Leo Hickman at The Guardian was the first to cover the story about the response some of us organized to Monckton’s most recent Congressional testimony. Now, Monckton has responded to Leo, and Leo posted that response in the comments section of the online article. Here’s what he said:
In a lengthy letter to Congress some months ago, in which I addressed questions from Congressmen about my testimony before the global warming committee, I had already refuted in detail the points now belatedly raised again by the scientists who have written to Congress. The scientists were unaware of my letter to Congress because they did not have the good sense or courtesy to contact me – or even to contact the vast majority of the scientists whose conclusions I had cited – before circulating to friendly news media their prolix, turgid, repetitive, erroneous and inadequate response to my testimony. From their calculatedly furtive approach, it is legitimate to infer that their exercise was motivated more by politics than by science. One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results: another has been caught out in repeated lies: a third admits to suffering a mental disability: and many of the scientists whom these lead authors invited to contribute are among the long-discredited clique of Climategate emailers. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to their political rant, which displays a lamentable absence of quantitative detail and a pathetic reliance on fashionable but questionable forecasting techniques that have long been compellingly contradicted by hard data.
Lord Monckton is right that he had already published a response to some questions about his testimony. My favorite part was where he justified his false claim to being a member of Parliament by saying that the House of Lords Act 1999 was defective. In support of this rather strange thesis, he cited a statement of Baroness Ashton (Lord President of the Council) which says pretty much exactly the opposite.
You see, this is the problem with responding to Lord Monckton. He will never, ever admit he was wrong. If you point out an error, he will always respond with some longwinded explanation about why he’s really right. I.e., he mostly just repeats himself, and maybe throws in a couple more references… that also don’t end up supporting his case. No matter how much the British government denies that Monckton is a member of Parliament, he will never admit it. No matter how clearly he is shown that he incorrectly plotted IPCC projections for atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, he will never admit he was wrong. In that case, he actually pooh-poohed the idea that he should just reproduce what the IPCC says are its projections when claiming to plot their projections. No, he says the scientific thing to do is to recalculate them himself (using a method very different from the one the IPCC used, of course!)
So if anyone wants to prolong the agony by responding to Monckton’s response, and then his response to the response to the response, and so on, more power to them. My main concern is simply to provide enough information that it should be completely obvious to reasonable people that Monckton should not be a trusted source of information. A certain law of diminishing returns does operate here.
Speaking of that, I note that Monckton wants to dismiss the responses to his testimony because of the supposed shortcomings of the organizers and respondents. As for the climate scientists who actually took apart Monckton’s testimony, all he can say is that some of them are “Climategate e-mailers.” Ok, so what did any of them say in those e-mails that is so damning? I can’t speak for the other organizers or respondents when it comes to any “political motivations,” but as for myself, I’m a Republican who doesn’t particularly like cap-and-trade.
Let’s look at the other charges brings against the organizers.
1. One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results….
This must refer to Mike Mann, because the Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli was recently trying to get access to all kinds of info at the University of Virginia looking for evidence of fraud on Mann’s part. But a judge recently rejected Cuccinelli’s bid, because he couldn’t produce any evidence that Mann had done anything wrong, so it was clearly just a fishing expedition.
2. … another has been caught out in repeated lies…
I think this must refer to John Abraham, who thoroughly debunked a presentation by Monckton. Monckton quickly produced an enormous response, and of course threatened to sue Abraham for libel. The libel case has never materialized, in case you were wondering.
3. a third admits to suffering a mental disability….
This is the really strange one, because I’m fairly certain he is referring to me! A few weeks ago, Monckton e-mailed the president of my university asking him to check on my mental health, because I had been publishing all kinds of lies about him and sending him hate mail! (Nothing came of it, in case you were wondering, and I’m still working at the old day job.) In Monckton’s mind, perhaps his accusation constitutes an admission on my part.
FULL DISCLOSURE: A couple years ago I was diagnosed with Inattentive Type Attention Deficit Disorder. But I have never heard that being an absent-minded professor amounted to a “mental disability.” I graduated magna cum laude from college, got an NSF graduate fellowship, and earned a PhD before I even knew I had it!