- JoNova - http://joannenova.com.au -

Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate).

Posted By Joanne Nova On March 1, 2013 @ 6:27 pm In Global Warming | Comments Disabled

UPDATED: The Mann-Ball case is not settled yet. See below.

Christopher Monckton is cutting across Australia and leaving a wake behind him. He’s called for one Doctor’s deregistration, and one university Prof to be investigated for fraud. Today the VC from Uni of Tasmania has agreed do an investigation and “rigorously“. It is already having an effect. Below, Monckton answers the critics and explains why legal action is “the deadliest weapon”. He is after all, the man who took on Gore and won. He took on the BBC and won too. The Lord knows exactly why he’s doing this. How many prophets of doom will sit up and pay attention and think twice the next time they do a media interview?  –  Jo

PS: Don’t forget to see him in  Perth next week, and Queensland the week after that.

“I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.”

Christopher Monckton

 

Why taking climate extremists to court works

Christopher Monckton

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

One or two commenters on the postings about “Dr.” Helen Caldicott on the unspeakable ABC and “Dr.” Tony dePress at the “University” of Tasmania have whinged that one ought not to seek to get “scientists” struck off or dismissed just because they have flagrantly breached professional ethics, lied, cheated and committed scientific fraud.

Get with the picture. Going to court is the deadliest weapon we have against the extremists who have lied and lied and lied again to save the Party Line.

Lies have consequences. I spoke in the Hunter Valley last night. A mining engineer spoke up after my talk. His mine was having to pay an extra $1 million a year in carbon taxes. He will cling on for a few months in the hope that Tony Abbott, immediately on taking office, will zero the rate. Then, and only then, hundreds of workers’ jobs may survive.

From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy. If the various authorities to whom I have complained … fail to respond, the next thing they will get is court orders requiring them to reply properly, with costs and indemnity orders too

The agony on his face was palpable. Those who comment here should not allow themselves to think that the debate about the climate is a mere senior-common-room colloquy with no real-world consequences. Jobs, families, livelihoods are on the line.

I have seen that same fear and agony on the faces of miners, farmers, fishermen and property-owners throughout Australia. The carbon tax is shutting your nation down. The working guy is being hurt first and worst. He spends more of his hard-earned income on fuel and power than most. The carbon tax is a poll tax on the poor.

We have had some good court victories. In 2007 the London High Court condemned Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy-horror movie. It found nine errors so serious that the court ordered 77 pages of corrective guidance to be circulated to every school in England. The judge said: “The Armageddon scenario that he [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view.”

Two days later, Gore won the Nobel Mickey Mouse Prize. But he was holed below the waterline. Now he is seen not as a prophet but as a profiteer.

The whingers of the do-nothing brigade were at work even then. The lawyers refused to file the case on the ground that there was no chance of success. They were fired.

The new lawyers said we could not possibly win on the science and refused to use any scientific testimony. The judge threw the case out. I recovered the position by instructing the lawyers to write to the judge asking if he had even seen Gore’s movie before he had reached his judgment without holding a hearing.

Tellingly, the judge did not reply. I insisted on – and got – a new judge. This time the lawyers did what they were told. I wrote 80 pages of scientific testimony. Bob Carter and Dick Lindzen– bless them both – worked from the document in crafting their evidence, and signed off as expert witnesses. As soon as the other side saw it, they collapsed and settled, paying the plaintiff $400,000.

Going to court works because the Forces of Darkness know they will be cross-examined. They know their lies will be exposed. So they crumble.

Dr. Michael Mann, producer of the “hockey-stick” graph that abolished the medieval warm period, sued Dr. Tim Ball for calling the graph scientific fraud. Tim Ball’s defence was to propose showing the judge the many techniques by which Dr. Mann had done what Dr. Overpeck had called for in 1995: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

Rather than face cross-examination, “Dr.” Mann gave up the case at a cost that cannot have been much less than $1 million.

————-

(UPDATE: The case is still running. Tim Ball advises me that Mann’s lawyer gave a partial Discovery on Friday as this was being posted which Monckton was unaware of.).

Mann writes:

“What is most peculiar about the false assertion that we ‘gave up’ the defamation suit against Mr Ball (it is very much alive and well thank you) is that this statement appeared on the very day that my lawyer, Canadian libel expert, Roger McConchie, was DEPOSING BALL as part of the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

[Jo notes that the case would be settled quickly if Mann provided the data, methods, and emails which all scientists and taxpayer funded workers normally provide. Science is a transparent process, why does anything about tree-rings need to be secret?]

————

I sued the BBC a couple of years ago when they did a hatchet job on me. I had been told – in writing – that I should have the chance to alter any points that were inaccurate. Fat chance.

So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.

I insisted on seeing the programme before it was broadcast. It was a disgrace. I wrote to the Director-General listing two dozen factual errors and numerous other biases in the schlocumentary. No reply.

So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.

The BBC crumbled and cut the programme from 90 minutes to an hour, taking out the overwhelming majority of the vicious nonsense. There were still some objectionable points, so I went into court.

I fought the case myself. When I introduced the two barristers and three solicitors for the Beeb, the judge interrupted me and said: “Lord Monckton, I fear I must draw your attention to a potential conflict of interest. You see, I am a member of your club.”

I had no objection and invited the BBC’s expensive QC to give his opinion. He had no objection either, but added: “Er, I too have a conflict of interest. I also am a member of Lord Monckton’s club.”

The judge did not prevent the Beeb from leaving a few barbs in my side. The BBC issued a lying statement that I had lost. But the judge held that I had “substantially won” the action. A 90-minute programme had become 60 minutes. The Beeb had lost. Big-time.

One interesting follow-up. The creep who made the programme had visited me in Scotland and asked me, on camera, about the medical invention that cured me of 25 years’ crippling illness four years ago. I had said it showed promise against various infections, but until we had done the clinical trials that are now in preparation we were not making any claims.

The creep said my answer was too long and complicated. He asked me simply to list the diseases the invention might be effective against. I said, “We have had some promising indications and, subject to clinicial trials, it is possible that we can cure [followed by a list of infections]”. The clip was edited dishonestly. What was broadcast was “We can cure the list of infections]”.

In no time an Australian climate extremist at Melbourne “University” had complained to the medical regulators in the UK that I was conducting unauthorized clinical trials. The complaint failed when I pointed out that the BBC programme had evilly tampered with what I had said, the extremist had lied in correspondence and, in any event, he had no standing to interfere.

From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy. If the various authorities to whom I have complained about la Caldiclott and “Dr.” dePress fail to respond, the next thing they will get is court orders requiring them to reply properly, with costs and indemnity orders too.

Then the police will be called in, and any regulator failing to investigate my complaints will be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of organized, systematic fraud.

Now that I have seen and heard the heartbreaking stories of farmers driven off their land by crazed officials threatening to prosecuting them for shifting a rock; of fishermen tricked out of their fishing grounds by crafty bureaucrats asking them to nominate zones they did not want regulated and then regulating only those zones; of miners driven to bankruptcy as their industry dies; of householders having their electricity cut off because they cannot pay the monstrous carbon-tax-driven increases; of businessmen terrified that if they mention the carbon tax at all they can be fined $1.1 million; of the regime of terror in the countryside that has driven thousands of farmers off the land in the name of absurd environmental over-regulation; now that I have seen all this and more in just a few weeks, I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.

In most instances where I should like to help, I have no standing to intervene. But if the liars tell lies about me, if the fraudsters deny the scientific truth when I speak it, if the cheats make up baseless personal attacks on me, then I have the opportunity to fight back, not so much on my own behalf as on behalf of the silent, broken millions who cannot speak for themselves and whom your political class no longer bothers to represent. Someone must speak for them and fight for them. It may as well be me.

————————————-

Friday: Minor post editing has taken place for clarity.

—————-

Monday am – in light of the news about partial discovery the words fabricator, dodges and falsely were changed.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (337 votes cast)

Article printed from JoNova: http://joannenova.com.au

URL to article: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckton-explains-why-taking-climate-extremists-to-court-works-and-uni-tas-agrees-to-investigate/

Copyright © 2008 JoNova. All rights reserved.