Guest post by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Dear Anthony, – I’ve enjoyed your series on disinvitation of those who doubt “global warming” by true-believers in the New Religion.
Your readers may enjoy the following well-documented account. – Christopher
==============================================
Yet another “global warming” disinvitation to add to the season’s merriment. Some months ago Roger Helmer, a Conservative Member of the European Duma who has dared to question whether “global warming” is a global crisis, was invited to lunch with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, together with leading members of the university’s Environmental Sciences faculty.
The Vice-Chancellor invited Mr. Helmer to bring anyone else who might be interested, and replied that he would be accompanied by James Delingpole, a distinguished columnist with Britain’s national conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, and Lord Monckton, deputy leader and climate-change spokesman for Britain’s second-largest party in European elections, the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A couple of months went by. Then, two days before the lunch was due to take place, the Vice-Chancellor’s office got in touch with Mr. Helmer by email, announcing that Mr. Delingpole and Lord Monckton had been disinvited:
“I am writing in response to recent correspondence/your call about Mr Helmer’s visit to UEA next Friday 29th. The Vice-Chancellor is looking forward to meeting Mr Helmer as planned. However, I am afraid that there has been a misunderstanding in terms of the proposed accompanying guests. It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent I am afraid that the invitation to meet with the VC cannot be extended to Lord Monckton and Mr Delingpole on this occasion. I am conscious that your office gave our office the names of Mr Helmer’s proposed companions last month but unfortunately they only came to light yesterday.
“If Lord Monckton or Mr Delingpole have particular journalistic enquiries, the University’s Press Office would of course be very happy to receive them.”
Mr. Helmer was not pleased either with the cheesy pretext for the disinvitation or the very late date. The day before the planned visit, he wrote:
“Thank you for your e-mail regarding my visit to UEA tomorrow, but I have to say that I am rather taken aback at this abrupt change of tack. I supplied the names of my colleagues whom I proposed to bring with me some weeks ago (as you rightly point out), and it is rather an embarrassment to have to turn them off at this very late stage. You will be aware that we are dealing here with people who are prominent in their respective fields, and will certainly have dense diary commitments.
“I am disappointed also because while I have a good level of general familiarity with the various issues which we hope to discuss, these colleagues certainly have much more detailed knowledge than I, particularly on the science (Lord Monckton) and on the history and content of the leaked e-mails (James Delingpole). I feel that our meeting will therefore be less useful than it might have been.
“However, we must make the best of it. I propose instead to invite a parliamentary colleague to accompany me (I await his confirmation). This is Stuart Agnew MEP, who represents the Eastern Region and is therefore one of the MEPs covering Norwich and Norfolk. I trust that Mr. Agnew will be acceptable to the Vice Chancellor: if not, please let me know as soon as possible.”
Lord Monckton recommended that Mr. Helmer might take a rather tougher line. Mr. Helmer agreed, and wrote to the Vice-Chancellor’s office again:
“Following my e-mail earlier this morning, I have now been in communication with Lord Monckton, and I feel I have to ask you and the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider your decision.
“You describe Lord Monckton as a “political activist”. Not only is he Deputy Leader of a party which came second (ahead of Labour) in the 2009 Euro-Elections. He is also a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and acknowledged around the world as an authority on the science of climate change and an expert on climate sensitivity. It is rather depressing that the University is not prepared to talk to him.
“I now learn that Lord Monckton has — at very great inconvenience — arranged to return to the UK early from a banking conference in China, and to delay a forthcoming business trip to New York, at a cost of many thousands of pounds, precisely so that he can attend. I find it particularly embarrassing, therefore, to uninvite him at this late stage — you have placed me in a very difficult position. Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.
“In these circumstances I should like to appeal to you, and to the Vice Chancellor, to reconsider your decision. At the same time, I am assured that James Delingpole would be happy to follow Chatam House rules if you wish, and would have an important contribution to make to our discussions.
“Please reconsider this issue in the light of these comments, and let me have your advice as soon as possible.”
Faced with Mr. Helmer’s determination, the Vice-Chancellor caved in:
“Again may I offer our apologies for altering arrangements at this late stage and thank you for our willingness to suggest another accompanying colleague. The Vice-Chancellor would be very happy to meet you with your fellow MEP Stuart Agnew as you suggest. This would be a meeting over lunch with the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Prof Trevor Davies and colleagues from Environmental Sciences, Profs Julian Andrews and Peter Liss, between 12:30-1.30pm in the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
“I am sorry to learn in your second email of the inconvenience caused to Lord Monckton’s travel schedule. In view of the late alteration to his plans, the Vice-Chancellor has agreed to see Lord Monckton along with some of the same UEA colleagues in a separate meeting, immediately after you and Mr Agnew leave us at 1.30pm. We will make sure lunch is still available.
“I trust that these arrangements will be acceptable to you and colleagues and once again apologise for the inconvenience caused.”
The moral of the tale: don’t accept disinvitation. It’s rude and unnecessary. Stand your ground and put the academic bullies in their place.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I truly wonder what they’re trying to hide or are afraid of. Isn’t the purpose of a university (from the root word “universe”) to entertain all pertinent ideas–especially on a topic as interesting as climate change?
I agree that the time for being timid is over–even if long-held views about certain subjects are tossed in the process. Fear accomplishes nothing.
mod: perhaps the Univ needs a free speech zone sectioned off for those that want to present slideshows about climate change. I doubt they had an issue with Al Gore’s troopers presenting their PPTs.
They are afraid of the same thing James Cameron is afraid of, being called out on BS dogma. They know they are perpetuating a scam of colossal magnitude and any actual confrontation or debate is another blow to an already dying agenda. They are murdering their own religion with faux science, and good riddance when it’s finally buried.
All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?
The phrase “running scared” comes to mind!
Roy says:
October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
The point is not even close to their eating etiquette, Roy–it has to do with their blatant attempts at closing down debate regarding one of the most visible, potentially controlling and destructive movements out there–“climate science” (or “global climate disruption” to use their current vernacular). If the success of western civilization weren’t in jeopardy, I’d agree with you that this was a non-issue. However, this egregious movement has become as polarizing and destructive as the Cold War.
More inspiration as ever from the good Monckton. A good story and a good moral.
Once again we see from these academic liberals that as long as they mean well then what they do no matter how rude does not matter.
Wait.. the Vice Chancellor invited someone and was told that others could be invited several weeks before the event and received a reply well before the event with the names of the individuals who would be attending.
Then two days before the event, individuals in Vice Chancellor’s office just “discovered” who the invited guests were? I am assuming that Vice Chancellor does not have a secretary/assistant who manages these things? Really?
I’m not buying the “just discovered” line. I wonder what other meetings the Vice Chancellor has either fumbled through or been embarrassed by shoddy work of his secretary/assistant? I’m guessing none. If I were the Vice Chancellor, I would have let go of the individuals managing my calendar and brought in some better people.
@Roy: “What’s the point?” I think there are several points. The main one is not sloppy etiquette. That’s a symptom or result of the real failure, which is of intellectual courage. They are so beholden to their backers, so accustomed to the bullying and backstabbing by which the agenda is “managed,” that they no longer know what good science looks like, or how to achieve it. Any scientist worth her salt would look first to meet with her strongest critics. If her work survives their scrutiny, it will be all the stronger for it. This limp performance by the vice-head of the entire enterprise –exhibiting less sense of purpose and honesty than you’d expect from an assistant under-secretary for faculty outings– shows how deep the rot has reached.
———
Corollary #1 of Dis-Invitation: Acknowledge it initially in velvet tones, then discuss it with even tempered concern followed expeditiously with steely non-acceptance of the lack of the dis-invitor’s gentlemanly behavior. Finally, publish to whole affair.
John
Well played, very well played. I agree about the moral of the story.
Blantant cowardice. The whole point about tenure, honours, etc., is that one can be free and can demonstrate the highest common standards of behaviour … ‘grace’ if you like.
In other times, failure to rise to the occasion and behave properly.. particularly through fear… would have been met with a street ‘debagging’
I am glad it has gone public; so everyone knows just what kind of person that Vice Chancellor really is.
I personally would have SHOWN UP.
And dared them to have me PHYSICALLY REMOVED.
Of course, as a 57 year old competing athlete, I have the wherewithall to do that. However, it does beg the question – – – are they willing to call in surrogate “goons” to protect their turf?
I’m doing my “Atmospheric Physics” lecture for the 7th time in 14 months in December. It is interesting to note that the most “contentuous” individual to attend my lectures insisted on continuously asking, “Do you BELIEVE in global warming..”
My response was to refer to the TITLE of the lecture. To the bemusement of about a dozen people standing about after the lecture, this man could not REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THE LECTURE! I do have to admit a little Monckton class has rubbed off, as I noted that if he could not remember the title of the lecture, maybe he actually “wasn’t there”, and that’s the way I intended to treat his question. I.e. as if he wasn’t there. (I then turned and began to talk to someone else.)
P.S. Lord Monckton has lightyears more CLASS than I do, I will defer to his “Royal Blood”, and use him as a model for holding forth in intellectual battle, yet maintaining class and dignity!
The UEA/CRU school song should be the one by Judy Collins called ‘Send in the Clowns’.
The particularly appropriate lines in the lyrics are:
The Dis-Invitors at UEA/CRU are the clowns. They are already there.
John
@oMan and RockyRoad:
I am perfectly aware of the implied point being made by squawking about these disinvitations, but taking notice of every single one is petty and easy to ridicule. (Taking notice of every single evasion and lie to the UK parliament’s S&TC on the other hand is devastating and impossible to ridicule.) If a skeptic like me thinks this blog is flirting with the ridiculous on this, imagine what the warmists make of it.
Being shown to be charlatans in the history books, and eventual social ostracism, isn’t enough punishment for these people. I’m sorry Anthony, but it just isn’t. Criminal prosecution for fraud and charges under the RICO act are what’s needed.
Lengthy stays in prison and huge civil judgments against as well. They are deliberately acting in bad faith, they lie, cheat and steal. And they do it because they have no fear of being punished.
Well at least they get lunch. It’s a start.
Well, let’s face it, no warmist wants to face Monckton over lunch. They might as well sign up for a whipping. ” Yes, waiter, I will take the “thorough drubbing” with a side of “humiliation”….. and the “mea culpa” tea….. and perhaps a cup of acid to pour over my face. Thank you. 🙂
What a sad, pathetic lot that must be. Distinguished educators and professors afraid of an exchange of thoughts with critics? Are they completely intellectually bankrupt? And even if they are does mean they have also relinquished any fortitude they may have had? How can they face their students and colleagues when they find they attempted to hide from their critics? That they would run from an opportunity to face the much reviled Monckton and Delingpole and “give them hell” says about all that needs said.
They had their names for weeks and only “became aware” at the last minute. Call this a “University” – they loose data, they can’t keep appointments, they can’t handle even simple FOI requests – basically they are totally inept, totally incompetent and a disgrace to British Academia.
They are pedaling their bike backwards and avoiding opposition down dark hallways to avoid having a conversation with the truth and to face those who want to bring it to them. That does little to bring confidence to their cause.
As Road wrote, Western civilization is at risk with the global warming agenda. A university or organization, government or civilian should be interested in scientific proof over dogma, in the fate of their civilization over personal profit and their integrity over dishonesty. And Oman wrote of intellectual courage, certainly important to science and life.
Their courage is exposed when they first reject then cave to determination to discuss the truth with science at the center of the discussion.
Roy, it just demonstrates how incomprehensibly low our governments, places of higher education, and propaganda machines have fallen.
That’s all.
Roy says: October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?
MJ says: October 28, 2010 at 10:23 am
Wait.. the Vice Chancellor invited someone and was told that others could be invited several weeks before the event and received a reply well before the event with the names of the individuals who would be attending.
======================================================
Well Gentlemen, This simply underscores the arrogance and sloppiness of these people. The Harry Readme files demonstrated time and again these characteristics of the denizens of this place while the Chancellor’s office seemingly couldn’t run a p— up in a brewery but couldn’t care less about it anyway. The stiff necked responses showed their arrogant disdain.
These are the people however, who are somewhat responsible for the reasons why governments throughout the western world are hell bent on increasing taxes to deal with co2 emission into the atmosphere. If it weren’t so serious it would provide material for another series of ‘Blackadder’ or ‘Yes Minister’.
PS – loved Lord M’s tale.
Doug
According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher”.
He was indeed a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. His appointment was announced in The Times in 1982 under the heading “Journalists to join Thatcher policy team.” Later the same year he is described as being in a “policy unit specialising in home affairs” and as a “domestic specialist at the policy unit.” Nowhere in The Times is there any reference to him being a ‘science advisor’ though he did produce and market a computer program to predict election results. In 1984 he is described as being responsible for “housing, [and] parliamentary affairs.”
At Cambridge University he got a lower second class degree in Classics.
I recognise that in recent years has made valiant efforts to get up to speed on the science of climate change but to describe himself as a “science advisor” to Margaret Thatcher, who herself had a Chemistry degree, is disingenuous.
Well played indeed – whilst the UoEA scored an own goal, the dis-invited scored a number of their own.
Such antics will simply underline to the general public what crass merchants of spin and misinformation the “Hockey Stick Team” and their supporters really are.
One feels rather that this is a classic example of the poor unfortunate that won a prize in the “Stella Awards” a year or so ago (named after the person who successfully sued a provider of coffee because the coffee was hot!) who was trying to use a gun to rob a store and the gun jammed, so in true, if somewhat messy farce, the robber looked down the barrel of the gun and pulled the trigger again. This time it worked.
Am I right in thinking that the “Hockey Team” has been threatening the world with a defective catastrophe “gun”, only to find that when they need their gun to work and it doesn’t, they do far more than just shoot themselves in the foot.
Even the most blatant “teamspeak” article in the Guardian by the alarmists is regularly torn apart in the comments columns – with the sensible, sceptical comments scoring far higher “recommendations”.
What a difference a year makes!
I don’t mind being called a denier, since denier I am. I should mind very much being called a disinviter, for were I to be happy with that then what would be left to say about me?