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.
Other than lip service… I do not think Gavin really believes he is a public servant. I think, he truly believes he is a public savior. No one should be allowed to attack his graven image, and that He is the path to climate salvation. GK
(liable) + (retraction) = (settlement)
(liable) – (retraction) = (What? An aardvark?) ; of course not.
(liable) – (retraction) = (lawsuit)
From JD Ohio on February 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm :
Different article:
From Julian Flood on February 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm:
Is there some reason for both “Julian Flood” and “JD Ohio” to have the same repeated two-initials error on their posts, looking more curious given the rarity of posts ending with initials at all, or is it just pure coincidence?
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.
Gavin. Ha ha. Gavin. Ahhh. Chuckle.
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
Noelle says:
February 23, 2011 at 5:52 am
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?”
*********************
“Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level.”
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
Can you say strawman?
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
It is hard to see it as a threat since E&E make such a point of settle with a simple apology. And besides doesn’t E&E has the legal right to make a legal “threat” of a lawsuit under civil law since it’s not really a threat to merely make an informed and rational decision to use ones legal rights and to inform the potential law breaker of such.
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…
Presumably Gavin’s publishing of Mr Hughes correspondence will now raise howls of protest from Deepclimate, Deltoid and the usual ranters? After all, it’s the Wrong Thing To Do according to them…
From JD Ohio on February 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm:
My apologies, such similarities look strange and make me suspicious. Which is not all that unjustified these days (ref).
tallbloke says:
February 23, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Hehe… riiiight. If anything it was a stupid thing to do as it may egg E&E on to follow up.
Mark
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
All this arguement about the phrasing of the letter is silly ot me. It is pretty clear that Gavin did in fact libel E&E by US as well as UK standards. I just doubt there is enough monetary damage to make a lawsuit worthwhile.
Thanks Gavin for using your tax funded position to libel E&E. You wouldn’t want to spend your time instead actually fixing GISS or aomething?
Re Mark T says:
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.
Little bunny shouts to the hounds: “Quick, look over there!”
Silly rabbit! “Tricks” are for Climate Scientists™!
007: Don’t hide the letter and it context.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HadleyCRU/mail/1188478901.txt
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?”
Who claimed he reviewed papers dealing only with natural science issues? E&E publishes many papers dealing with environmental economics of which he more than qualified,
Richard S. J. Tol, M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992), Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997), Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008), Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (1998-2008), Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of GeoSciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006), Visiting Professor, Princeton Environmental Institute and Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006), Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland (2006-Present), GTAP Research Fellow (2007-2010), Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland (2010-Present), Member of Academia Europaea (2010-Present), Editor, Energy Economics; Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present), Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007), Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
“Eli had some earlier comments …”
Don’t you mean “Joshua Halpern had some earlier comments…”?
Mike,The “context” provided by the subsequent E-mails doesn’t clarify anything. The email I quoted is quite clear.
“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.”
Here is the definitive answer for UK Libel.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0691359/
Rumpole of the Bailey (TV series 1978–1992)
Rumpole and the Bubble Reputation
A notorious tabloid hires Rumpole to defend it in a libel suit being brought by a puritanical novelist it has accused of sexual promiscuity.
From Mike on February 23, 2011 at 3:45 pm:
This letter?
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=811&filename=1188478901.txt
Looking at all the included bits of other emails, it looks like Benny Peiser asked Phil Jones to comment about a paper alleging fraud by Wei-Chyung Wang. Jones then contacted Wang, who at that point had said paper on hand and sent it to others, then Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and Gavin Schmidt are all talking about the paper and keeping it from being published, with refuting it on RC if needed.
Wow. Imagine that played out in a different setting. FDA asks medical researcher about criticism received about a drug on the market. Researcher then directly contacts the manufacturer, provides them the evidence of the allegation, then proceeds to contact others who have a vested interest in keeping the drug on the market and shielding the manufacturer from criticism. Then they converse about how to keep the FDA from acting, and damage control if they do. Add in the talk amongst them of “maintaining the confidentiality.”
Yup, you’re right. It’s so much more revealing in context.
“Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Nah, this is just what happens in science, everyone does it!”
Rumpole’s libel case is based on UK law and created and written by the British writer and barrister John Mortimer, QC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey
According to the Rumpole case, if you fight a libel action in the UK and lose, this further increases the damages. The defense of limited readership might not fly in this case. As far as I’m aware, US law changed in recent years and dual citizenship is recognized.
UKIP candidate wins £10,000 for internet libel
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article743741.ece
He said that although the libels were available to the whole world through the internet, it was likely that few people had read them and many of those who did would have dismissed them as “ramblings”.
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
He granted an injunction preventing the publication of the same or similar libels and ordered Ms Williams to pay the costs of the action, which Mr Keith Smith put at £7,200.
kadaka (KD Knoebel), the full context of Keenan’s paper and discussion is discussed in this piece,
Climate libel chill (Benny Peiser, National Post, Canada, March 13, 2010)