Guest post by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
UPDATE: A new condensed rebuttal from Monckton for easier reading is available below.
Once again I have much to thank Anthony Watts and his millions of readers for. My inbox has been full of kind messages from people who have now had the chance to dip into my point-by-point evisceration of Associate Professor Abraham’s lengthy, unprovoked, and widely-circulated personal attack on me.
Latest news – sent to me by two readers of Anthony’s outstanding blog – is that Abraham, inferentially on orders from the Trustees of his university acting on advice from their lawyers, has (without telling me) re-recorded his entire 83-minute talk to take out the very many direct accusations of “misrepresentation”, “complete fabrication”, “sleight of hand” etc. etc. that he had hurled at me in the original version of his talk. For instance, he now seems to have appreciated his unwisdom in having accused me of having “misrepresented” the work of scientists I had not even cited in the first place.
Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes. To my own lawyers, Abraham’s retreat will be of interest, because it is in effect an admission that his talk is libelous, and that he and his university know it is libelous. Though his new version corrects some of the stupider and more egregious errors in the original, many crass errors remain, including errors of simple arithmetic that are surely disfiguring in a “scientist” presuming to correct mine.
At several points in the new version, Abraham rashly persists in misrepresenting me to third-party scientists, getting hostile quotations from them in response to what I had not said, and using them against me. He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago, long before he recorded the new version of his talk – he can no longer legitimately maintain that any of his numerous remaining libels is a mere inadvertence.
Plenty of libels indeed remain in the new version of Abraham’s talk: he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me. In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels. And when the courts find that his talk was and remains malicious, then he will have thrown away the one defense that might otherwise have worked for him – that in US law a public figure who sues for libel must be able to prove malice. I can prove it, in spades.
Several of you have posted up comments asking to see the full (and entertaining) correspondence between me, the professor, his university, and its lawyers. The ever-splendid Joanne Nova is kindly hosting the correspondence, so that we can spread the word as widely as possible across the Web to counter the malevolence of the many climate-extremist websites that are now ruing their earlier and too hasty endorsement of Abraham’s libels. Not one of them contacted me to check anything before describing me as “the fallen idol of climate skepticism”, “a sad joke”, etc., etc.
May I ask your kind readers once more for their help? Would as many of you as possible do what some of you have already been good enough to do? Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him – even at this eleventh hour – to take down Abraham’s talk altogether from the University’s servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help.
It is sometimes a cold and lonely road we follow in pursuit of the truth, and the support of Anthony and his readers has been a great comfort to me. Thank you all again.
====================
See also: A detailed rebuttal to Abraham from Monckton
And
A new condensed rebuttal for easier reading is here
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer best quality 000-152 prep resources to help you pass 1z0-051 and HP0-D07 exam in easy and fast way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
2. A quick search will also reveal such information as “Between 1723 and the 1760s most observations were taken not from outside measurements but from indoor readings in unheated rooms, and thus are of little or no use.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
Don’t come to WUWT and post rubbish without a citation, and from Widipedia. There is no supporting citation on that claim. Provide it, or troll inabsentia.
Matt: July 15, 2010 at 7:19 am
Chek at 8.19 am july 14
It is NOT “All mouth and trousers” it is “All mouth and NO trousers” meaning someone full of loud mouthed oral aggression but without the balls for a fight.
In the interest of trans-Atlantic etymological comparison, the Murrican equivalent is, “Don’t write a check with your alligator mouth that your hummingbird ass can’t cash.”
owl905 says:
“It’s a very long, and a very weak, thread. It’s another brick in the wall for Anti-Science Syndrome, imo.”
The marker for the ‘Anti-Science Syndrome’ is heavy censorship by climate propaganda blogs like RealClimate, climateprogress, and the rest of that ilk that refuses to allow polite, sincere and on-point comments out of moderation.
For example, if I made a comment similar to yours at RC, CP, etc., it would be censored out of existence. That is “Anti-Science,” no?
Yes.
John McManus: July 15, 2010 at 7:15 am
Let me get this straight. Lord Monckton ( not his real name) advertises himself a Catholic and proclaims that Parliament has no authority, that only the Queen does.
Lord Monckton (his real title) states correctly that Parliament does not have the authority to revoke a personal gift from the sovereign. There. *Now* you have it straight.
What happened to the last one of those?
Which — Catholics, Parliaments, or Queens?
@ur momisugly Tim Clark
OK sorry for inadequate citation. But I think you will find it is not rubbish. The following links will confirm the Wikipedia entry –
http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf
See page 2 and 3 English temperatures: Difficulties of standardization of diverse records.
and –
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf
See the Introduction on page 1.
Vigilantfish says:
“Re the Monckton-Abraham online confrontation, I just saw the following posted over at Climate Progress (apologies if this info has been given before):
Andy Gunther says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:28 am
Joe (and all):
I sent an email in support of John Abraham to St. Thomas University and he responded with a request that indications of support for his efforts to debunk Monckton be sent to Dr Susan Alexander (slalexander@stthomas.edu), who is managing the University’s response to Monckton. You should follow up on what is happening with Abraham, and I encourage all CP readers to send in a message of support for him to his institution.”
Alex: July 15, 2010 at 11:02 am
Seeing this comment thread, I am a little mystified by the love affair people here have for Monckton. Sure, he has a compelling oratory style, but just because he sounds good on video doesn’t mean he’s automatically correct. His “Response to John Abraham” doesn’t read as well as he speaks, in fact it reads like a haphazard pile of failed attempts at baited questions.
Ever been cross-examined by a lawyer?
Anyone got any rebuttals to my previous posts –
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 6:26 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm in response to Tim Clark says: July 15, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Scientific rebuttals that is ??? Anyone ??? I thought that was what this is all about ??? Christopher Monckton ??? Anyone ???
Abraham’s amateurish “hit job,” probably orchestrated with the assistance and acquiesence of other AGW supporters, once again demonstrates the mean-spirited arrogance of many in the AGW movement, whose final line of defense of a now indefensible theory is the use of lies, distortions and ad hominem attacks. Such is the fallen state of “mainstream climate science.”
Deep, poignant irony in that statement.
A little bird I know has whistled in my ear and indicated that the St Thomas adminstration is going to ‘invite’ Anthony and Lord Monckton to remove this thread.
I hope that Anthony and Lord Monckton have the courage to refuse the ‘invitation’.
The college may not have a legal grounds to do so.
This is really up to Mr. Watts.
Reason being, laws and blogs and first amendment rights.
If we have all complied with the rules and passed editor review, well, I have rights too.
The college needs me for their public relations director. I was one at one time at a church college that finally made university status.
Christian academia is a place that is focused on its God given mission. Dr. Anderson disrupted that at the worst time, Summer semester.
Easy answer, take a chill pill. Christian academia don’t Like our breed for they are more interested in moral issues in an academic climate. And sometimes, the other way around; Academics in a moral climate.
It was all peaceful up to a few weeks ago. Now it is summer, the profs are out and about and the administration was on a light schedule.
All threads run their course. People move on. The college just needs a few more coffee breaks, a few more group luncheons, a few trips to the museums and parks and don’t sweat this small stuff.
We will leave like vultures for the next piece of Road Kill in the very near future.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
My earlier reply got moderated out; what was offensive about saying something like: “what a cry baby, while Abrahams attacks the errors and methods in a talk, Monckton attacks the man, at the same time insisting that it’s he that’s being attacked.”
[snip – well one truth we can tell you is that you keep changing screen names “ccpo” KO, etc. – read the policy page.
Apparently you learned nothing from this admonition awhile ago.
“Reply: Sure. You follow rules and instructions of the blog and moderators or your posts don’t see the light of day. This is a moderated site. Hiding behind a Korean proxy server may keep you anonymous, but it doesn’t help your posts get through. EOM ~ charles the moderator. ”
~mod]
What a riot! It is an invariable reflex of humbugs that whenever either their arguments or authority are openly challenged, they puff up and threaten. I guess, it is important for a humbug to silence critique, because the humbug has no interest in getting to a common understanding. Why doesn’t Monckton just respond to Abraham’s objections point by point? Monckton apparently prefers to consult lawyers, rather than scientists, when he frames his “rebuttals.”
I agree with Monckton that Abraham damaged Monckton’s reputation. In a court, however, Monckton would have to demonstrate that Abraham lied, before Monckton could demonstrate libel. Good luck with that! Reread Abraham’s piece. Where did he lie? Just because you may not agree with what Abraham said or that he either contradicted or undermined what Monckton said, doesn’t mean Abraham lied.
Can you see a difference between the approach of Monckton and Abraham? Monckton claims Abraham has committed libel. To show that, all Monckton needs to do is show how Abraham damaged Monckton’s reputation (Abraham did damage to Monckton’s reputation in my eyes, did he in yours? If Abraham was ineffective in your eyes, I assume you think there was no damage, so no libel.) and that Abraham lied about Monckton’s argument. (Just identify the lies you have in mind.)
What’s up with that?
If there is libel, then Monckton should just sue. He doesn’t need to solicit an email spamming of St. Thomas University on this website. LOL. Asserting, here, that he may sue is just a pathetic, blustering, posture that any humbug might strike when contradicted or critiqued. I still await any analysis of the flaws in Abraham’s critique.
REPLY: And friends of Mann, like scumbag Kevin Grandia at the PR firm DeSmog blog, went ballistic when I made the same claim about my image, and my work being used in Climate Crock of the Week. Double stand, pot kettle and all that. Not impressed with your argument. -A
Anthony using words like scumbag? Anthony Well Played…. Nice to see you taking off the gloves and rattling your sabres. Well played indeed.
Now on to Eudoxus….
I’ve said it in here before…
Confucious said thousands of years ago…
It is better to keep your mouth shut or pen quiet, and let people assume you are a fool,
rather than to open your mouth or rattle your pen and remove all doubt.
Apparently you missed that lesson, numerous times….
REPLY: And it got me a public flogging in posts dedicated just to that one comment over at DeSmog blog and at Huffington post. Very thin skinned. One word, and they have to scream for worldwide attention. Quite funny, and telling. -A
Ken says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Why do I get a picture of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza preparing to charge academia rather than a windmill.
Monckton is making himself look silly – bullying instead of calm discussion.
Perhaps Ken, He like many others who stand for honesty, integrity, and truth in education and science are tired of the constant lies and attacks by slimeballs like Abraham.
I personally hope Christopher takes him and his school to court and sucessfully sues them for everything they have and they have to close their school to protect society from scumbags like Abraham.
Christopher,
Just a reminder sir,
As you so eloquently put it in your address to the Heartland conference in 2009:
Magna Est Veritas, Est Pravelbet
It was true several thousand years ago, and it is true today.
Anthony, I’m sure you have noticed that James Hoggan the founder and director of desmogblogg.com is a public relations (aka truth twister) master. He twists the truth for Gore quite often.
The word you chose is actually way too mild for anyone who represents that website of evil but I promised you I would use clean language so we’ll just leave it at that. 🙂
I just got this blurb from the science skeptic site…. And they’re calling Monkton a whiner…. ha ha ha ha this is funny
Facebook page to support John Abraham
There is now a Facebook page to support John Abraham. Specifically, it’s called Prawngate: Support John Abraham against Monckton\’s bullying. Many thanks to Dan Moutal, creator of the Irregular Climate podcast and Mind of Dan blog.
The word I’m hearing is that St Thomas University is solidly behind John Abraham so I\’d like to think all the support expressed at Hot Topic has made a difference. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone to drop by the Facebook and add your support.
For the record, Prawngate refers to Monckton’s initial response to John Abraham’s response. Most striking was this sentence:
“So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.”
As Dan points out, it’s quite extraordinary that someone can throw out an accusation of ad hominem while making an ad hominem attack in the same sentence. Hence Prawngate is born.
REPLY: Looks like the work of Tim Lambert. Heh, they cite this Pajamas Media article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/monckton-at-last-the-climate-extremists-try-to-debate-us-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true
For all the [people] who think only someone who is published in a peer review journal is bonafide to discuss scientific rhetoric.
where would we be if the other side had corrupted the process back in Einstein’s day and said only people with purple labcoats can speak before the halls of Academia.
Where would we be if the halls of Academia had told Sir Isaac Newton that had he not written a peer review journal he couldn’t put forth his treatise on gravity.
Where would we be if the halls of Academia had not let Socrates speak without writing a peer reviewed journal first.
Using the “you haven’t written a peer reviewed article” so therefore you are invalid, is only a recent phenomenon.
It is used quite heavily since the ACGW zealots corrupted the process and removed the majority of unbiased editors and reviewers from the process and put in all their own buddies. So now they can say if you haven’t written a peer reviewed and published journal in a climate related science journal you are to be shunned and ignored because they know that they have all the editors in their back pockets.
Attention; Dean and governing board of St. Thomas,
The Abraham of the Bible obviously followed God’s leading and was willing to follow him all the way to the sacrifice of his son.
The only thing Professor Abraham has sacrificed is the dignity, honor, and good name of St. Thomas.
He made one insulting diatribe and then after Christopher Monkton outted him he leaves a rebutted redaction on his site that has removed some of the libelous statements but has left many others in and added more.
If you stand behind Prof. Abraham then you are risking the reputation, and financial stability of your school via lawsuit.
It’s bad enough the whitewashing in GB over Phil Jones and now the one at Penn State over Michael Mann, please, I beg you be a man of integrity and distinct moral character and sanction Professor Abraham.
If you don’t want to do it for anything else, do it for the students who look up to their place of education.
I myself am a 50 year old college student who wishes I went to college many years ago when I was younger, as I for one am tired of the selling of the soul of education and science in America in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Sincerely,
Bradley Blosser
Anyway, I reckon its only a matter of time before someone finds out that John Abrahams made up all those nasty emails from scientists, you know, the ones that say, “Monckton is wrong”. Yep, he only pretends to ask them, and then he just makes up the replies and passes them off as the real thing.
You know, the same as all those climate scientist make up the temperature data – you should see their phone bills – they have to talk all the time so that the different temperature records agree closely enough, but not so closely that people get suspicious. Can’t use email – people might steal them. They made such an effort leading up to 1998 and then they realised they had to throw in quite a few years with no warming, or people would start to think, “Hey, how come these guys say its heating up when its not getting any warmer?”.
There is another clever ploy these dastardly “scientists” use – they make lots of different models, with all sorts of projections, and even though the physics is exactly the same, these models spew out a whole range of results, as if to suggest that the people who make the different models really are working independently of each other, even competing, they’d have you believe – no ain’t that a laugh?
It is shameful the way our “universities” (and I use that term loosely) have sicked the attack dogs onto his lordship. That John Abraham, you should have heard his talk – it was vicious. Didn’t address any facts, just one personal attack after another on the viscount. And nit-picking! “This graph doesn’t look the same as this one”, what a load of tosh. It is typical of the pettiness of the AGW bullies and liars.
You go, Steve Milesworthy! Shame on you Anthony. BTW, I’m using a University of Western Australia computer to send this comment in support of open and robust academic debate.
[REPLY – Well, gosh, we don’t mind so much that they make it all up. We only want to know HOW they make it up and what they make it up FROM. Preferably without having to file FOI requests (not that that does any good). We call that one “Scientific Method” in these here parts. Google it. (And, yeah, come to think of it, I’d be very, very interested in seeing some of those phone bills!) ~ Evan]
I’ve looked at both Abraham’s presentation and Lord Monckton’s response. All I can say is that to a reasonable person it appears that Abraham’s presentation is an objective analysis of Monckton’s points.
I would certainly encourage Lord Monckton to take this matter to court, as it would certainly serve to further expose his misunderstanding of the science of climate change to the public. It might also demonstrate the hypocracy inherent in a man who misquotes and defame’s others, but is unable to engage in debate on the very issues that he champions.
I must say that whatever the personal feelings of Professor Abraham towards Lord Monckton, there is no hint of malice in his presentation.
Monckton does no research, he publishes no peer reviewed material. He is in short, an embarrassment.
[REPLY — Well, he certainly embarrassed the IPCC by pointing out they did their own sums wrong in AR4 regarding sea level and had us all drowning in our beds. (The IPCC made the correction.) ~ Evan]
I am new to this – maybe I have posted the following comments on the wrong blog/thread ?
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 6:26 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
Quentin Wallace says: July 15, 2010 at 1:34 pm in response to Tim Clark says: July 15, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I would like to be challenged. I am not absolutely sure I am correct.
Anyone ?
Or direct me to someone who will ?