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.
Looked at Abrahams. His presentation is terminally boring and I simply could not put myself through it for an hour. He is not a climate scientist but an engineer concerned with topics like fluid flow. Warmists have complained that their opponents are not real climate scientists but now an unknown engineering prof has suddenly been elevated into their august ranks by his libelous talk.
Mark Bowlin says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:36 am
WOW — great post!!!
Thanks Mark,
I’ll take a similar approach.
to: djdease@stthomas.edu, ethicalandsecure@ust.edu, hr_systems@stthomas.edu, sjhuber@stthomas.edu, a9barrettahe@stthomas.edu, jlkreitzer@stthomas.edu, dtshelito@stthomas.edu , amserdar@stthomas.edu, ktischler@stthomas.edu, skimble@stthomas.edu, bferguson@sppinstitute.org
Subject: The Integrity of St. Thomas University is in doubt due to Unprofessional Conduct of Associate Professor John Abraham
Father Dennis J. Dease, President
S. Thomas University
Office of Academic Affairs
Human Resources
July 14th, 2010
Re: Unprofessional Conduct of Associate Professor John Abraham
Dear Father Dennis J. Dease, et. al.,
The recent publication by your Associate Professor John Abraham of his lengthy personal attack (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) against Christopher Monckton based in incorrect, unscientific, and unfounded claims is quite shocking and unbecoming of an academic at a fine institution such as St. Thomas University. I lived in Minneapolis for a time and am shocked. How can your university continue to allow and permit such a hack unprofessional attack presentation by one of your Associate Professors who must uphold the highest standards of academic conduct?
In the best interests of upholding the highest standards of conduct for Associate Professors please take disciplinary action against Associate Professor John Abraham for his low brow unprofessional conduct as demonstrated in his original (as well as in his revised) presentation. They represent not just libel against Christopher Monckton but also put St. Thomas University into a bad light for supporting bad science on the part of Associate Professor John Abraham who gets so many basic points of science WRONG in his presentation as pointed out oh so well by Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal to him (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/).
If Associate Professor John Abraham can’t get the science right what the heck is he even doing teaching at St. Thomas?
What is Associate Professor John Abraham doing an personal attack presentation on St. Thomas University time and with university resources anyway? Does this mean that the St. Thomas University is also perpetrating the libelous attack using bad science against Christopher Monckton as well? I sure hope not for St. Thomas University’s sake.
Please discipline Associate Professor John Abraham forthwith in the strongest way possible and remove the libelous presentation from your servers.
Clearly Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of the St. Thomas University Code of Professional Conduct (http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/manual/files/CodeofProfessionalConductPolicy.pdf).
“Policy Statement. The University of St. Thomas is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in all that it does and expects those who are part of the University community, including trustees, officers, faculty, staff, and students to adhere to such standards in their business dealings. This policy applies to trustees, officers, faculty, staff, students, and others who manage, supervise or conduct
university business, financial and administrative transactions and activities.”
I. … The University will comply fully with all relevant laws and all contract and grant requirements, as well as with its own high standards of integrity and quality.
Trustees, officers, faculty, staff, and students are obligated to avoid involvement in activities, which might conflict, or appear to conflict, with their institutional responsibilities. Decision making in matters in which a conflict of interest may exist, may not only create an appearance of impropriety but may violate the law.
V. The University is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in all of its business practices. It accepts responsibility for the stewardship of resources and private support it receives, which enables St. Thomas to pursue its mission and strategic objectives. Supervisors, managers, or other university officials shall not compel or attempt to compel faculty, staff, students, applicants for employment, or other university constituents to violate a law, statute, or university policy. At St. Thomas, accountability is the cornerstone of ethical business practice,
and the university’s Whistleblower’s Policy is one of the mechanisms for assuring compliance with this institutional value.
Faculty, staff, students, applicants for employment, or other university constituents may make a protected disclosure at any time after witnessing or becoming aware of an improper activity or may do so after the individual knew or reasonably should have known of the protected activity.
VII. c. Non-University Professional Standards. Some professions and disciplines represented at the University are governed by standards and codes specific to their profession (such as attorneys,
certified public accountants, and medical doctors). Those professional standards generally advance the quality of the profession and/or discipline by developing codes of ethics, conduct, and professional responsibility and standards by which their members are guided. Those belonging to such organizations are expected to adhere to University policies and codes of conduct in addition to any professional standards. If a community member believes there is a conflict between a professional standard and University policy, he/she should contact the Department of Human Resources.
The St. Thomas “Discipline and Corrective Action” (http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/manual/files/discipline.pdf) section 2.1.8 of your Policies and Procedures Manual states:
“A. Causes for Corrective Action
Corrective action may be warranted in, but is not limited to, the following situations: unsatisfactory performance; insubordination, mishandling or unauthorized removal or destruction of confidential or sensitive information; theft, dishonesty, or other unethical behavior, such as falsification of records or knowingly and willfully misrepresenting data requested by the University or its agent; possession or consumption of alcohol on university premises or while performing university duties unless during a university-sponsored event; use or possession of illegal drugs on
University premises; impairment of faculties from the consumption or use of alcohol or illegal drugs while on University premises or while performing University duties; blatant disregard for safety regulations; abuse, neglect, mishandling, destruction, or unauthorized removal or use of University property; possession or use of a weapon on University premises; verbal abuse, including bullying; threats or acts of physical abuse; sexual or racial harassment or violence; arrest or conviction of an illegal act, on or off the job, which adversely affects job performance or the University’s reputation; or general failure to observe University policies and procedures.”
Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of the above “Causes for Corrective” action by the many fabricated and libelous statements made in his presentation and his subsequent revised presentation. You may see Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal of 500 points (linked above) for the detailed lies and fabrications of Associate Professor John Abraham. As such disciplinary and corrective action is mandated by your policies.
To comply with libel laws the issues raised by Associate Professor John Abraham’s libelous attack against Christopher Monckton must be dealt with forthwith, by removing the offending materials and issuing a public apology. That might not be remedy enough, firing Associate Professor John Abraham may also be required to ensure the highest standards of professional conduct at St. Thomas University.
It is very likely that Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of any professional associations that he is a member of and as such is in violation of their standards of professional conduct as well. Based upon your Code of Conduct a copy of this email has been sent to your Human Resources department as required by your Code.
The topic of climate is certainly a heated topic and many people, such as Associate Professor John Abraham, have their opinions. However, opinions are no longer enough to carry arguments, especially when those opinions of one Associate Professor John Abraham are so in error and without scientific basis. Verifiable open science needs to have integrity, integrity of the data, integrity of the people involved, integrity of the people involved includes not using ad hominem personal attacks as Associate Professor John Abraham’s entire presentation is against Christopher Monckton. The presentation of Associate Professor John Abraham is hard evidence that Associate Professor John Abraham lacks the integrity needed to be an Associate Professor or a scientist.
I don’t know about you Father Dennis, but to me lying goes beyond unprofessional conduct. It is clear from Associate Professor John Abraham’s presentation and Christopher Monckton’s evisceration of it that John Abraham fabricated many statements. Fabrication is fraud. Fraud is not permissible in science, especially if it’s intentional rather than just a minor bias. It’s clear that Associate Professor John Abraham certainly has bias to the doomsday alarmist cult that claims the world is coming to an end due to human activities allegedly impacting the climate systems, however they have yet to provide any verifiable scientific proof for their claims resulting in them being unfounded as Christopher Monckton clearly demonstrates in his numerous publications. Bias one can deal with in the long term as the facts of Nature will eventually be revealed by scientists practicing open and verifiable science using the scientific method. Fraud via fabrication and personal libelous attacks are another matter entirely. Those that perpetrate scientific frauds or hack personal attacks using bad unfounded claims or bad science must be dealt with using social punishment mechanism in order to maintain the distinct dividing line between those with integrity and those without integrity. Associate Professor John Abraham is clearly in the category of those without integrity for his unfounded personal libelous attacks against Christopher Monckton. Not only that, the revised presentation still attacks Christopher Monckton brazenly adding NEW libelous claims against Christopher Monckton. That demonstrates willful malice against Christopher Monckton by Associate Professor John Abraham and, if St. Thomas University is officially supporting him, by St. Thomas University and, notably, by yourself as well.
It might be best to officially repudiate the unfounded and unwise claims of Associate Professor John Abraham and distance the St. Thomas University from Associate Professor John Abraham’s unscientific and libelous hack attack piece. At least it might be best if St. Thomas University is interested in the values of integrity and honesty in science.
I am a person concerned about integrity in science and that science be conducted in an open and above board manner with integrity. It is very important that the issues about the climate be resolved with hard science not personal attacks and that those making such personal attacks be held to the highest standards of conduct and be punished for their violations of those standards especially when they are in positions of trust as Associate Professor John Abraham as a teacher of sciences. He is supposed to be an example for young minds and the example he sets is that it’s not just ok but authorized by his university that he can make vicious ad hominem personal attacks against Christopher Monckton. If you allow him to get away with this heinous behavior you and your entire institution are supporting the lowest form of non-debate rather than upholding the highest standards of academic excellence, and in which case shame on you all.
I trust however that you will uphold your duty to St. Thomas University and deal with this matter in the appropriate manner to Christopher Monckton’s satisfaction and in a way that not just maintains the integrity of St. Thomas University but uplifts your otherwise fine intuition to be an example of high standards of conduct for other universities in the world showing them that in science ad hominem personal attacks are not just not tolerated by their staff.
All the best,
Peter William Lount
Systems Analyst, Computer Scientist, Concerned About Integrity in Science
Vancouver, BC, Canada
604-736-2461
c.c. St. Thomas University Office of Academic Affairs
http://www.stthomas.edu/academicaffairs/contactus/contactus.html
Telephone: (651) 962-6717
Fax: (651) 962-6702
Room 110, Aquinas Hall
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105-1078
Dr. Susan Huber
Executive Vice President
and Chief Academic Officer
Telephone: 651-962-6720
Email: sjhuber@stthomas.edu
Dr. Angie Barretta-Herman
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Telephone: 651-962-6033
Email: a9barrettahe@stthomas.edu
Dr. Michael C. Jordan
Director of Undergraduate Academic Affairs
Professor of English
Editor of LOGOS
Telephone: 651-962-5612
Email: mcjordan@stthomas.edu
Dr. Joseph Kreitzer
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Telephone: 651-962-6032
Email: jlkreitzer@stthomas.edu
Ms. Debbie Shelito
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Huber
Telephone: 651-962-6720
Email: dtshelito@stthomas.edu
Ms. Ann Serdar
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Barretta-Herman
Telephone: 651-962-6034
Email: amserdar@stthomas.edu
Ms. Kathy Tischler
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Jordan
Telephone: 651-962-6023
Email: ktischler@stthomas.edu
Ms. Stephanie Kimble
Administrative Assistant to Dr. Kreitzer
Telephone: 651-962-6717
Email: skimble@stthomas.edu
St. Thomas University Human Resources Department
University of St. Thomas · Minnesota
2115 Summit Avenue · Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 · USA
1-651-962-6510 · hr_systems@stthomas.edu
http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/default.html
cc. Christopher Monckton, c/o Science & Public Policy Institute
Robert Ferguson
SPPI
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Suite 299
Washington, D.C. 20003
Email Address: bferguson@sppinstitute.org
Phone: (202) 288-5699
If the presentations are on the internet and freely available through UK ISP’s then a libel case can be persused in UK courts, in fact the UK courts are internationally the most prefered for claimants as positive results are more likely 😉 .
It is glaringly obvious from a cursory reading of the Climategate e-mails that the peer-review process in the climate science community was long ago compromised. The “peers” doing the reviewing turned out to be a fraternity of AGW alarmists who did everything in their power to prevent the publication of contrary opinions, going so far as to intimidate and threaten the editors of leading scientific publications who dared to publish research challenging the “consensus.”
Abraham’s paper mâche assault on Monckton’s research, and his character, is straight from the alarmists’ playbook. When the facts are not on your side, resort to character assassination and ignore the growing body of research that continues to unmask the junk science behind the AGW theory, exposing it as the greatest scientific fraud in history.
Thank you, PWL
Sure is a lot of policy. I wonder if four riders of the Green House Gas Apocalypse had such a policy to go by before they designed the “Hockey Stick”. I think this is about 196 days after PM Brown announced the end of the world.
We’re still here!
Ain’t that sumthang!
Paul
Paul
Here’s from St. Thomas University’s website: http://www.stthomas.edu/mission/
Mission “Inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition, the University of St. Thomas educates students to be morally responsible leaders who think critically, act wisely and work skillfully to advance the common good.”
Vision “We seek to be a recognized leader in Catholic higher education that excels in effective teaching, active learning, scholarly research and responsible engagement with the local community as well as with the national and global communities in which we live.
Convictions “As a community we are committed to:
1. Pursuit of truth: We value intellectual inquiry as a life-long habit, the unfettered and impartial pursuit of truth in all its forms, the integration of knowledge across disciplines, and the imaginative and creative exploration of new ideas.
2. Academic excellence: We create a culture among faculty, students and staff that recognizes the power of ideas and rewards rigorous thinking.
3. Faith and reason: We actively engage Catholic intellectual tradition, which values the fundamental compatibility of faith and reason and fosters meaningful dialogue directed toward the flourishing of human culture.
[4. et alii trimmed]
————-
I find these ideals to have been inexplicably ignored in the case of Professor Abraham’s ad hominem attacks.
I too have sent an email asking that the material be taken down and a disciplinary action initiated. It is time to put a stop the personal attack tactics that are showing up so frequently. Time for science and debate to return and replace the religion that is the AGW movement.
Good luck Lord Monckton!
Kenneth Denison, PhD
Thank you for putting up the e-mail address of father Dease: it enabled me to send him an e-mail asking him NOT to remove Professor Abraham’s videos from the university’s servers. If you believe in a free exchange of ideas and criticism, then printing a piece by Lord Monckton that encourages people to stifle openness and criticism, albeit criticism with which you do not agree, can do nothing but encourage censorship, something I’m sure you would find both offensive and unscientific.
But 11 days after Abraham received Monckton’s rebuttal. Monckton gave him 30 days to ponder it before he posted it.
Lord Monckton you are giving Abraham a real spanking.
I haven’t seen anything about the damages. If I remember correctly a libel suit must go beyond determining whether the statements were libelous, as they seem to be in this case, but must show real and actual damages. Am I mistaken?
Earlier today I’d made a comment about how lovely the weather is here at home. Then it was brought to my attention that I’d never written a peer reviewed paper on the subject. So I thought I’d type in and ask, “How’s the weather where I live? Anyone peer reviewed on that?” I really need the info so that I can have something to refer to when making astute comments to my fellows.
Richard Garnache says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:46 am
Would that be the same court that called ” An Inconvenient Truth” fiction?
Actually, what the British High Court of Justice said was that there were nine errors or inaccuracies in the movie, not that the movie itself was fiction.
“He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago … ”
In the USA a defalcation involves misappropriation of funds. It has nothing to do with defamation.
Reminds me of a scene from the end of “People Will Talk” w/ Cary Grant
Shunderson: Professor Elwell, you’re a little man. It’s not that you’re short. You’re…little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn’t touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out…you’re even littler than you were before.
Pamela Gray says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:14 am
I’m on dial up and on a waiting list for wireless. We here in rural NE Oregon have little access to the internet. Is there some other way to produce this material? I can’t download either though I am fully equipped computer wise to read the material. It just takes too long to download resulting in the dialup connection hanging up on me.
If you really want to see the presentations
1) go to an internet cafe and save them on a CD or USB stick
or
2) ask a friend with a better connection to save it for you (CD or USB stick)and mail it snail mail .
“It is sometimes a cold and lonely road we follow in pursuit of the truth” – how true: well said! I wish you well in the coming trials and hope for your success.
Roger Knights says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:01 am
There have been two versions of Abraham’s presentation available for some time now. I’m not sure how long they’ve been available, but searching my browser history shows I last accessed the revised version on June 21, 2010, well before Monckton’s official rebuttal was released.
But 11 days after Abraham received Monckton’s rebuttal. Monckton gave him 30 days to ponder it before he posted it.
==========================================
I only know the last date I accessed Abraham’s presentation, not when it was actually posted. If you know the exact dates that Abraham received Monckton’s letter and when his revised presentation was posted it could be interesting to see, though I see above that toby has allegedly corresponded with Abraham and was told “the second rebuttal is on his website because it is shorter, has better audio, includes components which the original did not have, has toned down what might have been interpreted as sarcasm, and is clearer about some issues.”
I think it’s great that Monckton gave Abraham 30 days to ponder, and potentially correct, his rebuttal. Unfortunately, an equally if not more important academic convention is to cite ones references. Absent this courtesy I don’t think 30 days was near enough time to thoroughly respond to all of the questions in the rebuttal.
Email sent, Sir!
In addition to requesting an investigation I suggested that the University sponsor a debate to give you the opportunity to respond to Dr Abraham in person. I did say I suspected that, given the cowardly way in which Dr Abraham conducted his ambush, that I suspected he would not have the stones for an open, public debate.
Jeremy says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:36 am
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
A scientist is simply a person who honestly follows the scientific method – irrespective of his formal training or qualifications. A person who does not follow the scientific method, or corrupts it, and acts instead as a paid propagandist for a political ideology, is not a scientist – irrespective of his formal training or qualifications. So, objectively, Lord Monckton is in fact a scientist. The AGW “climate scientists” are not.
David S says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:42 am (Edit)
Jan
When you have finished your “Spelling 101″ course, you might want to read Messrs Moshe and Fuller’s book, as advertised here. Then you will be better informed about the peer review process as conducted in the world of climate science.
*********
dude my spelling sucks, I thought you were being ironic and sarcastic all in one post.
ha. you can call me…
Folks should ask for the faculty handbook which is hidden behind a password..
for now
I didn’t cc my note… however it brings yet another dimension to the wonderful array penned above.
ah yes, my “real” name
JamesG says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:22 am
“He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago … ”
In the USA a defalcation involves misappropriation of funds. It has nothing to do with defamation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Wrongfully using public funds to libel or defame would be a defalcation, though I doubt whether that’s what Lord Monckton meant. There is a secondary meaning defalcation = “a shortcoming”, which would also be correct here. However, I suspect it may have been a slip or malapropism for “falsifications”.