Christopher Monckton of Brenchley draws our attention to another highly-paid individual in a position of trust who had taken the easy way out when called upon to stand up for principles.
In the U.S. we have had a number of attacks in which police have been murdered in the course of their duty. Whether there was a good reason for the anger of the murderer, there was no justification for this response. But my point is this: We still see American police out on the street doing their duty, even though doing so might cost them their lives.
But there is no such edifying example from Professor John Butterworth, "the useless bureaucrat in charge of the College’s department of Physics and Astronomy", as Monckton calls him. Faced with protests about some colleagues running a seminar on climate change - but one (HORROR!) at which a skeptical eye would be cast upon the mainstream viewpoint - the cowardly Butterworth asked the organiser to cancel his booking.
Compare: Ordinary police continue to risk their actual rives to do their job; but Butterworth, in a much more privileged and responsible position, cannot even risk some criticism.
Both butterworth and the entire UCL have trashed their reputations over this.
There is a more general point to be made here.
Scholarship, academe, science - three overlapping and related terms - cover a field of human endeavour that is one of the key factors that have raised the horizons of the possible and the imaginable for our species. As I have said many times on our bird website, wingedhearts.org, there is nothing "mere" about being an animal. Our bird friends have adopted us into their families, taught us how to communicate with them, taught us their laws and shown us their family relationships. So when I say, as I am about to do, that there is something special about humans, it is not from any naive idea of human exceptionalism.
What is exceptional is this: despite their love, wisdom, heroism, and many other qualities that they share with humans, no bird has ever wondered where the universe came from, or what are the laws that allow it to fly, or how the sun works.
Yet humans wonder about all these things. From hunter-gatherers to scientists, "how?", "why?", "where did we come from?" and like questions invade our minds. And our highly-paid university professors are the foremost guardians of our right to engage in this fundamentally human activity - arguably the central attribute of "being human".
These intellectuals are actually paid (with public money - our taxes) to do what almost every human would like to do if the problem of earning a crust did not exist. How lucky are these privileged people! And one of the key responsibilities that comes with that privilege is the duty to preserve the free and open, enquiring atmosphere in which all of us can ask hard questions about difficult subjects.
The reason for this is that scholarship and science are nothing more than formalisations of the most effective ways to engage in this fundamentally human activity. Science is the discovery that truth is more effectively discovered by formulation of hypotheses and testing against evidence, than by going along with the crowd or believing what the king says or saying what the boss tells us to say.
This is what is most obscene about the behaviour of "the useless bureaucrat". Butterworth has betrayed the most fundamental trust of any academic: to fearlessly enquire into the most sacred idols, to discover the secrets of nature without regard to the interests or beliefs of the majority.
And here he was not even asked to do anything! All he had to do was to not betray the primary trust of academe. He is condemned out of his own mouth:
“It has been brought to my attention that you have booked a room at University College, London, for an external conference in September for a rather fringe group discussing aspects of climate science.
“If this event were to go ahead at UCL, it would generate a great deal of strong feeling, indeed it already has, as members of the UCL community are expressing concern to me that we are giving a platform to speakers who deny anthropogenic climate change while flying in the face of accepted scientific methods. I am sure you have no desire to bring UCL into disrepute, or to cause dissension in the UCL community, and I would encourage you to think about moving the event to a different venue, not on UCL premises.”
The victim of this intimidation was Professor Alsabti. My only criticism of him is that, when confronted with this direct attack on one of the core human activities, he cancelled his booking and went elsewhere. The correct thing to do with these unprincipled cowards, who are not worth their salary or the respect they are usually given, is to uncompromisingly denounce them.
Professor John Butterworth, go talk to an American policeman; learn what real courage is. As Monckton says: Professor Butterworth owes Professor Alsabti an abject apology.
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
Response from Butterworth, and full text of email in question:
"Recently I was involved in discussions that led to a meeting of climate-change skeptics moving from UCL premises. As a result, a couple of articles appeared about me on a climate website and on the right-wing “Breitbart” site.
In the more measured article by Christopher Monckton (who has more reason to be ticked off, since he was one of the meeting organisers) I’m called a “useless bureaucrat” and “forgettable”. The other article uses “cockwomble” (a favourite insult of mine), “bullying” and “prat”. Obviously it is difficult to respond to such disarming eloquence, but I do want to set the record straight on one thing.
My involvement was by means of an email to an honorary – ie unpaid – research fellow in the department of Physics & Astronomy, of which I am currently head, based on concerns expressed to me by UCL colleagues on the nature of the meeting and the way it was being advertised. The letter I sent is quoted partially, and reproducing the full text might give a better idea of the interaction. It’s below. The portions quoted by Monckton et al are in italics.
Dear Prof [redacted]
Although you have been an honorary research associate with the department since before I became head, I don’t believe we have ever met, which is a shame. I understand you have made contributions to outreach at the observatory on occasion, for which thanks.
It has been brought to my attention that you have booked a room at UCL for an external conference in September for a rather fringe group discussing aspects of climate science. This is apparently an area well beyond your expertise as an astronomer, and this group is also one which many scientists at UCL have had negative interactions. The publicity gives the impression that you are a professor of astronomy at UCL, which is inaccurate, and some of the publicity could be interpreted as implying that UCL, and the department of Physics & Astronomy in particular, are hosting the event, rather than it being an external event booked by you in a personal capacity.
If this event were to go ahead at UCL, it would generate a great deal of strong feeling, indeed it already has, as members of the UCL community are expressing concern to me that we are giving a platform to speakers who deny anthropogenic climate change while flying in the face of accepted scientific methods. I am sure you have no desire to bring UCL into disrepute, or to cause dissension in the UCL community, and I would encourage you to think about moving the event to a different venue, not on UCL premises. If it is going to proceed as planned I must insist that the website and other publicity is amended to make clear that the event has no connection to UCL or this department in particular, and that you are not a UCL Professor.
Best wishes,
Jon
After receiving this, the person concerned expressed frustration at the impression given by the meeting publicity, and decided to cancel the room booking. I understand the meeting was successfully rebooked at Conway Hall, which seems like a decent solution to me. As you can see in the full letter, the meeting wasn’t in any sense banned.
Free speech and debate are good things, though the quality that I’ve experienced during this episode hasn’t much impressed me. As far as I’m concerned, people are welcome to have meetings like this to their hearts’ content, so long as they don’t appropriate spurious endorsement from the place in which they have booked a room.
I have since met the honorary research fellow concerned, and while mildly embarrassed by the whole episode (which is why I haven’t mentioned his name here, though it’s easy to find it if you really care), he did not seem at all upset or intimidated, and we had a friendly and interesting discussion about his scientific work and other matters.
Bit of a storm in a teacup, really, I think, though I’m sure James Delingpole was glad of the opportunity to deploy the Eng. Lit. skills of which he seems so proud."
https://lifeandphysics.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/for-the-record/
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
Thanks Philip for that complete text. His excuses don't impress me. I've been around (and been) an academic for very long, and one thing they are very good at is "being reasonable" - writing such temperate, considered, greyed-out prose that the real message is not visible - not, at least, to those who aren't aware of the tricks and can read between the lines.
Let me translate this email for you.
"Anonymous backroom persons ("UCL colleagues") didn't like the views that were going to be discussed at a proposed meeting, and they definitely objected to its being widely promoted. In the letter: Since we want group-think at UCL (no "strong feelings"), please take this meeting elsewhere. And then: We did what we could to stop it, but because they found a venue we could not control, 'the meeting wasn’t in any sense banned.'"
And then he has the temerity to get all self-righteous about being called out for this betrayal of everything good academe stands for!
Rather than this kind of academic sleaze, give me some drunk in a pub calling BS, BS - any day!
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
The emails specifically states that if the event is to go ahead as planned, then the references to UCL need to be removed from the marketing materials. I've read the original promotional material for the conference, and it does refer to Professor Alsabti as a UCL professor, which he isn't, and makes note of the reputation of the college. Have you read it? Mr Monckton seeks a veneer of legitimacy for his event, which he sough to gain by saying his event was organized by a UCL professor, held on the prestigious UCL campus. Now he has lost that, and that is why he is so upset.
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
Also, does it give you any pause that Monckton presented an edited version of the email, leaving out the bit where Butterworth refers to the changes necessary if the conference was to be held on UCL property, and presented the edited version as if it was the complete email, with no mention of it being edited?
If a man is to be hung by his own words, shouldn't it be with what he actually said, and not by an edited version with important bits missing. Even if you think Butterworth meant something other than what he actually said, that doesn't make it alright to misrepresent his actual words, and he did give reasonable conditions which would allow the event to proceed. Mr Monckton omitted that part, while claiming that Butterworth's email as proof that his event had been banned.
I also note that neither WUWT, Breitbart News, or your own site, who published Monckton's version of events, made any attempt to contact Butterworth (which would have exposed the editing.. Were you aware that you were publishing an edited version of Butterworth's email? I think that this point matters, regardless of what you think of the people involved), or Alsabti (Monckton claims he was intimidated by Butterworth, but what does Alsabti say? Shouldn't he at least be asked?)
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
You make some good points here, but I at least see nothing in the complete email that changes the substance of the subset posted by Monckton. Having been an academic 30 years, I can say for sure that no academic, not ever, would claim to hold a professorship when he did not (excepting cases like someone forging qualifications - but definitely not within the very institution that employs you and knows what your real quals are). And if it did happen, the heavens would fall! Yet Butterworth expresses very mild disapproval of that - why?
I can make a pretty good guess. I, along with every academic I know, has at some point been called professor - because someone who isn't sure uses the title so as to not offend by accidentally giving you a lower title than your real one. I would be astounded if the publicity was not written by someone making that exact mistake.
As for Butterworth, he said the damning things he did say. He was upset by: the topic discomforting some of his colleagues, the people involved doing likewise, and the absurdly false claim that skepticism "flies in the face of accepted scientific methods." In other words he doen't believe in the primary mission of academe. It's as simple as that. But the full letter does explain why Alsabti buckled so easily: he was horrified, as any academic would be, at being billed as a professor.
One more thing: the full text actually raises another puzzle (for me at least): why would anyone quibble with the qualifications of the organiser of a conference? The thing that matters is the presenters, not the organiser. That seems like simply trying to invent things to be upset about, and it exposes an underlying bias, which is compounded by his negative description of a group that includes some genuine top of the field experts.
Thanks for bringing the full email to my attention.
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
"You make some good points here, but I at least see nothing in the complete email that changes the substance of the subset posted by Monckton. Having been an academic 30 years, I can say for sure that no academic, not ever, would claim to hold a professorship when he did not (excepting cases like someone forging qualifications - but definitely not within the very institution that employs you and knows what your real quals are). And if it did happen, the heavens would fall! Yet Butterworth expresses very mild disapproval of that - why?"
Mild disapproval? It's part of the reason he wanted the marketing changed, or the event moved. The marketing materials were misrepresenting Alsabti as a UCL professor, not Alsabit.
Butterworth said: "After receiving this, the person concerned expressed frustration at the impression given by the meeting publicity, and decided to cancel the room booking."
Well, there is something you could ask Alsabit about. According to Butterworth, Alsabit was frustrated by the impression given by the marketing materials.
"I can make a pretty good guess. I, along with every academic I know, has at some point been called professor - because someone who isn't sure uses the title so as to not offend by accidentally giving you a lower title than your real one. I would be astounded if the publicity was not written by someone making that exact mistake."
There is no suggestion from anyone that Alsabti was the one misrepresenting his status. Here is an archived version of the marketing materials:
https://archive.is/7YdAe#selection-273.1-283.77
"Organization Committee
Hosting Co-ordinator:
Professor Athem Alsabti, Professor in Astronomy, University College, London."
"UCL which is hosting our conference is one of the highest ranked universities in Europe and the World (28 researchers at UCL have been awarded the Nobel Prize)."
"One more thing: the full text actually raises another puzzle (for me at least): why would anyone quibble with the qualifications of the organiser of a conference? The thing that matters is the presenters, not the organiser. That seems like simply trying to invent things to be upset about, and it exposes an underlying bias, which is compounded by his negative description of a group that includes some genuine top of the field experts."
Mr Monckton has form appropriating the legitimacy of other organizations for himself. From claiming to be a member of the house of lords, who ended up publishing a public letter refuting his claim, to claims of having published peer reviewed material with the American Physical Society, who also went on the record to refute his claim.
www dot parliament dot uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
www dot aps dot org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/shore.cfm
His bio at on the SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute) claimed:
"His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA."
web dot archive dot org/web/20120104112815/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
Been quite under the weather for a week or so, hence the delay replying. Thanks again for your thoughts. I have been thinking about your (now repeated) implication that I should have contacted this person before writing on the subject. As decent people, we want to do the right thing by others. However, I have come to the conclusion that you are quite wrong in that implication.
There are two kinds of blog posts (or any other publication): news reporting, and commentary.
A reporter breaks a story - reports news. That person might be a professional journalist or an unpaid blogger, but the key thing is that new facts are being presented to the public. Anyone acting in that capacity (and it might be me, in another story in the future) has a duty to get the reported facts right and to tell an even-handed story. In most such cases, getting both sides of the story is the right thing to do.
But even here, not always; if one party is known to be malign (a report about a murder, for example), reporting the evidence might be all that a journalist can do.
But in the second category, commentary, I don't believe this rule applies at all. The news has been reported. If it is wrong, the fault is the journalist's, and corrections can be issued. But if every person who wanted to comment on the news had a duty to first contact everyone mentioned in the story, chaos would obviously reign.
Especially in climate so-called "science", where contacting parties is often portrayed as "harrassment", and where, when someone was asked "Did you get your roo-shooting licence renewed?" and answered "yes", it was portrayed as a death threat and subject to a police enquiry, I think it is outside the scope of any practical policy to contact any of these beezers for "their side".
"His side" was fully reported by Monckton, and the complete email that you helpfully provided added nothing in exoneration; and in any respect I commented only on what he said and clearly did say: his own self-condemnation as a pen pusher who did not rise to the occasion when it was thrust upon him.
I think if you reflect on the above, you will see that my analysis is correct. You implicitly agreed to it when you added "Monckton has form..." without first checking with Monckton!
So much for that. Just a few other things.
I said Butterworth expressed only mild disapproval to the incorrect "Prof." claim. I correct that: he expressed no disapproval at all! All he did was list it as a reason for asking for the conference to be moved. As I said, a faulty attribution of professorship bothers no one (although, rightly, it should be corrected). The real reason was clearly and precisely stated: Butterworth's colleagues didn't like the other scientists, nor their scientific opinions. Other chaff was added as padding, but clearly was not any part of the real reason: almost no conference would survive if no mistakes were tolerated.
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
"Been quite under the weather for a week or so, hence the delay replying. Thanks again for your thoughts. I have been thinking about your (now repeated) implication that I should have contacted this person before writing on the subject. As decent people, we want to do the right thing by others. However, I have come to the conclusion that you are quite wrong in that implication.
There are two kinds of blog posts (or any other publication): news reporting, and commentary.
A reporter breaks a story - reports news. That person might be a professional journalist or an unpaid blogger, but the key thing is that new facts are being presented to the public. Anyone acting in that capacity (and it might be me, in another story in the future) has a duty to get the reported facts right and to tell an even-handed story. In most such cases, getting both sides of the story is the right thing to do.
But even here, not always; if one party is known to be malign (a report about a murder, for example), reporting the evidence might be all that a journalist can do."
You aren't just commenting on the news. Mr Moncktons version isn't news reporting. It's just one side of the story, from a person with a dog in the race. You have then published your own criticism of Butterworth, based on Moncktons version of events, and have not made any effort to get the other side of the story before doing so. You still don't have the basic facts right anyway. Alsabti IS a professor, just not a UCL professor.
"But in the second category, commentary, I don't believe this rule applies at all. The news has been reported. If it is wrong, the fault is the journalist's, and corrections can be issued. But if every person who wanted to comment on the news had a duty to first contact everyone mentioned in the story, chaos would obviously reign."
So let me get this straight. It's OK for you to personally publish criticism of someone, on the basis of one persons version of events without even attempting to get the other side of the story, because anyone couldn't just publish whatever they like if they had to try and get both sides of a dispute between two people before saying something?
Really?
If someone had a dispute with you, and published their version of what happened, if I wished to weigh in on the subject I would absolutely ask for your side of events before I said anything. If you refused to respond, I would make note in my publication that comment had been sought but not received. Is that really too much to expect? I don't think so.
"Especially in climate so-called "science", where contacting parties is often portrayed as "harrassment", and where, when someone was asked "Did you get your roo-shooting licence renewed?" and answered "yes", it was portrayed as a death threat and subject to a police enquiry, I think it is outside the scope of any practical policy to contact any of these beezers for "their side"."
I think that's a pretty weak excuse. That doing the right thing can be hard and have risks is no reason to not do the right thing. If you aren't willing to risk anything in the name of the truth, then maybe you should refrain from publishing on those issues. Also, I think you exaggerate the risk, and besides, if people are unreasonable, and you can show exactly what the reasonable request you made is they can then be hung with their own words.
""His side" was fully reported by Monckton, and the complete email that you helpfully provided added nothing in exoneration; and in any respect I commented only on what he said and clearly did say: his own self-condemnation as a pen pusher who did not rise to the occasion when it was thrust upon him."
Fully reported by Monckton... really? How do you reconcile that statement with Moncktons edited excerpt of his email, as opposed to the full thing, with no mention of the fact that only an edited version was presented? You and I must have a different definition of fully reported.
"I think if you reflect on the above, you will see that my analysis is correct. You implicitly agreed to it when you added "Monckton has form..." without first checking with Monckton!"
I've attempted to get straight answers out of Monckton many times, as have many others, but he simply refuses to acknowledge anything he doesn't like. Notice how he disappeared from the WUWT discussion when I posted the actual email and noted that Monckton didn't even mention that he had edited it?
"So much for that. Just a few other things.
"I said Butterworth expressed only mild disapproval to the incorrect "Prof." claim. I correct that: he expressed no disapproval at all! All he did was list it as a reason for asking for the conference to be moved. As I said, a faulty attribution of professorship bothers no one (although, rightly, it should be corrected). The real reason was clearly and precisely stated: Butterworth's colleagues didn't like the other scientists, nor their scientific opinions. Other chaff was added as padding, but clearly was not any part of the real reason: almost no conference would survive if no mistakes were tolerated."
Butterworth said:
"If it is going to proceed as planned I must insist that the website and other publicity is amended to make clear that the event has no connection to UCL or this department in particular, and that you are not a UCL Professor."
That makes it clear. It directly states what is objectionable that must be changed if the event is to go ahead.
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
I should also add that I am grateful that you are willing to engage in this dialogue. I can tell you from experience that such a dialog is not possible with Monckton, unless you go out of your way to be deferential and make it clear what "side" you are on. Now "sides" shouldn't make a difference, but with him they do, and that itself says a lot.
I don't know if you have any contact with him, but if you do, I suggest trying a devils advocate argument with him, and see what you think of his character after that. I mean, we're talking about a guy who threatened legal action against Willis and Leif (from WUWT). If you know anything about either of those guys then that should tell you something.
Re: Another shameless betrayal of science - this time at ...
Hi again Philip. I only moderate comments for one reason: I got hundreds of fake discussions whose only purpose was to plant a link to a commercial website. Apart from that and other irrelevancies, I post any comment. But my circumstances make it hard to monitor in "real time" so there's often a delay.
Re your latest thoughts, my purpose wasn't to applaud Monckton, or to argue he's perfect. No one is. But he did publish the key statement, which nothing in the complete email IMHO changes. We may have to agree to disagree on that.
As for the "always check" assertion, I still don't agree. Journalism and commentary are two different things. You say "That doing the right thing can be hard and have risks is no reason to not do the right thing." I disagree that always contacting anyone involved in the news, simply to comment on it, is a necessary part of doing the right thing. Imagine if everyone wishing to comment on reports about Obama or Putin had to first contact them to "do the right thing". The system would collapse.
One assumes the news is correct. If it turns out not to be, one issues a correction. In this case, Monckton should definitely have indicated with ellipses where material was omitted, and he deserves a rap on the knuckles for that. But as a practical matter, IMHO he omitted nothing that alters my thoughts about it.