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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.





@Jimbo. There was a comment by “Dean” to your original post ( as you say, the thread conveniently does not host your subsequent posts )
I chose to reply to that claim but I have little hope of it making it past moderation but in the hopes that new visitors being brought here from Laden’s page can see how he manipulates what little conversation is to be had there i’ll post it here.
Craig Frier
January 17, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
have you never heard of the phrase “When you have hit rock bottom it’s time to stop digging”?
As for Dean.
I get tired of seeing this particular accusation re: cherry picking. When your intention is to deduce exactly for how long there has been a reduced trend or cessation of warming then you may not arbitrarily choose a point in history that suits your purpose. It does not work like that. It’s a claim for which there can be no cherry picking because of the nature of the very thing you seek.
You don’t start 16 years ago because it suits, you start at the nearest point to today for which you have data and then you work backwards up until the data shows that the trend in temperatures become positive again.
The end point for determining the point at which the trend in warming ceased to be positive by any statistically significant measure is 16 years ago. That’s not cherry picking, that’s merely what HadCrut 3 data shows. You can’t falsify it ( even though the figures are continually massaged to lower historical temps and raise recent temps ).
I don’t know if you are honest or intelligent enough to understand that simple bit of scientific method.
If Mr. Laden’s blog is representative,
then calling that site “Science Blogs” is clearly false advertising.
@Barry Woods. appropriate steps are being taken in preparation for escalation.
Mr Laden is either equipped to recognize what a blog is saying or he isn’t.
This leaves open the question of his good faith in this matter.
No surprise here Mr. Laden has no scruples and sees everything through the prism of a melon lens. In my life I’ve never met a honest leftist, their creed is whats yours is mine and I know whats best for you and if I have to lie, cheat and steal to get my way, I will!
AndyG55 says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:00 pm
How anyone, except the most moronically stupid of people could see the original thread as anything but a, ” this is interesting, I wonder if its true” is beyond me.
Totally agree.
Interesting that Greg Laden pretends to have a science blog. Science as culture, culture as science? Is this his culture of science? To present only the bits of facts that endorse his point of view and hide the rest?
If he is not able to understand and judge objectively a simple post and straight subject, how can one expect his posts to have any bit of objectivity on climate?
His answer is just digging him deeper in his hole.
It is this obfuscation and unfair presentation that skeptics have to face again and again from these GW-fanatics. Get a life Greg.
In the end it will backfire on them like always. As long as they mention your name and site people will search it up and some will take a read and come to different conclusions than he does.
How is your site hit counts doing Mr Laden? I’m pretty sure you just gave a few thousand more hits and a few dozen more regulars to wattsupwiththat.com so thank you 🙂
I understand the temptation, Anthony, but the man is palpably a half-wit. Not worth the candle.
Tha is one of the Alinsky rules being applied where a false accusation is made to smear an opponent’s reputation with a total disregard for the truth. It makes no difference whether the opponent is a fundamentalist Christian with a belief in Creationism, a Papal astronomer supportive of evolutionary theory, or a confirmed atheist and professor of evolutionary biology, the false accusation will be made as desired by0 socialist accusers seeking to silence the voices of opponents.
I thought your coverage of the original claim was just right. One can be too dismissive. “Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven” Thomas Jefferson, 1809.
Keep pressing on, Anthony! It’s OK to call these types out and use their own words (however misspelled) against them. This is a journey on many fronts: discovery; scientific truth and unfortunately, fabricated lies. The wise can tell which is which and will gravitate to the source of enlightenment. That’s why we come here to WUWT. That Greg (“call me ‘Bin!'”) Laden is a liar is… scientific truth. Keep on!
I notice that your polite reply to PZM is in the comment section at Pharyngula. At least PZM has a policy of allowing comments without moderation (except for a few carefully labelled threads intended for more gentile discussion).
When I just checked yours was the last but one comment (22 of 23).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/16/diatomsiiiiin-spaaaaaaaaaaace/#comments
“To see ourselves as others see us is a most salutary gift. Hardly less important is the capacity to see others as they see themselves.”
― Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception
“This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life”
I cringed when I saw that as the first line. Many people don’t read much past the twitter limit, and you opened sounding as though you were not nearly as skeptical as this story and authors deserved. It is great to trot these things out to the readership, with all the varied expertise, but you need to be very clear from the first line that is what you are doing.
@ur momisugly Phil says on January 16, 2013 at 11:00 pm
More than one Phil is posting comments at WUWT. I believe in freedom of expression, but it should be pointed out that more than one commenter is using the same handle.
Another moronic ARTS student, runs a blog between serving coffees and cleaning the latrine.
Him and Lew..sky should get together.
This Laden chap moderates my comments out. For example I recently tried to post on his site my full agreement with the UKMO and IPCCs AR5 second draft on flat lined global temperatures. Nothing contentious there at all, this is the consensus. But no, such moderate mainstream observations of honest scientific work published by AGW friendly tax payer funded organisations are not welcome on his site.
On the other hand WUWT allows me to post anything critical of sceptics who in my jaundiced view are largely closet warmists.
Stay Cool.
– – – – – – – –
JC,
This is the second time in less than a week WUWT has a post where a critic of WUWT accused skeptics at WUWT of being ‘Anti-Science’. The other WUWT post was:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/13/note-to-scientific-americans-bora-zivkovic-if-you-wnat-to-practice-censorship-at-least-learn-to-spell-the-name-of-this-blog-correctly/
On that previous post I made a comment pinning down what ‘Anti-Science’ is and showing it is irrelevant to WUWT.
Here is that comment of mine:
The term ‘Anti-Science’ if looked at critically is impotent as a weapon against scientific critics and WUWT.
John
It appears that there’s another common thread appearing – the use of WUWT to start another warming blog post.
So far, in the past week, we’ve seen two posts from Tamino, two from Greg Laden (he’s replied to this post now), and one from Joe Romm.
Nice to see they’re reading here, and adding to the 136,800,022 views.
This guy really has problems with spelling. First he wrote “What’s up with that”, in his second attempt now it’s “Whats up with that”. Amazing since he manages writing Anthony Watts correct multiple times.
Jimmy Haigh says:
January 16, 2013 at 10:33 pm
“Laden clearly has issues…”
Issues? He’s got an entire subscription.
Phil says:
More than one Phil is posting comments at WUWT. I believe in freedom of expression, but it should be pointed out that more than one commenter is using the same handle.
That’s why I changed mine from “Tony” to “TonyG”. I had been posting for a few months when the other Tony showed up, but it didn’t make any sense to make it an issue.
Par for the course really. You see it in facets of life. Those with a weak defence in any argument will always resorts to personal attack. I’m completely over these zealots to be honest.
tallbloke says: “Oh dear, Laden’s mouth-bone seems to be connected to his foot-bone rather than his brain-bone again.”
Hate to quibble, tb, but I think what his mouth-bone is connected to is somewhat higher than his foot-bone – and more to the rear. ;-p
Excellent job Anthony…keep up the good work! It is so good that there are people like you and Marc Morano over at climatedepot fighting the fight. Thanks a million.