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.
=============================================================
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Son & Mike
re: first water
~ as clear and pure as water” ~~ high quality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Water
from “Timon of Athens”
Merchant
‘Tis a good form.
Looking at the jewel
Jeweller
And rich: here is a water, look ye.
Like other commentators I too notice a surprising similarity between David Karoly’s interpretation of Steve McIntyre’s letter and the interpretation of data in the Gergis paper.
If Karoly had consulted a half-decent lawyer about the letter, the lawyer would have advised that there was no legal threat within it. A simple call to Steve McIntyre would have no doubt confirmed it.
If Karoly had consulted a half-decent statistician over the Gergis paper, they would have said that the major conclusion – that the last decade of the the 20th century was the warmest of millennium by 0.09 Celsius has absolutely no statistical validity when the second warmest decade is based on just 3 proxies, one of which is widely erratic.
There is an important conclusion, confirmed by Climategate. Climate science is centered around a small group of individuals. Like a religious cult, or an extremist political group, whenever they are challenged to substantiate their claims they circle the wagons and claim persecution. Karoly’s misinterpretation of SM’s letter now makes him a martyr in the face of alleged “monied interests” rather the perpetrator of unsubstantiated allegations.
“legal threat” is an oxymoron. Just one of the many types of morons in the climate debate.
Jeff Mitchell says:
July 14, 2012 at 10:56 am
“As a paralegal…”
Thanks for saving me the time of reading the rest, Jeff.
am currently dealing with 6 different FOI requests
Why does the man make it sound like it’s so hard to “deal with” FOI requests? He handled the data for months while putting the work together. Why is it so hard to disclose something he must have become so familiar with while doing the work?
David Karoly says, “Commentators with no scientific expertise…… sought to launch formal investigations into Mann’s research…..”
He left the National Academy of Science off of his list. Here is part of what they said about Mann’s work:
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”
–The National Academy of Science report on the Mann Hockey Stick graph, Page 4
Here’s the link to the NAS report, page 4:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
Everybody that tells lies and misrepresents other people in public is rightly under constant threat of legal action.
Anybody who obtains public funding publishes papers with exaggerated conclusions without presenting all the data and methods can probably expect an FOI request.
Neither of these things is surprising or special and neither is a problem for anyone but the person who does not do the right thing.
Around these parts, anything that starts with an accusation of making a defamatory statement, followed by a demand for an apology and and another accusation of unattributed claims is, for all practical purposes, a legal threat. And academics are not unaccustomed to receiving them in australia. Ironically enough, one case involved a threat from the editor of a publication that now casts itsleft as a campaigner for free speech (and anyone who buys THAT line might be interested in some scrap metal I have for sale, located on sydney harbor)
Defamation in australia is not something to take lightly. The legal test was lowered by the last government in the name of “harmonisation”, making it somewhat easier for somebody with adequate means to use the law to attack critics.
I think it’s probably unlikely that the host would travel to australia to pursue a claim in court, but karoly would (and should) still take a letter like that seriously.
So yes, IMHO, there is a legal threat in that letter. A very clear one, however credible.
As an Australian, if I was reading a letter that said one of my utterances was “defamatory” whether it was from a solicitor or not, I would take notice.
Also I notice a comment above from “pouncer”:
“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.”
Perhaps pouncer may like to consider that Australian courts find it possible for defamation of an Australian to have occurred in Australia from a blog post originating from another country, such as USA. At least one successful suit has occurred. Nevertheless, a successful action would only bear fruit for the aggrieved party if the defendant had assets in Australia, which is unlikely.
The only tangible impact to a defendant in that circumstance would be a limitation against entering Australia which for 295M Americans is also of little consequence.
The funny thing is, that many people who run or post to blogs are the types of people who do like to travel abroad.
As a lover of free speech I encourage everyone to speak their mind. Unfortunately the rest of the world increasingly does not agree with this and while Americans can promote their worthy free speech ideals by needlessly defaming others ultimately it will only contribute to Fortress USA as most other countries will just have arrest warrants waiting for those with unpaid civil penalties.
Eli:
You’re just parsing words now, trying to make yet another wrong-headed mistake by Karoly right.
It wasn’t a legal threat. It may have been followed by a legal threat if Karoly’s article had not been pulled, but it was not a legal threat, nor is there the slightest evidence that had the article not been pulled, there would have been a legal threat or any legal action taken.
Karoly misspoke/overstated/whatever the gravity of the email from McIntyre. I think this speaks more to the sub-par level of Karoly’s academic abilities than it does to anything else.
Eli, you need better heroes to defend.
Karoly is a member of the academic staff at the University of Melbourne. So where does Karoly’s University stand on this issue? Perhaps someone should ask the Vice-Chancellor.
Can’t be doing much for the University’s proud international reputation. Which has long been excellent.
Karoly is priceless. On the one occasion when I rang to discuss with him his misunderstanding of evaporation and drought, he stated immediately that he could not talk to me as he was ‘talking to his lawyers’.
My favorite part of Steve McIntyre’s letter to David Karoly is where SM calls out Karoly on the evident plagiarism of utilizing the Climate Audit critique of Gergis et al (2012) without full and proper acknowledgement:
[Steve McIntyre to David Karoly]: “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. “
Jeff Mitchell. Paralegal.
A ‘threat’ is a statement of ‘intent’. It contains an implicit promise of an act or ‘action’ at some point in the ‘future’.
For example. ‘ Expect to hear from my lawyers’….
In threats there is often a ‘conditional’ element.
‘If you don’t apologize, you may expect to hear from my lawyers’.
As a simple thought experiment I suggest you try to compose a ‘threat’ that does not contain these elements…see?
I suspect that your ‘para’ status is a reflection of your failure to fully grasp the ‘legal’ implications of basic English!
Stewart says:
July 14, 2012 at 6:25 pm
That’s probably where he get’s his “science” also.
Eli Rabett…
Yes, the letter is the sort of thing seen before defamation suits are filed.
On the other hand, sometimes these sorts of things are seen, and no defamation suits are filed.
More importantly, I know that you know something of McIntyre’s history…and that he’s not known for being litigious, and has, in fact, publicly stated that he doesn’t think that’s the way to go. If he says he has no intention of filing a suit, specifically citing the expense involved, what reason do you have to not believe him?
If McIntyre did not intend a threat, and there is no explicit threat, then what’s going on is in the head of the recipient…and a guilty conscience.
But since you’ve stepped in…since you’re clearly interested in getting this sort of thing right, do you think Karoly defamed Steve?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 14, 2012 at 5:26 pm
That’s exactly the problem–Karoly’s trying to obfuscate instead of elucidate.
Rocky:
Exactly right. If he had his data and codes, data and codes used I might add to form public policy and paid for in full by the Australian public, and if he were getting FOIAs, that might be seen as abusive.
What he’s doing is the opposite, he’s trying to prevent access to his data and code,and is getting hammered for it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the purpose of the FOIA?
I’m no lawyer but this reads to me like a legal threat. If Karoly does not “withdraw the allegation with an apology” then McIntyre, according to his own words continues to be defamed???
Matthew of Canberra…
You prove the opposite point. You say “…followed by a demand for an apology…”
A demand word would be something like “demand”, “require”, “command”,or “order”. Instead, the word used was “request”. There is a substantive difference in meaning between the word “demand” and “request”. “I demand you clean the sink” is different than “I request that you clean the sink”.
Based on your description that a threat would include a “demand”, this isn’t one.
Legal docs I have seen don’t use namby-pamby words like “request”. In fact, doing so might be construed to imply that the writer doesn’t think they have a legally enforceable “demand”.
There are 2 sentences in Steve McIntyre letter that may lead someone to think that he might be facing legal action.
«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):»
«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.»
These two statements can lead someone to believe he will sued if he doesn’t comply with the request.
Of course, If Mr Kalory had had an proof of his allegation against McIntyre he would have kept is article intact and in place. Since he didn’t he prefer to whine about being sued.
So, in summary, it seems the Australians find the letter a legal threat, but the Americans don’t.
How nuanced. Where is this Karoly person from again?
What a hack.
Mr. McIntyre not only refrains from any sort of “threat” at all, but he issues a challenge for Mr. Karoly to back up his accusations with facts.
Seems Mr. Karoly does not like being proved wrong, and this childish outburst is clearly related to Mr. McIntyre’s rebuttal of Gergis et al 2012.
Legal Threat? , no.
Legal vulnerability? Yes
He is simply posting what his legal adviser tells him to in an effort to minimize his obvious liabilities in response to said communication on the subject at hand. .
Ya know full well,,,,,,, what you type and post,,,,, is forever now days/
It never has a chance to be “Gone Away” Ya think? (ª¿ª)