UPDATE: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley thanks readers and responds to some critics of his title in an update posted below. – Anthony
UPDATE2: A new condensed version of Monckton’s rebuttal is available below
====================================
I don’t have a dog in this fight, as this is between two people with opposing viewpoints, but I’m happy to pass on this rebuttal from Christopher Monckton, who writes:
Professor Abraham, who had widely circulated a serially mendacious 83-minute personal attack on me on the internet, has had a month to reply to my questions.
I now attach a) a press statement; b) a copy of the long letter in which I ask the Professor almost 500 questions about his unprovoked attack on me; and c) the full subsequent correspondence. I’d be most grateful if you would circulate all this material as widely as you can. The other side has had much fun at my expense: without you, I can’t get my side heard, so I’d be most grateful if you would publicize this material.
Links to both Abraham’s and Monckton’s presentations follow.
I’ll let readers be the judge.
Abraham: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
(NOTE: He uses Adobe presenter – may not work on all browsers)
Monckton: monckton-warm-abra-qq2 (PDF)
============================================
UPDATE: 7/13/10 6:40PM PST In comments, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley thanks readers and responds to some critics of his title in an update posted below. – Anthony
============================================
From: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
I am most grateful to Anthony Watts for having allowed my letter asking Professor Abraham some questions to be circulated, and to so many of you for having taken the trouble to comment. I have asked a good firm of MN libel lawyers to give me a hard-headed assessment of whether I have a libel case against Abraham and his university, or whether I’m taking this too seriously.
I am charmed that so many of you are fascinated by the question whether I am a member of the House of Lords. Perhaps this is because your own Constitution denies you any orders or titles of nobility. Here is the answer I recently gave to the US House of Representatives’ Global Warming Committee on that subject:
“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”
===============================================
UPDATE2: A new condensed rebuttal for easier reading is here
Monckton doing the Gish Gallop.
Did he never hear the saying “I am sorry to write you such a long letter because I did not have time to write a short one” ?
Johnnies rebuttal of Lord Monckton’s presentation is a smarmy. His unprofessional tone (maybe calculated to talk to just “us folks”) is insulting to the intelligence of his audience. That alone made listening to him unbearable.
Lord Monckton on the other hand elevates those to whom he speaks. His FACTUALLY based presentations and writings are interesting and informative. I’m always left feeling educated on the topic.
If Johnnies presentation style in this is any indication of his teaching style he belongs at best in middle school. Certainly not at a reputable university.
Sundance says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm
What is Monckton’s recourse if his demands are not met? I hope you will follow up.
***************
VILLABOLO:
Sundance, Lord Monckton has a history of attempted intimidations against scientists, including threats of lawsuits and harassment directed at Institutions that the scientist belongs to or associates with.
Nothing so far has come of those threats.
Phil. says: July 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Phil, I suspect Lord Monckton does indeed recognize the subtle distinctions in title and rank, just as I am sure you recognize, but choose not to acknowledge, the issues involved in the restriction of hereditary peers from voting participation in the House of Lords. Lord Monckton is one who has challenged the legitimacy of that restriction on hereditary custom and privilege and is consistent in his approach. I’ve already snapped at Smokey, whom I normally agree with and usually find informative and thought provoking, but in Lord Monckton’s defense, Professor Abraham (and you will note I give him the full honorific) was a tad imprecise in whether he was using rank or job description. In my own written work, I will describe myself as a “professor of sociology” but when being formal will describe myself as “Adjunct Instructor of Sociology”… not that the students get a discount on their tuition because I am not ranked “professor” or their credits are listed at 3.0 rather than say 2.5 because they have an inferior teacher or the recommendations I write for them are discounted because I am “only an adjunct”. Dr. Abraham’s credentials are impressive enough without gilding the lily. His rebuttal to Lord Monckton was a lot less so.
Anthony’s criticism of you is also valid. Dr. Abraham was correct in asserting that a knowledge of background and qualifications is helpful in judging the quality of someone’s assertions (although Dr. Abraham conveniently neglected to mention that the individual who had degrees in classics and journalism was also considered qualified enough to serve as a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher) – I’d be willing to consider your postings with more respect if you were forthcoming with the credentials that Anthony suggests you may possess. Step out into the light of day, Phil.
Steve Mucci says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:10 pm
A wonderful rebuttal, one that will fall, Lord Monckton knows, on deaf ears.
Abraham may be, yes. But I wish this was broadcast on tv. Lots of good hearing ears there.
David T. Bronzich (July 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm)
… it actually was a gun, quite large as well. It would been a little more impressive if it hadn’t been bright orange, with lime green trim and half filled with water, but still, personal decisions being as they are…
——
I have found those same “weapons” to be quite effective at getting raccoons (i.e. pernicious vermin) out of my garden and off my deck, all while providing me with great mirth and hilarity in the evening hours. I strongly recommend Lord Monckton acquire one.
I’d love to see a live debate between the two. Monkton would have to be the best debator I’ve ever seen.
Perhaps Chris could extend his question 454, based on the IPCC 1995 pre-massaging statement:
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the observed climate changes) to anthropogenic causes”
… to an additional question, 467:
“Exactly what is the evidence that man’s CO2 is causing climate change ?”
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?
“I have sent a brief letter to the President of your University, Father Dease, informing him that I have sent you this letter but not sending him a copy for now. I have told him that, once I have had your response, I may wish to invite him to investigate whether the content and distribution of your talk constitutes gross academic and professional misconduct on your part.”
Ocean acidification from Carbon Dioxide is complete rubbish – a grade 6 chemistry student could tell you that.
Sub postmaster/professor Abraham, or whatever status he has, is typical of the climate ‘Establishment’ desperately trying to protect the status quo from being exposed to the facts.
Moncton’s response might be a tad on the lengthy side, but here is 5 bucks that says there will be no response to his questions.
Christoph says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Weird, on paper I have similar education and qualifications to Prof Abraham,”
I know two people who, on paper, are chefs, and one can cook and the other can’t. Not well, anyway.
My grandma wasn’t a chef on paper. But I still haven’t had better pancakes anywhere than hers! So much for being someone on paper.
I find it very cool that Richard Feynmen didn’t want to be ‘someone’. He was satisfied with his findings and not in being someone.
Josh, can we have a cartoon of this? Please?
Liam says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Weird, on paper I have similar education and qualifications to Prof Abraham, both PhDs, both Engineers specialising in energy/thermodynamics. Somehow he is a true believer and crusading for AGW, while I am still looking for convincing evidence.
That Liam is because you are a true scientist looking for truth not a drama queen searching for validation.
I think the damages demanded (paid to a US charity) may indicate that the good Viscount is heading to the libel courts. I hope so as it will put the mmcgw scam in the law courts, much like Gore’s film (which was found to be political propaganda ). It will be interesting to see if he does this in the UK or the US
Either way ‘Nice one’
“I don’t have a dog in this fight.”
Quaint expression, that. Must admit it’s a newie on me. As a way of saying “I’m a detached observer” it has a catchy ring, though the image it conjures up ain’t too pretty. Googling the term, it was apparently first used by James Baker, former Secretary of State and a Texan. Dogfighting has been common in Mexico and also practised illegally in the U.S., especially in Texas.
Being somewhat more refined Down Under, we prefer idioms like “I don’t have a horse in this race”!
Anyway, now for a read of the dogfight.
Really?
You have some insight that leads you to believe Father Dease would be more intellectually honest and ethical than your typical university provost?
I also don’t have.. a.. “canary in this coal mine”?.. but I was offended by Abraham’s purported “slap-down” of Monckton, which was so enthusiastically distributed by the media blogs and warmist propagandists. Like everyone else, here, I saw it for the perverse, unscientific ad hominem atrocity that it was. It deserved a proper and full response from Monckton.
I’m delighted that Monckton responded, and I am not in the slightest bit surprised that Abraham has been unwilling to respond. There simply is no fitting response to having been hung drawn and quartered.
It’s not enough to just read and enjoy Monckton’s rebuttal. The existence of this rebuttal needs to be shared, spread far and wide. This is the only way Monckton’s response will receive comparable coverage to Abraham’s miserable excuse for a presentation.
Spread the link.
Lord Monckton gives me hope for humanity. He is well spoken, well educated, and well mannered. Always a pleasure to read his words and watch his presentations.
Smokey writes,
“In the very first sentence of his hit piece, John Abraham refers to himself a ‘Professor’.
That appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation; Abraham is listed by the university as only an associate professor.
There is a big difference between the two. Ask any real Professor.”
You are mistaken. Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and full Professors all are professors.
Monckton, however, is not a member of the House of Lords as he sometimes has claimed.
I also think it implies he may not be 100% sold on each aspect of Monkton’s position in this argument between the men.
FijiDave says:
July 12, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“I must not have the audacity to insinuate that my superiors should tolerate such diabolical asininity designed to give artistic verisimilitude to such mendacious excreta from such an insignificant insect as myself.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Your quote reminds me of:
Monckton and the IPCC spade:
“The University of St. Thomas, founded in 1885 by Archbishop John Ireland, is a Catholic, independent, liberal arts, archdiocesan university that emphasizes values-centered, career-oriented education.”
see: http://www.stthomas.edu/aboutust/history/default.html
Your last comment was a dodge, John from CA:
Why, specifically, what Father Dease, be more ethical and intellectually honest than another human being?
Another primate?
I have nothing against the man. He may rise up in defense of academic decency and civil debate for all I know, demanding this all be put right and no unfair attacks on another person’s reputation without giving them an opportunity to respond be tolerated.
But I believe the evidence behind the proposition that religious leaders are more intellectually honest and ethical than laypeople, if that is what you are getting at, is pretty near zero.
I wonder if the Professor may now count his diatribe as “Research” or “Scholarship” on his CV? Perhaps he could claim Lord Monkton to be a Referee in any future applications for employment? After all, Lord Monkton is probably the only person to have completely read the Professor’s work.
Like others, I soon choked on the presentation, then suspected the Professor was just playing with an interesting new internet tool. After all, his faculty claims:
“We are committed to developing complete engineers who have a sound Liberal Arts foundation combined with hands-on experience and strong technical skills.”
But the Faculty also declares:
“We strongly believe that an Engineering education is about rolling up your sleeves, getting your hands dirty on projects, and wrapping your mind around ideas which have the potential to change our world.”
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/about/default.html
Oh dear, those delusions of grandeur again.
Christoph says:
July 12, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Really?
You have some insight that leads you to believe Father Dease would be more intellectually honest and ethical than your typical university provost?
====== you mat have a point ;)======
Before you begin research on human subjects . . .
see: http://www.stthomas.edu/irb/NewIRB/Other%20Forms/before.htm
What is the mission of the University of St. Thomas IRB?
In keeping with its distinctive mission as a Catholic university (“to develop morally responsible individuals,” Mission Statement) as well as with federal regulations (45 CFR 46), the University of St. Thomas is committed to a policy of safeguarding the dignity, rights, and privacy of all human subjects of scientific research, whether such research is federally funded or not.
The mission of the IRB at the University of St. Thomas is to assist faculty, staff, and student researchers in meeting the highest ethical and professional standards for the use of human subjects in scientific research.
Investigators are reminded that research involving human subjects may not begin prior to review and approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and that it is the responsibility of the researcher to see that all relevant forms, documents, and supporting materials are filed so that IRB review of the research proposal may begin.
I downloaded the U. of St. Thomas paper about a month ago.
My “B.S.” detector went so high, I thought I’d have to sanitize my computer room.
As I sit here and scan to PDF Elsasser’s 1942, Heat Transfer By Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere (Havard Meteorological Studies), wherein Dr. Elsasser IGNORES the effect of CO2 in the “heat balances” of the Troposphere, as it is an even “upflux and downflux” agent, I’ve also taken some time to flip through Lord Monckton’s “tomb”, and delight in watching a sharp wit with a rapier slice and dice a rather superficial thinker.
I hope Lord M. WILL get a copy of Elsasser’s work, because PHYSICS (basic PHYSICS) has not changed from 1942, and how CO2 suddenly becomes “controlling”, mystifies me to this day. (By the way, Plass, et. al., vintage 1955 calculate the COOLING effect of CO2 on the stratosphere, which comes about as a consequence of the net steradians of 4pi which the “shape factor” of the CO2 molecule intercepts on the Earth versus open space.)
Go GET ‘EM LORD M!!