Blog powered by Typepad

« Where I lead 'The Wall Street Journal' follows! | Main | Meanwhile, back in Berlin/Brussels . . . »

Monday, 28 November 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Doug Keenan has been publicly accusing Phil Jones of fraud for some time and as far as I know he has never sued.

Phwoooaaaarrr! That's a horny letter and a half, isn't it?!

Surely that must kick off a legal action? When it does, let me know where Eschenbach's legal defence donation fund is, I feel a contribution urge coming on.


I must try and find time to read that, AK, thanks.

'SoD', save your money for that much more worthwhile charity, 'Duff's Poor Children's Beer Fund'!

Blimey, he doesn't mess around, does he?

Legal action is what might be expected in America, but if I were advising Jones (and I'm very glad I'm not!) he would do best in not responding. Those who have followed the debate all seem aware of the issues, and their mind would not be changed by m'learned friends slugging it out. A court case would simply raise the profile and get it picked up by major news outlets. If Jones knows he can't win, then the only people who would have their views confirmed by his silence would be his detractors.

You're right, 'W', so let's hope the Blogosphere whips it up!

Jones would be mad to sue. He can't win on two grounds. First - from my reading of the open letter - the allegations appear to be true. Secondly - as W implies - the last thing the CAGW nutters want is extensive and lengthy (and embarrassing) publicity in respect of their "science". That's why the BBC will also ignore WE's efforts.

I agree, Bongers, it all depends on whether enough people keep blowing on the embers. After all, it isn't only Jones, his University is embroiled as well!


Entertaining as it might be I doubt we will see any legal fireworks

There is a substantial difference between US and British Libel Law. To prevent Jurisdiction shopping US law requires the suit be filed in the place of authorship or publication, in the case the State of California in the United States.

it is harder to prove libel in the US and California law is harder than most states. Dr Jones is Public figure, at least as far as climate science goes, so a stricter standard of evidence applies. Truth is always a defense.

Dr Jones could file a suit in the UK, but an award would be uncollectible in the US. If he goes to a US court to enforce collection the court may rule the decision invalid and award Mr. Eschenbach court costs and legal fees, from both the US and UK trials. An award that would be uncollectible in the UK.

Dr. Jones would do well to follow the US Supreme Sourts suggestion, publish an equally blistering response.

I take your point, Hank, and thanks for the info, however it might be that the UEA will feel the need to respond in some way.

The comments to this entry are closed.