Lies, damned lies, and little Littlemore

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The SPPI Blog does not usually concern itself with climate-extremist websites. However, that of Richard Littlemore, the cringing, paid lackey of a convicted internet-gaming fraudster who now additionally faces money-laundering charges and has recently found a new fraud – making dodgy solar panels whose construction emits more carbon dioxide than they will save in their remarkably short life-span – has sunk to a new, panicky, desperate low.

Littlemore, you may remember, unwisely agreed to debate me on live radio [Hear the debate here. Or read it here.] across Canada a couple of years ago. As a full-time hack for a PR company he knows no climate science at all, so instead he resorted to the only trade he knows – an ad-hominem personal attack on me. During that radio broadcast he suggested – with characteristic mendacity – that I was paid by fossil-fuel interests. 

[Soon there after, he further demonstrated his pathology for lying by falsely stating:  “Unlike the people at Monckton’s (which split off from the Frontiers of Freedom Institute so they could try to deny their Exxon connections, we have maintained a policy of transparency….”  This fabrication is serially wrong on a number of counts. First, SPPI is not a split off of FOF or any other organization.  The Wiki link Littlemore himself provided for this lie clearly states:  “The Science and Public Policy Institute is not connected to the former Center for Science and Public Policy of the Frontiers of Freedom.”  Secondly, SPPI has never received funding from Exxon Mobil, and Littlemore can produce no evidence that it has — Exxon annually publishes all its contributions, so anyone can check.  Third,  SPPI is not my organization.]

To his astonishment, I replied, in detail, with the source of his own blog’s funding – the serious fraudster Lefebvre, who had been convicted the previous year of running a bogus online bank for unregistered internet casinos, and had been ordered by the court to repay $185 million of his ill-gotten gains. Littlemore’s response when I revealed the results of my research was to tell a flat lie. He said Lefebvre “has never been convicted of anything”.

At that point Roy Green, the doyen of Canadian talk-show hosts, called a commercial break. During the break I called up the court records and, when we came back on the air, I gave the name of the court, the date of the hearing, the name of the judge and the details of Lefebvre’s conviction and sentence. Littlemore never recovered. From then on for the rest of the hour, he was a stumbling, incoherent wreck. Afterwards, on his own blog, he admitted he had been fairly and squarely thrashed. And, being a vengeful little flunkey of organized crime, he has not forgiven me.

A few weeks ago a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a Minnesota bible college, one John Abraham, decided to publish all over the web an 83-minute personal attack on me for a speech I had given about the climate at Bethel University, MN, some eight months previously. A week later, I sent Abraham an 84-page letter asking him almost 500 questions about his talk, which had been libelous throughout.

I gave Abraham a month to reply before I published my letter to him [link], but the best he could come up with was a four-line response to the effect that he was maintaining his “position” – whereupon, inferentially, lawyers acting for the trustees of his bible college, whose mission statement says it is dedicated to “the pursuit of truth”, must have told him to abandon his “position”, for he was made to re-record his entire presentation so as to remove some of the worst libels.

My letter to Abraham was published a couple of days ago. Enter Littlemore, with a characteristically venomous personal attack on me, no doubt paid for by the solar-panels fraudster whose financial vested interest in promoting the climate scare Littlemore is so reluctant to disclose.

Littlemore, in his pusillanimous blog posting, does what he does best – he lies and lies and lies again. He starts by accusing me of libeling Abraham. However, my letter to Abraham merely asks a series of questions. In no respect is my letter libelous, whereas, on any view, the talk to which my letter was responding was libelous throughout.

Littlemore’s blog posting uses the wickedest form of the lie direct: he takes each of the libels perpetrated by Abraham and says I perpetrated the same libels. He says I “misquoted” sources, when it was Abraham who repeatedly misquoted both me and his own scientific sources. He says I “promoted positions that were unsupported” in my material, when that was what poor Abraham had done. He says I “bobbled” my math when my math was at every point correct and it was Abraham – the supposed “scientist” – who had gotten his math wrong.

Littlemore says I “manipulated or inadvertently misrepresented graphical information” when in fact I used the graphs carefully and correctly, and it was Abraham who, over and over again, got them catastrophically wrong. Finally, he says my conclusions were “absurd” when it is Abraham whose conclusions were so “absurd” that the lawyers acting for the Trustees of his own college seem to have told him to revise them so as to remove just about every explicit accusation of “misrepresentation” or “complete fabrication” or “dodgy” manipulation of data or “sleight of hand” of which he had originally – and at every point mendaciously and inaccurately – accused me.

Then Littlemore makes the mistake of trying to cherry-pick a couple of my nearly 500 questions to Abraham and challenge them. First, this one, where I had said:

Abraham falsely stated that “Remember, Chris Monckton’s never published a paper in anything” (37), when he knew or negligently and recklessly failed to check that – to take two examples – I had published papers on the determination of climate sensitivity in the UK’s Quarterly Economic Bulletin and in the American Physical Society’s reviewed newsletter, Physics and Society.  [My response to a published rebuttal of my APS paper can be read here.]  See also my article in the Journal of the Chartered Insurance Institute.

Littlemore says that Abraham, at his slide 37, was here talking about “peer-reviewed” journals. However, at this point in his talk Abraham does not use the phrase “peer-reviewed”: instead, he uses the words in quote-marks in my bullet-point above. In any event, whether Littlemore likes it or not, and whether Abraham likes it or not for that matter, the American Physical society’s newsletter, Physics and Society, is indeed a reviewed newsletter, and my paper of July 2009 in that journal was reviewed in meticulous detail by the then review editor, Dr. Alvin Saperstein, Professor of Physics at Wayne State University.

Abraham got his facts wrong, because at no point during the eight months when he was furtively preparing his malicious presentation did he ever contact me to check any of his “facts”. Littlemore, of course, is entirely unaware of what a “fact” is. He believed Abraham, without doing any more checking than Abraham had, merely because he wanted Abraham’s lies to be true.

In the second instance, Littlemore resorts to a technique repeatedly used by Abraham in his presentation. He restates what I actually said, in a form that allows him to demolish it as nonsensical. This is what Littlemore says:

My favorite set of criticisms, though, revolve around Abraham’s general statements that Monckton had urged his audience to believe: “The world is not warming;” “The ice is not melting:” “The ocean isn’t heating;” and “Sea levels aren’t rising at all.” Monckton says each of these characterizations of his position amount to “a lie” and to prove it, he points to some of the graphs that he used to illustrate the issues in question. These graphs appear on slides labeled “The ‘it’s getting worse’ lie;” ” …so sea level has not risen for four years;” and “Arctic summer sea ice area is just fine; it’s recovering from a 30-year low in 2007.”

Littlemore then accuses me of having “doctored” slides when he knew I had done no such thing; of having said that the world scientific community is “peopled by a pack of liars”, when he knew I had produced specific evidence that certain scientists had lied (not that all of them had); of having said that a four-year pause in sea-level meant the end of “global warming” when I had said nothing of the kind; and so on.

Here is what was conveyed about these points in a letter to Father Dennis J. Dease, asking him to initiate an inquiry into Abraham’s academic misconduct:

Abraham falsely represented Lord Monckton as having said that “the world is not warming” (2 and 82), though Abraham knew that though Lord Monckton had correctly stated that there had been global cooling since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, he had also displayed slides from the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report showed that the world had warmed at a rate of 0.4 K/century in the 160 years since 1850.

Abraham falsely represented Lord Monckton as having said that “sea levels are not rising at all” (2; 78-79), though Abraham knew that His Lordship had correctly stated that there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years, that His Lordship had displayed a slide from the University of Colorado showing that sea level had been rising at 1 ft/century since 1993, and that His Lordship had also mentioned the IPCC’s projection that sea level would rise by 1 ft 5 in this century.

Abraham falsely represented Lord Monckton as having said that “ice is not melting” (2), though Abraham knew that Lord Monckton had displayed a slide from the University of Illinois to which His Lordship had added that Arctic summer sea ice was “recovering from a 30-year low in 2007”; that His Lordship had stated that the loss of sea-ice extent in the Arctic over the past 30 years had been matched by a gain in Antarctic sea-ice extent over the same period, reaching a peak in October 2007; and that, accordingly, the University of Illinois’ graph of global sea-ice extent had shown remarkably little trend since the satellite record began 30 years ago.

Finally, poor hapless Littlemore, who is no longer intellectually capable of telling the difference between right and wrong, even if given two guesses, calls me “rude, sophomoric and objectionable”, while calling Abraham “remarkably respectful”. Well, if Abraham had been “remarkably respectful”, why is it that after he had written to me to say he was maintaining his “position” he, again without public notice or apology, removed fully 10 minutes worth of childish vitriol  and venom from his posted presentation.

It is widely known that no one takes little Littlemore seriously any more: his tone alone is enough to warn people off. He is an absurd figure whose his own words condemn him every time he opens his poisonous mouth.

Oh, and Littlemore’s final lie is to the effect that Abraham is “a careful scientist”. If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.


An Australian recounted the Littlemore debate here:

Andrew Bolt

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 09:50am

No wonder global warming prophets such as Al Gore, Greenpeace and Clive Hamilton dodge debates. Warming worrier Richard Littlemore of runs up the white flag after a radio debate with sceptic Christopher Monckton:

In hindsight, I played perfectly into the hands of Monckton and his happy radio host, Roy Green, who share the same goal – not to win an argument about global warming science, but merely to show that there still IS an argument. Of course there’s not. But while we danced angels around the head of a pin, I can imagine Green’s listeners thinking, “Oh my. This is very confusing. No wonder the government says it’s too early to take action.” Score one for Monckton….

It was also a tactical error to start pointing people to helpful websites with clear graphs and reliable science that could support my position. It left open the possibility for Monckton to say, “I could produce 35 graphs” to the contrary – which fiction then drifted to the listeners as if it were, well, accurate in the real world.

Thanks (and my apologies) to those of you who volunteered some much-preferable debating strategies. Maybe next time.


I really don’t think Littlejohn was ever going to win after this opening salvo from Monckton:

Well let’s first of all begin on this question of funding, and let us talk about the funding for DeSmog Blog. Now DeSmog Blog was founded with $300,000 of money from a man called John Lefebvre who is an Internet gaming fraudster convicted last year of making hundreds of millions of dollars—a large chunk of which he is now being made to pay back to the U.S. government—by unlawfully laundering money to do with unlawful Internet gaming.

He is the person who got into bed with Mr. Littlemore’s boss at a PR [public relations] company, a Mr. James Haugen, and they took up the DeSmog Blog, whose job of course is not to debate the science of climate, but to inaccurately misrepresent the alleged or supposed or imagined funding of anyone who dares to challenge the supposed consensus on the climate. So let’s get that thing clear first of all. DeSmog Blog was founded, is funded, and is run by a convicted and self-confessed crook, and furthermore that crook is now in the business of running a solar energy corporation and therefore has a direct vested interest in peddling the climate change scare.

I would start by making it clear that Mr. Littlemore is a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster.

And then Monckton got stuck into the evidence. Read on for sheer enjoyment.

But this trashing of global warmers in a debate has happened before, of course. Ask Michael Crichton.

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , , , ,