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
Bill Tuttle says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:05 am
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!
__________________________
Nice try Richard but I do not think that bit of mud is going to cling, especially in a court of law.
First Monckton states:
“….Lord Lawson of Blaby, a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
UK, has called for the outright abolition of the UN’s climate-change panel. I concur. We
need honest science. …”
Then he states:
“Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United
Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the
victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as
members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you
have written or resign your sinecures.
”
Note he does not say “WRITING TO YOU” he says “CALLING UPON YOU” so the reference to a member of the Upper House of the United
Kingdom legislature could easily mean Lord Lawson of Blaby, especially since Lord Monckton is so very precise in his use of language. Lord Lawson of Blaby is already mentioned in the letter. He was a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the constituency of Blaby from 1974–92, and served as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the government of Margaret Thatcher from June 1983 to October 1989. He was made a life peer in 1992.
Additionally this was written in 2006 and Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. So if he wanted to “pull rank” he could have easily used that connection instead.
So is there any evidence that Lord Lawson of Blaby, a member of the House of Lords, may have been in contact with those addressed in this letter?
“There is such intolerance. This is most politically incorrect thing possible to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” Says Lord Lawson of Blaby (In 2005 a House of Lords enquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made cause of Global Warming and Lord Lawson was a member of it.) He goes on to comment – “We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area and we produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a little bit frightened to come out in the open. But who quietly privately and some of them publicly are saying ‘hang on, wait a moment, this simply just does not add up’.”
I think it is up to Lord Monckton and Lord Lawson to clarify exactly to whom he was referring to in that quote.
@Steve Milesworthy
‘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?’
What you do is cherry picking I believe since you leave out, and please try and correct me if I’m wrong, that Lord Monckton underscore the ridiculousness of cherry picking by showing what trend line you get is all pending on which starting point, and stop point, you choose to use.
Cherry picking is to pick only what fits your agenda. Double standard is screaming double standard using double standards one self.
Unless most of you have your tongues planted firmly in you cheeks and this is all a big inside joke, I would say that most of this exchange is a welcome reminder that we yanks do not have a monopoly on damned fools.
“There is a big difference between the two. Ask any real Professor”
In pay grade? Yes.
In addressing the public? Only to idiots and disingenuous fools unfamiliar with common practice in academia.
Ken Hall,
“Am I the only one who reads the above ridiculous defence of model-based evidence and only sees, “Sorry, we can’t get out models to work, because our models are wrong!” ”
You aren’t the only one, I analyzed that up above. Abraham would have had a more scientific approach, if he gave the opposing position every benefit of the doubt and critically analyzed the scientists statements and evidence he was using to support the hypothesis he was currently favoring, and then reviewed what he could really claim to know or unable to reject in the end. But then if he did that he would be a true skeptic and a true scientist.
If someone thought the scientific evidence supported 90% confidence that nearly all the recent warming was due to GHGs (the IPCC says “most” which usually gets translated, it seems, to nearly all) , then these pauses in sea level rise, occasional cooler years and the recovery from 2007 Arctic ice low would raise some questions. The irresistible freight train of forcing that supposedly caused the alarmingly steep rise in temperatures of the 80s and 90s, has increased in strength still further, yet has temporarily become a paper tiger or a random walk while the all the model climates which are claimed to be evidence “show” that things should still be steaming onward. The apologists for the models claim that they too have natural variation resulting in pauses in their future internal climates that last for a decade or so, yet they don’t acknowledge the possibility of a warming contribution from natural variation to the recent steep temperature rise, except for the 1998 el nino. The solar grand maximum, and positive phases of the multi-decadal oscillations are mere coincidences. Where is the healthy skepticism of both the hypothesis and the models? The best minds in the field have zeroed in on the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing in the current climate as the key scientific issue. Familiarity with evidence relevant to the net feedbacks is necessary for an informed opinion on the significance of AGW. In a multi-disciplinary field like climate science very few of the scientists likely have an informed opinion unless they have pursued this issue which is likely outside their specialty. Any scientifically literature person can read the relevant literature on model diagnostics and model independent estimates of climate sensitivity and feedbacks and find out what we currently know and just as importantly, don’t know. You will find that most scientists that sign these “consensus” statements haven’t read the relevant literature, so are uninformed.
I came to this a bit late and I’m a bit disappointed by the document. Monckton does himself no favours here. It doesn’t matter whether he is right or wrong. This document could have been considerably shorter if he had been dispassionate enough to look seriously at the structure of what he wanted to write. This is a repetitive rant which sounds like one half of an argument in a schoolyard.
As so many of you have already commented, Monckton’s letter is a very carefully devised challenge to a legal duel and, unless this Ass. Prof. now finally develops some common sense (an unlikely proposition, I fear), he’ll be hearing, from the noble lord’s seconds and very soon indeed, that his lordship demands satisfaction. Can’t do it with pistols in the Park anymore, so it’ll have to be the High Court.
Teams of beaming QC’s will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the astronomic levels of fees likely to flow into their chambers. It could be a cause célèbre and we have to fervently hope that Monckton wins – he certainly has a pretty good case in the UK (don’t know how such things are done in the US). Monckton would be unwise and probably very foolish NOT to push this right to the doors of the court – can’t easily back down now without a severe loss of face and authority.
Larry G says above: “I hope the good Lord’s pockets (and those of his supporters) are deep” They’ll definitely need to be but this piece from Ruth Lea and the rightish Civitas think-tank
“Climate change policies risk major damage to the economic recovery”
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prEnergyPolicyJuly2010.htm
suggests that a lot of British business knows where the cap’n’trade/energy policies which already exist in Britain are headed and are starting to fight back. I’m assuming there are likely to be many British firms willing to give some sort of tacit support to any action. Even the BBC ran a discussion on this report on Radio 4 and allowed Lea to debate with Caroline Lucas (our first Green, and godamnit, my local MP). Lucas adopted the usual sneering put-down approach of course, accusing Lea of complacency (takes one to know one eh?).
Gail,
Monckton inherited his Viscountcy on the death of his father, however the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords was (largely) removed by the HoL reform act 1999. Monckton has never been a member. This did not prevent him claiming membership of the House of Lords in an email to Professor Barry Bickmore:
I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise
Bickmore contacted the HoL Information Office, who were admirably concise:
Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a “non-voting” or “honorary” member.
This exchange was retailed in a Salt Lake City Tribune article, sadly now no longer online, but Googling the exact phrases above should confirm that Monckton querying Abraham’s credentials and honesty is not totally without irony ….
Let me Google that for you.
REPLY: see his response below, it appears you are in error -A
@Phil Clarke
“This exchange was retailed in a Salt Lake City Tribune article, sadly now no longer online, but Googling the exact phrases above should confirm that Monckton querying Abraham’s credentials and honesty is not totally without irony ….”
I suspect this is an argument by analogy, fallacious and entirely irrelevant to the issues here being discussed. Monckton does not base his arguments’ validity or his standing on the issues we’re discussing on his being a member of the HoL, whether or not one considers that he is somehow being grandiose, boastful, mendacious or some such when he refers to this aspect of his life. Nor does it make his scientific arguments any less cogent. This is about science and the scientific method (as well as law suits). Abe, on the other hand, uses his own title to justify his supposed scientific purity, so it’s therefore entirely relevant and fair game to challenge him on that point in an argument about science. By all means rail at Monckton over what you may regard as his snobbery but you can’t use that here to rubbish his position on AGW. And I speak as a British republican (note lower case please) who’d prefer to refer to Citizen Monckton.
Why are so many people on this blog so fixated on job or hereditary titles? Think, for God’s sake. You could be looking at the defamation trial of the 21st centuary. Monckton has already sent out instruction to his lawyers. Buy some bloody popcorn, stretch your legs out and prepare for some riveting TV. Oprah will be after the rights.
Pointman
I suspect Abraham may be a well intentioned scientist responding to a perceived intrusion into his personally defensible upper MidWest academic territory. This appears to be a type of response not uncommon from genuine academics, capable in their field, but with a tendency to place a little too much faith in the opinions of their academic “betters”.
I am grateful to Abraham for provoking Monckton to an epic encapsulation of this infernally complicated issue- one which, I suspect, will stand the test of time.
In reply to:
Roger Sowell says:
July 13, 2010 at 7:39 am
Thank you for telling me that the correct abbreviation for “Assistant Professor” is “Asst. Prof.”
Gosh! I am so embarrassed I referred to Dr. Abraham as “Ass. Prof. Abraham.”
By the way, I liked your blog.
“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.”
I was unaware that people’s OPINIONS had to be accepted as facts, along with the facts that they gathered. Abraham had the same understanding you do. I’m so out of touch with science…
This death-of-100-cuts approach is the ideal method to come to grips with Abraham’s presentation, and also to scare him a bit by giving him a foretaste of the sort of cross-examination a lawyer will subject him to, forcing him to make a series of small concessions that wind up moving him to an awkward position.
And here, for a change of pace, is a nice rhetorical question:
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.”
Caleb says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Yes – Roger Sowell has an interesting and informative blog.
But I prefer your abbreviation for “Assistant Professor” !
Christopher – I’m sure that you have gathered that we all want you to sue the arse off Abrahams and his University because all those charts of yours will come before a Court of Law and scientists will need to be subpoenaed to test their validity, which you know and we know are valid.
Bring it on! 🙂
Kudos to Viscount Monckton, master of all he surveys. For sheer inchoate mendacity, Ass’t. Prof. Abraham’s “Guide for the Perplexed” insults even fellow Green Gangsters such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. Nevermind fluid mechanics: Any discipline that fosters such meretricious bumpf is prima facie unworthy of any credence whatsoever.
Addressing Christopher Booker’s recent revelation of “Amazongate’s” ridiculously malfeasant origin –IPCC disinformation via WWF’s flat-out lie– WUWT’s habitually restrained proprietor called out Abraham’s confreres as purveyors of “CYA BS”. Indeed yes… with each such idiotic episode, frustration builds. After COP-15, Cancun is shaping up to deliver climate cultists a second coup de grace. To Lord Moncton and his stalwart band we say, “For this relief, much thanks.”
As far as i’m aware Assistant Professors have always been called Aspros, and you need ’em like you need a headache. More like pains in the butt though…
This is comment left on the pointer thread (before I realized comments were enabled) by the poster known as “FatBigot”. WP.com has no “move comment feature” so cut and paste is all I have
FatBigot: I can’t comment on US libel law but I can speak about defamation over here on the cricketing side of the pond.
Don’t do it. It achieves nothing other than to give wider publicity to the alleged libel than it ever had in its original form. Actually, there are two other effects: (i) it buys lawyers new cars and (ii) it drains the protagonists (of time and energy).
The last libel trial I was involved in ran-up legal costs of well over £1million. Sadly my share was a mere fraction of the whole (but still enough for a new car and several other treats even after UK taxes).
Sic ’em, melord!
Fantastic read!
If someone has any questions about the mind of Monckton, they can read the .pdf and be glad that they’re not on the receiving end of it!!
Great piece of work Lord Monckton, I would love to see you debate Mr. Abraham.
Feynman, in his 1955 speech to the NAS on The Value of Science
(emphasis mine)
Is Abraham acting like a scientist or a politician?
I’ll bite.. what good is being a member if you’re not allowed to sit or vote? It’s almost Groucho-esque.