Greg Laden caves – makes nice with Tallbloke

Tom Nelson points out that Laden seems to have caved to impending legal action. His essay now is a world apart from the angry and accusatory rhetoric of a few days ago. I think maybe Laden and the owners of ScienceBlogs.com had a “come to Jesus meeting” (as my favorite broadcasting boss calls them) to basically say, “repent or ye shall be sued to holy hell”.

Actions speaking loudly here:

Warmist Greg Laden: Did I say that tallbloke is a criminal? I meant he’s not a criminal

Computers Seized in Cyber-Thief Investigation (updated again) : Greg Laden’s Blog

I’ve decided to update this blog entry (20 Dec 2011) because it occurs to me that certain things could be misinterpreted…I want to make it clear that I do not think that the blogger “TallBloke” a.k.a. Roger Tattersall has broken British law…The fact that we (Tattersall and I) are on very different sides of this issue should mean spirited debate. It should mean an open conversation about the issues. It should not mean undue accusations or harassment. In pursuit of that ideal, I am offering Mr. Tattersall to publish a blog post on this site (Greg Laden’s Blog) expressing his opinion on the matter, and he has agreed to to so, through his solicitor, instead of pursuing legal action that was previously suggested. I look forward to receiving the text for this post and, again in the spirit of open and public debate about these important issues, I will post it prominently and place it on the select feed for Scienceblog.com to give it maximum exposure.

Laden’s original post (with all the angry unedited rhetoric) is here.

For those late to the party, the timeline summary is here.

Oh, and a personal thank you to all WUWT readers who contributed to Tallbloke’s legal defense fund, which swelled mightily shortly after announced here. Proof positive that money talks, …….. walks.  – Anthony

178 thoughts on “Greg Laden caves – makes nice with Tallbloke

  1. If I’m not mistaken (as I’m no lawyer) in tort, there is a duty to mitigate. As such, Tallbloke provided Greg the opportunity to appologize. Greg has taken this opportunity. Tallbloke’s ability to pursue tort in this and other cases will be greatly affected by how others react. As always, taking the high road, avoiding slander, spite and vitriol and sticking to the facts by all will provide evidence of the character of the skeptical argument. Even without the current litigous climate, there is a long run battle here and the quiet, fact based, reasoned argument will win the day.

    Just my half-penny thought (do they still have those in the UK Roger?)

  2. Good, its time they realised they need to be careful about the rhetoric and general tripe posted about those with a divergent view on the issue!

  3. A complete walk-back. I’m glad Tallbloke took aggressive legal action. That original post by Laden steps well over the line of reasonable discourse and enters the realm of libel.

  4. This is good. I really felt very strongly that Tallbloke threatening legal action was not a smart move. Let science be debated. Everything else is just noise.

    People like Mann and David Suzuki threaten libel to shut down their critics. It is a reprehensible tactic.

  5. From “The Apology”:
    Hanke, [talking with two men in Monk’s]: “Guys, there’s no doubt that the pay
    is good. But I don’t just know if I see myself working with ice cream.”
    Man #1: “You get pretty buff forearms.”
    Hanke: “I don’t know if I’m into that.”
    George, [entering Monk’s]: “Oh, hello, Hanke, others.”
    Hanke: “George.”
    George: “You know, Jason, I, uh, I couldn’t help notice, I… I didn’t get my
    apology.”
    Hanke: “Apology? For what?”
    George: “A drafty apartment? A… sweaterless friend? A ball-game giveaway
    Metlife windbreaker?”
    Hanke: “George, come on, not that neck hole thing.”
    George: “Yeah, the neck hole thing, and I would appreciate it if you would
    say you’re sorry.”
    Hanke: “No way, you would’ve completely stretched it out.”
    George: “You’re an alcoholic! You have to apologize. Step Nine! Step Nine.”
    Hanke: “All right, George, all right. I’m sorry. I’m very, very sorry. I’m so
    sorry that I didn’t want your rather bulbous head struggling to find its way
    through the normal-size neck hole of my finely knit sweater.”

  6. The day sensibility broke out.
    I am sure Greg Ladens blog will recieve an avalanche of hits as soon as RT files his article, I for one would enjoy reading his, as usual, carefully chosen words even if on another blog and just maybe the visitor hit record will leave its own mark on the conciousness of the ScienceBlogs.com owners

  7. Bloke down the pub says:

    December 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Perhaps Greg Laden didn’t want [SNIP: Let’s take the high road here, shall we? -REP].

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
    But I’ll be in Scotland afore ye.

  8. reminds me of my secret victory over Laurence Godfrey that banished him from the Internet. If only I was allowed to talk about it

  9. A smart move by old ‘Binny’ and TallBloke has been vindicated. This is not about science it is about defending oneself against outrageous accusations and TallBloke was right to pursue this.

  10. Greg sure can talk out of both sides of his mouth. I’m very much looking forward to reading what Tallbloke has to say. My gut feeling is that he’ll be gracious, even though it’s obvious that Greg’s update is completely contrary to what was previously written (and what Greg still undoubtedly thinks).

  11. :-)

    A huge thank you to Anthony and everyone at WUWT and elsewhere who have been swift and unstinting in their support. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

    I’m not going to say much or wax large right now. I’m in the middle of decorating our Christmas tree with my lady.

    Stephen, who is largely to thank for this development, may still be up and about at this late UK hour hopefully. We have done no ‘deals’ with Greg yet, but we hope to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion to matters in due course.

  12. Ah well Anthony the problems of running a blog I imagine.

    rwct says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Greg Laden is a [snip]

    —————————————————————

    No I do not understand what this means either although I take as not being complimentary to Mr. Laden.

    —————————————————————
    John Eggert says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm.

    No sir. How the British could have devised a decimal currency system with a half penny in it is beyond all understanding.

    At least when we had real money with 240 pence to the pound hapennies and even farthings made sense.

    Inflation would have done for that of course but as far as I know the absurd decimal halfpenny vanished years ago, I disremember when.

    And of course the phrase has always been a penny for your thoughts.

    ————————————————————-

    Anyway Anthony may I take this opportunity to wish you and yours and the denizens and readers of this blog a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

    Kindest Regards

  13. I’ll really be surprised when Michael Mann apologizes. It’s not in his DNA. He’ll fight it until the bitter end. I hope you pursue it. He damages Penn State more than anyone short of Mr. Sandusky.

  14. Tallbloke: A merry Christmas to you and yours. You have handled yourself with class through all of this, and have done the skeptic community proud.

  15. Heh, heh, heh….As a Department head I’ve held quite a few “come to Jesus meetings” in my time (and that’s what I called them, too). Just as it’s always preferable to prevent a disease than to treat it, avoiding legal action is always preferable to litigating it. To me this Greg Laden character is little more than a gnat. The larger issue, I believe, is the UK cops showing up late at night (in numbers) to seize Tallbloke’s computers. There is also the issue of the involvement of the US DOJ. The subjects of the Queen don’t enjoy the same rights we have as citizens of the USA, but it strikes me as bizarre that the constabulary could have a warrant for search and seizure of the premises of someone who is “not a suspect.” Perhaps the laws in the UK are different. Maybe Stephen Wilde could enlighten us.

  16. “…it occurs to me that certain things could be misinterpreted…”
    No they couldn’t, really – the implication that tallbloke himself was one of thieves was perfectly clear. There is no other possible interpretation.

  17. LLAP says:
    Tallbloke: A merry Christmas to you and yours. You have handled yourself with class through all of this, and have done the skeptic community proud.

    Seconded. And duplicated for Anthony and moderators. That’s good Christmas tidings.

  18. Not to seem petty but I’m torn between “Hopefully congrats, and all the best for the future” and “Bugger, I just donated three hours ago.”

    Got over it. If not premature, congratulations, Roger.

    May I suggest that any, ahem, suplus monies donated now be used to find a reason for and to sue plod for overstepping the mark in seizing your equipment? Take the fight back to authorities. I’ll be prepared to give again for that.

  19. Second what DFbaskwill had to say. For Stephen Wilde and TB, Does Laden’s climbdown still leave Our Dear Mann open to litigation if he chooses to stonewall?

  20. I wonder if someone shouldn’t invite laden to stop by here and apologize directly, rather than sort-of apologize elsewhere? Perhaps j bowers, mattb or Jbrookes could get hold of him.

  21. Totally off topic and only available to UK listeners http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012w87v
    “Row to the Pole” gets it first screening tomorrow. One word of caution, this ain’t the pole that Santa uses, it is a once magnetic pole in the Canadian archipelago and they are rowing around Devon Island and Cornwall Island for starters, first named by British west country sailors when they sailed the waters one hundred and fifty years ago.

  22. Greg in shackles, the local sheriff leads him to the police car, Greg raises a fist, shakes it vigorously in the air and shouts:
    “Yeah, and id have gotten away with it, if it wasnt for those pesky deniers!”

    Srooby dooby doooooooo!

  23. Michael Palmer says:
    December 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm
    “…it occurs to me that certain things could be misinterpreted…”
    No they couldn’t, really – the implication that tallbloke himself was one of thieves was perfectly clear. There is no other possible interpretation.

    I agree.

    While “certain things” could always be misinterpreted, they were not in this case.

    I’m encouraged that Tallbloke’s holiday season will be much more enjoyable now.

    Spirited debate is one thing, but mean-spirited hate-filled discussion are another thing entirely and something I’d say most skeptics do not promote.

  24. Peter said:

    “May I suggest that any, ahem, suplus monies donated now be used to find a reason for and to sue plod for overstepping the mark in seizing your equipment? Take the fight back to authorities. I’ll be prepared to give again for that.”

    We are taking them one at a time.

    The Police need to answer some questions. I am still waiting.

    Funds are still welcome because although I am guiding Roger personally on a pro bono basis I cannot afford to do the whole thing on that basis so work done in my firm’s time involving communications and negotiations with others must be paid for.

    Any surplus will be distributed to climate realist blogs at Roger’s discretion as stated in the original appeal.

    I am hoping that some general good will come of this. There is no intention to restrict assertive banter between bloggers on a single site even if it goes over the top.. I think there is already a case which protects such activity within reason.

    What we do have to stop is malicious falsehoods being showered down on the realist viewpoint. There is nothing comparable going from realists to AGW proponents (I admit that realists often do respond assertively) The AGW group try to compare the Climategate scenario with their abuses of realists but I don’t think that comparison is appropriate.

  25. “Perhaps the laws in the UK are different.”

    The Police might have behaved correctly and I hope they did but on the information I have I can’t really see it.

    More information is awaited.

  26. Kozlowski says:
    December 20, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Point is, this walk-back wouldn’t be happening had not Tallbloke threatened litigation. Weasels like this use their blogs to spew warmist/leftist venom, and the only thing that will stop them is the threat of litigation.

  27. I look forward to Greg Laden’s next WHAAAARGARBLE!!! rant that nearly costs him some pocketbook. They’re entertaining when considered in the proper context of a faith-based paradigm.

  28. “mean spirited debate”

    I wonder whether this is just an unfortunate juxtaposition of words (that could have benefited from a hyphen) or if it’s a coded reference to the sort of debate that Greg would prefer. I suppose we’ll never know — unless the emails behind it are released to the public.

  29. TB said: “I’m in the middle of decorating our Christmas tree with my lady.”

    You might want to rephrase that, or you might be seeing plod again before Christmas! And we’d hate for your Christmas to be ruined.

    Cheers

    PG

  30. Thanks to all at WUWT for their input during the year – and, yes, I include the contrarians!

    Thanks to everyone who has taken a stand in support of scientific discipline and integrity.

    This website has been of great support to me as I went through a few months of cancer treatment, knowing that I was not alone in the world. My appreciation of climate comes merely from 45 years designing and building hydro projects and dams aroung the world – in every continent except Antarctica (fair dinkum global warming would give me the opportunity to do even that).

    Thanks also to JB Goode (aka Chuck Berry) for droll riposte

  31. As I said the other day to someone who started crapping on about how we wouldn’t succeed because US law this and UK law that and first amendment the other:

    I don’t play armchair attorneys: I get the professionals in

    I couldn’t have wished for better partners in this than Stephen and his firm Wilde & Co.

    They listen, recommend, agree and act.

  32. I have to say that I think the only satisfactory response by Laden is a full and un-reserved apology, which should be a sticky on his own site for at least a month, with links placed on other warmist sites notifying The Believers of this apology.

    Anything less does not appear to be remotely adequate.

  33. Great news. O that we can show civilised debate over at Scienceblogs… That might even win a few more hearts and minds.

    Now we just need to work on showing why use of the D-word is inappropriate and unacceptable.

  34. Well, here’s to an amicable conclusion to this disagreeable situation. Everyone knows it is exclusively the skeptics purview to insinuate and accuse criminality. ;-) Hey! I can’t help it! It’s a nature.

    Seriously, though, TB, have you any updates towards the rest of the madness? Has WordPress contacted anyone regarding the DOJ letter?

  35. And also, snip if you think that this isn’t on the high road, but since Anthony said “money talks and ******* walks”, I’ll simply add that Laden’s statement stinks of disingenuousness. We all know what was actually said, and so does the internet’s memory.

  36. Kozlowski,

    “This is good. I really felt very strongly that Tallbloke threatening legal action was not a smart move. Let science be debated. Everything else is just noise.”

    Laden was not debating science. He was effectively calling TallBloke a criminal with no evidence. As he was not quick to retract the post, threatening a suit was appropriate as the whole incident is putting TB’s job on the line..

  37. My first visit to Greg Ladens blog years ago was memorable. I thought I had stumbled onto an awesome resource of science discussions entitled ‘scienceblogs’. Asked an innocent question and was flamed immediately and heavily by the blogger and his minions. Took about 3 minutes to realize it was anything and everything BUT about honest science.

  38. a jones says: “…And of course the phrase has always been a penny for your thoughts.”

    In my ancestorrrs’ parrrt o’ Scotland, it’s always been ha’p’ny fer ‘em. We are nae sic spendthrifts.

  39. tallbloke says:
    December 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    […]
    I don’t play armchair attorneys: I get the professionals in

    Yup. Climate blogging is a fun parlor game, and so is legal kibitzing, but not talking to a lawyer is like thinking you can fly that airplane by yourself because you’ve played Microsoft Flight Simulator.

  40. After (finally) reading Mr. Laden’s original unedited post … tsk, tsk … for shame … so, he finally saw the light and got some of that old time religion. He would have come out of the whole thing with a far better aroma if he would have just said, straight up, “I was wrong and I apologize,” rather than try to rework the post to make it sound better.

    As it is, it took the work of a solicitor to sort things out to the point they’re at now.

    As things seem to be looking a bit brighter for Mr. Tattersall, my wishes to you and your lady for a truly Joyous Christmas and a very, very, very Happy New Year.

  41. Are the two posts written by the same author? I find that hard to believe.

    Laden: Tallbloke and his “band of thieves… ”
    Tallbloke: U call me a thief? That’s serious, because of my job. I could sue you…
    Skeptic community: Go on TB, sue him, we’ll help you – because we know it isn’t true
    Stephen W: This is a clear case, it can be proved
    Laden (or not?): “spirited debate”…. “open conversation about the issues…”

    I see no such carefully worded reservations in the first piece. The new one has a distinct aroma of Lawyer. But sure I could be wrong and for all I know, Laden could even be one. Lawyer, that is.

  42. I’m in the middle of decorating our Christmas tree with my lady.

    What a fabulous ornament! I’m sure Santa would approve.

  43. it strikes me as bizarre that the constabulary could have a warrant for search and seizure of the premises of someone who is “not a suspect.”

    It’s not even remotely bizarre. It’s common sense.

    If the previous owner of my house killed his wife and buried her under the floorboards, the coppers might want to dig up my floor. They would hardly go: “can’t do that, the house is owned by someone who is not a suspect”. While I like the concept of apprehending murderers, they would have to get a warrant first though, since I would need assurance that they had decent cause.

    So thinking about it even half a moment shows that the Police need to have the powers to seize and search items belonging to people who are not direct suspects.

    In this case, if they want the information Tallbloke’s computer to pursue legitimate investigations, then they need his computer. It’s no good asking him if he will co-operate. Seriously, is he going to actually jeopardise FOIA in any way? Would you? No. Neither would I. I’m sure Tallbloke isn’t going to actively hinder the coppers, but asking him to help them is wildly optimistic.

    None of this suggests that I think the Police are wise and just to take his computers. Just that their behaviour so far is well within the bounds of what is legal. You really are trying too hard if you think you can sue the Police who have a legitimate warrant. The point of a warrant is to make them show due cause before they start.

    (And I’ve said before, on his blog, that they have no reason to keep his stuff. They can take a mirror copy of the data and return his computers immediately.)


  44. From: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/computers_of_criminal_cyber-th.php
    “I’ve decided to update this blog entry (20 Dec 2011) because it occurs to me that certain things could be misinterpreted, in no small part because of the common language that separates us across various national borders, and differences in the way debate and concepts of free speech operate in different lands.
    …”

    So it would seem that Dr. Laden’s original post re:Tallbloke was, shall we say, “taken out of context”(?)

    And, as other posts have pointed out above, I did not see anything that, in my opinion, approaches being an apology to Tallbloke. Maybe he did, but somehow I missed it(?)

  45. A Complaint Id: I1112201917088552 has been logged with DOJ.

    It’s about a criminal fraud committed by Mr. Greg Laden and Seed Media Group.

  46. dfbaskwill says:
    December 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    I’ll really be surprised when Michael Mann apologizes. It’s not in his DNA. He’ll fight it until the bitter end. I hope you pursue it. He damages Penn State more than anyone short of Mr. Sandusky.

    And yet let’s get serious as a heart attack here–one of these has committed a serious crime; the other has promulgated policy that has contributed to the death of many, many poor people around the world.

    Think about it; I’m sure you can determine which is which (or which is witch?).

  47. While turning the other cheek is admirable, I think the suit should proceed if there is merit. I find nothing contrite in Mr Laden post, quite the opposite. These “gentlemen’s agreements” do little to change the dynamic. One duck just quacked, is all.

  48. Well done indeed to Tallbloke and Stephen for the effective way they’ve executed things on the libel front. Interacting with Leo Hickman of The Guardian on Twitter tonight I sense you’ve earned realists some new respect – and respect is sometimes more important than love (or precedes it, in the best case).

    Any surplus will be distributed to climate realist blogs at Roger’s discretion as stated in the original appeal.

    I’ve been thinking about this. Would it not be useful to have a fighting fund ready for further problems of the same kind? The strangenesses of the Norfolk police operation, for example, didn’t begin with the incident at Tallbloke Towers. It would be helpful to UK democracy and respect for the rule of law to understand who has been directing this investigation and to what ends.

  49. As sceptics, we tend to be more forward looking, careful, lateral thinkers than most and I see an opportunity here which would be a shame to miss. I am also concerned to see that the funds raised are put to the very best possible use because the generous people who have donated are not a bottomless resource (despite their potentially huge numbers as readers of Anthony’s blog).

    As a commercial lawyer (not a litigation or criminal law specialist) I have observed the course of major corporate collapses more closely than many and the way those collapses play out may well be how the global warming swindle comes to an end (there are other possibilities: it could, for example, quietly disappear as did the global cooling / ice age scare of 1970s). If this model is correct (and that seems to be the pattern so far) then things will become significantly more unpleasant before they get better. Tallbloke may only be the first innocent to be made to feel something like one of the witches burnt in the Little Ice Age and blamed for that problem.

    I understand that the funds donated are subject to a trust which requires the surplus to be distributed to charities and the terms of that trust may have to be modified. However modification would be possible if the individual donors were asked to email consent to Tallbloke or his lawyer. Tallbloke’s legal costs could be paid firstly out of the funds provided by those who do not provide an email consent to a necessary modification to the use of funds and then out of the remaining funds.

    If there is a sufficient surplus (and it needs to be large enough to make sure that after administrative costs etc there is a large surplus remaining) my suggestion is that a charitable-based fighting fund be established as a trust to support the next blogger or other worthy individual(s) attacked by climate alarmists and needing legal support. I would suggest that Tallbloke and Anthony are given the power to decide how the funds are used as they represent bloggers, victims and people from both sides of the Atlantic. Whilst donations to blogs etc are very worthy causes, the kind of attack Tallbloke faced, potentially on his own, is something that can destroy peoples future, families and livelihood and are therefore of prime importance to prevent. The mere existence of a fighting fund for victims of unjustified attacks by the religious fanatics of the global warming scare should at least provide a deterrent to future attacks. In addition the charity could approach larger donors if it was established on a longer term basis.

    I should add that no criticism is meant of the establishment of the fighting fund for Tallbloke: the present method for disposing of surplus funds would have received little thought except to provide for their use. I could see myself and probably almost all other lawyers focusing intently on helping Tallbloke and not on the possible opportunity that this great initiative has produced. My suggestion here is made very much with the benefit of hindsight.

    What do other readers of this blog think?

  50. Uh..who’s Greg Laden?? Is he…someone important???

    Merry Christmas, Tallbloke! (And have a happy and prosperous New Year).

    Frank K.

  51. markus says:
    December 20, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    “”A Complaint Id: I1112201917088552 has been logged with DOJ.

    It’s about a criminal fraud committed by Mr. Greg Laden and Seed Media Group.””

    I should have said it’s about an “alleged” criminal fraud.

  52. I am somewhat disappointed. I wanted Herr Laden’s head on a stake.
    At the very least a duel (swords at 30 paces).
    I want to see cracked heads, blood hair, teeth, and eyeballs all over the concrete.
    /somewhat but not completely sarc

  53. The danger is in taking the high road alone.

    The problem with the “apology” is that it is *transparently* disingenuous, Laden defended the charges in detail, first issued a half-correction leaving the charge in place, and now claims it was a misunderstanding – this is not credible. The charge was clear, unambiguous, and repeated.

    It’s up to Tallbloke if he wants to accept the deal, but I do not believe for one second that the people who have been calling me mentally ill, a shill, or calling for my imprisonment for *years* for the crime of questioning them (even as we catch them in more and more lies and cover-ups, re: Climategates I and II), are suddenly going to participate in an open and honest debate.

    Would that there had been an open and honest debate, but that’s just not what has happened or is happening.

  54. Several of you have described Mr. Laden as a weasel. I would submit that it is tallbloke who is a “Wild Weasel.” For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term I submit the following:

    In brief, the task of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to bait enemy anti-aircraft defenses into targeting it with their radars, whereupon the radar waves are traced back to their source allowing the Weasel or its teammates to precisely target it for destruction. A simple analogy is playing the game of “flashlight tag” in the dark; a flashlight is usually the only reliable means of identifying someone in order to “tag” (destroy) them, but the light immediately renders the bearer able to be identified and attacked as well. The result is a hectic game of cat-and-mouse in which the radar “flashlights” are rapidly cycled on and off in an attempt to identify and kill the target before the target is able to home in on the emitted radar “light” and destroy the site.

    Welcome, tallbloke, to the ranks of the “Wild Weasels.”

  55. Good show to Greg Laden on this. Not only did he modify his original post, he ended up adding the explanatory text on top that I and others urged him to do. When you change a blog post you should always alert the reader a) that it’s been changed, and b) what has been changed.

    Given the erroneous nature of the initial post, closing comments on it was appropriate IMO as well.

  56. John Warner says:
    December 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    As sceptics, we tend to be more forward looking, careful, lateral thinkers than most and I see an opportunity here which would be a shame to miss. …………………

    If there is a sufficient surplus (and it needs to be large enough to make sure that after administrative costs etc there is a large surplus remaining) my suggestion is that a charitable-based fighting fund be established as a trust to support the next blogger or other worthy individual(s) attacked by climate alarmists and needing legal support.

    Excellent idea, but we should be sure TB’s legal headaches are done and over with first, but, just a suggestion, but maybe a peek into Dr. Ball’s defense?

  57. John Warner said @ December 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm: “What do other readers of this blog think?”

    I think we should fund Willis’s “People for the Ethical Treatment of Herrings” and drink beer, but I suspect I’m in the minority :-)

  58. Let’s take the high road here, shall we? -REP

    ================

    Anthony and REPs, Tallbloke, and the many other climate realists, you have not just taken ‘the high road’, you have paved it and improved it !!! There are too many of you to list without making this comment a book!

    I could rattle on about ‘the high road’ but you are making inroads into politics, science, truth, ethics, etc. There are too many names to even begin to list but a cople that immediately come to mind all seem to be climate realists (often referred to as skeptics). You all may become the salvation to humanity, truth, science, political ethics and reforms (truth by the ruling elite), global economy, etc. You guys are paving the new roads that were considered honorable in the past.

    You have my greatest respect and admiration and that comes from the heart.

  59. Merovign says:
    December 20, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    The danger is in taking the high road alone.

    The problem with the “apology” is that it is *transparently* disingenuous, Laden defended the charges in detail, first issued a half-correction leaving the charge in place, and now claims it was a misunderstanding – this is not credible. The charge was clear, unambiguous, and repeated.

    It’s up to Tallbloke if he wants to accept the deal, but I do not believe for one second that the people who have been calling me mentally ill, a shill, or calling for my imprisonment for *years* for the crime of questioning them (even as we catch them in more and more lies and cover-ups, re: Climategates I and II), are suddenly going to participate in an open and honest debate.

    Would that there had been an open and honest debate, but that’s just not what has happened or is happening.
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    Second!!! Well put Merovign.

    Personally, I think that if Mr. Laden and Mr. Mann publicly admit that they were wrong, and they are very sorry for crossing the line and that it will not happen again I would let them off the hook, but… No weasel words, but must be a true admission of guilt and apology.

    Of course it IS up to Tallbloke, and I feel he is probably a nicer man then I am…

    Tallbloke… Keep us up to date if you can and, keep your powder and your sparcstation… dry.

    PS. My spellchecker did not recognize sparcstation, and you do not want to know what my Microsoft product suggested as the correct spelling. ;-)

  60. Boy, for a moment I thought this was the beginning of the end of the CAGW grant-making movement.

    I mean Big Oil fund flows would have been capped and the billions of tax payer to eviro’s monies would have dried up. Can you imagine, oil market would have collaped and energy utility bills cut. It could have been nasty. Whew!

    Party time!

    /sarc off

  61. Carrick says:
    December 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    “Good show to Greg Laden on this. Not only did he modify his original post, he ended up adding the explanatory text on top that I and others urged him to do. When you change a blog post you should always alert the reader a) that it’s been changed, and b) what has been changed.

    “Given the erroneous nature of the initial post, closing comments on it was appropriate IMO as well.”

    My dear Carrick, there was absolutely nothing ERRONEOUS about Laden’s original post, which was libelous and defamatory. What are you on about here?

  62. As one of the contributors to Roger Tallbloke’s legal funds, I want to strongly endorse the idea put forward by Richard Drake and John Warner to create a trust fund for the defense of climate realist bloggers or worthy individuals should the occasion arise. I’ve also donated to Tim Ball in the past, but he probably needs more help. As long as the litigious and thin-skinned Mann is in the picture, not to mention the rather puzzling and definitely worrying actions of the Norfolk constabulary, there remains the prospect of further need for a legal slush fund.

    Should this idea not fly, my first donation was sent also with the ancillary intent of assisting a worthy blogger replace the computers needed to continue with his blogging, and I would gladly see the full amount donated put to this use. Merry Christmas, Tallbloke and Anthony and all you good folks at WUWT!

  63. My earlier comment was from the mild side of my heart.

    The other side of my heart would require that Laden read every post from Anthony, Steve M, Willis, Bob Tinsdale, (pick thirteen others) and write an essay on each as to what they had presented (not an argument against) and post it on ScienceBlogs.com weekly and not allow moderation for as long as Tallbloke should deem appropriate. Kind of like teaching little kids in school to be responsible for their actions.

    He would likely become a ‘climate realist’ (skeptic).

  64. I have to agree with the skeptics. The non-apology apology doesn’t wash. Moreover, I would think twice about accepting the offer to “publish a blog post on this site”. I think it is a ploy to draw Roger into saying something contentious to the denizens of their site, so that they can replace Mr. Laden’s despicable comments in their readers’ minds with self-damning (to their choir) comments from him.

    Actually, I wouldn’t think once. I simply would refuse the proffered hand – there’s likely something nasty concealed in the palm. But, if you go through with it, Roger, I would stick to the facts of the case and demonstrate unequivocally that Mr. Laden was in the wrong, without giving out any red meat to his pack.

  65. Quite sad in a way. Some years ago I knew Greg Laden in another context, and thought him an intelligent, highly knowledgeable, and very pleasant man, not especially given to either bigotry or stupidity. I don’t know what’s changed him. Perhaps he always had this darkness within, and it just never showed while I knew him. In any case, I’ll remember the man I thought he was, and regret the man he’s apparently become.

  66. Bart is right. It was a non-apology. A pseudo-apology, for no other reason than to try and get out of what has bin Laden’s escalating legal problems. And what about Mann? Does he get a free pass on the back of Laden’s climbdown?

    AFAIK, Mann is still unrepentant for labeling TB a “criminal”. Mann’s ego wouldn’t let him even apologize to the extent Laden didn’t. Time to hold Mann’s feet to the fire. He will have to cave. Otherwise, he’s facing weeks of discovery in endless depositions.

  67. I agree; not an apology, rather a revisionist denial of any offense in the first place. I don’t think Laden is capable of admitting error or fault, even by faint indirect implication.
    ____
    TB, about decorating the tree with your lady: how are you attaching her? Enquiring minds … ;) 8-O
    ________
    John Warner’s suggestions are excellent.
    But I’d personally prefer to see the libel suit go ahead. I don’t see this denial of fault as either an apology or a withdrawal or redress.

  68. I hope Tallbloke sues him anyway.
    Greg in his own words: “mean spirited”.
    Yes, it was copied and pasted, and yes, context, context, context as the ‘Team’ keep telling us.

  69. thepompousgit says:
    December 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    John Warner said @ December 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm: “What do other readers of this blog think?”

    I think we should fund Willis’s “People for the Ethical Treatment of Herrings” and drink beer, but I suspect I’m in the minority :-)
    ========================================================
    I’m with you on the beer part…….

  70. If an a purported apology contains; a reason; or the word but; or an explanation, then it is not an apology, it is an excuse for (perhaps) regretable actions that were caused by, or the fault of, the other party.

  71. The only thing Laden is sorry for is that he got caught libeling someone who fought back. And Mann skates away as usual.

  72. All I want to know, is with a last name like Laden, if Mr. Laden ever finds himself on the “no fly” list when he travels… he definitely seems to have learned that terror is a two way street.

  73. The only way Laden is going to learn a lesson here is if the settlement to be negotiated includes, amongst other things, a donation of a considerable financial sum to an sceptic-AGW ‘charity’ of Tallbloke’s choice.

    Nothing like a hole in the pocket to extract some heartfelt humility.

  74. Before Tallbloke’s difficulties, I had not heard of Greg Laden. I am glad of that. Because of Tallbloke’s difficulties, I learned from this blog what Greg Laden was doing on his blog to harm Tallbloke. I am glad that Tallbloke has protected himself against Greg Laden. But I have chosen not to learn any more about Greg Laden. I am really glad of that. Sanity is its own reward.

  75. I am not sure why Carrick, who is normally quite sensible, is congratulating Greg Laden. On the contrary, Mr. Laden’s non apology is disingenuous and dishonest. He blames this all on a simple misunderstanding between British and American cousins (“certain things could be misinterpreted, in no small part because of the common language that separates us across various national borders, and differences in the way debate and concepts of free speech operate in different lands.”)

    This strains credibility to the utmost. Let’s look at the title of the original Laden post: “Computers of Criminal Cyber-Thieves Seized”. I don’t see any ambiguity there. Or what about: “Thieves who broke into Unviersity (sic) of East Anglia computers in 2009 … have had some of their computer equipment seized by UK authorities.” This one also seems pretty clear: “So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and his band of thieves…”. As is this: “investigate his misdeeds.”

    Laden’s allegations were reckless and false but also patently unambiguous. He should be ashamed and should apologize directly.

  76. Well, given Laden’s previous, Tallbloke should specify that his response is to be published letter-for-letter, comma-for-comma, as should any comments he makes in reply (if comments are opened).

  77. Although he may not agree (and I wish him no further harm or inconvenience) I just hope Tallbloke is the eventual first recipient of Climategate 3, Climategate 4, Climategate 5, etc., etc. That’s the best way to fight Laden and Mann (and toss in Jones, Hansen and Trenberth, too, along with all those unaccountable bureaucrats at the UN).

  78. Greg Laden says: “I look forward to receiving the text for this post and, again in the spirit of open and public debate about these important issues…”

    Now we’re talking. Let’s get that spirit of open and public debate going. This is IMHO the core of the case. Reading Donna’s book “The Delinquent Teenager” the worst aspect of the IPCC is the utter disregard of dissenting opinion no matter how well reasoned, no matter how well qualified, no matter how objectively presented. This isn’t the hallmark of the search for the truth.

    From Chris Landsea to Tallbloke there has been a dominant thread of exclusion from the process of scientific discovery and examination in climate science that has all too frequently descended into ad-hom attacks that in many cases border on libel. What is the point you guys? The truth is the truth.

    How ’bout that sea level rise? How ’bout that 21st century cooling trend? How ’bout that Arctic ice extent? How ’bout that decreased ACE? Hmm? Yeah. Let’s bring on that ” open and public debate…” since we have decided the courtroom isn’t a nice place to talk.

  79. (Weird posting problems with WordPress login… so here it goes again … for the third time.)

    As others have noticed, it’s not yet time to grab your coats because the fat lady is still in the dressing room, tuning. Laden has failed to apologise. The latest edit that I have in front of me seems to indicate that Laden has taken professional legal advice instead of his internal Lionel Hutz.

    Delinquents see no wrongdoing in their actions. They blame the victims and the observers. e.g. for “misinterpreting” or “taking out of context”.

    I wish tallbloke, his family, friends and associates a Merry Christmas.

    I wish Greg Laden et al the same. I single out Greg because, as the season would have it, has an epiphany. May Greg enjoy a personal one.

  80. Interesting read on ‘Tallbloke’s Talkshop’ titled “The BBC: Will they or won’t they?”

    Gives a little insight on “Tallbloke”.

  81. What I would like to see is a post from Laden’s wife announcing that her husband screwed up big time and that his blog is shutting down.

  82. OT a little.

    “Greg Laden caves”

    I’ve read that Osama bin Laden hid in the Bora Bora caves.

    Anybody know where the Greg Laden caves are? Maybe a euphemism for the halls of Harvard?
    :-)

  83. I’m with Bart on this one.

    1. Laden hasn’t apologised, he’s simply accused himself of being a poor communicator.
    2.. The offer to let Tallbloke post remarks on the same blog site as Laden made his accusations on as a “settlement” is basically asking for a truce. A truce is nothing more than a tie. When someone offers to “call it a tie” it means they know they are beat and are trying to buy time to regroup.
    3. What value does a single article by Tallbloke on that site result in? A temporary win followed by…after the dust settles…. the usual garbage science and arrogant abuse hurled at skeptics. Will they agree to allow skeptic comments through and not delete them instead? Will they agree to not editing skeptic comments on Tallbloke’s article? What about skeptic comments on future articles, both Tallbloke’s and the rest of their authors?

    If all you play for is a tie, then the best you can get is a tie. You’ll probably get less than a tie in the end, because the “other side” isn’t playing for a tie, they’re only offering a truce so they can regroup. Oh their target might be someone else of course, and this has got to be awfull stressfull for Tallbloke, so I wouldn’t blame him for a second if he accepts this “settlement”.

    What I’d rather see though is a settlement with some longer lasting repurcussions. Not one article from Tallbloke, but one per week by either him or a guest article from someone else. Lord knows there’s plenty of material out there. One article per month by Willis alone would set their agenda backwards forever. Combined of course with requirements for editing policy regarding skeptic comments.

    Do what you need to do for yourself and your lady Tallbloke. But if the money from donations is holding up versus the expenses…. play for the win.

  84. Seriously, davidmhoffer, it’s Tallbloke has been wronged. “Publishing” on bin Laden’s site, amongst and as a target of all his hostile fellows, does nothing to right that wrong. That is his solicitor’s “least gambit”.

    Tallbloke has been wronged — Tallbloke shall call the tune.

  85. Seems both Tallbloke and Stephen might want to watch this video in total and realize what types of personalities they just may be dealing with in this matter after reading the accusations on his site.

    Stephen, it has some pointed advice on how to handle such personalities near the end of the video… good information that I never quite realized, but it make clear what has happened in certain instances throughout my life.

    Also might be why you should not reverse course.

  86. neill:

    My dear Carrick, there was absolutely nothing ERRONEOUS about Laden’s original post, which was libelous and defamatory. What are you on about here?

    This is self contradictory: if it’s not erroneous, it can’t be libelous or defamatory. (Truth isn’t libelous or defamatory.)

    cope, I think that Greg Laden stepped over the line, realized it, and did a reasonable job making amends in the process. Could he have gone farther? Yes. Was it a bit lame? Yes.

    If you guys just want a shooting war, go for it. But you may need to do it without Tallbloke, if he accepts Laden’s conciliatory behavior.

    In the end, I’d rather people learn from their mistakes. Maybe some progress can be made in that fashion.

  87. Neill;
    Tallbloke has been wronged — Tallbloke shall call the tune.>>>

    Yes he should, and I said as much.

    I also said what I think in regard to winning the “war” rather than winning the “battle”. I think there’s a golden opportunity here to both correct the wrong to Tallbloke (the battle) and also to do some long term good in terms of discrediting the buffoonery that masquerades as science in CAGW lala land. One of the handicaps that skeptics labour under is that while dissent is not only allowed, but even invited, on skeptic blogs, the reverse is not true of alarmist sites like Laden’s. I think that Laden and Co. are running scared, and hoping that a one time peace offering that will soon be forgotten will get them off the hook. I think Tallbloke is in an excellent position to force something beyond a retraction and apology. He’s in a position to force an alarmist and dogmatic site to allow fair and honest debate.

    Trolls come and go for the most part on WUWT because as soon as they engage in the actual science, they get demolished. What bigger blow could Tallbloke strike for the skeptic side than to force the alarmist’s hand and allow fair debate on their home turf where the legions of believers for the first time would get to see both sides of the argument?

    If Tallbloke settles for personal redress alone, I shall not fault him. But I don’t think he has put in the time and effort required to maintain his blog for personal benefit alone. He scores many points for the skeptic side on his blog. I think he’s got the opportunity to score in bushels.

  88. ….and while we’re on the topic, I really don’t see see Laden folding so easily as all that big a win. Like Theo, I never even heard of the guy until this incident. As they say, the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity. Don’t let Laden off the hook lightly because even with a full apology (a real one I mean) he still gets his profile raised in a manner that he could not achieve with his CAGW ravings alone.

    But what is the root cause of Tallbloke’s misfortune? I would argue that Laden is a sideshow.

    Did the police have just cause for seizing Tallbloke’s computers? I’m betting that either they did not, or the cyber crime expertise that should be in place is sorely lacking. Further, if the police cannot show corroborating evidence to justify their actions (and again, I’m betting they cannot) then what prompted them to seize Tallbloke’s computers? Was there an accusation levelled against him by a complainant and they are simply following up the complaint? If so, who is the complainant, and was their complaint vetted by the police to ensure that it was not simply a crank complaint or a politically motivated complaint? Consider the implications of THAT!

    My opinion is that Tallbloke is the victim of a drive by shooting. Laden wandered by after the shooting and kicked him in the knee. So what? The real questions are:

    who shot at him?
    who drove the car?
    and who sent them?

  89. Quite obviously, the sizeable wedge that Tallbloke’s supporters donated had it’s effect before a penny was spent. How about setting up a trust, after Tallbloke’s legal costs are defrayed, with the object of providing support for any skeptic scientist who is a member of the trust so traduced in the future? If nothing else, knowledge of the existence of the trust would keep the debate more cerebral.

  90. Well, again and again, it is another case of, as the video above suggests (be sure to watch it), that these folks are living in a world of self promotion. No need to hold your breath waiting for an ounce of apology. Just more excuses and side stepping. It’s genetic. Do not hang on any false hope of redemption on their part. But do make note on who they are.

  91. An old joke

    What’s forty lawyers at the bottom of the Sea ?

    A good start !

    Perhaps spiteful AGW bloggers should replace lawyers ?

  92. wayne says:
    December 20, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    A very interesting video. While I have definite disagreements with the selection of some of the people they used to illustrate their points (almost everyone will, because they go to both sides of the aisle), it is overall excellent. I have seen such people come and go in my life, and was never happier than seeing them go. Which brings me to…

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 20, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    “What bigger blow could Tallbloke strike for the skeptic side than to force the alarmist’s hand and allow fair debate on their home turf where the legions of believers for the first time would get to see both sides of the argument?”

    It would never happen. It would be a rope a dope. A good part of the above video occurs at 33:33, where they use footage from The Terminator to illustrate the point that such people cannot be redeemed. That Terminator is out there. He can’t be bargained with. He can’t be reasoned with. He doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. These people don’t care about a free exchange of ideas. They are only maneuvering for advantage, trying to dig themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves. As soon as the way is clear, it’s hasta la vista, Baby.

    Recently, a frequent commenter on this site invited Anthony to attend a meeting he had set up with Phil Jones. Anthony wisely declined. Negotiation with the kind of people who wrote all those unbelievable e-mails is de facto surrender. You cannot make peace with those who, at least figuratively (Phil Jones comment on the passing of John Daly wasn’t just figurative, though), genuinely want you dead. We are dealing with grave sickness here, IMHO.

  93. Laden :: “I’ve decided to update this blog entry (20 Dec 2011) because it occurs to me that certain things could be misinterpreted…I want to make it clear that I do not think that the blogger “TallBloke” a.k.a. Roger Tattersall has broken British law

    For some reason a scene from Kill Bill comes to mind …

    “heh heh heh, You call that begging apologizing?”

  94. I think that what forced Laden’s hand was not so much the legal case, as the obvious boom in funding for it, occasioned by the appeal on this site.

    If there’s one thing worse than a lawyer, it’s a well-funded law firm….

  95. Carrick~ ‘In the end, I’d rather people learn from their mistakes.’

    Carrick, what gives you the impression laden has learned Anything? ‘Once bitten, twice shy’ can sometimes mean ‘I’m going to wait for an even Better time to strike.’

  96. davidmhoffer says:
    December 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    “What I’d rather see though is a settlement with some longer lasting repurcussions. Not one article from Tallbloke, but one per week by either him or a guest article from someone else. Lord knows there’s plenty of material out there. One article per month by Willis alone would set their agenda backwards forever. Combined of course with requirements for editing policy regarding skeptic comments.”

    =================

    I really like this idea as noted from a partial quote from your comment above.

    Laden has gotten and would likely benefit more from the increased traffic to his site though. I had never heard of him prior to this. I’m sure he has gotton a lot of recognition from all this. What would be a monatary value placed on that recognition?

    Could he be redeamed from his religious tendencies toward CAGW?

  97. I agree on using any surplus to set up a fighting fund for use in similar situations that might arise, possibly including Tim Ball’s problems with Michael Mann. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, however. Stephen Wilde has pointed out that much remains to be done to resolve the current problems satisfactorily. There may eventually be nothing left, or even a shortfall (OK I don’t really believe that, but it’s possible).

  98. I posted hours ago, but for some reason it never appeared…. basically, however, I said that I don’t see anything that remotely appears to be an apology by Greg Laden. Just a little weasel wording to slightly back off his original outrageous claims. I don’t believe that allowing a post from Tallbloke comes anywhere close to making up for it either.

    I very much hope that Tallbloke continues with an actual lawsuit if the lawyers believe there is a legal case to be made. Somehow AGW ‘true believers’ seem to have this rampant innate problem with separating speculation and desires from actual facts and evidence – and apparently not just when it comes to ‘climate science’ but also with regards to issues such as this one with Laden’s accusations.

  99. ferd berple says:
    December 20, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    So where is the apology? All I see is denial wrapped in an excuse.

    ——————————————————————–

    Greg Laden a denialist??? Is he aware of this?? Oh I-ron-ee.

  100. I made a contribution to TB. There are no strings attached. I trust him to do what is needed. I don’t believe the gift entitles me to direct his actions. It appears my trust was not misplaced and I will not second guess him or his legal representative. I would like to know how it comes out, though. Happy Holidays to all :)

  101. John Eggert is correct about duty to mitigate. Been around in English common law for ages and created for obvious reasons. And is common to all English speaking nations from Canada to the US Federal system. Usually its been codified, included in regs or via case precedent. For example, in the US, if a semi trucker’s load is damaged in transit, to mitigate carrier claims, the trucker gains title under Federal law in order to sell the contents. Think overturned trailer loaded with fresh bananas.

    Just about all tort cases revolve around money. That means assessment of damages should the plaintiff prevail. It’s not unusual for a person to win a tort case and be awarded a very small sum (farthing perhaps?). While it would be an interesting case to argue, on both sides, interesting may only work for celebrities since what they pay an attorney to pursue the case may be well worth the press coverage. Oh, and consider the debate about what the word “is” is and one can understand the result.

  102. May this success be the first of many, and pointed to as such in the history books. The delighted buzz of the thread has been palpable. Well done Anthony, Tallbloke and Stephen, and thanks from all of us. Enjoy your cold white Christmas up there.

  103. Bart;
    It would never happen. It would be a rope a dope. A good part of the above video occurs at 33:33, where they use footage from The Terminator to illustrate the point that such people cannot be redeemed.>>>

    Putting aside for the moment that “The Terminator” was a robot, not a human…

    The point is not to try and redeem Laden and Co. The point is to force their hand and allow both sides of the debate to be aired equally by them. It isn’t those who are beyond redemption that it is important to communicate to, but the undecided, and those who are decided, but not beyond redemption.

    In a fair fight, the warmists cannot win. That is why they avoid a fair fight at all costs. If Tallbloke were to succeed in using his leverage here to force their hand in that manner, it would deeply damage their cause. That puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they accept, they are screwed. If they decline, itz worse. They get slammed with monetary damages, immense legal costs, and Tallbloke at some point gets to say “they’d rather pay me $XX rather than agree to a fair debate”.

  104. Anthony,

    It seems Mike Mann’s name has been edited from the Tallbloke “time line”
    which orginally indicated Mr. Mann had openly and enthusiastically circulated
    Greg Laden’s libelous writings.

    Will Mike “apologize” or is he still on the hook for a possible libel rap ?

  105. I’m much happier with happy endings :-) But it’s obvious that Laden isn’t apologizing. He’s putting a lie on top of another lie. But again, it’s not up to me to choose the terms.

  106. There is only one word to describe the “warmist” zealots that plague the climate change debate: ruthless. There is only one way to deal with ruthless people. Beat them down mercilessly until they are but a stain on the landscape. Pleasing your enemies doesn’t make them your friends. There is a higher purpose here.

  107. big mistake, these people cannot be forgiven, its a blatant cave in mark my words. BTW I think AW should withdraw his application to IPCC its giving them attention that they desperately are trying to get and definitely don’t deserve, my view anyway. I’ve got 4 higher degrees and published 30 refereed papers plus in my areas, I would not Publish anything in Nature, join IPCC or be part of any of this scam nand by joining them you are abbeting @@rp science

  108. John Warner:

    At December 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm concerning the donations to Tallbloke’s ‘fighting fund’, you suggest:

    “If there is a sufficient surplus (and it needs to be large enough to make sure that after administrative costs etc there is a large surplus remaining) my suggestion is that a charitable-based fighting fund be established as a trust to support the next blogger or other worthy individual(s) attacked by climate alarmists and needing legal support.”

    Your suggestion requires perusal by a specialist lawyer before being considered for possible adoption.

    Most charity law derives from the problems that resulted from the charity to support sufferers of the Levant Mining Disaster in 1919. The Levant Charity money cannot be disbursed because it was given for the specific purpose of supporting sufferers of the Levant Mining Disaster .

    So, the residual of the Levant Charity’s fund cannot be disbursed because no sufferers remain and, therefore, the charitable fund continues to grow

    Your suggestion needs to be evaluated such as to avoid similar problems.

    The monies were given to Tallbloke with the clear and express purpose of assisting him in the recovery of his good name following alleged specific libels (i.e. by Laden and Mann).

    For your suggestion to be adopted there is need for
    (a) a constitution for appointment and replacement of Trustees of the fund who would disburse the fund.
    (b) a clear statement of the purposes of such disbursements and of those who can claim for an allocation from the fund
    and
    (c) the agreements of all those who have contributed monies to Tallbloke that they are willing to allow their individual donations to be used according to points (a) and (b).

    The agreements of (c) may be difficult to obtain. Advice of a specialist lawyer is much needed.

    Richard

  109. John Warner says: December 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    If there is a sufficient surplus (and it needs to be large enough to make sure that after administrative costs etc there is a large surplus remaining) my suggestion is that a charitable-based fighting fund be established as a trust to support the next blogger or other worthy individual(s) attacked by climate alarmists and needing legal support.

    I strongly support this so-called “war chest” viewpoint. After all, we’re all great people, but we cannot keep donating every time there’s a crisis requiring funds — Big Oil is very late in payments to us sceptics :-) as they seem to prefer to fund alarmists. If a fund already exists, it could be a waste to so generously split it and never see it again, only to start again from zero next time.

    Of course it’s no longer in the donors hands. And the logistics of keeping it and deciding how and when to use the “war chest” might not be so simple. I’m sure a lawyer will know how to do that.

  110. Bart says: December 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm: The non-apology apology doesn’t wash. Moreover, I would think twice about accepting the offer to “publish a blog post on this site”.

    Yes, that offer not only is meaningless in that it’s not a redress, and also because Tallbloke doesn’t have to present his viewpoint as the slander was public, but it also looks like a trap.

  111. vigilantfish says:

    December 20, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    As one of the contributors to Roger Tallbloke’s legal funds, I want to strongly endorse the idea put forward by Richard Drake and John Warner to create a trust fund for the defense of climate realist bloggers or worthy individuals should the occasion arise. I’ve also donated to Tim Ball in the past, but he probably needs more help. As long as the litigious and thin-skinned Mann is in the picture, not to mention the rather puzzling and definitely worrying actions of the Norfolk constabulary, there remains the prospect of further need for a legal slush fund.

    Should this idea not fly, my first donation was sent also with the ancillary intent of assisting a worthy blogger replace the computers needed to continue with his blogging, and I would gladly see the full amount donated put to this use. Merry Christmas, Tallbloke and Anthony and all you good folks at WUWT!

    Moi aussi.

  112. @ phil jourdan

    I will have to ask Greg Laden his recipe for crow.

    Take one pie. Fill with umbles. Eat.

    (etymology…’umbles’ is roughly the medieaval word for what we would today call ‘offal’. Hence – in error – humble pie)

  113. re; Why take the router?

    Routers can be programmed by the owner. The programming information can be revealing. The router has a hardware firewall in it. By default the firewall blocks unsolicited incoming connection requests. If you’re running a server and/or are part of a peer-to-peer network you have log onto your router and configure it to allow these activities. Typically this is done by unblocking what are called port addresses for certain kinds of protocols. There are many thousands of port addresses and which particular ones have been opened and which protocols allowed is indicative of the reason it was opened which might range from legal gaming to illegal pirating of copyrighted materials. It’s a bit of a window on what was going on behind the firewall.

  114. Why does humble pie taste so good when someone else is eating it?
    Also funny that “mean spirited debate” occurs in Laden’s apology blog although in an entirely different context.

  115. @Rosco.
    What’s the difference between a lawyer and a loud turkey?
    The turkey clucks defiance.

  116. RSC makes a good point re momies.

    I donated my pittance to Tallbloke for the express purpose of suing Laden and Mann. I have not given my consent to any other use.

    Not trying to be difficult, but you can’t raise money for one thing then use it for another. If I give to the Lifeboats, I am not giving to the Guide Dogs. Nor vice versa. However worthy a cause they both might be. If you want to create a general defence fund you will need to start again, not just pinch my monies given for a different cause.

    And yes – I do regularly give to both those fine institutions. And a few others.

  117. The AGW Alarmists are already using a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund against the community of climate science Skeptics. Profmandia promotes the fund, while disparaging Chris Horner and Skeptics.

  118. “I donated my pittance to Tallbloke for the express purpose of suing Laden and Mann. I have not given my consent to any other use. ”

    The appeal for funds was in these terms:

    “It is proposed to investigate all options open to Roger for the obtaining of suitable redress within the law. In the event that legal actions are considered appropriate it will be necessary to appoint suitably experienced Counsel to represent his interests and in this matter Roger’s interests coincide with those of all of who find themselves unable to feebly acquiesce in the pressure that is being applied to prevent them from exercising their hard won freedoms.

    To that end, an appeal fund is being launched in order to finance the necessary steps. Contributions can be made via Roger’s Paypal account as displayed on his site (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/) and all funds received for that purpose are to be transferred to the Client Account of his solicitors Wilde & Company.

    Any funds not eventually used for necessary legal expenses will be donated to a selection of climate sceptic organisations”

    It would be difficult to change those terms in view of the vast number of small donations.

    There is much still to be done.

  119. Pardon a diversion here, but…..
    One of the great strengths of the English language is its use of verb-adverb pairs, like “throw up”. Now, trendies have been dropping out the adverb part of some pairs and expecting the reader/listener to mentally provide the adverb. In the meantime, the remaining naked verb can be giving a quite different meaning. Favorites that I have noticed are toss (out), throw (out), and cave (in). To me, “to cave” is equivalent to spelunking- exploring caves, not to “give up” or “concede”.

    Do I feel better now? Yes!

    IanM

  120. I should have added that I found the heading “Greg Laden caves” confusing. In my caffeine-deprived state I thought first of Bin Laden and his cave hideouts and wondered what it had to do with WUWT.

  121. What a crock. There was no apology. “I dont want to be misinsterpreted.” WTF?

    Tallbloke’s suit should proceed.

  122. Although Laden has amended the text of his post, striking out original phrasing to indicate what he has retracted, he merely changed the title to “Computers Seized in Cyber-Theft Investigation,” without showing that he has withdrawn the original “Computers of Criminal Cyber-Thieves Seized” title.

    Thus, his original accusation that TB, whose computers were seized, is a “criminal cyber-thief” has not really been recanted, even if it is no longer being aired. “Criminal” and “thief” mean the same thing in UK English as in US English, so this is not just a regional difference in usage, as Laden would have his readers believe.

    TB, please don’t dignify Laden by taking up his offer to post on his site.

    And a very Merry Christmas to you and your lady!

  123. davidmhoffer says:
    December 21, 2011 at 2:56 am

    “Putting aside for the moment that “The Terminator” was a robot, not a human…”

    As the video details, psychopaths are more robot than human. It is possible that Greg Laden was overcome by the passion of the moment, and is more regularly what we would call “human”, but it’s not a safe bet.

    These are people who believe that the frank admissions in the Climategate e-mail of cherry-picking, data fudging, and intimidation are of no particular import. How do you negotiate with that kind of robotic personality?

  124. Looks like others share the same thoughts as I …

    I donated $25 to TBs legal fund.

    I would like to request that the donations (and any future donations in this category) stay as an entrusted legal fund, not to be dispersed to bloggers. I would like the next (and the next and the next…) person who is in the same position as tallbloke to have legal funds as well.

    Just parroting what has already been repeated.

    Regards,

    MDCCLXXVI

  125. The solicitor must have made a great impression (on his wallet &head) to have him cave so dramatically. So what goes best with crow? Ketchup, mustard, curry?
    From his blog:
    “So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and his band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine”
    to:
    “I want to make it clear that I do not think that the blogger “TallBloke” a.k.a. Roger Tattersall has broken British law…”

    Coward.

  126. I hope that when TallBloke makes his reply on Laden’s blog, he mentions “Harry Readme.” This is something most warmistas don’t know about, and it seems like the perfect opportunity to spread the word a bit. Just a thought.

  127. If this legal action were to take another step forward, Laden’s fake apology would certainly hurt him.

    And I notice Laden’s appeal for money has this logo. All it’s missing is a thumb on the scale.

  128. Back stroking…..

    got to love it… not totally unexpected due to the nature of the defamation..

    it would have been interesting to start vetting the science in an open court.. as a matter of record

  129. otter, allowing him the grace of withdrawing his charge without court intervention, to me, a nice contrast with Michael Mann’s mentally-challenged attacks on Tim Ball. The counter-warmingist movement wins points if it does so.

    I think Greg has to be doubly careful about his language from now on. A repeat of this post would demonstrate a pattern of behavior, which I’m told sets you up for punitive damages.

  130. Harry readme is a distraction.

    Harry readme is about CRU Ts.

    CRU TS has nothing whatsoever to do with CRUTEMP

    please do not encourage tallbloke to distract peoples attention from the real issues of the mails.

  131. Hmmmm…I seem to recall that someone had said that tall bloke should not pursue this approach as he didn’t know what the consequences would be…or words to that effect.

    This is just one battle is a much larger war on truly open debate, refraining from making things personal, where the process of discovery, both in the science and in the manner in which it is presented is vital to establish policy.

    While the hand has been offered, I can only advise caution as all too often people revert to their established behaviors and habits.

    From “Lawrence of Arabia”:
    “With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”

  132. If there is any ‘surplus money’ left over, can I suggest it be used to Fund Moncktons much more generalised law suit against climate science mistakes. That could be a long drawn out affair but it would be good to see the relative merits debated in court.

    tonyb

  133. Carrick says:
    December 20, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    neill:

    My dear Carrick, there was absolutely nothing ERRONEOUS about Laden’s original post, which was libelous and defamatory. What are you on about here?

    “This is self contradictory: if it’s not erroneous, it can’t be libelous or defamatory. (Truth isn’t libelous or defamatory.)…….
    In the end, I’d rather people learn from their mistakes. Maybe some progress can be made in that fashion.”

    Carrick, your choice of the word “erroneous” intentionally disregards the deliberate malicious intent of Ladens’ initial statement — as if his statement was merely a ‘mistake’, and nothing more. Your deliberate avoidance of the obvious nature of the slander leads me to conclude that it is in your pacifist nature to avoid any and all conflict as a first principle, regardless of arcane factors like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. How progressive of you.

  134. Carrick says:
    December 21, 2011 at 10:20 am

    ‘otter, allowing him the grace of withdrawing his charge without court intervention, to me, a nice contrast with Michael Mann’s mentally-challenged attacks on Tim Ball. The counter-warmingist movement wins points if it does so.’

    By quietly letting him off the hook, the skeptics win NO points. Point is, Laden put himself on the hook, and we should carefully use this opportunity to gain any and all benefits it presents. What you propose is foolhardy. Laden did wrong — as did Mann — he shall pay, one way or another, in the public square.

  135. The money that I donated may be used for and by Tallbloke as he wishes. A glass of champagne may be appropriate.

    His lawyer may use the modest sum to buy a subscription to an internet porn site if he so chooses.

    I expect men of their integrity to use the money for a suitable purpose if it is not required for the original cause.

  136. @daveburton

    For the record, Greg also edited one of my comments too in a way that also altered its meaning. That kind of behaviour is beyond despicable.

    I’m wondering if its even worth completing my PhD as it seems to have become pretty cheap currency these days….

  137. Take the legal fund money and buy oil stocks that pay dividends. When you need it you can claim the defense fund is supported by big oil.

  138. Let’s not get too picky about where the defense fund funds might go. You believed in Tallbloke and WUWT when donating. Continue to believe they will do the right thing.

  139. Laden: the evidence

    Two Minuses: two posters note his editing of their remarks to change the meaning, neither of which edits has been apologized for or returned to original wording as I understand.

    One Plus: a commenter here says he used to know Greg Laden as a decent guy and none of this apocalyptic histrionics.

    One Plus: “I am offering Mr. Tattersall to publish a blog post on this site”

    One Warning: Remember BEST.

    NOW, forearmed, give Greg a chance.

  140. Great result
    Proof positive of tallbloke’s status as collateral damage in a bigger battle. A shame he ever found himself in this position, given the castlles built on sand certain of his opponents find themselves in…

  141. “One Plus: “I am offering Mr. Tattersall to publish a blog post on this site”
    One Warning: Remember BEST.
    NOW, forearmed, give Greg a chance”

    I agree Lucy,

    It would be difficult for Greg to do anything disreputable and I judge that he will not. There may need to be some negotiation of the content of Rogers guest post but it should be possible to frame it in ways that should not cause problems as long as Greg remains conciliatory.

    More to be gained than lost whatever happens. I would welcome a more mutually respectful interaction with those who are fearful of human caused catastrophe.

    Remember the saying about one sinner who repenteth and however one cuts it Greg’s response to my letter and the changes he made very quickly, unilaterally and in public show enough repentance to me and Roger even if others still seek more.

    We are reserving our position on a potential damages claim but in the meantime are progressing along a conciliatory path.

  142. If I put my pay packet on a horse and it loses I can say to my wife, “Sorry, Honey. I was wrong to do that.”

    Or I can say, “I’m sorry that horse lost.”

    One is an apology to the wronged party, the other is regret. Two entirely different commodities.

    I’d put Laden’s statement into the “regret” column. He is yet to apologise.

    (I forget which route I took. It was a long time ago and there was drink involved.)

Comments are closed.