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.
I echo the comments that you need to officially contact Nat Geo and see what they will do about their rogue blogger. You might also point out that in his second blog entry, he still selectively leaves out the most important quote in your piece — you know, the one highlighted in red — and so has actually has dug a deeper hole. If they don’t stop him, a lawsuit will eventually compel them to stop him.
Greg Laden is nothing more than an annoyance and a distraction.
There are many more worthwhile battles to be fought.
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.
If it were me, I’d probably only do that if he refused to issue a retraction/apology. Also, the “reasonable person” standard will depend on who is making the determination of reasonable. If they’re predisposed to accept that climate change is an overwhelmingly big problem caused by humans, you may have a problem as they would likely feel that the ends justify the means.
Recommend you refrain from your thrist for vengeance, no matter how justified it may appear. It’s a simple cost/benefit choice. Will the amount of time and money invested in a retalitory suit produce suitable benefits of equal or greater value. Given Laden’s low profile, the payoff for the investment doesn’t make sense to me. Hang in there. Demand a public apology and move on.
These types of lies and smear have been going on long enough — sue!
My vote is no. You would just make yourself look petty AND give this person more publicity.
This is a waste of time – you have got bigger fish to fry. Your reputation cannot be seriously impugned by someone like Laden. Nobody who looks at your blog and your work with an open mind will question your intelligence and your integrity.
“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Personally, I find myself wondering what the point would be in suing him.
1. In PR terms, a court case is probably going to be neutral at best. Independents will not I think see the case & think “gee, Mr Watts must be on to something here” or whatever. Pro-AGW and anti-AGW people will remain in their camps regardless.
2. It’s expensive, time-consuming and potentially a distraction from other things.
3. How many people might have been biased against WUWT by this? I honestly don’t know how many people read that blog, although I guess it’s a tiny fraction of the WUWT readership numbers.
Accordingly, my reaction is to ignore him, although if he has a substantial number of readers it may be worth making him print an apology (perhaps the site owners can be pressured?). My impression is that he’s small fry, and should be treated as such.
When you sue, do get your counsel to ask him; ‘how would you feel about being called an unscientific, caterwauling, two-faced, lying twat on national prime time TV, eh?’
I’ve seen some erosion in free speech over the decades – especially with the ushering in of ‘political correctness’ and I’m inclined to say let it go although you clearly have a case. Perhaps ask him to correct his snide falsehoods with a letter without predjudice, although it isn’t likely to budge a mean little man who likely was raised this way. Leave him in his miserable lair, otherwise, I think it will give him a much higher profile than he deserves and the useful fools will underwrite his defense as we have seen already. I’m sure he has many ardent friends of the same caliber. Interestingly, laden in German means “load” or burden and there is an idiom: ‘vor Gericht laden’ to summon before a court.
A law suit will give him more PR than he deserves. Wait for a really damaging event, then go for it.
I’d say make the apology required extra “sweet”. You have more than enough against his case, but lawsuits are so… not cricket. Just because one side does it doesn’t mean the other has to too.
I say rise above it, but savour the moment.
It is clear the extreme AGW paradigm pushers do not have a response to there being no measurable planetary warming in 16 years.
There is no CO2 climate crisis to solve. Regardless, of whether there is or is not a climate crisis, the “green” scams such as the conversion of food to biofuel or the setting up a massive bureaucracies to monitor CO2 emission and to create CO2 trading schemes will increase Western countries unemployment rate and public debt and will have no appreciable reduction in Western carbon dioxide emissions or world CO2 emissions. A scam remains a scam regardless of the motive for pushing the scam. This is a very important issue. Trillions of dollars are being advocated for the irrational green scam schemes.
If there is no dangerous climate warming problem to solve, there is no argument that CO2 a gas that is essential for life on this planet is a poison, a pollutant.
When observations and logic does not support ones cause, the unscrupulous and desperate use general unsubstantiated Ad hominem. It is obvious that Greg Laden’s comments are simply Ad hominem, intended to smear rather than to advance a supportable position, an important scientific, or climate policy position.
I would suggest however that Greg Laden is a very small player and a legal case to address his Ad hominem comments might be a distraction from the principal issues and it appears there is no significant prize to win a case against his obvious Ad hominem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
“The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
“Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.”
The extreme AGW supporters appear to live in a fantasy world. The solution they state is a new UN body with special powers that will “be capable of instilling a permanent crisis lasting decades, if not centuries.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
“Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”…. …Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions….
…Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: …. …..Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
What Bob Tisdale said….go for it Anthony.
Mr. Watts, please do not sue Greg Laden. It will only lend legitimacy to actions.
Sue them. Accepting just an appolgy simply makes it easy for NatGeo et al to misbehave in the future…..”Oh, we’ll make some shit up and then if we get caught say sorry” shouldn’t be their default mode
I vote sue. Here’s a sample of National Geographic on YouTube: 6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction?
No, don’t sue.
Your time is far more valuable spent maintaining this blog, and this blog is is more effective at knocking down hard core alarmists’ positions than a lawsuit would be. The focus of the lawsuit would quickly shift from questions of climate to questions of slander and reparations. Even with legal support, the suit will cost you a huge amount of time that will never be recovered.
Do keep good records, do keep up the pressure on Laden, Romm, NatGeo, etc. Do complain to NatGeo that they have a loose cannon on deck who could cost them far more than he’s worth, if not from you, then from someone else who has a more vulnerable reputation than you.
I vote sue. Here’s a sample of National Geographic on YouTube: 6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction?
Ask for an apology, with a hint of legal action. If none is forthcoming, mull it over for awhile. You have one year to file, I think. No need to make a decision in haste. Time gives valuable perspective.
It always work out that these types don’t have to pay. It’s just not right.
Anthony. Remember Parncutt?
Take the Monckton approach on this subject matter and don’t waste personal energy.
(:
Insist on a full and proper well-publicised apology.
GBS @ur momisugly 8:31 am: I think that is an insult to pigs…they are cleaner than most people realise!