Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
70 March/April 2022
ment. This was confirmed by the Director of the
GWPF in a subsequent email to John Gibbons.
I challenge Mr Gibbons to provide any evi
-
dence to substantiate his allegation that I am in
the pay of vested interests.
John Gibbons purports in the article to be
acting as a journalist, “reporting” criticisms
of me by other scientists. Some of his quotes
are copied from DeSmog, an activist site that
I know from experience cannot be relied on to
report accurately. I copied the Village article to
one of the scientists named in it, asking if Gib
-
bons had quoted him accurately. He distanced
himself from the article, stating that he had not
been interviewed for it and had not previously
known of its existence.
Gibbons asserts that my position at UCD is
being made increasingly ‘problematic’ for the
university by my “drift into outright climate
denial”. I reject any allegation that I am a
climate denier. My peer-reviewed journal
articles, studiously ignored by Gibbons, prove
the contrary. Those written while at UCD have
always been positively received there and
nothing I have published has ever given rise
to any indication of being seen as ‘problem
-
atic’. I believe it is, in fact, Mr Gibbons who is
problematic in his failure to report fairly and
objectively on this topic and on my ongoing
participation in it.
Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology
at UCD. He was formerly Professor of Meteorol
-
ogy in the Niels Bohr Institute at the Univer-
sity of Copenhagen and a Senior Scientist at
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.
Mr Gibbons’s article is in reaction to my
appointment in September to the GWPF’s
Academic Advisory Council. Needless to say,
I am proud to have been appointed to this
distinguished body that promotes academic
freedom of expression. Likewise, I am proud to
act as a scientific advisor to the Irish Climate
Science Forum, an increasingly success
-
ful group that has previously attracted John
Gibbons’s criticisms in Village. I receive no
payment for either activity.
Of the many falsehoods about me in the
article, the most objectionable is John Gib
-
bons’s allegation that I am in the pay of vested
interests. He refers to my “enthusiastic lobby
-
ing work on behalf of emissions-intensive Irish
livestock expansion”. I emphatically reject any
allegation of “lobbying work”. My scientific
writings are motivated not by material reward,
but by a desire to uphold scientific objectivity
and to serve the public interest.
I recently obtained confirmation from the
Irish Farmers’ Journal that they had never paid
me any money.
In March 2019 I received an email from John.
Gibbons, signing himself an NUJ member,
which read: “I understand you were paid
£3,000 Sterling for your GWPF ‘Special Report’
claiming to critique the IPCC’s SR1.5 report.
Can you confirm if the above figure is correct?”.
I replied stating that I had received no pay
-
T
he article “De-bates” by John
Gibbons in the October/November
issue of Village is an attempt to
discredit and marinalise me as a
scientist and scientific commentator.
Thouh the article is directed at me, there are
far bier issues at stake than anythin to do
with me personally. It is part of a larer
campain by climate activists to silence debate
and to ensure that they continue to dominate
the public discourse.
Their success in achieving this dominance
is evidenced by the easy passage of the 2021
Climate Act, the most drastic legislation in the
history of the State. This momentous mea
-
sure became law with virtually no meaning-
ful debate. I believe the consequences will
be extremely harmful to this country and
will impoverish rural Ireland. The underlying
rationale for the Act is the notion of a ‘climate
emergency’. The Dáil declared this to exist on 9
May 2019 with only six TDs present. Scientifi
-
cally, the notion of a climate emergency has
been taken apart by Professor Steven Koonin
in his recent book ‘Unsettled’. I have made a
small addition to his arguments with my paper
“Polar sea ice and the climate catastrophe nar
-
rative”, published in December by the Global
Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in London;
my website www.raybates.net provides access
details for this and my other publications.
I reject any allegation that I am a climate
denier. My peer-reviewed journal articles,
studiously ignored by John Gibbons, prove
the contrary
Why No Climate
Debate?
My scientific writings are motivated
not by material reward, but by a desire
to uphold scientific objectivity and to
serve the public interest.
By Ry Btes, replying to John Gibbons
RIGHT TO REPLY
See Riposte to this article
March/April 2022 71
DeSmo site enaes in inaccurate
reportin (Attachment ) and pointin
out an example of where Mr. Gibbons
made a false alleation by just repeatin
an inaccurate report from DeSmo in his
article.
Please confirm immediately that the
reply article will be published in the next
issue of Village and please forward the
mock up for approval.
Reards, Conor
None of the statements listed in the
attachment is demonstrably inaccurate.
Ray Bates says John Gibbons’s article
accused him of bein a paid lobbyist, in fact
it accused him merely of bein a lobbyist, a
role that can be unpaid.
DeSmo does not in eneral “enae in
inaccurate reportin”.
Furthermore Villae considers that in spite
of the evidence submitted by Professor Bates
it is not correct to say that the scientist
referred to (whom we’re not namin because
we undertook to keep his correspondence
confidential) distanced himself from the
accuracy of the way he was quoted by John
Gibbons. In any event objectively the quote is
indeed accurate and this is unaected by
whether anyone distanced themselves from it.
Ray Bates implication that there is a misquote
is further discreditin of him.
DeSmo reference bein inaccurate or
more importantly on the person who
implies he’s been misquoted? If possible
I can talk to that person or look at stu
about/from the person in absolute
confidence. There’s still a week. I’m sure
we can aree this.
Reards. Michael
On February Conor O’Reilly wrote:
Hi Michael,
...The false statements made about [my
client] by Mr Gibbons in your publication
need to be addressed and corrected
immediately. I advised Prof Bates that
this should be by way of Correction and
Apoloy from you. In fairness to him, he
enerously proposed that a riht of reply
would suce, but this now needs to be
honoured and implemented by you as a
matter of urency.
The reply written by our client,
Professor Ray Bates, to the article
“De-bates” by Mr. John Gibbons,
submitted to you on January (“Ray
Bates ..”) is not defamatory but
there is no question of Ray Bates ivin
an indemnity in this reard.
I am attachin herewith (Attachment )
a list of sample falsehoods about our
client in Mr. Gibbons’s “De-bates” article.
I am also attachin details of how the
O
n December Ean
O’Reilly demanded a riht of
reply for their client Professor
Ray Bates to an article written in
the October edition of Villae. It
said: ”Our client requires a riht of reply of
equal lenth to the oriinal article. If this is
provided it will be accepted by Professor Bates
in full and final settlement of his claim herein”.
I replied two days later “I’m willin to ive
Ray Bates words in reply to John Gibbons
provided it is factual and not defamatory. For
your information we would have done this
without the need for a letter on solicitor’s
notepaper. The deadline will be January
please”.
Ray Bates’ reply was received on January
and we have printed it opposite, thouh
it needs to be read in the followin context.
On February I wrote to Bates’ solicitor,
Conor O’Reilly:
Hi Conor. As I said I’m happy to publish
somethin provided it is not defamatory.
Can you consider ivin me an indemnity
aainst a defamation action. Most of the
material is I think ok. However, I am
concerned that the piece accuses Gibbons
of “many falsehoods” but does not list
even one. Your client is labourin under
the false premise that lobbyin implies
bein paid. Can you et me more on the
RIGHT TO REPLY
Picture by Sustineo
By Michael Smith: countering Ray Bates’
unpersuasive reply to John Gibbons
