Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
University College, London, one of the constituent colleges of what was once a respectable and serious academic institution, has declared open, vicious war on academic freedom. In doing so, it has forfeited the right to be taken seriously as a seat of learning.
Last month Professor John Butterworth, the useless bureaucrat in charge of the College’s department of Physics and Astronomy, learned – no doubt via the coven of paid hacks who routinely menace vice-chancellors and heads of department at any university at which those of us who ask questions about “settled” science are scheduled to speak – that one of his faculty, Profess Athem Alsabti, had booked a lecture theatre for a conference on the forbidden topic of climate change on 8-9 September.
Did Professor Butterworth react as the Vice-Chancellor of Louisiana State University had reacted a couple of years ago when the Professor of Economics there had invited me to give a lecture to his faculty on mitigation economics, whereupon he, the Dean of his Faculty and the Vice-Chancellor had been subjected to weeks of threatening letters and phone calls from this poisonous, over-funded PR machine?
The Vice-Chancellor, after receiving one nasty threat too many, called in the Professor of Economics and said, “The last time I looked, this university was committed to academic freedom. The lecture is to go ahead. No doubt those on campus who disagree with Lord Monckton will feel free to attend his lecture and raise questions. That is how science advances. We hear both sides. We are proud to do so. Come one, come all!”
When I arrived down south to give my lecture, the Professor of Economics, hopping nervously from one foot to the other, said he had had the worst few weeks of his academic career. Yet he was delighted that his university was still one of the few that heard both sides of an academic discussion and not just the currently fashionable dogma. He was proud of his Vice-Chancellor, and rightly so.
The true-believers and freedom-haters, as they increasingly do, simply stayed away. None dared to turn up and ask what they hoped might be difficult questions. They now know they are in the wrong scientifically and still more in the wrong economically. Instead, those who came (it was a packed house) wanted to learn, and there were several intelligent and constructive questions after my lecture. Everyone had a good time.
Did Professor Butterworth stand up to the totalitarian bullies when they tried to do to his university what they had tried to do to Louisiana State and countless others? Um, no. This is what – to his eternal shame – he wrote to his distinguished academic colleague Professor Alsabti:
“It has been brought to my attention that you have booked a room at University College, London, for an external conference in September for a rather fringe group discussing aspects of climate science.
“If this event were to go ahead at UCL, it would generate a great deal of strong feeling, indeed it already has, as members of the UCL community are expressing concern to me that we are giving a platform to speakers who deny anthropogenic climate change while flying in the face of accepted scientific methods. I am sure you have no desire to bring UCL into disrepute, or to cause dissension in the UCL community, and I would encourage you to think about moving the event to a different venue, not on UCL premises.”
The same day, Professor Alsabti, who felt menaced and degraded by this shameless and unprincipled bullying and harassment on the part of a senior academic who should have known better, canceled the booking.
Now, who are the members of this “rather fringe group” that might have caused the “UCL community” to go into the corner, turn its back to the room, suck its thumb and blub?
They include not only Professor Alsabti but also Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who has published more refereed papers on sea-level rise than Professor Butterworth has had hot dinners; Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo, who publishes a widely-circulated monthly data update on global temperatures and related matters; Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Norway; members of the Swedish Polar Institute, of the Asociacion Rural de Paraguay; of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, of the U.S. Geological Survey; of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the former president of the Italian National Research Council; the Professor of Paleobotany at the Sapienza University, Rome; a world-leading physicist from the François Rabelais University in Tours; an analytical expert from the Laboratoire Analyse at the University of Paris; the brother of the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Commons; dozens of doctors of science; and a sprinkling of IPCC expert reviewers, including your humble servant.
If this is a “rather fringe group”, then the academic mainstream must – as many of us have long suspected – have been reduced to a thin, dreich, terrified, narrow, narrow-minded, insignificant trickle, confined deep within the gloomy and inspissate canyon of its own no doubt profitable but increasingly discredited prejudice.
Will Professor Butterworth ever pay heed to the inexorably-growing evidence that the world is warming at a rate many times below the central estimate predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990? That temperature feedbacks are net-negative? That the CO2 radiative forcing has been overestimated? That the Sun has something to do with the climate, while CO2 has little to do with it? That sea level is barely rising? That global ice loss is barely significant? That hurricanes hardly ever happen? That droughts are declining? That the cost of mitigation today is orders of magnitude greater than that of adaptation the day after tomorrow? That tens if not hundreds of millions have died because the billions of dollars that could and should have been spent on building coal-fired power stations to give them life-saving electricity have instead been squandered on lavish taxpayer subsidies to ineffectual, muddle-minded, academic profiteers of doom, and to the installation of over-priced 13th-century solutions to an overstated 21st-century non-problem?
For as long as places like University College, London, are allowed to gobble up taxpayers’ largesse unsupervised and unscrutinized, they will continue to think it acceptable to bully and harass innocent colleagues. Professor Butterworth owes Professor Alsabti an abject apology.
Well, the London Climate Conference is going ahead notwithstanding Professor Butterworth’s intolerant and menacing attempt to stop us. It will begin at 9.00 am sharp on 8 September and 9 September 2016. Come to the Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. This will be the most high-powered academic conference on the climate question ever to have been held in Britain, and arguably in Europe too.
Will you hear some things you are likely to disagree with? Almost certainly. Though my own presentations will be concerned strictly with mainstream science, as will nearly all of the presentations by the distinguished contributors to the conference, there will of course be some ideas that are not yet accepted, for they are too new.
How much more valuable is our open-minded approach than that of a recent climate conference that I attended in the Mathematics Department at Cambridge University, my alma mater? Nothing but regurgitated pap from IPCC. None of those present, except the handful of skeptics who got in, raised any of the scientific questions that would have been raised by active, enquiring minds in my day at the university.
Fortunately, I had the opportunity of giving a blackboard seminar on the mathematics of climate sensitivity to two of the world’s foremost mathematical logicians the following day. One found the seminar “extremely interesting”. The other, as I was reaching for the duster to wipe off the equations with which I had covered the blackboard, said, “No, no: please leave them. I want to think about this, and I want the president of the faculty to see it.”
Despite all that the totalitarians have tried to do, there are still some open minds in powerful academic positions. It is they, not the likes of the forgettable Professor Butterworth, who will carry the torch of truth to coming generations, whether the current establishment likes it or not.
The more of you come to the conference, the more you will send a clear message to academe that the money is about to run out. I have already written to the Universities Funding Council and to the official scrutineering body for universities to invite them to investigate this serious incident of professional misconduct, and to invite them to remove the Provost of the college for failing to reply to correspondence from us. No doubt he was too embarrassed.
They will do nothing, of course. But in the end, if we keep the pressure up, as the ever-widening discrepancy between prediction and observation becomes impossible to conceal, they will eventually realize that money spent on making global warming go away is money entirely wasted, and they will find something else to waste it on.
It will be an excellent conference. Be there or be square!
The conference volume of extended abstracts is available at:
Update: Link expired, here is a direct download link: london-conference-volume (PDF)
Note: While I carry this story on WUWT for informational purposes, that should in no way imply that I endorse the topics of the conference itself or the speakers – Anthony Watts
UPDATE: Professor Butterworth has penned a response here: https://lifeandphysics.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/for-the-record/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Censorship is a sign the censors have no good argument for their side.
“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” ? Robert A. Heinlein
You must not eat of the fruit of this tree.
DD More
That is a bit too idealistic. There are things we should not read and always will be. When the world decides to ‘study war no more’ in order to prevent it, people should not ‘study war some more’ as a way to prevent tyranny. At present the military industrial complex has gained the levers of power and is implementing a policy of pointless perpetual war. The only effective way to eliminate this threat and cost of war is to stop studying it.
You don’t prevent war by arming everyone to the teeth. We definitely deserve to unlearn some things, little by little. I hope you agree.
Crispin, that is incredibly naive, and ironic that you consider the previous too idealistic given what you wrote. You advocate peace through tyranny – he who is willing to continue oppression through force wins, when those who choose “peace” over freedom refuse to fight, or to study how to and make ready.
What? Speak plainly, please, Crispin . . I’ve got a problem with people who slander resistance to tyranny . . and call freedom too idealistic . .
+1776
Crispin, your “do not study war” is stupid. It will only result in defeat from some tyrant who is not so brain-dead.
Guys, thanks for the comments and I will ignore the insults. I am no pacifist, but you cannot prevent war by arming everyone to the teeth. Any country needs a police force and to be able to maintain order. The days of the ‘balance of terror’ will soon be over. They are partly over already. The major problem is the lack of democracy at the international level, as anyone can see.
Do not accept that the world has to be as you find it. Just because there are lots of problems doesn’t mean you not only accept that there ‘should be problems’ but plan for even more problems. It means you have a duty to eliminate problems. It is like planning to build a lot more prisons. Why do that? Are we expecting there will be a lot more prisoners? Why are so many people going to prison that we need many more huge prisons? Is there no change we can make to society so far fewer people, almost no one, has to be imprisoned?
When you see the idiocy that is the Middle East, is there no change we can make to society to eliminate that craziness? None at all? Only building up more weapons? How is that working out so far?
Freedom is not something given to us by an allegedly benevolent state. Freedom is something we must take from the state, sometimes by force.
What was it that Patrick Henry famously spoke, about those who cry “Peace!” when there is no peace?
Crispin,
“I am no pacifist, but you cannot prevent war by arming everyone to the teeth.”
Who said anything about arming everyone to the teeth? (I mean other than you)
The quote DD gave seems to me to be about secrecy and censorship . .
PS~ “When you see the idiocy that is the Middle East, is there no change we can make to society to eliminate that craziness?”
Answer that question yourself, please. Tell us what “change we can make to society to eliminate that craziness”, in your opinion.
It sure looks like magical thinking to me, to suggest you or I or DD can make changes to “society” that will somehow effect that stuff . . You appear to me to be subtly championing the New World Order crappola . . or some sort of occultism . .
Censorship is a guarantee they have no good argument for their side.
Well that’s right, and as Anthony explained. he carried the story because he wanted to ensure that people had the information about the conference, and how its organisers had been treated so shabbily by the College Authorities. I do take issue with the dogma of Anthony’s disclaimer though, and in fact it is really not the case that :
I had previously imagined that in fact ALL of the stories on these pages were carried for “informational purposes”. Anthony has in fact in the past endorsed some of these topics, and their speakers. For example one of the topics is Christopher Monckton’s Global Warming Speedometer, which was in fact debuted in these pages here, and the various updates as time has passed. I would humbly suggest that the disclaimer, if one is really required, would be better framed in terms of a more open credo rather than outright dogma.
For example :
“Note: While I carry all stories on WUWT for informational purposes, that should not necessarily imply that I endorse every topic, or all the views of every speaker, or of every conference that appears in these pages.”
Perhaps you need to add this disclaimer to every story published on these pages, but I would have thought that this is a “given” for any publisher worth his salt. That he or she would publish in the public interest, stories which even the Editor does not necessarily personally agree with. Another less confrontational approach might be to instead place the onus on the disclaimer, if one is required, on the author of the article itself.
For example :
“The information in the above article, and the views expressed, are entirely those of the Authors themselves, and WUWT publishes such informative articles in the interest of truth, light, and open debate, though we do not necessarily endorse all the views of those attending any such conferences, or all of the presentations themselves. Readers must make up their own minds, having done some diligence on the matters discussed.”
As it stands, it seems as though Anthony actually disagrees about one or more of those presentations, or scheduled speakers, and we are left wondering which is the person or theories that he disagreed with.
Am I wrong?
nope.
Yes you are wrong and I believe deliberately so. The article was a non-scientific editorial, which everyone else seems to have picked up on. It is and has been the understand that the article present is the topic of discussion. Reiterating Anthony’s neutrality is appropriate.
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly.
You say that “the article was a non-scientific editorial”,and then introduce some irrelevant factoids, as though this then is some reasonable explanation for Anthony’s dogmatic disclaimer. I adumbrated that this disclaimer is biased against this Geoethics Conference and not actually neutral as you assert.
It should not matter what the subject matter of the published article is about, and indeed Anthony has stated on the “About” page at this website that though it does contain largely material of a science based nature, this is not exclusive of other subjects which may interest him from time to time. The definitive statement :
“About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts.”
Certainly this article about the forthcoming conference in London, must fall into one of those categories, as described by Anthony. What concerns me, if you care to carefully read my original post, is the timbre of the disclaimer, which rather gives the impression that there is something wrong about this conference, which Anthony disagrees with. It’s quite clear to me from the language, which is not neutral, but rather it is disapproving, even if it is put politely.
Again, this is the remark that I find to be critical, and not correct :
“should in no way imply that I endorse the
topics of the conference itself or the speakers”
It is a fact that Anthony has endorsed some topics
and some speakers that will appear at this conference,
and I gave an irrefutable example.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/
Plainly it is daft for Anthony to then claim that he does not endorse Christopher Monckton or his Global Warming Speedometer now, but that is effectively what he has stated, Here is a direct quotation
from page 6 of the Conference program and summary, and see if you notice any slight similarity between that presentation, and the WUWT url above.
“Introducing the global warming speedometer
A single devastating graph shows climate panic was unfounded
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A single devastating graph – the new global warming speedometer – shows just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have failed….”
I did suggest some more neutral wording,
though Anthony may come up with some
other phraseology of his own. In the end
it is up to Anthony what he publishes, but
making contradictory disclaimers is illogical.
QED
I had exactly the same impression. I was enjoying Lord Monckton’s always erudite discourse (inspissate is my new favourite word today :D) and was brought up short by that rather jarring note at the end. I’m sure Anthony didn’t intend it, but it really felt as though he doesn’t agree with the conference in some way, and permitted the post only in a spirit of disapproving tolerance. A little the way I feel when I have to dispose of one of the semi-dismembered and partially disembowled rodents which my cats are so fond of leaving on the hall carpet.
Lack of endorsement is just that, it doesn’t imply disagreement or condemnation.
Maybe the reasoning behind the notation at the end of the article is a fear of such incorrect inferences by some….
@DonM – you are technically and linguistically correct. However, the “perception” is what others are talking about.
Hopefully, Mr. Watt does not endorse Lord Monckton’s Global Warming Speedometer as the Speedometer makes a fallacious argument.
Actually, Anthony probably DOES disagree with all or at least most of the ideas advanced. There is for instance the argument for a planetary-solar interaction that could affect solar out and thus earth’s climate, though I don’t know of many empirical measurements that support any variance in solar out put that would back up such an idea. Dr. Svalgaard would know if there were any such measures I believe. There is a basic substitution of GH theory that certainly Dr. Spencer would disagree with. So, Anthony’s note is basically simple reassurance to some that he has not walked off what might the deep end.
But, climate models really aren’t working well and clearly some ground up rethinking seems to be called for. Whether there are any better approaches presented is a different question. The reality is that if a better approach is not allowed exposure, we will never see better climate models. So – like panning for gold – you toss a shovel of gravel in, swirl the pan and look for a shining tail behind the black sand. The one way guaranteed not to yield gold is refuse to look among the gravel for the real gold. That is the approach being taken by AGW alarmists.
Unexpected, unnecessary, jolting, bizarre. All of the above describe my take on AW’s “disclaimer”. Is it the first time? Readers habitually take such a disclaimer for granted. Indeed, many articles posted here are contentious to say the least. Fair enough, too. That’s why it’s a respected blog. The comments section is the place for opinion and that’s where the “disclaimer” belongs. That way, AW would be free to be forthright in expressing what to me appears to be implicit rejection.
I think Anthony has put in this disclaimer because Lief and his little band of sycophants don’t like the fact that some of the speakers will be discussing solar activity and how it affects our climate. That’s science for you!
Persevere!
Endeavor to persevere!
Josie Wales: “You have any food here?”
Lone Wattie: “All I have is this piece of hard rock candy. But it’s not fer eatin’. It’s just fer lookin’ through.”
I recall that Columbia Univ. allowed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak when he was visiting NY for a UN meeting. I doubt he has any publications to his name, other than some death warrants and some AGW-style dogma rants.
Resourceguy
Your comment preceded mine but I came to the same conclusion. See below.
Butterworth has done a fine job bringing UCL into disrepute by his own cowardice.
He has done much more than that. He brings into question whether he has the character to hold his position. No doubt he is academically qualified, or is he a man who just regurgitated the party line? None of these absurd things like microaggression could take root if the Deans had character and told them go away and study and if you don’t like that suffer in your jocks.
It is common knowledge that there are twitter gangs that try to bully the majority into their way of thinking. A way that has no consequences ever thought out.
I know religion is unfashionable and it has had plenty of time servers, but it also strengthens character in times of adversity.
Good luck with your conference Lord Monckton.
The global warming crowd is doing to Science in a few short years what the Church couldn’t accomplish in centuries.
As far as I can tell, Christianity has been an overwhelmingly positive influence on the development of the scientific method and western thought. Please help me understand your position that it has not.
Roger Bacon, who was a monk, was one of the first, if not the first person in Europe to set down the scientific method in his “Opus Majus” commissioned by Pope Clement iV. The Church has had a spotty history in science, but not all of it is bad.
Positive influence is a stretch, I would suggest that Christians have done a reasonably good job reconciling science with the religion. There are still a few that consider the bible as a literal interpretation.
Galileo.
You mean the scientists they didn’t threaten or burn?
John, it was the church that kept reading and writing alive. They stored manuscripts. Here is a list of 9 priests that were scientists. http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/priests_who_were_scientists/
Duncan: first you need to define “science”. There’s modern, empirical science. Then there’s also post-modern science based more on theory and mathematical models than observation.
Modern climate science is a good example of post-modern science.
Christians, especially those who had a literal reading of the Bible, were at the forefront in the development of modern science. They mainly oppose other examples of post-modern science.
John Harmsworth,
Perhaps you have studied the relevant history by listening to zealous atheists wail or something … Fermi, Mendel, Eddington, Planck, Bohr, Dalton, Maxwell, Newton, Gauss, Schrodinger … Just a few of the (unburned) followers of Jesus Christ who dabbled in science.
What’s in your wallet? ; )
Duncan,
“There are still a few that consider the bible as a literal interpretation.”
What does that mean?
The Book is positively brimming with metaphors, symbolism, parables, allegory of every conceivable sort . . which no “believer” I ever heard of didn’t recognize as non-literal communication . .
What does it mean; “a literal interpretation”? Interpretation of what?
John, pull your head out of the sand, just Google “creationist museum”.
Duncan,
(Quoting myself from several months ago, because I’m kinda lazy ; )
*I’m living in a world where scientific investigation has led to the conclusion that the universe I find myself in just popped into existence, and is so unthinkably conducive to my existence, that the best scientists can come up with is mega-gazillions of universes (for which there is zero observed evidence), to render ours “plausibly” not designed.
And, scientific investigation has led to the conclusion that even the simplest theoretically possible life (billions of hyper organized molecules) is so unthinkably unlikely to just come together by chance, that the best explanation for how it first came into existence is; Who knows? (but it wasn’t designed, that’s fer sure)
And, scientific investigation has led to the conclusion that at the quantum level, there are strict “rules” governing all events, which make no sense at all to the best minds on the planet.
I can go on, with the large scale symmetry of matter in the known universe (detected by three different satellite missions because the first and second just had to be wrong) which is called the “axis of evil” by some cosmologists/astrophysicists, ’cause we’re sitting at the center of it, and that don’t jive with the random chance alone world-view . . With an “explosion” of body designs that appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully “evolved” with zero observed evidence they existed in less “evolved” states before that . . With virtually every planet and moon in the solar system being anomalous according to the best “understanding” of what ought to be here . . etc.etc . . but why bother? if I’m speaking to hyper-dogmatic thinkers who will accept any explanation for what exists in reality-land, no matter how unfounded/illogical, as long as it keeps the God hypothesis at bay . . while calling those who don’t belong to their anti-god religion; superstitious.*
Strange as this may sound, it seems to me that it has by no stretch of the imagination been proven scientifically that we are not inhabiting a Created universe, sir. And I respectfully suggest you remain at least skeptical of the idea that we are not . .
John, so you and I both agree that the Bible is not a literal interpretation. Thanks for reaferming, we’re both in agreement.
Again, Duncan, “a literal interpretation”? Interpretation of what?
Of the “Bible”. Are we noto talking about the same thing?
Consider please, as but one example; The book says (2 Peter 3:8)
*But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.*
That one sentence, renders it perfectly questionable what exactly is meant by a day, our time wise, in the Creation story that appears first in a Bible. It does not limit the possibilities to a thousand years even, it’s a saying, which detaches our sense of the passing of time, from His. Within the lingo of the Book, it could be one day each, or many thousands of years each, to us, if we were there, so to speak.
And, the opening verse; *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.* . . does not place those Actions on the first day, necessarily . . (as I read the text). It is possible to my mind, that what we are seeing is an account of what might be called a restoration of a world somehow ruined/rendered chaotic.
But even further, If one thinks in terms of a “world” human’s might create, like a computer simulation sort of affair, it is not necessary that all objects begin in a single spot . . or “evolve” in any particular order before any “entity” could be introduced into it.
If we had the power to generate self aware entities in such a virtual world, and those entities at some point took up trying to figure out their space-time continuum (scientific investigation), they might come to realize they were in a created universe . . but they might get all sorts of erroneous ideas about their “deep-time” past . . if they assume there was a deep-time past at all.
Anyway, my point is that the Book is far from simple in what it presents, and what the ramifications of what it presents might be. Everything would be up to the Creator, just as it would be in a man-made world. And the Book makes no bones at all about this, and He does just as He pleases, not as we might assume or imagine He did, based on what we can detect in our limited view, with an assumption that everything was generated and progressed in a ricocheting pool-ball sort of fashion our physicists are essentially compelled to imagine it has unfolded. He could have literally made it in six literal days, to appear just as He wanted us to perceive . . so we would be having this very discussion at this very moment of time . .
Just sayin’ ; )
John, so we agree again, your interpretation is very different from other peoples literal interpretation. As my original post stated, Christians have intertwined (“reconciled”) their beliefs with science successfully without detracting from their beliefs. Can we all just go to bed?
Duncan, I never agreed to your previous supposed agreement . . to me, (for reasons having to do with what I experienced in reality-land about eighteen years ago), that Book is an actual communication from an actual Creator . . but of course I agree there are many ways to interpret many aspects of such an thing as that Book.
“As my original post stated, Christians have intertwined (“reconciled”) their beliefs with science successfully without detracting from their beliefs.”
Sure, this was the part I responded to; “There are still a few that consider the bible as a literal interpretation.”
It still makes little sense to me, but hopefully you can see why, now . .
(It’s 9:30 here, and I won’t be going to bed for at least a few hours, but do sleep well my patient friend ; )
Proffessor Butterworth add another crony to Cameron,s honours list
Very well done, Lord Monckton – as always.
I would love to be at the conference but, sadly, age and distance (north of Scotland) precludes me.
Fear not, because the entire conference will be recorded, and the lectures & etc shall appear in due course on YouTube shortly afterwards. With their previous conference in Paris last year, they actually uploaded videos to a WordPress site as MP4s which can be viewed directly or downloaded. Later on some YouTube users independently made those into YouTube videos, and they received thousands of views subsequently.
The “Paris Climate Challenge 2015” featured some of the same people, and readers may view those lectures in video at the official website of that particular conference. We expect that there will be a similar website for the London Conference put up on the Web in due course.
see : https://pcc15.org/about/
for Original Paris Conference Videos.
Alternatively search YouTube for
Paris PCC15
if that’s what you prefer.
Is there any likelihood of the press covering all or part of the conference? Have invitations gone to Monbiot, Harrabin, Shukman etc. and, if so, have any replied or asked to send alternates?
…and, of course, the cameras panned in close to make a small group of screaming animals look larger
It’s all about who can scream the loudest and longest
Excellent post but as Fozzie Bear would say “Hey I’ve never seen the sun come up in the west!”
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fozzie+bear+hey+i%27ve+never+seen+the+sun+come+up+in+the+west&qpvt=fozzie+bear+hey+i%27ve+never+seen+the+sun+come+up+in+the+west&view=detail&mid=05EE99F2C6F666D22A3505EE99F2C6F666D22A35&FORM=VRDGAR
Boy, I knew Mr. Monckton was good at words, but he’s really, really good when he’s a bit pissed off.
Besides the excellent information – I read all of his posts just to see what the “word of the day” is…
Just watch their (British) politicians in action. They can insult you with the best of elegance and make you feel they are agreeing with you. Puts our North American politicians to shame. Monckton is cut from the same cloth.
“The word of the day is….”
inspissate:
verb (used with or without object), inspissated, inspissating.
1.
to thicken, as by evaporation; make or become dense.
He even included a quote from “My Fair Lady”.
Perhaps His Lordship obtained his title by birth, but more than many others, he honorably distinguishes it by merit!
Congratulations on going forth with the conference. The list of presenters is impressive. I am sure the event will amazingly interesting and productive.
All the best in pursuing the professional misconduct charge as to the craven actions and extraordinarily ignorant statements of Professor B.
Somebody please tell me the difference between the average tenured professor and a prostitute. Seems to me both are f…ng other people for money. Well, actually, the prostitute seems to be the honest about it.
“Somebody please tell me the difference between the average tenured professor and a prostitute.”
While I understand your sentiment, I’d be reluctant to tar so many with the same brush. I am in fact married to one of those “prostitutes”, and she’s generally pretty level-headed. Not that I agree with the concept of tenure, but not all tenured professors are “useful idiots” like the villains of Lord Monckton’s article. I wouldn’t want CAGW skeptics like us to turn into Democrats, who view people only as members of groups, rather than individuals.
(And I just did it myself, didn’t I? Dang!) 🙂
Well said Gary.
Academic tenure is noble in concept. The agreement is that academics will tell the politically indifferent and dispassionate truth about the results of their studies and scholarship. Their teaching would also and likewise be indifferent to politics. In return the University would not fire them upon any pressure applied by politically partisan groups that objected on ideological grounds (or any other political grounds).
The faculty side of the agreement went by the boards starting in the 1970s, when outright political partisans were hired into academic positions. They were hired in response to fierce accusations that the universities accommodated genocide (i.e., the Vietnam War) and racism (i.e., Jim Crow and slavery) because their faculties gave no indications of passionate opposition.
The studies of the newly hired politicized faculties took the form of tendentious partisan elaborations, in which their “theory” assumed their partisan conclusions, and their “research” was always confirmatory. The most blatant of these are the ‘cultural studies’ departments, which were designed for people lacking the mental acuity for true scholarship.
The ruination became complete when the University deans, provosts, and presidents signally and virtually universally, did not display the moral courage to enforce their side of the tenure agreement. They stood by as partisan faculty published passionate and partisan nonsense, and partisan search committees hired only political fellow-travelers, radicalizing entire departments.
For nearly two generations now, this double failure has dominated American universities, pretty much destroying them as sources of knowledge, apart from the hard sciences and engineering. Climate science has brought the rot very close to the sciences, though.
The only way to reverse the corruption is if the tenure agreement is again enforced. Partisan faculty would then be required either to depoliticize their teaching and research (hardly likely), or the politicized departments closed, or irredeemably political faculty invited to leave, all no matter the screams of partisan outrage.
Don’t hold your breath.
Pat Frank August 1, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Rather than hold your breath, it would be easier to remove the accreditation of that department or indeed the university. Then the tenure ceases to be useful as there will be no students to indoctrinate.
Pat,
When you said: “They stood by as partisan faculty published passionate and partisan nonsense, and partisan search committees hired only political fellow-travelers, radicalizing entire departments” you were describing just one of the methods the wing-nuts have use to engineer an almost complete takeover of Academia. Starting in the early ’70s when they first let them in to solve a perceived problem, Universities have become one of the best examples of Conquest’s Second Law:
“I wouldn’t want CAGW skeptics like us to turn into Democrats, who view people only as members of groups, rather than individuals.
(And I just did it myself, didn’t I? Dang!) :-)”
It’s a perfectly human reaction. A survival instinct. Everybody does it to one extent or another. The problem is, stereotyping can cause our minds to become rigid or unaccepting of all the other information available to us that might contradict that stereotype, so we must fight our own biases continually, if we want to get as close to the truth as we can, and not delude ourselves by taking the easy route of stereotyping.
The problem is not tenure, but that it is too difficult to fire someone who has tenure. Tenure should provide a measure of protection; it should not be a blank check so that a person is virtually untouchable. If you lose the ability or desire to fire people, many will become lazy and corrupt. Much like anonymous message board trolls who use the cloak of anonymity to cause trouble; there is little fear of repercussion so they do whatever they want.
Without tenure it would be easy for university administrators to get rid of any academics who did not hold the “correct” views on climate change or any other subject.
From what I’ve read on this site, academics have found alternative ways to “silence” those who do not hold “correct views”. If you can’t publish, you perish.
Tenure, both at the university level, and in the US at the secondary level, needs a major revision, if not elimination.
The paymasters are the problem. They see the provision of funding as their only responsibility. After that they simply announce ‘we are funding ‘world leading’ science’ because that is what the recipients tell them.
Time to send in the Red Teams!
I really like your approach to calling out the coward Mr. Monckton. It makes them seem all the more cowardly when they don’t respond. Bravo.
All too true about our illustrious alma mater unfortunately. Groupthink too on Brexit unfortunately with some honourable exceptions (below). Hard to believe that Cambridge has more science Nobel prizes than the rest of EU minus Germany.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/english-revolt
I’m not sure if it’s still true, but we used to boast that Trinity had more Nobel prizes than France and only one of them was a peace prize. There were some giants of the hard sciences and it was exciting to be associated with them. Newton is hard to beat 🙂 I suppose that the traitors of the cold war should have prepared me, but the current lot don’t inspire me.
Not quite true alas (may need some updating).
Trinity 32 (5 present in College in 2012) [30]
Cambridge 89 [84]
Oxford 58 [48]
USA 338 [305]
UK 119 [94]
Germany 103 [87]
France 59 [35]
Sweden 29 [16]
Switzerland 25 [20]
Italy 20 [13]
Square brackets ‘proper Nobels’ excluding Literature and Peace.
Doncha know…. Jonathon Butterworth can say ATLAS and LHC and .. wait for it… Higgs field.
So naturally that makes him an expert in climate sensitivity analysis and beyond reproach so he can look down his nose at Lord Chris with contempt. You see, when you play with the big toys, YOU ARE A GOD!!!
Except he isn’t. He, because he is in large collaborative big science, has to make the appearance that he is a socialist money spreading internationalist diversity elite. Even if he isn’t.
Hard to get along in a big science lab if you don’t have some UN street cred.
Well he is a wh0re who sold his dedication to learning “hard things” and objective debate for the big science gravy train.
He is a forgettable man trying to fit into his lab of group think wealth redistributors, albeit awkwardly. He is nobody we need to remember.
Butterworth, you didn’t buy a single bit of respect. They all still think you are a dick and they still snicker about you when you leave the conversation.
Just been on the Conway hall site
https://conwayhall.org.uk/
nothing about climate conference in Sept ??
And I am getting an Error Code 403 on Lord Monckton’s link too 🙁 That is on Chrome.
Strangely, the link works fine on IE
same error firefox
This is an issue to do with Windows XP principally, and the fact that the site uses a deprecated protocol and cipher. Google Chrome now turns all http requests into https for so called “security” reasons, and no new security updates are available for Windows XP users of Google Chrome. This is Google’s decision not to update XP users beyond Version 49.0.2623.112 but XP Users can view such pages in Internet Explorer, and Microsoft have no plans to kill off XP functionality, and even though XP is now officially unsupported, there are millions of XP systems worldwide, installed on old hardware, and this won’t change anytime soon. My opinion is that Google have blundered in not continuing to support those users, and will have lost revenue as a result.
Still users can still have Google Chrome and its useful plugins, and still use Ye Olde Internet Explorer for http requests. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but Google might at least try harder.
Another part to the issue of Error 403 and such at these links, is the fact that sites which use “Cloudflare” DNS nameservers can not then even resolve sites which have the deprecated cipher suite. However this does not affect users whose ISP also use particular DNS Nameservers.
UNIVERSAL SOLUTION IF YOU GET THIS ERROR
Use an online “Web Proxy” to access such sites.
Such Proxy server networks, have their own DNS
arrangements, and furthermore Chrome / Firefox &etc,
cannot tell, or even care that the ultimate target site
has the “wrong” cipher or unsecured servers & etc.
Proxy server will connect to target site even if its
cipher and protocols are outdated and uncertified.
Your local browser and ISP see only the Proxy Site
webservers, and they are not using Windows XP,
and do not have deprecated cipher suite. HMA does
For example see this encrypted URL to Conway Hall
Which will work whatever your O/S or Browser type.
https://5.hidemyass.com/ip-1/encrypted/c8zN4tcsDbtVXdsVsepVtmquhFv85fJsOAeE7Rc_Hfk9
Other Web Proxies are available, but HMA
is well known and trusted by many millions.
Even after all that, it is the case that Conway Hall
still does not list this event on their official pages.
OK encrypted link had expired when I tried it,
but paste conwayhall.org.uk url in the box at site.
The link to the conference webpage works fine with Google Chrome,a PC and old MS software.
https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/
For those with a problematic connection, here’s the program:
Thursday 8 September: Natural drivers of climate changes
Session 1: Planet Earth in the cosmos
09.00 Athem Alsabti: Effects of Nearby Supernovae on Atmosphere and Climate
09.20 Oliver Manuel: Neutron Repulsion *
Session 2: Influence of the Sun and the major planets on the Earth’s climate
10.00 Nils-Axel Mörner: An introduction to planetary-solar-terrestrial interaction
10.10 Roger Tattersall & Richard Salvador: Does solar system orbital motion and resonance synchronize solar variation, LOD and ENSO?
10.20 Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller: A new planetary temperature model and its implication for the Greenhouse theory
10.40 Nicola Scafetta: Multi-frequency spectral coherence between planetary and global surface temperature oscillations
11.00 Jan-Erik Solheim: Ice margins, the Sun and the planets
11.20 Per Strandberg: Drivers of ENSO variability
Session 3: Ocean variability
13.00 Fred Goldberg: Are the ocean currents affecting our climate?
13.10 Martin Hovland: Documented pH and temperature anomalies in the deep ocean *
13.30 Wyss Yim: Sub-aerial and submarine volcanic eruptions and climatic variability
Session 4: Natural influences on climate
15.00 Peter Ward: Ozone depletion, not greenhouse warming, caused recent warming *
15.20 Hans Jelbring: The dominant physical processes that cause climate change
15.40 Alex Pope: Ice on land
16.20 Fabio Pistella and Leonello Serva: The CHIC project of ICG
Friday 9 September: The temperature plot and its consequences
Session 5: The greenhouse effect and anthropogenic global warming
09.00 Jan-Erik Solheim: Result of a greenhouse experiment
09.20 Francois Gervais: Tiny CO2 warming challenged by Earth greening
09.40 Fred Goldberg: Does human CO2 emission change the climate? Faith vs. facts
10.20 Albrecht Glatzle: Reconsidering livestock’s role in climate change *
10.40 Pamela Klein: Is climate science serious?
11.00 Benoît Rittaud: Epistemology of Climate Change
11.20 Piers Corbyn: The total failure of the ManMade Climate Change story
13.00 Thomas Wysmuller: Sea-level rise and CO2
13.20 Maria Araujo: Sea level data in the Iberian Peninsula
13.40 Nils-Axel Mörner: Modelled vs observed sea-level changes
Session 6: Implications of the catastrophist anthropogenic global warming hypothesis
14.10 Madhav Khandekar: Climate change and extreme weather: projection, perception and reality *
14.30 Philip Foster: Climate policy, geoethics and the developing nations
14.50 Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: Genocidal climate science *
Congratulations to Louisiana State. University College, London, my old college, disgusts me and fills me with contempt.
Prime Suspect for this McCarthyism must be Chris Rapley, professor of climate science and professional bootlicker to the powerful. When head of the London Science Museum he was asked by then Environment Minister Ed Milliband to put on a quick and dirty global warming exhibition to further Ed’s political career, which Rapley did, hiring out the work to a PR firm.The disastrous result was ridiculed here at WUWT.
Two years ago he put on a (state subsidised) one man show at the Royal Court theatre, London, in which he burbled about ice cores and his grandchildren like a man possessed (of his own importance). When I published a transcript he put the lawyers on me.
If anyone has any ideas how UCL can be shamed about their Stalinist behaviour I’d be pleased to hear from them.
See my comment below about hate speech.
Link to the conference Extended Abstracts failed on my system (I use Firefox). Have you a solution?
Thanks, Robin
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/london-conference-volume.pdf
More info at Tallbloke’s
I realize that the loss of fundamental values such as honesty, honor and above all, curiosity at our universities give me no hope for the future of western civilization. I believe that we have lost our foundation. That was our only defense against superstition. I guess I am lucky to be able to teach my children all they need to know in math and physics but what about those kids who’s parents don’t have the extra decade of education but would like to give their kids a chance to move up in life?
G’gld Butterworth, U.C. and got this:
Department Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience & Dept. Psychology
Institution University College London
Address 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR
Telephone 020-7679-1150
Home Page
Email
Centre of Educational Neuroscience
Current Research and Interests
Cognitive psychology and neuropsychology of numbers and arithmetic. Neural network models of reading and arithmetic. Reading and acquired dyslexia in English, Japanese and Chinese.
WTF does he know about the Science in question? What right to even open his mouth on same? What right to reject space for a Conference centred on another Professor’s Science?
If I had my druthers, I’d fire this wanker pronto.
What wd you say, Professor, if the positions were reversed?
Another dismal blight against the principles of open, honest, collaborative debate in fields of Scientific endeavour.
Sir, you are a blight.
As a Fellow of UCL I am appalled.
Try this again…. (language moderated)
G’gld Butterworth, U.C. and got this:
Department Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience & Dept. Psychology
Institution University College London
Address 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR
Telephone 020-7679-1150
Home Page
Email
Centre of Educational Neuroscience
Current Research and Interests
Cognitive psychology and neuropsychology of numbers and arithmetic. Neural network models of reading and arithmetic. Reading and acquired dyslexia in English, Japanese and Chinese.
What does he know about the Science in question? What right to even open his mouth on same? What right to reject space for a Conference centred on another Professor’s Science?
If I had my druthers, I’d fire this interfering busybody pronto.
What wd you say, Professor, if the positions were reversed?
Another dismal blight against the principles of open, honest, collaborative debate in fields of Scientific endeavour.
Sir, shame on you!
Tit for tat! Many qualified physical scientists are now wondering what is wrong with the neurology professor’s brain.