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
The St. Thomas’ champion has attacked the evil Anglo denier. The staff have gathered below the school’s funding tree awaiting the calming sight of a full blossom.
Academics are the same all over the world.They will get their wagons in a cicle and mount a hatchet job on Monckton irrespective of the merits of the argument either way.
Just look at the way they connived on both side ofthe Atlantic to ensure that it was only academics reviewing the bad behaviour of other academics, so that it remained inside their cosy little corals.
Penn State inquiry, Muir Russell and Oxburgh all follow the same pattern.
Meanwhile its the tax payer who has to sit on the sidelines whilst these charades get played out ..because political leaders are too piss weak to step in to get the job done properly and credibly.
I think folks are missing a point here. Monckton has a history of people jeering at him for “not having a science degree”, answering Monckton’s excellent maths and science with rubbish, and acting thereafter as if Monckton could not / did not reply, when in fact he did.
Gavin Schmidt laid into him this way, Monbiot believed Schmidt. Monckton answered the lot… but warmists don’t want to know this. See here.
The same happened with Monckton’s paper published through APS, I think it was Arthur Smith who attacked Monckton like Schmidt did earlier, and again many warmists talk as if Smith had the last word – and fail to mention Monckton’s reply to Smith. Typical Wikipedia omissions.
So this time Monckton’s using a megaphone. And he did bring a court case in the past, and won it – the case involving UK schools, showing Al Gore’s film was rubbish. But with lousy media reporting, at a time when most of us still assumed the official science was trustworthy, there was little effect. This time, a court case might get a press who is both more knowledgeable and more skeptical of climate science. And the recent farcical reviews have raised the degree of iniquity now ripe for exposure. Media awareness and attitudes have changed since Climategate.
Abraham introduces his stream of ad hominem attacks and near complete absence of arguing the data on its merits as, “I’ll respond to his presentation in a way typical of how a scientist responds to information.”
Every scientist on the planet should be affronted by this, but sadly, there is a new breed of scientist afoot, who seeks social validation, rather than validation by experiment and Nature. This presentation reflects very badly on the University of St. Thomas.
Abraham was evidently inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity.
So,,,, Ben Santer rewrote the ’95 IPCC report conclusion to finger us all for warming the planet…..
Got any data to show us yet Ben?
You can try duffing me up in an alley if you like. I’m 6′ 8″ and trained.
It is more than a rebuttal, it is the basis of a case of defamation. There are plenty of direct comments made that satisfy the definition of defamation in most Western countries for Monkton to have a case against Abraham. He has laid out the challenge logically and in each instance has given Abrahams the opportunity to challenge whether his summary is correct. He has given Abrahams and the University a period of in-confidence consideration to apologise and withdraw and now followed that up with a further opportunity. Should they not do so Monkton has a reasonable case for court action. Losing a case like this would do much wider harm to the AGW believers than just Abrahams and the Uni. My guess is the Uni’s lawyers would not let it get to court and the sum of $110,000 will be miniscule compared to what is to come (never mind the legal costs).
Should be interesting.
Now I’ve scanned Monckton (I too get nauseous now at anything over a few seconds’ exposure to the Dark Side) I think this is a tour de force, worthy of Churchill’s speeches but in the coin appropriate for the current battle in Science. It’s at once a restatement of Monckton’s speech, with excellent clear pictures to scupper each familiar rotten icon of the warmistas, and a refusal to let the warmistas take pot shots at him from the ivory towers of abused public trust. It’s a worthy call to arms, to eject the usurpers of Climate Science from their thrones, using the proper procedure – the full rigor of Scientific Method, amplified and backed with the power of law and a passion for truth and justice. It has the sense of fatal drumbeat I remember from the Watergate inquiry.
If you’re reading this, M’lud, let me say that I deem your response to be a valuable learning resource. About the nuts and bolts of climate science, as well as about the intellectual climate that breeds nuts who bolt from the blue and underestimate the intellect of those they assume to be idiots (and therefore not worthy of spending sufficient time constructing arguments against).
Reading your rebuttal with complete fascination from cover to cover, I had a sudden insight into how Abraham, Oxburgh, Muir Russell, Gavin Schmidt, etc. are all singing from the same hymn sheet, all subject to the same tendency to arrogantly dismiss a priori anyone who disagrees.
It isn’t so much “We are right”, as “We are cleverer than you, so you must be wrong, and we don’t have to waste time putting much thought into our arguments”. Maybe we won’t hear from Abraham again, but whatever, I’ll bet that if he reads your rebuttal thoroughly, somewhere deep inside, his soul will start blushing bright red.
I think the University of “Doubting Thomas” needs more skeptics 😉
The entire warming story occupies the period following WWII to present. ~65 years. In that time, there was cooling over the first 35 years, warming for 20 years, then a slight cooling from 1998 to present. I still think the 30’s/40’s were likely the TRUE modern peak after UHI is adjusted out. The entire period is insufficient to conclude anything. And in this period, less than one third of it trended upward. Before we get to the other 50 reasons why AGW theory fails, it’s already statistically impossible to prove. It doesn’t matter what Abraham had to say after he started with the “Denier” comment. He immediately became a deranged zealot.
Lord M to Prof A: “You did not give me the opportunity to review your talk before you circulated it widely, as you should have done, and as is normal in academe.”
I am afraid the Lord has no idea what is normal in academia. There is no such mandate or custom.
500 questions? Damn that Monk dude is one thorough mofo!!
🙂
Lord Moncton is way ahead of the posse.
He knows, and any dog with a mallet in his *rse knows, this wh0le debate is nothing to do with climate.
this is a battle for Truth and Freedom – you better believe it!
Lord Moncton knows you need to step above the minutia of this debate and get a glimpse of what is really going on.
Look at the “investigations” and ask yourself:
1) were these investigations a serious attempt to determine a “truth”?
2) were both sides of this debate represented and heard?
3) were the reasonably expected questions answered, or even asked?
4) Do you think these “investigations” stuck to their terms of reference?
5) Do you think these “investigators” were chosen on the basis of impartiality?
6) Do you think the total content of these “investigations” has been made available to the public?
7) If you can answer “No” to any of the above, you must conclude “whitesash”
8) and, if you are still intent on arguing the technical minutia of this debate, you must admit that you’re sacrifising a greater truth for something which is technically insignificant. Don’t sweat the small stuff!
I think Lord Moncton is the apostle of common sense.
This AGW is an attempt to deprive you of your freedom and autonomy, and a dog with a mallet in his *rse can see this – we over-educated humans can’t see the wood for the trees.
Lord Moncton is concerned with the TRUTH and is not a child of his age.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
I am a lurker and seldom a contributer. I had a few drinks tonight and decided i needed to say something – nobody’s perfect, take offence if you like.
God Bless America – the old flag is a bit dishevelled but it’s our only hope.
tim
John from CA says at 3:38 pm:
“The first thing I question is what axe does John Abraham have to grind?”
That’s the pertinent question, isn’t it?
Abraham clearly isn’t interested in the scientific aspect of whether human emitted CO2 causes noticeable global warming. If he were interested, he would have given Lord Monckton the courtesy of reviewing his presentation. That’s what a stand-up guy does.
Instead, Abraham threw his ad hominem hit piece onto the internet, and notified all the usual alarmist blogs at the same time in order to give it maximum impact. That’s not science; that is a venomous P.R. hit piece.
Lord Monckton has thoroughly deconstructed Abraham’s presentation in great detail. If Abraham is to retain any credibility, he must now show that Lord Monckton is wrong throughout his critique.
Knowing how thorough Lord Monckton is, and knowing the very high level of his understanding of the subject, I think Abraham is beginning to see that he bit off more than he can chew. He is going to have to show that Monckton’s criticisms are all incorrect. Otherwise the assertions in his presentation will be the issue, rather than Lord Monckton’s well documented position.
The obvious way to allow Mr Abraham to salvage his credibility is in a televised debate with Lord Monckton, held in a neutral venue, and with a mutually agreed Moderator and debate rules.
But based on the cowardly Mr Abraham — whose modus operandi is craven internet back-stabbing, I would expect the spineless Mr Abraham to run and hide out from any fair debate. Abraham can easily show that I am wrong — if he has the courage to stand and deliver, instead of taking pot shots from the safety of his Ivory Tower.
Why is it that the alarmist side, from Michael Mann on down, run and hide out rather than explain to the folks paying the freight how they arrived at their alarming conclusions? There seems to be little difference, if any, between Bernie Madoff and Michael Mann. Now we can add John Abraham to that list.
Although I’ve heard Lord M speaking many, many times on digital feedforms I always internalize his written output as if Winston had spoken!
As much as I am certain that linguistic correlations would tend to the lower boundaries of similarity, I feel, no less convinced, that the KBO spirit of WSS lives on.
Rhetorical brilliance, underpinned by blatent honesty, still has a role to play!
I know that my exhortations add naught to your arsenal of siege-weaponry my dear Sir but, nonetheless, I hope that my support may contribute, however slightly, in a positive way to reassure that ‘cometh the hour, ‘cometh the Man!’ and point an appreciative finger in your direction!
Thank you.
Thank you Sir.
Did you all read question #466? It is first time I have seen a rebuttal demand a cash payment! Your Lord is a joke. Instead of actually rebutting Assoc. Prof. A., he asks a serious of leading questions, which no one could have time to address. Since he does not make statements, he can’t be called a liar, but can say “Prof A has not answered my questions!” If his original claims are correct all he needed to do was justify them.
You should follow the thread about this on Treehugger. It seems that Abrahams has backed down , but not all the way, he’s taken down the public defamatory stuff but still has most of it available on public server – leaving the uni and himself open to legal action – please join treehugger as you won’t be able to see this thread unless logged in as they are now so scared of skeptics that they are basically censoring everything – but you can see the google cahce of any page if you know how to search – here is the thread –
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=15996&start=15
to quote –
“Watch and listen to the presentation.
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
I would have thought someone with your choice of username would perhaps have read the thread enough to have gathered that is where the debunking occurs”
I went to the University of St. Thomas for my MBA. The teachers and staff are very much of the progressive mindset. It amazes me that Prof. Abraham would use consensus and group think to dispute the fact based analysis of Lord Monckton. It was the late Dr. Michael Crichton who said “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels”. Looks like we have a scoundrel here. I hope some seminary student at St. Thomas can find it in his heart to give Prof. Abraham absolution!
Lord M is clever. Of course since he is threatening to sue, Prof A cannot answer his questions! And Lord can then say: “He hasn’t answered my questions!!!” Is this “normal in the academe”?
Mike says:
“Instead of actually rebutting Assoc. Prof. A., he asks a serious [sic] of leading questions, which no one could have time to address.”
Abraham has had an entire month to respond to Monckton’s letter. Instead, he continued hiding out. And a simple request for more time would certainly have been granted. Further, Lord Monckton has made reams of specific statements over the years, so it is disingenuous for you to take him to task for asking straightforward questions of the person who did the hit piece on him. Questions, it seems, are what scares the alarmist crowd the most.
You also say:
“I am afraid the Lord has no idea what is normal in academia. There is no such mandate or custom” [eg, to contact the subject of your paper in order to correct any deficiencies, errors of fact, or misunderstandings].
In publishing, peer review and just about everywhere else it is common courtesy to contact the subject. Abraham didn’t just make a casual comment on a blog. His slide presentation had to have taken a great deal of time for him to produce, and is much larger than most peer reviewed publications. He made the entire issue Lord Monckton, rather than science — all the while hiding behind his science credentials. What a guy, eh?
If you believe it is acceptable behavior to act as Abraham has, then it is you who do not understand customary professional behavior. You have an odious hero in John Abraham. That kind of role model is becoming very typical of the climate alarmist crowd.
Surely Monckton would know that Abraham wouldn’t comply to the 110,000 USD. Surely the guy wants a fight and wants to bring this subject wide-open. He wants a public debate, and this maybe how he gets it.
The dealine was 30th June 2010 for the charitable donation – I take it that this wasn’t forthcoming…
One may pretty safely assume that Lord M. has armed himself well to debate any and all issues listed here. Good on him!
Question: Has he addressed all (or substantially all) of the main issues raised by Prof A?
“Is it not slightly ironic that Monckton is so keen that Abraham follows his version of standard academic practice, and demands $10,000 from Abraham. This is definitely a novel interpretation of standard academic practice, and might appear as an attempt to intimidate a critic into silence.
Into silence: no. Into sticking to the verifiable facts: YES.
”
There’s definitely the implication that he’s asking for the donation to a charity in lieu of a libel lawsuit, which is why he began by noting that the presentation was designed to injure him, etc.
Mike
Lord M is clever. Of course since he is threatening to sue, Prof A cannot answer his questions! And Lord can then say: “He hasn’t answered my questions!!!” Is this “normal in the academe”?
This has little to do with academe Mike. Monkton has been putting up with this sort of nonsense for years. This is an escalation and not before time. I thought that taking Al Gore before the British Courts to debunk the so called facts had set the scene, but people naturally don’t like doing that. I made the point earlier that there is a result here that could be bigger than just getting Abrahams to pull his head in. A successful defamation case might actually take the emotion out of the debate and get it to a discussion based on fact.
Abrahams is toast and he knows it.