The season of disinvitation continues, Monckton & Delingpole's MEP affair

Guest post by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Dear Anthony, – I’ve enjoyed your series on disinvitation of those who doubt “global warming” by true-believers in the New Religion.

Your readers may enjoy the following well-documented account. – Christopher

==============================================

Yet another “global warming” disinvitation to add to the season’s merriment. Some months ago Roger Helmer, a Conservative Member of the European Duma who has dared to question whether “global warming” is a global crisis, was invited to lunch with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, together with leading members of the university’s Environmental Sciences faculty.

The Vice-Chancellor invited Mr. Helmer to bring anyone else who might be interested, and replied that he would be accompanied by James Delingpole, a distinguished columnist with Britain’s national conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, and Lord Monckton, deputy leader and climate-change spokesman for Britain’s second-largest party in European elections, the United Kingdom Independence Party.

A couple of months went by. Then, two days before the lunch was due to take place, the Vice-Chancellor’s office got in touch with Mr. Helmer by email, announcing that Mr. Delingpole and Lord Monckton had been disinvited:

“I am writing in response to recent correspondence/your call about Mr Helmer’s visit to UEA next Friday 29th. The Vice-Chancellor is looking forward to meeting Mr Helmer as planned.  However, I am afraid that there has been a misunderstanding in terms of the proposed accompanying guests.   It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent I am afraid that the invitation to meet with the VC cannot be extended to Lord Monckton and Mr Delingpole on this occasion.  I am conscious that your office gave our office the names of Mr Helmer’s proposed companions last month but unfortunately they only came to light yesterday.

“If Lord Monckton or Mr Delingpole have particular journalistic enquiries, the University’s Press Office would of course be very happy to receive them.”

Mr. Helmer was not pleased either with the cheesy pretext for the disinvitation or the very late date. The day before the planned visit, he wrote:

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding my visit to UEA tomorrow, but I have to say that I am rather taken aback at this abrupt change of tack.  I supplied the names of my colleagues whom I proposed to bring with me some weeks ago (as you rightly point out), and it is rather an embarrassment to have to turn them off at this very late stage.  You will be aware that we are dealing here with people who are prominent in their respective fields, and will certainly have dense diary commitments.

“I am disappointed also because while I have a good level of general familiarity with the various issues which we hope to discuss, these colleagues certainly have much more detailed knowledge than I, particularly on the science (Lord Monckton) and on the history and content of the leaked e-mails (James Delingpole).  I feel that our meeting will therefore be less useful than it might have been.

“However, we must make the best of it.  I propose instead to invite a parliamentary colleague to accompany me (I await his confirmation).  This is Stuart Agnew MEP, who represents the Eastern Region and is therefore one of the MEPs covering Norwich and Norfolk.  I trust that Mr. Agnew will be acceptable to the Vice Chancellor: if not, please let me know as soon as possible.”

Lord Monckton recommended that Mr. Helmer might take a rather tougher line. Mr. Helmer agreed, and wrote to the Vice-Chancellor’s office again:

“Following my e-mail earlier this morning, I have now been in communication with Lord Monckton, and I feel I have to ask you and the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider your decision.

“You describe Lord Monckton as a “political activist”.  Not only is he Deputy Leader of a party which came second (ahead of Labour) in the 2009 Euro-Elections.  He is also  a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and acknowledged around the world as an authority on the science of climate change and an expert on climate sensitivity.  It is rather depressing that the University is not prepared to talk to him.

“I now learn that Lord Monckton has — at very great inconvenience — arranged to return to the UK early from a banking conference in China, and to delay a forthcoming business trip to New York, at a cost of many thousands of pounds, precisely so that he can attend.  I find it particularly embarrassing, therefore, to uninvite him at this late stage — you have placed me in a very difficult position.  Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.

“In these circumstances I should like to appeal to you, and to the Vice Chancellor, to reconsider your decision.  At the same time, I am assured that James Delingpole would be happy to follow Chatam House rules if you wish, and would have an important contribution to make to our discussions.

“Please reconsider this issue in the light of these comments, and let me have your advice as soon as possible.”

Faced with Mr. Helmer’s determination, the Vice-Chancellor caved in:

“Again may I offer our apologies for altering arrangements at this late stage and thank you for our willingness to suggest another accompanying colleague.  The Vice-Chancellor would be very happy to meet you with your fellow MEP Stuart Agnew as you suggest.  This would be a meeting over lunch with the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Prof Trevor Davies and colleagues from Environmental Sciences, Profs Julian Andrews and Peter Liss, between 12:30-1.30pm in the Vice-Chancellor’s office.

“I am sorry to learn in your second email of the inconvenience caused to Lord Monckton’s travel schedule.  In view of the late alteration to his plans, the Vice-Chancellor has agreed to see Lord Monckton along with some of the same UEA colleagues in a separate meeting, immediately after you and Mr Agnew leave us at 1.30pm.  We will make sure lunch is still available.

“I trust that these arrangements will be acceptable to you and colleagues and once again apologise for the inconvenience caused.”

The moral of the tale: don’t accept disinvitation. It’s rude and unnecessary. Stand your ground and put the academic bullies in their place.

 

Dear Anthony, – I’ve enjoyed your series on disinvitation of those who doubt “global warming” by true-believers in the New Religion. Your readers may enjoy the following well-documented account. – Christopher
==============================================
Yet another “global warming” disinvitation to add to the season’s merriment. Some months ago Roger Helmer, a Conservative Member of the European Duma who has dared to question whether “global warming” is a global crisis, was invited to lunch with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, together with leading members of the university’s Environmental Sciences faculty.
The Vice-Chancellor invited Mr. Helmer to bring anyone else who might be interested, and replied that he would be accompanied by James Delingpole, a distinguished columnist with Britain’s national conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, and Lord Monckton, deputy leader and climate-change spokesman for Britain’s second-largest party in European elections, the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A couple of months went by. Then, two days before the lunch was due to take place, the Vice-Chancellor’s office got in touch with Mr. Helmer by email, announcing that Mr. Delingpole and Lord Monckton had been disinvited:
“I am writing in response to recent correspondence/your call about Mr Helmer’s visit to UEA next Friday 29th. The Vice-Chancellor is looking forward to meeting Mr Helmer as planned.  However, I am afraid that there has been a misunderstanding in terms of the proposed accompanying guests.   It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent I am afraid that the invitation to meet with the VC cannot be extended to Lord Monckton and Mr Delingpole on this occasion.  I am conscious that your office gave our office the names of Mr Helmer’s proposed companions last month but unfortunately they only came to light yesterday.
“If Lord Monckton or Mr Delingpole have particular journalistic enquiries, the University’s Press Office would of course be very happy to receive them.”
Mr. Helmer was not pleased either with the cheesy pretext for the disinvitation or the very late date. The day before the planned visit, he wrote:
“Thank you for your e-mail regarding my visit to UEA tomorrow, but I have to say that I am rather taken aback at this abrupt change of tack.  I supplied the names of my colleagues whom I proposed to bring with me some weeks ago (as you rightly point out), and it is rather an embarrassment to have to turn them off at this very late stage.  You will be aware that we are dealing here with people who are prominent in their respective fields, and will certainly have dense diary commitments.
“I am disappointed also because while I have a good level of general familiarity with the various issues which we hope to discuss, these colleagues certainly have much more detailed knowledge than I, particularly on the science (Lord Monckton) and on the history and content of the leaked e-mails (James Delingpole).  I feel that our meeting will therefore be less useful than it might have been.
“However, we must make the best of it.  I propose instead to invite a parliamentary colleague to accompany me (I await his confirmation).  This is Stuart Agnew MEP, who represents the Eastern Region and is therefore one of the MEPs covering Norwich and Norfolk.  I trust that Mr. Agnew will be acceptable to the Vice Chancellor: if not, please let me know as soon as possible.”
Lord Monckton recommended that Mr. Helmer might take a rather tougher line. Mr. Helmer agreed, and wrote to the Vice-Chancellor’s office again:
“Following my e-mail earlier this morning, I have now been in communication with Lord Monckton, and I feel I have to ask you and the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider your decision.
“You describe Lord Monckton as a “political activist”.  Not only is he Deputy Leader of a party which came second (ahead of Labour) in the 2009 Euro-Elections.  He is also  a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and acknowledged around the world as an authority on the science of climate change and an expert on climate sensitivity.  It is rather depressing that the University is not prepared to talk to him.
“I now learn that Lord Monckton has — at very great inconvenience — arranged to return to the UK early from a banking conference in China, and to delay a forthcoming business trip to New York, at a cost of many thousands of pounds, precisely so that he can attend.  I find it particularly embarrassing, therefore, to uninvite him at this late stage — you have placed me in a very difficult position.  Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.
“In these circumstances I should like to appeal to you, and to the Vice Chancellor, to reconsider your decision.  At the same time, I am assured that James Delingpole would be happy to follow Chatam House rules if you wish, and would have an important contribution to make to our discussions.
“Please reconsider this issue in the light of these comments, and let me have your advice as soon as possible.”
Faced with Mr. Helmer’s determination, the Vice-Chancellor caved in:
“Again may I offer our apologies for altering arrangements at this late stage and thank you for our willingness to suggest another accompanying colleague.  The Vice-Chancellor would be very happy to meet you with your fellow MEP Stuart Agnew as you suggest.  This would be a meeting over lunch with the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Prof Trevor Davies and colleagues from Environmental Sciences, Profs Julian Andrews and Peter Liss, between12:30-1.30pm in the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
“I am sorry to learn in your second email of the inconvenience caused to Lord Monckton’s travel schedule.  In view of the late alteration to his plans, the Vice-Chancellor has agreed to see Lord Monckton along with some of the same UEA colleagues in a separate meeting, immediately after you and Mr Agnew leave us at 1.30pm.  We will make sure lunch is still available.
“I trust that these arrangements will be acceptable to you and colleagues and once again apologise for the inconvenience caused.”
The moral of the tale: don’t accept disinvitation. It’s rude and unnecessary. Stand your ground and put the academic bullies in their place.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
RockyRoad

I truly wonder what they’re trying to hide or are afraid of. Isn’t the purpose of a university (from the root word “universe”) to entertain all pertinent ideas–especially on a topic as interesting as climate change?
I agree that the time for being timid is over–even if long-held views about certain subjects are tossed in the process. Fear accomplishes nothing.
mod: perhaps the Univ needs a free speech zone sectioned off for those that want to present slideshows about climate change. I doubt they had an issue with Al Gore’s troopers presenting their PPTs.

They are afraid of the same thing James Cameron is afraid of, being called out on BS dogma. They know they are perpetuating a scam of colossal magnitude and any actual confrontation or debate is another blow to an already dying agenda. They are murdering their own religion with faux science, and good riddance when it’s finally buried.

Roy

All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?

meltemian

The phrase “running scared” comes to mind!

RockyRoad

Roy says:
October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am

All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?

The point is not even close to their eating etiquette, Roy–it has to do with their blatant attempts at closing down debate regarding one of the most visible, potentially controlling and destructive movements out there–“climate science” (or “global climate disruption” to use their current vernacular). If the success of western civilization weren’t in jeopardy, I’d agree with you that this was a non-issue. However, this egregious movement has become as polarizing and destructive as the Cold War.

Eric Dailey

More inspiration as ever from the good Monckton. A good story and a good moral.
Once again we see from these academic liberals that as long as they mean well then what they do no matter how rude does not matter.

MJ

Wait.. the Vice Chancellor invited someone and was told that others could be invited several weeks before the event and received a reply well before the event with the names of the individuals who would be attending.
Then two days before the event, individuals in Vice Chancellor’s office just “discovered” who the invited guests were? I am assuming that Vice Chancellor does not have a secretary/assistant who manages these things? Really?
I’m not buying the “just discovered” line. I wonder what other meetings the Vice Chancellor has either fumbled through or been embarrassed by shoddy work of his secretary/assistant? I’m guessing none. If I were the Vice Chancellor, I would have let go of the individuals managing my calendar and brought in some better people.

oMan

@Roy: “What’s the point?” I think there are several points. The main one is not sloppy etiquette. That’s a symptom or result of the real failure, which is of intellectual courage. They are so beholden to their backers, so accustomed to the bullying and backstabbing by which the agenda is “managed,” that they no longer know what good science looks like, or how to achieve it. Any scientist worth her salt would look first to meet with her strongest critics. If her work survives their scrutiny, it will be all the stronger for it. This limp performance by the vice-head of the entire enterprise –exhibiting less sense of purpose and honesty than you’d expect from an assistant under-secretary for faculty outings– shows how deep the rot has reached.

John Whitman

The moral of the tale: don’t accept disinvitation. It’s rude and unnecessary. Stand your ground and put the academic bullies in their place.

———
Corollary #1 of Dis-Invitation: Acknowledge it initially in velvet tones, then discuss it with even tempered concern followed expeditiously with steely non-acceptance of the lack of the dis-invitor’s gentlemanly behavior. Finally, publish to whole affair.
John

David Davidovics

Well played, very well played. I agree about the moral of the story.

Tony

Blantant cowardice. The whole point about tenure, honours, etc., is that one can be free and can demonstrate the highest common standards of behaviour … ‘grace’ if you like.
In other times, failure to rise to the occasion and behave properly.. particularly through fear… would have been met with a street ‘debagging’
I am glad it has gone public; so everyone knows just what kind of person that Vice Chancellor really is.

I personally would have SHOWN UP.
And dared them to have me PHYSICALLY REMOVED.
Of course, as a 57 year old competing athlete, I have the wherewithall to do that. However, it does beg the question – – – are they willing to call in surrogate “goons” to protect their turf?
I’m doing my “Atmospheric Physics” lecture for the 7th time in 14 months in December. It is interesting to note that the most “contentuous” individual to attend my lectures insisted on continuously asking, “Do you BELIEVE in global warming..”
My response was to refer to the TITLE of the lecture. To the bemusement of about a dozen people standing about after the lecture, this man could not REMEMBER THE TITLE OF THE LECTURE! I do have to admit a little Monckton class has rubbed off, as I noted that if he could not remember the title of the lecture, maybe he actually “wasn’t there”, and that’s the way I intended to treat his question. I.e. as if he wasn’t there. (I then turned and began to talk to someone else.)
P.S. Lord Monckton has lightyears more CLASS than I do, I will defer to his “Royal Blood”, and use him as a model for holding forth in intellectual battle, yet maintaining class and dignity!

John Whitman

The UEA/CRU school song should be the one by Judy Collins called ‘Send in the Clowns’.

The particularly appropriate lines in the lyrics are:

And where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

The Dis-Invitors at UEA/CRU are the clowns. They are already there.
John

Roy

@oMan and RockyRoad:
I am perfectly aware of the implied point being made by squawking about these disinvitations, but taking notice of every single one is petty and easy to ridicule. (Taking notice of every single evasion and lie to the UK parliament’s S&TC on the other hand is devastating and impossible to ridicule.) If a skeptic like me thinks this blog is flirting with the ridiculous on this, imagine what the warmists make of it.

Jack

Being shown to be charlatans in the history books, and eventual social ostracism, isn’t enough punishment for these people. I’m sorry Anthony, but it just isn’t. Criminal prosecution for fraud and charges under the RICO act are what’s needed.
Lengthy stays in prison and huge civil judgments against as well. They are deliberately acting in bad faith, they lie, cheat and steal. And they do it because they have no fear of being punished.

Shevva

Well at least they get lunch. It’s a start.

Layne Blanchard

Well, let’s face it, no warmist wants to face Monckton over lunch. They might as well sign up for a whipping. ” Yes, waiter, I will take the “thorough drubbing” with a side of “humiliation”….. and the “mea culpa” tea….. and perhaps a cup of acid to pour over my face. Thank you. 🙂

James Sexton

What a sad, pathetic lot that must be. Distinguished educators and professors afraid of an exchange of thoughts with critics? Are they completely intellectually bankrupt? And even if they are does mean they have also relinquished any fortitude they may have had? How can they face their students and colleagues when they find they attempted to hide from their critics? That they would run from an opportunity to face the much reviled Monckton and Delingpole and “give them hell” says about all that needs said.

They had their names for weeks and only “became aware” at the last minute. Call this a “University” – they loose data, they can’t keep appointments, they can’t handle even simple FOI requests – basically they are totally inept, totally incompetent and a disgrace to British Academia.

Olen

They are pedaling their bike backwards and avoiding opposition down dark hallways to avoid having a conversation with the truth and to face those who want to bring it to them. That does little to bring confidence to their cause.
As Road wrote, Western civilization is at risk with the global warming agenda. A university or organization, government or civilian should be interested in scientific proof over dogma, in the fate of their civilization over personal profit and their integrity over dishonesty. And Oman wrote of intellectual courage, certainly important to science and life.
Their courage is exposed when they first reject then cave to determination to discuss the truth with science at the center of the discussion.

RockyRoad

Roy, it just demonstrates how incomprehensibly low our governments, places of higher education, and propaganda machines have fallen.
That’s all.

Doug

Roy says: October 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
All I get from these stories is that their etiquette is as sloppy as their science. I am afraid that accusing them of chewing with their mouths open (or whatever) makes this blog seem rather petty. What’s the point?
MJ says: October 28, 2010 at 10:23 am
Wait.. the Vice Chancellor invited someone and was told that others could be invited several weeks before the event and received a reply well before the event with the names of the individuals who would be attending.
======================================================
Well Gentlemen, This simply underscores the arrogance and sloppiness of these people. The Harry Readme files demonstrated time and again these characteristics of the denizens of this place while the Chancellor’s office seemingly couldn’t run a p— up in a brewery but couldn’t care less about it anyway. The stiff necked responses showed their arrogant disdain.
These are the people however, who are somewhat responsible for the reasons why governments throughout the western world are hell bent on increasing taxes to deal with co2 emission into the atmosphere. If it weren’t so serious it would provide material for another series of ‘Blackadder’ or ‘Yes Minister’.
PS – loved Lord M’s tale.
Doug

According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher”.
He was indeed a policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. His appointment was announced in The Times in 1982 under the heading “Journalists to join Thatcher policy team.” Later the same year he is described as being in a “policy unit specialising in home affairs” and as a “domestic specialist at the policy unit.” Nowhere in The Times is there any reference to him being a ‘science advisor’ though he did produce and market a computer program to predict election results. In 1984 he is described as being responsible for “housing, [and] parliamentary affairs.”
At Cambridge University he got a lower second class degree in Classics.
I recognise that in recent years has made valiant efforts to get up to speed on the science of climate change but to describe himself as a “science advisor” to Margaret Thatcher, who herself had a Chemistry degree, is disingenuous.

Doug

Well played indeed – whilst the UoEA scored an own goal, the dis-invited scored a number of their own.
Such antics will simply underline to the general public what crass merchants of spin and misinformation the “Hockey Stick Team” and their supporters really are.
One feels rather that this is a classic example of the poor unfortunate that won a prize in the “Stella Awards” a year or so ago (named after the person who successfully sued a provider of coffee because the coffee was hot!) who was trying to use a gun to rob a store and the gun jammed, so in true, if somewhat messy farce, the robber looked down the barrel of the gun and pulled the trigger again. This time it worked.
Am I right in thinking that the “Hockey Team” has been threatening the world with a defective catastrophe “gun”, only to find that when they need their gun to work and it doesn’t, they do far more than just shoot themselves in the foot.
Even the most blatant “teamspeak” article in the Guardian by the alarmists is regularly torn apart in the comments columns – with the sensible, sceptical comments scoring far higher “recommendations”.
What a difference a year makes!

Ken Harvey

I don’t mind being called a denier, since denier I am. I should mind very much being called a disinviter, for were I to be happy with that then what would be left to say about me?

John Whitman

Roy says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:23 am
If a skeptic like me thinks this blog is flirting with the ridiculous on this, imagine what the warmists make of it.

—————-
Roy,
NOTE: I have foresworn labels like ‘w—–ts’, so I use the terminology ‘settled/consensus science supporters’ instead.
There is a lot of blog posting and commenting in the climate blogosphere providing evidence of what the ‘settled/consensus science supporters’ already think of commenters here.
They would completely approve of everything here if, and only if, this were an exact clone of RC or any of the RC’s droid blogs.
As you imply, any of us can improve the politeness and professionalism of our blog commenting and posting. There is always room for personal improvement in blogging.
John

RACookPE1978

[Would that make you an “antisetconscisup” writing on wattsup? Robt }

oMan

@RockyRoad: what you said. And @Roy: sure, it’s just lunch. (Although the lunch nicely illustrates the entrainment of resources: because the V-C was slow and weak, the dis-invite was going to cost at least one guest a bunch of money. Small mistakes can produce big costs, a parable for the whole CAGW show.). So you may be right that the other camp will cackle at how the skeptics are incensed over trifles. But so what? Not everything here has to be Profoundly Important. Some of it, thankfully, is very human, personal, funny, touching. No harm in that. And, finally, character is revealed in the little acts, as much as in the big ones. Often more so, because the little acts tempt us to cut corners: who will notice? the cost is low, the benefit of cheating high. Take the easy way: many do. The V-C did. It says a lot; more than he meant or, given the quality of his words, more than he recognized.

R. Craigen

It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent
I am certain that these assertions could be easily falsifiable if the VC has a published list of guests to prior meetings. Or is this to be take as a weasel statement, and the reply would be “Oh, yes, we sometimes meet MPs and MEPs, and we sometimes meet journalists and we sometimes meet party activists, and sometimes we meet with two of the above together, but NEVER ALL THREE at the same time!” Omigod, what an awful precedent it would set if they did that!
How childish.
Anyone check to see if the VC’s dance card is publicly accessible?

Murgatroyd

Better to have not responded to the dis-invitation, and then sent an e-mail late in the evening before the meeting:
Since I have not heard from you recently and I may not have another opportunity to communicate while I am travelling, I’m writing to confirm our meeting tomorrow at noon at the Vice-Chancellor’s office. My colleagues and I are looking forward to an interesting exchange of ideas.
All the best —

Murgatroyd

Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.
Translation:
“Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Persist in this farce, and the story of your cowardly prevarication will be front-page news tomorrow!”

Latimer Alder

@john whitman
Much though I admire Judy Collins and her magnificent voice, I really should point out that ‘Send in The Clowns’ was written by Stephen Sondheim, and specifically for the voice of Welsh actress Glynis Johns.
Ms Collins could sing the phone book and it would still sound wonderful, but GJ was the first and greatest interpreter.

And I am itching to know what actually happened when they all managed to have lunch in the same room at UEA.

3x2

I’m not sure why anybody here is surprised by the recent activities of the Church. Lately it seems that we are back in the same position we were pre climategate/Copenhagen. The usual “well (oil?) funded attacks on science (anti-science)” pieces from the usual share holding PR mouthpieces spouting the company line while carefully avoiding specifics. Science that can always “homogenise” any inconvenient real world data. And of course Carbon scammers drooling over the potential of trillions of dollars for nothing and rewarding those who help them out.
The UEA is just another (minor) beneficiary of the billions handed out to anyone willing to jump the train. Let me get this straight – we are surprised that UEA doesn’t want to loose its carbon cash bonanza by hosting “flat earth believers and holocaust deniers”?
These people have no shame, as long as the money flows so will the support. Take a look at our own (UK) PM handing out cash to the father in law or his “deputy” handing it out to his wife. It might not sound like much in a world that talks about billions but let’s be clear … it is a lottery win every year for your friends and family and who would turn that down?
I always believed in politics because of the idea that “politics abhors a vacuum” (on any subject) but it seems that the vacuum, now, can always be filled with bullshit and cash. How else would these arse holes pass the climate change act in the middle of a snow storm (the earliest for 80 years)? If there were a God then perhaps he/she was trying to warn them?
To paraphrase someone who may be familiar to some readers – a bunch of scammers and thieves protected by thugs carrying machine guns. Welcome to the UK. Do try and join the UEA dinner Lord Monkton – here at WUWT we will get your bail money together in few minutes via Paypal.
In the mean time I might suggest that “politics abhors a vacuum” or at least it should… if someone has the balls to stand up that is.

Thank you for the best story – you are a talent, respected creator. Every little thing I want to do now is to start my authoring – I say you it will be a A-OK essay

Doug

Ron Manley says: October 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher…..etc.
Ron. I do not doubt that this is true. And do you want to know something? You are a pain in the a—- for telling us this just now.
Have a nice day
Doug

beesaman

So who got to the VC?
It would be interesting to see those emails!

son of mulder

“Ron Manley says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
At Cambridge University he got a lower second class degree in Classics.
I recognise that in recent years has made valiant efforts to get up to speed on the science of climate change but to describe himself as a “science advisor” to Margaret Thatcher, who herself had a Chemistry degree, is disingenuous.”
Well Monckton’s lower 2nd trumps Thatcher’s 3rd class degree. (If indeed Cambridge did award lower 2nd degrees back in the early 70’s which is debateable believe it or not.)
Your point also emphasises how intellectually weak must be the climate scientists whose work he so effectively criticizes.

John Whitman

Latimer Alder says:
October 28, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Much though I admire Judy Collins and her magnificent voice, I really should point out that ‘Send in The Clowns’ was written by Stephen Sondheim, and specifically for the voice of Welsh actress Glynis Johns.
Ms Collins could sing the phone book and it would still sound wonderful, but GJ was the first and greatest interpreter.

And I am itching to know what actually happened when they all managed to have lunch in the same room at UEA.

——————
Latimer Alder,
Indeed about Glynis Johns. It is a great song done also by Frank Sinatra and Barbra Streisand. The writer of the song was honored by the wealth of great singers doing it.
Yeah, what finally went on at the lunch?
John

Orkneygal

If you are dis-invited to something and you really want to go, the best thing to do is ignore the dis-invitation and just show up.

Mike Haseler says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:38 am
“They had their names for weeks and only “became aware” at the last minute. Call this a “University” – they loose data, they can’t keep appointments, they can’t handle even simple FOI requests – basically they are totally inept, totally incompetent and a disgrace to British Academia.”
IIRC it isn’t actually a University – it was one of the Polytechnics recently relabelled a University by PC politicians. It wasn’t even one of the better Polytechnics. So it probably never had much of an academic or cultural tradition to sink from.

Steeptown

Don’t forget that UEA is one of the minor universities in the UK. It is a third rate university and has been since its foundation in the 60s. Hence it has a School of Environmental Studies but no physics department. It doesn’t do real science . It attracts third rate academics like Jones and Davies. Jones’ role over the years could be described as clerical, not scientific; and he has proven himself to be a third rate clerk who can’t file his data properly.

Dave

Ron Manley>
According to what appears to be quite a favourable bio:
“Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: — Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis (leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury’s economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system), and epidemiological analysis. ”
Doesn’t sound disingenuous to me.

Legatus

The operative words here are “at a cost of many thousands of pounds”. it is time to stop pussyfooting around. If they invite you, and it costs many thousands of pounds, and then at the last minute they disinvite you, then you have excellent ground for a lawsuit. You need not therefore even contact them, simply have your lawyer do it (be prepared to go through with the lawsuit). Otherwise, these disinvitations will continue to be done, at great financial cost to those disinvited.
Really, are you just going to roll over and let them stomp on you? Just how long will you allow this sort of thing to go on? How many will have to be hurt before anyone has the guts to take action?

Rocky H

Ron Manley,
After glancing at your climate alarmist blog I noticed:

As we have seen above, in the 20th century there were two similar warming periods, of 0.61 ºC from 1909 to 1944 and of 0.75 ºC. from 1975 to 2005. This graph shows that for the first of these the relationship between land and sea temperatures remained almost constant, and only changed little during the mid-century cooling period. During the second warming period land temperatures increased rapidly compared to sea temperatures and have continued to do so even though the rate of temperature increase has levelled off since the start of this century. It (is? was?) generally accepted that the first warming period was natural and the second was a result of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

That is hogwash. It is not “generally accepted” that the null hypothesis has been falsified, in fact it has never been falsified. Natural climate fluctuations fully explain the observed variability without any need to add an insignificant trace gas.
The logical fallacy “Argumenum ad Ignorantium” infects your belief system: since you can’t explain why “the rate of temperature increase has levelled off since the start of this century,” you wrongly presume that CO2 has to be the cause of the most recent warming event – but that the immediately preceding event was not due to CO2. Nonsense.
Could you be any less convincing, or more illogical?
You also neglected to acknowledge that Lord Monckton’s degree is in Mathematics, without which there would be no Physics. You, on the other hand, seem to have misplaced confidence in highly questionable computer models. Models fail to make consistent, accurate predictions, and they differ from unadjusted observations. Yet you presume to nitpick and denigrate Lord Monckton’s verifiable accomplishments. You’re fooling no one here with your alarmist propaganda.

Village Idiot

Well, well, M’Lud. Disinvitation?
Didn’t bother to read the bluurb – the same old bleating and whining no doubt..
Disinvitation? Aww…That must smart!
Good to come straight here to The Village to have your wounds soothed. Such a shining knight fighting only for truth and right, ambushed in such a cowardly fashion! ‘Tis only right that you should turn first here, my Lord, to your faithful people, to receive succour and sympathy. If only our enemies would fight fair, using but the sword of data, and the shield of peer reviewed studies, our victory would indeed be near! But….disinvitation – how could they stoop so low?
Don’t fret, M’Lud M. – you may be in the gutter today, but when ‘The Great Cooling’ starts (by the way, any news on that yet, folks?) you’ll be catapulted to the level of glory that you crave…
Your humble serf, The Idiot

Posted this on Judith Curry’s blog, went directly into the bin?
Arguing about the actual climate sensitivity +.5,1.5,2.5,3.5 C for a doubling of Co2 is a waste of time. With China, India, and the rest of the developing world building coal power plants as fast as they can get them on line at the rate of about 4 to 5 per week. They will be pushing the CO2 level at rapid rates no matter what, the other 25% of the total CO2 production of the developed world output does to their economy in an attempt to decrease the global CO2 level.
So we shall soon see what the real climate sensitivity is, as the resultant CO2 levels of production from those who have NO INTENTION of slowing down their coal and oil consumption, continue to ramp up their use of fossil fuels.
Changing the rules for power production in the USA and EU countries, NZ and Australia, with huge increases in costs of power, will have no effect on the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Except that the lower competition for coal and oil stores will in effect lower the costs for the third world and increase their maximum consumption rates possiable.
To waste time talking about the “two sides” of this distracting argument, as the total consumption of fossil fuels goes up as fast as it can be removed from the ground is a shame. Adaption to any resulting effects is the only viable alternative. Forcing by regulation or taxation the developed world to eviscerate itself uselessly investing in unreliable solar or wind power, at the same time driving all production industries, and jobs toward the third world, makes sense only to international corporations and banking systems.
This senseless name calling of the scientists on both sides of the political fence, and infighting over the details of the amount of the sensitivity of the climate will soon come to an end, as the experiment on the Earth is continued with out any possible controls by the IPCC policy makers, who only want it to proceed as is, with ADDITIONAL FUNDS taken from taxes paid by the developed world, to hasten to transfer of wealth to the third world, while weakening the Western government systems through self imposed bankruptcy.

Stephen Brown

Dis-invitation? That’s really not cricket, old chap.
Chaps simply do not behave in such a fashion.
They’re cads, not Gentlemen. Please ignore them.
If they have any vestige of honour left, they’ll leave.
Although the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the English language would serve to deliver a far more robust response I consider it politic to restrain myself to the understated response given above.

Lucia’s take on this story over at the Blackboard is interesting.
She calls it Lunchgate and points out that Monckton and Delingpole are invited to a second lunch, not The lunch. Hmm.
This has all the makings of a Westend farce.

George E. Smith

“””” Ron Manley says:
October 28, 2010 at 11:58 am
According to Mr Helmer, Viscount Monckton is “a former science adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher”. “”””
And you; I presume were present at each and every meeting that Lord Monckton had with the Prime Minister; no doubt to rule on which of his utterances propely constituted “Science advice” and which failed by concensus to meet that standard.
So would it matter if instead of a “lower second class degree in Classics” from Cambridge; he got a PhD in IceCream Making from the University of Phoenix.
The issue would seem to be, whether or not he gave “advice” whether informed or not, about science matters to the Prime Minister.
As I read your post; your authority on his responsibilities, would seem to be an ordinary daily newspaper; the like of which one might line the bottom of a parrot cage to catch the; well you know what it is there to catch. Well it would work under your post too wouldn’t it ?
Frankly, I have no idea what Lord Monckton’s actual credentials are; other than he absolutely is a Viscount; properly addressed as “Lord Monckton”. You know, it is a British equivalent of check bouncing Barbara Boxer telling a West Point graduate Major General to please call her “Senator”, as she worked hard to get that Title; whereas the Major general worked really hard to earn his rank and was properly trained to adress all senior officers including members of the Congress as “Sir” or “Ma’am”, as standard Military (US) protocol. In Lord Monckton’s case it was his Grandfather who worked really hard to earn that hereditary title; and I am sure there were considerable reasons to make it a hereditary title.
What I know of Lord Monckton’s career; I don’t think he has in any way given cause to doubt the wisdom of that appointment.
I have had some short written scientific exchanges with Viscount Monckton; and in no way did I get any indication that he was not well versed in what he was talking about.
I have not a clue as to what a “lower second class degree in Classics”, might entail. To me it might mean some sort of study of Music from Bach to Mozart; which would segregate it from an “Intermediate study of Der Ring des Nibelungen”; but then I would probably be wrong; not knowing anything about the British University Education system.
Harry S. Truman was hardly schooled to prepare him to become The President of The United States; yet somehow; that didn’t prevent him from becoming one of the greatest to ever hold that office.
Your post Ron is petty; and that is an ordinary Kiwi street description. In a less formal environment, I might tell you what I really think of it.

Doug

Village Idiot says: October 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Well, well, M’Lud. Disinvitation?
—————————————————————————–
Well Mr Village Idiot. You described yourself rather aptly.
Cheers
Doug

Starwatcher

Do you guys really want to defend Monckton and Delingpole? You know they make skeptics look really bad, right?