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.
The bottom line is that if Gavin can’t handle the threat of a libel suit, then he should choose his words more carefully.
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.
Gavin’s just touchy because he knows most of the world doesn’t take him seriously anymore.
“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
wobble says: February 22, 2011 at 9:47 pm
“I suppose, Gavin could try claiming that, in his opinion..”
This is a statement of opinion:
“The evidence for this is in precisely what I THINK happens in venues like E&E that have, IN MY OPNION, effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line.”
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.”
See the difference.
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.
Gavin should have used some of the standard climate science paper phrases (could, might, may, perhaps, someday, evidence suggests, models, etc.) that way no matter what he wrote it could be interpreted as exactly the opposite of what was written.
Then he would be in the clear since the statement would not be falseifiable, just like everything else in AGW.
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).
Put on your rubber boots, everyone, and get you down to the barnyard!
There are the roosters on the dunghill plumping their chests and fluffing their plumage.
It might just be me, but it looks like there’s one scruffy little banty cockerel with a scruffy tail, a tattered comb and a tired, strident little voice. His opponent, I can’t see clearly but he seems fresh, confident and unsullied.
It’s posturing, people! Put your money on your favourite, but hang on to your sense of humour.
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
Gavin having another hissy fit?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/#comment-45769
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.
“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.
———————
The approach is called preserving your rights during an attempt at an amicable solution. They have to preserve the right to do something else later, rather than offering an outright statement that all they want is a retraction. Gavin, stupidly and immaturely, spit on the offer of an amicable solution. I highly doubt E&E would ever sue, but Gavin sure isn’t making it less likely with his puerile tantrum.
Real Climate is a disgrace. Thanks Anthony for continuing to do the heavy lifting.
“Gavin having another hissy fit?”
I don’t know for certain but this smacks of “Gavin Schmidt is pretty much irrelevant at this point”. He seems to be making himself something of a target of ridicule and further seems to have forgotten the “stop digging” rule when one is in the hole.
Dr. Curry’s direct approach to this seems to imply she has even more than she has let out of the bag on this issue. I don’t believe she would have written that without expecting some sort of response from Schmidt.
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.
Just posted at RC:
In the Late 50’s Eugene Parker tried to publish a paper in the Astrophysical Journal. The peer review process rejected the paper, because the reviewers simply didn’t believe Parker. The paper was saved by the editor Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (who later received the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics) and published.
The paper was Parker’s hypothesis on the now widelt accepted solar wind
Should Parker’s paper have been rejected or published?
/Mango
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.”
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.
In a civil action the burden of proof is usually on the plaintiff.
>>>Mike says: February 22, 2011 at 4:32 pm
>>>The subject line is Subject:: E&E libel! I think that is
>>>pretty clear. (Boldface mine.)
Hey, Mike, you completely misunderstood the title of the email. A libel is: “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation.”
It is E&E who have been libeled, not RealClimate.
The title is a confirmation that E&E consider that they have been libeled by RealClimate, and not the other way around.
Talk about an edgy editor, who likes pointing his defensive gun at his own feet.
.
Colonel Gavindaffi springs to mind. Defiant speeches from a bombed-out site.
[bold is my emphasis]
Hmmmmm, that appears to me to be a clear, prima facie case of intention to cause harm, or loss, to E&E and Sonja.
Anyone else have a view on this?
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?
Indeed that is the case. This is why the “summary for policy makers” (the only part of the report that politicians and policy wonks read) was 100% selling the ‘man-made catastrophic climate change is settled science’ line even when many chapters in the actual report cited work which refuted or at least questioned that summary. The summary was misleading and did not accurately reflect what the totality of the science has been showing.