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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How much is Tallblokes fighting fund now ? I have thrown in my 50 GBP. Good luck Tall Man !
“mean spirited debate” – sure is.
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).
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.
(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.
Interesting read on ‘Tallbloke’s Talkshop’ titled “The BBC: Will they or won’t they?”
Gives a little insight on “Tallbloke”.
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.
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?
🙂
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.
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.
So Laden’s dug back-pedalled (so much for the ‘Sue me!’ bit), but what about Michael Mann’s retweet?
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:
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.
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.
….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?
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.
As Santa so nicely puts it, ho, ho, ho!
But yes, TB remains wronged, and this won’t fix that.
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.
An old joke
What’s forty lawyers at the bottom of the Sea ?
A good start !
Perhaps spiteful AGW bloggers should replace lawyers ?
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.
For some reason a scene from Kill Bill comes to mind …
John Warner,
I agree with your proposal.
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….
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.’
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?