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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!