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.
=============================================================
Posted on the highly popular blog Instapundit this Sunday morning:
“A CULTURE OF COVERUPS? Rand Simberg: After the Sandusky coverup, can we trust Penn State’s internal ClimateGate “exoneration” of Michael Mann? “We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them. Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake?”
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 8:21 am
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/146660/
My view is that Mcintyre should litigate. It would be a relatively easy win here. But keeping it in the media and on blogs is cheaper and less risky for sure.
IMHO the ones declaring it not to be a threat seem to be a whole lot more emotional about it than the ones who do think it was an implied threat.
One wonders why.
OzChampion
re: “one wonders why”
Because honest ppl dislike liars, frauds, and scoundrels like Karoly et al. That’s really simple, actually. Are you still having trouble figuring this out??
Let us hope that law eventually takes down the alarmist fantasy, for this is one thing, of many, that David Karoly fears.
=============
OZChampion
re: “One wonders why”
Some ppl just don’t like liars, frauds, and scoundrels ala Karoly & friends.
others, like u, seem just fine with it alll….. that explains the difference in vehemence of reactions very clearly.
“I have just received a threat of legal action”
There is a word missing from Karoly’s statement. Had it said
“I have just received an IMPLIED threat of legal action”
Then his statement would have been accurate. As it is it is imprecise, and thus misleading to the point of inaccurate and thus untrue.
Imprecise and Inaccurate statement are a problem in science. They are what separate science from pseudo science.
For example, this lack of precision is found in Gergis et al, and is why the paper was withdrawn. The paper says the data was “detrended” when it should have said “NOT detrended”.
Small difference, only one word missing. Not really important in cliamte science. Like having the data upside down when using proxies. Only a small mistake. Not really important in cliamte science, so long as it give the right answer.
Like the difference between cliamte science and science. Only one word different. Not really important.
These discussions about Australian legalese are very interesting. But I still can’t believe that the unconditional statement: “I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre” is warrented given the actual text of the letter – even in Australia.
And as noted by some already, it’s impossible not to see this as another example of a tactic (conscious or not) commonly used by these types, which is to claim persecution without the slightest bit of real evidence.
(Essentially the same tactic has been used quite often in recent years in connection with claims of “racism”, even to the extent of people manufacturing evidence or claiming evidence that can’t be produced on further questioning.)
I guess what my argument comes down to is, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck …”.
In times past an email communication was not considered legal “notice”, so nothing in Steve McIntyre’s email could be construed as a “legal threat”. Maybe it’s different now. An electronic notice from a non-lawyer which happens to contain legal terms is just an email. A written notice, delivered by the postal system containing the magic phrase “if you do not …, I will initiate legal action” is a “legal threat”.
So what? There is nothing illegal about making legal threats. In the lawyer’s paradise that is the US, anyone can sue just about anyone else for just about anything. And absolutely anybody can send letters demanding specific action to avoid a lawsuit.
Even so, IMHO Dr. Karoly is jumping at ghosts. He would do much better to address the substance of Steve’s complaint.
Matthew Of Canberra says:
July 15, 2012 at 3:28 am
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/
First, the letter was from Steve McIntyre, not Mr. Watts.
Second, I read the The Australian article you linked to, and have highlighted a few bits of language in that article that distinguish it from Mr. McIntyre’s personal request:
It’s laughable that you tried to equate the two instances.
OzChampion and Eli Rabett
Steve McIntyre just made an excellent point on CA, one that I had been groping toward but had not expressed so succinctly. He expressly did NOT formulate his letter as any kind of legal demand letter with “take this down within 48 hours or else….” He formulated it as an appeal to conscience and professional standards. Alas, that is what all the charlatans like Karoly (and Mann) can never understand, an appeal to conscience and professional standards. So they will continue to interpret everything in the “war” framework in which THEY operate…..
Steve McIntyre on “appeal conscience” and professional standards
I smell a rat or more precise a rat trap.Karoly knows Steve M is “non funded” and could go looking for an expensive legal fight over his defamation of him…just what he wants Steve M to do,takes C.A off line?? conspiracy anyone LOL
“appeal to conscience” is what I meant to type, of course
typing so fast the fingers touched but did not depress the keys
@Kim says: July 14, 2012 at 9:09 am
Don’t waste your sympathy on this arsehole or his compadres.
@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.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gosh! What other “sorts of things” appear before defamation blah blah blah? Do tell. You are clearly an expert in the field, judging by this precise statement.
Try as I might, I could not find a legal threat.
However…
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
… I did find Waldo
@John Doe says: July 14, 2012 at 10:27 pm
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
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“presume”. Case kicked out of court. The law does not “presume”.
@Skiphil
“Some ppl just don’t like liars, frauds, and scoundrels ala Karoly & friends.
others, like u, seem just fine with it alll….. that explains the difference in vehemence of reactions very clearly.”
Please don’t put words in my mouth thanks, at no point did I claim to support “liars frauds and scoundrels” nor did I claim to support Karoly and his friends. I don’t think McIntyre needs bots like you to protect him from an idea you emotionally fear.
“presume”. Case kicked out of court. The law does not “presume”.
You’ve never heard of a “presumption of innocence” then.
I rarely disagree with Anthony or Steve, but I still think it is reasonable for someone to consider the letter as a threat. Defamatory speech is actionable. Rather than use the word defamatory, if Steve had said “the things you said are untrue, would you please correct it?”, then I wouldn’t see that as much a threat, but rather a simple request for correction.
Defamatory is a legal term as well as a regular adjective and can be taken both ways. If you use a word in that category, you risk you message being taken as a threat. At this point in the comments, it is clear that a number of commenters see the letter as a threat of legal action. Steve may not have intended it as a threat, but one of the vagaries of communication is what the receiver thinks it said as opposed to what was meant.
“jorgekafkazar says: “As a paralegal…”, Thanks for saving me the time of reading the rest, Jeff.”
Your welcome 🙂 I think you read it anyway. 🙂 You are like those who say Steves’s thoughts on climate are bunk because he is not an “official” climate scientist. I win the vast majority of my cases over corporate attorneys just as Steve beats out the “official” climate scientists almost all the time. I was silly to use “paralegal” as an appeal to authority, since the idea I expressed is true independent of whether or not I know much about the subject of law. Anthony asked if we saw a threat in the letter, and I and several others did. It doesn’t mean we are right or wrong, it just means that Steve now has additional data points to see if Karoly was being paranoid or if others could see it Karoly’s way. Some of us do.
Personally, I’m tired of people like Karoly who make accusations without providing examples of the alleged misinformation. It is time people went after them. If we don’t, they will continue doing it. So, if Steve didn’t mean it as a threat, I wish he had.
“First, the letter was from Steve McIntyre, not Mr. Watts.”
Fair cop.
“Second, I read the The Australian article you linked to, and have highlighted a few bits of language in that article that distinguish it from Mr. McIntyre’s personal request”
Yes. It’s a different letter. There are lots of different words.
“It’s laughable that you tried to equate the two instances.”
I wasn’t “equating” anything. I posted it to point out that a threat doesn’t have to contain “unless you X I will Y” that folks here seem to rely on. I hope we’ve at least put that to bed. The letter from the oz is spelling it out pretty clearly (as it happens, the recipient didn’t back down – her university had her back), but that’s not how all threats work. The ideal threat is one where the target understands exactly what’s at stake without the speaker having to say anything at all – nobody seriously thought that shovel left outside kathy jackson’s house was probably just a kind neighbour returning one he’d borrowed, for example. Anyone who’s ever been on the receiving end of any sort of bullying knows how it works.
It would be reasonable for karoly to interpret that email/letter as a threat. It’s also reasonable for steve mcintyre to say it wasn’t. I personally would have taken it seriously. As I wrote, if anyone here ever gets a letter saying that they’ve defamed somebody and “requesting” action, I hope they’re sensible enough not to split hairs quite so carefully.
All tyrants’ fear… that eventually they will be deposed by those they have tyrannized. As tends to happen. So they are jumpy, and see threats everywhere. They project their issues onto those whose attacks they fear… forestalling attack…. to divert interest, prevent debate, and arrest the wrong person.
OzChampion
You’ve done it again. 5 times in two sentences you assert things that I don’t believe, claim, or do as though they could be attributed to me. That is a dishonest and malicious form of debate. Toward you, on the other hand, I merely said one “seem” because you “seemed” to be like some other people expressing such fake concern about the matter. But do not imagine you are mentally competent to discuss anything I think about the matter. You have repeatedly proved you do not understand my clearly expressed comments, period.
Skiphil says:
July 15, 2012 at 6:02 pm
I guess when you use an “abusive ad hominen” attack (on my mental competence) and a straw man argument “5 times in two sentences” then you demonstrate the strength, or lack thereof, of your argument.
Good day to you.
OzChampion
You do not know what a “straw man” argument is (the five mis-statements of my view are there in your text if you bother to look), and you do not know what an ad homineMMM argument is, either (although you resorted to both straw man and ad hominem attacks very quickly in your previous postings). You relied on both straw man and ad hominem attacks, I did not (your mental competence was on display in how you mis-stated all of my views here). Nice try, though.
@OzChampion says: July 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm
“presume”. Case kicked out of court. The law does not “presume”.
You’ve never heard of a “presumption of innocence” then.
//////////////////////
That is the only case, that the defendant is presumed innocent. Otherwise, the law and “presumption” have nothing to do with each other. Dear me. What is the point you are trying to make? You seem confused, and, sorry to say, none to bright. I’d keep schtumm were I you. Just trying to help.