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.
As a lurker on this website (and I learn a lot), I finally decided to act on this one but kept it lowkey.
“I have watched the first video produced by Associate Professor John Abraham attacking Lord Monckton, and read the detailed response. I have had the opportunity to hear Lord Monckton speak and am aware he is meticulous in his presentation and makes it very clear to his audience that they need to check out the scientific facts for themselves, not be swayed by him or any other person speaking on anthropogenic global warming. Associate Professor John Abraham’s diatribe was exactly that, and has done nothing to enhance the cause he espouses. His video added nothing to scientific evidence but simply damaged his own reputation.
I would also suggest that these videos have done immense damage to the reputation of your university. You have complete control over whether you support your staff member or not, but as a University Dean I do feel you have a responsibility to support credible science and insist your staff do the same. Perhaps the best answer may be to ask Lord Monckton to come to address your staff and students on the scientific evidence on anthropogenic global warming and I suggest you also ask retired meteorologist Anthony Watts from Watts Up With That http://wattsupwiththat.com/ to give a presentation as well, I think the two presentations would be very enlightening to you, your staff and students.
Good luck in the court case,
Regards
One canceled speaking engagement would suffice for monetary damages and thus qualify for damages in the States. Not even that, one canceled engagement of any kind with even the remotest chance of monetary gain would suffice. True, he may not win much money, but I don’t believe money is the point. I believe the viscount is simply attempting to get the facts established in a court of law or by admittance of the university and the assoc. professor. That said, if the viscount wishes to pursue the case here in the States, he shouldn’t rely on his legal advisers across the pond. We do things very different here. But, I’m sure he knows that already.
LMAO
Get ’em annoyed, get ’em frustrated, get ’em angry, then annoy the living hell out of ’em to be victorious. Sun Tzu was a troll. :p
[snip -comment denied. Fake email address. IP address resolves to Christchruch, NZ but .com address given resolves to San Fransisco- see the policy page ~mod]
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm
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?
__________________________________________
Better metaphorical pitchforks than actual.
“A woman in the US has been injured when a bomb disguised to look like a box of chocolates exploded in her face, reports say.
The woman, aged in her 60s, reportedly received the parcel at her home…. reports have suggested the woman may have been targeted because she is married to an oil executive.” http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7928778
I and friends have been the targets of attacks concerning another issue. And yes there was physical damage done.
At least Lord M and the people at WUWT are staying within the law and conducting themselves as gentlemen.
done – I cced Professor Abraham so he can comment.
If the Trustees of the university have advised Prof. Abraham about the talk then they are aware of it and still allowing it to be hosted on the university website. Universities have lots of money, researchers not so much. This should maybe be an interesting point for your lawyers.
There seem to be a lot of indignant mutterings over at NZ’s Hot Topic
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
my point-by-point evisceration
Thank you mi Lord!
Please feel free to do as William Tecumseh Sherman did to raze the South and hasten the end of the Civil War: he burned Atlanta, tore up the railroads, leveled the factories, burned their crops, and ended at the Atlantic by burning Savannah.
“The utter destruction of [Georgia’s] roads, houses and people,will cripple their military resources… I can make Georgia howl!”
~~William Tecumseh Sherman
Photo of Sherman’s men destroying a railroad in Atlanta.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Sherman_railroad_destroy_noborder.jpg/536px-Sherman_railroad_destroy_noborder.jpg
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
After the burning of Savannah Sherman sent a letter to Abraham Lincoln:
“I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty guns and plenty of ammunition, also about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton.”
Lincoln replied the next day:
“Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift – the capture of Savannah. When you were leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honour is all yours; for I believe none of us went farther than to acquiesce. And taking the work of Gen. Thomas into the count, as it should be taken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obvious and immediate military advantage; but, in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important new service, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole – Hood’s army – it brings those who sat in darkness, to see a great light. But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave Gen. Grant and yourself to decide. Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army – officers and men.”
……re-recorded his entire 83-minute talk….
Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes.
This is funny!
Look back Mr. Monckton upon the ascending smoke of that burned city!!!
William Tecumseh Sherman after burning Atlanta:
“……We rode out of Atlanta by the Decatur road, filled by the marching troops and wagons of the Fourteenth Corps; and reaching the hill, just outside of the old rebel works, we naturally paused to look back upon the scenes of our past battles. We stood upon the very ground whereon was fought the bloody battle of July 22d, and could see the copse of wood where McPherson fell. Behind us lay Atlanta, smouldering and in ruins, the black smoke rising high in air, and hanging like a pall over the ruined city. Away off in the distance, on the McDonough road, was the rear of Howard’s column, the gun-barrels glistening in the sun, the white-topped wagons stretching away to the south; and right before us the Fourteenth Corps, marching steadily and rapidly, with a cheery look and swinging pace, that made light of the thousand miles that lay between us and Richmond. Some band, by accident, struck up the anthem of “John Brown’s soul goes marching on;” the men caught up the strain, and never before or since have I heard the chorus of “Glory, glory, hallelujah!” done with more spirit, or in better harmony of time and place.”
~~Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman, Chapter 21
I can’t understand why Abraham has been allowed to keep his page on the university web site.I didn’t have to watch Abraham’s video,it’s all covered in Monckton’s answers.He has plainly told Abraham and the head of the university that Abraham’s presentation is a lie,obviously Monckton is telling the truth,not too hard for him to prove.Why all the furphy about libel and such?It boils down to who is lying?Monckton has proved Abraham lied,so the university should make Abraham remove the parts where proof of lying is evident.A lot of the stuff written by Abraham could come under misunderstanding,no basis for removal,but this?
Abraham falsely stated that “Remember, Chris Monckton’s never published a paper in anything”
(37), when he knew or negligently and recklessly failed to check that – to take two examples –
Lord Monckton had published papers on the determination of climate sensitivity in the UK’s
Quarterly Economic Bulletin and in the American Physical Society’s reviewed newsletter, Physics
and Society, and that inter alia His Lordship has given faculty-level physics seminars on
determination of climate sensitivity as well as public university lectures on the climate, and has
xiii
led international scientific discussions on climate sensitivity, and has published academic papers
on subjects such as the theory of currencies, and has addressed delegates at several UNFCCC
climate conferences, and will be presenting a paper on reform of the IPCC at the annual
Planetary Emergencies session of the World Federation of Scientists later in 2010.
End
Abraham said
let me know if I was off base; was I convincing or not convincing?
End
He may have been convincing until Monckton published his reply,now he has been shown to be telling lies,and he has no comeback?
Christopher Monckton should put his money where his mouth is and sue John Abraham and the University Of St. Thomas if he truly believes he is right.
I highly suspect he won’t be taking legal action, though. While you all might think Christopher Monckton is a scientific genius – and Good Lord, nobody else does – the courts, however, would take a very dim view towards Monckton’s rubbish.
I am surprised to read that Abraham’s excellent presentation was a “diatribe” and full of ad-homenim attacks. Am I the only one who remembers Monckton’s inital response was to attack Abraham’s appearance (“an overcooked prawn”) and polite Minnesotan vocal manner?
Why can’t Monckton, point-by-point, address the points made by Abraham? Why is he asking “questions” instead of actually addressing facts such as his lack of citations, inability to contact scientists to see if he has correctly understood their work (ironic, seeing as he demands this from Abraham!) and deliberate use of misleading graphs?
I simply believe that if Monckton were right he wouldn’t be demanding academic censorship or threatening court action. He would, in a gentlemanly manner he seems incapable of, address Abraham’s criticism point-by-point instead of engaging in a 446 question gish gallop.
His main goal seems to be removal of Abraham’s presentation, as if Abraham’s crime was simply to criticise him.
andyscrase – from the site and their call for support to Dr Abraham
“Gavin July 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Gavin Schmidt
NASA GISS
unreservedly support”
Looks like Gavin found some spare minutes of his time to dash off a few words to an unknown NZ alarmist site.
E-mail sent. Thank you C.M and A.W for all your work.
andyscrase says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:03 pm
There seem to be a lot of indignant mutterings over at NZ’s Hot Topic
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
======
my post on NZ:
John from CA July 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Most here fail to understand the dignity that was respect in Science. Your support for pigs is making Science a barnyard fume offensive to all but those who never learned to smell.
Science is not an new toy in Social Media yet [some] Scientists will redefine this.
Sorry Anthony,
My response on NZ is not in keeping with the spirit of this site.
I’ll resist in the future but its difficult in the face of such swill.
John from CA
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.
Melinda Houston: What a ridiculous, dripping post you make.
“I simply believe that if Monckton were right he wouldn’t be demanding academic censorship or threatening court action.” I suppose all opinions except the overwhelmingly accepted ones should go through proper channels like “peer review”? I can’t express my complete contempt. There, now you have been “peer reviewed.” If I wasn’t inspired before, I am now.
Melinda Houston
I’m guessing you didn’t read Monckton’s reply to Abraham.He does address point by point.
As I know the man is not an idiot,I don’t have to go to the bother of verifying what Monckton states in his reply.
eg
Abraham states Monckton never published a paper,Monckton says he did.
Tell a lie about one thing,cannot be believed on anything else.
From Lord Monckton to Mr Abraham
By now, is it not all too painfully apparent to you that you have not conducted yourself in a manner that is appropriate to your station as a lecturer at a University?
You will surely appreciate that if I had done to you what you have tried to do to me you would be justifiably disconcerted; and you will note that, apart from a single angry statement for which I apologize, my public response to your less than honest talk has taken the form of a mild-mannered and straightforward refutation of your falsehoods, too many of which seem more than accidental.
End
Lord Monckton erupted (human thing to do)
Lord Monckton apologised,gentlemanly thing to do. So your post is a bit out of date.
ice9 says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:39 am
Lindzen and Choi have been debunked and dismembered
This is the first I’ve heard that. Did you contact them to tell them what you’ve found? Because I haven’t heard of an erratum for their work.
ROFLOL,
The wankers on NZ deleted (censored) my post.
I guess the site is “stupid is as stupid does”.
So much for free speech on NZ. Its very sad when kiddies in a sand erase toys they can’t understand.
I’m done toying with ornaments on the “green” — odd dreams await; night all.
bhanwara says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm
And then the exhortation for the choir to write to him, why am I reminded of peasants and pitchforks?
No. You are reminded of 1776.
Melinda Houston says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Melinda, did you read the questions Monckton asked? Or did you just skim over them. Within the nearly 500 questions, there is virtually a “point-by-point” rebuttal. For instance, when Monckton asks questions such as 80: If you agree that the graph shows what I say it shows, why did you snidely remark, “On this slide he
says, ‘Sea ice is growing in the Beaufort Sea’: I’m not making that up” (15), if one does a bit of research, you’ll see Monckton was correct.
Another example, when Monckton asks, 276: Do not Petit et al. (1999), in common with Genthon et al. (1987); Fischer et al. (1999); Clark and Mix (2000); Indermuhle et al. (2000); Monnin et al. (2001); Mudelsee, (2001); and Caillon et al. (2003: op. cit.),
say that in the paleoclimate temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentrations followed suit?, he’s actually giving you the scientific studies you can verify for yourself showing he was correct.
Really, you should read Monckton’s rebuttal to Abraham’s critique. Abraham critiqued Monckton, but it wasn’t the real Monckton he critiqued, it was Abraham’s fabricated Monckton he critiqued. I watched Abraham’s slide show and listened to him blather and knew in less than 5 minutes into the show he was making sweeping generalizations and characterizing the generalizations as quotes and contextually missing what Monckton was saying. You can call that a scientific rebuttal if you wish, but when one has to resort to characterizing someone else statements to a 3rd party for the purpose of publicizing the 3rd parties response, alarms should go off in your head. Again, you should read Monckton’s rebuttal. He made numerous scientific statements posed in the form of a question. After reading the rebuttal, I’d suggest you look up some re-runs of a game show called Jeopardy. Or maybe do that first. The game show will warm you up with simple little statements formed as questions and then maybe you can work yourself up to reading Monckton’s rebuttal.
Best wishes,
James
Malcolm Ross, I have to use you as a foil, but I could be talking to 7/8 of the commenters here.
As pointed out by toby and a few others:
Does everyone assume that if Christopher Monckton says Abraham climbed down, Abraham climbed down?
The original presentation is still there. He’s revised it, sure, but hasn’t removed the original. He’s sharpening and perhaps even toning down certain aspects of his argument to focus on what he believes are his most critical points.
But a climb down?
I ain’t seeing it. And you wouldn’t either if you’d look and stop taking Christopher Monckton’s word for everything.
Oh, and hear, hear, Roy:
When I said 7/8, I probably overstated. There are more than a usual number of commenters here not blindly supporting Monckton.
I like Christopher Monckton. I find him incredibly entertaining and sharp. I think he is knowledgeable on his subject matter. And I think Abraham acted questionably by posting this attack without giving Monckton a chance to comment on the particulars beforehand and maybe assisting Abraham in correcting any unfairness.
But Monckton is a public figure and in the thick of it. S—- happens.
I’ll be very surprised if Monckton launches, and wins, a libel suit.
In Britain, Monckton is used to libel laws being heavily weighted toward the offended party. In America, not so much.