Greg Laden caves – makes nice with Tallbloke

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.