Monckton's response is clearly a prelude to a libel suit; whether he follows through is another thing. If you haven't already, go read it. Quite entertaining. My favorite stretch starts at question 231, the section titled "The Australian dead tree lie," on the gink's response to Monckton's alleged opinions of alleged sea-level rise in the Maldives. Question 231 from Monckton (he asks the first hunk over and over):
Please confirm that in the following passage I have accurately encapsulated your criticism of me for having allegedly “discounted” sea-level rise:
“Let’s move on to the next major topic of Chris Monckton’s presentation: that’s when he began to discount sea-level rise. He said that ... there was no sea-level rise in the Maldives, which are islands in the Indian Ocean: let’s see what some real researchers are saying about that subject” (48). You then cite papers by two researchers who disagree with Professor Morner’s results showing no sea-level rise in the Maldives (49)."
Never run across that one before. Some of these alarmists are as bad as Warm Churchill.
Did I not explain in my talk that Professor Mörner, who had concluded after a decade-long survey that was probably the most detailed survey of sea-level rise ever to have been conducted anywhere in the world that sea level in the Maldives was similar to what it had been 1250 years ago, had found [an] uprooted tree by the shore, had been puzzled that it was still in leaf, had asked the locals how it had come to be uprooted and had learned from them that a team of Australian environmentalists, realizing the tree was good evidence that there had been no sea-level rise in the Maldives for 40 years or so, had uprooted the tree to prevent anyone else from using it as evidence?
Update: At WUWT, Monckton in a guest post notes that St. Thomas's Associate Prof Abraham (the gink) has shortened his presentation supposedly debunking Monckton (band name!) by ten minutes--according to Monckton, to remove libelous material. Monckton still appears intent on going for him. Get the genetically engineered bio-fuels corn, Edna, and no, don't pop it--I'm a ruminant:
Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes. To my own lawyers, Abraham’s retreat will be of interest, because it is in effect an admission that his talk is libelous, and that he and his university know it is libelous. Though his new version corrects some of the stupider and more egregious errors in the original, many crass errors remain, including errors of simple arithmetic that are surely disfiguring in a “scientist” presuming to correct mine.Unclear to me is whether Monckton will pursue his suit (which he still hasn't said he'll do) in the US or Great Britain. GB, if he has any sense, though I don't doubt he might win here as well. Actual malice, reckless disregard for the truth, etc.