The first remark was about “language”, so the accusation of switching topics has no merit.
The “language” suffices to show that the “dialog” has been “opened” insofar as future litigation as being pursued, litigation which was estimated as having “not much downside” by and for the party stating, in provision of future litigation:
Unless I am obligated under either Canadian or international law to remove the discussion from Climate Audit, I would prefer not to remove the discussion.
Litigation matters have not been introduced by “the terms of IPCC review process”, but by the sentence just quoted. Thus the excuse The IPCC Made Steve Do It has no merit, as often is the case with that excuse.
The claim that the IPCC is accusing Steve of unclean hands deserves due diligence. It might be possible and perhaps even easy to do so (hint: “no downside for me”), but we don’t see where the IPCC made this accusation. In fact, a better explanation would be to suspect a misunderstanding in the concept.
The IPCC recalled the terms of the review process and made a request. Steve fired back that unless they’re willing to litigate under Canadian or Internatioal laws, they can shove it. Only the opening of a dialog can be going on there, to reasonable people.
The hopeless dream of being – not seeming, but being.