelli’s persecution of climate scientist Michael Mann, publically denounced the pseudoscientific AIDS conspiracy theory, with a little urging from a President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz.
Unlike Virginia’s Attorney General Cuccinelli, America’s Secretary of State Shultz, a Republican, defended America’s scientists from those who would defame them and smear them in front of the whole world. Mr. Schultz appreciated how important American science is for the progress of the entire world.
Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges. There is nothing conservative about risking the future of our nation and the whole world.
As the New York Times (11-5-87) reported:
Soviet scientists have disavowed charges in the Soviet-sponsored press that the AIDS virus was artificially cultivated at a secret American military base.
The scientists, Roald Sagdeyev and Vitali Goldansky, publicly distanced the Soviet Academy of Sciences from the accusations about American responsibility for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. They said they had protested the appearance of Soviet articles that repeated those contentions.
The disavowal was contained in Izvestia, the Soviet government newspaper, on Friday. The timing of the article by the scientists suggested that it had been written in response to complaints raised by Secretary of State George P. Shultz in an Oct. 23 meeting with Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, about Soviet discussion of the AIDS issue. Mr. Shultz told Mr. Gorbachev that Moscow had been peddling ”bum dope” on the subject.
Charles Redman, a spokesman for the State Department, said the United States welcomed ”this authoritative Soviet disavowal of the false charges that the U.S. is responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.”
”We note in particular that this disavowal appeared in the official Soviet press.”
A few years later, Izvestiya (3-19-92) famously reported:
[KGB chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ ‘crafty’ plots were fabricated in KGB offices.
Monckton doesn’t give one specific example of a libel that was removed or remains in John Abraham’s presentation.
Monckton has revised his presentation two or three times. Maybe he is the one removing libels. You can’t sue in America if you are a public figure who appears on Russian TV and claims Russia is 20 times more democratic than Britain.
Monckton comes across to me a a pompous buffoon. Dr. Abraham comes across as a scholar. I have listened to both of his informative presentations many times. Monckton misrepresents his own sources, according to Abraham.
The Russian media has published an article about the problem of pseudoscientists and charlatans who are pretending to be scientists. After all, these are the folks whose ideology was called “scientific” Marxism-Leninism.” The Russians aren’t putting Monckton on the Kremlin channel Russia Today any more like they did before the Copenhagen global warming conference.
The Russians are writing about global warming. They are citing U.S. government sources, and Eduard Kruglyakov, the head of the Pseudoscience Commission at the Russian Academy of Sciences is complaining about pseudoscientific nonsense:
“Rasputin-style infiltration into the upper echelons of power remains a problem even in post-Soviet Russia. ‘In the Kremlin there were whole groups of—I’m scared of calling them charlatans—but mystics, astrologists. These were prominent people—generals. The 1990s were an analogue of Rasputin’s time,’ said [Eduard Kruglyakov, the head of the Pseudoscience Commission at the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Several appointments made by Boris Yeltsin suggested that he sought advice from odd sources. For instance, Yeltsin made General Georgi Rogozin, an ex-KGB officer and star-gazer, the deputy head of his Presidential Security Service. Rogozin led a team of 12 astrologers who would draw on their expertise to counsel the president.”—RIA Novosti (7-8-10)
The famous plasma physicist Roald Sagdeev–who denounced the KGB for the AIDS lie on behalf of the Soviet Academy of Sciences—has signed the petition to support Dr. Michael Mann.
barry,
Thanx for doing your part in getting this thread over 300 comments. We’re almost there.☺
I remind you that I wanted to verify: “…if there were leading questions asked by Abraham, let’s see all the relevant communications between him and the others. Until then, you’re just throwing out gossip based on hearsay, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.” So far, all you’ve got is Abraham’s gossip.
Snapple, thanx to you, too. Anyway, you say that Ken Cuccinelli is…
You’ve been in KGB land way too long.
The Attorney General has simply filed a brief for discovery. There are no fraud charges filed. Sorry about the death of your strawman. It took you three consecutive posts to set him up — and two short sentences to finish him off.
For goodness sakes. Universities provide assets to study and debate science.
I agree with most of the points Monckton makes. I am definitely a skeptic. And maybe Monckton was wronged.
But in general, give your head a shake. PLEASE. This is what universities do. We should have more debate, not less. If this was libel, then Monckton can proceed with the courts if he can’t encourage Abraham to take it down.
I don’t want universities intimidated into removing their (associate) professors’ public statements.
Were the Russians involved when:
Willie Soon (Harvard) displayed graphs from the Arctic and Japan clearly correlating temperature to solar activity;
Richard Lindzen (MIT) calculated significantly lower CO2 sensitivity- and Arrhenius lowered his own before he died;
CERN decided to fund the CLOUD experiment based on Svensmark’s testing and cloud/temperature correlation data;
The British Court determined “An Inconvenient Truth” had nearly 30 mistakes;
The American public placed Global Warming last on a survey of problems;
Abraham made dozens of demonstrably false statements (for example, Monckton being in disagreement with “ALL” scientific organizations- which he has now modified).
Let’s see how the Aerosols Conference goes, and then talk about CO2 then.
One can only home the buffoon Monckton pushes forward with his threat. The idea of this worm twisting in the bright light of the truth is just too much to relish.
He (Monckton) would be well advised to be careful for what he wishes for.
Abraham displays portions of the emails, including his own questions to the authors, and references the studies he cites. He goes to great lengths to dig up recent papers on the topics Monckton covers to compare with.
Even better, he encourages anyone to email him with questions about his sources. Anyone curious about the to and fro can actually do something about it. You could email Abraham yourself, Smokey, assuming you actually want answers to the doubts you’re projecting.
Your characterization of Abraham’s vid is quite remote from what I saw. I’m not throwing out hearsay. I’m posting info directly from the presentation, and linking to it so anyone can check on it.
Once again, did you even view Abraham’s video? Fess up, now.
I’ve been reading Monckton’s condensed rebuttal. I picked a rebuttal at random and checked on it – the one on Beaufort sea ice.
So I checked the video presentation and dug up the paper for myself. I discovered that the paper concludes with the seasonal observation in the context of long-term change.
In the video, Abraham says that, as the paper seems to be at odds with what Monckton is saying, Abraham may have misinterpreted the paper. So he contacts the author, who says, quite explicitly, that Monckton is wrong [about increasing Beaufort sea ice], and refers Abraham back to the paper.
Abraham’s question to the author is included in the screen shot of the email exchange. In this case, all the information is there. Monckton is wrong.
Check out all the information and see if there’s a case for ‘libel’.
references;
Monckton’s condensed rebuttal, page 7 [PDF].
Abraham’s presentation, slides 15, 16 and 17.
The scientific paper mentioned by both of them – Barber et al (2009) [PDF].
I’m conscious that I might be interfering with a petition for censorship by discussing facts. If there is a thread where the substance is being discussed, a link would be gratefully appreciated.
I also look forward to Monckton suing.
It’s something voyeuristic in me I guess.
I’ve never witnessed a case of self immolation before.
Yo,
I thought I’d jump back in this fray in hopes of being the 300th comment.
Straight from NOAA. June 2010 was the 8th hottest since 1934 if you want to use this web site. Shouldn’t it be number one if it were getting hotter???
Since 2002, there is a downward “hockey stick” trend and matches my work on sunspot minimum.
Direct from the NOAA web site.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary June 2010
The average temperature in June 2010 was 71.4 F. This was 2.2 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 8th warmest June in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. 3.33 inches of precipitation fell in June. This was 0.44 inches more than the 1901-2000 average, the 17th wettest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.02 inches per decade.
Note: NASA and NOAA didn’t mention one thing about Sunspots or man-made global warming.
So, it is time for collective breathing and cow discharge to regenerate the heat we need to get this “hockey stick” pointing back up.
There ain’t no sunspots to speak of. Thus, this winter will be “Oh, so cold!”
Put another log on the fire!
Most Sincerely.
Paul
I am a retired scientist (chemist) and now I have the time, have just started getting interested in the AGW debate. I looked at Lord Monckton’s presentation, Abraham’s reply and I read ALL of Monckton’s reply to Abraham. I cannot understand why Abraham has suffered any criticism about the way he makes his points. He seems to make valid points about what he sees are the many inaccuracies in Monckton’s original presentation. At this point I was not sure who was correct so I read all of Monckton’s reply. There was very little scientific discussion in his reply, so I’m still not sure.
I have just read all the posts on this forum and I’m very interested in the post from Quentin Wallace dated 15 June where he points out what he thinks are errors in Monckton’s reply.
It is now 15th July and for a month nobody has questioned Quentin Wallace’s accuracy. I’m starting to think maybe Abraham is right after all? I would like to see some informed debate on the point Quentin Wallace makes in his post because I’m starting to believe Monckton is very wrong.
So, Barry, I went ahead and reviewed Abraham’s presentation and Monckton’s response.
In his presentation, Monckton showed a graph of 1991 to 2004 with an increasing trend line for sea ice thickness in the Beaufort sea. (The date is germane because Al Gore claimed in An Inconvenient Truth, shot in 2005, that 4 bears drowned in the Beaufort Sea by having to swim up to 60 miles due to melting sea ice.)
Abraham then says Monckton says Beaufort sea ice is growing and adds “I’m not making this up” (obviously since the data is in Monckton’s presentation) and then says he doesn’t know where the data comes from (although the source is on the previous slide, and he never asks Monckton about it). So he then cherry picks a paper from Barber et. al. about sea ice in the SUMMER of 2009- with no trend graph included to compare to Monckton’s- and goes on to ask Barber about Monckton’s presentation without giving Barber any of Monckton’s data or sources.
Meanwhile, the reality is that ice is GROWING in the Antarctic. The Polar Bear population has INCREASED from approximately 5000 in the 1950s to 2o-25000 today (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/). NONE of the models today accurately predict temperature. And Abraham, instead of taking an opportunity to close the gaps of understanding with Monckton on data, has obfuscated it further- with you happy to spread the confusion.
But I strongly suspect that, within a couple years, there will be models that incorporate clouds and their formation, and much of the uncertainty will be resolved. So whatever actions are taken- or not- between now and then can be revisited. And from all the data I have seen that hasn’t already been debunked, nothing drastic will occur in those couple years.
Hi Dirk,
let’s review your points.
Monckton’s slide is labeled “Sea ice extent in the Beaufort Sea is growing”. That refers to coverage, not thickness. However, the graph refers to ‘sea ice draft’, which is the thickness of the ice under the water. Abraham has gone along with the sea ice thickness posit (rather than surface coverage as suggested by the title of Monckton’s graph), and provides an actual reference for his data.
The previous slide contains a reference to Monnett and Gleason (2006), which focuses on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea area. They provide no data for for sea ice thickness or extent, and have no graph like Monckton’s, or any graph of sea ice thickness in their paper. They do say:
http://www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/images/stories/docs/Polar%20Bears-ExtendedOpenWaterSwimmingMortality.pdf
The sea ice graph in Monkton’s slide, and the data for it, is unreferenced. You can click the above link to see if you can find it in the paper you believe provides that information.
There are no Polar Bears in Antarctica.
I should add that Monnett & Gleason’s paper analyses September sea ice conditions for polar bears, and focuses on pack ice edge distance to land, not the total draft for the Beaufort Sea area. Monckton’s graph, of monthly sea ice draft for the Beaufort Sea, is inappropriate to that discussion (and unreferenced), but it may explain why he is mixing up sea ice extent with thickness in the slide.
@Paul Pierett
You are making the error of confusing short-term and even single data points (weather) for long-term trends (climate).
To put your sunspot count in a climatic context, here is GISS temp data compared with sun spot activity compared since 1970.
Graph
As you can see, there are many points where the data are anti-correlated, and that the long term trends are opposite. So, not only is correlation broken (interannual variation), the Earth has been getting warmer while the sun has been getting cooler over the long (climatic) term.
Yesterday was warmer in Sydney than the day before, but I didn’t make the mistake of thinking that summer was arriving any time soon. You need more data to say much about changes in climate. 30 years is the classic period (though some here will argue you need longer than that), but for statistical purposes, 17 years is probably an absolute minimum regarding global temperatures. Possibly longer for regional (ie, the US temps your link is concerned with).
As I trace the steps from Monckton’s slide show to the studies it is based on myself, I am struck by the complete misrepresentation on some issues not covered by Abraham.
Monckton pushes the straw man that the MWP was a ‘real’ phenomenon. In fact, no paleoclimatologist dismisses the MWP phenomenon – even the ‘hockey stick’ authors discuss the magnitude, spatial coherence and duration of the MWP. So to begin with Monckton is making up an argument.
But does he provide references to papers on the global extent of the MWP? No, he cites a handful of papers that look at very localised temperature profiles. This is the stuff that underpins the questions on spatiality. Incredibly, he presents a graph from the paper Gupta et al (2005), which displays monsoon activity, not temperature. He has included it because the scientists mark ‘MWP’ on the time series – to prove that the MWP is ‘real’, as a way of rebutting his own straw man.
Here’s the paper [PDF].
As Abraham says, it would take a major thesis to prise fact from distortion in Monckton’s piece. I don’t agree with everything Abraham says, and find much of it under-explained. But having seen how raddled Monckton’s piece is with misinformation, I am starting to see why Abraham kept it simple. Unlacing Monckton’s contorted contrivances would make a painful experience for an audience. Going to the sources to get straightforward answers was the best way to keep an audience attentive, and the most effective way of cutting through the rhetorical knots.
Barry,
My greatest aggravation in this debate is each side picking its own data and then talking past each other.
Most “skeptics” will admit there has been some warming the past 100 years, but only in the past year are there “warmers” who now admit clouds have not been understood in the model and that the science is not settled as regards CO2 forcing.
Discussing and resolving the differences, instead of attacking the other side, should be the order of the day.
Hey Berry,
Info in nature.
My work is posted at nationalforestlawblog.com
October newsletter, under my name.
If one tracks one month through history or one day, it will match my charts.
Global warming alarmists and global warming deniers are in the same boat. Starting on page 27 of “Low Sunspot Activity Cools Global Warming” the charts sample the last century of climate change due to sunspot activity.
The last chart attempts to incorporate the fundamentals of global warming and global cooling.
Berry, like it is getting colder. Now, our winters have dropped an average of one half degree a year for the last ten years. Our over all temps, clearly 2 degrees. If the world temps are notching down.
Since 1999, using the web site shown, all temperatures are in a downward trend.
In 1911, Niagara Falls froze over due to a milder minimum that lasted four cycles and a sever drop in sunspot activity at the end of the cycle. Three years later there was one tropical storm for the whole season of 1914.
You can go to National Park web site and look at Glacier Bay and watch the recession of glaciers matching sunspot activity. It actually began at the end of the mini-ice age or the restart of sunspot activity. As noted, in.2002, glacier growth began. The person of the web site Ice Age Now has a whole list of growing glaciers.
The sample I used of June answered the typical global warming alarmists and news media, “It’s The Hottest June on Record.”. No, it is not.
If global warming was in place, if man made global warming was in place, the temperature trend since 1999 should still be rising.
The reason it is we are getting about 1 sunspot a week. We need 100s to maintain global warming. We need more than a 600 total sunspot mean for the rest of the cycle to stay where we are.
At that web site you will get an education not found elsewhere and has converted numerous scientists away from man made global warming and has some totally, royally angry at the Four Horsemen of the Global Warming Apocalypse.
Those four have fouled the water of climate science.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Something to keep in mind,
What are the green house gases?
Water vapor
Ozone
Carbon dioxide
Methane.
Water reacts to temperatures more quickly than the others. If the air is cold enough, like Chicago in winter, you can throw boiling water into the air and it will form Ice before it hits the ground.
What happens to your body in the same circumstances if you have no clothes on. Small time delay, but in two hours, same result. So this water vapor is causing global warming.
Ozone. Most manufacturers in the US have Ozone EPA inspected meters on their roofs to measure Ozone emissions. The easiest source for ozone is Mother Earth during the summer months at 80 degrees. North Carolina’s critical Ozone measurements have dropped to none over the last 3 years. The Earth is cooling.
CO2. Unlike H2O which freezes at around 32 degrees F or 0 degrees C, CO2 requires PSI to convert to liquid under 70 degrees F. Above 70 degrees, very difficult to convert it to liquid; nearly always a gas. I don’t have my book, but around 22 degrees F at 300 PSI it converts to liquid and it needs, if I remember, a -69 degrees F to make the move to solid or Dry Ice.
Methane, another nice carbon combo.
How do these items warm the earth?
They don’t. They have to respond like we do to temperature and pressure.
How much heat and cold can you withstand naked?
How much pressure can you withstand diving into a pool of water until you must rush to the surface to relieve yourself of pressure?
The green house gases retain solar heat along with the Earth as a whole. If sunspot activity drops off, there is less solar heat to retain.
Then water vapor drops off which it is doing, causing world drought:
Ozone production is dropping off to safe levels, probably causing a hole in the ozone layer in the near future.
Due to the lack of water, precipitation, the CO2 in the soil pulled down by gravity, being heavier than Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen, will sit in the soil as plants die off.
If they fall into the ocean, some worry that they will cause the water to form acid.
How much does it take to make acid? With a good amount of pollution, we get acid rain and that kills our forest. Which combo of the four green house gases cause acid rain?
So why should we believe a scientists who theorizes that CO2 causes acid in sea water? Doesn’t sea plants need CO2?
We really have put too much into green house gases. We will discover soon, what scientists are starting to realize, they are overrated.
As a whole, the Earth and all its parts, take a while to cool down much as a human with no clothes on in the dead of winter. Equally, it takes a long time for the Earth and all its parts to warm up much a human suffering exposure to severe cold. .
Next round!
Paul
“JohnR says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:44 pm
….. I’m starting to believe Monckton is very wrong.”
This has to be one of the most cogent statments in this blog.
I agree that Abraham’s presentation is a joke, with its “appeals to authority” and “argumentum ad ignorantum” statements standing in for real logic – but I think that the Viscount’s threat of libel is misplaced.
US law very much disfavors libel as a cause of action for parties who have voluntarily stepped into the public pulpit and engaged in political (or politically-tinged scientific) debate.
After all, we have a First Amendment — unlike the UK. Here you silence your critics by out-arguing them, not by threatening them.
The legal discovery process can also be very hard on the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs in a libel suit (like this one would be if filed) almost always end up disappointed, and every judge will search for a way to deny legal damages or legal relief. It’s one of the the ways that our system is (very) different then the English system.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Monckton cannot, in a million years, debunk the analytical points made by Quentin Wallace, and no one else can either.
Nor have they bothered to try.
Reiterate once again that, yes, I’m a skeptic. One could easily prove this by perusing my comments over the months and years especially during climate-gate and the Tony Abbott ascendancy, when I was in Australia and reading and commenting here frequently (under my first name).
However, in the interests of fairness and science, are we here too vested in a point of view or lacking in the mental faculties to decipher both strengths and weaknesses in our own arguments and representation of data?
I am not seeing a good faith effort from anyone here who is talking about how great Monckton and his rebuttal are to address Wallace’s fair criticisms. As far as I can see, on those points, Wallace is right.
Certainly no one has bothered to tell him how he is wrong despite him asking you repeatedly to do so — for over a month now.
Speaking of accuracy, I have made an error. It was obviously not a month since Quentin Wallace made his first comment on this thread. I took retired chemist JohnR’s timeframe without verifying it.
He made a reading error. It was July 15th, not June 15th, and that’s a big, important difference.
Nonetheless, our logic stands. Someone — like Christopher Monckton, the guest author of this blog post — should face up to the alleged Monckton errors Wallace uncovered, that no one here has undermined, and explain or retract them.
Sorry Christoph, I did misread the date, however, as you point out, so far nobody has put up any arguments as to why Quentin Wallace’s comments are wrong. If Quentin is correct then Monckton is in error. If Monckton is wrong on this point, how many of his other points are wrong and why?
Paul Pierett talks about ozone being produced at ground level.
“Ozone production is dropping off to safe levels, probably causing a hole in the ozone layer in the near future.”
As far as I know the ozone produced at ground level cannot reach the ozone layer because it is so unstable.
I thought that ozone in the ozone layer was the global warming gas and that it is produced by UV light reacting with oxygen in the upper atmosphere. Is ozone in the lower atmosphere a green house gas or just a pollutant? Are there two ozone levels that can contribute to warming?
Paul, have I misunderstood something in your post?
I applaud this statement. Hopefully the next reply will take up where Quentin Wallace or I left off. Fact-based discussion is rather lacking on this thread.
Here is my reply to you, Dirk. Continue when ready.
Perhaps we’ll receive a 600-question rebuttal about why we’re wrong to press Monckton for an answer to Wallace’s “on point” critiques.
JohnR
Good Question,
It wasn’t stated in the research.
I will find the resource again and see which one it influences. I left the reading with the understanding it was one-in-the-same.
Paul
Paul Pierett also talks about carbon dioxide and asks “How much does it take to make acid?”. An answer is as soon as CO2 dissolves in water it forms an acid. The more that dissolves the lower the pH of the water becomes. This is the basic chemistry that causes some scientists to worry about ocean acidification.
Carbon Dioxide is a liquid at about 800 psi (in USA units) and is sold in steel pressure cylinders in this liquid form.
It is a solid at -78C and atmospheric pressure (dry ice).
It is called a greenhouse gas because, as I understand the process, it allows short wave length radiation through from the sun but reflects some of the longer wave lengths back to earth. I’m not a climate scientist just a retired chemist so I am not entirely up to speed on all the warming debate. However, I worked on the old ozone layer debate on the side of the refrigeration industry. Back then we claimed that chlorofluorocarbons didn’t degrade the ozone layer so I have some understanding of that process. It is interesting to note that after all our hard work trying to prove mankind was not destroying the ozone layer; it was later proved conclusively that we were wrong and manmade chemicals were depleting the ozone layer. These chemicals were then banned. I think the ozone layer is still recovering.
That’s not necessarily true. Short-term cooling periods can still occur with general warming, just as the share market can dip for a few years, but over the long-term has risen and will almost certainly continue to do so.
But in fact, it has been warming since 1999 according to the temperature records. The same is true since 1998. One has to pick an even shorter period now (2002 – present) to find a cooling trend, and one that is even less statistically significant. Just to make things more confusing, you can start from 2006 and find we’ve been warming again.
Likely in a few months, it will no longer be ‘cooling since 2002’. Two of four temp records (one satellite, one surface) are already showing a positive slope, and a couple more warm months will bring the others into the positive.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/offset:-0.075/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:2002/trend
Next cherry-pick for cooling will be 2005, I guess.
Monckton cherry-picks such short records, too. When NCDC put out their monthly anomalies, they don’t call them climate trends.
Thank you JohnR,
I greatly appreciate a good chemist setting me straight… Too often, one gets beat up in these blogs but with no real answer. That is what I am digging for.
I appreciate the input. I remember as a teen having to pull certain cans off the shelf at a drug store as the newly born EPA began to send out memos.
Here are some web sites, three sources on Ozone.
The first favors a marriage between lower and higher levels of our atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer favors that all ozone tends to combine
The next two favor a separation.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/ozone.htm
How it works, Science.
In all my readings, there is nothing that tends to block that from the lower to reach the higher in terms of these chemicals other than weight and gravity and air currents.
Thanks again, JohnR.
Paul
I’m in no position to answer questions regarding Monckton’s sea ice data, but he showed a graph- that we all realize he didn’t make up- that showed growing extent of sea ice. He also stated (correctly) that ice has been growing in the Antarctic. He also stated (correctly) that hunting has been the major threat to Polar Bears.
And I never said there were Polar Bears in the Antarctic. Only that their population has grown approximately five-fold over the past 50 years. If you have data to counter this, please cite it.
I’m also interested in your take on CERN’s CLOUD experiment and the theory that sun-solar wind-cosmic ray-clouds is what is driving climate. It seems pretty obvious to me that you can feel a real difference when the sun goes behind a cloud- considerably more so than when you release some CO2 into the atmosphere.
Dirk, regarding the amount of ice in Antarctica, I found this information on another web site.
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/increasing-rates-of-ice-mass-loss-from-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-revealed-by-grace.pdf
It is supposed to show Antarctica was losing ice (total mass) at an ever increasing rate.
I am not familiar with this type of measurement.
Can anybody give me any further information on the accuracy of these (GRACE) measurements?
Dirk says: July 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Dirk:
At no point in my previous posts did I say the graph was wrong or that it didn’t show a growing extent of sea ice. But the graph shows other things as well. I was criticising the way Monckton used the graph in his presentation.
It’s all to do with context, interpretation, and some blatant inconsistencies between what the graph show’s and what Monckton say’s it show’s, both in his public presentation and in his response to Abraham.
I also criticise the way he uses the graph to answer the polar bear issue.
At no point do I say that Monckton is wrong in general about Arctic sea ice or Polar Bears. I am only addressing these specific points. The evidence Monckton presents to support his claim.
JohnR says: July 19, 2010 at 11:50 pm
JohnR:
The point you make about ice mass is an important one.
If someone presents you with a graph that show’s sea ice extent is growing you might be tempted to think everything is fine and there is no overall ice loss.
But ice thickness and density are also important measurements.
It is only by looking at all these measurements together that we can see if there is ice growth or loss.
This may seem obvious and I not saying here that anyone is actually using this trick, but we can be easily fooled by such things.
As he gives no reference for that graph (it doesn’t come from the Monnett paper), we have no way of checking it’s validity. This is the point Abraham made. He wasn’t referring to the provenance of the graph when he said, “he’s not making this up.” He was referring to a claim Monckton made.
I assume we’re agreed that we don’t know where the data from that graph comes from.
John R, there is often confusion between Antarctic sea ice, which has increased slightly over the last 30 years, and Antarctic land ice, which appears to have decreased.
barry says: July 20, 2010 at 7:43 am
Hi Barry,
I did actually post a link to the paper that Monckton failed to cite in one of my previous posts –
Trends in the draft and extent of seasonal pack ice, Canadian Beaufort Sea – Humfrey Melling and David A. Riedel 2005
http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2005/Geolphsical%20Research%20Letters/dec/2005GL024483.pdf
Although I do agree with you about the point Abraham made.
I missed your earlier post, Quentin. Thanks. I’ll check back on your comments and the paper after work tonight.
With regards to points 338 and 339 in Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal, an increase in CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04% can be expressed either as an absolute increase of 0.01% or as a percentage increase of 33% since 33% of 0.03 is 0.01. Christopher Monckton has decided to express it as 0.01%. The reply of John Abraham is allegedly: “And let’s help him with his math.” 0.04% – 0.03% DOES equal 0.01%.
In general, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt if something is alleged to have been said or implied. And with a video, it is sometimes hard to remember an exact wording and it is harder to check than something in print. However in my opinion, the above statement by a professor crosses the line and severely taints everything else he says. To err is human, but it also taints a university that does not have it removed once the error is pointed out.
Werner Brozek says: July 20, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Werner:
I think you are misinterpreting what has been said here. Maybe on a strictly semantic level Abraham could be accused of lacking in clarity with his wording.
Abraham does not accuse Monckton of being mathematically incorrect.
As you hint at in your post above, there are different ways of representing, mathematically, the amount of a constituent part in a larger body.
Monckton uses – pecentage of the atmosphere by volume. This gives a figure of +0.01% change. Which is correct.
If this is presented to an audience, as the headline figure, they might be tempted to think – oh that’s tiny, there hasn’t been much change, what’s all the fuss about ?
But a small increase of a constituent part of a larger body can have a big effect. As an example – I weigh around 60kg. If I were to ingest 600g of arsenic (a +0.01% change in Arsenic as a percentage by weight) this would probably kill me.
Monckton did not choose to use the above mathematics as an alternative to – “or as a percentage increase of 33% since 33% of 0.03 is 0.01.” as you suggest.
This is the alternative Abraham uses –
“If we look at the math, the current level is 390 [parts per million by volume], the pre-industrial level is 280 [ppmv], that’s a 39% increase in carbon dioxide, not a 0.01% increase. A significant increase…”
Saying that the headline figure of 39% could be a better representation of what he describes as a “significant” increase.
So Abraham is not accusing Monckton of mathematical or scientific error on this particular point. It could be argued that Abraham should of stayed away from this one. But it is about the way figures and mathematics are presented can be used to manipulate an audience.
Well, I checked the paper and your comments, Quentin, and it’s all solid. As others are concerned that Abraham has cherry-picked a paper to prove his point, I searched google scholar for papers I could find on Beaufort sea ice. Without fail, when a long-term period is assessed, particularly for summer sea ice, whether extent, draft or thickness, the results corroborate Abraham’s take. I limited the publication dates to 2008 – 2010.
Search terms:
Beaufort sea ice
In terms of sea ice extent, the paper Monckton chose considered a period of 10 years that shows negligible trend. Extend 5 years either way, and the trend is significantly downward.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
The last link is a time series of Arctic sea ice extent for the satellite period. Not to be confused with Beaufort sea ice. You need to examine the studies for that.
Here’s a quote from the paper Monckton used, but did not reference, on the time period they were assessing.
http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2005/Geolphsical%20Research%20Letters/dec/2005GL024483.pdf
No wonder he didn’t give the reference!
This is another quote from the paper.
This is followed shortly by;
To recap, Monckton used an unreferenced graph that examines a single site over a short period, accounting for annual sea ice trends instead of summer sea ice, which is the season that impacts most on ice-land swimming for Polar Bears. Monckton’s header for the slide with the graph describes it as a a decrease in sea ice extent, even though the study is mainly concerned with ice draft (thickness under the water), and even though the trend of sea ice concentration (which refers to sea ice coverage) in the graph shows a slight increasing trend.
Any which way you look at it, Monkton has completely misrepresented data from a paper he failed to cite.
It seems there is no one left in the pro-Monckton camp willing to continue a fact-based discussion of the contretemps between Abraham and Monckton. It was difficult to get any participation on that level to begin with, and now that it is clear on this particular issue that Monckton was in the wrong, it’s disappointing, if not unexpected, that people siding with Monckton have backed away.
Re. Quentin Wallace says: July 21, 2010 at 3:26 am
I withdraw the paragraph that states –
“Monckton did not choose to use the above mathematics as an alternative to – “or as a percentage increase of 33% since 33% of 0.03 is 0.01.” as you suggest.”
I don’t know that. Apologies.
A few questions came up since JohnR’s clarification on CO2 in water and they are:
1. The amounts of CO2 released from glaciers, Ice Packs, Arctic, Antarctica, and other CO2 holding Ice?
2. The amount of Carbonate or carbon by-products are released by both ocean and freshwater plants?
3. How much of man made CO2 reaches the oceans?
4. How much of this CO2 is being released into the atmosphere?
5. How much is being retained in the atmosphere? It appears to be what is measured by observatory in Hawaii.
6. How much is cycling back to the oceans, rivers, lakes, glaciers and Polar Region Ice Caps.
I don’t think we are getting a whole answer on this from global warming alarmists or deniers.
For those who have been told this is the warmest year to date, I ran the numbers off of the NOAA. The Earth continues to cool.
They are as follows:
2010 USA Average Temps based on 1885 to 2010:
Jan. Rank 55, 30.96 degrees
Feb. Rank 30, 32.47 degrees
March, Rank 85, 44.46 degrees
April, Rank 103, 54.30
May, Rank 52, 60.89
June, Rank 109, 71.41
In the last 30 years of temperatures, the last 12 months ranks 9th.
If one looks at the 30-year chart or the larger one (115)years closely, the last 10 years has a downward trend.
If Earth’s heat was based on man-made global warming, the trend should be going up. The downward trend reflects the lack of sunspot activity.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Paul.
USA =/= the Earth.
The Earth has been warming for the last 10 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2000
(Similar results using any of the instrumental climate records)
In any case, short-term effects dominate trends for such a short time period. Solar fluctuations have an effect, but these are deemed to be small. For example, 2009 had very little solar activity, yet it was one of the warmest years on record. Surely it should have been one of the coldest. In fact, 2009 was a very warm year mainly due to an el Nino on top of the underlying warming from CO2.
The long-term correlation between temps and CO2 is a good fit.
Reasonable skeptics have moved on from the solar/cosmic ray argument and accept that increased CO2 is bound to warm the planet (Spencer, Christie and Pielke agree). The argument now from the skeptic camp is to what degree warming will occur, whether it will be deleterious or not, and/or whether adapting is a better course of action than mitigation.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
Barry, run the numbers yourself. There is no way you can make this year warmer than the last 10 years. The temps are declining.
Barry, no matter how you cut it, the USA temps are dropping, they are still skiing in the ALPs, Australia just had its worst winter and South America just had it worst winter. The Arctic broke even this year. 250 glaciers are growing per “Ice Age Now”.
We are looking at 30 years of colder than normal winters.
Even the world temp chart dropped a notch or two.
The numbers don’t lie.
Where are the big bad 19 hurricanes at? The Caribbean takes month to cook up a tropical storm.
Go to my work at nationalforestlawblog.Com October Newsletter and get an education.
When the Earth is cooling:
South America and Australia are just six months ahead of what we are going to get.
And, we are six months ahead of what they are going to get.
It is getting colder. Did you forget last Winter, already? It wasn’t a fluke. That was a preview.
I only know three people who where saying it was going to be a bad winter for the last two years, a Russian, Farmer’s Almanac and myself.
This past Winter was as cold as 1984, just a few years after scientists were crying, “Ice Age”. Last year was as cold as 1996. Australia just had the worst winter in 130 years. That is 1880, the 2d year of a mild sunspot cycle.
Look at my charts for that year.
Paul
Paul, you’re talking about short-term events and specific localities (I don’t live in the US, BTW). You’re talking about weather fluctuations. Speak in terms of 20 years or longer, and talk about the whole planet, and you’ll be talking about global climate.
For example, the last 10 years in my country, national temperatures have a significant upwards trend.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
Does this mean the globe is warming? No, it’s not enough data to say anything about global trends. Does this mean the climate of Australia is getting warmer? Again, no – you need to choose a longer period – 20 years is a fair minimum. (Some skeptics at this board insist on nothing less than a 60 year period)
Over a 20 year period, the climates of the US, Australia and the Earth have become warmer.
Weather predictions further than a few weeks are extremely difficult to make. It’s not so difficult for climate projections, because over the long term, annual and decadal fluctuations tend to even out. In 1988, James Hansen ‘predicted’ that the world would warm. He couldn’t tell you the temperature in a future year, or even the steepness of the trend, but he was essentially right. 22 years on the globe is warmer. Hansen ran with a higher climate sensitivity than now reckoned (he went with ~4C climate sensitivity – it’s been reduced to ~3C since then). Had he applied more recent climate sensitivity values, the observed trend would be very close to his mid-range projection.
Why is it easier to project climate change than predict weather? The law of large numbers. Your misapprehensions about climate come from applying the law of few numbers.
Again, the US is not the globe. The smaller the area, the shorter period, the more random variability will dominate any underlying trend.
Have there ever been any experiments with gas balloons proving or disproving this “theory?” It seems to me that it should be easy to release several balloons with different amounts of CO2 and enough helium/hydrogen (whichever that would not mask the results) that the balloon would ascend high enough to get meaningful data.
Also, If the CO2 is “capturing” the suns radiation then it is NOT striking the earth (land, water, buildings, etc.). Wouldn’t the amount captured by the CO2 equal the amount that was NOT captured by the earth and balance out the equation? Further wouldn’t the earth also “re-radiate” the energy it does capture which would also cause an amplification of heat (think city heat island effect) and cause global warming. Therefore, we should destroy all cities. Why is the amplification factor from 300-500 ppm of CO2 so much greater than that of dark rocks, buildings, land masses, oceans, etc.? The black slate in my foyer is still very warm to the touch the morning after a sunny day, even though the air above it is quite cool. Why do they use Argon in the triple pane “HI-e” windows instead of CO2 if CO2 is such a good “trap” for heat?
If you think this is absurd, so do I, but it seems much more plausible than AGW from CO2.
No, CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum (upwelling radiation), not in the short-wave, sunlight spectrum (downwelling radiation).
I agree that the rest of your post is absurd.
Hey Barry,
Go ahead and freeze to death. Join the millions that believe like you, believe in global warming, believe it can’t happen here.
Join the Defense Department, FEMA, 50 State Governors, The Senate, the liberals, the bunny lovers, the tree hugers, animal rights groups,. Join all those people who won’t understand the winters and the drought and who continue down this path to destruction because they trust the EPA, NASA and the NOAA who have been bred by the IPCC. Join the people who believe in man-made global warming and man-made solutions.
These people refuse to understand a God Given attribute for our life and that is sunspots. He gave them for a purpose. He makes the planet a nice place to live with them. He has all but shut sunspot production down.
PM Putin listened to his scientists and has directed action in preparation for what is coming; 30 years of bad winters. Now, he is dealing with drought.
Our government here in the US has man-made global warming policies. They are breaching electric power dams, banning coal power plants and have atomic plants that must close with no new ones in the making.
The Pope told is to quit using food for fuel. We made more.
The USA is broke.
USA! USA! USA!
Welcome to Judgment Day!
I think of it more as a cleansing. He has to thin the herd just like a Rancher so there will be room for what He wants, not what we think He wants. What a way to evolve life! He just turns down the Earth’s thermostat for a while or for a long time. He does it every century has done that 5 other times creating Ice Ages.
He is a jealous God, but he doesn’t need an Ice Age for acts of Judgment. That is why I think of this as a cleansing; a thinning of the herd. He needs some space by 2100.
Feel safe, yet?
Paul
WTF at some peoples reasoned and logical opinions on this matter.
It’s kind of scary !
Paul Pierett (09:34):
No offense intended… reading between the lines of your posting… correct me if I’m wrong… you’re religious, aren’t you? No, please don’t be embarrassed! We understand that some people have this… er… condition.
The reason I ask is this: we AGW sceptics like to deal in provable fact; we have an unhealthy obsession with something called ‘scientific method’. (Yes, I know… BORING… but that’s the…. er… the cross we have to bear, so to speak!) I have an idea for you: Why don’t you pop over to Real Climate? You’ll find like-minded people there, people like you who have faith. Faith’s good, yeah? Faith is “the inclination to maintain a position or belief regardless of contrary evidence”.
When you get to RC just ask for Gavin. The secret password is “USA! USA! USA!”. Gavin will be glad to have a new recruit of your charm and intellect.
As a Saint Thomas alumni, I will be writing in support of Abraham. He produced a professional and courteous response to Monckton that deserves far more attention among Monckton’s own followers. Aren’t global warming skeptics always complaining that the other side is trying to silence them? Isn’t silencing a critic the only plausible purpose for Monckton’s request? Unfortunately for Monckton, American courts require libel claims to actually be false.
Pierett makes the following claim:
“…Australia just had its worst winter…”
Without any reference or other supporting evidence.
I am sceptical of Pierett’s claim for the following reasons:
– Winter is not yet over
– Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has not yet released figures for Winter 2010
However, if we look at BoM’s latest statements, we get:
“Maximum temperatures averaged over Australia were 0.36°C above normal, being mostly below normal in the Northern Territory and Queensland, and mostly above normal elsewhere. Tasmania and Western Australia were especially warm. Tasmania had its equal-highest autumn maximum temperatures on record, with anomalies of 1-2°C throughout and site records set in the southeast. Most of Western Australia had maxima at least 1°C above normal, reaching 2-3°C in the inland Pilbara, and ranked in the highest decile; the only cooler areas were the southwest coast between Kalbarri and Esperance, and the north and east Kimberley. It was also 1°C or more above normal on parts of the South Australian and Victorian coasts, as well as on the NT Top End coast and northern Cape York Peninsula, with all these areas locally reaching the highest decile.
Below-normal maxima covered most of Queensland and the Northern Territory, except for the NT Top End, Cape York Peninsula and the eastern coastal fringe of Queensland. Anomalies were mostly modest, only reaching −1°C in a few areas east of Alice Springs and around Cunnamulla.
Minimum temperatures were generally above normal. Nationally they were 0.72°C above average (11th highest on record) and ranked in the top ten in four states. The only significant areas which were cooler than normal, and those only slightly so, were in western Queensland south of Mount Isa (extending into the far northwest of NSW), and on parts of the west coast of Western Australia, especially around Perth.
Minima were 1°C or more above normal in many inland and northern areas, including the eastern half of Western Australia, the northern half of the Northern Territory, much of northern South Australia, and the Queensland Gulf coast and parts of Cape York Peninsula. Peak anomalies of around +2°C occurred in the western Top End and the WA interior. Much of this area was in the highest decile, with records set in the western Top End. Most of Victoria and Tasmania were also in the highest decile, except for the Wimmera (Victoria) and central midlands (Tasmania), with anomalies mostly around +1°C. “
Re: IAU 2004 Citation in Monckton talk
In Christopher Monckton’s presentation, he said:
“The International Astronomical Union in 2004 held a symposium on it. They concluded that was the case. They said we are now going to get global cooling because the Sun has turned itself off for a bit.”
and the slide accompanying the talk containing the following phrases:
“Solar changes cause most climate change
The Sun caused today’s global warming
Today’s warming is normal, not unusual
Today’s global warming will end soon
IAU (2004)”
I corresponded with Christopher Monckton on the evidence for the comments and the slide. He agreed that the basis for the claim was a paper by H.I. Abdussamatov presented at the IAU sympossium in St. Petersburg in 2004 and that there was no evidence that either the IAU or the IAU symposium as a whole agreed with the Abdussamatov paper.
Brent, let’s go meta here. I think we can actually agree on our views towards religion, fancy that!
Yet this thread here is about Abraham supposedly climbing down – the contrast between this statement and reality beautifully symbolises most of what Lord Monckton has to say, right? I see that many commenters here, from about half-way down the thread onwards, have provided thoughtful posts. There seems to be a large number of posters on typically ‘sceptic’ sites, such as this one, JoNova or The Blackboard, who are understandably very uncomfortable with the Viscount’s antics – given that his ‘rebuttal’ consists of a lot or irrelvant non sequiturs and easily debunked mis-information – see various commenters above.
In using your data the mean fluctuates with the sampling. If you have a small sample, the zero point will float.
The second thing I learned in dealing with data came from a farmer. It is all about dew point and BTU. You may thing it is not that cold, but the farmer is up all night worried about his crops, your veggies.
The other concern is the lost of livestock to cold.
Scotland lost 17,000 lambs.
Mongolia lost millions of livestock.
Here in the US, two farmers were threatened with charges because livestock died from winter. One case in Penn. And the other in Florida. Fl didn’t pressed charges and Penn. did. I couldn’t find a follow up to the Penn. Case.
I expect much more here USA each year as it gets colder.
Paul
Brent,
I am not a bit religious and I will join any web I need to get the word out. Believers don’t need me.
Don’t ask Him anything and don’t ask for His help.
Extremely dangerous.
He might show you something Stephen Spielberg dreams of.
Did you know there is a race of people on Earth, who belong to Him and claim to have been around 350,000 years? That is 3.5 Ice Ages.
It is totally contrary to Christian teachings. That is why they don’t like me much. I stepped through the mirror.
You won’t find that info outside of Asia Minor and Iraq except in one book owned by Billy Graham Crusades and is on many book shelfs. The rest of the proof is in the British Museum.
The three main Faiths out of the Middle East revolve around Abram. That is your only clue I will give you.
Being in Iraq had its benefits.
Tootles.
Paul
“Quentin Wallace says:
July 21, 2010 at 3:26 am
Werner: But it is about the way figures and mathematics are presented can be used to manipulate an audience.”
I completely agree!
Suppose there is a greenhouse gas labeled Z which is 100 times stronger than carbon dioxide and is in the air at a concentration of 1 part per trillion. Let us presume that enough of this gas escapes from a factory to raise the global concentration to 10 parts per trillion. This could be reported in two different ways. A headline could read: “Negligible amounts of greenhouse gas escape”, or if you wanted a really scary one, you could say: “Extremely strong greenhouse gas increases in concentration by 1000%!!” In this case, I would say while the percentage is accurate, it is totally misleading. Do you agree?
On the other hand, I could say that two people had a fat content that had a mass of 10 kg. Without a context, it is totally meaningless. If the first person were a child whose total mass was 30 kg, it would be serious. But if the second person were an athlete whose total mass was 70 kg, it would be a totally different matter. So in this case, saying the % of fat in the first person is 33% and it is 14% in the second would be much more meaningful. Do you agree?
So let us relate this to the issue at hand. The global temperature went up by about 0.8 C over the last 130 years. I do NOT expect you to agree with my next point, but I am willing to agree that 0.2 C is due to increased CO2 by man. The average global temperature is 15 C or 288 K. An increase of 0.2 K would be a percentage increase of 0.2/288 = about 0.07%.
As for the increase in CO2, Christopher Monckton even helped an Australian debater out as I recall on this point and stated that the percent increase was 39% from 1750. It could also be stated as an absolute increase of 0.039% – 0.028% = 0.011% which is what was objected to.
Now even if you wish to insist that all of the 0.8 C increase, or 0.28% is due to the added man-made CO2, which number is closer to capturing the insignificance of this added CO2?
I said in the previous post that both methods were equally valid. But after you prompted me to rethink this issue, using the above examples as a guide, I believe Christopher Monckton’s 0.011% is better than the scare-mongering 39% figure. As you said: “But it is about the way figures and mathematics are presented can be used to manipulate an audience.” What does Monckton hope to achieve and what does Abraham hope to achieve?
Werner Brozek says: July 23, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Hi Werner:
Looks like we agree on this point.
I did try and argue the point in isolation. Both figures are mathematically correct.
As you say both figures are also fairly meaningless out of context.
You could use either “headline figure” as a audience manipulating tool.
Monckton is obviously of the opinion that a “small” (again as you state, small and big are relative terms) increase of CO2 has a negligible effect; so he uses the 0.01% figure to reinforce his argument.
Abraham counters this with the 39% figure because he thinks that what might seem like a small increase might have a “significant” effect.
I think Monckton actually used this as an audience manipulating tool in his original presentation. Abraham has only countered to reveal the trick. Well I think so – I did say that Abraham should maybe have stayed away from this one in my previous post.
If you were to believe that “small” increases in CO2 are “insignificant” then you may feel justified in doing this.
You say finally – “What does Monckton hope to achieve and what does Abraham hope to achieve?”
Well in my opinion, Monckton was trying to achieve audience manipulation and Abraham (maybe using some unfortunate language) was trying to reveal this manipulation (regardless of any opinions of whether CO2 has any “significant” effect or not).
Without giving any basis for your opinion. Kind of a demonstration of what Abraham has been criticising.
It’s hard to read motives, but the result is that Monckton seems to be implying that all the atmosphere – all the gases in it – are greenhouse gases. Thus, man’s contribution seems puny. Abraham points out that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations above natural levels is quite significant. Because Monckton’s argument implies a false premise, Abraham’s short-cut rebuttal does a good enough job of dealing with that – or at least, that’s how I read it.
A longer, more convincing argument might incorporate relative strength of GHGs in the atmosphere, historical and geological records of concentration, temperature and what that indicates, which would line up with Abraham’s take on the matter.
But I don’t blame Abraham for doing a reduced version – explaining the science is always a trade-off between covering as much as possible and being an effective communicator to a lay audience. The trouble is, the subject is complex, and the more one iterates that complexity, the more viewers you lose. Monckton knows this, and therefore his slides are bold and simplistic, with absolute statements devoid of any doubts, uncertainties or ambiguity. Real live science papers highlight uncertainties as a matter of course, but this is not effective language for populist engagement. Abraham’s video, while not in any way in the form of a scientific study, tries to make a stronger bridge to science for the lay public in order to rebut Monckton.
I can go into further detail on CO2/temps, if replied to. I’m also conscious of the trade-off between being accurate and being accessible when making posts.
barry says: July 24, 2010 at 7:13 am
I agree with your 2nd paragraph; as well as your comments on complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, and the problems involved in presenting complex issues to a lay audience.
I tried not to get involved with detail in my above posts and just address the issue of audience manipulation in isolation, without being partisan about the science.
Barry or Quentin, since you seem to have access to some of the AGW data and I’m only new to this debate, can you help please me with a basic understanding of the theory?
Apparently manmade CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere at the rate of about 15Gtonnes per year. How much energy is absorbed by that mass of CO2 and radiated back to warm the Earth? Now, suppose that all this energy is absorbed by the oceans, how much would that amount of energy cause the ocean temperature to raise per year? (I guess we should look at the top 2,000 to 3,000 meters only as that is what we have temperature data about and is probably the extent of any warming)
I’m interested to see if the numbers stack up and the observed warming in the ocean fits this data. I know that some warming of the oceans will increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because of the lower solubility of CO2 in warm water but the sums should still give some idea if the mathematics of the whole AGW theory is in the ballpark or not.
Can you please help?
John R, I’ve just noticed a recent post here that explains the greenhouse effect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/
You will have to think in terms longer than a year if you want to assess climate. Annual temperatures fluctuate much more chaotically than long-term, owing to the internal dynamics of the system.
Assess in 20 year blocks at a minimum, and 30 year blocks as an ideal. (Some people here will avow you need longer time periods to assess climate).
You can get sea surface stats from here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
I’d recommend using the whole time period. There are many factors at play – Oceans absorb more heat than land, but they also absorb more slowly. I don’t have deeper ocean data to hand, but there are plenty of studies out there on that. Look for studies assessing two decades or more for climate.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/
Good luck!
“Quentin Wallace says:
July 24, 2010 at 4:13 am
Well in my opinion, Monckton was trying to achieve audience manipulation and Abraham (maybe using some unfortunate language) was trying to reveal this manipulation (regardless of any opinions of whether CO2 has any “significant” effect or not).”
I would not phrase it this way. Instead of saying Abraham “was trying to reveal this manipulation”, I would say Abraham was interested in “promoting his own manipulation.” : – )
You also say “If you were to believe that “small” increases in CO2 are “insignificant” then you may feel justified in doing this.”
In my opinion, an increase of 39% is fairly significant, however the effect on temperature of this 39% is relatively insignificant.
And this leads to Barry’s email: ” barry says:
July 24, 2010 at 7:13 am
The global temperature went up by about 0.8 C over the last 130 years. I do NOT expect you to agree with my next point, but I am willing to agree that 0.2 C is due to increased CO2 by man
Without giving any basis for your opinion. Kind of a demonstration of what Abraham has been criticising.”
I am more than happy to explain my reasoning, but I did not do so originally since that was not the main point of the discussion.
(If you would like the URL for anything I am mentioning below, just ask.)
I am sure you are familiar with the GISS temperature data set that goes from 1880 to 2010. It has 3 spikes where the temperature went up at around 0.16 C per decade. I will quote part of the BBC interview with Phil Jones here:
“A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes”
So if this is the case, why should only the increase from 1975 on be attributed to CO2? It appears that from 1880 to 1945, the temperature went up 0.4 of the 0.8 degrees without any real help from CO2 since the added CO2 concentration was not that significant before 1945. So that leaves the last 0.4 C to be explained. I see nothing too unreasonable in the assumption that half of this increase is due to the same natural variation that caused the earlier spikes. But I will acknowledge that no one on either side of the debate can prove how much of the increase is due to CO2.
A second reason I do not attribute too much warming due to CO2 is the lack of a hot spot in the upper troposphere which ought to be there if CO2 were mainly responsible for the warming. For a 26 page article on this topic, see: “http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf ”
A third reason is the article at: “http://www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm” A sentence from this article says: “It is well recognised that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is such that its infra red absorption is close to saturation, particularly with the most prominent absorption band (15mm). Further absorption with increase of concentration is considered to take place around the fringes of this band and in minor bands.”
You may well disagree with this conclusion, but you have to agree that if we ignore both El Ninos and La Ninas for the last dozen years, there has been very little change in global temperature, despite CO2 steadily rising due to man’s influence. Even Phil Jones would not argue that point.
” JohnR says:
July 24, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Now, suppose that all this energy is absorbed by the oceans, how much would that amount of energy cause the ocean temperature to raise per year?”
If I may respond here, from the reading I have done, my best guess is that about 50% of man’s emissions of CO2 since 1750 are in the atmosphere, about 40% are dissolved in the oceans, and about 10% has been used by plants via an increased rate of photosynthesis. The 40% that goes into the oceans do not make the oceans warmer. It is the 50% that is in the air that presumably causes the air to get warmer, and as the air gets warmer, this heat find its way to the surface of the ocean. However if the air temperature does not change, as has been more or less the case for the last dozen years, then there is no reason ocean temperatures should change.
However assuming air temperatures went up by 0.8 over the last 130 years, the same should have happened to the ocean surface temperature. But the big question on which there is much debate is how much of this 0.8 C was due to man-made CO2.
Moncton must be nuts and is a traitor to the human race! He should be locked up in a loony bin.
[might try spelling his name correctly before you spout such things, make you look sill ~mod]
Professor Abraham provided reference after reference and showed time and again counter argument’s to Monkton’s talk using the words from the original authors that Monkton, himself, cites in his own presentation. If Al Gore had presented such a factually challenged piece in his documentary, as Monkton did in his, the mob on this website would be in hysterics. Abraham gave a cool, calm and decidedly balanced review of Lord Monkton’s talk.
Score: Abraham 100 Monkton 2
I would love seeing this thing go to some official court – then when the evidence is presented the whole world will be able to clearly see what a liar the good “Lord” is!
Has anyone here taken the time to look at the newly released NOAA 2009 State of the Climate report?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html