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.
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.
If I received that letter, I would interpret it as a legal threat. The reason is the use of the magic words “libel”, and “settle”. IANAL, but I see it as a pre-litigation settlement offer.
(That said, I wouldn’t see it a particularly serious one, because it’s sent by email – not registered mail or courier – and was sent by a director, rather than the company’s lawyer. Furthermore, if RealClimate viewed this as a serious threat, or one they couldn’t defend, they would have to be stupid to continue to make blog posts on this topic).
But isn’t this EXACTLY the type of thing the defamation lawsuits are intended to deal with: Somebody made a negative FACTUAL assertion about a somebody else’s professional practices. Assuming for a moment that the assertion is untrue – the second person needs to have a right at law to correct the assertion and undo any damage resulting.
FWIW, I am a long-standing member of the UK’s Campaign for Libel Reform. But I particularly object to the RealClimate phrase “unjustifiable UK libel suit”
Yes issues such as jurisdiction, costs, damages, burden of proof, and fact/opinion all need to be looked at – but even a reformed, improved, corrected libel law in the UK would still exist – and should & would still be usable to defend people’s reputations against allegedly unfounded factual assertions. A case involving an allegedly unfounded factual assertion against a professional reputation would be, as far as I am concerned, entirely justifiable.
Furthermore, I also object to the way that the UK is referred to in the article. The implication is that UK jurisdiction on such a case would be inappropriate or malicious. However, seeing as the allegedly libelled party is not some foreign oligarch with a tenuous connection to the UK – but a UK-based business – UK jurisdiction is entirely appropriate IMHO.
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.
I’m no lawyer, but if the statement Gavin made actually was libellous (and “libel” as a word stands in its own right without a necessary legal connection), then why not call it by that word?
I think there’s more than a hint of legal recourse being sought in the event of a failure to retract. But so what? If libel there has been, then the one libelled has that option. It wouldn’t look good in court, should any action materialise, if the defendant, having been offered the chance to reach an accommodation through retraction, had rejected it. Nor would it look good for the plaintiff if such an offer hadn’t been made.
It’s plain as a pikestaff: Gavin has alleged E&E doesn’t properly peer review papers that fit a certain preferred narrative. Which we all know is a laugh because one could name journals as well as scientists on the orthodox side that have gamed the peer-review system in the service of orthodoxy. We have actual evidence of this in the climategate emails, after all.
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? Was it somehow complimentary of E&E? One can feel sure that had Gavin had anything complimentary to say about it, he wouldn’t have posted about it on RC.
Re Mark T says: February 22, 2011 at 8:45 pm
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.
RockyRoad says:
February 22, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“A “bad hair day” for a guy with very little hair? ”
At least there’s been no attempt to hide the decline…
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.
wobble says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:47 pm
I appreciate your input JD, but it seems obvious that you’ve never litigated a libel case.
Ya got me. Have you? And in which country?
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
“Notice the missing key word ‘lawsuit’. It does not appear in that letter anywhere.”
And note the subject of the email: “E&E libel”
If that isn’t about a lawsuit, Anthony, then what is it about?
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?
@Ralph says: February 23, 2011 at 12:57 am
We agree. The point was so obvious that I did not elaborate.
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”.
Anthony.
I will have to go with JD on this one, not because I disagree with your interpretation as it applies to us here in the US, but because the use of the word libel carries a lot more weight in the country that coined the term. Their English is subtly different than ours in many ways. A private conciliatory gesture is also the proper and educated British way to originally approach the situation and is seen very favorably by magistrates.
Nevertheless, this is an important post because it further spotlights the blinded fanaticism prevalent at RC. It shows not only the lack of common courtesy that should be given to other “peers”, but also the lack of foresight to the consequences of their lower brain instinctive reactions.
Such reactions have been incorrectly described elsewhere here as “Cajones”. Incorrectly because both: I suspect that their reaction has a lot less to do with testicular virility than with the aforementioned blinded fanaticism, but also because the word “Cajones” really means “Boxes” in Spanish and the user of the term should at least had the wherewithal to check the spelling of a word not of his native tongue.
And as an aside, the correctly spelled word is considered as offensive by most Spanish language readers as most four letter words are by English speaking ones and should NEVER be used in mixed/formal company. It is also in very poor taste – attempting to thinly disguise an offensive word by using a foreign language for vulgarism. Yes, we are all adults here…. or are we?
Keep up the great work.
Best,
Jose
‘Gavin, remember, thou art mortal’
Beware the ides of March
Atomic Hairdryer says:
February 23, 2011 at 5:05 am
Technically, the US does not recognize dual citizenship.
Mark
Noelle says:
February 23, 2011 at 5:52 am
Gavin’s is mathematics. Pachuri is a railroad engineer. How about your degree?
Mark
Noelle says:
“Your degree is in economics. Do you believe that qualifies you to publish on and peer review articles in the natural sciences?”
And your degree is in… what, exactly? Sock puppetry? Give us your CV. Your qualifications must surely exceed Dr Tol’s.
EE’s peer review is certainly more rigorous than CC’s, which is controlled by the conniving Michael Mann. Search “Tiljander, Mann” and you will begin to understand.
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….
Question for the lawyers among us: How close did RC come to libel by U.S. standards? It would seem likely that they would lose a UK libel case, unless they have some proof of their assertion about the editor’s behavior, but how about in the U.S.? Is the fact that the editor is a “public figure” of some sort sufficient to protect RC from anything they might assert? Just how far would someone have to go to actually lose a libel suit under U.S. law?
Just curious.
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.
Of course I see the difference.
JD’s point was that his assertion of fact contains a subjective standard. For example, I’m certainly asserting a fact if I state that, “this restaurant doesn’t handle chicken carefully”, but JD was pointing out that such assertion of fact contains a subjective standard (an opinion) regarding what is “carefully.” In this situation the author could merely claim that what is defined as “carefully” is a matter of opinion and therefore his statement wasn’t libel. JD was pointing out that Gavin could claim that his standard of “substantive” is a matter of opinion and therefore his statement wasn’t libel.
The problem is that a more accurate comparison would be a statement such as, “this restaurant doesn’t handle chicken carefully – as it does beef.” In this statement a standard for “carefully” has most certainly been set by the author. The author has offered the restaurant’s handling of beef as a standard of “carefully”. In a libel defense, the author would be forced to prove that the restaurant doesn’t handle chicken as carefully as they handle beef (if the author chose to pursue a truth defense – he could most certainly pursue a lack of actual injury defense – that the restaurant wasn’t harmed at all by the statement).
Likewise, in Gavin’s statement, Gavin sets the standard of “substantive” as the peer review process which is applied to papers that don’t fit the editor’s political line. Therefore, Gavin would have a difficult time claiming that his statement is a matter of opinion.
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.
Mark T says:
February 23, 2011 at 7:04 am
Atomic Hairdryer says:
February 23, 2011 at 5:05 am
Yes, and unless he’s also a US citizen it could make his defence under UK libel a little more challenging.
Technically, the US does not recognize dual citizenship.
Mark
————————————–
I can’t imagine where you got that idea from. And I can’t imagine what the significance of “technically” could be.
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.