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.
How about a list of the worse articles from Nature or Science.
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”.
The word is “cojones’.
“co-jones”
REPLY: I do? Gosh when somebody says “hey I’m upset, you libeled me, but lets work it out together” do you automatically call your attorney? I sure don’t. Chill, dude. – Anthony
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
Anthony, I am going to have to use the d-word here. You are in deep denial. If someone claims to have been libeled by you they are threatening to take you to court if you don’t print a suitable retraction. What do you think the word “settle” refers too? If the subject line had been “hurt feelings” and the letter said how they were offended by Galvin’ s remarks and would he please apologize, that would be different.
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.
curryja says: “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/”
Enjoy the fun and games, Judith. I’m looking forward to a continued exchange in the follow-up post.
Looks to me that E&E would have a perfectly actionable libel suit under U.S. law (supposing that Schmidt’s characterizations are indeed false). For a “public figure” like E&E, the standard for winning a libel suit is “actual malice.” Schmidt would have to not only lack grounds for his assertions, but would have act with a malicious disinterest in whether his assertions are true or not. Sounds like the situation exactly.
Judith rocks!
I think that most of us would not settle for less than that Mr.
ShSchmidt should resign at once. He is playing with our (taxpayers) money, and he should not be allowed to remain in that position. He has sullied that position.I call for his immediate resignation or dismissal, on behalf of decent citizens everywhere.
If I were Gavin I’d have certainly read this as threat of escalation:
“at the moment I’m willing to settle for”
which means cooperate or in another moment I won’t be willing to settle for so little. Any reasonable person would presume that legal redress is what’s coming next and the rest of the letter clearly states E&E believes it was libeled.
E&E appears to have did a bit of jumping to conclusions as well. Gavin said they abandoned any substantive peer review for articles that agree with the editor’s opinions. What substantive means is anyone’s guess but it isn’t, on the face of it, an accusation that peer review is “abandoned” as E&E claims it means. It is an accusation that peer review is somehow diminished.
Childishness on both sides if you ask me. They both need to get a life.
To Gavin in particular I’d say: “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Your side is plenty culpable in regard to unsubstantive peer review. What goes around comes around, asshat.”
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.
Going by US rules, E&E has little to no case.
The claim to prove for libel, using the letters words: “To assert… that an academic journal does not bother with peer review, is a terribly damaging charge…”
But Gavin’s words, also from the letter: “…venues like E&E that have effectively dispensed with substantive peer review…”
With weasel words like “effectively” and “substantive”, Gavin’s got all kinds of room to prove that his meaning of what he said is correct. He statement makes it clear that he know’s there was actual peer review, but he’s gonna throw his hands up when he says it and make little quotes, saying it was “peer review”.
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.
The comments there are stating to resemble a big bunch of conspiracy theories,
“ Mike Roddy says: 22 Feb 2011 at 10:17 AM, The magazine is nothing more than an oil and coal company financed effort to discredit climate science, and protests to the contrary border on the comical.”
This is total nonsense,
“E&E is funded by the publisher Multi-Science and I have nothing to do with financial matters. E&E does not advertise, and I do not get a salary.” – Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment (Source: Email Correspondence)
“E&E doesn’t have ‘funding’. Like all our journals, it exists on it’s subscription income.” – Bill Hughes, Director, Multi-Science Publishing (Source: Email Correspondence)
“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
This is clearly an implied threat in my opinion…You left out 3 key words above…
AT THE MOMENT, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate.
Caps of course are mine.
REPLY: No words were left out, they are in the body of the post, I don’t assign the same weight to them you do. Now if he had capitalized them as you did, I’d say they implied a threat. If he hadn’t offered to work it out, I’d say it was a threat. I’ve been in contact with Hughes, and even he doesn’t see it as a threat. – Anthony
David M Brooks says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm
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.
Not all foreign libel judgments will fall into this category.
Mark
If anyone is interested in corrections to the common misinformation spread about the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment I have compiled them here,
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
I update it with whatever new smear is thrown at the journal once the old ones are knocked down.
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.
Before I decided to commit a lot of (okay, too much) time to AGW issues, I was pretty active on the excesses of the Child Protection Service agencies. This is a field where government agencies solicit reports of abuse (and neglect), have a strong impetus to make show ever increasing levels of abuse, have better access to news media, and had strong support in both the court of public opinion and legal courts.
The lawyers trying to defend clients from false claims or keeping kids in less than perfect homes and out of less than perfect foster homes have a lot of obstacles to overcome. These lawyers, my wife is one of them, are often transformed by the system and become almost a caricature of a lawyer – there’s really only so much abuse you can take from a system that ignores father’s rights, that equates messy homes with neglect, and fights efforts to get toddlers with broken bones tested for Osteogenesis imperfecta (Brittle Bone Disease).
I see some similar effects on people who’ve taken a stand against the AGW fear mongering, especially those who have argued that there’s more to climate change than CO2 while the climate was clearly warming.
Now that’s not so clear. The tactics used by the warmists are being exposed and held up for all to see, and the public is becoming more skeptical with every shovelful of mid-Atlantic snow they clear.
This has to be an awful time for the folks at East Anglia, RealClimate, etc. To be heard they need to paint doomsday scenarios and increase their attacks on their detractors. It still isn’t working. Worse, they’ve been knocked off their pedestals, they remember the glory days they’ve lost and are desperate to stop any further slide into irrelevance. That Gavin felt he had to (and could!) defend himself at Judith Curry’s site instead of lobbing insults from the safety of the RealClimate fortress underscores their fears. Still, it isn’t working, I don’t think they can take on any more battle fronts.
Panic will be settling in soon. They may get a reprieve this summer, at least there will be some hotter than average days everywhere, but if Joe Bastardi’s forecast of more cold winters come through, they’ll have to start looking for another cause.
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
“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”
What do the words “working out new wording together” mean in your previous reply?
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
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).
@gcapologist,
I completely agree: I’ve always found that I express myself far better when any anger or outrage has been allowed to dissipate a little. Venting anger allows your opponents to focus on the anger rather than the substance of your views, thus allowing them to avoid answering any real points of discussion.
“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” …
Well from my point of view I do not think the ‘letter’ was that well written, a good amateur attempt basically.
The response is of course absolutely hilarious: which perhaps says more about the Team than I can express.
However everyone supposes that his deathless prose must be the acme of any letter ever written. I do not wish to disappoint but usually not so.
So if you live in a jurisdiction based on English Law, eg. the UK, the USA etc. I offer this advice. If you will write such a letter remember the golden rule is to head the body of the text with two little words.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Very handy that.
Kindest Regards