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.
Jimbo says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Best you remain NOT a lawyer Jimbo me lad. You wouldn’t have many clients. As a commenter stated above. if SM had said “if you don’t apologise then I will…..” then that would be construed as a threat. That Kaoly made a libellous comment and SM continues to be defamed is not in itself a threat. Doncha thunk?
Jim
Truth “absolute”(sic) or otherwise is NOT always a successful defense in defamation actions under Australian defamation law.
By the way your statement posted here is defamatory of Mr. McIntyre. It is an egregious defamation as you posted it deliberately to assist in the attempted destruction of Mr. McIntyre’s intellectual and ethical reputation. Your niave and wrong belief regarding an “absolute” truth of your egregious attack and Australian defamation law will hopefully be put to the test when Mr. McIntyre joins you as a defendant with Dr. Karoly iin any action that he hopefully commences against Dr. Karoly. Now are you prepared to provide your full name and rresidntial address to Mr McIntye or the good Mr. Watts to ensure that this matter can be speedily and efficiently dealth with by the District or Supreme Court of New South Wales? Sure of your ” absolute” truth old chum? Dr. Karoly clearly is not. He is a very nervous and jumpy zebra on the Serengetti of climate alarmism.
The only way that McIntyre could launch and action against Karoly is to do it in Australia, so Canadian, US and UK defamation law is irrelevant. The bar for defamation is much lower here than in the US – I don’t know about the UK and Canada.
Frankly, I can’t imagine Steve doing it – it’s not his style (much worse things have been said about him, eg in the Climategate emails) and it would be a long, expensive and probably futile process – unless Karoly is very wealthy, he’d be lucky to get much more than his costs back in the end, if he won. He could try suing the publisher of the review, but I gather they are not flush with funds either. But I do think that the use of the word ‘defamatory’ was designed to get Karoly’s attention, and it seems to have served its purpose.
As I said on another thread, there are comments in that review about other people – Australians – that are almost certainly defamatory, and I suspect that’s why it was pulled so quickly.
Jimbo, you left out the word “request”.
That totally changes the meaning.
Karoly withdrew it without an apology and claimed instead that he was being legally threatened. That is Karoly failed to comply with McIntyre’s request.
Is it now your position that McIntyre is now going to take legal action because Karoly failed to follow his “request”? Or is it just that it “sounds like a threat” in the sense Lady Gaga is “almost a virgin”? Inquiring minds and all that.
separate from any possible legal issues, in the “court of public opinion”…. demands should now be made from many quarters for Karoly to prove his pretend assertion that he or co-authors found the problem with Gergis et al (2012) independently.
i.e., in his grudging email to Steve McIntyre a few weeks back, Professor David Karoly pretended that the error in question had been identified independently of the work at Climate Audit. Surely there would be some email trail of discussions nowadays, almost certainly…. or some record of the moment at which Gergis or Karoly notified the journal of a problem etc.
No, Karoly can’t be *forced* to reveal anything…. but he can be embarrassed if he fails to do so. IF his claim is true (of independent discovery of the error not dependent upon Climate Audit) then he should be able to prove that.
If he doesn’t proceed to prove it then it must be assumed that his claim is false and that the co-authors were reliant upon the discussions by Jean S. and Steve M. et al at Climate Audit.
Of course observant people know the latter is the case, but it would be nice to put Karoly’s feet-to-the-fire in follow up to Steve M’s last paragraph. It’s the least that a whiny sniveling dishonest weasel like Karoly deserves now….
Eli Rabett says:
July 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
There appears to be a problem here. Yes McIntyre’s letter was the sort of thing seen before defamation suits are filed.
Really? If this, then this??? Really? That’s the sort of reasoning that says “if I put on my right sock first, then I have a good day, because that’s what happened the last time I put on my right sock first”. Steve McIntyre’s behaviour is not dictated by the actions of others, I believe, although – unlike some – he seems to learn from experience.
What a wonderfully simplistic world you live in.
Eli Rabett says:
July 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
“There appears to be a problem here. Yes McIntyre’s letter was the sort of thing seen before defamation suits are filed.”
===========================================================
Eli, “the sort of thing seen ” does not equal “threat”
A defamatory statement may also be “the sort of thing seen” by the original party before a defamation suit is filed, yet that does not mean the original statement was (necessarily) any threat, either. Many things may be “seen” before any possible defamation suit which are not threats. You are seriously confused and blowing smoke.
It’s clear that SM’s letter stopped short of any “threat” at all. If the review had not been pulled, then who knows, it is conceivable a legal demand letter could have been forthcoming but that is a HYPOTHETICAL……and SM is on record repeatedly saying he does not believe that legal proceedings are desireable for many of these sorts of controversies.
So, Mr. Eli, you have no “threat” at all…. merely your own imagination.
Professor Eli, I am continually amazed to think that you are actually a university professor, and in chemistry!! You so frequently display elementary failings of logic, analysis, evidence, and reasoning. I fear for your students….. I had some loony left professors in my time, but none so feeble minded as this Eli Rabett.
Excellent. That’s where a nice “goal” could be scored, at low cost. First, let’s have a josh cartoon. Then let’s have Heartland pay to plaster it over 100 billboards in Australia. “Where’s Karoly’s e-mail trail?” Maybe with a picture of a kangaroo with its tail tucked into its pouch.
Dr. Karoly seems to think that he could be sued for the statement that defamed Dr.McIntyre in revenge for Dr. McIntyre’s finding that Karoly’s published work was faulty. The widespread use of ad hominem statements about fellow scientists seems more prevalent in climate science. It is a sort of tit for tat game when a scientist is called out for an error in published work and who then responds by attacking the character of the scientist who finds the error rather than thanking them. The culture of competition has sharpened their self images to a point that face saving is more important than truth. In my observations the number of CAGW scientists who use personal attacks clearly outnumber the number of attacks by “deniers” even though their use term “denier” is not considered offensive by them.
The CAGW proponents are paranoid that they will be found to be supporting climate changes in the absence of real data and that someday soon a scientist will unequivalently prove magnitude of the effect of green house gases is not sufficient to warrant real concern for the future. As long as the effects of gases are very uncertain, claiming that it is catastrophic will assure continuing research support particularly if the politicians funding the research need the fear of catastrophic outcomes to maintain their political agenda. Naturally, in this culture of the catastrophic ends justify the means to keep the fear alive including writing papers that are faulty and calling anyone who questions them as not really being qualified. Who gets to decide who is qualified to evaluate a piece of scientific work? Someone who criticizes a piece of scientific work can understand fully the error without calling themselves a climatologist.
Dr. Karoly is not alone and since so many of scientists of his ilk have attempted to destroy the character of those who have questioned their work, he chose this haughty response rather than in humility being grateful before the faulty work led to worse consequences that having to admit error. Of course he intended to defame Dr. McIntyre and failed to credit him with his discovery of faulty screening procedures. He must realize that it could be the basis of some legal activity.
No one likes to be told that they made a mistake. However, in science, mistakes are cumulative and can lead to worse consequences later on. If Dr. Karoly’s result were used to verify a climate model that was later used to establish radical climate predictions, the finally answer would be wrong after all the other research goes on based on his faulty results. If all the global warming concerns were based on confirmation of computer models using faulty temperature data, who would know until it is too late? The ad hominem attacks on Dr. McIntyre by Dr. Karoly and others are merely manifestations of a lack of humility about the merits of their scientific results and of the desire to preserve the status quo.
Compare David Karoly to Gavin Schmidt, each unable to credit Climate Audit as due:
There is an “interesting” parallel between Karoly’s claim to independently find the problem with Gergis et al (2012) and prior malfeasance in a different case by Gavin Schmidt, who pretended that the British Antarctic Survey had been notified of a problem independently of Climate AUdit:
Gavin Scmidt pretends that British ANtarctic Survey received independent notification of an error first identified on Climate Audit
In fact it turned out that it was Gavin Schmidt himself (who then lied about the matter) who notified the BAS after seeing the discussions on Climate Audit. These people are so afraid to give Steve M. and Climate Audit any due credit that they will lie….
“So, Bruno, can you relate to the court why, exactly, you shot the homeowner?”
“Yeah, see it’s like this, it was self-defense. He threatened me!”
“He threatened you in his own home?”
“Yeah, I mean, when you’re breakin into houses, lookin for tee-vees, sometimes a guy’ll come at you wit a goff club or a basebaw bat. So I says to myself, if I break into his house, and he hits me with a goff club, it’ll be murder! I got a soft head cos a all them times I got beat up when I was in the clink. So I shot him. I was actually doin him a favour. Nobody oughta be prosecuted for murder!”
It appears to me McIntyre accused Karoly of two actionable items – defamation and copyright infringement – and accompanied that with a request to stop and apologize. While there was no specific “or else” with the cease and desist I think it’s reasonable to presume “or else” is implied. Writing a letter like that is akin to putting on a condom. It’s not something one does unless one plans to take further action.
John Doe, “or else” is simply not implied. “Threat” has specific meanings which are simply not present in SM’s letter. Lots of people want something to stop, change, etc. who have no thought or intent of legal action. Lots of people criticize something, even items clearly defamatory, without any threat or intent to sue. “Threat” is not implied by criticism or complaint per se.
If SM wanted to threaten legal action he would have said that. He did not say it.
If Karoly and the Australian Book Review are worried about legal action because they recognize the defamatory nature of the review, that is a clearly distinct matter from whether a “threat” was issued.
Holy crap, It seems a lot or armchair lawyers who seem to have the time to witter on pointlessly about “it seems” this or “I would think that” or “I’ve only seen that word on Perry Mason so it *definitely* is a legal threat”.
I’m impressed by the ability of people to read Steve’s letter whilst cleverly putting themselves in the shoes of a screaming ninny afraid of his own shadow, wincing at every possible hurtful interpretation that may crush his delicate ego by acute wording, therefore projecting all saving interpretations into the realm of legal might.
However to a normal person (and non-ambulance chasers) who can read calmly and have no personal PR spin agenda to make and prefer to speak honestly about themselves, Steve’s letter actually reads as a clear statement of disapproval offering the chance to respond as a normal person and speak honestly.
“Yes McIntyre’s letter was the sort of thing seen before defamation suits are filed.”
No doubt comets and meteor storms are also seen before defamation suits too 😉 Sheesh!
When will my alma mater University of Melbourne realise the damage that clowns like Karoly are doing to its reputation? I have rarely seen an academic so soundly beaten up in an argument as Karoly has been in the wash-up of the disasterous warmist paper Gergis, Karoly et al 2012. Every time he opens his mouth, it just gets worse & worse for him. Go and crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under, Karoly….and have a nice day, buddy.
“So, in summary, it seems the Australians find the letter a legal threat, but the Americans don’t.”
That’s because our defamation laws differ. It’s pretty darn hard to pursue somebody for defamation in the US, whereas it’s not hard at all to do it in australia. The deciding factor here is usually whether the person who wants to retaliate has the spare cash to take it to court – the effective barrier being one of cost. In practice it’s a law that can be used by the cashed-up to go after critics with fewer resources. The plaintiff will rarely get adequate compensation, but they can ruin their opponent financially. That threat of financial ruin is often the objective.
A few people here want to play naive and make out that unless a letter follows a particular grammar then nobody in their right could possibly interpret it as a threat. That’s easy to say when you’re not in the receiving end. Nobody here would seriously downplay the threat of a gun or knife simply because the mugger said please (no, I’m not saying mr watts is using a gun – I’m trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of that position, so please … don’t bother).
Anyone who has been in the public eye in australia for any length of time (particularly if their position is at all controversial) will sooner or later have cause to learn up on the details of our defamation law. I’m not a public figure, and I’m not a lawyer, but I have been accused of defaming somebody in the past, and I would take that letter very seriously.
Just as an aside – certain commentators who paint themselves as brave defenders of free speech are the ones you want to be most careful not to offend. And that’s all I’m saying about that.
So karoly might have made a mistake, he might even be a right berk, but he’s not wrong to interpret that message as a threat. Other australians are free to disagree, but I hope they have the sense to see things differently if they ever receive a letter like that themselves.
“… should have demonstrated to you that “peer review” by an academic journal is hardly a guarantee of the validity of results …”
What’s important to note here, is that even if the recommendation is to publish, the reviewers are not giving any guarantee that the science is correct. The most they’re saying about it is that it’s plausible and uses generally accepted methods of research. That’s it. Nothing more.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/is-climate-science-just-a-belief/
Pointman
You need to stop and pay attention to ‘johanna’ (above). Australia isn’t different to other places just because it has kangaroos. We also have funny laws relating to defamation. If you are prepared to tackle a readable and informative account of what can happen here, try Robert Pullan’s ‘Guilty Secrets’. (No … I’m not related and don’t stand to gain anything.)
Another point I’ll make: threats are a bit like insults. The complainant perceives the injury even if the ‘perpetrator’ had no intention of causing injury and had every reason to believe in the innocuousness of his remarks. David Karoly may well FEEL threatened and, for him, that is reality. Sure, reasonable people see that he is being hypersensitive, but a stack of FOI requests can do that to a man. In this context, casuistic arguments about what Steve McIntyre actually meant are irrelevant.
Some might like to compare mr watts’ letter with the following:
“Chris Mitchell’s letter to Julie Posetti”
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php/theaustralian/comments/chris_mit/
That also lacks the (naive) “unless you do X we will do Y” that some here think is a critical requirement of a threat. But nobody in australian journalism has regarded THAT letter as anything less that a legal threat.
As I said, the australian situation is very different to that in the US.
“Holy crap, It seems a lot or armchair lawyers who seem to have the time to witter on pointlessly about “it seems” this or “I would think that” or “I’ve only seen that word on Perry Mason so it *definitely* is a legal threat”.”
People were actually answering the question put to them, “see if you can find the legal threat”. Seems at least half the posters here can.
Don’t ask a question where you won’t like the answer.
OzChampion says:
July 15, 2012 at 4:26 am
Well when there is an “answer” you’ll let me know won’t you? 😉
Then I can decide if I don’t like it.
In the meantime I hope you don’t think I would restrict your rights to doodle in idle speculation? Go ahead think out loud as if means something to you.
However I will moan about my valuable hurt feelings here 😉 I feel I’d should be offered some useful information from someone in the know who would shock me away from my knee jerk common sense reaction – it doesn’t seem to be happening.
However you may be right and my feelings are not important and instead this is an arena for exploring the plausibility of fantasies about how one could use this letter to possibly whine to your buddies about being a martyr to a legal threat (like claiming you’ve been threatened by a tiger) – a lovely thing to wallow in and offer as an entertainment. So knock yourself out – sorry.
Meanwhile in the real world no one I would respect would consider the missive from Steve McIntyre to be legal threat. Because er, it isn’t one in actuality.
“Well when there is an “answer” you’ll let me know won’t you? 😉 ”
Ignoring the childishness of the rest of the post, the answer to make it simple was. “Yes there was an implied threat, and that’s likely why he took it down.”
Good day to you.
A “legat threat” is not a threat. It’s a caution or advice that actions or words being persued may result in persuance by legal means. The words ARE an oxymoron. A threat is a criminal action. The legal action may be uncomfortable. Karoly may believe he’s been threatened, but really, he’s simply been counselled.
OzChampion says:
July 15, 2012 at 5:40 am
When Karoly actually says this himself then we we will know.
I am really sorry if my statement of a desire for actual information has possibly been lost in a section of my post which you have labelled “childish” therefore allowing you to ignore it 😉
if you are not Karoly then I’m afraid your opinion of what is “likely why” here is as valuable an “answer” as any other anonymous posters’ speculation. I.e. not very. But that’s just me.
If Karoly and his elk down under are such delicate flowers to see legal threats where no other sane person can see, they should first apply such standards to their own writings and rantings and stop saying and writing libellious stuff. These hyprocites and liars state false and defamatory stuff freely and squeal like babies when someone points out to them about the nature of their statements. They are nothing but shameless cheats.