See if you can find the 'legal threat' to David Karoly

Steve McIntyre has posted his letter to David Karoly regarding Karoly’s book review, covered by WUWT here. Karoly responds with a suggestion he’s been given a ‘legal threat’. After reading McIntyre’s letter, I’m reminded of the non-existent death threats towards climate scientists in Australia…because I sure can’t find any legal threat from Steve. Maybe David Appell can use his superior death threat knowledge to pinpoint this. /sarc

Steve McIntyre writes: 

=============================================================

I learned of this article from a CA reader here. Karoly’s slagging seemed particularly cheeky given the role of Climate Audit in the recent withdrawal of Gergis et al 2012, of which Karoly was a coauthor and this prompted me to respond:

Dear Dr Karoly,

It has come to my attention that you have made the following untrue and defamatory statement about me (https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/feature-articles/1063-343-features-karoly):

Commentators with no scientific expertise, ranging from politicians such as Republican congressman Joe Barton from Texas, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, or Republican Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma, to blog writers Stephen McIntyre and Marc Morano, have repeatedly promulgated misinformation and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann’s research, claiming professional misconduct or worse, even though it had been peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists

I try to write accurately and, to my knowledge, have not “promulgated misinformation” about Mann’s research, let alone done so “repeatedly”. Together with coauthor Ross McKitrick, I published criticism of Mann’s work in the same peer reviewed journal as Mann et al 1999. We published these criticisms in good faith. In my opinion, not only have the specific criticisms not been refuted in subsequent commentary, but, if anything, our findings have been confirmed even by adversaries. For example, our finding that the verification r2 of the Mann et al reconstruction was not only not significant but ~0 was confirmed by the very adversarial Wahl and Ammann article. While some topics remain in controversy, I note that neither the National Research Council Report nor the Wegman Report in 2006 identified any errors in our work; that the Wegman Report, in particular, strongly endorsed our work and that Gerald North, the Chairman of the National Research Council report, when asked, stated that he agreed with the conclusions of the Wegman Report. While such endorsements do not ensure that our findings are correct (though I believe our findings to be correct), the failure of these panels to explicitly identify errors speaks strongly against your allegation of promulgating “misinformation”.

Obviously, I have also commented extensively at Climate Audit, but always try to be accurate and to correct any errors when pointed out. I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology.

Your recent experience with Gergis et al 2012 should have demonstrated to you that “peer review” by an academic journal is hardly a guarantee of the validity of results, let alone assurance that authors have even implemented their claimed methodologies. I further observe in this connection that your public statement in connection with the withdrawal of Gergis et al 2012 did not include any acknowledgement of Climate Audit’s role in identifying the error in Gergis et al. Your public statement was:

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate. The authors are currently reviewing the data and methods. The revised paper will be re-submitted to the Journal of Climate by the end of July and it will be sent out for peer review again.

It is evident that the error had not been discovered by the authors or by peer reviewers at the time that Climate Audit raised the issue of screening procedure in Gergis et al on May 31, 2012 here, a discussion that quickly identified the error. I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement.

Yours truly,

Stephen McIntyre

Rather than defend the allegations in his article by providing examples of “promulgating misinformation”, Karoly removed the article ( a copy is here) though he didn’t apologize.

I’m surprised that the matter didn’t end there. But rather than leave well enough alone, Karoly has now charged that I had made a “threat of legal action” as follows:

This is a very welcome initiative [funding litigation by climate scientists]. The threats of legal action and FOI requests are not just occurring in North America. In Australia, I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada and am currently dealing with 6 different FOI requests.

=============================================================

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
pouncer

I commented at CA that I see Karoly having over-construed the word “defamatory” in a legal viewpoint. I’d wish Mr McI. would help avoid confusion, in future, by avoiding such terminology.
That said, Karoly does not impress me with his courage. If he believed his statement about blogers to be true, he should have refused the request to retract. If he believed CA’s objection valid enough to retract, he should also have had honor enough to apologize. Retraction followed by whines about lawsuits is, in my opinion. evidence of a cowardly personality.
If Dr Karoly wants to sue ME for defaming HIM as a coward, let the record show my remark is uttered as an opinion, based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts in evidence, upon a matter of public interest, without malice, in a nation that takes “free speech” more seriously than any other on Earth.
Lawsuit? Bring it on.

Craig

In the opinion of this former paralegal, the “legal threat” is this phrase: “your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement.” Not really a “threat”. They just have to have something to use as a distraction from the real issues.

DavidA

He’s playing the victim card. Happens a lot here.

David, UK

pouncer says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:36 am
If Dr Karoly wants to sue ME for defaming HIM as a coward, let the record show my remark is uttered as an opinion, based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts in evidence, upon a matter of public interest, without malice, in a nation that takes “free speech” more seriously than any other on Earth.
Lawsuit? Bring it on.

Ditto if Dr Karoly wants to sue ME for defaming him as a right wanker.

Methinks the man suffers from NPD.

Doug Huffman

The FOIA demand is likely the ‘legal threat’.
In some jurisdictions’ implementation of FOIA, a demand not timely answered is actionable. FOIA is a good and appropriate falsifying tool. It should be known as a legal demand and not as a civil request. In my local jurisdiction, the ‘verified complaint’ form is pre-printed in the briefing packet and pre-addressed to the district attorney.

Good for Steve! This is beauty in action!

Jim

No Craig. I’m pretty sure it was the allegation of defamation. Of course, Prof. Karoly ought to know that truth is an absolute defense of defamation. So all he would have had to do was show instances of Steve peddling misinformation.

If Karoly “received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre”, it was not contained in the communication shown above, which contains no expressed or even implied threat of legal action.
It is certainly possible for an individual to believe he/she has been “defamed” without actually obtaining an opinion from a legal practitioner of filing legal action. In the case of the above, I would agree with McIntyre that he was “defamed”.
Also, in the case of the above, Karoly actually lost some perceived “fame” without actually being “defamed”. You’ve gotta’ love it!

R. Shearer

McIntyre used a couple of words that have legal meaning. So, as in typical “warmist” fashion, Karoly exaggerates this situation, taking those words to mean what he wants them to mean. This is similar to conflating evidence.

Required disclaimer?

Boy, that’s quite a reach. There is one request:

I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology.

While that may be a strongly worded statement for a Canadian, if Dr. Karoly is reading an implied “or else” message, he needs to spend more time reading Steve’s blog. About the only implication I can read into it is “or else I’ll keep writing about the matter at CA.”
I thought Karoly had a little class when he announce the withdrawal of the Gergis paper. It appears I was mistaken.

kim

Karoly is desperate. He’s the posterboy for deliberately bad AR5 science. I feel sorry for him. Consider the ant, the sun, and the magnifying glass.
==============

tlitb1

Nope don’t see a legal threat there. I don’t think you have to be a lawyer to notice that. If Karoly has some other communication from McIntyre that he can show is an actual legal threat then I wonder why he doesn’t show it. If not it seems Karoly is a pusillanimous weasel.

Doug Huffman says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:56 am
> The FOIA demand is likely the ‘legal threat’.
Steve’s note didn’t have anything greater than an informal request – is Karoly referring to some other more formal request from Steve or are you assuming the six FOI requests Karoly mentions include at least one from Steve?

Louis Hooffstetter

Karoly is dreaming when he says “I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada…”
David K: Be careful what you wish for.
Steve should make his dreams come true.

TomRude

What an oversized ego…

Sean

It looks like David Karoly has interpreted the data to say what he wants to hear from it instead of what it actually is telling him. How surprising. I wonder how often he makes this kind of mistake?

Gary Pearse

Skittish what? It is something one might expect from a conspiracy theorist – probably a condition brought on by the sky falling all the time. I thought Karoly was just one of the climate scientists mentioned in the death-threat fantasy at Australian universities:
“Prof David Koroly, of the University of Melbourne’s school of Earth science, told the ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats
I now realize he may have been the ringleader in this debunked story. This sure isn’t Aussie character showing in this man’s timorous behaviour.

catweazle666

These “climate scientists” are a right sad bunch of whiny bitches, aren’t they?
Comes of having guilty consciences IMO.

Bill

It’s not a direct threat of legal action but one could read it as implied. The use of “defamatory” and the suggestion that things from his web page were used and not attributed could be seen as an implied threat of legal action. But he does suggest that all Karoly need do is edit his post and apologize and possibly to acknowledge Climate Audit to satisfy him.

D. J. Hawkins

R. Shearer says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:05 am
McIntyre used a couple of words that have legal meaning. So, as in typical “warmist” fashion, Karoly exaggerates this situation, taking those words to mean what he wants them to mean. This is similar to conflating evidence.

Like the “positive” CO2 feedback? I guess it’s just second nature to these folks

Gunga Din

I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see any threats, legal or otherwise.
Perhaps he knows he did something that could be actionable?

Mike

I see the science is settled as usual. Warmists whimps.

Stacey

Dear A or Mods
I tried to post the following at CA but was not able to post comment, the post comment box is missing.
“In addition, in order for a law suit to have any purpose, the plaintiff should have suffered actual financial damages”
Steve is the above statement correct? I thought that for libel and slander financial loss does not necessarily come into it.
It does puzzle me why Karoly and others of his ilk keep coming back. Like punch drunk boxers they don’t know when to give up?
He’s gergised up yet again 🙂

Ockham

This is a standard tactic and a trap. Once in circulation, this message will be parroted by an army of CAGW bed wetters, despite having no basis in truth. It puts skeptics on the defensive, making us ‘deny’ yet another assertion.

Under Section 298 of the Criminal Code of Canada, “defamatory libel” is defined as “matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.” Under Sectiojn 299, “A person publishes a libel when he (a) exhibits it in public; (b) causes it to be read or seen; or (c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person.” And under Section 300, “Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.” One wonders whether the provisions for libel are similar Down Under.
In my non-lawyeresque opinion, the allegation that Steve McIntyre et al. “repeatedly promulgated misinformation” could be construed as defamatory libel. Those of us who investigate questions of science for a living depend upon our reputations for our livelihood; thus any attack on our reputations is not to be taken lightly. Truth, of course, is a legitimate defence against a charge of libel, so it would be child’s play for Mr. Karoly to demonstrate that he has not libelled Mr. McIntyre. All he has to do is provide, per Mr. McIntyre’s request, irrefutable evidence of the repeated promulgation of misinformation by Mr. McIntyre. If he can.
Words and facts matter in science. Science gets into difficulties when people start to think they don’t. People pretending to be scientists need to be very careful about the allegations they make about their opponents. The line between fair comment and criminal defamation can be very thin. Folks making allegations, particularly allegations of unprofessionalism or malfeasance, would be well advised to have the facts on their side before they decide to shoot their mouths off. Either that, or they should be prepared for the consequences.

pat

These darn Warmists sure have active imaginations.

Snowsnake

A primary basis for American humor is outrageous exageration. I submit many aspects of all this are funny. If not for the unfortunate fact that many of the politicians who fund green projects and restrict use of our abundant resources are about as connected with reality as a bunch of toddlers sobbing over the death of Bambi’s mother, this would be even funnier. Of course, if one doesn’t care about the future of our economy, the life of our grandchildren, and the slide into something pretty terrible for the whole world,– cook some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy. Meanwhile there are soldiers out there like Steve and Anthony fighting desperately for all of us.

“the allegation that Steve McIntyre et al. “repeatedly promulgated misinformation” could be construed as defamatory libel.”
More than construed as defamatory libel, it is defamatory libel. Clearly without any doubt.
“I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement.”
The above indicates a “warning” or “caution” request to Karoly. The action that Climate Audit would take if such “appropriate acknowledgement” isn’t issued is unspecified and as such leaves open the distinct possibility of a serious response by Climate Audit, however it’s just as possible that Climate Audit won’t take any further action on that as well. It’s in how you look at it. It would be prudent for Karoly to issue the “appropriate acknowledgement” however as, well, legal action “could” possibly ensue. Not directly a threat of legal action but surely a hint of one, a possibility of one.
“I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology.”
McIntyre’s letter is not a “legal threat” but a polite and direct invitation to Karoly to avoid such legal matters.
Besides, if you defame someone in a libelous manner expect a Legal Response from them to address your defaming statements.
Karoly received a first step letter that was very polite giving him an out so that instead of legal proceedings he can simply “apologize” and “appropriately acknowledge” Climate Audit. Karoly’s response sounds like he is still righteous about what he wrote and won’t take the easy road forward but wants to proceed to the beginning of the legal action stages.
Seems that you are your own worst enemy Mr. Karoly digging a legal hole deeper for yourself.

Justthinkin

Not to worry. Karoly will maybe go to Gleick and see about getting some back-up to the claim of a “death threat”. And if the kook considers this a “legal threat” then ditto pouncer and Dave UK.

dp

Stephen has written a position paper. He has declared his position on what Karoly has written and there are avenues of recourse in his position that both he and Karoly recognize. There is no threat, implicit or otherwise, just an understanding based on legal processes available to him. That is acceptable but can be seen as threatening for someone who has just published a slander. I don’t blame Karoly for feeling threatened with legal action but he did earn it. “Threatened” in this regard is an internal response to Stephen’s position, no actual threat exists. Stephen did not say the equivalent of “This blogosphere isn’t big enough for both of us – one of us has to go!”.
It was, however, an utterly delightful to watch smack-down.

Wade

Many in the AGW camp like to invent threats. It works well because the true believers take their word for it without question (like they do with the facts used to support AGW) and then tell others about how a poor, defenseless climate scientists is fighting hard against the threats and intimidation of the big oil funded machine. Of course, it takes time for the facts to come out and show how the invented threat really was invented and not real, but by then the goal has been accomplished.
James Hansen claimed George Bush was “silencing” him, when, in fact, George Bush was telling him to shut up and do his job. Hansen being what he is distorted the truth and made it seem like the big bad oil-funded Republicans were trying to stifle scientific truth.
http://www.dailytech.com/Update+NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm
The Hansen trick worked. Like cries of racism, it is always about trying to silence debate and never about facts. When it comes to an environmentalist, I would trust my wallet with a thief before I would trust them with the facts. If James Hansen, David Karoly, Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, or any other die-hard AGW promoter said the sky was blue, I would look outside to be sure.

I agree with pouncer, this was probably experienced as an implied threat of a defamation suit “you have made the following untrue and defamatory statement about me “. That would sort of imply a consciousness of guilt, actually. It would imply that he knew he was making a defamatory statement and was maybe a bit afraid he could be sued for it, and when he saw that, it validated his fear and so he ran with it having been “spring loaded” to arrive at that conclusion anyway. Just another example of a “false positive” when you see data that would indicate the expected result. Expectations, however, are not always reality.

TimC

I assume (I am only professionally familiar with UK law) that (a) Dr Karoly is Australian, in which jurisdiction defamation is a civil tort broadly similar to the position in the UK (from which much of Australian common law derives) and (b) Dr Mcintyre is Canadian and defamation is there similarly tortious.
The statement “It has come to my attention that you have made the following untrue and defamatory statement about me” (whether as from an individual claimant/plaintiff, or a lawyer on the individual’s behalf), to an Australian citizen, is therefore a real threat of civil proceedings (in which costs will generally follow the event – so if the claimant succeeds in proving non-trivial defamation he will also get an order for payment of costs which will often be substantially greater than the damages for the libel). No further warning is required – Dr Mcintyre could arrange for the writ of summons to be taken to the Astralian Court, for issue as of right, serve it and then the costs (which Dr Karoly could be ordered to pay) will rack up very quickly.
The position is essentially different in the US. The First Amendment prohibits “the making of any law … abridging the freedom of speech” and actions for alleged defamation of public figures (which I think Dr Mcintyre will be in this context) were limited in New York Times v Sullivan to require the public figure to prove “actual malice”. Also, in the US costs don’t generally follow the event – so the risks attached to a threat of defamation proceedings against any US defendant are much less serious than they would appear to an Australian defendant – or a Canadian defendant such as Dr Tim Ball, presently defending the Michael Mann defamation action in Canada.
There was also the complaint of failure to identify Climate Audit as the forum at which the error was identified, but I believe that this is a matter of academic courtesy only – however I understand it may be taken as a serious breach of etiquette in academic circles.

son of mulder

Best I can spot is
” provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology.”
….else what? Dangerous to leave things to the imagination. All sort of things might come to mind
“else I’ll sue for defamation.”
“else Luigi and the boys might come round.”
“else I shall consider you a cad, a rotter and a bounder of the first water.”

DJ

I’m an American, so don’t supposed to know Canadian or Australian law but to the degree they are also based on English law. Nevertheless, I don’t think you need to even be a 1st year law student to see the immediate and fatal flaw in Karoly’s claim.
1. “… I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology.”
—— This is simply a request to perform, without even a suggestion either directly or indirectly of legal action
2. “I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement.”
——“I do not BELIEVE…… it is MY OPINION…” are the qualifiers that reduce to accusation Steve’s words, and again, there is no threat of action.
Clearly, Karoly’s intent here is to make a statement that is outrageous, but will no doubt get into the headlines. Karoly knows his words will be seen, and he knows Steve’s will not, so the naive public will be more prone to vilify Steve.
Any media outlet that publishes one without the other is as culpable as Karoly.

Jeff Mitchell

As a paralegal who has 10 years experience in litigation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, my first impression was there was at least two threats. A defamation action or a misuse of intellectual property action. Any time I see a specific behavior alleged which is against the law, I immediately think a possible action may be filed if the issue isn’t settled. I would consider it a threat. Defamation and misuse of intellectual property violations mean nothing if the injured party isn’t planning on doing anything about it. Since the law is not self enforcing, the injured party has no protection if they have no plan to enforce their rights. So in my mind, bringing up specific causes of action implies further action may be taken, because the law provides an injured party with recourse in court.
Before I bring an action, I send what is called a demand letter which informs the perp what violations they have committed and what I want as a settlement for those violations. I make clear a deadline by which they must respond, and the right of action (47 USC 227(b)(3) or (c)(5)) by which I can bring an action. However, if I were the perp, even without the deadline or mentioning the authority by which an action could be brought, I’d assume an action would be forthcoming if I ignore the request for settlement. Most of the perps I deal with do not settle on the request the first time, because they think I’m like most people who threaten legal action and don’t follow through. The second time (if there is one) they settle immediately.
Thus, I believe McIntyre’s letter had two threats of legal action in it and Karoly was being reasonable in interpreting it that way. If it wasn’t a threat, Karoly has nothing to make him apologize in any way. If you are going to bring the law into a dispute, it has to be followed up with the big stick of a lawsuit if it is to mean anything. Otherwise, it is just a bluff. The bluff itself is still a threat, but the bluffer isn’t going to follow through is the only difference.
My thought is that complaining about Karoly taking the letter as a threat is playing the victim card. Rather, if it were important enough, and the harm to Steve’s reputation serious enough, I’d own that threat, and make good on it, rather than pretend it wasn’t a threat.

Son, (of Mulder)… first water? How about backwater? Or swamp water? Cad indeed.

Brian H

Donald A. Neill says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:54 am

Folks making allegations, particularly allegations of unprofessionalism or malfeasance, would be well advised to have the facts on their side before they decide to shoot their mouths off. Either that, or they should be prepared for the consequences.

Warmists? Consequences? It would be a first.

John West

[Start violin music]
“I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada and am currently dealing with 6 different FOI requests.”
[Stop violin music]
Ok, so how fraudulent or incompetent does your work have to be for an FOI request to have to be dealt with? Is it stressful? Would it be if you were competent/objective?

It seems that McIntyre quite pointedly AVOIDED making a legal threat, while pointing out that he did have the basis for one. Is pointing out that one COULD pursue legal action, while avoiding any hint of intent to do so, the same as making a threat? That’s absurd. Karoly is claiming to be victimized by having the person he victimized even point out that in legal terms he was victimized.
Karoly’s the victim the victimizer changes things. I think Steve should sue him for defamation and win the case in court. These people are so used to saying whatever they want, no matter how contrary to facts and reason, and getting nothing but rewarded for it because they control all of academia and all of the grant money and are backed by all of their media hacks. Any little reminder that objective standards do exist would be good.

RockyRoad

Requiring truth of a Warmista is not only an inconvenience, but also, according to them, a sueable offense.
Shows just how low those folks will go to maintain their scam.

Skiphil

There was no legal threat, Karoly made it up
The amazing thing is how these climatologists simply continue to make stuff up, even in a case like this one where the lie could so easily be disproved.
I don’t think Karoly really meant to “lie” per se. I think the episode shows how slovenly his mind is, how careless and reckless his thought processes are.
We have seen over and over again how many of the leading climatologists fail basic reading comprehension, logic, and analysis. Is it any surprise, really, that people like Michael Mann and David Karoly make such a mess of the field??
The real questions are about why other scientists and their universities, professional associations, etc. continue to defend and endorse these clowns.

This is the results of children being coddled their entire lives. The harsh light of reality is shone upon the work of the sheltered. This is the reaction of a person who’s never experienced butthurt before. Look at the actions of Karoly. He had no choice but to accept the flaws pointed out be the crew at CA. But, rather than taking it and growing as a person, he sulks. He lashes out in his book review. When the adolescent behavior is pointed out, and the appropriate correction to the behavior is figuratively meted out, he does what any child will do. He runs to sympathetic arms, much like a child will when a father administers a spanking, the child will run to the arms of the mother. In this case, SkS provides a substitute for the sheltering walls of academia. Here’s my take.
Welcome to the big leagues, Dr. Karoly. This is where real science is conducted. If you can’t show your work and if your work isn’t right, expect to have a ruler rapped against your knuckles. In this world, you don’t get to be king of the classroom or lab. Yes, it’s scary out here. Regardless of your credentials, boorish behavior, lies, and incompetence will get pointed out.

mfo

What Karoly thinks was written on the front of his t-shirt. From Bob Dylan to climate change…….

Skiphil

that is, he started out with a reckless untrue statement that he easily should have seen to be false
if he continues to defend it and allow it to stand in public as he sees the easy criticism of it, then it does become a “lie” i.e., a knowing untruth, but at first I think it simply reflects his feeble-minded confusion and ignorance…. I’m trying to give him any benefit of any possible doubt, ha ha.

The real issue here is that McIntyre had the temerity to observe that Karoly is the scientist who had no clothes. No one was supposed to notice and certainly not say anything about it if they did.

MartinR

Buffoon = ClimateAlarmism(Boffin)