By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The ever-wonderful Joanne Nova has been in touch from Australia. She has brilliantly redesigned the front page of Nature. It was so well done that when I saw it my first instinct was that it was genuine, and I went straight on to the web to find more details of Nature’s story on “Blacklisted scientists you must ignore”.
Meanwhile, one of the many eminent scientists on the widely-circulated Nature Communications hate-list has sent me a copy of his own complaint to that “learned” journal. He writes:
“On 13 August 2019, three UC Merced faculty, AM Peterson, EM Vincent and AL Westerling, published a paper in Nature Communications. The paper refers to ‘climate contrarians’, a pejorative term. Your university put out a press release, referring to ‘deniers’, a term referencing those who question the historical validity of the Holocaust.
“I do not doubt that the Holocaust happened. I was one of the first to show that climate change is real and human-made. I have contributed to several reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and I have advised climate policy formation and design in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States of America.
“I was therefore surprised that your colleagues labelled me a ‘contrarian’ and a ‘denier’.
“The authors, employees of UC Merced, (a) collected data about me without my permission; and (b) disseminated said data without anonymization.
“I also believe that (c) the use of pejorative terms violated your code of ethics.
“I hereby raise a complaint about (a), (b) and (c).”
In a further email, the complainant points out, most helpfully, that the collection of data about anyone without permission and the dissemination of that data without anonymization are offences under the Data Protection Act 2018. I shall certainly make good use of that information, for Nature Communications is published in London, though the publisher is headquartered in Berlin.
The complainant explains that the 2018 Act implements the Directive of our unelected SU masters on General Data Protection and that, therefore, German has an Act similar to the British legislation.
We now have a lawyer advising us, so that, in the event that Nature Communications and the “University” of California at Merced fail to reply substantively or at all to our letters of complaint, the police and other authorities will be informed and the suits for fraud, libel, breach of right of privacy and breach of data protection law will be lodged.
On rereading the outrageously libellous press release touting the purported “study” and issued by the “University”, I have written to the author of the press release, with a copy to the Chancellor ad interim, as follows:
Notice of intended prosecution: Fraud and libel by you
My attention has been drawn to a fraudulent, libellous press release written and widely circulated by you, and posted by you under your name on the website of the “University” of California at Merced. The press release was circulated by you to the following among others: The Straits Times, Yahoo.com, French newswire, Newsweek, Hurriyet (Turkey), The World News Net, msn.com, Spacedaily.com, japantoday.com, flipboardcom, the Brussels Times, Malaysia News, Today (Lithuania), thenews.com, Egyptindependent.com, desmog.co.uk, The Daily Star (Liberia), The Business Times, Agence France Presse, Foodevolution.com, phys.org, 24matins.uk, jen.jiji.com, The Youth Times, goldrushcam.com, Cosmos Magazine, Yahoo News Australia, etc., etc., etc.
In the offending press release, you have described me and many other climate researchers who disagree with you on the question of global warming, and whose names were listed in the material linked to the press release, as “climate change deniers”. This term, with its deliberate and malicious overtone of pejorative comparison with Holocaust denial, is repeated at least five times in your press release – an indication of the extent and depth of your malice.
You also describe us as people who “dismiss climate change”, have a “legitimacy they haven’t earned” and “lack scientific training”, as “a relative handful of non-experts”, as “not scientists”, as having “very thin credentials”, as “not in the same league with top scientists, as “not even in the league of the average career climate scientist”, as “spreading misinformation” or “amplified misinformation” (the latter term being prominent and in color in a large, emboldened subheading, and then repeated later in the text), as “not accepting the results of climate science”, as having “biased judgments … even when faced with documented facts”, as prone to “political cues, ideological biases, cultural worldviews and even personal weather experiences”, as saying “climate change doesn’t exist”, as advancing “not a credible argument or a means of balancing”, as guilty of “false balance” and “disinformation”, as “climate contrarians”, as guilty of “acute misrepresentation of information aimed at misleading the public for political gain” and of “widespread disinformation efforts”, as implicitly involved in “a well-financed propaganda campaign on behalf of conservative fossil fuel interests”, as “non-experts presiding over scientific discourse”, and as “counterpoints to legitimate, experienced and disciplined climate scientists” who are “given a measure of credibility they do not deserve”.
By this letter I give notice that, subject to anything you may say within the next seven days, I propose to report you for fraud to the prosecuting authorities in the United Kingdom, where your press release has been widely circulated, in the United States, where you perpetrated your fraud, and internationally to Interpol. I wrote yesterday to the Chancellor of your institution, drawing his attention to the lies and misrepresentations in your press release and inviting him to withdraw it. I now make the same request to you, for we hold you personally no less responsible than the Chancellor of your “university” for the words you have written.
You should be aware that, following a letter from me yesterday to Nature Communications, the “learned” journal in which the “peer-reviewed” “research” “study” that is the subject of your press release was published, that journal has removed all reference to the offending purported “study” from its homepage and has added to the page containing the purported “study” a paragraph indicating that it is investigating “a number of criticisms related to this work”, and has removed altogether the list of names of the alleged “deniers”, including my name. A facsimile of that paragraph, from the journal’s website, is below:
I should be grateful if you would forthwith arrange for the prominent link from the “university’s” homepage to the offending press release to be removed, and for the press release either to be removed or amended to take not of the fact that the editors of the journal in which the offending purported “study” was published are investigating our criticisms of it.
I should also be grateful if, within seven days, you would publish on the website of your “university” an apology, retraction and undertaking not to repeat the libels, giving it prominence no less than that which you gave to the offending press release, and circulating it no less widely. Otherwise, you will be reported as an accomplice to this elaborate conspiracy to defraud, as mentioned above, and I may without further notice issue proceedings for libel.
A copy of this letter goes to the chancellor ad interim, who has not yet replied to my letter to him. I should warn you – and him – that the courts regard failure to reply to a letter before action such as this as reprehensible.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley