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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Venter says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:25 am
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
==========
Thanks Venter,
The article is excellent — a must read.
Steve Milesworthy said:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
“It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.”
Though I have no doubt about the intention, having failed to do justice to Monckton’s energy by reading all of the original, it still did strike as rather amusing, when issuing a shorter version was taken , inferrentially, as indicating a climbdown by the other party…
Barton Paul Levenson is exactly the reason I was so happy to see Dr. Meier’s essay. Despite the fact that Monckton (be he Lord, Lady, or music hall singer) has answered Abraham’s vicious attack on him in detail, Levenson would rather resort to the name calling and ad hominem arguments that seem to be the stock in trade on his side of the aisle.
Levenson even has his own black list, in this case a list of “evil biologists,” a list which includes Richard Dawkins and Konrad Lorenz. Interestingly enough, the infamous Lysenko also makes the list: “In order to push his pseudoscientific theories about agriculture, Lysenko, who had the support of Stalin, was responsible for the arrest, torture and execution of many biologists on ideological grounds (they were Darwinists, which was felt to be un-Marxist).”
Sound familiar?
Once again, Dr. Meier, thank you for showing us that there are at least a few on the AGW side with the ability to make a cogent argument.
[snip – major Godwin’s Law violation. ~dbs, mod.]
Perhaps Viscount Monckton could have a word with Prince Charles ? Yes, I know that would likely be a waste of time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html
Talk about cognitive dissonance. If the skeptics are peddling pseudo science what the heck are the alarmists peddling ? Whatever it is it’s not science.
Anton,
Don’t we owe him one?
Seriously, the title tells us something about him. It’s also a sign of respect to call someone by their title if they prefer it. I would show the man every bit of respect I can muster and there’s nothing wrong with imparting information about some one in a title.
OTOH, if he doesn’t like the title, then it is distasteful fawning to use it all the time.
Pete Hayes says:
July 15, 2010 at 1:22 am
“Grr! Condensed! and after I had just spent a considerable part of the day reading the full version!”
That gave me a good laugh, Pete!
Who in America gushes over “Lords” and “Ladies?”
The drones in America gush over presidents and celebrities. Not much different.
Struth Gorblimey, it’s 99 pages long! We need a Readers Digest effort, methinks.
Other than that, well done Sir!
Joe Spencer: July 15, 2010 at 5:34 am
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
“It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.”
Though I have no doubt about the intention, having failed to do justice to Monckton’s energy by reading all of the original, it still did strike as rather amusing, when issuing a shorter version was taken , inferrentially, as indicating a climbdown by the other party…
Steve just forgot to use snarkastic font, that’s all…
I never though of Lord Monckton as being “creamy”. I will now see Cambells soups in a different light…
MJK,
Monckton is playing a very dangerous game indeed. Pushing “His Lordship’s” unbearable arrogance aside for a minute–Monckton is effectively trying to silence those that disagree with him. So much for free speech and open debate on this issue. He has accused John Abraham of damaging his reputation for stating, amongst other things, “Monckton had misrepresented scientists’ results” (setting the scene for a defamation action) yet in his next breath throws the same claim back it him saying “Abraham frequently misrepresented scientists’ results himself”. Oh the irony, you defamed me but it is perfectly Okay if I then defame you. In any event, these so called defamatory remarks are hardly damaging and are just part of the robust debate we are now having on AGW. If Monckton were to pursue a defamation action in the courts against Abraham then he would be setting a danagerous precendent that would qualify half the posts on WUWT as defamatory, putting Anthony in harms way for republishing defamatory material. Be careful what you wish for folks!
MJK.
I always enjoy sailing out of Redhook on the island of St Thomas. Not familiar with the school there. I envied my college roomate studying medicine there. After looking further, this is a different school? a diploma mill in Minnesoota??
Larry says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:27 am
Larry – agree entirely with what you say.
Tony Blair (and his party) had an unreasoned hatred for the House of Lords and used their strong majority to destroy it. Not for any particularly good reason.
The structure of the representational democracy in the UK that allied with the Monarchy had been stable for 1,000 years and seen England rise from being a tiny country of bickering feudal lords regularly overrun by invading hoards from Scandinavia and the continent of Europe to being a stable country with a representative democracy system which worked in balance with the monarchy and was able, at the peak of its power to rule over 1/3 of the world’s surface.
The Lords, generally being wealthy and independent typically took a somewhat detached view of legislation that they were asked to pass, and took seriously their role in safeguarding the (unwritten) constitution of the UK. They infuriated governments on the right and the left by bouncing back legislation that the considered as going to far or being ill-considered.
This didn’t sit well with King Tony (as he saw himself), he much preferred the idea of what the US Senate had degenerated into, a bunch of fawning toadies who would lick his boots and rubber stamp whatever he told them to.
He had his way. In the same way that the US Senate was perverted from its original conception as an emulation of the House of Lords, but with appointed representatives from the states, who would, nominal at least be independent of the elected party writing the laws to an elected assembly that either rubber stamps everything or for party reasons trys to destroy every bill before it, the UK House of Lords is in effect no longer a “House of Lords” but an assembly of politically appointed toadies.
Tony Blair is responsible for doing more long lasting damage to the UK than ravaging hoards of Scandinavia or the might of Adolf Hitler were ever able to acomplish.
I think Lord Monckton likes to remind people exactly why the original Lords were such a good idea, with the power and the means to face up to the elected government and tell them that they were wrong, especially when they clearly were.
People in the UK have been conditioned by years of propaganda to regard Lords as figures of fun. People in the US have similarly been exposed to 200 years of propaganda about how evil the British system is (forgetting that they emulate a large part of it, and forgetting that most of the freedoms they enjoy they do so because the US decided to incorporate British law as the baseline for their own).
If I had inherited (say) a Bently, I would probably enjoy showing it off occasionally. I don’t object to Mr. Monckton making use (some might argue effective use) of his inherited title as he sees fit.
Methinks the Lord doth protest too much. Academic discourse does not involve belittlement, superciliousness, and threats of libel. The fact that these are Monckton’s main weapons in his rebuttal would support Abraham’s demonstration that there is little substance to his position.
Aargh! Blinded by a poorly-drawn soup can…
…or more accurately by a botched add-on to a well-drawn soup can. Is that Warhol and AutoTrace? No offense to the dabbler who tried to add that “Cream of Monckton” text, but I used to do this kind of thing for a living, and that result looks terrible. It should curve to conform to the cylindrical form of the container, and be roughly parallel to the text below, and to the white/red dividing line above.
No art at all is better by far than bad art. Just sayin’
My response to WUWT readers (note I’m not associated with this website or Lord Monckton in any way):
Please do not complain about the length and/or detail of any response at this point. This is the scientific process at its most combative stage, and you will not suffer for slogging through such a lengthy rebuttal. When communication breaks down between educated people, this is what humanity *MUST* resort to, lengthy requests for clarification on each and every single point. This appears to be a horrendously lengthy verbal war between people who hate each other, but in reality the conversation is being elevated from logical fallacy and flag-waving to blow-by-blow forced acknowledgment of each side’s facts and viable interpretations of those facts.
It is actually a good thing that Lord Monckton has rebutted him in the insanely detailed way he has, a very good thing.
Artwest, your comment that Monbiot can ‘easily spear Monckton with image of a clown’ suffers so severely from mixed metaphors that your meaning for the phrase is totally obscured. Are you attempting to say that Monbiot could ‘run Chris Monckton through’ with the picture of a clown employed as a spear? This may be possible on Planet Green where Monbiot dwells, but not in the actual physical world that most of us are aware of inhabiting.
I’m sorry, I don’t get it. Monckton’s response was pompous and poisonous. Defending himself? Well I suppose attack is the best form of defence, but why am I reminded of a line out of Chicago, “He fell on my knife, 5 times”.
Anyway, go for it guys. If you want to believe that Monckton is some sort of brilliant scientist who has to put up with attacks from second rate academics, then feel free to keep living in cloud cuckoo land. I actually think Monckton is a very smart cookie, at least smart enough to not believe a lot of the stuff which comes out of his own mouth.
Fascinating to see how this thread (and any others about Monckton) has pulled in so many of the warmist trolls who otherwise like to pretend that this blog doesn’t exist. I guess even they realize that talking only to each other at Romm’s House of Cards just doesn’t have any impact anymore.
So, by their presence, their outrage and their compulsion to post even if it IS giving support and traffic to what they see as Satan’s Spawn, they are admitting that this blog is the #1 site on the web for serious discussion of the global warming debate!
Congratulations, Anthony – even your enemies are paying tribute to your creation!!!!
Schools campaign for grants on one hand and funding on the other.
http://www.stthomas.edu/administration/board/default.html
This is the list of Trustees. I don’t suggest you call them but look at who they are. They are influential names and targets of fundraising. If I donated a fine lump, I could expect to be invited to the board. As a school dips its toes into politics and controversy the discomfort level escalates.
A bad coach, militant prof with an agenda and it comes up in fund raising phonecalls.
They would cut this teacher more slack if he had a big name.
Gentlemen will most often see a prof using a schools website to smear an individual as very distasteful.
A Hearstfamily member that is not in the family publishing made a phone call that got Helen Thomas fired.
Helen was a reporter that has the privilege of offending or sharing stuff that is off the mark.
Schools walk on eggshells. If some future donor is offended, they are cut out for a big building named after them.
I suggest that in recognition of Christopher Monckton’s effort in all this that the comment headers be changed from:
Joe Denier says:
to:
but Joe Denier said…
😛
I know this is off topic but on the subject of nailing people who make unwarranted attacks on climate skeptics, someone should take on the Prince of Wales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html.
Normally someone with his views would get short shrift but Charles Windsor gets heavy press coverage simply because his mother is the British Queen.
Re: Alleagra’s comment on poor old Chuck, the PoW;
everyone who was raised decently has always been taught that it’s uncouth, uncivilised, and just plan bad manners to pick on the weak and the mentally challenged. That’s why none of us has the heart to say much about Chuckles the Clown Prince. He’s too pathetic to take seriously on anything.
The soup label should be:
Chicken of Debating Monckton Soup