why it’s so hard to argue with a famous crank
Christopher Monckton is a very busy and very powerful man according to himself and his fans. Apparently, the fellow is pretty much a living legend whose advice to world leaders helped shape England as we know it, and whose campaign against environmentalists and scientists sounding alarms about global warming will save global industry from the evil New World Order that seeks to enslave nations with environmental treaties. But it seems that for all his power and importance, “Lord” Monckton had time to respond to the professor who put together a very impressive presentation debunking his famous and oft cited arguments. With almost a hundred pages of questions, several insults towards Professor Abraham’s college, demands that every copy of Abraham’s presentation be removed, and a tidy sum donated to his charity of choice to atone for the grave sin of daring to doubt his speeches. Rarely have I seen an ego quite as massive and fragile as Monckton’s.
Now, there has been a response from Abraham, who revised a few minutes of his nearly hour long review of the claims laid out by Monckton, and believe it or not, the “Lord’s” sycophants, like Anthony Watts, are howling that changing a few slides is the equivalent of total capitulation. Meanwhile, the University of St. Thomas told the deniers to quit making ridiculous demands and back off unless they want to deal with its lawyers, refusing to bow to Monckton’s demands for censorship. There’s bound to be more to this drama of course, since what Monckton does best is to threaten and bully anyone who dares to challenge him. And actually, silencing every vocal critic is standard operating procedure for climate deniers, usually while they whine and moan about the pitfalls of censorship as soon as they find themselves on the receiving end of the same kind of treatment by a climate change blogger, and rush to their fainting couches, clutching their hearts in disbelief that no one on a green blog wants to hear their ranting and raving.
But there’s another interesting thing to consider about Monckton’s feud with Abraham. One of his questions is a classic trademark of a crank obsessed with credentials, titles, and degrees because he has none to speak of in the relevant field, and unable to make an argument from authority, tries to undermine his detractors…
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?
Again, this is a classic crank defense. Hopefully, you noted the quotes around the title Lord in reference to our pedigreed and famous demagogue, and were wondering why they’re there. Well, that’s because he’s actually not a Lord and has never been one. In fact, in my understanding, he’s doing a somewhat rough equivalent of calling himself a Senator wherever he goes even though he was never even on a ballot, much less elected by anyone. By contrast, Abraham does teach students and has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. The degree of his professorship is a moot point, especially when what has to be noted is the evidence he presents against Monckton’s claims and our self-appointed Lord simply recycles the same arguments he always uses, even after they were already addressed in detail by Abraham. The professor put together a rebuttal, and instead of having a calm and reasoned debate, Monckton threw a childish temper tantrum and tried to browbeat his critic with an in depth investigation of “how much of a professor he is,” clearly unfamiliar with the American college system and acting out of pure rage. Then again, this is what cranks do: take criticism all too personally.
There’s no answer that Abraham can provide to satisfy the fiery egomaniac who has him in his sights. All that Monckton wants to do is take him down with some sort of ad hominem, or by discarding his credentials so he doesn’t have to actually address the substance of the rebuttal with anything new, then rush back to Watts and the other disseminators of climate denialism, and claim a victory over that rotten, no good engineer in league with the forces of eco-friendly evil. And no matter how far short Monckton falls of actually defending his case, a loyal army of fans is ready and willing to sing praises to him, especially should Abraham fail to miss even one question from the “Lord’s” list, or do something as wise as tell Monckton to quit bothering him and his bosses with asinine threats, which St. Thomas is more than prepared to handle.
Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a bully is to fight them. You can’t negotiate, since that will simply encourage the bully to continue meddling with you. Professor Abraham is going to have to take some lumps (financially and emotionally), get some attorneys, and go after ‘Lord’ Monckton. Sue him for libel, challenge his credentials, whatever it takes. Yes, this will be expensive and painful. Ultimately, though, it will be less damaging than letting ‘Lord’ Monckton continue his rampages.
And of course, this is why the moniker “climate change denier”, rather than “skeptic”, applies to Monckton and his echo chamber.
A skeptic, when presented with arguments supported by evidence, would:
1. Be intellectually honest and admit they were wrong
2. Change their position to reflect the evidence
3. Move on and not dig yourself into a pit
The reason these folks are deniers is that they cling to their position not on the basis of evidence, but faith. They made their decision that global warming is fake/is not anthropogenic/etc before examining the evidence. They will jump at any evidence in support of their position without critically examining it, because they have to. Their arguments for their position are rife with fallacies and abuse of evidence, because they are struggling to justify their position to themselves. When confronted about their position, their response is not to address the arguments and evidence, but to cry foul and try to silence their critics. For them, these things are personal: discussing an argument or position is tantamount to attacking their character.
The parallels between climate change deniers and religious apologists are numerous. You have to wonder if Monckton gets some of his tactics from the likes of Ray Comfort.
… sue [Monckton] for libel, challenge his credentials, whatever it takes.
Let’s leave this crank to remain a self-aggrandizing blowhard rather than make him a martyr to the denier community. You’d bascially hand him a cheap and easy victory by doing that. Just letting him go off the rails and make a fool of himself yet again would probably be the best course of action here.
And of course, St. Thomas did explicitly tell him that they’re not afraid of him and that it has lawyers of its own…
A skeptic, when presented with arguments supported by evidence, would: 1) be intellectually honest and admit they were wrong 2) change their position to reflect the evidence 3) move on and not dig yourself into a pit.
Or just try to have a calm and civil look over the evidence and say that he disagrees and is willing to research all the counter-arguments to provide an informed reply with additional or corrected peer reviewed studies and evidence.
Of course, “Lord” Monckton craves attention. Best not to give this childish wimp any more attention than he already has. It just feeds into the child’s selfish, thoughtless attitudes and teaches him that all he has to do is crap his drawers, screech about it, and all kinds of people will come running to see what the mess is.
Or, let St. Thomas’s lawyers give him ALLLL the attention (and more) than he craves.
I find it fascinating that all comments towards Monckton are ad hominems. No postings here address the science. And this is perhaps why — in one-on-one debates — it has even been conceded by alarmists that Monckton wins. This is because in such direct debates (versus the drive-by from Abraham) the science behind AGW is debated, not the personalities. With respect to Monckton’s title, he is indeed a properly titled ‘Lord.’ (A proper biography of Monckton makes this clear versus the slams of climate sites.) The issue is that Tony Blair pushed through a ruling that those in the inherited category, as with Monckton, could no longer vote in the House of Lords. However, this is no way affects his actual title. I don’t understand why alarmists continue to dote on this when Monckton makes no claim otherwise.
With respect to Abraham, well the good professor went in and changed his presentation recently based on key issues that Monckton pointed out. Even though the university’s lawyers told Monckton to ‘back off’, it had to be agreed that Abraham misrepresented Monckton. Abraham is a small fish (sorry, ad hominem) and in his field doesn’t typically consult climate scientists as does Monckton. (This is prima facie just by viewing Abraham.) Monckton was peeved that Abraham made it look like Monckton was misrepresnting the findings of the scientists, when in fact Monckton got it correct. Monckton’s reputation was at stake, hence his ardor.
If you would like to pull up Monckton’s papers at SPPI and take issue with any points, then please feel free. (The head of the Royal Academy of Sciences in the UK did so, then was red-faced to learn in person that Monckton was correct on the fundamental physics.)
No postings here address the science.
You’ve of course looked through all the other posts on the subject on this blog and clicked the link to the Abraham presentation, right? And what science is there to address when all Monckton did was throw a fit that someone, somewhere, put up a rebuttal to his speeches and demanded that it be taken down immediately, and his critic be investigated for the “misconduct” of doubting his words?
And this is perhaps why — in one-on-one debates — it has even been conceded by alarmists that Monckton wins.
Wins in what? Acting like a diva? Oh, absolutely. The actual science? Monckton just repeats the same things over and over again and his loyal fans declare that he wins any debate he ever enters, be it an actual debate or an imaginary one, before he even says a word. I also love the blanket declaration with no names attached in reference to private “one-on-one” debates. That’s certainly very open and transparent for the rest of us, wouldn’t you say?
With respect to Abraham, well the good professor went in and changed his presentation recently based on key issues that Monckton pointed out.
He changed seven minutes of his slides to address Monckton’s points. So what? I’ve changed a few of my posts based on something pointed out to me and arrived at the same conclusions at the end. Howling that refining one’s presentation based on the feedback you get is an admission of utter defeat is simply ridiculous.
Even though the university’s lawyers told Monckton to ‘back off’, it had to be agreed that Abraham misrepresented Monckton.
Nonsense. No one has to agree to it unless you read Watts’ blog like it was the word of God itself. Changing a small portion of a presentation to address a few specific points don’t mean anything but a small change to address a few specific points. The two presentations are still pretty much the same and come to the same conclusions.
Abraham is a small fish (sorry, ad hominem) and in his field doesn’t typically consult climate scientists as does Monckton.
Monckton consults climate scientists? Like the Pope consults AIDS researchers? So why do the vast majority of climatologists complain that Monckton misrepresents and cherry-picks their work for his talking points?
This is prima facie just by viewing Abraham.
No, you being a Monckton syconpant is prima facie. Abraham at least has a grasp of what science says on the topic rather than just stomp his feet and threaten to sue Monckton unless the “Lord” stops talking about climate change altogeher. Which is far more than can be said for your idol.
Monckton’s reputation was at stake, hence his ardor.
He doesn’t have much of a reputation other than the one he invented for the press. He’s basically a pathological liar and his “achievements” have been shown to be vastly overblown at best, or total fabrications at worst. This is a guy who goes around impersonating a Lord and when asked to give any proof that he’s a member of the House of Lords, he gives the equivalent of the “I left my ID in my other pants” excuse. His reputation with the science is even worse.
The head of the Royal Academy of Sciences in the UK did so, then was red-faced to learn in person that Monckton was correct on the fundamental physics.
Funny, the only reference to this event is in one of Anthony Watts’ breathless essays on the self-appointed “Lord’s” greatness. Maybe you could find us an actual report from a reputable news source like the BBC or the Guardian where Lord Martin Rees, an astronomer with an exquisite knowledge of physics, and you know, an actual Lord, admits he was left red-faced by Monckton.
By the way. A funny thing happened between the start of your comment and it’s end. You began by saying that neither the post, nor the comments address the science, proceeded to fawn over Monckton while declaring that he’s always right, referring to unsourced claims of his grand scientific victories that exist only on climate change denialist blogs, declared on what we must or must not agree, and offered exactly zero science outside of referring us to your idol, whose claim to fame rests in lying about much of his life and demanding that anyone who questions him be silenced and persecuted under whatever law is convenient. If we’re so unscientific here, why don’t you take the time to teach us on your own?
As I noted in the post, Monckton could’ve said that Abraham was wrong, or offered to debate him, taking the high ground. But that’s not what he did. Instead he tried to bully the college into censoring Abraham and persecuting their own faculty based on nothing more than his inability to take criticism.
As opposed to the free and easy victory he’s already gained? After all, he can claim the retractions/corrections made by Professor Abraham simply show the validity of Monckton’s position.
Yes, the easy thing to do, and the fiscally sensible thing to do, is to refuse to cave in to Monckton’s demands and ignore him. But that only makes him go away from you; it frees him to go after others, who may not have a strong-willed university backing them up.
Don’t assume that simply by ignoring him, he’ll eventually go away. Look at how long Velikovsky’s books have remained in print; how long people believed in their ‘truth’ and the great conspiracy to silence those ‘truths’. In this day and age, people like Monckton appeal even more strongly to those who want simple answers to complex issues, or those who benefit from such answers being believed.
Amusingly, you are incorrect about the one matter (what with me being a Brit) of which I am quite sure. Christopher Monckton is indeed a “Lord”.
Even more amusingly, the article in the “Guardian” you link to, IF YOU HAD READ IT PROPERLY, makes it clear that he is a Lord, just not a Member of the HOUSE OF LORDS.
If this is an example of your general standard of research, I am inclined to doubt all the other assertions in your piece.
I suggest you revise it accordingly.
Jack, it takes a very tortured reading to see a refutation of Monckton’s claims in black and white to somehow come to the conclusion that he’s a Lord. Remember, his big claim is that he’s a non-voting member of the House of Lords. That claim is false.
As for his family’s title, he’s a viscount and is referred to as such. So while you could safely say that he has a blue blood pedigree, he doesn’t have the title he really wants to give himself in public.