Gavin must be having a bad hair day, because this headline is most certainly over the top:
Now compare the headline to the letter that was sent, bold emphasis mine:
From: Bill Hughes
Cc: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Subject:: E&E libel
Date: 02/18/11 10:48:01
Gavin, your comment about Energy & Environment which you made on RealClimate has been brought to my attention:
“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. ”
To assert, without knowing, as you cannot possibly know, not being connected with the journal yourself, that an academic journal does not bother with peer review, is a terribly damaging charge, and one I’m really quite surprised that you’re prepared to make. And to further assert that peer review is abandoned precisely in order to let the editor publish papers which support her political position, is even more damaging, not to mention being completely ridiculous.
At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate. I’m quite happy to work with you to find a mutually satisfactory form of words: I appreciate you might find it difficult.
I look forward to hearing from you.
With best wishes
Bill Hughes
Director
Multi-Science Publsihing [sic] Co Ltd
Notice the missing key word “lawsuit”. It does not appear in that letter anywhere.
Note the tone of the last paragraph. In essence it says: “hey, I’m upset, but happy to work it out with you”. No mention of legal threats whatsoever.
What follows the letter on RealClimate’s post is a whole bunch of bluster and posturing about how E&E conducts its reviews. I wonder though, did Gavin even bother to ask how they conduct their affairs of review, or did he simply (as Joe Romm loves to say) “make stuff up”?
And then there’s this paragraph:
As a final note, if you think that threatening unjustifiable UK libel suits against valid criticism is an appalling abuse, feel free to let Bill Hughes know (but please be polite), and add your support to the Campaign for libel reform in the UK which looks to be making great headway. In the comments, feel free to list your examples of the worst papers ever published in E&E.
Appalling abuse? Again, there was no legal threat. Using the word “libel” in the subject line states an issue of concern, and doesn’t automatically assume that lawsuits are attached, especially when the sender says: I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate. I’m quite happy to work with you to find a mutually satisfactory form of words.
When that word libel is used in conjunction with the word lawsuit, then by all means, assume that to be a threat. When the word libel is used to point out an issue, absent the word ‘lawsuit” or phrase “legal action” or “our attorney will be contacting you”, it doesn’t automatically follow then that “…threatening unjustifiable UK libel suits against valid criticism is an appalling abuse” is a valid description of what was communicated in the letter. That’s an important distinction, don’t you think?
Here’s a few thoughts.
What is disappointing about all that is that Dr. Gavin Schmidt could just as easily have said all that posturing bluster in a private email to Bill Hughes. Given what RC did with a request for a change in wording, it really underscores the deliberate defiant chutzpah that The Team is famous for, which really offends taxpayers like myself that fund this NASA GISS Team.
Gavin, remember, thou art mortal (and a public servant).
And of course this post today is all a front: in reality they could not give a rodent’s posterior about anyone’s peer review standards.
Look at their own problems with “pal review”, look at the famous ‘lets re-define what the literature is’ from Climategate emails. The reason E&E has been, and is being attacked, is that its very existence contradicts the slogans like ‘all peer reviewed science agrees’, so it has to be derided at every opportunity.
And if some papers out of the couple of thousand or so it has published over 20+ years are poor quality, then they’re wheeled out again and again as being typical of the journal, which is not the case and plenty of journals publish papers that have all sorts of problems.
Peer review isn’t perfect no matter who’s doing it. One has to wonder if the Steig et al Antarctica paper might have gotten a more thorough review in E&E than it did in Nature, because the likelihood of such a paper being reviewed by someone who might question The Team PCA style math.
So I’d suggest that
1) Gavin, when somebody actually threatens you with a lawsuit, you’ll most certainly be able to know it by the inclusion of the key word “lawsuit” and
2) I think you owe Multi-Science an apology
For those that would like to judge for themselves, you can view issues of E&E here.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
Consider supporting the journal by purchasing a subscription.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So in other words, the Realclimate team has decided that posting an apology would be more damaging to them than issuing an apology.
Here is a guide to UK libel that might be of help
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
and this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article743741.ece
Nevertheless, he awarded Mr Keith Smith £5,000 general damages plus £5,000 aggravated damages to reflect the way Ms Williams – who had met a request for an apology with contempt – had behaved
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.
Suggestion to Gavin: Just change one word. “Effectively” becomes “apparently”. Then let Mr. Hughes go whistle up a lawyer.
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?
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.
Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn’t mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation.
Jeff ID,
If I were you I would welcome a lawsuit by Steig… discovery, a word not in the Team dictionary.
Mark
Alex: exactly as was done… “you libeled me, apologize and all is well.”
Not the sharpest tack…
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..
Why the surprise? Look up the term [snip – now THAT’s OTT] in the dictionary and you’ll see Gavin’s smiling face!
Sorry, alex, I misread… it seems mike and peter are the dull tacks.
Mark
None of my comments went through on RealClimate,
It is interesting that RealClimate choose to use Wikipedia for their criticisms as it is nothing more than truth based on who edits last but their former colleague is well aware of this.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
– Found at 149 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
– EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
– The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
– “All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed” – Multi-Science Publishing
– “Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement
– “E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed” – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
As for Scopus,
– Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) correctly lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers for-profit, commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”. Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.
Are they saying that no scholarly peer-reviewed journals exist that are not indexed by the ISI? If so then they are calling companies like EBSCO and Scopus liars.
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:
So she is dealing directly with the process, not Gavin’s outrage at an inferred implicit libel action.
Definitely check out Judith’s post!
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.
HotRod, “– is he not allowed to say that he has a poor opinion of E&E standards, and that Sonja, in his opinion and by her own words, is an editor biased towards scepticism, whether for good reasons, journal balance, or whatever?”
Except Gavin did not simply give his opinion of the journal but made libelous statements,
“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”
He is implying that the journal’s papers are not peer-reviewed but published simply based on her political agenda. Does Gavin even know that Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is a Social-Democrat?
And Feckless Fred Moolton has weighed in on the defense … Popcorn time!
curryja says:
February 22, 2011 at 4:55 pm
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/
Really good post, Professor. Unfortunately, now you will have to read endless posts rationalizing “hide the decline.”
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!
I think the correct spelling is “cojones” not “cajones.” The thought is clear however.
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.”
“At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate.”
But….
And if that doesn’t happen…?
Isn’t he implying something more…?
Just saying.
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
I think the implied threat was clear. Not only was “libel” in the subject line, but “At the moment” was a qualifier on accepting a mutually agreed retraction.
“At the moment” means at a later moment such a retraction may not be an acceptable solution to the problem. The inference is clear, even if admirably gentle.
That Gavin chose to escalate rather than at least attempt to ameliorate is still on him.
I think many of us make the mistake of assuming that Gavin is a mature adult. We all make invalid assumptions sometimes. When he does not get what he wants, he lashes out like a little kid.