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.
Bravo Mosher! I’m still chuckling from the classic video…
gcb says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:21 am (Edit)
Actually, what the British High Court of Justice said was that there were nine errors or inaccuracies in the movie
And went on to say the court did not have time to consider the other [x] number of errors elucidated by Chris Monckton as they had seen enough to be able to make a judgement.
Pamela Gray: I will be home (Oregon) at the weekend. I will see if I can dump all this to a CD or DVD.
If you are interested in that solution, drop me an email: philip @ur momisugly vogon . net (removing the spaces, of course).
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:44 am
Anne aka Lucy Skywalker, nice well aimed letter. I should think Father Dease is simultaneouly reaching for the decanter and the alka seltzer right about now. 🙂
” Richard M says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:15 am
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?”
As I understand it, an intent to damage the professional reputation of a person through the use of provably false allegations would indeed qualify as libellous to the extent of damages being awarded.
The first rebuttal by John Abraham rose to the level of potentially libellous. Viscount Monkton gave the Associate Professor reasonable opportunity to redress and withdraw or prove the potentially libellous points one by one. The fact that after such opportunity, the Associate Professor continued to apply the provably false allegations against Viscount Monkton raises these points to a de facto libel warranting the awarding of Damages in Viscount Monkton’s favour.
Associate Professor John Abraham has foolishly placed himself legally into a position of dishonour and the courts now can only apply a verdict in Viscount Monkton’s favour.
Thanks for the address for cjdease, I emailed my support for Prof Abraham this afternoon.
“defalcations”? Just what did Abraham embezzle? 😉
James Sexton,
“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.”
Excellent use for a bad situation.
toby says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:07 am
To add to my earlier comment, it is hard to see how in any sense Professor Abrahams has “climbed down”. It seems to me he is like John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to fight!”
—————-Reply:
What all this boils down to is one chevalier against another in an epic battle; however, someone should notify this good Professor John Abrahams that in an intellectual battle, he is desperately unarmed.
Steve Milesworthy: July 14, 2010 at 8:25 am
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.
Go ahead and post your prediction. The only thing Associate Professor Abraham changed in his new version was to tone down his superciliousness and delete a few of his less-than-justifiable statements.
If that’s your idea of precision demolition, stay away from det cord and C-4 for a while, okay?
Deleting
done
Dear Sir,
I must confess I am surprised to find myself writing to you concerning the treatment of the British peer Lord Monckton which was meted out by one of your academics, Professor Abraham. Surprised, I suppose, because by rights I should just sit back and let the lawyers work on uncovering the tissue of lies and slander which he terms a “rebuttal” of Lord Monckton’s public presentation opposing the consensus position on so-called “climate change” aka “global warming”. Do you really imagine that a man who was adviser to the great UK Prime Minister Lady Thatcher would be so crass as to make the disingenuous or schoolboy errors that form the basis of Abraham’s assassinative disquisition? Monckton is a first class mind. Are you feeling lucky concerning Prof Abraham’s? I have read Monckton’s commentary on Abraham’s slander. I both understand his anger, and follow his rationale. You had surely better pray that the courts don’t, since Abraham’s own edits to the original both illustrate the prior slanderous character and demonstrate (by their shortcomings) his contempt for the responsibility he holds towards his victim. Should you apprehend it so, we are not considering here a question of free speech; Abraham is free to disagree publicly and to demonstrate his profound contempt for Monkton; he simply should not have contempt for the record and for the truth as he does so. You yourself are free (I believe) to take a hand in correcting this matter, which I hope for the sake of the institution that you represent, and the cause of honest debate, that you will do.
Yours faithfullly, etc
@JamesG, Paul Birch,
There may well be an American legal meaning of defalcation involving misappropriation of funds.
I would however imagine that Viscount Monckton would be unlikely to be using this. The colloquial meaning of defalcation however, is ‘bad faith’, ‘deceit’, ‘misconduct’ or ‘dishonesty’, and I think this more likely?
I’m sure there is another Prof Abrahams video on the net, I recognised his voice, but can’t find the original video. Basically it was a guy who offered four alternatives to the climate debate: 1. Catastrophe was assured; 2. Catastrophe was debatable; 3. We could do nothing; 4. We could do something. By a series of intellectually inspiring steps he came to the conclusion that we should do something about it whether catastrophe was assured or not.
As for Monckton’s gripe with him, let’s have the debate, Monckton has laid out his stall, now Abraham has the chance to respond, libel does not have to have a monetary loss tied to it, it is a law put there so someone’s reputation cannot be sullied by scurrilous writing.
Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable! And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
chek says: July 14, 2010 at 8:19 am
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.
You have nothing to say at all Chek but you do display your ignorant and rude manner effectively. You obviously have problems.
Doug
I don’t want it taken down. I want it left up and adorned with a lawsuit, an award, a humilated and broken awg freak and an example pour encourager les autres.
So no way I’m going to ask anybody to take it down! That’s not winning – it just leaves him ready to come back another day, refreshed and encouraged by the total lack of consequences.
No- catch and kill, mount and display.
That is winning. Anything else is losing.
What part of playing fair are you still believing in ?- The play fairies are fake.
Dave McK says:
catch and kill, mount and display
I like it!
Well I think a debate would be most.. um.. Scholatic of them – sorry inside philosophy joke. St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian in the tradition of scholasticism. The university is named after him, so it would be very approriate for a debate which sounds a lot like this description of the scholatic teaching method (from wiki)
“The second was the disputatio, which goes right to the heart of scholasticism. There were two types of disputationes: the first was the “ordinary” type, whereby the question to be disputed was announced beforehand; the second was the quodlibetal, whereby the students proposed a question to the teacher without prior preparation. The teacher advanced a response, citing authoritative texts such as the Bible to prove his position. Students then rebutted the response, and the quodlibetal went back and forth. Someone took notes on what was said, allowing the teacher to summarise all arguments and present his final position the following day, riposting all rebuttals”
Sounds similar – but not identical to a debate, or perhaps a thesis defense.
It is interesting, but the idea of working from reason, citing sources for support, etc all had their roots in the early univerities (Thomas was the master regent -similar to ‘the dean’ – at the Paris univerity in about 1270 – founded about 1170). While they were dealing with questions of theology rather then science, the methodology was similar.
AC
Lucy Skywalker says: July 14, 2010 at 11:44 am
I didn’t cc my note… however it brings yet another dimension to the wonderful array penned above etc.
If this is not too personal a question, are you the famous actress Anne Stallybrass?
Doug
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm (Edit)
Including the email address of the University President in the post. How gentlemanly, how honourable! And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
The pen is mighter than the pitchfork.
Anyway, your side started it calling for “Deniers” to be put on trial.
If you can’t take it back, don’t dish it out.
At the Monbiot newspaper they are really being mean to Mr. Monkton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham
If, given the irrefutable libel, Mr. Monckton chooses to release the man unscathed, he will have confirmed them in their habits and demonstrated the measure of his own tolerance for dispute. If the AGW clan becomes convinced that even Mr. Monckton can be okie-doked out a a victory even when it is in his lap, then the license is given for unconstrained pillage. Anything that is not winning is losing. Everything not winning is losing.
If Mr. Monckton can not show a monetary award, his entire exchange with Abraham is a colossal expense and waste of time for everybody. And that, sir, is the point of AGW discussion – to waste your colossal time effectively.
This will be a monument, one way or another.
Mr. Monckton is on a cuspy point. The monument will be to his vitality or impotence.
By extension, the lesson to everybody will be that truth conquers all – or that truth, in its strength, is mere vanity, to be discarded in favor of something more sentimental.
I am totally NOT encouraged by a plea from he who possesses the right – to apply social pressure to make it go away.
This is definitely not the mark of a person intransigently devoted to truth – it is the mark of an appeaser trying to find a cheap way out of a battle – while hooting triumphantly.
No, Mr. Monckton- here is how it works in the real world:
Who got the money won.
If you have invested time and energy and mooched the good will of a million WUWT readers in your cause – and if, despite this, you fail to rack up a $$ figure out of Abraham, then you have squandered the last that remains to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
JamesG wrote:
In the USA a defalcation involves misappropriation of funds. It has nothing to do with defamation.
According to my Oxford English Dictionary defalcation does have the same meaning in the UK. Then again, it can be argued that Ass.Prof Abrahams is indeed misusing University funds and resources by his gutter-sniping activities.
Having attempted to read Ass. Prof Abraham’s debunking of Lord Monckton, I spotted quite a few inconsistencies early on, in addition to his many unscholarly Ad Hominem attacks.
The conclusion: One Professor (subtype Ass.) thoroughly shredded, mangled and thrown into the dustbin of climate history.
If this is the best attack US Climate Alarmists can mount against Lord Monckton, it says a lot about the sorry state of scientific learning in the US. Or may be I should write that it shows how few real scientists are behind the Global Warming Scare.
Lord Monckton, please keep up the good work.
Geir Aaslid
Oslo, Norway
Geronimo: “Monckton has laid out his stall, now Abraham has the chance to respond…”
Monckton’s “stall” in this case is a set of largely rhetorical questions, which by their nature are designed to elicit a particular answer, so they don’t really form a case to which Abraham can easily respond.
“…libel does not have to have a monetary loss tied to it, it is a law put there so someone’s reputation cannot be sullied by scurrilous writing.”
It looks like Monckton has chosen to make his reputation the issue. That’s a potentially high-risk strategy, and probably accounts for his reluctance to force the issue legally.
Unfortunately, at the moment he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand, he wants to crush Abraham; on the other, in a lawsuit Monckton’s many public statements and scientific presentations would be at least potentially subject to scrutiny and cross-examination.
So for the time being he has opted for the court of public opinion, by rallying the troops and attempting to force a retraction.
chek says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:19 am
“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?”
Give her a break. She’s now doubt preparing a piece on it, illustrated with cartoons in that inimitable style of hers.
If Monckton says it will appear there, then have no doubt… it will.