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 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.
What a crock. There was no apology. “I dont want to be misinsterpreted.” WTF?
Tallbloke’s suit should proceed.
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retracted, he merely changed the title to “Computers Seized in Cyber-Theft Investigation,” without showing that he has withdrawn the original “Computers of Criminal Cyber-Thieves Seized” title.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!
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
dave Burton
You may have a case against laden under “false light”
talk to Lucia about it WRT somebody editing your comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
@Dave Burton
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….
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.
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.
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.
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…
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”.
🙂
“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.