This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such). I agree nobody should expect an opinion piece to be vigorously researched, cited, etc....but all opinions are not equal. There's a difference between someone who is just casually writing their thoughts with the understanding that they are not fully vetting them...and someone who is clearly biased and pushing a particular agenda.
> Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left on his blog by someone unknown?
Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no they didn't. They seized them because he referred to a possible hacker as "our old friend" and wrote an article/linked to the hacked emails....AND because a potential hacker commented on his blog, possibly leaving evidence in his account/on the server...then refused to cooperate with the investigation.
Are they justified doing so? I don't know. I think the "old friend" comment is innocent. I also think based on what we know it's pretty frivolous. Unless they have some clear evidence linking this guy, I think they are overstepping their bounds. Of course they might have it...they're not gonna say.
One thing I would also say is that I don't think this guy is being treated any differently than anyone else who gets in the way of any government investigation (that is to say, poorly).... I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories.