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
re:Abraham’s credentials. I’m sure that he is a member of the British House of Lords.
The essential prerequisite for a successful ambush is to give your opposition the certainty they are in complete control of the situation. Monckton, being the politically astute man he is, knows this.
It was only a matter of time until one of the Alarmists mounted a very public attack on him that moved well beyond the simple ad hom and into defamation and libel territory. This case will put the whole AGW nonsense on trial, a trial whose Terms of Reference can’t be rigged, whose jurors can’t be hand picked and whose conclusion can’t be whitewashed.
The jaws of the trap have just been sprung.
Pointman
” Tony says”
Is this a blacklist?
Pointman – The Rannoch bear-trap in action……I’ll enjoy watching the progress from snare to cooking pot.
Best,
OL
Gneiss: July 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm
You are mistaken. Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and full Professors all are professors.
You are mistaken. Colleges and universities allow Assistant Professors and Associate Professors to *call* themselves “Professor” when engaged in school-related activities, but the title is an honorific, not a recognition of achievement or tenure. In Kentucky, distinguished citizens are awarded the honorific “Colonel” when appearing at social events, but it does not entitle them to lead a brigade in combat.
Monckton, however, is not a member of the House of Lords as he sometimes has claimed.
I’m unaware that he has ever claimed he was — all I’ve ever been able to find is talking points, without links or citation that he did. He *is* of the hereditary peerage and entitled to call himself “Lord Monckton,” but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn people don’t know the difference (since 1999, anyway) between a Hereditary Lord and a Sitting Lord.
Christoph says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:14 am
““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.’
Look, that’s my problem with this. Christopher Monckton’s chosen method of addressing this was ridiculous. […]”
==========================================
Cristoph, refer to
Randy says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I don’t think Monckton was being ridiculous; more like meticulous.
I have just been to Monbiot.com to see how he responds to having his cherished hero, Associate Professor Abraham and his rebuttal, torn apart so publicly.
There has been nothing so far. There is the older post in which Monbiot proudly defends Abraham and denies any ad hominem attacks by Abraham on Monkton, and claims that this rebuttal of Monkton’s presentation by Abraham is first class, accurate and worthy.
I tried to post a link to alert Monbiot that his new emperor has no clothes.
I discovered that he is not allowing comments on that article. What a coward he is. So I filled in his contact us page instead and sent him a link to Viscount Monkton’s response to John Abraham.
Bill Tuttle says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:39 am
Monckton, however, is not a member of the House of Lords as he sometimes has claimed.
I’m unaware that he has ever claimed he was — all I’ve ever been able to find is talking points, without links or citation that he did.
———————–
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf page 7
“you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United
Kingdom legislature”
The slide misrepresenting the skeptics position was a give away to the sloppy logic to follow.
Skeptics claim there is no climate change ?
That is what climates do, they change. Denying that obvious fact is ridiculous.
The 5 dead polar bears fallacy is indicative of the logic Dr Abraham resorts to.
Monckton’s assertion was that 5 dead polar bears was not an indication of anything. [which is correct.] The “rebuttal ” was misdirection to studies that seem to show that someday there might be a problem. Where did this guy learn logic from ?
I listened and looked my way through Abraham’s presentation and found him inaccurate, fond of using conflicting and confused ad homs and desperately, desperately boring. If any Year 13 student had presented a similar effort to me as a trial run for an A levels paper I would have suggested he find another topic, preferrably one he had actually read some books about and completed his coursework on. Abraham’s refusal to engage with Monckton before and after publishing his ‘rebuttal’ is not only a break from accepted behaviour in academe, but along with accusing Monckton of making stuff up, is breathtakingly silly. Christopher Monckton is absolutely meticulous in his research for his presentations and knows very well that for him to debate and debunk the Warmist alarmaism, he has to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.
Abraham’s first slide displays Abraham’s own abysmal misunderstanding of just what Christopher Monckton actually stated in the (Monckton’s) presentation Abrahams has set about ‘demolishing’. Abraham’s protestations are those of acallow person who has absorbed dogma rather than understood the science.
I suspect others have wound Abrahams up like a clockwork mouse and pointed him at Monckton and that Abrahams will bitterly regret his foolishness when this comes to court.
@Caleb at July 13, 2010 at 1:58 am: the appropriate abbreviation for Assistant Professor is Asst. Prof. But you knew that, I’m sure.
And from the AGW lot you will nto hear a peep as its buisness as usual flaming and abusing people is something you do when you have religion on your side.
They always remind me of the bullys at school that have low intelligence so always use to revertt to name calling, ‘poopy head’.
If you put these guys on X factor i know which one woudl be voted off in seconds.
Any chance that Abraham was set up by those in the AGW crowd who wouldn’t dare try to do a hatchet job on CM themselves? A proxy attack so to speak. I wonder if there were any recent large donations to the University.
Just to touch on the Associate Prof/Prof issue, perhaps Abraham understands that the general public would be more impressed with the title “Professor” than “Associate Professor” and therefore have more confidence in his remarks. If that was the case it was certainly intentionally misleading.
Robert says:
>>“Any regular reader of WUWT is much better informed and able to give a more >>balanced report on global ice.”
>Lets hear your “report” on global ice then? I would be especially interested
> to find out about what’s going on with Pine Island Glacier, Totten Glacier,
>Cook Glacier, Thwaites Glacier etc… ?
>I think WUWT readers are able to converse pretty well with regards to sea ice, but >land ice is not a specialty of the proprietors of this site so there’s no need to
>make false statements. I think Goddard’s completely refuted attempt to discern
>Grace mass trends was evidence of that.
That I know the names of the glaciers, the difference between sea and other ice, that I know the difference (for heaven’s sake) between the Arctic and the Antarctic, that I know who Goddard is, that I have read both his analysis and a number of responses challenging his interpretations, that I know you by your first name and the general slant of your views, are all evidence of two things: that I am a i) regular and enthusiastic reader of WUWT and its manifold external references and ii) better informed that Abraham on the subject of ice, whether floating, grinding or static; whether thinning, multi-year or calving; whether blowing, piling or fragmenting.
WUWT is a site dedicated to exploring, in a scientific manner, many topics of interest. I am surprised that you say the proprietors of the site are not specialists on land ice. Why would they have to be in order to host a discussion on the subject? It is evident to me that the owners of New Scientist, for example, know little about global climate issues but that has not prevented them hosting a wide range of AGW supporters. The difference is that here one gets to read point and counterpoint. Compare that with the intellectual sterility of RealClimate for a few days!
It is not for me to provide for you reports on global ice as I have none to make. However were I to by chance to need facts and references to bolster my opinion in a discussion, I know where to find them (WUWT) and where not (the University of St Thomas in St Paul Minnesota).
Meticulous is the right word. The 500 questions are like individual explosions that bring a gutted old stadium crashing down gloriously. I too look forward to any legal action this leads to. Abraham’s only out may be to claim insanity.
@John McManus
Not a blacklist at all. That list was straight off the St.Thomas website, and apologies because I forgot the link. Here it is;
http://www.stthomas.edu/administration/board/default.html
tallbloke
[quote]I see a lot of graphs still being paraded by warmists which end at 2000-2003. At least Monckton’s graph was up to date when he wrote his presentation. At how was giving a graph which started with the beginning of the satellite record and ended up to date cherry picking anyway?[/quote]
What’s cherry-picking is making a silly point about the last 4 years being flat. If you think Monckton should be allowed to get away with this sort of thing just because the others did it first then I can’t argue with that, can I?
Another double-standard of Monckton is to complain that Al Gore makes claims about 20 feet of sea level rise in 100 years, which of course he didn’t even if he implied it in his film. But then he complains in his usual pompous way when Abraham paraphrases Monckton’s claim that the arctic ice is “just fine” and is “recovering” as “the ice is not melting”.
I would say that CM is dissembling when he says his presentation relies on “the peer reviewed literature”. He relies on his careful selection of the peer-reviewed data, and his interpretation which may or may not agree with the writer of said literature, which is entirely different.
And why (for question 346) would a graph entitled “Argo SST Nino-3.4 Anomaly” with no supporting explanation that is apparently an example graph copied off a data portal nail any so-called “lie” about ocean warming and cooling. It looks like he is claiming to his audience that this apparently limited subset of the data represents all 3000 floats? It’s no surprise that Abraham objected to its referencing when there are a few “peer-reviewed” papers he could rely on.
richard telford says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm
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. Not that a Peer of the Realm would stoop so low of course.
toby says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:51 pm
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” ?
villabolo says:
July 12, 2010 at 3:00 pm
… 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.
__________________________________________________________________
If Abraham believes as Villabolo said, that “Lord Monckton has a history of attempted intimidations against scientists…[but] Nothing so far has come of those threats.” Then Abraham’s underhanded attack on Lord Monckton is even more vile that I first thought. It is akin to a school yard bully attacking another student whom he knows belongs to a religious sect that teaches nonviolence at all costs. He may attack knowing no matter what he does he does not have to fear reprisal.
As far as the long letter goes. Abraham took the time and effort to put together a 83-minute rebuttal of Lord Monckton’s talk and spread it far and wide without giving Lord Monckton a chance to clear up Abraham’s misinterpretations in private. Monckton on the other hand, like the gentleman he is, specifically pointed out each point of contention and gave Abraham the chance to look them over in private and correct them.
I am hoping Abraham and the University continue to underestimate Lord Monckton so he can sue the $h!t out of them!.
Slander is the refuge of cowards and liars in my opinion.
I think I agree with the assessment by Pointman. Abraham has placed himself in a stupid position with his grubby attempt to discredit Lord Monckton’s views and also, in his clumsy attempt to reduce his reputation and standing in that series of attacks on Monckton’s personal, academic, and general reputation in a science as an International speaker who relies on reputation and integrity as a speaker of authority on those very issues.
In a court of law it would be extremely hard for Abraham to defend a defamation action unless, he can answer and prove truth of his allegations for each of those 500 questions carefully and specifically put to him. Should he fail to establish truth and innocent motives, then he and his University will surely have to eat humble pie as that is all they will have left when this is dissected by a competent court – My bet is an abject backdown AND apology soon after proceedings are commenced. The good Lord simply handed him more paint and he used his own paintbrush to complete the process of painting himself into a legal corner.
Twill be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain quarters…..
Monckton although demanding a retraction wisely refrains from detailing any errors he suspects were made by Abraham. Questions are meaningless ; they provide no clue to the twist in the good lord’s knickers.
Monckton must have heard of Arron Burr and the principle in American law that the truth is defence against a charge of libel. English law holds that you can hurt someone’s reputation by telling the truth if it is unpleasant( hard to hurt Monckton” reputation I know) but not in the US.
Monckton is a great threatener of suits, not unlike our dear Canadian jailbird and discount viscount, Conrad Black. Monckton , of course, threatens but doesn’t actually pay the lawyer to go forward. He, will of course, have been warned by esteemed council that if he is forced to admit a nose stretcher in court , the porkie may be disseminated with no libel restrictions .
Watch out Lord ; do you even remember what you have said that might come out in a court of law.
Steve Milesworthy: July 13, 2010 at 8:59 am
Another double-standard of Monckton is to complain that Al Gore makes claims about 20 feet of sea level rise in 100 years, which of course he didn’t even if he implied it in his film.
Sorry, but in 2007, the High Court found that, in the context of his film, that’s *exactly* what Gore claimed.
Stating that Gore didn’t *say* something while admitting that he *implied* it is kind of lame…
richard telford: July 13, 2010 at 6:25 am
I’m unaware that he has ever claimed he was — all I’ve ever been able to find is talking points, without links or citation that he did.
———————–
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf page 7
“you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom”
Thanks, richard — always happy to learn something, even if it wasn’t what I expected to learn!
Abraham lost me at “denier”.
Funny!
Actually, that would be ‘a proofreader’s report’.
Abraham is a mechanical engineer who teaches in the engineering dept. at UST (Univ. of St. Thomas). I went tho the school’s website to check his credentials, and from there I copied this:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“You received the UST Distinguished Educator Award. What does that mean to you?
To me, this award given by students is the most cherished award in the entire university. I work very hard to be a good teacher. The award is a nice way to learn that the effort is well received.
Describe your background and research interests?
I joined the faculty in 2000. I got my PhD from the U of Minnesota. My research interests are: Heat transfer and fluid flow, Bio-medical product design, aerospace design, and being nice to people. Making the office staff feel important. Climate change and renewable energy”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He proclaims that being “nice to people” is one of his “research interests” and I wonder if Monckton could believe that. But the last two items say it all.
There is also a divinity school there, and after reading some of his defences for Al Gore’s religious convictions, I wonder if Abraham is teaching in the most appropriate department.