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.
=============================================================
Frankly, if Steve McIntyre says it wasn’t meant as a threat. cool ..
And if Karoly took it as a threat.. even better !!! 🙂
Guy needs a good clip on the back of head, (Jethro style) …..wake him up to reality.
What is this, some sort of co-ordination of attack chihuahuas to shut up someone you don’t agree with by telling him he’s stupid? Come on, more schoolyard childishness. Surprised you haven’t resorted to “Neener Neener you’re so dumb and we so much smarter than you so there!”.
Just argue the point, if you’re correct you will win the argument. Oh wait I already said this way back up this thread. And you didn’t.
You know, I think I would like to actually see some “legal action” over this stuff.
> currently “DEALING” with 6 different FOI requests???
Last time I checked a FOIA request was a civil right… If your research is funded by the goverment with taxpayers money then better get used to releasing your data to the public upon request… Sorry to “bother” you, mister…
OzChampion
I only wanted you to try to say something intelligent, informed, interesting…. I already “won” every point of contention up-thread because you have never uttered a single counter-argument. You haven’t even proved able to understand the thread. You think that insults, muddying waters, and changing the subject are forms of argument. You are mistaken in this as in everything you have said here on this thread.
Skiphil
You live in a fantasy world.
Oz Champion.
I see your take on this as: Karoly would not be wrong to announce that a legal threat or threat of legal action was made. This because you think he has reason to see the letter as a legal threat or threat of legal action. Do I interpret you correctly ?
If the above is accurate, then I would say you’re actually only pointing to what is Karoly feeling a threat of oncoming legal threat.
Neither of which though scenarios are justification for announcing that he received a legal threat.
Steve occasionally gets these contrary commenters who admit that they can’t understand his statistical arguments and also admit that they are so ignorant that they must take what any soi-disant Climate Scientist says more seriously than any criticism, however valid, that he or anyone else might offer.
And, now, there are the ones who think that the word “defamatory” is a legal threat… because Australia!
Personally, to date, my favorites are the ones who are so logically challenged they cannot understand what a logical fallacy is – especially those who resort to:
Proof by Ignorance*
A: What do you think about objection X?
B: I don’t understand X.
A: Let me try to explain X…
B: That doesn’t make sense to me. Please explain. What is X?
A: X! X! It’s very simple! X!
B: I don’t understand. You must be silly. Next question.
Comedy at its finest!
*source: http://specgram.com/CXLVII.3/09.seely.rhetoric.html
@ur momisugly thisisnotgoodtogo
What I am saying is that I too, and I note others here (apparently only Australians I think?) would see the word “defamatory” and react. I would take some action if I received the letter, perhaps reverse what I did, or the minimum I could do to reduce my risk of litigation, which Karoly seems to have done. Would I call it a “legal threat”? I would probably tell my friends that I received a letter that declared that I had defamed someone and they “requested” me to remedy it. They would immediately tell me to fix it and not risk being sued.
Do I defend Karoly in any way? No! Do I think the should have announced it to the world? No it was done to engenger sympathy and is a tactic in itself. Do I think he felt legally threatened? Yes.
Does that constitute a legal threat in USA? Seems most think not. Does it constitute a legal threat here? In my opinion Yes.
If Karoly, knowing our laws here, which are the main relevant ones in question, thought he was not at risk, would he have taken the letter down? Unlikely. So it is likely he did think there was a chance that this matter could be prosecuted.
What amazes me is why anyone would care whether it was a legal threat or not. Good on Mcintyre for writing it, people like Karoly need to have wake up calls about defamation.
You aren’t allowed to offend anyone in Australia, remember that. I am sure Mcintyre knows this.
Why is Karoly regarding FOI requests as a threat, equivalent to a threat of legal action?
The FOI leglislation gives a right tocitizens to obtain documents from people like Karoly. He should be pleased to comply with the law. Instead, he objects, like Jones et al at UEA.
Typical snuffler in teh public money trough. Our job is to fill it with money and then shut up while Karoly snuffles.
“Why is Karoly regarding FOI requests as a threat, equivalent to a threat of legal action?”
It’s almost like this whole discussion simply never happened.
In light of the new claim by David Karoly that the review has not been withdrawn, but moved behind the paywall (for mysterious reasons), I have been poking around to see if that is true. At this moment, one can’t be too sure. All reference to the article disappeared from the home page itself, where numerous other articles from the current issue are listed and linked. If Karoly’s statement that ABR moves articles of particular interest behind the paywall, this would presumably be to promote sales of the whole issue (site visitors would have to purchase the online or print issue as a whole to access the Karoly review). One cannot at present purchase the article individually, you have to either subscribe for online access for a month or a year, or else order a print version.
What is bizarre is that it is not easy to find reference to the article — yes it is listed in a subsidiary page in “current contents” but if you go to the purchase page nothing (at present) tells you what is in the issue they want you to purchase. Perhaps this is simply poor website marketing but if the point of putting the Karoly article behind the paywall was to push sales of the current issue, then ABR is doing an abysmal job of letting web visitors know that is the action to take.
Another thing that makes Karoly’s claim (about why ABR removed the Karoly review from the home page) highly implausible is that ABR has done nothing in the week since to promote the article (and thus sales of the current issue) on either their home page OR on their Twitter feed (the two most likely places they would plug it if ABR’s intent were to use the paywalling of the piece to drive sales). We may never see any honest explanation of why the review was pulled from the ABR home page but they had plugged it repeatedly on Twitter on July 9 (before the fuss began) and then never since. ABR has been silent on this review, perhaps they are merely incompetent at marketing their current issue or perhaps Karoly is just making stuff up (but could anyone hope to get an honest answer out of ABR?). This does not look like the Twitter feed of a publication which decided on or around July 11 that putting the Karoly review behind a paywall would help to drive sales of the current issue:
ABR Twitter feed: Karoly review not mentioned since July 9 !!
Tweets (Australian Book Review)
5h
The Red Room Company@RedRoomCompany
A bunch of new poems on The Disappearing, our free app that (literally) explores poetry & place – give it a D/L! http://bit.ly/LARsav
Retweeted by AustralianBookReview
5h
MUP@MUPublishing
Very sad to hear of the loss of the @canberratimes literary pages. A huge blow for Australian writers and local literary event programs.
Retweeted by AustralianBookReview
5h
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@LiteraryMinded Call for poems. Call for poems – could poets crash a website? Wonder if that’s ever happened before. http://bit.ly/klXY47
23h
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
#writestuff – poetry to be specific – and send it to us. Be published in ABR, enter before 30/11. Total prize money $6K http://bit.ly/klXY47
23h
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@AusPoetry Are any of your members interested in having their poetry published in ABR, plus $5K? We want good poetry. http://bit.ly/klXY47
10 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@guardian @arusbridger new Australian Book Review ‘The Humiliation of Rupert Murdoch’ on Dial M for Murdoch #newscorp http://bit.ly/MeQkOg
9 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@ReadingsBooks Free sample of the latest ABR online: reviews of Dial M for Murdoch on #newscorp & new Climate Wars book http://bit.ly/iCKVBR
9 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@PenguinUKBooks new in ABR ‘The Humiliation of Rupert Murdoch’ on the @tom_watson and @martin_hickman book http://bit.ly/MeQkOg
9 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@abcmarkscott @jonaholmesMW new in ABR: ‘The Humiliation of Rupert Murdoch’ http://bit.ly/MeQkOg
9 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@crikey_news New in ABR: Climate Wars figures ‘subjected to attacks from climate change confusionists’ by David Karoly
9 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@uommedia @ColumbiaUP new in ABR on Mann #climate Wars figures ‘subjected to attacks from climate change confusionists’ http://bit.ly/RTbWP8
9 Jul
AustralianBookReview@AustBookReview
@GetUp @AYCC new in ABR on Mann book. Climate Wars figures ‘subjected to attacks from climate change confusionists’ http://bit.ly/RTbWP8
sorry one more if I may, and then I stop for the night!
The links on those two ABR tweets from July 9 go to the now notorious “404 – Article #1063 not found”
That’s no surprise since the tweets were before July 11/12, but what is bizarre is that ABR’s Twitter feed now gives no accurate link or information about the Karoly piece. Again, they may simply be incompetent at marketing, OR the Karoly explanation is some post hoc nonsense he just makes up:
https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/feature-articles/1063-343-features-karoly
404 – Article #1063 not found
You may not be able to visit this page because of:
1.an out-of-date bookmark/favourite
2.a search engine that has an out-of-date listing for this site
3.a mistyped address
4.you have no access to this page
5.The requested resource was not found.
6.An error has occurred while processing your request.
Please try one of the following pages:
•Home Page
If difficulties persist, please contact the System Administrator of this site.
Some of the comments seem to be torturing the english language to death in order to deliberately talk past each other. In order to promote clarity and bring peace and light to the world. Allow me to indicate the steps involved in succesfully obtaining legal satisfaction against a multinational mega-merchant of death.
“Dear Peter
Thank you for promptly paying my final salary, However I’m unable to agree the final figures for refunded holiday entitlement and pension contributions, and the expenses incurred for XXXXXXXXXX are missing altogether
I would be grateful if you could give this unfortunate oversight your prompt attention
Yours etc…..”
Translation ” Pete mate , there’s been an accounting cock-up could you get the munchkins in accounts to sort it out ta-much
“Dear Michael
I have reviewed the matter and the accounts staff are certain that there were no errors made in your final salary payment. As far as we are concerned this matter is closed
Yours etc…”
Translation “We hate you for leaving, hell will freeze over before I do a stroke to help you”
“Dear Peter
I am unable to agree that there are no errors. Please find enclosed the relevant sections from the corporate T&C’s policy handbook on holiday pay and pension contribution calculations on severance, and also the Expense system audit records showing that expenses incurred on X
XXXXXXXXXXX have been entered onto the corporate system and approved.
I think we can agree that there has definitely been a problem in calculating my final payment as the amount for Holiday pay and Pensions contribution refunds do not match the corporate formulae. And the expense payment has been omitted altogether.
Could we please settle this matter promptly and in an amicable matter
Yours etc…”
Translation “Pete stop being a twat and sort this out, you are starting to tick me off….”
No reply
Translation ” No one challenges the mighty Mega-merchant of death, ignore him and he’ll go away”
“Dear Mr N-n
I note with concern that there has been no rely to my letter dated #########. I consider this unnacceptable. If I do not receive payment in the amount of XXXXXXXX within Y days of the date of this letter, I will have to consider further action.
Yours etc..”
Translation ” Now I’m annoyed, do you really want to play it this way….”
Now this is the first step that might be considered as a “threat” as it makes an implication from which some sort of action may be inferred. And it sets the conditions under which that inference might become more concrete. It isn’t yet a “Threat of legal action”.I might be proposing to “hold my breath till I pass out, or to “thcream thcream and thcream until I’m thick and then you’ll be sorry” or immolate myself on the steps of their pagoda. For example in another dispute with a large retailer over an insurance payment. The action subsequently taken was to highlight to the customer services director the amount I spent annually as a customer and ask if she thought it worthwhile that events take their course. I got the money, an apology and a wedge of discount vouchers.
No Reply
Translation ” No one challenges the mighty Mega-merchant of death, ignore him and he’ll go away”
“Mr N-n
I have received no reply to my letter of ########. Either pay the sum in question by ####### or action will be taken through theCounty Courts to recover it. Please supply the name and address of a legal representative to whom further correspondence and proceedings may be addressed. If you do not supply these details summonses will be served on the CEO of the Company at your registered UK office, without further correspondence”
Translation “Pay up now or be sued, in addition I will make your existence known to the Head of the UK company, in a manner not best suited to your planned career trajectory”
And that is the point at which we have your genuine tangible “threat of legal action” Unless you get something that looks like that then no such threat has been made.
Anyway, no reply ( ” No one challenges the mighty Mega-merchant of death, ignore him and he’ll go away”) summons served on UK CEO, MMD attempted some stalling tactics, rejected out of hand by the judge, ruling 4 weeks after summons, money 2 weeks after that.
So pardon the long windedness, has Dr Karoly received “a threat of legal action” from Mr McIntyre. On the correspondence published to date I don’t think so, we’re at the “….stop being a twat and sort this out, you are starting to tick me off….” stage at best/worst..