Greg Laden, liar.

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.

Greg_laden_Capture

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:

Greg_laden_denail

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:

WUWT_meteorite

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:

Laden_comment

A direct link to Laden’s published comment is here, read for yourselves.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/claim-meteorite-discovered-with-signs-of-life-in-it/#comment-1199560

As for the “never” part of Laden’s claim about his comments appearing, here they are:

laden_allcomments

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:

Bart says:

Jimmy Haigh says:

January 16, 2013 at 10:33 pm

“Laden clearly has issues…”

Issues? He’s got an entire subscription.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

181 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 17, 2013 4:52 am

Who reads his site? Hardly anyone. He got what he wanted by you linking to his site and basically running up his metrics.
You fed his ego by replying to him.

Editor
January 17, 2013 5:14 am

> Heh, he was so raging mad when he wrote that he couldn’t even spell denialist correctly, …
He probably did that intentionally to get past the famous WUWT/WordPress filter for the word “denialist”. 🙂
Is he worth adding to the list of “unreliable” blogs? John Cook might like the company.

Alan Millar
January 17, 2013 5:40 am

These pathetic blogs are not really worth the time of the day.
However, I did make a post on Tamino’s blog ‘Open Mind’ the other day (never has a blog title been so inapppropriate!).
He is running a thred about the Australian bush fires blaming CAGW. The posts on there are so ludicrous I decided to post even though I suspected it would be censored.
I just reminded him of the ‘Permanent Australian Drought’ scare of just a few years ago and posted the current position on Australian temperatures, rainfall, and drought as per the Australian government. None of which shows any issues at all.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=month&area=nat
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=12month&area=nat
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=anomaly&period=36month&area=nat
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=anomaly&period=36month&area=nat
Of course he just refused to post it even though it is just data.
So I sent him another post which I knew for sure he would censor.
Ho Ho Ho
Can’t stand someone just posting the facts ehh Tamino?
Kind of interferes with yours and the ‘Teams’ attempts to retain control of the agenda and story.
Unfortunately for you and the rest of your ‘crew’, you can only censor your own pathetically small (and getting smaller. Very little traffic and comments on RC now. Just the faithfull remain!) area.
Well you lost control of that sometime ago and now reality has caught up with you. You are now starting to see some scientists raising their heads up and suggesting possible other things than CO2 for the short term warming.
The unspoken or implied threats from the climate clique are starting to lose their power and potency a la Lance Armstrong and his clique.
It’s only going to get worse. There is no warming on the horizon and the models will fall out of their error bands and be falsified. New ones could be constructed but what the heck can they show that will put the C in CAGW and yet still match the data?
Nope, you had better start edging towards the life rafts. I see Hansen has been forced out of his bunker and agreed there is a pause in GW.
Who will be the first amongst the clique to declare against CAGW and throw the rest under the bus? It is the right play after all.
Well continue to talk to your acolytes and true believers, you can ignore reality for a while in your little bunker especially if you don’t let anyone but people of faith in.
Remind you of anything around about 1945? That worked out well” didn’t it?
Alan

Mindert Eiting
January 17, 2013 5:41 am

Just read that astronomers have discovered the biggest object of our universe, a collection of 73 quasars, four billion light years across. How come that as an outsider I think that this is not a bogus claim whereas I do with almost all claims of climate science? May have to do with quality, honesty, and not calling your opponent names.

January 17, 2013 5:44 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Sooner or later, it will be clear to everyone who bothers to consider it that the global warming alarmists are no different than previous alarmists and doom-sayers. Sooner or later it will be clear to all that folks like Laden are the same as the folks like Dr. Henry Morris. The dogmatism and self-promoting actions of the global warming alarmists are clearly the same as the actions of the young-earth crowd.

AnotherQlder
January 17, 2013 5:52 am

I thought this is a common practice in that field – I mean cherry-picking and make a hockey-stick out of a straight line! Clearly that is what Laden did with the web-site snip! Tells me already no to go an check his blog!
About the paper – there is now a reply to the comments posted too – same issue! They ignore the comments and just focus on their ideas.
All diatoms and biogenic debris they show are Holocene species and typical of modern freshwater lake sites in sub-tropical, tropical enviornments. I did some work on some lakes here in Qld and I have a colleague working in that field and I bet we could get some more sepcies names. If they had some diatom species that occurred back outside our Holocene time, I would probably say ok – but that that other place has gone through the same evolution as Earth??? Hmm, not sure!
Also, the image quality makes me even wonder if they really have used an FEG ESEM. I got the impression they used a regular SEM. E&O Dept of Cardiff University does not list a FE-SEM and just says: Analytical SEM and ESEM. It does not exclude that they have a FEG but it is not mentioned specifically either, but in my opionion they even faked on the instrument!
there are lots of other questions I would have about the theory – including some of the fine-grained debris would change morphology upon exposure to too much heat – but maybe the piece came in under frozen conditions.

Peter in MD
January 17, 2013 6:14 am

Interestingly, his site shows no Stats for visits, no Awards, which makes it a non-factor.
I second Ric Werme: “Is he worth adding to the list of “unreliable” blogs? John Cook might like the company.”
Yes, yes yes!!!!

JC
January 17, 2013 6:20 am

What’s with the “anti-science” bit? Is that the new thing? We’ve seen it several times recently.

January 17, 2013 6:24 am

Not surprising that he mispelled the name of Your blog. In his comments policy, he misspells the name of his own blog.

January 17, 2013 6:45 am

“Heh, he was so raging mad when he wrote that he couldn’t even spell denialist correctly”
He also thinks “bionthropologist” is a word.

BruceC
January 17, 2013 6:51 am

Rebuttal from Laden:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/17/greg-laden-liar/
REPLY: and he still can’t bring himself to print the first paragraph in entirety nor link to the original story to allow readers to judge for themselves. Whatta guy! – Anthony

January 17, 2013 6:58 am

I disagree with all those who say Laden should be ignored. His post was a transparent attempt to portray climate-skeptics as cranks. It is in the same vein as Lewandowsky’s ‘deniers believe the moon landings were faked’ mendacity. Laden was probably just following others lead. But it is nonetheless part of a larger campaign, and should be countered.

BruceC
January 17, 2013 6:59 am

Still can’t get the name of your site correct either.

Mickey Reno
January 17, 2013 7:03 am

Greg Laden, if you read these comments (why do I feel relatively certain you will?), I’d just like to say that I think you’re an intellectually dishonest person. I would never trust anything you say. I know you don’t care about what I think of you, and it appears you have the same general disdain for people who disagree with you on this topic (and undoubtedly, many other topics as well). But you should care. Because mistakes based on hubris and ignorance and incomplete information are legion. They eventually become exposed. In the long run, reality and truth shine through exaggerations, lies and bulls**t.

January 17, 2013 7:04 am

BruceC:
re your post at January 17, 2013 at 6:51 am
I hope nobody uses the link in your post. If they do then that will increase the traffic on Laden’s blog and he will have achieved his objective.
Richard

Vince Causey
January 17, 2013 7:06 am

Anthony, at least you’re in good company. Bill Clinton came out and said the dangest thing in 1998 – a meteor with fossilised cells had been found. What would Greg Laden have said about that if he wasn’t still in daipers? President Clinton is a moron?

DirkH
January 17, 2013 7:11 am

JC says:
January 17, 2013 at 6:20 am
“What’s with the “anti-science” bit? Is that the new thing? We’ve seen it several times recently.”
It’s not new. The AGU’s Mooney has promoted that meme in several books and made his career with it.

Steve from Rockwood
January 17, 2013 7:13 am

I like the general science stories like the “meteor” story although technically it would be a “meteorite” if it was found on earth. I also enjoy Laden’s rants, Hansen’s back-paddling and Al Gore’s new multi-million dollar digs. It keeps me warm and cynical.

January 17, 2013 7:13 am

It was better in the olden days – you could just challenge your opponent to a duel, and that was that. Nowadays, these things just drag on and on.

D. Patterson
January 17, 2013 7:14 am

Athelstan. says:
January 17, 2013 at 12:01 am
Mr. Watts, why are you so exercised by a post made by an obvious cretin?

Edmund Burker wrote: “When good men do nothing, evil triumphs. Evil, sin and sinful men must be opposed. God commands those who are good, not just to avoid evil but actively oppose it.”
You do not have to be religious to recognize and acknowleddge the wisdom of and need for opposing wrongful acts habitually committed by persons with deliberate and/or negligent regard for reality.

January 17, 2013 7:19 am

Anthony perhaps you need to take this further..
the Greg Laden blog post was tweeted to 1000’s of his followers, a large number of Think Progress readers retweeted their version, how many thousands of twitter followers each?
so potential for that ‘Lie’ to go viral on twitter..
I just tweeted to all think Progress tweeters, your version of events, and asked them if they want to be honest they retweet to the many thousands of their followers, the correction to that lie..
hope you don’t mind me doing that, took only 5 minutes.

BruceC
January 17, 2013 7:21 am

@richardscourtney
January 17, 2013 at 7:04 am
Sorry Richard, wasn’t thinking. I’m an Aussie and my brain is being fried by this ‘heat-wave’ thing we are having. /sarc

Donald Mitchell
January 17, 2013 7:24 am

Mr. Watts:
You make the statement: “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.”.
I, unlike the large percentage of individuals, appear to be genetically blessed by a lack of propensity to “see red”. I will almost always not notice a difference between red and black text if the red is completely lacking in the other two colors that my screen displays. Conversely, if a background is fully red, I may not notice black text on that background. I did notice your caveat, but I definitely did not see it “in red even”. I have always found it amusing when someone talks of buying a “bright red car”. A red photographic safelight does provide enough illumination at the shorter wavelengths that I can conveniently read the printing on the end of the bulb in an otherwise dark room.
I find it amusing to be termed “blinded by hate” when so many are calling for a “colorblind society” to eliminate hate.
Donald Mitchell

Jeff Alberts
January 17, 2013 7:25 am

Re: rabid misspellings. To me, this is a nitpick. Yes, I do it too, but I do it to hopefully help Anthony write a little better. I do NOT do it in order to belittle. I love this blog, I read it daily as I have the time. But to pounce on a clear misspelling, yet constantly use “here’s” and “there’s” when “here are” and “there are” should be used, is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I get called a pedant for it.
Everyone will make typos here and there. Using such a thing as a weapon against them is not an admirable thing, IMHO.

January 17, 2013 7:26 am

There were so far 42 tweets via think progress…
given that one of those has over 37,000 followers who would have all seen the Romm version, perhaps you need to take this a bit further.. ie reputational damages. (ie award winning science blog)
A formal complaint to Science blogs, and those behind Think Progress, especially Think Progress, as it would have taken them less than a minute to check and discover that the Greg Laden story was utter $%£$%$£
They have a responsibility given who Think Progress are…
I’ve been misrepresented on twitter, and I fought it HARD, as it disparaged me to all those people following the tweets (plus retweets to other followers, etc)
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
the same twiiter, phished Heartland less than 24 hours later.