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
All cases like this are very hard to prove, but you force him to respond and spend money so if you can afford $30K for initial legal fees, do it!
Athony,I agree with Joe Crawford: “Anthony,
Just have your lawyer write a rather threatening letter to National Geo for: 1) permitting Landen, who is at least indirectly representing them, to post such trash, 2) not policing their “Science Blogs” to insure that proper science is represented, and 3) suggesting any further similar posts by Landen will lead to a lawsuit against both of them. Be sure to copy Landen.”
Don´t go wrestling with the pigs in the mud that´s called litigation. GL is too small for that, that´ll only give him his fifteen minutes. Better spend that time on your excellent work that you´re doing here at WUWT.
Before you take any legal action, consult a good lawyer and follow his/her advice. Having said that, I recommend NOT suing. However, as others have pointed out, you might want to put NG on official notice that printing material by Greg Laden without checking Mr. Laden’s facts carries a risk to NG. If you decide to seek a legal opinion, I’d be happy to contribute.
If you really want to nail them, dispense with the legal wrangling and just nail them on their science. National Geo is the real target here, not their puffed up troll with his pants on fire. They currently have an article running on their web site on global warming. Let’s deconstruct it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/pictures/130115-climate-change-superstorm-atmosphere-science/
The planet keeps getting hotter, new data showed this week.
Really? All four major global temperature indices show no warming for the last 16 years or more. Is National Geo telling their readers the truth?
Especially in America, where 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded, by far.
Really? Was National Geo aware that the monthly data is reported incomplete or did they just decide to exclude some of the facts? Have they not read the draft report of Watts et al? Have they not considered the new reference network that provides very different results? Is their reported incapable of researching the facts or deliberately presenting them selectively? Not to mention that the US represents 2% of the earth and the temperature records for the earth show no warming for 16+ years so, as a science magazine such as National Geo ought to know, and probably does know, any records set in the United States in this time frame (even if they were true) are the consequence of natural variability.
Won’t more atmospheric carbon mean longer growing seasons? Not quite. Over the next several decades, the yield of virtually every crop in California’s fertile Central Valley, from corn to wheat to rice and cotton, will drop by up to 30 percent, researchers expect. (Read about “The Carbon Bathtub” in National Geographic magazine.)
Well that statement isn’t exactly true, is it? The question is will growing seasons be longer if it warms and the answer is…yes. But they don’t answer the question they asked, they answer an entirely different question which is in regard to crop yields if warming occurs. Their estimate of 30% reduction isn’t just wrong, it is wrong for multiple reasons. They are wrong because the earth had been warming for the last 400 years and agricultural production has increased, it is at its highest levels ever. Second, California’s growing season won’t change a whole lot because the bulk of the warming would come in the coldest parts of the planet, and last I checked, California isn’t in that coldest part of the planet. So either National Geo doesn’t understand physics or they don’t understand geography which would be pretty funny given the name of their rag. On top of that, they fail to consider that farmers aren’t dumb morons who plant the exact same crops no matter the conditions, that farmers are smart enough to change crop strains and types based on changing conditions. But hey, if National Geo wants to portray farmers as being stupid, they are free to do so let’s just ensure that farmers know the score because a lot of them are subscribers and might not be too happy about the characterization. Of course National Geo also left out of their answer that a lot of land that is currently unproductive would become productive if warming actually should appear. So, they haven’t answered the question they asked, and the answer they gave is wrong on multiple counts.
They are pretending this is science? Are they incompetent or deliberately misleading? If they don’t want to reign in their troll, I think it easier to just crowd source articles on their publications and deconstruct them on WUWT similar to what I just did.
Of course if they decide as a consequence to reign in their troll… I’d suggest keep going anyway. I couldn’t care less about the troll with his pants on fire, but National Geo deserves to be exposed for their poor performance on the science itself. Once they lose enough readership perhaps they’ll return to their roots and start publishing nudity again and pretending that it isn’t a strategy to boost circulation.
MACHINATION, n. The method employed by one’s opponents in baffling one’s open and honorable efforts to do the right thing.
“The only correct actions are those that demand no explanation and no apology”.
-Red Auerbach
“That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
“It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.” ~Buddha
Anthony, I would urge you again to follow up with Nat Geo in an effort to get this blog eliminated permanently.
You may already know that Laden was removed permanently from the Science blog spinoff Free thought Blog (FtB) on 7/1/12 for using violent threatening language against another blogger. You can easily get the language and screen capture it; unbelievably vile evidence of an unstable, mendacious mind. His grossly misrepresented attack on your clearly skeptical posting about a suspect published paper is more of the same, with less potty mouth but not potty mind.
Plus, today he is again posting about you as a ‘science denialist boob’ in a transparent effort to justify his actions and bait you into litigation. First rule of holes if you are in one and want to get out, stop digging. Time to take Laden’s shovel away. You now have the means to do so.
This an Ad Hom, isn’t it? By suing him, your implicit message is that you take this type of argument seriously. Do not even ask for apologies. Let him go on.
mkelly says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:50 am
Why not ask National Geo to remove Mr. Laden from having anything further to do with the blog and explain the reason. You could mention the “false light” issue in your explanation.
His removal would be enough for all I would think.
*
I like Mkelly’s idea. That would be a win. We all want to see these jokers in court, but it is a lot of time and expense with no certain outcome.
Anthony, you have to follow your heart on whether or not to sue. If you’re not sure what you want to do, there’s a neat little trick my grandmother taught me to find out (bear with me, it is not what it first seems). You toss a coin. The point here is that you DON’T necessarily go with what you get, you go with what you FEEL at what you get. That means if you get heads and you’re disappointed, go with tails. If you’re relieved, stick with heads. Simple but it works. You will have support whichever way you decide to go.
If you feel it’s worth it and it will put some money in your pocket or shed some public light on the overall dishonesty in the field, then go for it. If you just want to smack him down (and don’t we all), putting in a call for Nat Geo to kick him out might be all you need. I’m sure you could raise quite a few voices/emails to Nat Geo to the same end – a couple of thousand emails all asking or demanding this guy gone has to have some influence, I should think.
No!
You want more?
Then, absolutely not.
I remember, a long time ago, being at a dinner party where one of the guests, a lawyer, said, “Whenever I hear a client say ‘it’s a matter of principle’ I know I can afford my next holiday”.
Litigation is for lawyers. For the litigants it is time, trouble, cost and stress. It is not something to be taken lightly. Even if you are fortunate enough to win ( and the law is a lottery) recognise that it will be a pyrrhic victory.
Only if the insult is something you really cannot live with should you even consider this course. This is not the case here – you have had a lot worse.
copner says:
January 18, 2013 at 10:29 am
Yeah, GL needs fixing, I agree – but IMHO, since he is all Fecked up, it would probably be a good idea for a few of us to dismantle him piece by piece – and then, said in the style/words of the Six Billion Dollar Man – ‘We can rebuild him’ . Hey, at least then we can move his brain from ar$e to it’s more normal place and remove both his feet fromhis extremely vile mouth! You’d think he might be grateful LOL
Dear Anthony:
IF you can win…
if the lawyer(s) are paid contingent on winning…
then yes – a head on a post, pour encourage les autres, will be the single most chilling event anybody could bring about to stop the global warming crisis.
real damage is being done.
when grants, funding and pleas for commodious rat holes are the only consequences, this expensive nonsense will continue and will expand the population of parasites whose only function is to eat out our substance.
David Oliver Smith says: January 18, 2013 at 9:54 am “As a retired lawyer, I recommend suing. I recently read that Robert Bork was advised to ignore the false accusations Ted Kennedy made against him during the hearings for his Supreme Court appointment confirmation because no one would believe them. He was not confirmed. Don’t be Borked or Swift Boated. Respond aggressively.”
This is not that kind of fight. If Anthony didn’t have a thick skin, he wouldn’t be using this blog as his primary means of public communication in promoting his own contrarian viewpoints concerning the validity of current AGW science,
If the US public is ever impacted in a truly serious way by government imposed anti-carbon measures, the public’s perception of who is right and who is wrong about AGW science will depend mostly upon the credibility of the AGW science itself, not upon the public clashes of individuals in favoring one viewpoint over another, as these clashes and debates are now being pursued in the Internet blogosphere.
Every minute Anthony spends on a lawsuit will be a minute not spent educating the public as to what his views are concerning the credibility of the science.
The guy is not worth the time of the day.
Put no effort into this, it is a distraction.
If you can hand it all off to others to do all the work and pay the atty’s and court cost do what you can, but do not slow the important work of fact finding.
If you deal with this one 10 more will take his place. Soros has the $ , Gore has the $ and lots of gofers to run you ragged.
I think he is just jealous because you didn’t send him a calendar, that is because he thinks it is a ‘Callendar’
Considering Ladens childish behaviour after you published his story, i’m sure any call for an apology is futile.
But National Geographic should be contacted and informed about what kind of people abuse their reputation. Laden doesn’t care if a “denailist” sues him, his leftwing buddies would fraternize with him even if he loses. But Nat Geo can’t allow itself losing a lawsuit because of false-light. If they abandon him or force him to apologize, that will be much more humiliating for him than any lawsuit that you could win – not to mention the $$$ and time this would save.
I believe I support Kip Hansen’s 8:22 suggestion most, but skip the “pro-bono” part… this is worth a few bucks because repaying your lawyers is one of the things National Geographic will end up doing in their required action.
To whit: Lawyer letter to Nat.G demanding:
– Full comprehensive apology/ explanation inked prominently on their major page(s) for at least a month.
– That apology must be easily found on their site for ten years,
– It MUST incorporate many search terms and other features to ensure high likelihood that common joes hunting through Google, Yahoo, etc., would put it within the first 20 search results. (ask your readership and other search experts for suggestions)
– That apology must be linked in perpetuity and reasonably prominently on Laden’s blog as condition of his continuing to blog there.
– Punitive damages of $1.00 each.
– Nat.G agrees to pay your reasonable attorney costs of drafting the letter and all other action that comes about.
I would not bother asking that Laden write an apology on his blog… just ask for the $1.00 damages and he admit wrongdoing.
That seems to about cover my thoughts.
Definitely would be wrong move to ignore their culpability in the legal realm, though.
National Geographic has a link with this guy (or the other way around)? Then I would sue.
One thing that should be remembered is that this whole thing is over a blog post. Blogs allow the blogger to express his or her real thoughts on any particular topic. Hyperbole and smears are going to unavoidably be part of this. When this happens on any significant blog, it will be immediately called out, as it has been in this case, and this Laden guy isn’t even that significant.
I think suing would be like using mountaintop removal to clear an anthill!
What you should do, and what I’d like to see happen are probably two different things.
Laden looks to be nothing special. Just another primadonna with a blog and a boner for attention trying trying to look tough and hard-core by being as insulting and condescending as possible. An obnoxious and loathsome person.
What burns (and disappoints) me is that National Geographic is giving him blog space. I’d love to see them drop the ban hammer on the horse-toothed sphincter and publish their own apology for letting him go on for as long as they did. And I’d like to see that followed by a very public and financially crippling judgement against him in court.
If you have the resources and patience for suing this latest example of sleaziness in the AGW camp, go for it. My bet is you get a full apology and retraction quickly- followed by him doing a Gleick, iow pretending nothign ever happened and that you were the at fault party. If the shoe was on the other foot, even if the shoe were not fitting as in the case with Mann, suits would be filed.
A.D. Everard says:
January 18, 2013 at 11:03 am
mkelly says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:50 am
Why not ask National Geo to remove Mr. Laden from having anything further to do with the blog and explain the reason. You could mention the “false light” issue in your explanation.
I’m with it, I think this would help clean Nat Geo and be a good precedent, the best for putting things right, but as a commenter above said, do what your heart tells you to do.
On consideration.
I would write a polite, civil letter to National Geo pointing out the reputational damage not only to you, put equally importantly, to them!!
And some corrective apologetic action.. If Greg can’t see what he has done wrong. he is a liability to National Geo.
I would want a full apology, on National Geo, and write to reply on National Geo ( I don’t think Greg is capable of that)
and ask Climate Progress to tweet to their 38,ooo followers – Anthony Watts responds to Greg Laden – with a url.
Need to do something, can’t ignore this (otherwise it would encourage more)
Anthony,
I originally voted for ‘sue’ but have changed my mind. Go for the printed apology as that will be less painful and will be there forevermore to wave in his, and his supporters, face. Also, I would hate you to have to devote so much time to suing Laden that this site went quiet. I had a look at Laden’s website, what a crock it is. You have nothing to fear from the garbage he writes or the tiny following of gullible half-wits that hang on his every word. Laden’s site falls into the category of vanity publishing for the untalented.
My best wishes and please keep up the valuable work that you do.
SJ
With great wisdom, Rud Istvan wrote …
“Anthony, I would urge you again to follow up with Nat Geo in an effort to get this blog eliminated permanently.”
Recently mkelly and A.D. Everard, among others along this thread, have expressed similar sentiments.
It accomplishes two things. First is to remove Mr. Laden’s source of attempted credibility and second, it may open some eyes at NG, perhaps even have them acknowledge both your value and your right to pursue your WUWT mission without unreasonable personal attacks.
Furthermore, it will take much less of your time than pursuing a law suit; your time is much more valuable doing what you already do so well.
I voted to let it pass.
For one thing, Laden doesn’t deserve the publicity.
This is surely an annoyance, but in a short time it will al be over. Why put effort into this for not much gain.
Who knows what will surface over the next couple of years and you could be part of publicising it, rather than distracted and wasting energy on noise.
If you let this distract you, Laden will have achieved something.
Keep your focus on the things that are making you successful.