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.
PJP,
You and I live in republics – the original republicans where anti-aristocratic. Aristocracy is connected with unjust taxation, privilege, elitism, militarism and tyranny. Now you want Monckton to get a pass, because he is a Lord.
Let Monckton try his elitist and snobbish manner in an ordinary Scottish or Liverpudlian pub, and he would be run out of the place. I had though the same would be true in the USA.
Re: comments above concerning my complaints about the use of titles.
No, I do not address physicians or anyone else by the title “Doctor” unless I’m sitting in a physician’s office or hospital, or in a university setting. I agree with the Quakers: The flaunting of titles by their holders is an attempt by the holders to make themselves appear superior. I knew a woman who got a doctorate in education (possibly the easiest doctorate one can get) here in the United States and insisted that EVERYONE call her Doctor, and even threw a fit when magazines arrived at her home addressed to her by her given name with no title. Bill Cosby got a doctorate in education, and was forever after listed on his television show credits as “Dr. Bill Cosby.”
Here in Tampa, there are women who actually introduce themselves as “Mrs. Dr. So & So.” For anyone who has not been to Tampa, it is one of the ugliest, yet most pretentious, cities in the Western Hemisphere, suffering from mega delusions of grandeur, and our local social climbers may be among the most preposterous in the world. About twenty years ago, one hundred of them declared themselves the “Tampa 100,” supposedly the 100 most influential and important people in the city, and this organization is routinely described by the local press as “Tampa’s 100 most important people.” But, the citizens did not vote them in; they voted themselves in. This is the local norm.
I had a neighbor who bought a title from some impoverished European royal, and not only used it constantly, but walked around with gongs and ribbons pinned to his clothes. The local Press treated him as royalty.
And no, I would not address a former president of the United States as “Mister President,” or a former speaker of the House as “Mr. Speaker.” It’s ridiculous. “Mister” is sufficient for any male over the age of twenty-one.
Yes, Americans do grovel for people with titles, earned or otherwise, and do fawn over celebrities. So do people all over the world. I think it’s ludicrous. Why should fame, fortune, or ancestry make any difference in how one is treated? Prince Charles is an obnoxious buffoon, and yet people grovel over him because he’s the Prince of Wales, and he gets away with outrageous behavior others would be excoriated for. Does anyone here actually think he’s a superior being, or even particularly well-bred? Would anybody on this blog want to have him as a house guest? I certainly would not. And I would address him as “Charles” or “Mr. Windsor.” “Windsor” is not really his family’s last name; they took it from a housing development/suburb, and the world has never recovered from their weirdness, but if that’s what they want to be called, who am I to interfere?
John Brookes follows the example of John Abrahams and the whole of the AGW bunch. ‘Don’t look at any reasoned argument that might offer an opposing viewpoint to their own flawed science, just make personal attacks on those who make them .’ Thank god we have Christopher Monkton as an informed and outspoken advocate of the opposing viewpoint. With people like John Brookes as an AGW advocate, it won’t be long before the complete global warming scam will be exposed for what it is – the greatest scientific fraud ever to be perpetrated on mankind in the history of science. Let us hope that Christopher Monkton takes his threats all the way to the courts. The damage that this will do to the AGW cause will be irreparable and hasten the total demise of the whole shoddy AGW business.
Anton July 15, 2010 at 9:55 am
Seconded.
Pointman
The folks who have nothing to contribute except ad hominem attacks have conceded the argument, whether they know it or not.
By making an issue of their personal feelings instead of the question of the science involved, the haters are asking everyone else to buy into their hatred. ☹
The third-personage, and the use of a formal title, is, I suspect, the format that would be used in a legal complaint. That’s quite possibly where it came from — such a document is being prepared.
It certainly is weird to read “His Lordship”; it’s like being back in an 18th century novel, or reading a transcript of a speech in the House of Lords.
Monckton admitted on the Glenn Beck show that his Lordship is purely hereditary and that he has shamelessly used it for his own self-promotion. It’s his shtick and not unlike Rush Limbaugh’s over-the-top ego shtick. It’s probably funnier in the UK than in the USA. No one really cares about the title of a British Lord in the USA. What we care about is Monckton. The man is a brilliant thinker, writer and speaker. Monckton is a hero in the battle for truth on this issue.
In this particular case I believe it is entirely appropriate to refer to him as Lord Monckton as this impudent little lightweight undergraduate engineering Associate Professor refers to him in the entirely inappropriate familiar term as “Chris Monckton”, not even “Mr. Monckton”.
Personally, I hope Monckton lawyers up and sues UST. They can enlist the finest minds from their 11 year old law school for defense. I would LOVE to hear Assc. Prof. Abraham debate other “non-credentialed” climate experts like Warren Meyer or (even better) Willis Eschenbach. Self-taught, recovering cowboy Willis would utterly destroy this idiot in a debate. Abraham was WAY out of his league when he went after Monckton.
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:03 am
I’m sorry, I don’t get it
Don’t feel too bad. Most Warmist trolls who wander in here are pretty much clueless. But, stick around, and you might actually learn something.
I actually think Monckton is a very smart cookie…
Correct, one could , even say that he’s brilliant. He’s also passionate about his subject matter, which he knows backwards and forwards, and inside and out. He knows he’s right, and can back it up, unlike his would-be detractors, who can only hurl ad hominems, blow smoke, and use any number of other logical fallacies they are so fond of.
@george: While I agree with your sentiments, I don’t share your optimism. Despite its disastrous effects, including wide-spread starvation, the state-backed theory of Lysenkoism managed to last for many decades. AGW could well do the same. When dealing with a public willing to listen to Pamela Anderson and Bono over bona fide scientists, reason and logic doesn’t go far.
Oh, and as a polite person, I have no problem with using someone’s title. Yes, some people can go overboard with it, but like “Mister” or “Miss,” I figure it’s up to the person with the title to decide when it’s all right to refer to them more informally.
Symbols are symbols. Nothing more. I’ve always been a bit fascinated by some people’s obsession with symbols over reality. They’ll have a cat fit over someone desecrating the flag that represents freedom, but happily support laws cutting back on civil rights.
It’s just a bloody title.
toby says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:50 am
Toby — how do you know where I live? 🙂
This is a little off-topic now, but since you raised the question:
I was born and lived the first twenty something years in a Monarchy (England).
I then spent 10 years in a republic (France).
Finally ending up in yet another republic (USA).
I hold both EU and US passports and have an interest in, and a love for all three countries. Each has its strengths, and each its weaknesses. The people of each hold all foreigners in some level of disdain, when each is in reality very similar. The governments of each, at various times play off those prejudices for their own benefit. Personally, I expect more from the leaders of any country.
In reality there is little truth in the sterotypes:
* The English are a bunch of serfs and lords with bad teeth.
* The French are a bunch of surrender-monkeys.
* The Americans are loud and ignorant.
Of course, all stereotypes have a kernel of truth, but often a VERY small kernel.
Monckton plays a role. Its his differentiator, his identity, his trademark.
It gets attention. That is what he wants.
Don’t confuse the messenger with the message.
His style is not mine. However, due to an accident of history he has inherited a title and a family coat of arms, and if he wants to use them he is perfectly entitled to do so. Probably with more historical justification than, for example someone like Barbra “Address me as Senator” Boxer.
Climate Progress says the Monkton is a “shameless purveyor of hate speech”
I didn’t see any hate.
Ususally they toss in flat earther
anti science and
racist.
I have seen the CAGW world become very intolerant.
REPLY: Joe Romm has a bad case of adjectivitus. It’s terminal. He must have had one of his “good” days today. -A
What, now the university feels the need to asign a person to prepare a response to Monckton? I wonder if they will need an entire team. Really, if Abraham had the time to make not one, but 2 full length videos as well as written smack downs of Monckton why is he hiding behind some one else to issue his reply now? Guess he got more than he bargained for.
Alexander K says:
July 15, 2010 at 7:58 am
Artwest, your comment that Monbiot can ‘easily spear Monckton with image of a clown’
——————————————————
I didn’t say “sPear” I said “sMear”. Full quote in context below* I thought my use of the word “smear” made it pretty clear that I thought that the accusation wasn’t true.
I generally agree with Monckton’s points and entirely disagree with the egregious Monbiot. My point was that Monkton’s over-flaunting of his title makes it too easy for his opponents to make jokes at his expense and deflect from the force of his arguments. If he was more reticent about his title, at least in the UK, Monckton would be far more effective.
*”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.”
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:03 am
If you want to believe that Monckton is some sort of brilliant scientist
I believe Michael Mann is a brilliant scientist.
Guess what gang. Condensed crap is still crap.
St. T doesn’t seem to have any intention of according the delusional duke even the minutist face saving device. Good for them. It makes the thread at Hot Topic unnecesary but it is nice to see how much more support the truth has.
REPLY: The only difference is that what they have done is visible, you have no idea how many people have sent letters to St. T and neither do I. Petitions are cheap, anyone can join. Writing a letter takes more effort. -A
jose: July 15, 2010 at 7:08 am
Methinks the Lord doth protest too much. Academic discourse does not involve belittlement, superciliousness, and threats of libel.
Absolutely correct, academic discourse does not. Now that that’s settled, do you have a theory as to why Associate Professor Abraham chose to begin his “presentation” with belittlement, superciliousness, and *actual* 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.
Flunked Logic 101 as well as English Comprehension, huh? My sympathies.
John McManus: July 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Guess what gang. Condensed crap is still crap.
Gee, those were my exact thoughts when I saw Associate Professor Abraham had cut ten minutes from his Real Scientist’s Presentation…
A- Hot Topic specifically urged people not to flood St.T U’s inbox but to contribute to a single file. Quite conciderate. No disruption.
John McManus
M. Simon says:
“I believe Michael Mann is a brilliant scientist.”
Belief systems are hard to overcome with facts and logic. Michael Mann is incapable of creating a model that explains the climate [in other words, a model that reliably and accurately predicts future climate]. Not much brilliance there.
But for those who want to decide for themselves if Michael Mann is either a ‘brilliant scientist,’ or is simply engaging in scientific misconduct, I recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford [also known as Bishop Hill]. You will never look at Mann the same way again.
M. Simon, if the scientific method and professional integrity mean anything at all to you, then please explain, if you can, why twelve years after he created his infamous and thoroughly debunked Hockey Stick, Michael Mann still refuses to disclose his taxpayer-funded methodology and data?
Take your time.
Bill Tuttle;
Did you notice that abraham expanded his presentation with more slides? He tightened up in places, especially the last few minutes, but it would take someone with an immense nose to claim he condensed.
John McManus
Smokey says:
“But for those who want to decide for themselves if Michael Mann is either a ‘brilliant scientist,’ or is simply engaging in scientific misconduct, I recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford [also known as Bishop Hill]. You will never look at Mann the same way again.”
Absolutely. I thought I understood most of the history in the hockeystick until I read this book. Buy a copy. You will not regret it.
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
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!
__________________________________________________
What a true representative of the “New Science”
I sure hope John is not a civil engineer responsible for building bridges or Skyscraper or the like….
Vigilantfish says:
“Re the Monckton-Abraham online confrontation, I just saw the following posted over at Climate Progress (apologies if this info has been given before):
Andy Gunther says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:28 am
Joe (and all):
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. You should follow up on what is happening with Abraham, and I encourage all CP readers to send in a message of support for him to his institution.”
Frank Lee MeiDere says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:43 am
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….
Sound familiar?
____________________________________________
It sounds sad. Levenson has a degree in physics and is a writer of science fiction. If he is stooping to “name calling and ad hominem” instead of using his knowledge of science and language, perhaps that says something about the lack of scientific fact on his side (CAGW) and more about his politics – “liberal Democrat. ”
http://www.lyricalpress.com/store/index.php?main_page=authors&authors_id=43