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.
Na na nana nah! You started it.
Did not!
Did too!
Really, Tallbloke? What a fine argument.
Anthony,
Done, as you suggested. I’ll not publish my letter here because it was rather long and somewhat detailed. But I do believe it’s time for a certain Prof. to go travel and meet (or find) new friends.
Brendan H says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm
……….
“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.”
The questions were formed so no “wiggle room” is allowed. Those weren’t rhetorical questions.
40: What evidence do you have that I said there was “no such thing as ocean acidification” (2)?
50: Please point out where in my talk I said that there was “a conspiracy”
76: What steps did you take to verify that Dr. Monnett knew whether or not I had read his work before you
reproduced his statement that I had not read it?
There are more examples, of course, but these aren’t rhetorical, they are “in your face”, “put up or shut up” questions. Abraham can’t answer them because he painted himself in a corner by being disingenuous. Abraham could have been more ambiguous in his statements, but he preferred the “in your face” dialogue. Abraham got caught overstating and misrepresenting Monckton’s statements and views and reinforced the misrepresentations with the creation of strawman attacks. (and some really poor science)
Really, I don’t believe Monckton is worried about more scrutiny of his public statements than has already been scrutinized.
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Really, Tallbloke? What a fine argument.
Time’s up, that’ll be £20 please.
Professor Abraham’s presentation seems rather biased. He is free to take a pro-AGW viewpoint but as an educator he ought to try and present Lord Monckton’s views fairly before attempting to rebut them but I think Lord Monckton should not be so thin-skinned.
Lord Monckton has given a very detailed rebuttal of Abraham’s criticisms. He should be content with that and not threaten legal action. Many pro-AGW scientists, and campaigners such as Al Gore, could also complain about personal abuse. Some satire and sarcasm are OK since debates on such a vital topic are bound to be robust but going further than that detracts from the science.
Lord Monckton is a brilliant debater and can certainly dish out criticism of those he disagrees with. However he should also learn to take criticism, even when it is unjustified, in a more dignified manner. His threats of legal action detract attention from the masterly way in which he took Abraham’s arguments apart and by appearing to want Abraham’s employers to act as censors Lord Monckton is damaging his own cause.
Done.
As a born and raised Catholic, I am appalled.
Brendan H says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm (Edit)
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.
Patience grasshopper, The game has just begun.
Go to court and take him to the cleaners. The constant lies, personal attacks, & slander from the AGW proponents are the only thing keeping their point of view alive. Remove their last line of defense which is to discredit those that ask the inconvenient questions. We in NZ now have a very real financial cost as a result of the AGW lies against the wishes of the large majority, and unless someone does something like sue then the rest of you all are going to be pulled into it also without a doubt, it’s just a matter of when. AGW is not about science or the environment anymore, it’s a political issue and facts are not important to those who stand to benefit. You can argue, protest, debate, etc. all you like but it won’t do any good until the people who wish to implement carbon trading realize that there are consequences for fraud and slander. SUE HIM CHRIS!!
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!”
Polite has been tried with these types of people. It doesn’t work. All one gets in return is flippant disregard of your views and demeaned if possible or mischaracterized first and then demeaned for the mischaracterization.
I’ll be honorable and gentlemanly with people who exhibit the same behavior. I’ll be crude and blunt with people who exhibit those behaviors.
I tried to watch Asst. Prof Abraham’s 83 minute presentation but gave up after about 10 minutes. I couldn’t even stand the sound of his voice. I reviewed Abraham’s list of publications and I can say this, if you ever want to know about heat transfer in an oven or convection in an air duct he’s your go-to guy.
Then I spent a couple hours plowing through Lord Monckton’s rebuttal. As is typical it was masterfully written. At certain points I actually felt a little sorry for Abraham as he was getting spanked so hard. I truly hope some of the doe-eyed dimbulbs that sat through Abraham’s lecture read Monckton’s rebuttal.
Ironically one of my best friends is also a mechanical engineer who specializes in heat transfer physics. He doesn’t have a lofty title like Associate Professor at some liberal arts school in MN I had never heard of. No…he’s a Distinguished Scientist at Sandia National labs. He thinks AGW is hooey.
In principal I agree with Dave McK. Take no prisoners. The accused should be put to the sword in court.
But I do wonder if it is practicable for Monckton to prove damage. Those likely to believe Abraham probably already heavily discounted Monckton.
In which case we can only regard this as light entertainment.
Any other time I would be shocked by any sane person taking Abrahams side, I read both sides, one is full of drama and lies and then there is Lord Monktons reply, I really feel that AGW is some sort of viral brain infection, they will claim that reducing CO2 will get water flowing uphill again!!
Thanks to the fraudsters the damage to science and higher education is massive, maybe to the extent it will take a couple of generations to repair, I am trained as an engineer, mechanical and computer, I try to apply common sense to what I read, the answer to AGW (destroying the west and giving all our money to India and China to make what we used to but with masses more pollution) is enough proof of a giant scam to me, add in Mr Gore, high priest of AGW, convincing all that the oceans will rise then buying a $8 million waterfront property then I want all involved fired, have their qualifications and pensions removed and brand them as unfit to serve the public for life, they are corrupt and can never be trusted again politicians, professors, teachers the whole sorry lot,. That would also help the deficit worldwide.
Letter sent.
To Lord M, I offer the word “respect”.
To those who disagree, I offer a wisdom derived from the intellect of the much missed Douglas Adams. Excuse me if I quote innacurately, “keep banging the rocks together Guys”, but it is an accurate representation of how I feel when I encounter comments from the RC attack-hounds when unleashed with feral savagery, salilval outpourings, matched only by a total disregard of
Intellectual vigour that completely meets their masters wishes.
Alas for the poor and, I suspect, soon to be abandoned Professor, his only crime was to be sweet-talked into being enrolled into a “Forlorn Hope” assignment that, if it succeeded, elevated him upwards.
‘Tis sad that he never looked at the small print,
Warning,Forlone Hope investments may go down.
Sad!
Lord Monckton is taking it to phase three:
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win
I have no doubt he will win if he chooses the UK courts as his battleground.
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.
Peer review? That used to mean something until the climate scientists started corrupting the process. Now it just means you’re on the team.
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!
Letter writing (now email writing) campaigns are nothing new, and seem to frequently be initiated by eco-interest groups. Do you think it is wrong? If so, wrong for everyone or are you a hypocrite?
Damages are:
1- LEGAL COSTS
rack em up.
seek no excuses to shirk from the task of permanently removing a threat.
defense of virtue is self justified.
One could not even raise a housebroken dog with the default of proper discipline some are endorsing. Get this: it is no kindness to shield a person from the consequences of his actions. Attempts to divert natural feedback fail. Somebody else gets hurt, is all – the wrong one. You are not a better person for ‘forgiving’ – you are a screwed person on the menu for seconds.
I’d hate to see any children raised by parents who are so clueless about how habits are established, nurtured and how they CAN NOT BE BROKEN.
Even if Mr. Monckton emerges as the sole example of virtue-victorious in this entire tragedy – there is no fighting a current that consists of a dissipated generation for whom reality is merely an alternative life style and where reason is merely a potential option for discussion.
We may just need a dose of Armageddon to clear out the pretenders – for those pretenders are the manure that fuels the decline in the global standard of living and value of life.
So far I have heard only 3 people acknowledge that failure to put a stop to it is necessary and sufficient to ensure it continues and expands.
Dave McK says: Damages are: 1- LEGAL COSTS
Yes, though often legal costs are not fully reimbursed. The defence would be able to play the line in mitigation that Monckton had in his many fulsome diatribes sometimes overstepped the mark either intentionally or unintentionally. That would be a much more difficult case to win than one that simply proved damaging misstatements by Abraham. It would also be open to the defence that the legal costs were self-inflicted and unnecessary since there was no other material damage.
gcb says:
July 14, 2010 at 11:21 am
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.
Actually the court found the film to be “Political Propoganda” – which is why UK schools can not show it unless the counter claims are also shown.
“an Inconvient Truth” a POLITICAL PROPOGANDA FILM not a science based objective documentary at all
Well I have emailed as per Lord Monckton’s request. Having met him when he came to Adelaide, and given everything he is doing for my family (not personally, but for what we collectively believe in… or don’t believe as the case may be), I am more than happy to do something in return for him.
Alan Wilkinson says:
July 14, 2010 at 4:30 pm
What you say is true on the face of it.
Under the table these facts are known by all to be true:
-legal charges are whimsical and arbitrary
-all issues of fact can be settled by discovery process- cheaply- and Mr. Monckton has, essentially, prepared an interrogatory that serves the purpose with his letter to Abraham.
-the only issues of a libel proceeding are the statements made and the veracity of same, so florid prose on any other occasion not directly referenced by statements at issue are irrelevant and will not be entertained
Furthermore, this case is eminently decidable by summary judgement once discovery has recorded the facts as indisputable.
Winning is what one should be looking at excuses for doing – finding ways.
There are no play fairies. This is not entertainment. This is not a drill.
Monckton doesn’t need to take it to court: if he can actually have published an academic paper supporting his views, then the “Science has Spoken”.
Threats of legal action are Monckton’s admission that he is unable to refute Abraham’s points.
JOSH!
Please draw a cartoon of Lord Monckton, with everybody gathered for the hunt, mounted in scarlet coats and johphurs.
The hounds will be baying and Lord Monckton will be saying “Let’s bark from here and not actually chase the fox and we’ll just say we caught him!”
James Sexton: “There are more examples, of course, but these aren’t rhetorical…”
Some of the questions are rhetorical.
“31: Does the slide show a rise in sea level since 1993 at a rate of ~1 ft/century?
35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area “is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007”? Hint: The slide is below.
44: Is it not correct that the application of multiple trend-lines with arbitrarily-chosen endpoints to a single stochastic dataset in such a manner that conclusions are drawn from the slopes of the arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines when compared with one another is an impermissible statistical technique?
72: Did I at any point in my presentation state that Dr. Monnett did not believe that polar bears might drown at some future date if the regional warming in the Arctic continued and the sea ice in the Beaufort sea began to decline?”
“… they are “in your face”, “put up or shut up” questions.”
And also leading and complex questions.
“6: Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation?
16: Would it not have been fairer if you had verified Dr. Soon’s data instead of sniping at his funding?
65: Since the “commitment” upon CO2 stabilization over an entire century is just 0.5 C, would you not agree that the “commitment to future climate changes” will be small indeed?
133: Are you aware that the Antarctic has been cooling throughout the past 30 years?
138: Were you telling the truth when you asserted that I had said there were only four scientific papers cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Climate Assessment Report? If you were not telling the truth, why did you lie?”
The larger point is that Monckton is not presenting a scientific as much a polemical case. That’s his right, but Abraham has no obligation to respond to a polemic.
“Really, I don’t believe Monckton is worried about more scrutiny of his public statements than has already been scrutinized.”
Scrutiny on blogs and newspapers is one thing; scrutiny in a court quite another.
Dear Associate Professor Abraham:
Your Lord Monckton did burn,
The difference between evidence and prediction you must learn.
I suggest your expertise in thermodynamics be applied
To flipping burgers and things fried.
And before you again attempt intellectual hari-kari,
Consider heeding the advice of Dirty Harry —
“A man’s got to know his limitations”.
Here’s another pointer:
Giving them the option to take it down ‘because it’s the right thing’ is unacceptable strategically because they might just do it. Then what do you have? You have a record of them being good guys and doing the right thing, belatedly, but doing it.
If you want to win, instead you want them to take it down in response to a legal order to take it down. Then what do you have? A legal order, is what. A response to avoid consequences, not to be good guys. But more than that you have a thing called ‘precedent’. That’s what American courts run on.
This catfight on the internet better show some real results or a lot of us are going to regret the opportunities wasted. Talking about it is the way to avoid doing something.
Monckton is not Churchill, but this is still a war, if undeclared so far. With no leader, no example, no precedent of right over wrong in this story – there is nothing to work with still. It is, as described, entertainment – at very very very great ultimate expense. The whole world will be paying for this show for a very long time as it is.
Please, whoever has a chance, slay this thing!