Letters to Father Dease in support of Monckton

Source:  private communications (permission granted to post)

1.

Sir:

As a practicing Catholic, I am appalled that one of your ass. profs of mechanical engineering would be preaching Al Gore’s new theoretical global warming ecoreligion.  As a retired Professional Engineer licensed in New Jersey, I am dismayed by what seems to be a pile of unproven, unprofessional, non-engineering, unscientific rubbish that Abraham is promoting from your erstwhile distinguished University.

Maybe he would be more credible teaching  in your school of EcoDivinity.  I sincerely hope that no funds or services were stolen or misallocated from a Catholic University to attack Britain’s distinguished Lord Monckton in such a shamefully vile manner as was done by Abraham recently.  I hope you will fully investigate this possibility.

Robert Paglee, Sr.

**************************

2.

Father Dennis J. Dease, President

S. Thomas University

Office of Academic Affairs

Human Resources

July 14th, 2010

Re: Unprofessional Conduct of Associate Professor John Abraham

Dear Father Dennis J. Dease, et. al.,

The recent publication by your Associate Professor John Abraham of his lengthy personal attack (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) against Christopher Monckton based in incorrect, unscientific, and unfounded claims is quite shocking and unbecoming of an academic at a fine institution such as St. Thomas University. I lived in Minneapolis for a time and am shocked. How can your university continue to allow and permit such a hack unprofessional attack presentation by one of your Associate Professors who must uphold the highest standards of academic conduct?

In the best interests of upholding the highest standards of conduct for Associate Professors please take displinary action against Associate Professor John Abraham for his low brow unprofessional conduct as demonstrated in his original (as well as in his revised) presentation. They represent not just libel against Christopher Monckton but also put St. Thomas University into a bad light for supporting bad science on the part of Associate Professor John Abraham who gets so many basic points of science WRONG in his presentation as pointed out oh so well by Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal to him (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/).

If Associate Professor John Abraham can’t get the science right what the heck is he even doing teaching at St. Thomas?

What is Associate Professor John Abraham doing an personal attack presentation on St. Thomas University time and with university resources anyway? Does this mean that the St. Thomas University is also perpetrating the libelous attack using bad science against Christopher Monckton as well? I sure hope not for St. Thomas University’s sake.

Please discipline Associate Professor John Abraham forthwith in the strongest way possible and remove the libelous presentation from your servers.

Clearly Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of the St. Thomas University Code of Professional Conduct (http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/manual/files/CodeofProfessionalConductPolicy.pdf).

“Policy Statement. The University of St. Thomas is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in all that

it does and expects those who are part of the University community, including trustees, officers,

faculty, staff, and students to adhere to such standards in their business dealings. This policy

applies to trustees, officers, faculty, staff, students, and others who manage, supervise or conduct

university business, financial and administrative transactions and activities.”

I. … The University

will comply fully with all relevant laws and all contract and grant requirements, as well as with

its own high standards of integrity and quality.

Trustees, officers, faculty, staff, and students are obligated to avoid involvement in activities,

which might conflict, or appear to conflict, with their institutional responsibilities. Decisionmaking

in matters in which a conflict of interest may exist, may not only create an appearance of

impropriety but may violate the law.

V.

The University is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in all of its business

practices. It accepts responsibility for the stewardship of resources and private support it

receives, which enables St. Thomas to pursue its mission and strategic objectives. Supervisors,

managers, or other university officials shall not compel or attempt to compel faculty, staff,

students, applicants for employment, or other university constituents to violate a law, statute, or

university policy. At St. Thomas, accountability is the cornerstone of ethical business practice,

and the university’s Whistleblower’s Policy is one of the mechanisms for assuring compliance

with this institutional value.

Faculty, staff, students, applicants for employment, or other university constituents may make a

protected disclosure at any time after witnessing or becoming aware of an improper activity or

may do so after the individual knew or reasonably should have known of the protected activity.

VII. c. Non-University Professional Standards. Some professions and disciplines represented at the

University are governed by standards and codes specific to their profession (such as attorneys,

certified public accountants, and medical doctors). Those professional standards generally

advance the quality of the profession and/or discipline by developing codes of ethics, conduct,

and professional responsibility and standards by which their members are guided. Those

belonging to such organizations are expected to adhere to University policies and codes of

conduct in addition to any professional standards. If a community member believes there is a

conflict between a professional standard and University policy, he/she should contact the

Department of Human Resources.

The St. Thomas “Discipline and Corrective Action” (http://www.stthomas.edu/hr/policies/manual/files/discipline.pdf) section 2.1.8 of your Policies and Procedures Manual states:

A. Causes for Corrective Action

Corrective action may be warranted in, but is not limited to, the following situations: unsatisfactory performance; insubordination, mishandling or unauthorized removal or destruction of confidential or sensitive information; theft, dishonesty, or other unethical behavior, such as falsification of records or knowingly and willfully misrepresenting data requested by the University or its agent; possession or consumption of alcohol on university premises or while performing university duties unless during a university-sponsored event; use or possession of illegal drugs on University premises; impairment of faculties from the consumption or use of alcohol or illegal drugs while on University premises or while performing University duties; blatant disregard for safety regulations; abuse, neglect, mishandling, destruction, or unauthorized removal or use of University property; possession or use of a weapon on

University premises; verbal abuse, including bullying; threats or acts of physical abuse; sexual or racial harassment or violence; arrest or conviction of an illegal act, on or off the job, which adversely affects job performance or the University’s reputation; or general failure to observe University policies and procedures.

Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of the above “Causes for Corrective” action by the many fabricated and libelous statements made in his presentation and his subsequent revised presentation. You may see Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal of 500 points (linked above) for the detailed lies and fabrications of ssociate Professor John Abraham. As such disciplinary and corrective action is mandated by your policies.

To comply with libel laws the issues raised by Associate Professor John Abraham’s libelous attack against Christopher Monckton must be dealt with forthwith, by removing the offending materials and issuing a public apology. That might not be remedy enough, firing ssociate Professor John Abraham may also be required to ensure the highest standards of professional conduct at St. Thomas University.

It is very likely that Associate Professor John Abraham is in violation of any professional associations that he is a member of and as such is in violation of their standards of professional conduct as well. Based upon your Code of Conduct a copy of this email has been sent to your Human Resources department as required by your Code.

The topic of climate is certainly a heated topic and many people, such as Associate Professor John Abraham, have their opinions. However, opinions are no longer enough to carry arguments, especially when those opinions of one Associate Professor John Abraham are so in error and without scientific basis. Verifiable open science needs to have integrity, integrity of the data, integrity of the people involved, integrity of the people involved includes not using ad hominem personal attacks as Associate Professor John Abraham’s entire presentation is against Christopher Monckton. The presentation of Associate Professor John Abraham is hard evidence that Associate Professor John Abraham lacks the integrity needed to be an Associate Professor or a scientist.

I don’t know about you Father Dennis, but to me lying goes beyond unprofessional conduct. It is clear from Associate Professor John Abraham’s presentation and Christopher Monckton’s evisceration of it that John Abraham fabricated many statements. Fabrication is fraud. Fraud is not permissible in science, especially if it’s intentional rather than just a minor bias. It’s clear that Associate Professor John Abraham certainly has bias to the doomsday alarmist cult that claims the world is coming to an end due to human activities allegedly impacting the climate systems, however they have yet to provide any verifiable scientific proof for their claims resulting in them being unfounded as Christopher Monckton clearly demonstrates in his numerous publications. Bias one can deal with in the long term as the facts of Nature will eventually be revealed by scientists practicing open and verifiable science using the scientific method. Fraud via fabrication and personal libelous attacks are another matter entirely. Those that perpetrate scientific frauds or hack personal attacks using bad unfounded claims or bad science must be dealt with using social punishment mechanism in order to maintain the distinct dividing line between those with integrity and those without integrity. Associate Professor John Abraham is clearly in the category of those without integrity for his unfounded personal libelous attacks against Christopher Monckton. Not only that, the revised presentation still attacks Christopher Monckton brazenly adding NEW libelous claims against Christopher Monckton. That demonstrates willful malice against Christopher Monckton by Associate Professor John Abraham and, if St. Thomas University is officially supporting him, by St. Thomas University and, notably, by yourself as well.

It might be best to officially repudiate the unfounded and unwise claims of Associate Professor John Abraham and distance the St. Thomas University from Associate Professor John Abraham’s unscientific and libelous hack attack piece. At least it might be best if St. Thomas University is interested in the values of integrity and honesty in science.

I am a person concerned about integrity in science and that science be conducted in an open and above board manner with integrity. It is very important that the issues about the climate be resolved with hard science not personal attacks and that those making such personal attacks be held to the highest standards of conduct and be punished for their violations of those standards especially when they are in positions of trust as Associate Professor John Abraham as a teacher of sciences. He is supposed to be an example for young minds and the example he sets is that it’s not just ok but authorized by his university that he can make vicious ad hominem personal attacks against Christopher Monckton. If you allow him to get away with this heinous behavior you and your entire institution are supporting the lowest form of non-debate rather than upholding the highest standards of academic excellence, and in which case shame on you all.

I trust however that you will uphold your duty to St. Thomas University and deal with this matter in the appropriate manner to Christopher Monckton’s satisfaction and in a way that not just maintains the integrity of St. Thomas University but uplifts your otherwise fine intuition to be an example of high standards of conduct for other universities in the world showing them that in science ad hominem personal attacks are not just not tolerated by their staff.

All the best,

Peter William Lount

3.

Dear Father Dease,

I write to you in your capacity as President of St Thomas University, and concerning the tacit support your  institution has given to a presentation by Prof Abraham.

This presentation is an indefensible attack on the integrity and the veracity of a distinguished commentator and analyst of climate science and policy, Viscount Monckton.  A man who lives not so far from me, here in Scotland, but whom I have never met, nor even corresponded with.  I regard his work with the highest esteem, and I was dismayed to watch Prof Abraham’s facile and misleading attack not only on his work, but also on his character.

I believe Prof Abraham has recently modified his published presentation to remove some his more objectionable slurs, but I understand that many remain.

I think it would be in the best interests of your university, and of your students, for you to carefully review this presentation and decide if indeed it deserves being associated so explicitly with your institution, or whether it would have been better published as a diatribe by an individual in no more than his personal capacity.

I include my own posting on the topic:  http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2010/07/dont-let-your-children-near-st-thomas.html

Yours sincerely,
John Shade

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , ,

  • pyaemia