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.
Chek:
“Mr. (note: not “Lord”) Monckton”
WTF? He is the hereditary Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and has been since his father died. Apparently “chek” misunderstands the nature of membership in the House of Lords since 1999.
Again- warm-mongers are pathetically ignorant. About everything.
—————-
“Defalcation:” In the US has come to mean embezzlement. In the UK retains its older, more general meaning of “an abuse of trust or confidence.”
““Gavin July 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Gavin Schmidt
NASA GISS
unreservedly support””
Well, Gavin is unraveling the tattered shreds of whatever remains of his credibility by “unreservedly supporting” that ignorant bozo’s farrago.
Bohemond, I’ll just call him “Mr. Monckton”, “Christopher Monckton”, or even “Monckton of Brenchley” if he prefers, because while I believe CO2-forced warming is not a threat to humanity, that every man is born legally equal: I don’t acknowledge titles by birth.
Earned titles are another matter. So if he can get himself elected to the House of Lords, I’ll be all over using the title.
This is not a slight to Monckton. It is a showing of respect to the natural rights of man — to the Enlightenment.
The way some are talking about Monckton puts me in mind of a story about George Washington, a true story.
The Ambassador to Brittan was sent by George Washington to England. The Brits put a picture of George Washington in the outhouse specifically for his visit. They were all anxious, watching him, waiting for him to retire to the outhouse. He finally did. On returning they said to him, “Did you see George Washington in the outhouse? Isn’t that the right place for him?” He replied, “Why yes, I did see it. And yes it’s the perfect place for it,” an answer which took them aback. He continued, “It’s the right place because there’s nothing like a picture of George Washington for scaring the shit out of a Brit.”
😉
Monckton will not sue because he has a long record of distorting conclusions, incorrectly quoting figures and selectively including facts, all of which will take about two months of witness questioning to go through. He also had is backside spanked in the UK courts on An Inconvenient Truth (yes I know a few here like to think not, but I’m proud to say my children are now committed eco-freaks having watched the movie seven times at their primary school 😉 ).
He also has a long record of failures to bully institutions into taking action against employees of theirs who disagree with Monckton.
In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. I look forward to the article “Monckton Climbs Down” when the inevitable happens.
As to Monckton demanding you deluge the University with emails, he’s just a pathetic and shameful bully who hates free speech except by himself.
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
You are a pathetic bully Anthony Watts. These are my personal comments done in my personal time using PCs that are provided for reasonable personal use by employees, contractors and visitors to the Met Office.
REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A
If you just have a blog policy that says “no dissenting opinions allowed” then that would be a little clearer.
I used to post quite regularly at climateaudit and never got this treatment. I had lots of constructive and polite debates there with people such as Steve Mosher. I learnt a lot there that helps me do my job better. I’ve learnt little here.
Why not be honest, Anthony, and simply filter all dissenting opinions out.
[REPLY – We never edit out dissenting opinions that are either constructive or polite. ~ Evan]
Mark Bowlin says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:36 am
“(4) Use this as a teaching opportunity for your students. Have Abraham remove the offending material (all the offending material) for the time being. Invite Monckton to your university to debate Abraham (and show him the courtesy you would any other guest), and let the students decide. If, after a student body vote, Monckton wins, then Abraham apologizes and the material goes away for good. If Abraham wins, then Monckton withdraws his complaint and charges of libel. ”
Absolutely brilliant advice.
It’s blatantly obvious that Watts and Monckton are not interested in science at all. This attempt to silence a real scientist who thoroughly debunked the charlatan and exposed his many many many lies and distortions, is beyond the pale.
“REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A”
Sorry, Anthony. I sincerely admire you, but this is starting to look like a RealClimate Gavinesque commentary trainwreck.
Give the man the benefit of the doubt that he’s not wasting his employer’s time and posting during in between breaks while diligently putting out quality long range winter mis-forecasts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/03/final-score-for-the-met-office-winter-forecast/
Steve Milesworthy – regarding your comment “In the UK we have a name for people like Watts who sycophantically defend Monckton’s “honour” from the hilarious attack by posters such as ice9 – lickspittle. ” In Canada, we would simply call you childish, ignorant and rude. I hope your children don’t end up like you.
I think, under other circumstances, it could have been inappropriate for Anthony Watts to reveal Steve Milesworthy’s place of work.
What of a soldier or postal worker using government facilities to access a blog? They’re often allowed to, and should their workplace be revealed just because they post something the owner of the blog doesn’t like?
It’s not like this was a threat against anyone, or even libel. Rather, it was expressing an opinion.
That said, Steve Milesworthy of the UK Meteorological Office is a total jackass and the context is important. What government employee, funded by the taxpayer in a government agency whose mandate includes a serious study of climate and related environmental issues, publicly writes with pride:
On that basis, I can understand, with reservations (I wouldn’t have done it), why Anthony revealed Milesworthy’s place of employment, because his pro-government indoctrination stance. Of his own children no less.
I think Milesworthy’s quasi-fascistic glee in announcing with pride his own children’s successful ecological indoctrination by the government is, by itself, sufficient fodder for an excellent article in any of the major dailies’ environmental sections. Christopher Booker would rightly have a field day with it.
Sir, did you not feel any shame talking about how the governmental has successfully indoctrinated your own children, even if it’s with something you ultimately agree, or does the smiley face indicate how thrilled you are it is so effective?
Oh SM, posting from the UK Met Office. Of course.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more…
1. Google “censorship site:http://wattsupwiththat.com”
Plenty of talk on this site about censorship, with a common theme of accusing other blogs of censorship for removing comments. I’m somewhat surprised, then, to see how many commenters seem to think demanding the removal of a presentation from a university server is OK. (And Anthony by default since he’s allowed the guest post.)
2. Can’t help but comment on those last two comments, where A claims that if you’re writing emails from a publicly funded body, you have no right to express a view. What the hell???
Dan, there are commenters here (above, myself being one of them) who have expressed discomfort with requests to force the removal of Abraham’s presentation from the university server.
If it is libelous, then that can be taken up with the courts, if Monckton goes through with his intention to do that. I suppose his rebuttal could be considered a “libel notice”. I’m not a lawyer, but at least it’s fair warning.
Whether the university itself should step into a fight between two men, which is at least partially about science of critical importance to the world, is another matter. I don’t like the idea of it making its decisions on something like this on outside pressure.
So I grant you point 1, and just say that some AGW skeptics agree with you.
But as an individual, Christopher Monckton feels he was libeled, and I can understand why, if he can convince the university or Abraham to retract the presentation, he would want to. That doesn’t mean they should, but I suppose from his point of view it’s worth a try. If nothing else, if he does go to court it will show he gave Abraham every reasonable chance to mitigate damages.
As for point 2, I hope that wasn’t Anthony’s point. Anthony does make it very clear in the “Policy” section of this website that anonymity is not guaranteed and, further, under what circumstances he would be particularly likely to publish someone’s identity. So I think he has given warning on this. I’ve also seen him comment about this in several places in addition to “Policy”.
However, some employers do allow use of computers for reasonable personal use. It may bother Anthony that this includes taxpayer computers, but it is a fact. The military is one example I gave above. In my limited work experience, this was allowed by a government department I worked for (in the lunch room, on breaks).
Call it part of the compensation package, because really, people like to be connected nowadays, and these sorts of initiatives are important for employee retention and morale. We live mostly in free nations where a robust discussion of ideas should be encouraged.
If an employer allows an employee to use their work computer during personal time to participate in political or scientific discussion, is this really so bad? I think it is commendable provided it isn’t one-sided.
To me it isn’t the fact that Mr. Milesworthy used a government computer itself that’s the problem, it’s that he works for a government agency responsible for studying and influencing government environmental policy, and he’s just thrilled at how successful the government is at indoctrinating young Britons including his kids. He seems to think showing this same biased pro-AGW theory movie seven times to his children is appropriate.
I found that a remarkable admission.
Anthony, this is just a suggestion: “Policy” may confuse a few people, because some might skip that link on a site like this thinking it’s “Environmental policy that you recommend” or something like that.
The term “Comment Policy” is used on some blogs, and the internet standard for this type of thing for a website would be “Terms” or simply “T.O.S.” (for Terms Of Service). it’s your blog, you can keep it however you want, but you may want to consider one of those phrases in lieu of “Policy”.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Finally, Dan, I’ve both agreed with and disagreed with Anthony, and I’ve rarely if ever been censored here. I notice comments critical of AGW skepticism here all the time.
For the record, now that I am under siege, my local primary school does *not* show films as lessons – thank goodness – I was trying to be humourous. I teach my kids to question everything, and I hope they will learn to make their own decisions about the big moral questions.
SimonH says:
July 14, 2010 at 8:12 am
“I’ve written to Father Dease asking him to remove both the presentations, to issue an apology and initiate an enquiry into Abraham’s conduct.”
Okay Simon, I will go out and buy the brushes and whitewash right away 😉
PS. none of my scientific papers are in the slightest bit alarmist, and one of my roles (as discussed at climateaudit) is to better document the science process so that it is more open – my interchanges at climateaudit were useful to my job despite the odd spat, and I thought the surfacestations project was a good idea.
Your lordship, I have sent an email complaining to the University about the presentation. I personally would not request it to be removed, but expressed my disgust at the conduct of Mr. Abraham.
A public debate between the two of you would seem to be the best way to settle the scientific questions at hand.
On another note, I must agree with Mr Watts for disclosing the person’s place of work. If you are going to launch strong personal criticisms and attacks on people, do it from a non tax-payer funded computer. Especially if the topic at hand is climate change and your own employer has been proven utterly incompetent at predicting it!
I am not familiar with the vagaries of British peerage so I have no idea whether Viscount Monckton is entitled to be called Lord. What I do know is that I am a free man and call no one “My Lord”. I also know that if I met Viscount Monckton I would bow and say: “My Lord’! That is an earned title!! I hope I meet him!!
I normally would suggest that Professor Abraham put up a birdfeeder and tend it instead of the world’s business since he is so obviously an example of what is wrong with academia in the United States, but in this case he should go out on his deck and lounge on a chaise. The birds will gather. The vultures will circle.
John from CA says:
July 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Thankfully for Abraham, and the principles of academic freedom, libel laws aren’t as crazy outside the UK as they are within it.
The university will, and should, toss the protests of anti-science meatpuppets in the bin where they belong. Thankfully he’s receiving quite significant support from [snip]
[Reply] Keep it polite. RT-mod
Sorry, but Prof. Abraham was on target. To ask the President of the University to shut him down while crying for openness from scientists is low, IMHO. Anyway, with other readers of Hot Topic I added my voice in support of Prof. Abraham.
Dear Wim,
perhaps you can help me with this passage .. I sent it to Johm Abrahams yesterday and didn’t get an answer (which is okay, I bet he is quite busy).
My intention was, that even before we can start discussing science, we have to talk about attitude (and yes, I would aggree that many writers here have issues with that as well, why can’t people present their facts in a clear and polite way and most importantly leave opinions and emotions out of the discussion, since it is complicated enough?)
Here is a passage of the email I sent to John:
I agree, that Sir Houghton now denies to have made such a statement. However there is a document showing such a statement. We could argue semantics if the statement there and the supposed statement told by Monckton are indeed similar enough (in which I am not at all interested).
Or you could explain to me on what basis you dismiss the one of the sources. You might have a good reason for it, but I hope you see my point, that the explanation so far is not sufficient. And any neutral observer would draw the conclusion, that you and Sir J. Houghton are indeed incorrect.
Together with a link to the document:
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf
Can you at least see in this example, that the facts presented by J. Abrahams (he asked Sir J. Houghton who denies to have made such a claim) are not enough?
(Not by accident I picked a very easy example, with two clear contrary statements, which are not very necessary for debate of global warming – it’s a very good starting point)
Wim Prange says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:49 am
It’s blatantly obvious that Watts and Monckton are not interested in science at all. This attempt to silence a real scientist who thoroughly debunked the charlatan and exposed his many many many lies and distortions, is beyond the pale.
@Ken says:
July 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm
“– bullying instead of calm discussion.”
Pretty rich from a cult led, run and filled with blustering bullies and frauds.
Christoph: thanks for the civil reply. Last time I came here, no-one was so gracious. It gives me hope, even if we disagree.