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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So: watt’s the decision then?
BTW, I tried (about 10.05 GMT today) to send a modest contribution, as a general “subscription”, from the tip jar button. When I selected the amount it immediately triggered Paypal error “Sorry — your last action could not be completed”. I tried again – same result. Any idea what might be wrong so I can re-send successfully?
Thanks for publishing this fascinating blog – now more than ever a (crowd-reviewed) journal of record!
Sue the [snip . . site rules . . mod]; they need to be taught humility !
Get him and Romm to write an apology on thier blogs/sites and leave at that, its a distraction and the WUWT site needs a full time captain,you got them on the run and they know it .You will be playing it to their arms if you get bogged down with a libel action and court case,then you have to take a chance on the judge..nuff said on that.Don’t DO It Anthony you better than that.
The following has been posted in support of Greg Laden, on his 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’.
So, no censorship is good, but it is time for legislation to close sites down (choose your sites, anyone that disagrees with you…).
Don’t waste time on them. I wish I hadn’t.
Fools should never be taken lightly, village idiots such as this Laden person should only be laughed at and made the centre of derision and scorn. Humiliate this idiot if you can through his association with others such as Nat Geo but let him stew in his own misguided juice for his gods are tumbling. Alarmists at the moment are like cornered animals as their chicken little sky starts to fall on them. Stay above the BS Anthony you exist on a higher plane than they do. Wayne
[snip – inappropriate – Anthony]
[snip – inappropriate – Anthony]
Anthony Watts says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
Wow.
http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-idebunkforme-gregladen-and-kiera
============
Wow indeed. He seems unwilling and/or unable to control himself. I pity anyone unlucky enough to have to deal with such a miserable person IRL. It must be a horrible experience.
I posted on this article http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/17/greg-laden-liar/#comment-109575 yesterday, critical of Laden’s approach. I pulled him on obvious manipulation of facts to suit an agenda and labeled him a fraud, questioning what else he was prepared to manipulate. The post never made it through moderation. A later poster made the following comment:
“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.”
To which i just had to reply:
“@ur momisugly greendream
I’m sorry friend but my post was censored and said nothing worse than had already been said in earlier posts. Maybe that was why or maybe there were too many critical posts being made and then Laden decided to ‘balance the equation’ somewhat…
I don’t follow Watts any more than i follow Laden but i can spot deliberate manipulation of data to suit an agenda, which is clearly what Laden had done. The unfortunate result of such brings into question all of Laden’s ‘science’ …
Maybe this post will be censored too, maybe all posts supporting Watt will be censored from now on. One thing is for certain – you would have no idea so your comment on ‘no censorship here’ is simply another misguided untruth.”
It is awaiting moderation, i post here not to be clever but only out of interest in that if it doesn’t make it through there is clear record of censorship of critical commentary by Greg Laden. Hopefully some of his, to coin a phrase, ‘cronies’ will be able to come to terms with this fact.
Nick de Cusa says:
January 19, 2013 at 3:24 am
Go ahead, Anthony, bin Laden.
———————————————
Funny you should make that connection.
While there;s no legal definition of terrorism, dictionaries define it along the lines of the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Intimidation being, of course, the use of fear to coerce someone into doing what you want.
So, the terrorist Bin Laden used violence and, more importantly, the fear of violence to further his political aims. Similarly, Greg Laden uses fear of climate catastrophe to further HIS political aims. Obviously, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, but it seems to me that the dictionary justifies a conclusion that Greg Laden, just like his namesake, is a terrorist.
REPLY: I disagree, see my reply to the comment below – Anthony
I’d caution against the jokes and references to ‘Bin Laden’ and Greg Laden no matter how easy it is. It’s petty and inappropriate.
I happen to know a member of the Binladin ( their preferred spelling of the name in English ) family. ( a family that denounced and disinherited Usama decades ago ) He’s a young man who despite being fabulously wealthy and running ( albeit loosely and by proxy recently ) a huge corporate construction empire out of Egypt remains very humble, a pleasure to spend time with and a guy who just wants to race motorcycles without his mum finding out.
He does not deserve to be tarred with the brush that paints the picture of his relation and neither do others.
REPLY: I agree. While Mr. Laden has wronged me and has some very disturbing views, he is not a terrorist, and should not be compared to one no more than climate skeptics should be compared to Holocaust Deniers. – Anthony
@Malcolm Chapman that very comment ( at laden’s place, not the one you are making here ) is nonsense though. They have no idea what laden is allowing through and what he is censoring. I have had 5 comments, all polite and factual, not make it past moderation. I’m sure he does allow comments made which are vitriolic because those only serve to suit his purpose. If his readership could read the common sense comments which blow his position sky-high then they would not consider it so ‘open-mided’.
What would be the objective?
(1) Make some money to asssuage your bruised feelings?
(2) Show hordes of people that you were put in “a false light”, so you are not a villain after all?
(3) Test the factual/scientific truth of one of the key climate factors separating you and your detractors, and thereby “advance the cause”?
Legal confrontations have to be resolved by the best techniques available to mankind to determine disputed issues – sworn testimony, cross-examination of expert witnesses, skilled advocates on each side, and the merits reviewed by an objective jurist. In this context, very few of the highly stretched AGW aphorisms are likely to prevail.
Climate alarmism will never be defeated by scientific debate. But it won’t survive a couple of well-directed Court cases.
My first post at Greg Laden’s Blog:
RockyRoad
USA
January 19, 2013 Your comment is awaiting moderation.
To each his own, I suppose. I’m a scientist, geologist by specialization, and I don’t find the arguments proposed by “climate scientists” in support of AGW to be convincing.
I frequent WUWT and find practically all of the criticism leveled at that Web site by acolytes of this Web site to be inaccurate. Apparently most who have commented critically of WUWT haven’t been there and/or are intolerant of a 2-sided debate, and if that’s how you operate, you should remain here.
I especially reject the attitude leveled by some here that “deniers” are commiting crimes against humanity and as a consequence should be limited in their activities or rights. A scientist by definition is a skeptic.
Ya’ll have a good day, now.
My second (and probably last) post at Greg Laden’s Blog:
RockyRoad
January 19, 2013 Your comment is awaiting moderation.
An example:
Thanks, Rob. If I were to call you some nasty name like you have, would you be more or less willing to engage in civil debate, which is the very essence of science?
Keep your Web site–I’m convinced an alternative view on any issue is beyond your willing comprehension, as it is with many of your like-minded acolytes.
The alarmists generally use any tactic they like, no matter how despicable. You have the law on your side, so why hesitate? Nail his ass to the wall and let us know where to donate.
I only know of Laden due to your two references but he seams like a disturbed man’s Piers Morgan. Neither offer anything of their own to the world and are only known by their outrage and association to who or what they attack. He twice associates his targets with unhealthy sexual innuendo. He may be projecting a problem unrelated to climate.
You have written that this blog is taking time away from what you’d really like to accomplish. Don’t cater to his need for attention by suing him. Life is too short.
Cheers,
Re my previous comment, the tip jar button worked when I tried again about 14.15 GMT today.
Please accept this as a (modest) general contribution/subscription,from a grateful reader.
I would not take legal action over this. If he looses he wins, and if you win you loose. Immediately the gauntlet is thrown down, it will be all over the media – Watts tries to silence opposition with legal threats. As unfair as these accusations would be, they would only enhance the reputation of this insignificant little man.
At first, you may think you are sending a message of “mess with me at your peril.” You may rightfully believe you have been wronged. But a hostile media can rework the truth in ways that would horrify any fair minded individual. It won’t be the first time this has happened, and it won’t be the last.
Finally, what has he really done? Called you a “climate science d*nair” and mocked you for allegedly believing in fossilised aliens. Nobody reads his blog, ‘cept for a small group of trolls who like to feed off the reinforcing vibes.
Anthony Watts says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
While “idebunkforme” is the main player, I checked out the brief http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-deepakchopra-and-kieran-madden too. If that’s really Deepak Chopra, his attitude reminds me of Dr Mann. “Try reading this and then get lost” – love it!
There seem to be a lot of testy public figures out there.
I still say don’t sue. This twitter exchange is well worth saving though.
REPLY: Already done: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gregladen_twitter_267_storify.pdf
“erik sloneker says:
January 18, 2013 at 9:48 am
Under the threat of a suit, I would demand a full apology, well publicized on both their web site and magazine.”
I agree with the above and other similar views so have voted that you demand an apology.
So are you going to sue him then?
Thanks for the reply Anthony. I agree laden has maligned you greatly. I have no objection to language which vilifies him for this as he’s surely brought it upon himself.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious, I should have seen it myself. Such attacks from this side are no better than the ad hom denialist holocaust attacks and must be avoided or at least denounced.
We are better than that. And those of us who might not be ought to learn in short order that we have to be.
Andy (and WUWT readers): What would be the objective in pursuing this course of action? Does the attorney you consulted recognize and respond to your objectives (or is he simply interested in collecting as much from you as possible)? Suing (or even threatening to sue) may be the least effective/most expensive way of achieving your objectives.
I recommend a letter to National Geographic pointing out why Laden actions may have put them at risk and that you (as the owner of a blog) are worried about what will happen if lawsuits over blog post become common. National Geographic probably made an investment in ScienceBlogs – an investment that could easily become worthless if their blogs need to be supervised by attorneys. If that doesn’t produce any action, a follow-up letter requesting an apology/retraction would be appropriate.
If you proceed, you’ll need to be exceptionally careful in the future: your enemies will be looking to retaliate. Based on Mann’s lawsuit, I’d guess the other side has more money to spend on legal action than yours.
Digger says:
“So are you going to sue him then?”
Anthony has at least two years to decide. I trust he will make the right decision.