UPDATES have been added below.
I spent yesterday conferring with lawyers about the smear that Greg Laden made against me (see here) that was compounded by it being reprinted and Tweeted at Climate progress by Joe Romm. I think Romm now realizes that he made a mistake by not checking out Laden’s claims before he printed it. He’s now added an update walking back from his position a bit, adding a link to WUWT and a note for his readers to see how Laden purposely twisted the story. He also needs to make a note about this walkback on Twitter, since his story went out to thousands that way. CP is equally culpable in this by not checking Laden’s claims before publishing.
After review yesterday, it seems that Laden’s actions in his original and follow up story meet the legal tests for “False Light“.
Generally speaking, a false light claim requires the following:
- The defendant published the information widely (i.e., not to just a single person, as in defamation);
- the publication identifies the plaintiff;
- it places the plaintiff in a “false light” that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
- the defendant was at fault in publishing the information.
While False Light is not recognized in Minnesota (where Laden resides) it IS recognized in Washington DC, where National Geographic is headquartered, and according to our research, Nat Geo has assumed editorial control of ScienceBlogs.com where Mr. Laden placed his essay.
The District of Columbia recognizes the tort of “false light.” Plaintiffs can sue for false light when a false and offensive statement is made about them to the public and causes them distress. The specific things a plaintiff must prove are listed below under “Elements of a False Light Claim.”
Note how NatGeo’s yellow box logo is placed prominently in two places on the SB header:
So, with all of Laden’s written false claims saved, with clear and indisputable examples of Laden’s purposeful malice, plus other examples of malice in context, and an establishment of the location editorial control of the blog he published the false claims on, it seems there is enough to move forward.
The question is, should I make an example of him for all us who have suffered non factual smears such as he practices? Just like I did with the original story that Mr. Laden smeared me about, I’m going to put the question up for discussion by the readers.
UPDATE: I’ve been asked privately why I have chosen to elevate this case, where I did not in a far worse case of smear by Climate Progress regular, Mike Roddy, who along with his co-author, when I requested a factual correction to a smear piece, he put in not one, but two suggestions (plus a comment at CP) that I have sex with farm animals.
It stems from this piece Roddy wrote about me, see the “corrections” at the end, which he apparently agrees with:
http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl
Scroll all the way to the bottom to see the update.
I discussed this case with counsel yesterday, and we came to the conclusion that while most ‘reasonable people’ would likely not conclude that I’m a practitioner of bestiality due to the context of the story, in the case of Laden’s story, most reasonable people would conclude that Laden’s story as written was accurate, since he went to great lengths to conceal anything in his story that showed the caveats I placed. That’s the actionable distinction with a difference. – Anthony
UPDATE1: Wow, just wow.
http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-idebunkforme-gregladen-and-kiera
UPDATE2: Hilarious logic fail, from a comment at Laden’s blog:
‘Kudos to Greg for demonstrating the openness of this blog by allowing the WUWT attack dogs to post their vitriolic bilge. No censorship here, wish the same could be said of Mr Watts and his cronies.
The denialists are committing crimes against humanity, surely it’s time for legislation to close these sites down’.
UPDATE 3: 8AM PST 1/21/13 – Thanks to everyone for all of the helpful input, and for responding to the poll. Using these, I’ve made my decision. Comments are now closed as well as the poll. – Anthony
Push for an apology and keep your eyes on the prize.
Suing this minnow is of little value in the endgame – and I really think things have turned a corner lately in terms of widespread recognition that something is very wrong with climate science.
A time may come when you really have no option but to sue to defend your reputation, but I don’t think this is it. This guy doesn’t even qualify as a pawn while some of the main pieces are looking very vulnerable right now. You don’t want to trade a potential checkmate for a stalemate.
Also, if you do go this path expect the warmists to claim the sources of the funds and motivation for the suit are big oil hounding a hounding little blogger – regardless of how untrue that is.
Normally I would say settle for an apology, but this is an environment where the gloves are off on the other side. So I say sue. I don’t have a lot but I’ll contribute to your legal fund as well.
Laden is a fool. Romm’s “correction” was pathetic — he showed no spine.
But suing someone is going to cost you way more emotional energy and time than it is worth.
Call him out. Move on.
Dennis Wingo has said it all for me. I think/hope you have more useful things to do with your time and energy. There are too many lawsuits in the world, especially in the USA, where many are rich enough to be able to afford them.
Rich.
“I’d like to point out that I’d never heard of Greg Laden until youmentioned him.”
I’d like to point out this is the most useless comment I’ve seen today. So, what are you saying? The absurd slur should go unaddressed? Anthony should just let people think he’s half a loon? If that’s not your point, then why bring it up? To look clever?
Anthony, Once you publicly threaten to sue someone – if you fail to do so without getting a public apology from the main parties that have libeled you, then those parties will forever claim that you were always in the wrong and will use your non-action as an excuse to hound and libel you further. If you have good legal council available to you then definitely sue. Not only that sue for a result that makes them promote your innocence and that highlights their guilt. Good luck – Joe.
Can we make this into a class action? 🙂
Go for it Anthony, he obviously didn’t learn from being forced to make a retraction in the past.
If you will, I will too.
I voted to sue but on reflection think you may end up regretting it. Do everything necessary to get Nat Geo to lose Laden in as high profile a manner as possible. Take away as many platforms (and potential ones) for Laden as possible.
I voted to sue…with a caveat…
I’d suggest following a documented course of giving him and those that post his lies the opportunity to correct the wrong. Failing that, then you let them know in no uncertain terms that a legal course of action is no other option for you.
Having spent years involved in a very costly legal battle, I understand the ramifications. In my case, it was a matter of principle, and yes, the lawyers all got richer. But the point was that it cost the other side dearly…. and if it was money I wasn’t going to get, I was going to make sure they didn’t get it. Yes, the lawyers got it… but they did not.
In the end, I feel I did the right thing. And yes, in the end, I don’t think they learned a thing. Still, I’d do it again.
I guess I would say, “what would I do?” I think I would try to take the high road. When a mule kicks you, it hardly does any good to kick back. You’ll likely do further damage to your own body. While it would be possible to eliminate the mule, the fact is, mules kick. As long as there are any, nothing can about the kicking.
The price of litigation is high, even for the winners. There are lots of life factors to consider. The alarmist will lose. Very few will ever apologize, and the incident will fade down the memory hole of history. Our children’s grandchildren may giggle when someone mentions Y2K, but they won’t even know what global warming means, except maybe in conjunctions with waste dumps of solar panels and windmills still pending final disposition.
In some respects, I’m getting tired of the abuse skeptics endure from the likes of his ilk. Far too many of these guys slip away unpunished, and Mann sues everyone at the drop of the hat.
On the other hand, lawsuits suck the life and money out of you. I watched a good friend fight his evil estranged wife in court for years and it really occupied all his time. It’s an emotional roller coaster as well since even though he was without-a-doubt innocent, we are talking about the subtle, shifty game of “the law”. One never knows the outcome. Whichever lawyer plays the best game wins (with some luck involved too).
I think I would threaten lawsuit and make a public spectacle out of him. Maintain the moral highground and get a public apology from his idiot and Nat Geo.
Some people need fixing. Laden is one of them, in my opinion.
But whether it is your job to fix him, is another issue which only you can answer. I’d seriously consider that one.
If you decide it might be, think on this: Suing him *successfully* could well fix him, but I’d want to sure of success before attempting it. IANAL but “false light” doesn’t seem like the strongest possible case. So are you sure this is the best opportunity to fix him?
I voted for the middle road (force him to print an apology) mainly because I think it will take too much of your time and effort to go ahead and sue.. Like a previous commenter I would have liked an option for `force him to print an apology but if it is not good enough, then sue’. But if you do go ahead and sue, I’ll willingly chip in something for your costs.
My gut feeling on this is this, Anthony. There is no sane person reading a blog like that to start with, thus he actually does you no siginificant harm. Bringing court action will bring the blog and its author more useful publicity than it will do him harm as, let’s face it, the main stream media is in their pocket, not ours, and they will play it as if you are harming him, regardless of what the court decides. Thus, no matter what, he wins, you lose, because the media will not let “climate scientists” beat AGW religionists. Your ignoring him will probably p–s him off more than your legal action. In other words, drive on, son, drive on.
The problem with suing is Anthony would have to prove these jerks distress him more than amuse him. I don’t know if he could pull that off.
If , and only if, you are 100% sure you will win, please sue the drongo. Not just for your sake, but for the rest of us. Where do I send my $10.00?
While bringing a gun to this particular gunfight via a lawsuit would be fun. Why not introduce tactical nukes by turning him into a laughing stock via ridicule. Go Alinsky on him and unleash humor and ridicule. Would be a lot cheaper, quicker and more effective. And he has no response to ridicule. Breitbart him. Cheers-
Let a sleeping dog lie (inference intended).
I believe this is an act of desperation and they hoped you’d sue; after a while and with repeated offenses by such ilk, you won’t have time to be effective with WUWT. It’s what drove Palin from the Governorship of Alaska–the opposition levied so many law suits against her she didn’t have time to run a state.
But certainly keep the exposure at top level–they believe lies and distortions are somehow effective in winning the science debate and sway popular opinion, but this isn’t a presidential election.
On third thought, the greater your efforts to pursue ‘justice’, the more you raise Laden’s profile/legend among his co-sewer-dwellers.
Remember Gleick.
I vote against a lawsuit as I think a lawsuit on name calling seems juvenile and would cheapen the brand you have worked so hard to build.
As a wise man once said: “The hawk doesn’t hunt flies.”
It shows how desperate these people are. Sue him to shut him up. If it were you writing about them, they would sue. Go get him!
The name of Anthony Watts is well-known and the work which you have done on weather/temperature sites is generally accepted by all except the wilful blind to be both original and accurate. I have heard it said that you claim not to be a scientist but a meteorolgy is a science and, so far as I am concerned, has a better claim to be a science, since its results can be proved or disproved, than does “climate science”.
The name Gregg Laden meant nothing to me until I read it in your post. He does not appear to have any qualification or experience which might justify his claim to be a scientist. Why dignify him with any response other than to ask for an apology which he will not give? He is only in it for the publicity. He would love to be sued. It would prove that someone took him seriously.
Romm is better known and has a wide platform so should be invited to retract and apologise or, should he fail to do so, be sued if that is what your lawyers so advise.
What needs to change is National Geographic’s reflexive alignment with extreme and dishonest opinions like Laden’s. Since there’s no downside for them unless they get hit in the pocketbook, I’d sue if the lawyers say you’ve got a strong case. The ensuing bad publicity can only tarnish NatGeo’s reputation.
My 2 cents:
Don’t sue, this piece of mud under your shoe is not worth the grey hairs.
Demand a retraction and apology. You can always sue later.
I thought the law suit of Mann shows what a little man he is. You are bigger than this, this sh*t slides right of your big shoulders and onto Laden’s head…
Don’t turn him into a martyr…
Remember the Streisand effect – go for public apology. Unless, of course, you can sue National Geographic. For the most part, though, lawsuits only enrich lawyers. However, if you do sue, count me in for a $25.00 donation.