On June 30 Notre Dame University intends to host a lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton, one of the world’s most flamboyant climate change deniers.
On learning of this I wrote an open letter to Notre Dame protesting their decision and asking them to cancel the lecture.
I feel very strongly that Notre Dame’s actions are a betrayal of the academic community, and many of my academic colleagues in Australia and beyond agree. The letter has widespread support from some of Australia’s leading researchers in the area of climate science, policy and law.
The currency for credible academic research is academic integrity. Academic integrity requires honesty, fairness and above all rigour. The reputation of academics and academic institutions relies on this integrity being strictly upheld and supported by a process of peer-review.
We are trained as students to respect the academic process and to pursue our research accordingly. Climate change research, like any academic research, follows these guidelines.
And then there are figures like Lord Monckton. Monckton has no scientific qualifications (he is trained in classics and journalism). He claims that scientists cannot possibly predict or understand the behaviour of the Earth’s climate. He claims that climate science is the “greatest fraud of our time”.
He undermines, ridicules and abuses the values of academic integrity. He accuses climate researchers of doing false research for the purpose of obtaining research funding. He maliciously misrepresents this research.
Respect for peer-reviewed climate science leads to Monckton labelling you a Nazi, authoritarian, fascist, communist, or (if you are young enough) a member of the Hitler Youth.
Monckton recently likened Professor Ross Garnaut to a Nazi, showing a slide with a quote from Garnaut next to a swastika and claiming that the Professor expected people to “accept authority without question”. He called this a fascist point of view. This was an outrageous slur on one of Australia’s most respected economists and the academic community at large.
When scientists such as Professor John Abraham scrutinise Monckton’s misrepresentation of peer-reviewed scientific research, Monckton accuses them of “deliberately dishonest” attacks on his integrity and reputation and threatens to sue them.
Clearly, Monckton is unfamiliar with the peer-review process and does not seem to want to take part in it. This is hardly surprising since his claims cannot stand up to scrutiny.
And this brings me to Notre Dame University’s “proud” decision to host a lecture by Monckton. At the bidding of one of its benefactors (Hancock Prospecting, which is sponsoring Monckton’s lecture) the university is lending its hard won credibility to Monckton.
Notre Dame has a responsibility to preserve the integrity of academic and scientific research by standing with other Australian universities in condemning figures such as Monckton. These figures misrepresent and undermine the work of those who uphold academic standards.
It is grossly inappropriate for a university to provide such views with a platform. Christopher Monckton enjoys the freedom to speak his mind as we all do, and I do not challenge this. What I do challenge is the propriety of a university lending its authority to Monckton who, as Malcolm Turnbull pointed out last week, is little more than “a vaudeville artist”.
Mr Turnbull noted further that Monckton “has no credibility, politically or scientifically, particularly in The United Kingdom and … is a professional sensationalist.”
Would a reputable university invite someone who denied the link between HIV and AIDS or smoking and lung cancer to speak to medical students? Would a reputable university invite an advocate of creationism speak to biology students? Would a reputable university invite a climate change denier with no scientific qualifications to speak to geophysics students?
The answer to each of these questions must be no, and likewise Notre Dame should say no to Christopher Monckton.
36 Comments
Christopher Nagle
logged in via Facebook
Monckton exists because there are extremely powerful interests who find the global warming critique threatening to their interests. Anthropogenic climate change denialism reflects a self-indulgent society that is up to its neck in unsustainable abuses of the ecosphere. This is no ordinary clash of interests within a standard democratic consensus. Everything that has occurred in the last 250 years has devolved from the burning of hydrocarbons and now it is questionable. Traditionally, the greatest…
show full commentJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
That's the way. Silence all those who don't agree with you.
Haven't you heard of Freedom of Speech? Haven't you heard of letting an audience make up its own mind about claims being made by a speaker?
And please quit your childish by highly inappropriate analogies with HIV and smoking. Those fields had far more certainty than climate science where there's still no certainty about very basic issues like whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback, and whether solar forces other than TSI influence our climate.
Mike Hansen
Mr
logged in via email @gmail.com
This has little to do with freedom of speech. Monckton is being toured around the country courtesy of mining billionaire Gina Rinehart. He will I am sure, have plenty of opportunity to perform his vaudeville act.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2775298.html
The issue is his masquerading as a climate scientist.
Monckton's appearance at Notre Dame University is the equivalent of allowing creationist Duane Gish speak at the university on evolution. It makes a mockery of science.
Grendels
logged in via Twitter
John McLean,
This is not about silencing Monckton, it is about the university having some repect for basic academic standards, something Moncton clearly does not. I found the HIV analogy interesting since Moncton himself has claimed to be in the process of patenting a cure for HIV... Let's see how that one pans out eh?
I don't care if Monckton gets to speak in Australia or not, he is entitled to his opinions, but parading them as facts just makes him look ridiculous. Something he has excelled at for some time. His expertise is in hyperbole.
Barry Steele
logged in via LinkedIn
Monckton is a showman, not a scientist. His work has no academic integrity. Universities are places of learning and science, not speech.
John, the issue is not that he disagrees with the vast majority of informed climate scientists. Its that he present fraudulent arguments in his favour and ignores all evidence that disproves his claims. He is simply not a credible person in this debate.
Ralph Watson
Elec Tech
logged in via email @exemail.com.au
And Al Gore wasn't a showman? What were his qualifications? What about Ross Garnaut, Simon Sheikh, Cate Blanchett, Tim Costello and Lord Stern. What are their qualifications? How can they speak out in support of global warming? I hear Rajendra Pachuri is a railway engineer!
If you warmies are so sure you are right, why not offer to put a person of your choice up there to debate Lord Monckton? The most telling part in this debate is that there is no debate. The warmies are terrified to get together and debate the sceptics. They fear their whole house of cards will collapse with close scrutiny. Many times they have been invited but they always refuse. Put your money where your mouth is and don't just try to silence people you don't agree with.
Clare in Tassie
retired thinker
logged in via email @gmail.com
Surely it is in everyones best interest to hear all sides to this debate. The science is not in - over - closed - more and more data is becoming avalilable and you cannot say it is a closed issue. Let Moncton speak, let his critics ask him questions, but listen to his replies as well. He will be accompanied by credentailed people.
Barry Steele
logged in via LinkedIn
But we have had 30 years of debate and the people that know most about this (not Monckton or Plimer) have been reviewing the work done and the conclusions are well known.
We do not have two equal arguments in any shape or form. We have one, backed by evidence, clearly thought out and extensively reviewed by the subject matter experts and one that has no credible supporting evidence, no support of any major scientific organisations.
There is only 1 side of this story.
Grendels
logged in via Twitter
Clare, I would be fine to hear debate on the science, in fact I have heard just that, but not from Monckton, or Jo Nova. What they hand out is glib lines, conspiracy theories and character assassinations, not science. If the mining companies really wanted a debate on science, then they would bring climate scientists to talk. They do not, and have not.
Grendels
logged in via Twitter
And Dr Evans "I'm not a climate modeller" doesn't count either. Man had an odd definition of "rocket scientist"...
Clare in Tassie
retired thinker
logged in via email @gmail.com
why does Dr. Evans not count? He has credentials albeit he is on the NON CAGW side of things?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/
Clare in Tassie
retired thinker
logged in via email @gmail.com
I meant to add:
Dr David Evans and Jo Nova will accompany him in Sydney and Newcastle
Clare in Tassie
retired thinker
logged in via email @gmail.com
I am pondering: we had Cate Blanchet parading on the TV selling the Climate is Warming and humans are responsible act.... yet she got away with it. Now (again) we have Monckton doing his bit and he is a baddie? A case of double standards me thinks.
W should be prepared for both side to run out their 'front people' without castigating them for their beliefs. There is far too much hypoe in all of this... actually too much political science and not enough open honest and above board scientific debate. The majority of the general public only read what is perpetuated in the MSM, which is a rehash of IPCC media reports. They know or understand little of the science because no one explains it to them. They have come to believe that a THEORY means the science is settled - which as we all here know - is incorrect. I say let the debate continue in public.
Ramapriya Ramanuja
Avian Consultant
logged in via email @yoganote.com.au
"I am pondering: we had Cate Blanchet parading on the TV selling the Climate is Warming and humans are responsible act.... yet she got away with it. Now (again) we have Monckton doing his bit and he is a baddie? A case of double standards me thinks."
Clare, TV is not an academic institution. Nor does sponsorship on a TV commercial carry the weight of recognition of scientific rigor that sponsorship to speak at a university implies.
Monckton is well qualified for TV commercial appearances as is Blanchett. However, neither are qualified to speak on the matter of global warming at a university.
Let's run out the "front people" at universities to speak on this matter, but only one side of this very lop-sided debate (in terms of scientific rigor) can wheel out credible scientists producing credible science. Which credible scientists in the field of climate science will the denier lobby like to produce?
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Sorry, most are busy with the climate conference in the US at the moment, busy showing what a con the notion of CO2-driven climate change really is.
By the way, if you throw around epithets like "denier", do you deny that for the last 10 years there has been very little, if any, warming despite the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ramapriya Ramanuja
Avian Consultant
logged in via email @yoganote.com.au
A sceptic is a person who takes a stance which may be opposed to a hypothesis but is open to evidence - experiential reality. They will change their view according to evidence gathered under appropriate, rigorous conditions and presented accordingly. A denier continues to oppose evidence/reality, no matter how rigorously gathered and appropriately presented.
John, when you can produce evidence based on data which hasn't been cherry-picked to suit your dream that the world is cooling, then I might be willing to change my view.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can list the Climate Scientists who are producing peer reviewed research in respected journals who are on the the lecture circuit in the US and proving "what a con the notion of CO2-driven climate change really is".
Grendels
logged in via Twitter
Clare, the argument is not about whether one side is good or bad, but whether they are using scientific evidence appropriately. Dr Evans has a PhD in electrical engineering. I'd certainly trust his judgement in designing an advanced electrical system, but as a climate scientist he is a dud, actually he lays no claim to climate science expertise, and then goes on at length about why he thinks it is a scam. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
Clare, gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, ALL…
show full commentJohn McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
The scientific evidence - i.e. empirical evidence - does NOT support the hypothesis that carbon dioxide has a significant and dangerous influence on temperature.
It doesn't take a PhD to work that out, nor does it require publishing a peer-reviewed paper.
Temperatures rose far less in the last 10 years than in any 10 year period from 1977 to 1997 when there was less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
More carbon dioxide .. less warming.
The hypothesis that CO2 dangerously drives temperature is utterly refuted.
And don't get me started on what a farce peer-review is. It's more often "mate's review" when the authors' suggested reviewers are used. Anyone with an ounce of unbiased sense can see the flaws.
Barry Steele
logged in via LinkedIn
Rubbish.
What evidence? Not one of the points you make is true. Thet have all been refuted in detail and explicitly. (See http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ).
So if the vast majority of scientist are wrong on this, why are you bothering to get a PHD form such a failed system?
You are wrong, get over it
Ramapriya Ramanuja
Avian Consultant
logged in via email @yoganote.com.au
"mate's review" - well John, all your claims to scientific rigour have just gone out the window. It appears from your statement that you will choose whatever "evidence" or "reasoning" suits you. There's as much point debating this topic with you as there is with Mr Monckton.
Ron Purss
logged in via Facebook
This is ridiculous. Moncton is a shit stirrer in the vein of that goose Bolt. Universities have no right to pander to journo's masquerading as peer reviewed scientists. Rinehartd should not be funding Uni's when it is obvious she has an agenda other than supporting higher education.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
So he points out the fallacies in the IPCC's view? Do you have a problem with that or don't you know how thin the IPCC's case really is?
Playing the game "Sim Climate" with dodgy computer software (chaps 8 of IPCC 2007 report) strikes me as highly suspect, especially when we know that many climate forces are poorly understood and therefore poorly incorporated (chapter 2).
Ron Purss
logged in via Facebook
What exactly is your field of study mate?
Dorothy Bishop
logged in via Twitter
I signed the letter, not because I want to suppress freedom of speech, but because I think Notre Dame needs to consider both its own reputation and that of Universities in Australia in general. Usually, a person would not be invited to give a guest lecture at a University unless they had some academic credentials. By issuing this invitation, Notre Dame has lost all academic credibility, and the impression overseas is that Australians must be highly gullible if an academic institution can bestow such an honour on someone who is widely regarded as a joke in his own country.see http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton
No doubt they'll give him an honorary degree next.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
Desmogblog is what should be banned. It has shown time and time again that it cares little for the truth even when it is shown what that truth is.
Mike Hansen
Mr
logged in via email @gmail.com
That is rich coming from you John.
You have been slagging climate scientists on almost every climate related post on this site.
And I keep asking you to explain your claim
"It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier"
made only a few months ago.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349
You are happy to feed this tripe to Andrew Bolt for him to spread his particular brand of misinformation but you are unwilling to justify the science behind your crank claim.
People can read your claim and judge your veracity for themselves.
Paul Dalgarno
Editor, The Conversation
Under the circumstances, would it not be better to just boycott the event? If no-one goes that would be a pretty strong message, especially when the event has now been so well advertised.
John McLean
logged in via email @connexus.net.au
It's had better advertising with this article and the press releases that have accompanied it.
Monckton should thank Natalie.
Mike Hansen
Mr
logged in via email @gmail.com
Natalie's letter has nothing to do it.
Like his last tour, Monckton is guaranteed to appear on every shock jock radio show and feature in the Murdoch papers across the country.
This is "freedom of speech" that climate scientists can only dream of.
See Media watch
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3169309.htm
Natalie Latter
PhD Scholar at University of Western Australia
The lecture was not a public lecture, it was only for invited guests of the university.
John Kelmar
Whilst many writers want to silence Monckton because his views do not coincide with theirs, a true academic will encourage opposing views in order to strengthen his own arguments.
Many of the respondents claim that Monckton is denigrating the scientific viewpoint, but fail to recognise that true scientific discoveries have often be made by people who oppose the status quo.
Scientists are not always correct, as shown by the Thalidomide debacle in the 1950-60s.
Galileo was also lambasted for his views and inventions, but is hailed a hero today.
Many scientists struggle to predict tomorrow's weather, let along what may happen in the next ten years.
Let him speak, so that we can make up our own minds.
Ramapriya Ramanuja
Avian Consultant
logged in via email @yoganote.com.au
I doubt that Thalidomide was exposed to as much research and scrutiny as has gone into climate change even these past 30 years so the errors are not comparable. As for Galileo, he was up against people of the calibre of Monckton - deniers - even when the reality was self evident.
John, Monckton has spoken enough and presents material which has been debunked or shown to be false repeatedly, yet he continues to present it. We've had ample opportunity to make up our minds on the tripe that he serves up.
Mike Hansen
Mr
logged in via email @gmail.com
Hey John you could be right.
Monckton claims to have developed a cure for
"various infectious diseases, including Graves' Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex 6" as well as Aids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Resurrexi
Maybe he is a genius.
Then again the simpler explanation would suggest he is just another crank.
Daniel Lim
Manager, Energy at RMIT University
He also has quite a few published works ... on sudoku mostly?
Ron Purss
logged in via Facebook
Moncton and Galileo? WTF Sorry about the language but really, some sense of proportion please.
Michael Boswell
Post-graduate Theology student, nursing assistant
logged in via email @gmail.com
Yes, I do not like Monckton. The charge against "An open letter to Notre Dame University (Fremantle)" as an attack on free speech is false. The petitioners are not attempting to gag Monckton, they are seeking to deny him the imprimatur of being invited to address a University. They are not seeking to prevent his appearance anywhere else. I would oppose one of the new atheists being invited by my Church to address it. However, they are welcome to borrow the building as a venue to run their own show.