R ESPONSE TO J A OHN BRAHAM by Christopher Monckton SPPI REPRINT SERIES July 10, 2010 ♦ (cid:1) (cid:1) CARIE RANNOCH PH17 2QJ [email protected] From: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 10 June 2010 John Abraham, St. Thomas University By email CO(cid:3)FIDE(cid:3)TIAL U(cid:3)TIL 10 JULY 2010 Mr. Abraham, “But Chris Monckton Said ...” Last week my attention was drawn to an 83-minute talk by you, entitled “But Chris Monckton Said ...”, consisting of 115 numbered slides each accompanied by your voice-over and bearing the imprint of St. Thomas University on each slide, which has been widely circulated both by the university’s server and on the internet, and remains in circulation on that server despite an earlier request by me to the President of your University that it be taken down pending investigation. Your talk purports to be a “rebuttal” (according to your slide 2) of a 95-minute lecture about climate change that I gave at Bethel University, St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009, some eight months ago. You say: “I’m very happy to supply any of my resources to people on request: feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this presentation or about Christopher Monckton” (slide 1); “I’m going to reply as a scientist would reply, and that is with all my resources available to people: I’ll provide links, I’ll provide full citations, and I’ll give people access to this stuff if they request it, and email’s a great way to request it” (2); “If there are any questions about this presentation, feel free to write to me. I’d be happy to answer any question and provide any other information that might be useful to anyone listening out there” (114); and “Please write to me if you have any questions: you can find me at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota; my name is John Abraham; please write to me and let me know what you thought; let me know if I was off base; was I convincing or not convincing? I’m happy to hear your comments; and keep in touch” (115). Therefore, I should be grateful if you would, at your earliest convenience and in any event not more than one month from the date of this letter, answer the following questions to which your talk gives rise. Should you not wish to answer the questions (there are almost 500), you may prefer instead simply to take down your talk from wherever it is available and issue a public apology for and retraction of it. You did not give me the opportunity to review your talk before you circulated it widely, as you should have done, and as is normal in academe. By contrast, I am giving you a fair opportunity to respond to this letter privately, and to correct any errors or unfairness. I shall keep the letter confidential for one month. I shall then decide, in the light of your response, whether it should be published. However, in view of the damage that your talk was calculated to cause to my reputation, for my own protection I shall shortly be posting a substantial video response to your talk. I have sent a brief letter to the President of your University, Father Dease, informing him that I have sent you this letter but not sending him a copy for now. I have told him that, once I have had your response, I may wish to invite him to investigate whether the content and distribution of your talk constitutes gross academic and professional misconduct on your part. Good faith 1: Are you familiar with the convention in the academic world that if one wishes to rebut the work of another he should notify that other in good time, so as to avoid errors in the rebuttal and to afford the other a fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute the rebuttal? 2: Since you knew how to contact the Science and Public Policy Institute, which I advise on policy matters, and since you would have had no difficulty in contacting me to notify me that you were intending widely to disseminate your material, what steps (if any) did you take to attempt to notify me of what you proposed to do to ensure that I was given a fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute your attempt at a rebuttal of my Minnesota talk? Summary of your talk 3: In summary, does your talk say that you are “a scientist” (2) with “a background in the area of energy, heat and fluids, which is germane to the topic of climate change” (3); that you have published “in the area” of climate change (3); that I am a “well-known climate skeptic” (1) “who has money and no background in science” (29) and “who has not written a single peer-reviewed science paper on any topic” (4) and has “never published a paper in anything” (37); that “we want to think about the backgrounds people have when we ascribe credibility to the comments people make, particularly for Chris Monckton, because if you listen to his talk you will find that he disagrees with every major science organization” (4-5); that I am “paid” and “employed” by the Science and Public Policy Institute (104), which you describe as “an activist organization that is lobbying against dealing with the issue of global warming and trying to sway public opinion” (104); that my “deep” connections with this “ideological” organization make it “extremely difficult to believe that you can separate your results from the interests of those people funding you” (104); that, by implication, I claim to know things “that everyone else doesn’t know”, and “to see things that other scientists haven’t seen” (5), and that “maybe” I “know more than they do” (50); that many of my statements “sound absurd”, and that your “feeling is that if statements sound absurd they probably are” (5); that you are proposing to “investigate” what I say (5); that “the number of errors” I make “is so enormous it would take a thesis to go through every single one of them” (74); that you are going to “help” me with my “math” (74); that I “presented a lot of data with no citations or no explanation” (105), and “if you don’t tell us where it’s from we can’t assess the data” (109); that my talk contained assertions that were “not accurate” (7), “total nonsense” (21), “just not true” (34), “sleight-of-hand” (35); “sleight-of-hand” again (59); “a complete fabrication” (47); and “a straw man” that “doesn’t hold any water” (53); that my “presentation of information” has been “shady” (35); that a graph of mine was “almost off by 100%” (40); that when reading data I “can’t get it straight” (40); that I “try to confuse” my audience (61); that I “confuse” and “make mistakes” that “are different from each other” (40); that I “confuse” my “units” (80); that my “graphs” of my “own data” do not “agree with themselves”, so “how can you trust conclusions drawn from them?” (42); that I “either deliberately or by mistake misrepresented the data” (114), “misstated data” in a paper I had cited (81), “made many mistakes with temperature data” (110), “completely misrepresented” the “conclusions” of scientific researchers (20), “misrepresented” another paper I had cited (67), and made “a very bald misrepresentation” of a scientific society’s statements (85) so that the society “were at the very least upset”, and that the author of yet another paper “was pretty upset” at how I had used his data (83); that a “prediction” I am alleged to have made was “rash” and “a bit like assuming at dusk that the sun will never rise again” (79); that “in some cases” I say “there is no global warming, and then in other cases” I say “Hey, it is warming” (82); that “you take a look at all this and you gotta ask yourself, who can you trust? ... where can you go, who can you trust?” (114), “who has an agenda?” (115); that “the purpose of my presentation is to show how someone who is a very skilled orator can present information intended for an intelligent but very general audience, and ... of course you’re going to believe him, I mean, that’s a pretty compelling presentation; and it takes someone who’s got some time and knows how to find the information a while to track down and ferret out the truth of their statements, and you can’t expect that everyone is going to have the kind of time that I’ve put into this rebuttal” (115); and that you do not want to spend your time “tracking down the misinformation of folks like Chris Monckton” (115)? 2 Damage to my reputation 4: Do you accept that your talk was calculated to do very great harm to my reputation? 5: Do you accept that your assertion that you are “a scientist” (2), and the fact that you have used the time, facilities, and imprint of your university in preparing and circulating your talk, and the failure of the University to take down you talk from its servers upon request, are likely to amplify the very great harm that your widely-circulated talk was calculated to do to my reputation? 6: Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation? Your obligation to tell the truth 7: Do you accept that “we have an obligation, an obligation to be truthful to the general public so that we can make good decisions” (115), an obligation that applies to you? 8: Was your talk in all respects truthful? 9: Do you appreciate that, in common sense as well as in law, given your claim to expertise “in the area” of climate change (2-3), any statement by you in that area that you assert or assume to be true but whose truth you have negligently failed to verify is as much a lie as any statement that you make in the knowledge that it is not true? Retraction and apology 10: If the questions in this letter lead you to realize that your talk was in material respects untrue and unfair, will you please withdraw your talk from wherever it is available and publish in its place a retraction and apology substantially in the form set forth in my final question to you in this letter? Your motives and funding 11: Since you have raised questions about my motives and funding and those of my distinguished friend Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics, from whom I had obtained one of the graphs I used in my talk, is it not reasonable for me to ask you questions about your motives and funding? 12: At whose instigation, and why, did you decide to prepare and widely to broadcast your talk? How much time did you spend preparing the talk, who paid for your time and costs, and who paid the costs of hosting your talk on the University’s servers, and who met any and all other costs associated with your talk? 13: Do you have the permission of the University to use your office, its name, its logo, its time, its servers and its facilities for the preparation and distribution of your talk? 14: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I am “employed” and “paid” by the Science and Public Policy Institute (104) for my policy advice to it, and what evidence do you have that the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Minnesota Free Market Institute, or anyone else paid for or in any way influenced the preparation or delivery of my Minnesota speech? [Hint: I was paid nothing.] 15: What evidence do you have for your nasty implication, delivered over a series of slides towards the end of your talk, that Dr. Soon’s sources of funding had in any way influenced his presentation of a single graph from my talk, showing two publicly-available datasets of Japanese meteorological observations? 16: Would it not have been fairer if you had verified Dr. Soon’s data instead of sniping at his funding? 3 Qualifications 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? 18: Please explain which (if any) of the scientific topics covered in my talk fall within your particular field of scientific expertise, and, for each such topic, why your expertise is relevant. 19: Please provide a full list, with references, of all peer-reviewed papers you have published on the science of climate change, including those specifically having a bearing on the scientific topics covered in my talk. Sources 20: Since you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why you regard your own references such as “Climate Change Conf. 2009” and “Solar 2007” (3) as adequate indications enabling third parties to identify the events in question and your roles at them? 21: Given that you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why you did not at any time during the months of preparation of your talk contact me even once to ask me to assist you with identifying the sources of my material. 22: Please provide copies of all email exchanges between you and all those whom you consulted about my talk. You will understand, after reading this letter, why I have reason to suspect that you have repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented to third parties what I said in my talk, in a manner calculated to provoke highly- critical responses from them that you could then deploy against me. 23: Please explain why, before you contacted numerous third parties in connection with my talk, you did not at any time contact me to verify whether your characterization of my conclusions was fair and accurate. 24: How can any of the sources you contacted be regarded as reliable, when not one of them contacted me to verify whether your characterization of my opinions or conclusions was fair and accurate before commenting thereupon, sometimes in the most uncomplimentary and academically unacceptable terms? 25: Did you obtain the permission of any of the scientists or scientific bodies you have quoted, before using quotations from their email responses to you about my opinions or conclusions in your talk? YOUR GE(cid:3)ERAL ALLEGATIO(cid:3)S 26: Please confirm that I have quoted accurately the general allegations that you make at (2) about some of the main points you say I said or, by implication, misled my audience about in my Minnesota talk: “Chris Monckton gave a presentation last October at Bethel University in Minnesota, and, while his presentation was held in one of their auditoriums it was actually sponsored by a Minnesota free trade organization, a business organization. And Chris Monckton is a great speaker: he’s got a British accent, which lends great credibility to the things he says. Also, he has a good demeanor, he’s a compelling speaker. And if you listen to what he said, you would come to the conclusion that the following things are true: “The world’s not warming.” “Sea levels are not rising at all.” “Ice is not melting.” “Polar bears aren’t threatened.” “The ocean isn’t heating.” “There’s no such thing as ocean acidification.” “Scientists are lying.” “There’s a conspiracy.” (2) 4 27: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said, “The world’s not warming” (2) Did I display a slide showing global temperatures for the past 160 years, and did that slide indicate that the world was warming? Hint: the slide is below, alongside another slide showing the same dataset. The “it’s The lie nailed getting worse” lie 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 150 yr IPCC (2007) 28: Since you refer to the above-right slide at your (111), please confirm that you were indeed aware that this slide formed part of my presentation, and that the long, red line plainly labeled “Linear trend” shows the 160-year world warming trend, albeit at a rate of only 0.4 C/century. 29: Standing the visible evidence in the above slides, are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I said, “The world is not warming”, or at least to qualify it by acknowledging that, though I said the world had been cooling since 2001, I had displayed the above graph plainly establishing that the long-term trend is a warming trend? 30: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that “Sea levels are not rising at all”? Did I display, during my talk, a slide showing sea-level rise since 1993? Hint: the slide is below. ... so sea level has not risen for four years 31: Does the slide show a rise in sea level since 1993 at a rate of ~1 ft/century? 32: Is it not true that, in my talk, I reported evidence that the ARGO bathythermographs had shown a slight cooling of the oceans throughout the six years since they were first deployed; and that, at the time of my talk, there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years? 33: Confronted with this evidence, are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I led my audience to conclude that “Sea levels are not rising at all” (2)? 5 34: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that “Ice is not melting” (2)? 35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area “is recovering from a 30- year low in 2007”? Hint: The slide is below. Arctic summer sea-ice area is just fine: it is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007 36: Is it not evident from that slide that I did not say “Ice is not melting” (2), but that instead I stated that Arctic sea-ice had reached a 30-year low in 2007, from which it is recovering? 37: Given the plain wording of this slide, are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I had led my audience to believe that “Ice is not melting” (2)? 38: Though you imply I was wrong to lead my audience to believe that “polar bears are not threatened” (2), is it not correct that I made the different statement that they “are doing fine”? 39: Given that the population of polar bears has increased very substantially since the middle of the last century, in what sense was it unreasonable for me to suggest that they are “doing fine”? 40: What evidence do you have that I said there was “no such thing as ocean acidification” (2)? 41: Is it not correct that I only mentioned ocean “acidification” briefly, in passing, in the context of mentioning that the “problem” imagined by the climate-extremist movement used to be called “global warming” until warming ceased in the mid-1990s; then it was called “climate change” until it became apparent that the climate continues as changeable as before; now it is called “energy security”; tomorrow it will be called “ocean acidification”; and eventually it will be called “absolute rubbish”? 42: Though you imply I was wrong to lead my audience to believe that “scientists are lying” (2), did I not produce clear, visual evidence that some “scientists are lying”? Hint: look at the slide below. 43: Do you, as a “scientist” (2-3), regard it as true that the rate of “global warming” over the past 150 years is itself increasing, as the IPCC’s multiple trend-lines in the above graph purport to show? 6 The “it’s getting worse” lie 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 150 yr IPCC (2007) 44: Is it not correct that the application of multiple trend-lines with arbitrarily-chosen endpoints to a single stochastic dataset in such a manner that conclusions are drawn from the slopes of the arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines when compared with one another is an impermissible statistical technique? 45: Does it not follow that the IPCC’s stated conclusion that “for shorter recent periods the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming” is incorrect and without scientific foundation? 46: Given that the IPCC and the EPA, both of whom have had this statistical abuse drawn to their attention, have failed to remove or apologize for the defective graph shown above but are persisting in their error, is it not legitimate for me to assume that their error is deliberate and is, therefore, a lie? 47: Why, in the context of your implication that I was wrong to say that some “scientists are lying” (2), did not choose to display or comment upon the following two slides from my talk: The startpoint lie The lie nailed Atlantic Category 3, 4, & 5 hurricanes, 1970-2005 Webster et al., 2006 48: Is it not evident to you that the suppression of the earlier part of the temperature record in the scientific paper that I had cited amounted to a deception, in that the incomplete data (left slide) appeared to indicate a sudden and alarming rise in hurricane activity, when the full record (right slide) showed nothing unusual? 49: Bearing in mind these and other examples of scientific mendacity that I revealed in my talk, will you now retract any implication in your (2) that I was wrong to lead my audience to believe that some “scientists are lying”, and that you will also retract your implication that I said or implied that most or all “scientists are lying”? 50: Please point out where in my talk I said that there was “a conspiracy” (2). [Hint: I did not use the word.] 7 YOUR CRITICISMS OF I(cid:3)DIVIDUAL SLIDES I(cid:3) MY TALK Gore on sea level The sea- 6 IPCC: cm level lah sea-level rise from the great ice-sheets in 100 years. 610 Gore: cm: 100x error! 28 51: Please confirm that I have fairly encapsulated your criticism of the above slide in the following quotation from your talk: “In this slide Chris Monckton talks about Al Gore claiming that the oceans are going to rise over 600 cm: yet the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the most authoritative bodies speaking with regard to global warming, projects a 6 cm sea- level rise. (cid:3)ow this is an important slide: I mean, if Al Gore is off over a factor of 100, what do we have to be worried about? Really, is 6 cm that big of a deal? Are we gonna get rid of coal power just because of 6 cm of sea-level rise? That’s a good point. Why should 6 cm concern us? Well, let’s start out by seeing what the IPCC actually said. “Their actual projections are 20-50 cm ... and what you notice if you read that page is they give a caveat: their projections of 20-50 cm do not include ice-melt. Those projections are due to essentially thermal expansion of the ocean. Why don’t they include ice-melt? Because, they say, it’s too uncertain. So rather than try to estimate the impacts of sea-level rise due to ice-melt, they say, ‘You know what? We don’t know, so we’re just going to be very conservative and we’re going to give a lower bound on sea-level rise.’ “So, you might ask, is the IPCC concerned about ice-melt? And in particular some of the ice that scientists are concerned about are Greenland and Antarctica. Each of them has about 6 m worth of sea-level rise. So if West Antarctica melts you get about 6-7 m and if Greenland melts you get about 6-7 m. (cid:3)ow, let’s see what they say about that uncertainty. (cid:3)ow, on page 409 – it’s the exact same page, I don’t see how Chris could have missed this, it’s stated, and I’ve got the quote here, ‘an important uncertainty is discharge from ice sheets’. But, this is the important part, quantitative projections cannot be made with confidence. So they’re saying, ‘Yeah, this is a real concern, but we just don’t know how long it will take the ice-sheets to melt.’ But I want you to notice, later on page 818, chapter 10, they do talk about the stability of just the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could by itself contribute 5-6 m of sea-level rise. So it’s not accurate to say the IPCC said 6 cm of sea-level rise as Chris Monckton suggested: in fact, we now see where Al Gore got his numbers” (6-7). 8 52: Did you notice that my slide said the IPCC would imply that there would be just 6 cm of sea-level rise from the great ice-sheets in 100 years, while Gore’s estimate of an imminent 20 ft (610 cm) sea-level rise that he attributes to melting Greenland and Antarctic ice is around 100 times greater? 53: Did you also notice the IPCC’s table of observed contributions to sea-level rise over the past 40 years, from which it is not difficult to calculate that on present trends the great ice-sheets will contribute around 6 cm to sea-level rise over the next 100 years? 54: Since you say that the IPCC’s projections of a 20-50 cm sea-level rise in the next 100 years “do not include ice-melt” (6), please confirm that you now accept that my use of 6 cm for sea-level rise over the next 100 years from ice-melt is not inherently incompatible with the IPCC’s 20-50 cm overall sea-level rise from other sources, notably thermosteric expansion. 55: Why, in your description of the IPCC’s suggestion that discharge from ice-sheets cannot yet be quantified, did you not make the surely important admission that the IPCC concludes that “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia [my emphasis], that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m”? 56: Bearing in mind that the IPCC does not expect the Greenland ice-sheet completely to disappear for millennia, why did you characterize their view as being that “we just don’t know how long it will take for the ice-sheets to melt” (6)? 57: Would it not have been fairer if you had admitted that even if the dynamical ice processes talked of by the IPCC were to occur the 7 m sea-level rise from each of the two great ice-sheets would not occur for millennia? 58: Does it not follow that Al Gore’s now-discredited suggestion of an imminent 20 ft sea-level rise in consequence of those “dynamical ice processes” does not enjoy any support from the IPCC, and is at least 100 times greater than the contribution to sea-level rise that would be expected from the two ice-sheets if their rate of melting as shown in the IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report were to continue? 59: Do you now accept that from the IPCC’s documents we cannot “see where Al Gore got his numbers” (7); that the British Government, in its failed attempt at a defense of Al Gore’s move in the High Court in 2007, was compelled in the face of the evidence to concede that there was no basis in science for Gore’s assertion; and that, accordingly, Mr. Justice Burton concluded – as is recorded on a slide which formed part of my talk but which you carefully chose not to show or mention – that “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view”? 60: Would it not have been fairer if you had admitted, as another slide of mine that you failed to show or mention demonstrates, that in 2005, the very year Gore was making his movie with its menace of an imminent 20 ft sea-level rise, he bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis Tower, San Francisco, just feet from the allegedly-rising ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf? Would you spend $4 million if you knew that a 20 ft sea-level rise would imminently render your hefty financial investment in ocean-front real-estate worthless? 61: When you cited Rahmstorf et al. (2007) to the effect that “although ice-sheet contribution has been small, observations are indicating that it is rapidly increasing ... these observations underscore the concerns about global climate change” (8), did it not occur to you to “investigate” (5) where the supposedly “rapidly increasing” contributions from the great ice sheets to sea-level rise were actually going? What has happened to all that ice? Where has it gone? Is that not a reasonable question to ask? Has there been a surge in the rate of sea-level rise? Does it not seem to you that, if anything, the rate of rise has decelerated somewhat over recent years, as my earlier slide rather clearly showed? 9