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.
I left an email expressing that communication between parties is a far better way to ascertain the truth. I tried not to add gasoline to the fire and wished to represent the sceptical side in a courteous manner. I’m not our for vengeance, just trying to have an accurate informed discussion on the topic.
For the sake of our modern society, I think it vital that Lord Monckton pursue this to the end. These issues need to be judged in a court of law, where unlike these government sponsored whitewashes we’ve been seeing recently re. UEA, hopefully all the facts can be disclosed in an open public forum and the duplicity of the alarmists can be fully exposed.
Sir,
as an graduated engineer I am following climate change discussions for years.
What brought me take a closer look on other than the official versions was the alarmistic and arrogant behaviour of AGW proponents.
Weeks ago I was watching a presentation of a Prof. Abraham, which I identified after some minutes as an insult to halfway intelligent people. Had heard today that he has published a revised version and have just checked it out.
It really starts with labelling another individual as “climate change denier”. Don’t need to know more.
This is pure political propaganda through the Website of Catholic university.
It’s even worse:
The world “denier” was used once in history, as far as I know, in the context of “holocaust deniers” only.
Do you really think it is appropriate that a professor of a Catholic university uses such a label to describe another individual at all?
It seems to me, born in Germany, that this usage of such a term is somehow downplaying the crimes of Hitler & Co. against the Jewish people. And this communicated via the Website of a Catholic university. Could it be worse?
In all respect, what kind of students does St. Thomas University think to attract by such propaganda?
Negating climate change? Nobody does it. The opposite is the case. The so-called sceptics are the party saying that climate has always changed. If this expression “negating climate change” is used, it just is political propaganda, lowest level.
If it used by a professor, a person who is by default considered to be an intellectual and to teach young people, i don’t know how this goes together.
Shouldn’t a person who’s profession it is to teach our youth stay away from extreme political standpoints?
Not necessarily as an individual, but as a teacher?
Catholic universities have not been considered to transport political propaganda in the past.
Is this course being changed now?
If not, may you consider to avoid spreading political propaganda throught the university’s Website, under your responsibility?
Thank you for you time.
“Applying an education” is colloquially called “schooling.”
========
Observe a grandmaster carving up a putzer.
So pointing out your egregious and multiple “errors” with references is “libel” now is it? We have a saying in the UK, “all mouth and trousers” which I’m sure Mr. (note: not “Lord”) Monckton will understand as it applies to him.
I’ve taken advantage of the email address supplies urging Fr. Dease to respond that he’ll see Mr. Monckton in court, another saying that I’m sure Mr. Monckton will understand. The discovery phase will be very interesting indeed.
Btw, where is this alleged legal correspondence with Mr. Monckton’s “hard headed lawyers” hiding? It appears yesterday was the last update on Nova’s site and there was no indication of future tense from Mr. Chris, and even Nova’s coterie of commenters don’t seem to be aware of it.
More of your characterisitic bluff, Mr. Monckton?
“Please point out where he is wrong.”
Are you kidding me with this???
I will gladly assist Lord M. as he has done so much to re-balance the science on climate towards common sense and away from alarmism. I just do not know where he gets the energy from.
I’ve just written a (longish) email to Father Dease and hope that it is just one of a deluge. The whole affair borders on the bizarre, and it’s difficult to understand the motivation of Abraham unless there is a hidden source of wealth somewhere!
Robin
Darn.
I was just about to post that I predict that Monckton will not sue, but that Abraham will at some point provide a new version, at which point Monckton will declare victory even if the new version is more precise at demolishing Monckton’s presentation.
“I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change.”
Feel free to post up a link to any papers Abraham has published on climate change…peer reviewed or otherwise…
Rocks, glass houses, and all that….
I hope the cackling hordes of supporters of this sad tale will be as quick to condemn Abraham as they were to worship him.
Sadly, as we know, the truth is of little importance to the “true believers”.
I am honoured and pleased to offer my full support to this cause and my email to Father Dease has been despatched!
Well done Christopher.
We are with you all the way.
I did a quick check of original vs revised presentations by Abraham.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/ has the links to both.
He (John P. Abraham) seems to have left in lots of gratuitous snide remarks.
A simple one that my non-technical wife readily understood was at slide 87/88 (revised presentation) where Abraham implies that Monckton didn’t know that Argos is a floating buoy system — even though Monckton’s presentation makes it very clear that he does know this. This is a very dumb thing for Abraham to leave in, after having received, and assumedly read, Monckton’s June 10th letter.
As Lord Monckton said above, “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.”
Charlie
OK, dunnit:
Father Dennis J. Dease
President, St Thomas University
Dear Father Dease,
Some weeks ago, I was disturbed when I played a presentation by Professor John Abraham, hosted on the computers of St Thomas University, entitled “A scientist replies to Christopher Monckton”. It was clear at the time that it contained many untrue statements that were damaging to Lord Monckton, misrepresenting what he has said.
I noticed today (14 July 2010) that the same presentation is still available for viewing with a link labelled “Listen to my original rebuttal of Christopher Monckton”
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/Original%20Presentation/index.htm
There is also an updated version which still contains numerous untrue and libellous/slanderous statements harmful to Lord Monckton.
I request two things:
1. This presentation should be removed at once from the servers of St Thomas University, because it contains many untrue and libellous/slanderous statements.
2. An investigation should be initiated into the conduct of Professor Abrahams as his behaviour has brought St Thomas University into disrepute and has made the University a party in publication of libellous/slanderous statements and therefore liable to lawsuits.
Sincerely yours,
Martin H Ackroyd, PhD
Well, that’s progress !!!
Good for you !!!
Dear Lord Monckton.
I sincerely thank you for pursuing the Sisyphusian task of repeatedly stating the obvious. We are many in sweden who admire and love you, and understand the importance of what you are doing to save mankind from unnecessary poverty.
And even tough one man alone cant change the world, you inspire hundreds of thousands to join in the quest for scientific truth and political sanity, against financial hijackers and thiefs.
Thank you.
Jan says: July 14, 2010 at 7:29 am “I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change.”
So, does this mean you believe what is peer-reviewed without scrutiny? That’s unfortunate. Peer-review is, in essence, a demonstration of work and an invitation to be tested. If you have read and studied the issues surrounding “climate science” you would understand that at the heart of the controversy is shoddy work and a refusal to accommodate testing.
I recommend that you become more of an independent critical thinker and less of a sheep.
It says a lot that they had to essentially create a straw-man-army in order to attempt to discredit Monkton, who is not a scientist (and I believe does not claim to be). It is consistently entertaining watching him slap the face of those who claim to be scientists with the backhand of reason.
…and now of course they have to back down from their straw-man-army due to legal concerns, a very poor showing by the alarmists.
I had to chime in, too-
<blockquote cite="
I honestly doubt that continuing to support Associate Professor Abraham in his
dispute with Lord Monckton will reflect well on your institution- or as the old
saying goes, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." As Monckton
points out ,
repeating libels _after_ the target has objected to them, *and documented their
falsity*, constitutes malice. Your trustees may become unhappy with you if you
persist.”>
(here’s hoping the blockquote formatting works- haven’t tried it before.)
Review his writings yourself. Why do you rely on peers to do your reviewing for you?
Well, I sent an e-mail, but it didn’t request the rebuttal’s be taken down. As I pointed out in the e-mail, the university, being a place of learning, should leave the rebuttals up and on-line for all to see and use as a learning tool. It seems the people in the employ of the university enjoy being tools. For example, the difference between academic freedom and the obligation to responsible use of the freedom. Perhaps, they can even start a law school at the university and use this as a case study. Not to mention the climate science behind the talk, rebuttal and response to the rebuttal. The proper etiquette in academic discourse would be another way to use the rebuttals. Already, many Americans have learned a bit about British constitutional law and their forms of representative government and the constraints of the bodies. So, in the end, because the university is an institution of learning, I’ve encouraged them to continue to be tools.
Tom says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:28 am
Why sue in the US? The High Court would take an interest, methinks…
Would that be the same court that called ” An Inconvenient Truth” fiction?
I have looked in earnest for his web site in and on a terribly cluttered www.
Does anyone have it?
Thanks, Paul
Jan says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’ll believe “Lord” Moncton as soon as he has published a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change. As far as I can tell, Prof. Abraham did a nice job. Please point out where he is wrong.
___
Don’t “believe” anyone. This isn’t a religion. Figure it out. Look at the evidence and remember that correlation is not causation and models are not evidence. And if you want to know where Abraham goes wrong read Monckton’s rebuttal.
Lord Monckton, that is!
Paul
Cry Lord Christopher and St George for Merrie England (with apologies to the Bard).
What a rodgering of a cretin! Trust his university will see the light too. Beauseant the Order of Sovereign Knights of Malta!
Oram