NOTE: Many new updates below.
A few people complained that Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal to Professor Abraham was a bit long, and a perhaps a bit hard to read due to it being jam packed with essential points.
I’m advised that a new version exists. Here then below, is a condensed and more tightly formatted version, for easier reading.
Click image below for the PDF file:
John Abraham’s presentation is here:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
(NOTE: He uses Adobe presenter – may not work on all browsers)
====================================
UPDATES:
Jo Nova has a good discussion on the entire issue:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/
=========================
From comments at ClimateProgress, this email address works for pro and con:
I sent an email in support of John Abraham to St. Thomas University and he responded with a request that indications of support for his efforts to debunk Monckton be sent to Dr Susan Alexander (slalexander@stthomas.edu), who is managing the University’s response to Monckton.
=========================
Whether you are pro or con, there is a signature gathering campaign over at Hot Topic in New Zealand, home of the new ETS tax. It reads like a who’s who of AGW activists.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
Reports are that they won’t take opposing comments. Easy to test.
Holy Spit
Weapons Grade Rhetoric!
Do you need a licence to publish that much sense over international borders?
One can only hope Lord Monckton gets the apology he richly deserves before he has to escalate to even higher levels
The Moonbat has a mad swipe at Chris Monckton in today’s UK Guardian and sees Abrahams as a shining light of truth and objective reason.
Thanks, Mike Haseler, for the link to the Norfolk News story on the UEA’s coming job losses. The following paragraph from that story is very sad and, at the same time, very, very funny.
“The director of marketing and communications will retain responsibility for … catering and conferences and, working closely with the Vice Chancellor and the executive team, will assume an enhanced and strongly focussed responsibility for reputation management.”
Enough said!
“The Moonbat has a mad swipe at Chris Monckton in today’s UK Guardian”
This is not a surprise as the Moonbat revels in wearing his ignorance and bias as a grand badge of honour. I would not expect that the Moonbat would change his tune even when all the details are thrashed out in court and the incompetent and discredited John Abraham is shown very publicly to be completely and wholly wrong.
He would probably claim that the judge was in the pay of “big oil.”
Re; Anton 12:48 am,
I see no harm in Christopher Monckton, in formal correspondence, wishing to be referred to as “Lord Monckton” and “His Lordship”.
I’m sure during personal contact, there is no need to tug the forelock and that he is happy to be addressed as “Christopher”.
It seems a bit odd to an Australian that in the US, former presidents are addressed as “Mr. President”.
From page 7 of the condensed report :
“Abraham criticized Lord Monckton for misstating the growth in CO2 concentration since 1750 as a percentage of the atmosphere as 0.01%, when it is in fact 0.01%.”
Not an encouraging paragraph……
I’m just impressed that Monckton can produce enough “cream” to fill a can.
Jo Nova has an article about the correspondence between the University’s lawyers and Viscount Monckton. See the link below
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/#more-9427
—
I agree that there is much in Mr. Monckton’s 12 July SPPI publication that stinks of the lamp. It would have done better with some line editing at the very least, but I understand his desire to strike while Dr. Abraham’s neck was on the block, the better to document the man’s deviations from standards of professional conduct and to recognize what are unarguably actions taken by Dr. Abraham to render himself a tortfeasor of malicious intent and therefore liable for both material and punitive damages.
Dr. Abraham has not yet been “creamed.” But he will be. If Mr. Monckton secures competent legal representation in Minnesota, Mr. Monckton might well wind up not only bankrupting Professor Abraham but also the University of St. Thomas.
I confess to taking some comfort from the fact that the institution employing (and cement-headedly supporting) Prof. Abraham is not a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges & Universities.
I took my undergraduate degree at a Jesuit college, and I’d hate to think that the Society of Jesus had degenerated over the past thirty-odd years to the point at which they could be this friggin’ stupid.
—
Anton says : Who in America gushes over “Lords” and “Ladies?”
My response — I think Americans probably overestimate how many people in the UK gush over the “nobility”.
Dodgy Geezer says: “I think that the point is that the Brits believe that breeding is important. ”
My response — Not as many as you might think, and the rest of us think that those who do are terrible snobs.
Those with a title are actually more likely to over-use it when they want to impress non-Britons. Monckton’s way over the top use of his title and all the portcullis logo nonsense damages his image in the UK more than enhances it. I think that most Britons think that if someone has a title that person ought to be rather more reticent about using it. (c.f. the number of people who think that Ben Kingsley is a tosser for insisting that people call him “Sir Ben” – and that’s even when the title was actually bestowed on him, not some distant ancestor.)
I am sure that Monckton’s banging on about his title has immeasurably raised his profile and helped get the message across in the US but it makes him look foolish to many/most people in the UK and it’s one reason why the likes of Monbiot can easily smear Monckton with the image of a clown.
And i only just finished reading the first draft, if i knew there where going to be match of the day highlights i would of waited.
Although the 500 points are well worth a read for chuckles on how to completely destroy your opponent.
John Abraham’s commentary on Chris Monckton was measured and careful.
In my opinion, Monckton is a snake-oil salesman, and a bully.
His crass attempt to silence those who disagree with him is beneath contempt.
Mind you, I do agree with those of you who are glad he is on your side, because I’m bloody grateful that he’s not on mine!
And being a Lord may go down well in the Colonies and abroad, but not something that we regard particularly highly here in Blighty.
Not this “Colonist” buster. And while we are about it, we find reference to us as “Colonies” to be less than endearing too.
I too found the use of Mr Monckton’s title to be more than a little wearying.
John Brookes,
You think ad homs and condemning people for what they did not say is measured?
that is a fascinating insight.
mysearchfortruth July 15, 2010 at 12:06 am
Once the trust in the ‘scientists’ was undermined and it has been, the ‘science’ became toast. This is now the political phase of the battle, whether in the court of public opinion or the law courts. A year ago they would have let this case get to a court because of their arrogance. They’ve been burned since and will never let it get that far. Too good a forum for Monckton.
Pointman
….. and wrong with hundreds of glaring and proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations, lies and libels.
John, do you really consider provably libelous lies to be “measured and careful?”
Not to mention the masses of examples of where Abraham clearly has not understood the slide or the context of the slide or the source of the slide, even when the source is written on the slide?
Or the examples where Abraham makes basic schoolboy level mistakes in very basic (grade school level) simple arithmetic? You STILL stand by the guy?
That is loyalty beyond the bounds of logic.
This Abraham guy claims to be a Professor? How can someone who is a Professor get away with such shoddy and error filled drivel? It casts serious doubt on the standard of Academe in the United States.
As for your not wanting Viscount Monckton on your side? Well good. I would rather have Monckton’s reliance on facts and truth guide my side, whilst your side has to rely on lies, libel, misrepresentation, ignorance, false statistics, scare stories, alarmism without a hint of the genuine “scientific method” upon which the rest of the scientific community must rely.
Given that my side relies on fact and truth and the scientific method, regardless of where that leads, and your side relies on a faith in a “false hypothesis” that requires lies, libel,misrepresentation, ignorance, false statistics, scare stories, alarmism without a hint of the genuine “scientific method” I am well placed to witness your side collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Good Day.
A bit obsessive of both Monckton and Abraham, frankly.
Funny how the [snip] who keep calling for debate try to crush anyone who speaks out on the other side. I fully support Dr. Abraham, free speech, and his clever and well-honed expose of Monckton’s pseudoscience.
Furthermore, it’s clear that Monckton must read this blog. So for at least the fourth time, Brenchley, I challenge you to just the kind of stage debate you want. I’m a pauper, but I have no doubt at all the contributors to Watt’s Up With That would forward me all the expenses I’d need to fly to England and stay there long enough to win a debate with you (one day would be more than enough, surely).
P.S. You can’t ask my university to fire me because I don’t work at one. You can’t ask a government agency to fire me because I don’t work at one of those, either.
REPLY: You know, you might want to ask first before assuming I’d ask readers to back you. Your ego precedes you. And judging by your choice of words:
My Climatology Pages: I explain some climate science, and bitch-slap the Global Warming deniers
…you don’t have the integrity or decorum to be a debater.
Besides, you aren’t the one Monckton is taking issue with. I suggest you go sell some trashy novels to finance your own trip. – A
“His crass attempt to silence those who disagree with him is beneath contempt.”
And yet, John, I take it you still support the bullies in the IPCC who have tried to destroy the careers of many scientists and editors and publications, who have the gall to let the evidence speak for itself and who do not support the alarmist hypothesis?
Oh, and Viscount Monckton is NOT trying to silence those who disagree with him.
He is defending himself from a series of personally bullying and cowardly Libels. There is a world of difference between the two positions.
John Abraham CHOSE to attack Monckton. Monckton is merely defending himself from an unreasoned, wrong-headed and error filled, maliscious attack.
Now you are getting upset when your latest hero is shown to be naked of fact and reason. Your new Emperor has no clothes!
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
What a fascinating insight into the mind of a devout follower. How the eye can see one thing and the brain? another. Even for someone whose english is his tenth language this reads nothing like what your brain saw. Sad soooo sad.
“hunter says:
John Brookes,
You think ad homs and condemning people for what they did not say is measured?
that is a fascinating insight.”
It is “measured”. In exactly the same way that temperatures are “measured” in places like, say, Darwin.
Perhaps this link has been posted before.
Abraham replied to Monckton via a warmista site on 6 June 2010.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=77&&n=218
The response was quite short in length and shallow in substance, but never-the-less, it was a public response.
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
John Abraham’s commentary on Chris Monckton was measured and careful.
The problem is, to an irrational person, irrationality is the norm. Warmists live in an upside-down Alice-in-Wonderland world, where truth is fiction, and vice-versa.
In my opinion, Monckton is a snake-oil salesman, and a bully.
Yes, of course you think that, living in your upside-down world as you do. Monckton is simply defending himself, and the Truth against a vicious, underhanded, and completely false attack. Yeah, he’s the “bully”.
Dear, Dear, Anton, some people get their knickers in a twist about titles, don’t they?
You in particular, don’t seem to appreciate that Mr, Ms, Miss, and Dr, are all “titles” which you would probably not deliberately use incorrectly; for instance, would you knowlingly address a letter intended to a “Dr Smith” as to “Mr Smith”? Would it not be discourteous? Of course, you may have a “thing” about doctorates, I don’t know.
It is incorrect and discourteous to refer to Lord Monckton as “Mr” Monckton simply because the USA does not have titles.
Do you think any of your presidents (there must be one in the past that you think highly of) would be so rude as to misuse the title of someone who comes from a country where such titles are their legal forms of address? Do you think that president would call our queen “Mrs Windsor”?
Oh, and Anton, until Anthony Watts precludes anyone but USA citizens from reading and contributing to this blog, please don’t be arrogant enough to assume that only USA citizens are the sole intended readership…
Pip! Pip!
Anton: July 15, 2010 at 12:48 am
I wish Mr. Monckton all the best, and I believe, if he sues, he will easily win. But, can everyone else stop with the “Lord” stuff, please? It isn’t becoming, especially of U.S. citizens, who supposedly rejected such servile behavior more than two hundred years ago.
Sir, yes, sir!
No fears, Anton — the commenters here are using it as a measure of earned respect, not obsequiousness.
Lord Monckton was fighting this corner while the believers had an iron grip on public discourse, presumably with his own funds. With the opposing forces stacked as they were a few years ago I am grateful he was prepared to put his reputation on the line to stand up for democracy and scientific honesty in public discourse.
There is also the wider question of whether the right people in society are given power. Hereditary peers are being removed from the house of lords and replaced with political appointees. When global warming is eventually acknowledged to be the wealth distribution scheme it appears to be his contribution will be visible for all to see. When the elected politicians have caved in almost in their entirety, an unelected lord has stood and fought for what he believes – withstanding the pressure that was applied to the rest of society. It is hard to find many public figures so outspoken and willing to defend what they believe to be the public interest.
I for one would be much happier with a few of Lord Monckton’s ilk in the house of lords than the current whim for political appointees. Even if you disagree with him somebody prepared to ask the awkward questions and persist until they are answered is required for a healthy democracy. Global warming is not the only issue here, the bigger question is how do you stop the ruling class silencing the opposition. He has earned the right to say “I am a lord, and this is what I stand for”.