A summary by John Abraham of his thorough demolition of Monckton was published last month in the Guardian, along with commentary by George Monbiot.

Now Monckton has responded with 446 questions for Abraham. Just to be clear here, “446 questions” is not hyperbole for “lots of questions”. There are 446 questions in an 86 page pdf. And what questions they are. Eli Rabbett is already enjoying himself here and here. I decided to pick out three questions to answer and question Monckton on, and let you guys have fun with the rest in the comments.


466: Will you, therefore, now be good enough to take down your talk from whatever public places it has reached; to pay $10,000 to the United States Association of the Order of Malta for its charitable work in Haiti; to ensure that your University, which failed upon my request to have your talk taken off its servers at once, pays $100,000 to the same charity for the same purpose; and publicly to disseminate a written apology and retraction substantially in the following terms:

“The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

“We, St. Thomas University, Minnesota, and John Abraham of that University, retract, apologize to Lord Monckton for, and undertake never again to repeat all or any part of, the 83-minute talk with 115 slides entitled “But Chris Monckton Said …”, that we prepared without notification to him and then widely disseminated via the University’s servers and other media.

“We have agreed that, in token of our good faith, by 30 June 2010 without fail we shall have paid between us US$110,000 to the United States Association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta for its charitable work in the reconstruction and relief of Haiti.”

No. How’s that lawsuit against Al Gore coming along?

17: Please provide a full academic resume. Though you have described yourself as a “professor” (3, 62) more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?

In US usage, “professor” means any of the flavours of professor (assistant, associate or full). Though you have described yourself as a member of the House of Lords, isn’t it true that you are not, in fact, a member of the House of Lords? Is this why you have stopped using the portcullis, the insignia of Paliament on your documents?

394: Are you aware of results such as that of Pinker et al. (2005), and of several other researchers and data gathering organizations? Pinker found that in 18 years and 1 month from 1983-2001 a naturally-occurring global brightening, attributable at least in part to a reduction in cloud cover at low latitudes and altitudes, had increased the flux of solar radiation reaching the surface by 2.9 Watts per square meter, an increase sufficient to account for all of the “global warming” over the period?

Pinker did find global brightening, but this does not account of warming over that period, because a change of solar flux at the surface is not the same as radiative forcing. Why do you persist in this claim when Pinker herself explained that you were wrong?

For those of you thinking that nobody could possibly take Monckton seriously, I give you the discussion thread at WUWT on Monckton’s 446 questions.

And if you can’t get enough Monckton, here’s Bob Ward puncturing Monckton’s fantasies about introducing Thatcher to climate change.

Comments

  1. #1 Graham
    July 14, 2010

    As a member of Staff at UNSW, how much of your paid University time do you spend waging your nasty vendettas, Tim?

  2. #2 Gareth
    July 14, 2010

    Rather than flood the University with mails, I have posted this:

    We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton’s misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.

    If you support Abraham, please visit Hot Topic and leave a comment in support.

  3. #3 savemejeebus
    July 14, 2010

    When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound you fist repeatedly on the table and yell like hell.

  4. #4 James Haughon
    July 14, 2010

    Savemejeebus, you left out “and drape yourself in the Union Jack”.

  5. #5 Mike Pope
    July 14, 2010

    Thank you Dibble @ 78. George Monbiot makes a delightfully entertaining contribution which ends with:

    “The question which bugs me is this: why, when it seems so obvious that men like Monckton, Morner and Taylor have serious issues with reality, are so many people prepared to follow them?”

    Seems to me that their followers, lacking any scientific material or conviction, seek to justify their fervent hope that global warming and all its consequences are not happening. That hope is of course entirely misplaced.

  6. #6 ChrisC
    July 14, 2010

    Graham sez:

    As a member of Staff at UNSW, how much of your paid University time do you spend waging your nasty vendettas, Tim?

    Just a handy hint, don’t play this game with academics. Working evenings, weekends, holidays and getting paid far less than equivalent positions in industry are par for the course. How Tim spends his working day are an issue for him and UNSW. You don’ get a say.

  7. #7 Gneiss
    July 14, 2010

    Although they must be getting a lot of noxious mail, I believe that John and the administrators at St Thomas still welcome positive letters — so don’t give up on writing those individually.

  8. #8 JennieL
    July 14, 2010

    Gareth @102:
    Thanks for setting that up, that’s great. Comment left.

    Graham@101:

    As a member of Staff at UNSW, how much of your paid University time do you spend waging your nasty vendettas, Tim?

    LOL! Graham is trying to launch a Monckton-style question-diatribe at our host, but ran out of crazy after just one question. Keep going, mate, you only need four hundred-odd more lumps of batshit-insanity – I believe in you!!

  9. #9 JennieL
    July 14, 2010

    Bernard J:

    It’s odd, isn’t it, that whether it’s Plimer being deconstructed by Monbiot, or Curtin by a host of Deltoid posters, or Monckton by Abraham, they do not actually set to and address the meat of the questions put to them pointing out the flaws in their arguments.

    Rather, they prevaricate and posture with further nonsense of their own…

    There seems to be a pattern…

    And Marion Delgado:

    It reminds me of Plimer’s nutty (please … one demanded Monbiot show him “million year time flitches”) questions for Monbiot.

    Yes, I was reminded of the Plimer ‘questions’ for Monbiot too, as well as several ‘debates’ I’ve had with footsoldiers in the denialist Orc Hordes. The response to simple questions is an attempt to drown the questioner in bafflegab and bullshit. I don’t see how it can possibly work as an intimidation tactic, although that seems to be what they are intending. It could just be a version of berserker running-in-circles-screaming, to convince the questioner that it’s just not worth it (giving up in disgust is still giving up!).

    But I have a hunch that it’s also about playing to an audience (the orc hordes). Monckton, Plimer etc. know they’re not going to get any respect from the legitimate scientific community, and the orc hordes appear to approve of this sort of childish behaviour, so acting bugf*ck nuts has a positive payoff.

  10. #10 Rattus Norvegicus
    July 14, 2010

    After reading the first 150 or so questions of his Lardship’s tome (I even to a crack a answering some at Eli’s) I was thinking that maybe he should stop using the portcullis and crown and start using the portcullis and clown. All it needs is the flaming red hair!

  11. #11 John Mashey
    July 15, 2010

    Well, we all know that various websites incite legions of flying howler monkeys to attack people. This is the first one I’ve noticed where someone made an explicit call to do so, i.e, Monckton, guest-posted at WUWT
    that is not just a post in a thread, which someone might claim they hadn’t noticed.

    Meanwhile, read the comments on that thread, as poster proudly repeat what they’ve written in support of the Viscount.

  12. #12 James Haughton
    July 15, 2010

    John Mashey, have you ever thought of asking ScienceBlogs for your own blog? I’d read it! And it seems like they now have some holes in the ranks to fill post-Pepsi-debacle.

  13. #13 Passing Wind
    July 15, 2010

    Hey guys,

    Too busy congratulating Abraham for backing down to notice http://www.skepticalscience.com has removed all but one of Abraham’s threads.

    My, doesn’t Abraham’s watered-down presentation sound like someone has kicked the stuffing out of him? I certainly hope he, and his university, have deep pockets. It doesn’t look like they have a leg to stand on.

  14. #14 Tim Lambert
    July 15, 2010

    Windy, you are even more delusional than usual. See Abraham on Skeptical Science [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html) and [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html).

  15. #15 chek
    July 15, 2010

    Please explain where you get that moronic observation from Windy.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html
    6th June 2010

    http://skepticalscience.com/Monckton-tries-to-censor-John-Abraham.html
    15th July 2010

    And the reponses from professor Abraham and St Thomas to me don’t concur in the slightest with your alternative fantasy version of reality, that you probably became infected with by some radiative transfer process from supporting your alternative fantasy reality “Lord”.

    In fact St. Thomas is more than prepared to stand up to Munchkin’s orc hordes to protect Professor (how the wattbutts hate that title) Abrahams academic freedom.

  16. #16 Passing Wind
    July 15, 2010

    Here’s just 2 threads that no longer appear in the index or through the search box.

    [Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html)
    [Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Warm-Period.html)

    You will also not that the last thread is Part-IV. I don’t have links or the others, but I’d say it’s a safe bet top suggest there are three previous threads.

    You version of reality has been redected, just like Abraham’s threads.

    Moronic. Yes, that fits you well.

  17. #17 chek
    July 15, 2010

    Windy, [your claim was](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/i_think_that_they_might_have_t.php#comment-2659432) “Too busy congratulating Abraham for backing down to notice http://www.skepticalscience.com has removed all but one of Abraham’s threads”.

    It is enough for me (and Tim) to show the speciousness of that claim without doing a full inventory. Moron.

  18. #18 Passing Wind
    July 15, 2010

    Ah chek, congratulations! You are as disingenuous as you are stupid. Neither thread is listed in the thread index, or available though the site’s search engine.

    Because I’m a nice guy, let me help you out. Here are some of Abraham’s guest threads that are no longer listed, but still exist if you know the URL.

    1. Can’t find link to Monckton Chronicles Part 1 if such thread ever existed.

    2. [Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-II-Here-Comes-the-Sun.html)

    3. [Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-III-Acid-Reflux.html)

    4. [Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Warm-Period.html)

    5. [Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html)

    I wonder if Tim is planning to buckle as well?

  19. #19 Adrian
    July 15, 2010

    I also note that the good Viscount is claiming in his latest petulant attempt to silence Professor Abraham that “many climate-extremist websites are now ruing their earlier and too hasty endorsement of Abraham’s libels”.

    I wonder how he knows about all of this ruing?

    No doubt by contacting the owners of such websites personally by use of Alexander Graham Bell’s wondrous invention and asking them. Or, perhaps, by making shit up?

    (as the gas-bag above did)

    Can I suggest that as many such “climate-extremist websites” as possible now reaffirm their support by linking (or embedding) Professor Abraham’s presentations, thus demonstrating that the Leaping Lord is totally full’a’sh*t and that support for the good professor is as strong as ever?

  20. #20 chek
    July 15, 2010

    [Windy,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/i_think_that_they_might_have_t.php#comment-2659508) your problems with expressing what you mean are yours alone, but a familiar [denialist tactic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)

  21. #21 TrueSceptic
    July 15, 2010

    102 Gareth,

    Thanks for doing this.

  22. #22 Stu
    July 15, 2010

    Chek, goalpost moving aside, it does beg the question as to why those posts are no longer listed. I expect the reason isn’t because some stirred up denialist scum from WUWT have been making a racket about it, and it has a less retarded explaination.

  23. #23 jakerman
    July 15, 2010

    Speaking of backdowns:

    >*Too busy congratulating Abraham for backing down to notice http://www.skepticalscience.com has removed all but one of Abraham’s threads.*

    Following several examples proving Windy wrong, he starts his retreat:

    >*Here’s just 2 threads that no longer appear in the index or through the search box.*

    And Windy manages to back down again whilst accusing other of being disingenuous:

    >*Here are some of Abraham’s guest threads that are no longer listed, but still exist if you know the URL.*

    Quite an embarrassing display demonstrating Windy’s usual lack self-awareness.

  24. #24 TrueSceptic
    July 15, 2010

    Just to add, amongst the delusional drivel at [WUWT](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down/#comments), there some good comments, particularly from Steve Milesworthy, someone I know from the Channel 4 science forums.

  25. #25 chek
    July 15, 2010

    [Stu said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/i_think_that_they_might_have_t.php#comment-2659548) ” it does beg the question as to why those posts are no longer listed.”

    Stu, I’ve never found internal blog searches to be that great. Which is odd as many of them are powered by Google, yet a normal Google web search usually yields more comprehensive results from the website in question.

    For the record, here’s what a Google web search turns up at skepticalscience:

    [1](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html) 2nd June 2010

    [2](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-II-Here-Comes-the-Sun.html) 4th June 2010

    Note that this article commences with: “In our last entry, we learned about Monckton’s careless interpretation of Arctic sea ice and a misunderstanding of data from national ice data centers.” So we can deduce that Professor Abraham’s article on Arctic Sea Ice could be termed as “Monckton Chronicles part 1″.

    [3](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html) 6th June 2010

    [4](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-III-Acid-Reflux.html) 8th June 2010

    [5](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Warm-Period.html) 11th June 2010

    All of which destroy Windy’s original claim and its laughable implication that skepticascience (or anybody else) is running scared of a jerk like Monckton.

  26. #26 Jody Aberdein
    July 15, 2010

    I see your Lord and raise you a Prince.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/prince-charles-attacks-climate-sceptics

    Albeit one who believes in homeopathy. Could be less than useful.

  27. #27 John
    July 15, 2010

    Doesn’t Prince Charles realise Monckton is a member of the House Of Lords and therefore an instant expert on everything?

    He won the Falklands War for crying out loud!

  28. #28 Passing Wind
    July 15, 2010

    Chek,

    At least 5 of Abraham’s guest posts at skepticalsciece.com are no longer listed on the site. They have been redacted from the thread index and the thread archive. So pack up your straw man and shut up.

    As stu said. It does beg the question why they are no longer listed.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    July 15, 2010

    The best thing that King Charles could do to assist in combatting the Denialati is to have Monckton’s title revoked.

    It wouldn’t shut the potty fellow up, but it would certainly take the wind out of his sails.

  30. #30 Wow
    July 15, 2010

    Wow. Windy just blew those goalposts all over the place!

    Oh flatulent one, why would Tim shut up or back down? Especially when you’ve never done either, despite a greater need of doing so?

  31. #31 Stu
    July 15, 2010

    >King Charles

    Pah, he wishes! His mum is still Queen ;-)

  32. #32 Passing Wind
    July 15, 2010

    Holy Cow? No, it’s Wow.

    The ol’ moving the goal posts defense. That’s the 10 millionth time some sycophant, like you, has claimed that on deltoid this minute.

    I wouldn’t dare touch the goal posts or there wouldn’t be anything to keep your back straight.

    Why Wow, Wow? Wow wee Wow is short for “What a Wanker?”.

    Why not change you name. Bow wow suit a little yapping mutt like you much better.

  33. #33 Adrian
    July 16, 2010

    Is Passing Wind doing the blog equivalent of drunk dialling now?

    I didn’t even begin to understand his last post (other than to notice his epic fail acronym).

  34. #34 Ezzthetic
    July 16, 2010

    It does beg the question why they are no longer listed.

    Well .. actually, it raises the question, but never mind.

  35. #35 Wow
    July 16, 2010

    Aye, Il Flatulente seems punch drunk. Maybe he’s still hitting his wife…

  36. #36 ligne
    July 16, 2010

    i’m still trying to wrap my head round the whole “Abraham’s posts have been taken down from Skeptical Science. these links to them proves it!” argument.

    but i guess i should just accept it without question. wouldn’t want to be one of those sycophants who are posting here 10m times a second.

  37. #37 JasonW
    July 16, 2010

    Farter, as previously mentioned blog site search boxes are pretty unreliable. That’s a fault of the infrastructure, not of the blogger. If searched in Google proper, all Abraham articles on Skeptical Science appear. Your already weak argument

    Too busy congratulating Abraham for backing down to notice http://www.skepticalscience.com has removed all but one of Abraham’s threads.

    deflates (pun intended) rather dramatically. [Here, let me Google that for you.](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=abraham+site%3Askepticalscience.com)

    Now, why don’t you back down before you continue to make a fool of yourself?

  38. #38 J
    July 16, 2010

    Actually, JasonW, the Search Box at SkepticalScience is fine — all of Abraham’s posts show up if you type in the word “Abraham”. They’re just not all included in the long list of “Archives”.

    PW must not have tried too hard to find them before rushing over here to declare that they’d been “removed”.

  39. #39 chek
    July 16, 2010

    [J said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/i_think_that_they_might_have_t.php#comment-2663008) “PW must not have tried too hard to find them before rushing over here to declare that they’d been “removed”.

    I think it’s important for the lardforbrainsistas like Windyfarts to imagine the the good visocunt somehow has supernatural powers, and that the wattbutt army of crackerheads sew fear in their path.

    What a maroon.

  40. #40 JasonW
    July 17, 2010

    [J](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/i_think_that_they_might_have_t.php#comment-2663008), that makes Windy’s misplaced smugness even more sad. I wonder whether we’ll see another comment; I have some reservations about that.

  41. #41 TrueSceptic
    July 18, 2010

    Tim,

    Small point but your link in the OP says 446 questions. It’s 466.

  42. #42 JasonW
    July 20, 2010

    Very apt: “Studies Find Narcissists Most Aggressive When Criticized”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980720081130.htm

  43. #43 Mike from Ottawa
    July 20, 2010

    I think that they might have to rename it the Monckton gallop

    I’d suggest calling it a “Monckton’s Mad Dash”.

  44. #44 Wow
    July 20, 2010

    I was thinking more along the lines of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_%28TV_series%29

    “He achieved a little enlightenment, and proclaimed himself “Great Sage, Equal of Heaven”[2]. After demanding the “gift” of a magical staff from a powerful Dragon king, and to quiet the din of his rough antics on Earth, Monkey is approached by Heaven to join their host, first in the lowly position of Master of the Stable (manure disposal)”

    Doesn’t it sound a little like Monckton?

    Come on, sing along with me:

    Monckton Magic!
    Monckton Magic!

Current ye@r *