I'm skeptical that there's really much damage to be done to him through disclosure at this point.
If he can go to his employer and say “look I deleted the blog, there is nothing else I can do”, they might be sympathetic, even if the outcome is potentially short term negative for his psychiatry patients.
Why? Because he posted controversially?
If he's an academic, perhaps he has tenure. But even if he doesn't, and he's as good as people are claiming, he ought to do well in private practice. And I can't imagine that a psychiatrist would lose their license over blog posts (but perhaps my imagination is outdated). He might lose patients who don't like his views, but then maybe he'd find such patients tiresome.
I haven't read the blog, but I've seen nothing that suggests that he posted PII about any of his patients. If he did, then I retract what I said above.
Scott is not afraid of being outed to nerds at all, but to the PC mob (sure, there's an intersection... let's replace git/master anyone?). It wouldn't especially be negative right now, but it means that his blog would be forever linked to his name. And one day is blog would attract unwanted attention (as it has in the past), and his name would be linked to it.
Also, even if wasn't for this, I think he's right to make a stand for himself. He had very little leverage here, and "deleting" the blog (it's still archived) was a bad move that makes the NYT looks bad if they go and out him.
Did you mean "bold move"?