UPDATE: Joe Romm, perhaps fearing he’d be drawn into a defamation lawsuit with Laden for not checking to see if Laden’s claims were true has made a rare update to ClimateProgress in my favor. See below.
UPDATE2: Reader poll on the question “should I sue the pants off Greg Laden?”
Harsh title – I know, but justified by Mr. Laden’s actions. I could ignore him, but people like him need to be called out when they do things like this.
Here’s a screencap of a “science blogs” post made by Mr. Laden, who is no stranger to shooting his mouth off in non factual ways that get him in trouble, as Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) can testify to from another Laden episode last year where Laden was forced to remove untrue and libelous statements he made. Laden’s original post about Tattersall (with all the angry unedited rhetoric) is here.
You can read the rest of his post here.
Note how Laden frames the screen cap, and of course does not provide a link to the original story (lest his readers are able to get the full story instead of his spin on it). He then goes on to say:
Heh, he was so raging mad when he wrote that he couldn’t even spell denialist correctly, or even spell the name of this blog correctly even though he has a screen cap to guide him. He claims I “wasn’t equipped to recognize this science as bogus”. Well, I found it odd, but also interesting, and as Willis Eschenbach pointed out in comments:
I don’t agree with those saying it should not be posted. In my experience, there’s no faster way to separate wheat from chaff than to expose it to the unblinking eye of the populi on the web …
Unlike Mr. Laden (who gives the impression he’s an expert in everything), I’ve never claimed to be an expert in meteors or diatoms. So, I put it up for discussion. I also put several caveats in the story clearly showing my doubts, including the possibility that the Earthly diatoms hitched a ride on a tektite, but Mr. Laden won’t show you that, I will.
You see, it’s all part of a purposely orchestrated lie by Mr. Laden. If Mr. Laden hadn’t been so caught up in his hate, and made just an ever so slightly larger screen cap, this is what his readers would have seen from the story:
In case the print is too small, here’s the full paragraph (which Laden cut off):
This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up. I would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.
I don’t know how I could have made the caveat any clearer. Anyone not blinded by hate can see that in my very first paragraph, in red even.
Of course, Laden cuts off the most important part of the caveat and without an immediate link to the story, the weak minded or members of the his choir of haters have no single click way to check his claim, but that is what he is counting on.
And of course, Joe Romm also picks up the story from Laden, to spread the lie and hate. Romm might have been duped by Laden though and didn’t check, we’ll see.
Laden also says:
It is very fun to read the comments. I provided a comment that will not be printed because Watts never prints my comments, but I’ve screen captured it for you (it is below).
Mr. Laden, your comment appeared, approved well before you wrote this hateful piece, as shown below between two other comments:
A direct link to Laden’s published comment is here, read for yourselves.
As for the “never” part of Laden’s claim about his comments appearing, here they are:
His first two comments were snipped by moderators for not following the WUWT site policy, his others, (which didn’t contain hateful words) were published, including the comment on the meteor story he falsely claims never appeared.
Mr. Laden, you are a liar who published this story knowing full well what you were doing.
What you were doing was being a hater, not a scientist. Being a hater is part of Mr. Laden’s site policy, which incredibly, he spells out for all to see. Scroll down to “commenting policy”.
What Laden did here is a perfect example of why the general public is losing faith in climate science; this mix of condescension, censorship, incomplete presentation, misdirection, and overt hatred on display is exactly why reasonable people recoil and lose faith in the climate claims being made, which in some cases, can be just as dubious as diatoms on meteors.
The difference between myself and Mr. Laden is that WUWT isn’t afraid to have topics for discussion that might be proven wrong, and in the process, people learn something. I’m also not afraid to admit I’m not an expert on meteors or diatoms, and to ask my readers (who might be) what they think while at the same time making it clear that I had serious doubts about the claim.
If people like Laden ruled science, we’d never see any advances from serendipity or other odd moments where the scientist observes something unexpected and says to him/herself “hmmm, that’s odd”, because they’d be shouted down as “bogus” without even a discussion.
UPDATE: Joe Romm, responding to my email to him, has offered the closest thing he can to a walkback on the lie (of which he was also a victim) by Laden. He’s posted this on the Climate progress story by Laden smearing me. He sounds like Fox News “we report, you decide”.
JR UPDATE: Watts feels he was quoted out of context, that he put in appropriate caveats. His response is here. Greg Laden replies here. You decide.
In other news, in his latest childish rant, Mr. Laden wants his readers to think that I’m a child hater (even though I have two grade school aged children of my own).
It is against my blog policy to provide links to science denialist sites. It would be unethical for me to do that on a regular basis because it would enhance the google juice of pseudoscience. I’ve got children. I want them to grow up in a better world, not the world that Anthony Watts wants them to grow up in. So, no.
Another lie by Greg Laden. I never get how extremists like Laden think they somehow can be the only people that care about children’s future. I want a better future for my children to, just not the same one Mr. Laden envisions. As these commenters put it:
Jimmy Haigh says:
January 16, 2013 at 10:33 pm
“Laden clearly has issues…”
Issues? He’s got an entire subscription.
In my opinion there are some pretty obnoxious people around claiming to be scientists. If they are so sure of their science why is there so much doubt in the public’s mind? Why can they not provide the evidence of it?
People become sceptical to contradiction – for example, when told that global warming causes cooling, etc .. the non-denailists (SIC) need consistency in their arguments.
Also, if there were evidence for the claims they make, there would be no doubt, everyone would agree and we could move on. So perhaps they could look at this subject a bit more objectively and understand that lay people tend to not listen to any group making contradictory statements.
So, if a non-denailist wants to enlighten me how global warming causes cooling, fire away – I am listening.
“…the constant barrage of global warming junk that steadily streams from mainstream media…”
In the UK the MSM seems to have suddenly become rather reticent with regard to Climate Change due to the fact that we are enjoying a cold snap just now.
Just keep going, Anthony. These useful idiots of the warmist faith keep giving you flak, so (as James Delingpole says) you must be over the target. But this is contemptible garbage even for this guy’s standards.
Mr. Watts, why are you so exercised by a post made by an obvious cretin?
It brings to mind this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Or…how about – if the isle of Lundy in the Bristol channel, were to declare war on the USA – not many people in the Pentagon are gonna lose too much sleep……
Greg Laden Blog: “Culture as Science – Science as Culture.”
The nonsensical juxtaposition of words that at best belongs in ‘Pseuds Corner’ of Private Eye and at worst, is a tired oxymoron. The latter sums up Laden.
When I read the original diatom/meteorite article, I thought this has less than a one in a 1,000 chance of being true and immediately forgot about it. I noted the caveats and thought they might have been a tad more strongly expressed.
Anyhow, in being attacked over something as petty as this, just goes to show the CAGW faithful are becoming increasingly desperate.
Perhaps you might consider using the term “cavalier with the truth” next time – and there will be a next time – as it sounds so much more eloquent than plain “liar”.
Reminds me of a fancy Harvard PhD applied to work for us. Claimed he could revolutionize our logistics. I guess our COO wanted to see what kind of work ethics he possessed, because the first job he asked him to do was sweep the warehouse. Heh,
“But I’m a Harvard graduate!” he shouted.
“I’m sorry, I didn’t know that. Here, give me the broom and I’ll show you how.”
I hear he went on to nearly bankrupt one of our competitors with some Oracle fancy malfunction junction systems. Don’t know what after that.
He doesn’t write very well either.
“…ubiquitous fresh water diatoms that are everywhere.”
Ubiquitous
u·biq·ui·tous
[yoo-bik-wi-tuh s]
adjective
existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent
– – –
No need to tell us twice in one sentence.
A clue to Greg Laden’s vitriolic attitude may be here:
Greg Laden received his B.A. with honors from the…. Reagent’s…. College of the University of the State of New York, and an MA and PhD in Anthropology from Harvard University”
http://www.mnsci.org/index.php?id=119
Sad to see the “bio” tab in which he mentions “Harvard” nearly 10 times, seems to have gone from Laden’s Blog making my previous snide post about Harvard students puzzling.
It is still visible here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about/
Dear Anthony
How does one please send you an email?
Sorry for the stupid question….
Doh!
“this mix of condescension, censorship, incomplete presentation, misdirection, and overt hatred”
If these were taken away what else would fools like this have ?
Well done Anthony, these bottom feeders need to be called whenever and wherever they appear.
Laden also ignored the first word in your headline: “Claim:”–which clearly indicated a somewhat stand-offish position.
Well done Anthony, for highlighting these fraudsters. I’ve posted (see below) but whether that scumbag approves it or not is a different matter.
“Jack
January 17, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Laden,
You are a fraud. You have selectively reported parts of the original article to smear Anthony Watts and support your alarmist agenda. You have not had the decency to include a link to the original article so your followers can inspect the evidence for themselves (ooh – where have I heard that before – ah, yes, Michael Mann’s hockey stick).
Given you have so blatantly posted such a misrepresentation of Mr Watts’ article, why should anyone believe anything else you’ve said?”
What if the original paper is right? It’s more important to progress science than to have words over it. In the first instance, not being a specialist on the topic, I would place this high on the list of topics to follow. I don’t presume that the authors of the paper are stupid and I do presume that the confirmation of life forms from elsewhere would be one of the most interesting events that a scientist could envisage.
If the authors are shown to be wrong, in the normal course of events they will issue a correction.
Anthony:
Your words, your blog and their success are clear. They need no promotion.
I think it is a mistake to give promotion to your detractors, especially when – as Laden – their clear motivation is jealousy at your success. Ignoring them costs nothing and is what they fear most.
Richard
Anthony, you could possibly dig up the (obviously recent ) episode of Quirks and Quarks from CBC Radio with host Bob MacDonald ( Suzuki’s CBC replacement) doing an interview/
It’ll blow the Laden pants off
A link to a paper claiming evidence of extra-terrestrial life, with a disclaimer stating that it is interesting but needs extraordinary proof and Mr Laden goes rabid.
Even though the screen capture showed part of the disclaimer..
A sick puppy I would say.
When someone says that a person has said something particularly stupid on some other blog, I frequently check to see the item in the original. If the quote is taken out of context or is missing an important piece of information, then my faith in the original person drops considerably.
Every single person who goes from Laden’s blog to check your original posting will come away feeling cheated by Laden. Given the bold red caveat, there is nothing to see remotely credulous. It was exactly that sort of thing that first persuaded me to check out the sceptic line of thought more thoroughly.
It it why it is important that sceptics do not engage in such behaviour in reverse.
Lies are more common because people can now isolate themselves in insular groups connected form around the world that condone that behavior, either explicitly or through adopting an “alternate” set of facts about the world that they hold equally valid as what actually happened.
Thus, reinforced by the person’s “crowd,” the behavior has no effective social sanction.
See it every day. The wonderful social and electronic networks (among other things) we’ve created allow people to isolate themselves from the consequences of their ideas.
If you accept for a moment “the world” as one’s image of the world, regulars at Laden’s blog *literally* live in a different world than regulars here.
The conflict becomes insoluble.
Information technology has led people out of bondage, it looks like we find a way to lead ourselves back in.
It’s a truism that people, who go out of their way to dishonestly trash other people’s reputations, have big self-esteem issues. What a sad little fellow he is.
Pointman
Nah. Sorry, just checked and it was coincidence – the bit of meteorite report( not this one) I heard was first aired on Jan 12.so…nope.
Mod, feel free to delete my error posts. thanks.
Dont worry, Anthony. Your blog is the gold standard, thats why you are so popular. People are more intelligient than these brainy liberal intellectuals think.
So, all fine here – and a fishy story more indicating where we are. …
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I guess we are appraoching level three. We have come a long way from where a fact based view & opinion was a couple years ago – your success!
Keep up the good work, and smile about those episodes. Rgds from Germany
• I use to comment on his site just for fun. He ran one of his ignorant comments saying, in essences, that cougars never hurt anyone and should not be feared and I presented him with evidence that they in fact have killed many people but that naturally went against the narrative of the min. that Greg was pushing because he knew that cougars were good because they are atheist.
•
• John Swallow
December 4, 2011
I quit with this dishonest site some time ago and it will be interesting to see just how distorted what I have foolishly wasted my time putting forth now might be presented, if it is at all.
It doesn’t seem like it takes much to get some one with a distorted mind such as Ivy to “smile”. People with that mentality are generally fairly happy but it seems like the comment could be construed as having some racist overtones to it.
It seems like the drones on here didn’t catch the part about my not being a hunter and no where do I advocate the killing of cougars; but, I also know that they can be dangerous animals and the public needs to be made aware of that fact and not have some fools saying that that there is no problem with them and not all residence of the north woods are “Jungle Jims” and so full of knowledge as Greg is regarding all things both great and small.
• Greg Laden
December 4, 2011
John, one of the reasons you are so annoying, besides your global warming denialism, is that you ignore what I’ve said on this blog about dangers of wild animals and about being realistic about dealing with them.
Cornering and killing whatever cougars you run into, still, is not OK, despite what you say.
For Lula to have been fired, we would have had to fire him. The writer always risks that subtle things will be lost by small minded people.
John, I’ve enjoyed posting some of your comments, which are usually bannned here. But I think for now we are done for a while. Feel free to keep sending me the offensive idiotic emails, though, they are very entertaining!
For posterity, in case it doesn’t survive over at Laden’s blog, here’s the comment I made over there:
“I don’t think I could have found a better example of a dishonest blog entry than this. It illustrate why no one should be trusted who claims either that they are “pro science” (and their opponents “anti science”, natch) or that the sky is falling and anyone who says otherwise is somehow deficient.
It’s also amusing to note Laden’s bloviating that Watts fails to “check for veracity of the claim” whilst also claiming that his comment will not be published on WUWT (which in fact has), revealing a nice neat paranoid persecution complex to boot.
Blog entry bookmarked in my “comedy gold”, “postnormal” and “charlatans” folders.”