RealClimate's over-the-top response

A “bad hair day” for a guy with very little hair? I’m not sure Gavin would agree, but what you say certainly sounds accurate.
Of course, if Gavin feels like he’s being hit with a libel suit, perhaps he has a guilty conscience. Beware when your guests tout their honesty at dinner-be sure to count the silverware afterwards.

RC’s reaction borders on hysterical paranoia n’est pas?

The way Gavin responds tells you everything you need to know about the pressure on Gavin to deliver something for his salary and the indulgence of the Environmental Defense Fund in bankrolling RealClimate.
The Team’s biggest shot in years (the Steig Antarctica study) has gone down in flames, and Gavin & Co are not pleased. As long time followers of Climate Audit will know, the Team is not above a good “hissy fit” when things aren’t going according to plan.
We may need to stock up on popcorn. This could be a long one..

For more fun and games with Gavin, see my latest post at Climate Etc “Hiding the Decline” http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

Mike,
The word “libel” by itself does not imply an intended action. In fact, as the subject of the email (I know this because it is in the “subject” line) it simply indicates that the sender believes they have been libeled and wishes to discuss it with the addressee. The content of the letter also clearly indicates that they are seeking a non-litigated solution, so jumping to the lawsuit conclusion seems unwarranted. Of course, blowing them off like he has is a good way to move it along in that direction.

“That email from Bill Hughes was a thinly-veiled libel suit threat and you know it.”
Yep.
“Gosh when somebody says “hey lets work it out together””
Hughes never said that, despite your using quotation marks, and how did you manage to miss “At the moment” obviously Hughes is suggesting he’ll switch to another method should he not get a “.. a retraction posted on RealClimate.” Now what do you suppose that method might be, perhaps there’s a clue in “Subject:: E&E libel”?
REPLY: If there was no offer of working out new wording together and no offer to simply ask for a retraction, you might have a point – Anthony

The articles over at RC are beginning to reflect a certain air of desperation. They aren’t completely gone yet, but they do appear to be swirling around the bowl.

“Gavin, remember, thou art mortal (and a public servant).”
Uh-oh. Here comes the next article in Gavin’s series, wherein he accuses you of a death threat because you mention mortality.
🙂

from my reading of the letter from Bill Hughes there’s no threat of a lawsuit; as to the response to it well … a bit bombastic … the problem is that Bill Hughes has said ‘I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate’ that was a poor choice of words. Now that option is not available … what now.

Gavin’s all pissy because his beloved NASA climate budget is getting whacked:
“This week, Reps. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Sandy Adams (R-Fla.) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah) called for a budget that would “reprioritize NASA” by axing the funding for climate change research. The original cuts to the budget outlined yesterday would have cut $379 million from NASA’s budget. These members want climate out of NASA’s purview entirely, however. Funding climate research, said Adams in a statement, “undercuts one of NASA’s primary and most important objectives of human spaceflight.”
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/republican-climate-nasa-budget
I know better scientists than Gavin who are getting whacked by the train-load at Fermilab and Argonne National Labs in Illinois, so I have no tears to shed. Hope he can find work in the real world.

At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate.
Sounds like a veiled threat to me. I do agree that Gavin is behaving like a spoiled brat, but then again, he might as well be making a defensive attack here. By exposing the veiled threat, he is de facto stopping the threat to come about. If the journal decided to actually go for libel, Gavin would have been “right” to call it off, and put the journal’s actions into public shame.
On the downside, we have the journal leaving any communication with RC, to which Gavin replies “oh RLY? Look at me sOOOOO worried about THAT”
So it was a win win for Gavin. And, yes, he even had the time to show how bad EE was, and therefore how bad the papers that they published were too. But that’s blogosphere to you.

RE: Mike, February 22, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Peter February 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm
So you both think it’s impossible to bring up libel without threatening legal action. If you believed you had been libeled by someone and wanted to rectify it without legal action how would you bring it up?

Jeff ID,
If I were you I would welcome a lawsuit by Steig… discovery, a word not in the Team dictionary.
Mark

A. Honestly believes it, and is a true bedwetter
B. Doesn’t believe it, and is playing the femme fatale
It’s your dollar, you decide..

Sorry, alex, I misread… it seems mike and peter are the dull tacks.
Mark

Gavin conducts a bloviating defense at the above JC link:
“You have gone significantly over the line with this post. …”
The core of her article:

I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way.

So she is dealing directly with the process, not Gavin’s outrage at an inferred implicit libel action.

The one link was broke in my post,
The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22energy+%26+environment%22+site:http://www.ipcc.ch/&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns&ei=ac1jTf3LG5P3gAfYovzbAg&start=0&sa=N
If a mod could fix it I would appreciate it.

And Feckless Fred Moolton has weighed in on the defense … Popcorn time!

OK so this is pedantic but… in English Law you can not “threaten” someone with a law suit. This is because the courts do not recognise “the Law” as something you can “threaten” with. It is, after all, totally benign – unless you’re the bad guys!

Pamela Gray says:
February 22, 2011 at 5:20 pm
“Judith, more power to you for raising the bar and staying in the fight. However, it is sad to see the Ivory towers still populated by self-important scientists. I couldn’t stand it as a young researcher and left, my idealism shattered by such behavior as Gavin continues to display.”
Since John Kerry revealed his true colors over the last few years, I propose calling it the John Kerry syndrome. Kerry truly believes in the moral and intellectual superiority of his high culture, his ideology, his personal contributions of work, and his tastes. If you disagree with him, you are a lesser human being and you are working against the truth, the ideology, and the tastes. At that point, the only question that remains about you is whether you can serve as a useful idiot. John Kerry is the very best visual aid when you are explaining “self-important scientist.”

Gavin can be brave here because New York and US law provides protections against foreign libel lawsuit judgments, a UK judgment would probably be unenforceable against US based Gavin and RealClimate.
[quote]Nationwide legislation prohibits all American courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments that do not comport with First Amendment protections
08.03.10
By Laura R. Handman, Robert D. Balin, and Erin Nedenia Reid
On July 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (“SPEECH Act”). Sponsored by the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee (Sen. Patrick Leahy) and the ranking member (Sen. Jeff Sessions) in an unusual show of bipartisan support, the SPEECH Act was passed unanimously by the Senate on July 19, 2010. When signed into law by President Obama, it will prohibit the enforcement of foreign libel judgments that are inconsistent with the protections accorded free speech by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
READ MORE AT http://www.corpfinblog.com/2010/08/articles/federal-legislation/us-congress-passes-historic-libel-tourism-bill/%5B/quote%5D

Peter says:
February 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Another thing: I think you are confusing “defiant chutzpah” with what most people would call “cajones”.
——————————————–
I’m going to assume that you didn’t mean to write the Spanish word for ‘drawers’. There is another Spanish word ‘cojones’ that might be what you’re after. I don’t think you should assume that Bill Hughes writes as carelessly as you do.

Gavin has lost it at Judith’s site. He is busy telling Judith what is honest and what is not honest. Quite a sight to see.
See link above from “Brian H.” Also, Judith promises a probing essay on the “hide the decline” matter.

To Jeff Id at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/22/realclimates-over-the-top-response/#comment-605118
I’d suspect you really refrain from airing your discontent because you have a sense of what is professional and what isn’t (no matter the law).
As for Gavin (I assume you’re reading this), I suggest you count to at least one hundred before you click post (so that you might ponder the implication of your words). Seemingly, your emotions trump any sense of decorum expected from those with your credentials.

“REPLY: If there was no offer of working out new wording together and no offer to simply ask for a retraction, you might have a point – Anthony”
This is comical. He was talking about the wording of a retraction. Another quality thread started by you, Anthony? Take a bow.

REPLY: Ah well Jack, given that you only come here to take pot shots, I expected no less from you. No high road for you then, just flame. – Anthony

David M Brooks says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Gavin can be brave here because New York and US law provides protections against foreign libel lawsuit judgments, a UK judgment would probably be unenforceable against US based Gavin and RealClimate.

I think you should look at that a bit closer… it does not rule out ALL foreign libel suits, just ones that would otherwise infringe on free speech protections. The US definition of free speech is broader than in other countries, but it is not a whole lot different than places like the UK.

When signed into law by President Obama, it will prohibit the enforcement of foreign libel judgments that are inconsistent with the protections accorded free speech by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Not all foreign libel judgments will fall into this category.
Mark

Mark T writes:
“The US definition of free speech is broader than in other countries, but it is not a whole lot different than places like the UK.”
Way wrong. By our standards, the UK does not enjoy free speech rights. In this country, to prove libel, you have to prove intentional malice. That is a GIGANTIC hurdle. In England, you do not have to prove malice, much less intentional malice.

Anthony,
I am in the realist camp (you can view my many posts on Dotearth) , and I am a lawyer. When you use the words “libel” (for instance, “mistaken statement” could have been used if a lawsuit was not being threatened), “retraction” and “settle”, you are talking about a lawsuit. Mike at 6:26 pm hit the nail on the head. I realize it might be difficult to do, but if I was you, I would admit that a mistake was made in the column and move on.
JD
REPLY: I think it’s a matter of professional background. As an attorney, you see the word libel and automatically connect it to lawsuits. I see the word “libel” and think of my training in television (and previously newspapers), where mostly we avoided libel lawsuits by printing a simple retraction. IN my time on the air, and in print, I’ve seen reporters have to make a retraction. These always started with a notifying letter. Notifying a person that you believe you’ve been libeled, and asking for a retraction is IMHO, a far different animal than saying you’ve been libeled and saying you are starting a lawsuit.
Would it be over the top for Bill Hughes to immediately, without notice, start a lawsuit? I think it would be. Is it over the top that RC prints Bill’s notification letter then claims they’ve been threatened? Yes I think it is. – Anthony

Suppose for a moment that tree rings are more of an atmospheric CO2 proxy than a temperature proxy. Now if the rings are portrayed as temperature proxy (but aren’t, really) one would be able to point to them and say “see! The CO2 rise is causing warming!” when in reality it is “see! The CO2 rise is causing increased growth!”.
It is my opinion that tree rings should not be used as temperature proxies because they are also CO2 proxies and probably more sensitive to the modern change in CO2 than to the modern change in temperature. The only way to tell for sure is to have a control set of trees where CO2 has remained steady and we have no such thing. There are plenty of studies that show responses to CO2 changes and those responses are generally positive for conifers. Most tree ring studies involve conifers because those are the sorts of trees found in areas where growth rates might be described as temperature constrained (high altitude, high latitude, near the tree line).

“REPLY: Apparently you can’t comprehend, so I don’t think indulging you so you can lob more pot shots is of any value. I know your MO – Anthony”
Exactly. Your comment made no sense relative to Hugh’s original “offer” …

“REPLY: If there was no offer of working out new wording together and no offer to simply ask for a retraction, you might have a point – Anthony”
That was just pro-forma. If you want to increase your chances of winning a libel suit it looks good to a judge or jury if the aggrieved party first politely informs the offending party that they wrote something untrue, state how the writing is damaging, and request a formal retraction/apology to reduce or eliminate the damage. Bluntly stating they would settle for a retraction looks really good.
This is generally true in most tort cases – you greatly increase your chance of winning in court if you first make a reasonable attempt to limit your damages. Otherwise it looks like gold digging.

The note sent is a non-threatening threat. It’s perfect bluster, really well done.
I was just discussing the libel protection in the US with a law student. It gives one the option, if one is sued by a foreign entity, to basically retry the case under U.S. federal statutes. It’s a great advance, in my opinion, for American justice. Obviously, if you defame a business by claiming that it is incompetent or delivers a shoddy product, American law will find you liable as well.
However, Gavin’s statement was qualified as “substantive” peer review. That makes it a matter of opinion as to what is substantive. So, he is protected in the U.S. because he is expressing an opinion but probably not in the U.K. Also “effectively” is another way of saying ‘not actually’. The problem I see is that Gavin implies unfairness by the journal, a thing that is damaging to its core business. If you print that a journal is giving a free pass to people that have an ‘in’ with the editor, people may not want to publish there. So, for that, I think Gavin might be in trouble.

The worst of rc is that they are untouchable. One cannot post there and expect it will be accepted.
Judith Curry has this up at her website, and Gavin took the bait. Her readers responded well.

All very interesting but what particular paper(s) brought this on? From the fact that no one has commented on this suggests I should know (M and M? O’Donell?)

Just on the first reading I think there was a veiled threat of a lawsuit.
The reference to damaging charges. The call for a retraction.

From Dr. Curry’s article:

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

I would think it would seem quite obvious what the difference is. The IPCC report was to be what amounts to an executive summary for decision makers around the world. That is, the people with their hands on the public purse. Any uncertainty in the IPCC report might be reflected in uncertainty on the part of policy makers to allocate funds or assign priorities to “climate” related expenditures. It would seem that the purpose of this report was to create a sense of urgency of required action and certainty that it was actually happening. Any mud in the water might put hundreds of billions of dollars at risk, from their perspective.
They knew full well that the policy makers would not dig through the literature. They would rely on the IPCC to do that for them and would have assumed that is what happened and that they (the policy makers) were getting the correct picture from the IPCC report. I think the authors of that report realized this. It wasn’t designed to mislead scientists, it was designed to mislead politicians.

Theo… you completely missed my point.
A good guess: Hughes contacted a lawyer before sending his letter.
A curiosity: isn’t Gavin a UK citizen?
Mark

All my comments at RealClimate go into the spam filter or never show up, so I will have to respond to them here,
Clippo (UK) says: 22 Feb 2011 at 2:42 PM, “Back on E & E topic, I’m surprised the well-known blogger Poptech, hasn’t popped up to defend E & E – a good proportion of his ? 750 ? scientific papers debunking AGW are listed there and he has argued E & E’s case, (usuccessfully), all over the blogosphere.”
I showed up almost immediately (only 10 comments were there) but all of my comments have been censored.
The list is 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm not “750” and Energy & Environment only represent 14% of the list. There are over 700 papers from 236 other journals on the list.
The only way you could consider that I have argued their case unsuccessfully is if you are willing reject the truth.
Pete Dunkelberg says: 22 Feb 2011 at 4:33 PM, “Greenfyre is amusing on E&E’s publishing methods: 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers and Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies. By the way Poptech popped up at Skeptical Science recently and his list of 450 peer reviewed deiner papers has almost doubled to 850 in just two years. The rest of us must be missing a lot of great papers!”
Too bad Greenfyre did not get anything right,
Rebuttal to “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers”
Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”
It is correct that I recently showed up at Skeptical Science but it was to utterly embarrass them,
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
And the list did not almost double in 2 years but rather a little over 1 year.
Hank Roberts says: 22 Feb 2011 at 6:53 PM, “Poptart has been toasted: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/…”
I didn’t get toasted, Lambert banned me when I started embarrassing his followers.

Dave Springer says:
February 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm
“REPLY: If there was no offer of working out new wording together and no offer to simply ask for a retraction, you might have a point – Anthony”
That was just pro-forma. If you want to increase your chances of winning a libel suit it looks good to a judge or jury if the aggrieved party first politely informs the offending party that they wrote something untrue, state how the writing is damaging, and request a formal retraction/apology to reduce or eliminate the damage. Bluntly stating they would settle for a retraction looks really good.

Well, if it was just pro-forma then it wasn’t a threat.

JDN says:
February 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm
However, Gavin’s statement was qualified as “substantive” peer review. That makes it a matter of opinion as to what is substantive. So, he is protected in the U.S. because he is expressing an opinion

I appreciate your input JD, but it seems obvious that you’ve never litigated a libel case.
Gavin sets an objective standard for what he considered “substantive” peer review in the quoted sentence. His standard for “substantive” is the peer review given to papers that don’t follow the editor’s political line.
I suppose, Gavin could try claiming that, in his opinion, papers that do follow the editor’s political line should receive higher scrutiny than papers that don’t follow the editor’s political line, but any judge in this country would simply chuckle as he denied Gavin’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, the burden of proof would shift to Gavin to demonstrate that E&E’s peer review process is less substantive for papers that fit the editor’s political line.

You make a number of good points based on your experience. However, a big part of the issue is whether Gavin has reasonable fears of being sued based on the letter. I think he does. In particular, the reference to “settle” indicates to me that a lawsuit is being threatened. Personally, if I was advising Gavin in my legal turf, I would suggest that going public might be a valid way to gain the initiative. Lots of times public information is more effective than legal responses. I would also add that Gavin’s experience with retractions as a scientist might be different than your experience as a broadcaster.

Generally speaking when someone threatens to begin a lawsuit relating to libel they first seek legal advice – as most are not current with libel law and case law – and the letter of demand for a retraction based on Libel is worded vastly differently then a personal letter from one person to another.
I usually always try to read both sides of a story before making up my mind and having read the letter offered, and the response on the RC blog and I have to say the response at RC and the response at RC would make a good case study in over reaction and how not to behave professionally.
The response at RC contains no less than 4 implied or direct malicious statements that , TBH, if I was the one that wrote the original letter and did wish to take it further, would be jumping for joy at the ths post as on this one blog post alone sufficient evidence is present to file proceedings for libel.
Oh and by all means, if you like Gavin’s response and feel it was appropriate, I sincerely request that you continue to support such actions as there is nothing that anyone on this site – or others on the web – could do to better undermine the “Cause” of RC.

“I’ve been in contact with Hughes, and even he doesn’t see it as a threat. – Anthony”
Fantastic, so Bill Hughes will be commenting on this thread to confirm that E&E is has no intention of pursuing this issue in the courts??
REPLY: That’s up to him, maybe you should ask your chum Gavin to come over and explain why he went over the top -A

Michael R, your comment, as you probably realise, says little to support Anthony’s belief that Hughes is not threatening legal action.
I’ll agree that Gavin’s response was excessive, but I suspect that his probable defense of fair comment would be successful.

Andrew30
This is a statement of fact:
“The evidence for this is in precisely what happens in venues like E&E that have effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line.”
Indeed it is, and you can’t be successfully sued for making factual statements (unless you’re breaching privilege).

I have grandchildren, this is what they do at kindergarten, I am so past being interested in what Gavin, Judith, et al think is important
The whole AGW, CAGW, CCC, IPCC has been shown to be a total farce
Either, admit it, and go silently into the night
or, continue on the path to personal, public and total opprobrium
It isn’t happening, your hysterical claims are getting more strident, the disasters you predict are not happening, while the rest of us are getting with living our lives to the seasons we know unconcerned with your continuing appeals to faith, belief and Gaia

Andrew W says: February 22, 2011 at 10:28 pm
“Indeed it is, and you can’t be successfully sued for making factual statements (unless you’re breaching privilege).”
As long as you can prove that it is true in a court of law, you will not be found guilty.
The burden of proff is on the author of the statement, not the harmed party.

Real Climate is a disgrace. Thanks Anthony for continuing to do the heavy lifting.

Sour grapes. RC is not inclined to retract any posts. The comment crowd would have a collective aneurysm. What does it say that one man sends another man an email only to have it published on the internet with a claim that it is a lawsuit threat? If it were, it would be called a “cease and desist” notice. But hey, I am sure that trying to stop someone from misrepresenting your work is a horrible intention, worthy of all the scorn RC and its twelve readers can muster.

Gavin’s comments are essentially the same as saying “Company X’s hamburger has dog meat in it, don’t eat it.”
Going to the source for more context:
“The many existing critiques of peer review as a system (for instance by Richard Smith, ex-editor of the BMJ, or here, or in the British Academy report), sometimes appear to assume that all papers arrive at the journals fully formed and appropriately written. They don’t. The mere existence of the peer review system elevates the quality of submissions, regardless of who the peer reviewers are or what their biases might be. The evidence for this is in precisely what happens in venues like E&E that have effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line – you end up with a backwater of poorly presented and incoherent contributions that make no impact on the mainstream scientific literature or conversation. It simply isn’t worth wading through the dross in the hope of finding something interesting.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-science/
Paraphrasing, E&E doesn’t do real peer review, and isn’t worth reading.
Unless this is true, sure sounds like a clear case of libel to me. I suspect Gavin would have much difficulty providing the “evidence” he claims exists, objectively. An editor’s
“political line” could be associated with any paper approved by any editor.
“Poorly presented and incoherent contributions” are irrelevant to the charge of an absence of peer review, as is also what if any impact the journal has on “mainstream scientific literature or conversation.”

In a civil action the burden of proof is usually on the plaintiff.

crosspatch says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm
…
It wasn’t designed to mislead scientists, it was designed to mislead politicians.

How sweet and naive! Is it “misleading” when you deliver exactly the justifications for massive expansion of taxing and regulatory power that the pols requested and most deeply desire?

Schmidt is (or was) a UK citizen so he may still have money or property in the UK. Failing that, Environmental Media Services or Fenton Communications may have a UK subsidiary. Time to call Carter Ruck.

Subject:: E&E libel
is a simple statement of fact ie we consider to have been libelled, there is no treat of legal action.
Rest of the text is allowing indeed inviting RC a way out of their predicament, they are too stupid to take the soft option and have chosen the hard route. As RC is on the internet and not blocked from being read in the UK E&E have the option of using the UK courts for a Libel action, as has been said before the intital reation to a libel being pointed out and with an offer of retraction does have a bearing on the level of damages so RC are down already in the courts eyes.

Re Mark T says: February 22, 2011 at 8:45 pm

A curiosity: isn’t Gavin a UK citizen?

Yes, and unless he’s also a US citizen it could make his defence under UK libel a little more challenging. So if he were to lose his job in the US and had to return to the UK, he could find a nasty judgement and costs waiting. He really should be more careful with what he says given E&E have a duty to defend their reputation.

Just wondering if Gavin, as a government employee, has any “libel insurance” . In Florida certain public figures receive some protection from libel suits as State law places a limit on the maximum award that can be recovered and protects the accused personal property from being used to satisfy the award. The caveat is that the award must come from a judgment handed down pursuant to an actual law suit.

Looks like some scientists are calling Gavin’s bluff,
Richard Tol says: 23 Feb 2011 at 3:22 AM
“For your information, I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal.” – Richard S. J. Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands

Richard Tol wrote:
“For the record, I have published a few papers in E&E. Each was peer-reviewed as usual. I’ve also reviewed a number of papers for E&E.”
Your degree is in economics. Do you believe that qualifies you to publish on and peer review articles in the natural sciences?

If Gavin is a UK citizen, my previous comment about his complaints about UK jurisdiction for a possible libel case goes double. Triple even.
A UK citizen allegedly libelled a UK company concerning a publication originating from the UK, on a web site (RealClimate) that has a significant UK readership – and somehow Gavin thinks UK jurisdiction is inappropriate or unfair?
Yes criticize UK libel laws if you want… but if UK courts couldn’t take this case, I don’t see how they could take practically any libel case, all a publisher would have to say to escape jurisdiction would be to say “we have some readers and some web space outside the UK”.

Noelle says:
February 23, 2011 at 5:52 am

Your degree is in economics. Do you believe that qualifies you to publish on and peer review articles in the natural sciences?

Gavin’s is mathematics. Pachuri is a railroad engineer. How about your degree?
Mark

I have published at E&E and went through typical reviews. The only thing I can say is that they avoid reviewers who reject papers that are politically incorrect and instead review them on the merits, as should be the case.
It is not good to become strident and hysterical in print…even on a blog…because people can read….

Mark T and Smokey:
I make no claims that I am qualified to conduct research or perform peer reviews. However, Richard Tol has. I merely asked a question of a researcher to explain HIS qualifications for a particular area. What is your problem with that? I can’t ask a question without my own PhD?
And Smokey — ad hominem attacks “sock puppetry” — are uncalled for.

Andrew W says:
February 23, 2011 at 12:32 am
In a civil action the burden of proof is usually on the plaintiff.

Yes, but this isn’t true for a defendant claiming that their statement isn’t libel because their statement is true. In such a situation, the burden of proof is on the author of the statement.

Attorney: Mr Schmidt, it seems that you may be in the wrong here; my best advise is to accept their offer and apologize.
Schmidt: Well I don’t want to apologize to those bas***ds. So what if I don’t?
Attorney: Well, they could file a lawsuit for libel.
Schmidt: LAWSUIT, so that’s what this is about.

(liable) + (retraction) = (settlement)
(liable) – (retraction) = (What? An aardvark?) ; of course not.
(liable) – (retraction) = (lawsuit)

There seems to be an air of hysteria developing over at RC. Judith has certainly upped the anti with her excellent post on “hide the decline”. If this whole issue were not so important I would laugh at Gavin’s antics. Instead, I sit here looking askance at the antics of the Hockey Team and their acolytes. Thank you Anthony, Judith, Steve et al for keeping this as high profile as you clearly are.

Mike Mann suggesting threatening libel to the Team.
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:01:41 -0400
Cc: Kevin Trenberth , Gavin Schmidt
thanks Phil,
I did take the liberty of discussing w/ Gavin, who can of course be
trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We’re in agreement that
Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and that in
its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even a pretense
that he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, while many of
us fall under the category of ‘limited public figures’ and therefore the
threshold for proving libel is quite high, this is *not* the case for
Wei-Chyung. He is not a public figure. I believe they have made a major
miscalculation here in treating him as if he is. In the UK, where E&E is
published, the threshold is even lower than it is in the states for
proving libel. We both think he should seek legal advice on this, as
soon as possible.
With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of E&E and your review, following
up on Kevin’s suggestions, we think there are two key points. First, if
there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very
important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege
that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity
to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on
the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the
publisher of a libel is also liable for damages – that might make Sonja
B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the
resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all
together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually
win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out…
RealClimate is of course always available to you as an outlet, if it
seems an appropriate venue. But we should be careful not to jump the gun
here.
Kevin: very sorry to hear about Dennis. Please pass along my best wishes
for a speedy recovery if and when it seems appropriate to do so…
Mike

Kadaka’
My two signatures were a mistake. Have no idea who Julian Flood is.
*********
On separate matter, I would add that I have no reason to believe that Gavin’s charges are fair and accurate. I just feel that Gavin had justification in feeling like the letter to him was the first step in a lawsuit that may come in the future.
JD

Funny when they cannot attack a paper, they attack the journal, the age of the captain etc… as if readers cannot have their own appreciation…

From JD Ohio on February 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm:

My two signatures were a mistake. Have no idea who Julian Flood is.

My apologies, such similarities look strange and make me suspicious. Which is not all that unjustified these days (ref).

Somewhere up there were some comments on the NASA budget. If you look at the players human space flight is centered on the rump Confederate Space Exploration Agency built around Johnson (TX), Kennedy (FL), Marshall (AL) and Stennis (MS but really NO, LA). Kennedy will, of course, be renamed Strom Thurmond Space Center. The house of rep members pushing more money for human space flight are all from those deep south states.
OTOH, the earth science centered programs have strong defenders in the Senate, Milkulski (MD -Goddard), Schumer (NY-GISS), Warner (VA-Langley), Boxer and Feinstein (CA- Ames and JPL)
However, Charles Bolden has put the cat in among the pigeons by moving responsibility for the space taxi program to Kennedy from Johnson. That is going to be a real dust up.
Eli had some earlier comments on this in 2006

Re Mark T says:

Technically, the US does not recognize dual citizenship.

As I understand it, the question of citizenship is more about whether he may lose it. There seems to be plenty of standing for a case in the UK courts, but while Gavin is in the US, he may have some protection against enforcement under the SPEECH Act. Or even a route for a counterclaim if any libel case infringes on his right to free speech. But then the right to free speech doesn’t give the right to libel or defame. So if any of Gavin’s comments count as libel under US law, then I think a UK judgement could still be enforced in the US. Outside of the US, he would lose that protection. RC would still be protected I think as that’s a US entity, assuming it qualified for protection under SPEECH.
But it’s all very complicated, and why it’s best to be nice. Especially given the costs charged by some of the top UK libel law firms.

007: Don’t hide the letter and it context.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HadleyCRU/mail/1188478901.txt

“Eli had some earlier comments …”
Don’t you mean “Joshua Halpern had some earlier comments…”?

EFS_Junior, “Nope, no relationship whatsoever between libel and lawsuit. /sarc”
Try using Wikipedia as evidence in a court case, “Yes your honor my five year old son can edit that page at any time but I assure you no such thing like that ever happens because the Internet is only filled with honest people who know how to properly define words from the dictionary and no such corruption of Wiki pages ever happens on Wikipedia.”
Now lets use a real dictionary,
[b]libel[/b] (defined) “A false and defamatory statement expressed in writing or in an electronic medium. ” – Webster’s New World Law Dictionary
Are all RealClimate supporters this computer illiterate?

@Noelle
Your question is fair. It is not for me to decide whether I can publish in a journal. I can submit my papers where I like, but the editors and referees decide whether I get published.
While my PhD is in economics, I was a professor in GeoSciences for 7 years, and have now been on the faculty of Earth and Life Sciences for over 3 years. I’ve published in journals like Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Journal of Hydrology, Environmetrics, Atmospheric Environment, and the ICES Journal of Marine Science. I’ve reviewed papers for these journals and for Advances in Meteorology, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, and Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmosphere.

Everyone calm down – this is really really simple.
IANAL but…
Libel is about printing/publishing (as opposed to speaking) some untrue and defamatory or damaging.
If you are libelled, you may want to take steps to undo that damage.
One way of doing that is to go to law. The lawsuit is to determine whether the libel occurred – the libel is not the lawsuit: it is the publication.
This is really basic stuff.
Let’s try, pace Gavin and his hurricanes, an analogy.
Person A breaks into person B’s house and takes their TV away. That is theft. Saying it is theft is not a lawsuit – it’s a description of what happened.
Person B writes to Person A, with the title “Theft of TV” and says, “give me TV back (and possibly repair the damage to my window) and we’re done”.
There is indeed a clear threat that if the TV is not returned as an absolute minimum, then further action may be taken. That further action might include a lawsuit. Since that lawsuit might involve Person A not only having to return the TV but also go to jail, Person B is being generous and sensible in offering to settle the matter without a lawsuit.
To suggest that Person B is threatening Person A with jail because he writes “Theft” in the title and reserves his right to action IF person A does not want to be sensible is simply perverse.
The very act of writing is specifically saying to A that he does NOT need to go court if he is sensible.
Theft != lawsuit/jail
Libel != lawsuit/damages
They are merely descriptions of what has happened.

“Gavin’s bluster is a preemptive attack, aimed at disarming the enemy by making [him] appear ridiculous.”
You could read that either way: Gavin is indeed making himself look ridiculous.
“Look at me!! I’m studiously ignoring the fact that I am being offered a way to settle without a lawsuit so that I can claim I’m being taken to court!!!”
that does indeed make him look ridiculous…

Michael Larkin says:
February 23, 2011 at 4:53 am
….
It’s hard not to detect malice if only because the allegation was made publicly and in print on a site that is well known to be hostile to sceptics. What possible non-malicious function did it serve?

I’d guess that it’s the first step in a move to have E&E blacklisted as a “peer-reviewed journal” for AR5 purposes.
Just guessing.

EFS_Junior says:
February 23, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Type “libel” into the Google search engine.
First hit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
“In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.”
Nope, no relationship whatsoever between libel and lawsuit.

So what?
Lack of payment results in lawsuits sometimes, too.
So if a company sent an email to someone with a subject line, “Lack of Payment”, and the email discussed what could be done to settle the payment.
None of that implies lawsuit.

Re my comment above on 2/23 @ 10:31AM, I have had two articles published by E&E, both linked at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/ .
My “Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al. (PNAS 2006), ‘Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present,'” Energy and Environment Vol, 20, No. 3 (April, 2009): 369-375 was published as a “Technical Communication”, and therefore not necessarily subject to the same reviewing as a regular article, by E&E’s rules.
Nevertheless, it was sent out to a reviewer and revised in response to the comments, even though it might have counted as a paper that “follows the editor’s political line,” as Gavin put it. So this is one counter-example to his blanket assertion that E&E has “essentially dispensed with effective review” for such papers.
The reviewer did express surprise that E&E did not send the paper to Thompson et al for reply. Given, as I had already indicated to E&E when I submitted the note, that I had previously e-mailed Thompson and most of his co-authors three times asking for clarification of the discrepancy I had found, with no reply at all, I doubt that they would have responded to E&E either, and perhaps E&E felt the same way. However, it would have been preferable, IMHO, if E&E had, just for the record, sent it to them in addition to (or even before) a reviewer. But if I’ve made an error, Thompson is still free to reply in E&E or elsewhere, and has not.
In the second article, I was just the second author on a correction to an article originally by Craig Loehle, who as lead author communicated with the journal. He reports above,

Craig Loehle says:
February 23, 2011 at 7:43 am
I have published at E&E and went through typical reviews. The only thing I can say is that they avoid reviewers who reject papers that are politically incorrect and instead review them on the merits, as should be the case.

The correction, BTW, benefitted greatly from detailed “blog-review” comments by Gavin himself in a post on RC.