Greg Laden caves – makes nice with Tallbloke

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?)

Sissy.

When I follow the link to Laden’s original post my Anti Virus detects a virus on the site. Beware

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.”

Good to see that it will all be sorted in a civil manner.

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

Damage control wins the day.
Well done Tallbloke and legal team.

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).

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.

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.

Good. Let’s hope decent attitudes are maintained.

“…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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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(?)

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?).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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. 😉

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?

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).

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.

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 … 😉 😯
________
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.

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…….

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.

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).

“mean spirited debate” – sure is.

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.

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

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?
🙂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.’

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).

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

What a crock. There was no apology. “I dont want to be misinsterpreted.” WTF?
Tallbloke’s suit should proceed.

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?

I should add (to my 7:59 PST comment above) that there is no pointer on Laden’s front page at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/ to the (only partially) corrected version of his post. Such a pointer should be prominently displayed for at least a month, IMHO.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Katabasis says:
December 21, 2011 at 3:02 pm
…
I’m wondering if its even worth completing my PhD as it seems to have become pretty cheap currency these days….

All your questions will be answered here:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1431
If you have a day to spare, start here:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1
and just keep clicking “Next”.
🙂

Don’t be too quick to drop the chance to deliver an object lesson to the slur-meisters of the Believer world.