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.
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).
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.
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.
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 🙂
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.
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.
Greg Laden is still lying about what I wrote in comments on his blog.
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”.
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 ?
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.
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.
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 @ur momisugly@rp science
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
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.
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.
I will have to ask Greg Laden his recipe for crow. 😉
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.
@ur momisugly phil jourdan
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)
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.
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.
@Rosco.
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a loud turkey?
The turkey clucks defiance.
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.
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.
“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.
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