Skip to content

I’m Back: Things Just Got Serious

December 16, 2011

I have been otherwise engaged for some time.  My outrage at the events of the past two days has however dragged me back to the keyboard.

A Climate Blogger, a sceptic called TallBloke has his house raided by the Police.  The reasons are explained in the post I have linked to, but basically the Norfolk Police were prodded by the US Department of Justice to raid his house and sieze his computer equipment.

The reason for this is simply that Tallblokes blog is one of those that the climategate hacker/whistleblower/thief (depending on your opinion) posted a link to the file download on his site in a comment.   His blog is hosted on wordpress, and even though received a letter demanding they hold all information relating to his blog, the Police also raided his house.

They were able to do this due to the way that the British people have sleepwalked into allowing the last Labour government to pass into law some of the most intrusive security legislation in any country in the world.   The worst example of this is the innocuously sounding  Regulation of Investigatory  Powers Act 2000.  Read the link  to see how as a UK citizern you have absolutely no rights to stop any Government authority from entering your house, tracking you, viewing personal information or taking your personal digital equipment away.  This is George Orwell stuff, and it has been done in our name to save us from the threat of  terrorists and paedophiles, apparently.

Apart from the intrusion and the terrifying laws, it is also about the intimidation.  It is about asking why this happened, and who is controlling it and why.

It is also about the vicious response from the extremists in the global warming “believers” camp (those who believe we are going to hell in a whirlwind of methane feedbacks within the next 20 years). These people are basically evil. They do not believe in free speech.  The debate is over the science is settled and “deniers” are ignorant scum who should basically be locked up or shot for their views. The scary thing is that for these people there never was a debate.  They have a world view and hijacking the climate scare given them a vehicle in which they can try to realise their dream of wealth redistribution, the destruction of capitalism and democracy and a return to life without technology.

Sound familiar?  Yes this is the sort of viewpoint that extremists like the Nazi’s and Communists held and hold.

Have a read of this post by a “extreme warmist” called Greg Laden.  Make sure you read the comments as well.  Just as a taster here is a few of the choice bits from Mr Laden:

“So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and this band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine, but when authorities investigating a crime, with proper search warrant, show up to investigate his misdeeds, suddenly he’s an “Englishman” in his “Castle.” I don’t know whether to laugh of to go medieval on him.”

So apparently Tallbloke is a “thief” for having the audacity to have a blog that the link to the climategate emails was posted on by parties unknown.  We also read that Greg Laden considers whether to go Medieval on him.  This is a reference the film Pulp Fiction in which this line is said.  It means that you want to lose control and do them significant physical violence through torture and cruelty.

Does that sound reasonable language for a blogger on to use?

Greg suggests some motivation for his fundamentalist extremism:

“Sorry, I am normally the hyperbolic one, and I became more so on having a child who is now 2 and who I know is going to grow up in a world that is more dangerous because the activities of these climate denialists have delayed forward progress on addressing the issue of climate change.”

In one part of his post he dismisses “deniers” (you know, like Holocaust deniers) as old men and nutters.  Then he blames them for the failure to impose draconian laws and taxes globally in order to save us and his toddler.  This is called cognitive dissonance and is a mental disorder.

The reason things have not moved quickly enough is that despite the fact that the AGW advocates have had the backing of every major Government, billions in funding, and at COP17 had more than half the attendee’s to push the Governments along, nothing could be agreed. Is that the fault of “deniers”, or the fault of everyone involved in the process and “the cause” ?

Greg also says:

“I think he’s a criminal for being a climate denialist. Sue me. “

Is there any right-minded person out there, whatever your views on manmade climate change, that is not concerned that someone holds such an extremist position? Greg Laden is saying that anyone who does not agree with his opinion on climate change is a criminal.  A CRIMINAL.

As a right-minded person, also with a two year old, I am absolutely outraged that this nutter thinks my child should grow up in a world, and he will grow up because the evidence of impending doom simply is not credible right now, where freedom of speech on such fundamental issues such as the collective direction we take our civilisation in is quashed.

I do not intend to allow that to happen.  Even if I subscribed to the “worst case scenario” I would still be condemning this extremism.  Such a mindset is only a short leap from advocating violence and terrorism in the name of “the cause”. My Grandfather spent five years surviving in Changi prison so that we can have freedom of speech  and freedom from brutal tyranny.  Greg Laden and his ilk are extremists, who are openly calling for people to be criminalised for not finding science convincing.

Read the definition of fascism.  How far from that is Laden’s’ position?

To make matters even more troubling, a prominent climate scientist, Michael Mann, retweeted Greg Laden’s tweet publicising that blog post as well as another poor taste attack. So here we have a respected scientist advocating the view that free speech should be suppressed and that physical violence and intimidation are fine.  It is interesting to note that in the latest batch of emails “Climategate 2.0” Mann suggests in one email that he may hire a private investigator to “dish dirt” on a sceptic who was daring to question his methodology.

This alone is evidence that everything is not clear-cut at the centre of climate science. Mann brought us the hockey stick and would “dish dirt” to protect his graph.  Is that the position of a reasonable human being and a scientist we are, according to Laden, meant to trust with out collective future direction without further questions?

Wherever you stand on the climate debate, and it is still a debate and should always be one, you should if you have a shred of decency left, condemn Greg Laden’s stance and condemn the Police’s taking away of a private citizens personal computer equipment with no good reason whatsoever.


From → The Climate War

  1. Gail C. permalink

    In the USA Obama just sign into law the new defense bill. It has a clause state the President of the USA can declare a “belligerent” US citizen an “Enemy of the State” making him subject to military law and allowing him to be tossed in a dark hole indefinitely without bail or jury trial.

    This is a very slippery slope where people like Laden or Mann who may have enough influence could get someone like Tallbloke declared an “Enemy of the State” because they see him as acting in a hostile or aggressive manner that “Jepardizes the security of the nation”

    Belligerent can mean; Hostile and aggressive; inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness; Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.

    A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.

    After all do not the climate Scientist view “Deniers” as engaging in “Combat” with them?

    The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary:

    I quote:

    “Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all – this is a must read.

    By the end of next week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons — without charge and without trial.

    This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial….”

    Do I think it will effect US citizens immediately? No, but just like the Supreme Courts decision in 1942 on the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn) has radically changed the course of the USA, so will this law change our country by giving a President the ultimate power to silence his “Enemies”

    The Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn)

    HR 875 (food safety bill) the Commerce Clause and control of your home garden: (by a lawer)

    The Commerce Clause was left out of the final law, but as the Animal Welfare Act shows, it can easily be slipped back in a few years down the road and the first you will know about it is when an agent shows up to shut down your garden and fine you. And yes I have the T-shirt complete with the USDA’s foot prints on the back to prove it.

    After that experience I do NOT want to see some jackboots from the local military base showing up at the door because I vocally oppose the new USDA/FDA/ regs or CAGW and the equivalent of Cap & Trade.

  2. Richard, I stand with you (and many, many others) in condemning the disgusting words as appearing on Greg Laden’s blog.

    I think you were right to come out of retirement to add your voice with all of ours who are fighting the threat posed by the warmists who seek to dominate us, condemn us all to the standard of living of the middle ages and impose on us a new world order.

    • I’m not called Richard, but otherwise thanks!

  3. michael hart permalink

    Fair comment.
    I often suspect that bloggers like Laden may be writing from a more base journalistic motive, i.e. say something controversial on a very “current” topic, and then try to harvest monetary benefit via web-traffic. For that reason I don’t intend to visit Laden’s pages again, though there are plenty of other reasons not to do so.
    Back on topics financial, I also wonder how much of the BBC love-in with Twitter [a for-profit, US based corporation] is actually driven by their contributing journalists desire to go moonlighting and monetize their opinions externally. The title of your blog indicates that you can probably think of at least one BBC journalist with this mindset.

  4. There is a great talk by Christopher Hitchens about free speech (linked below). He argues that a person should be free to express themselves, no matter how wrong or repugnant their point of view.

    You obviously feel strongly on this matter.

    Are you going to condemn Tallbloke’s attempt to muzzle Greg Laden through legal action with similar vigour?

    • As I have made abundantly clear in this post, people should be free to discuss climate science and the labelling of anyone who wants to continue that debate as a criminal is beyone reproach.

      There is a difference between free speech and libel/defamation of character. Are you suggesting we do away with libel laws so people can dish dirt in anyway they want?

      So no I am not going to condemn a possible legal action. Why would I or any other right minded person think that calling someone a thief and a criminal is acceptable within the context of “free speech”.

      Obviously you are a “warmist” and your question shows how far you people will allow your morals to slide in order to fight your fight.

      • As I have made abundantly clear in this post, people should be free to discuss climate science and the labelling of anyone who wants to continue that debate as a criminal is beyone reproach.

        Therefore you are not in favour of free speech.

        Are you suggesting we do away with libel laws so people can dish dirt in anyway they want?

        Advocates of free speech deplore any form of censorship. They believe people should be allowed to spout all manner of nonsense. The way to refute untruth is not through the courts, but in speech or writing. I have already given you one prominent example. Another, Noam Chomsky, has said: “If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

        Obviously you are a “warmist” and your question shows how far you people will allow your morals to slide in order to fight your fight.

        So you are only in favour of freedom of speech for views you happen to agree with! Glad we cleared that up.

    • Do you know the difference between libel and freedom of speech? It would seem to me that you have a very warped idea of what is meant by freedom of speech. You seem very keen to shut down anyone who disagrees with you, whilst jumping on the rights of someone who has been potentially libelled.

      I live in Australia, and just like in the UK, there are people who take newspapers to court for libel. It is very rare, but even politicians win their cases when it is proved that an article that has been published contains libel.

      These days though, the governments have enacted legislation that catches a lot of people who are merely expressing their thoughts, are not indulging in hate speech, but are raising points which are on their face legitimate, but the other people “feels hurt”. In the Bolt case which was in my view a bad decision, what it means is that there is a very low standard that is applied, but the legislation has the effect of chilling free speech because “feelings were hurt”.

      Now contrast that to a blogger, Greg Laden, who has made an accusation, in this case that a man who writes a blog named Tallbloke is a thief, which is unproven given the circumstances of the release of the Climategate emails. This accusation has the potential effect of damaging the reputation of Tallbloke, and it has the potential of him losing his job. There are huge consequences that need to be considered. A lawsuit in this case is well and truly warranted because if Greg Laden has proof that Tallbloke is a thief, then he must produce such evidence.

      Also, you might want to check that recent decision concerning the blogger in Oregon who lost her case after she wrote posts that contained libel. She was sued and she lost her case.

  5. Otter permalink

    You are now part of my read list.

  6. MrPete permalink

    PowerOfX clearly does not understand the difference between civil speech and libelous speech. It is possible to have a civil conversation among people who vehemently disagree with one another.
    Even the USA with its constitutional protection of speech, simultaneously has laws against libelous speech. Thus, while one could state that suppressing libel is “censorship” all that says is a civil society objects to falsehoods.
    Yes, I count myself as one who objects to knowingly publishing false statements that damage a person’s reputation, ie I object to libel.

    How about you, PowerOfX? Apparently you are in favor of falsely damaging people’s reputations?

    Libel: “A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation”
    Censor: “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything objectionable”

  7. Stewart Spink permalink

    Tallbloke, I live in Brewery Wharf, by the Oracle Leeds, and will support any legal effort you make against these fraudsters and policestatists. I have resource to support you. Anthony has my email – he will confirm email is legit, etc. Stewart Spink, Leeds. [snip – if tallbloke wants your email he can ask Anthony, dont think publishing it here for the spammers and cranks to get is wise]

  8. coniston permalink

    Climategate stuff and Power of seem to have confusion between things.. you have to show damages under libel laws. So if someone wants go and shout various nasty and crappy things about you in a place no one knows you…nor cares then No harm no foul. But Laden PUBLICALLY accused TB of a criminal act (theft of emails) which then resulted in that being retweeted by Mann…amplifying it.

    If, as a result, he is hauled up before his university and has his reputation damaged etc etc, then he might have a case. But if f-ckwit A says some stupid things about Person B but everybody knows A a first class jerk and Person get a promotion instead of a reprimand then again..the law will not be on your side.
    Power of X – there have always been limits to free speech – libel and shouting fire in a crowded theatre, inciting to riot etc etc have been around for centuries. I agree that we don’t want/need further restrictions since with all their imperfections the present system works well. Indeed agree with you hundred percent that the answer to hate speech is more it should not be criminal bit contested by the truth in speech or writing…

    But the restrictions we have are there for a reason: to protect people from having their reputations and thus their livelihoods destroyed or die at the hands of a lynch mob or be crushed in a rush to the exits. It is the earlier phrase is which Laden accuses Tallbloke of being a thief that is problematic. Calling him a criminal for being a climate denier is assholery (assholic?) but not libellous. The earlier phrase was taken down from the website after reactions on other blogs, but of course nothing in the blogsphere ever goes away…

    PS – not a lawyer but had a friend who fought libel case for several years…eventually won..

    • I have no confusion. Thye comment about being a thief are potentially libelous and should be explored. Cause and effect also needs to be monitored in the longer term to see if those accusations cuse other things to happen that have a negative impact on TallBloke.

      My major point though is that it is rabid intolerance and should be roundly condemned by anyone who does not want 1984 to be reality.

  9. Another Ian permalink


    Check out

  10. Bernie in Pipewell permalink

    An excellent post, from another new reader of your blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: