# The Heartland Institute Sends Legal Notices to Publishers of Faked and Stolen Documents

From a Heartland media release:

FEBRUARY 19 — The Heartland Institute has sent legal notices http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-publishers-faked-and-stolen-docume  to numerous Web sites, blogs, and publications asking them to take down the stolen and forged documents and what it views as malicious and false commentary based on them.

The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely “at” heartland.org or 312-377-4000.

_____

“We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.

“For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.

“We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.”

Joseph L. Bast

President

The Heartland Institute

jbast”at” heartland.org

312-377-4000

_____

The Heartland Institute <http://www.heartland.org>  is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site http://www.heartland.org  or call 312/377-4000.

====================================================================

Here’s the letter being sent to some websites and bloggers, DeSmog Blog and Greg Laden of ScienceBlogs (already in legal trouble over the Tallbloke libel) both got copies.

February 18, 2012

By e-mail to: editor “at” desmogblog.com

By Federal Express to:

Mr. Brendan G DeMelle

Editor

DeSmog Blog

[street address redacted]

Seattle, WA 98117-2303

Re:      Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

Dear Mr. DeMelle:

On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.

On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).

Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.

Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.

It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:

1.         The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.

2.         As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

3.         Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Very truly yours,

Maureen Martin

General Counsel

original Heartland PDF is here: Tier One – DeMelle

About these ads

## 201 thoughts on “The Heartland Institute Sends Legal Notices to Publishers of Faked and Stolen Documents”

1. Claude Harvey says:

Sounds like a lot of work to comply. It lends new meaning to the old saying that “Your guaranteed freedom ends where my nose begins”.

2. Mike McMillan says:

A good first step. While the taxpayer funded operations so ubiquitous in the climate debate have an obligation to disclose what they’re doing with our money, privately funded Heartland does not. I think Heartland could also claim copyright to all its communications, and use that approach, too.

3. WOW!
Mr. Brendan G DeMelle lives at [snip . . putting personal details up on a public blog is frowned upon here . . kbmod]

Thanks
JK

4. cui bono says:

There seem to be three issues here:

(1) Identity theft / fakery by the person who got the documents, fabricated one, and made them public.

(2) Whether a website is entitled to display a fake document when the source institution has stated it is a fake.

(3) Whether the website is entitled to show stolen documents without any redaction, thus publishing 3rd parties names and personal info on the web when these people had expressly been promised anonymity. What about their rights?

I know little of US law (beyond the inevitable TV series which hit the UK) and await clarification, but whether legal or not, the morality of these sites in doing all of these things, and especially (3), is in the gutter.

5. Ed Fry says:

No doubt, the warmist apologistas will babble on about the Climategate e-mails, whistleblowing, free speech, etc., all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that the CRU is a public institution, operating on public funding, therefore rendering almost all of that which it produces (including e-mails) as public property and therefore subject to scrutiny. The Heartland Institute is a PRIVATE entity, and what it does and what it produces internally is of no business to anyone other than the Heartland Institute.

They will also of course ignore the fact that a crime was committed to secure the Heartland documents whereas, thus far, the Climategate e-mails’ disclosure can only be explained as an internal leak – no one has yet been able to prove there was a theft or hack.

6. Mat says:

Given the press coverage and the wall to wall nature of the smear campaign I can see why they have done this some may say they should let it pass but this is outright fraud and theft ! if the victims do sod all what will the unhinged nutters do next ?

7. Mat says:

illegally obtained?? what you have proof they were illegally obtained? great then give it to the police and we can get that all cleared up ! unless you don’t at which point you are making groundless assumptions and are therefore easy to dismiss !

8. Ian W says:

Hunt says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:53 am
Heartland still has a link to the illegally obtained “climategate” docs:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/death-blow-climate-science

Although if you click the megaupload link, it’s been closed down by the feds for racketeering. Kind of says it all.

And CRU were told that but for the time limitation on the FOI Act in the UK they would have been guilty of illegally withholding the information. Information which should have been in the public domain.
Furthemore, NONE of the ‘Climategate’ information has been shown to be faked whereas it appears that the Hearland institute documents had to be ‘sexed up’ with a poor fake document to make them even worthwhile reading.

It is interesting that you defend this fraud.

9. Mat says:

This is the only step they should take as the smears were spread with the help of some big MSM players and they will never admit they are wrong so should be forced to say so ! the victims have a right to stand up against fraud and theft or are some sanctioning the rifling of anyone’s privacy by any means ?

10. DJ says:

Keeping in mind my leanings here, this is going to reap a backlash as having the smell of righteous indignation. It will be argued, and correctly so, that Heartland didn’t mind when the Climategate emails were obtained and disseminated in a similar manner.
While the principle differences are that the Climategate emails were done on the public dollar timeclock, and their ownership is quite arguably by the public, and ultimately the content proper was authenticated by the authors, the underlying principle here is the same.

Heartland is going to get hammered with the “good for the goose, good for the gander” argument and their response to that will be important.

That a key document was faked will, or at least should, weigh heavily, I fear the public in general will find little sympathy. That Heartland hasn’t openly advocated the removal of the Climategate files as they are with their own will also be scrutinized.

Personally, I feel Heartland has the high ground, and I sincerely hope they can keep it.

11. Wade says:

Hunt says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:53 am

Heartland still has a link to the illegally obtained “climategate” docs.

You still don’t get it. Or you are purposefully using fallacious arguments to trick people. The climategate documents are legally our property because of Freedom of Information laws. However they were obtained is now irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a legal right to have them. Linking to documents which we have a legal right to is legal. Climategate released information from taxpayer funded emails. Heartland is not taxpayer funded. Therefore, we have no legal right to their emails or documents.

The real question you should be asking is why the people in the climategate emails can be allowed to break federal laws by refusing to release the emails and work done on taxpayer’s time.

12. Ken Hall says:

It will be interesting enough to see how the alarmists respond to this, and if they can differentiate between genuine, un-tampered data released in the public interest to add to understanding of how the “science” has been arrived at, most likely by an insider engaged in whistle-blowing Vs. stealing data then maliciously adding false and misleading information to it before leaking it, specifically to defame and cause harm.

13. MangoChutney says:

In my opinion, HI should go for the lot of them, accept damages and then give the money back (unless donated from “defence funds”, in which case give it to a worthy charity – ideally One Water, which tries to provide clean water and sanitation for the billions who have no access to clean water).

This way HI will have a good victory over the alarmists without appearing to be greedy and / or out to bankrupt individuals. In the case of the Guardian or the BBC, the damages should be given to the BBC charity Children in Need

JMHO

14. MangoChutney says:

@Matt

Documents obtained by posing as somebody else if illegal. Not sure what part of “illegally obtained” you don’t understand

Finding the culprit is another matter, but you can pretty sure HI have given all the details they can to the police and probably IT specialists to help track down the culprit and when they do, well I just hope the guy responsible printed off lots of copies of the fake document to stuff down the back of his trousers, because where he’s going, he’s gonna need it.

15. Garrett says:

Hypocritical Heartland. They should just suck it up. If they can condone the fraudulent acquisition of CRU e-mails (regardless of whether you think those e-mails should have been public) then they can’t cry over the theft of their own documents and expect to be taken seriously. Both the CRU e-mail hacking and this Heartland saga are examples of fraud, plain and simple. You can’t justify one without justifying the other. Suck it up.

16. Ken Hall says:

Hunt, can you provide any evidence to East Anglia police to back up your assertion that the CRU emails were obtained illegally? Because, the police, in over 2 years, have failed to find any evidence to ascertain for certain IF these documents were obtained illegally or not.

Additionally, these emails placed into the public domain, information which had already been lawfully ordered to be placed in the public domain through lawful FOIA requests. Keeping that publicly paid for data private and secret was unlawful!

That is a wholly different set of circumstances than those now inflicted upon the Heartland Institute.

If you cannot understand the difference, then that would ably demonstrate the difference in cognitive ability between the average climate realist and the average climate alarmist.

17. MangoChutney says:

can deskearblog be closed down for publishing copyright material without permission?

isn’t that what recent legislation is for?

18. [snip . . putting personal details up on a public blog is frowned upon here . . kbmod]
Err, I got those “personal details” from your post on this thread, right after your line “By Federal Express to:”

Assuming your objection was to his address, lets try it without the identifying info:
Google earth shows that DeSmog’s editor lives in a low density neighborhood – shame on him, the climate fascists tell us that we should be living in high density condo farms to have a low carbon footprint.

It doesn’t look like there are sidewalks there either, so he choose to NOT live in a walkable neighborhood. Moe bad carma for his carbon footprint.

Even worse, he is wasting large amounts of land by living on what appears to be a 75 x 100 foot lot. And, double even worse, he has a driveway! Since that type of neighborhood is usually poorly served by transit, he probably drives a car!

But, wait, it gets triple even worse – I don’t see any solar panels. No windmill either.
He doesn’t look very sustainable to me.

Oh the hypocrisy!!!
Thanks
JK

19. MangoChutney says:

*desmearsblog

20. Cadae says:

If warmists were less gullible and more skeptical they wouldn’t fall so easily for fake documents.

21. Markus Fitzhenry says:

DJ says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:27 am
“”That a key document was faked will, or at least should, weigh heavily, I fear the public in general will find little sympathy. That Heartland hasn’t openly advocated the removal of the Climategate files as they are with their own will also be scrutinized.”‘

In a Court of Law, Heartlands response to a separate matter is irrelevant. Public opinion, so far, is in Heartlands favor.

22. Dan Lee says:

With Climategate, the police tracked down a suspect blogger and seized his computer equipment from his home.

I wonder if the State will be just as enthusiastic about tracking down this one.

23. Markus Fitzhenry says:

Mat says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:22 am
illegally obtained?? what you have proof they were illegally obtained? great then give it to the police and we can get that all cleared up ! unless you don’t at which point you are making groundless assumptions and are therefore easy to dismiss !””

Give it to Police, what proof do you have that the constabulary isn’t involved?

24. Charles.U.Farley says:

Hunt says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:53 am

Heartland still has a link to the illegally obtained “climategate” docs:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/death-blow-climate-science

Although if you click the megaupload link, it’s been closed down by the feds for racketeering. Kind of says it all.
——————————-

Ya know, it does.
But it says a lot more about the warmist sides lack of any ethics or moral compass when it comes to releasing publicly funded information to which the public is entitled to by law, subverting freedom of information requests, data fabrication, bullying, lying, smearing of counter scientific viewpoints, hiding of research to any outside scrutiny due to all that previously mentioned and the general piggery and mendacity presented in posts such as yours as a defence.
Your side of the fence couldnt get the goods either legally or factually, they had to steal them and fabricate something up ( spot the trend line anyone?) which has, as is inevitable in cases such as these, come back to bite ya all on the tushy.
To coin a phrase, “Kind of says it all really”.

25. John Anderson says:

No sign yet that the BBC or the Guardian have been issued this formal legal notice. But their actions were arguably far more serious than the small-fry. Presumably HI would need advice from UK lawyers – but there is plenty of time to proceed with all this. If only for the embarrassment factor for Richard Black, I hope HI start on the BBC soon. Black’s behaviour was atrocious, way outside BBC reporting guidelines, and he needs to be called on it.

26. Scottish Sceptic says:

Hunt says: Heartland still has a link to the illegally obtained “climategate” docs:

The climategate docs were such a huge public interested that they were investigated numerous times and e.g. the UK information commission stated the FOI law had been broken by those writing the emails.This certainly is a public interest defence to what you correctly point out would be unwarranted publication otherwise.

The Heartland Documents show no law breaking, they show no impropriety. Even if the public interest is “helping the planet” … it is impossible to show anything in these documents that demonstrate the Heartland Institute was not helping the planet.

About the strongest defence anyone can give is: “they didn’t show the institute was doing what we thought would help the planet”. Which if that were applied, would mean no one of earth was entitle to privacy because according to the BIG-OIL funded eco-zealots, mankind is a plague and so none of us by existing is helping the planet.

27. MangoChutney says:

@Charles.U.Farley

“Your side of the fence couldnt get the goods either legally or factually, they had to steal them and fabricate something up ( spot the trend line anyone?) ”

hockey stick shaped by any chance?

i’ve often wondered if the hockey stick is actually based on the amount of fabricated data, hence the blade beginning when it did and the projection for even more fabricated data to feed the gravy train

28. Tony Mach says:

I think the Heartland Institute went overboard with this. This isn’t the 1940ties (when would havt to ask only the NYT and the WashPost to keep things out of the public), the cats are out of the bag (both the forgery by the alarmists and the real documents) and playing Barbara Streisand isn’t going to help.

Now, if they had asked bloggers to take down obviously false statements (or at least distance themselves clearly from false statements), they would have my full sympathy.

29. Mat says:

MangoChutney
Sorry what ? I was replying to Hunt ! so what part have I got wrong or don’t understand ?!

30. Aside from any real vs fake, and publicly-owned vs privately owned issues relating to Heartland vs Climate, there’s another important difference: The content.

While the climategate emails contain stuff that the team would prefer to keep private, I’m not aware of any really confidential personal & financial information in them. If there is, it hasn’t been widely published or discussed/ For example, I don’t think the climategate details contain something like Phil Jones’s credit card number, or personal bank transactions details, or a list of every paid project he’s done in the past few years.

On the other hand, putting aside the obviously faked strategy memo, the supposedly authentic budgets and so forth do contains lots of personal details of Heartland, it’s employees, and it’s donors. And people are already making use of that information, not only merely by publishing, but for example, by contacting organizations that Heartland has interacted with and demanding they stop.

So what you have is documents obtained by fraud, containing very sensitive information, and then people using that sensitive information – in conjunction with fraudulent information from the faked document – for purposes that are best harassment, but may well fall under torts like tortuous interference and/or interference with contract.

31. Andy says:

While heartland has a legal basis, it’s arguable that it better to let these site go on posting the fake docs. It clearly demonstrates how fraudulent these blogs and organizations are. If they want to wear a big sign around their neck announcing their credibility, ethics, and motives, why not? They can paint the scarlet letter on themselves.
Let them go on. Why is one obvious fraud different than hundreds of more subtitle ones. Let’s the big ugly lie meet the light of day and color every other statement they make.

32. Dave N says:

“Since that type of neighborhood is usually poorly served by transit..”

Buses run down 15th Ave NW and 8th Ave NW to/from the city. They’re both short walks from the address in question. Given his environmental concerns, I’m sure he uses them often.

33. Mat says:

Give it to Police, what proof do you have that the constabulary isn’t involved?
My god look it’s very simple he says something was stolen I say if you have proof had it to the police that has nothing top do with the police being involved now or tomorrow but has a lot to do with making statements of fact where you have non !!!!!!!

34. Phil C says:

The headline here refers to the documents as “stolen” yet, five days after their becoming public, Heartland has not confirmed the authenticity of a single document, and stated that only one is fake. There are freely available binary compare software tools that Heartland could have used to verify the authenticity of these documents in just a few minutes and state unambiguously if the documents are stolen or not. But Heartland has chosen not to do that.

The simple response from anyone getting this letter is this: “What stolen documents?”

35. Colin Porter says:

Anthony
Does this notice mean that you will likewise have to clean up your previous blogs on the subject in order to remove adverse comments from the likes of Chris Colose, Karl L or even William M Connolley. Unfortunately, you will be damned if you do and damned if you don’t, especially from people like Connolly, a veteran in the area of censorship.

36. sceptical says:

Heartland Institute says, ” Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

Didn’t take long for Heartland Institute to back off its mission and turn to the intrusive power of government when it wanted something from the government. So much for the statists at Heartland Institutes belief in the free market.

37. Steve S says:

Phil C:

Heartland has already stated that the memo was fake. They’ve done so more than once.

38. MangoChutney says:

@Matt

Apologies, I didn’t realise you were responding to Hunt – please ignore

39. The HI legal notice to the blogs and news outlets has multiple purposes. Among them, it is a “high ground” effort to limit the damage to HI’s reputation – a step that also limits the amount of money (“damages”) the criminal will have to pay to HI when caught and successfully prosecuted. While self-serving, amongs lawyers, it is considered a very ethical thing to act to limit the residual harm so as to reduce the cost to the criminal. Some lawyers would let the damages pile up so as to economically destroy the poor sod that stupidly thought they could get away with the fraud.

I say criminal as it is a criminal act to engage in fraudulent activity through the post or by email, in this case by representing oneself as a different person so as to obtain confidential business information.

Nothing like this can be said about the unauthorized EAU email releases.

40. The Heartland statement icludes this demand:

“(2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents;”

I disagree with this, and I really, really cannot understand it.

Anthony’s paraphrase says that they are after “what [they view] as malicious and false commentary based on [the documents].”

But this demand #2 does not confine itself to certain types of statements.

I suspect that like me, Anthony is not completely comfortable with demand #2, either.

Anthony, respectfully, would you mind clarifying your view of this? Because I think that the position that has been staked out with this demand is ultra-extreme and likely to be pounced on by the other side, if it hasn’t already. I think a clarification from you would be better coming sooner rather than later. This is not the White House where we float trial balloons before deciding what position to take.

Thank you.

RTF

41. “that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents”

That’s heavy-handed. There is nothing wrong with “referring or relating to” these documents, particularly to point out that Heartland flat says one is fake and it has yet to confirm the others are accurate copies of real documents (vs. versions slightly edited to make Heartland look bad).

42. DirkH says:

The last resort of the warmist fanboys is defending defamation of their enemies with forged documents? And they appear here in droves, calling this defamation “free speech”?

Warmist fanboys, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if that is your point.

43. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

Taxpayer funded work that is supposed to be disclosed and publicly available ‘illegally obtained’?? I thought leftwingers were supposed to be in favour of hacking government computers, Wikileaks and all this ‘whose street our street’ stuff?

44. Fredrick Lightfoot says:

Dactyloscopy, (n) the examination of fingerprints (The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary)
Fingerprints do get left behind at crime scenes, Even the craftiest of perpetrators forget to wipe up everywhere,
The faker of these documents obviously had not encountered Kleenex.

45. Spence says:

Interesting. The Heartland Institute cannot allow itself to appear over aggressive, it needs to maintain its decorum and reputation, although it will certainly and rightly, defend itself and its interests. The warmist camp has already grasped this, but are too busy celebrating their imagined immunity to realise that they are in a very serious situation, especially deSBlog.

I doubt that Heartland will punish deSBlog as fully as they deserve, although, if some blogs do not withdraw specific comments, allegations and links, Heartland may have no alternative but to use a more heavy handed approach. Something they are clearly within their rights to do.

46. Steve from Rockwood says:

Garrett says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:39 am

Hypocritical Heartland. They should just suck it up. If they can condone the fraudulent acquisition of CRU e-mails (regardless of whether you think those e-mails should have been public) then they can’t cry over the theft of their own documents and expect to be taken seriously. Both the CRU e-mail hacking and this Heartland saga are examples of fraud, plain and simple. You can’t justify one without justifying the other. Suck it up.

Heartland does not have to suck it up. It is not CRU. If CRU felt their emails had been hacked illegally then why did that organization do nothing? Heartland had information stolen and it was added to a fabrication. Ignoring climate science, any organization that this happens to should act quickly act vigorously to defend itself.

I agree the CRU e-mails were “stolen”. Why CRU has done nothing about it says more about them than Heartland acting in this manner to defend themselves. CRU sucks.

47. Snapple says:

If Joe Bast wants to clear this up, all he has to do is post a screen-save of the email sent with the attachments. Then we call all see what documents were actually attached and to whom they were sent.

Perhaps Joe Bast accidentally sent this email to the wrong person and he doesn’t want that Anonymous Donor to know he messed up.

48. Geoffrey Thorpe-Willett says:

To John Anderson. I complained to the BBC about the Richard Black article, his response was :

Dear Mr Thorpe-Willett,

Thanks for your email. You will be pleased to know that I did indeed phone the Heartland Institute before writing the article.

However, the basis for your complaint is false as seven out of the eight documents have not been dismissed as fakes – in fact the Heartland Institute acknowledged they were real documents, emailed out from the Institute.

Best regards,
Richard Black

—–Original Message—–
From: geoftw@gmail.com [mailto:automail@metafaq.com]
Sent: 17 February 2012 17:29
To: NewsOnline Complaints

{Feedback Type:} I would like to… Make a complaint

{Complaint type:} BBC Online

{Complaint about:} BBC News Online

{Complaint category:} Factual error or inaccuracy

{Complaint title:} The article was inaccurate as a document was fake

{Complaint:} The article by Richard Black lacked balance or journalistic
investigation. All documents were considered as real without any effort
to verify as such.
In fact at least one document has been declared a fake, did the
correspondent contact Heartland and ask them for a reaction, or did he
just print verbatim without verification?

{Reply:} Yes

49. “(2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; … (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings;”

Don’t these two contradict one another? How do you do “4” without violating “2?”

50. cui bono says:

What is it with Laden? Has he learned nothing from his tantrum over the general reaction to his calling Tallbloke a criminal? Does he think he’s above the law?

And I read somewhere that the FBI say it’s not within their jurisdiction. Not even identity theft, internet phishing?

Hmph. The US probably has more lawyers than the ROW combined! This probably doesn’t do your economy any good, but surely one of them can figure out what crime has been committed?

51. cui bono says:

sceptical says (February 20, 2012 at 5:47 am)

Heartland Institute says, ” Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”
Didn’t take long for Heartland Institute to back off its mission and turn to the intrusive power of government when it wanted something from the government. So much for the statists at Heartland Institutes belief in the free market.
—————————————
You want them, perhaps, to send in the heavy mob with baseball bats??

52. John Brookes says:

What can you say? Heartland are a fantastic bastion of truth, justice and the skeptical way! Its a travesty whats happened, and I only hope those rotten warmist thugs are locked up for a long, long time and forced to read Jo Nova’s Skeptics Handbook.

53. Jimbo says:

DJ says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:27 am

Keeping in mind my leanings here, this is going to reap a backlash as having the smell of righteous indignation. It will be argued, and correctly so, that Heartland didn’t mind when the Climategate emails were obtained and disseminated in a similar manner.

This has not been established to date. The underlying principle has not been established. How do you know the CRU were stolen, hacked or acquired via deception? How do you know they weren’t leaked?

Heartland is a PRIVATE body while CRU is a PUBLIC body, publicly funded and publicly accountable. Those emails belong to the public. If CRU felt they had a legal case then why didn’t they send out public legal notices????

54. Jimbo says:

The other thing to remember that at least 1 of the Heartland documents is fake. While CRU have never pointed to any single email as being fabricated. The fake doc is being used to smear and damage Heartland. Can’t people see the issue here. They might even have copyright issues with some bloggers.

55. DirkH says:

Snapple says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:16 am
“If Joe Bast wants to clear this up, all he has to do is post a screen-save of the email sent with the attachments. Then we call all see what documents were actually attached and to whom they were sent.

Perhaps Joe Bast accidentally sent this email to the wrong person and he doesn’t want that Anonymous Donor to know he messed up.”

Have your brain checked. One of the documents is a FORGERY.

56. Jimbo says:

To clarify further to my last comment.

“They might even have copyright issues with some bloggers over the other documents.

57. A physicist says:

At a dinner party at our house last night, the topic was “doctrine and truth”, and the general attitude toward these topics was expressed by two quotations from H. R. McMaster’s book Dereliction of Duty, referring to the unauthorized printing of The Pentagon Papers

“To say that the most momentous issues a nation must face cannot be openly and critically discussed is really tantamount to saying that democratic debate and decision do not apply the the questions of life and death. … Not only is this position at odds with the principles of democracy, but it removes a very important corrective for governmental misjudgement.”

“The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or on the college campuses. It was lost in Washington D.C., even before Americans assumed sole responsibility for the fighting in 1965 and before they realized the country was at war; indeed, even before the first American units were deployed. The disaster in Vietnam was not the result of impersonal forces but a uniquely human failure, the responsibility for which was shared by President Johnson and his principal military and civilian advisors.”

“The failings were many and reinforcing: arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all, the abdication of responsibility to the American people.”

Needless to say, the young folks at our party — many of them US Marine veterans of multiple combat tours in Iraq and Vietnam — were entirely familiar with McMaster’s principle of “Be First With the Truth,” (which has been universally adopted within the UWS armed forces).

Moreover, McMaster’s book has appeared in multiple editions of the USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List (which is highly recommended) and nowadays General McMaster commands CJIATF-Shafafiyat, the primary restoration-of-justice effort in Afghanistan.

It appears to me that the US Armed Forces thoroughly appreciate a principle that the Heartland Institute has utterly failed to grasp: the vital role in democracies of open critical discussion, as an essential corrective to arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.

That is why the Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”

58. Severian says:

I think what we see here is a direct result of all the confabs and getting together with media consultants the Alarmists were talking about not that long ago. You remember surely,where the said they had to refocus on “messaging” to figure out how to get their message out, as the evil deniers were making progress in showing how bad and nonexistent the science is behind AGW, in large part because of the Climategate emails.

They were and are desperate to find some way to neuter Climategate, and IMO you can bet that this Heartland theft and fraud was orchestrated deliberately to muddy the waters and take the sting out of Climategate. You can tell that from the talking points the trolls keep spinning and the blogs and media are adopting, why, if you don’t like our theft then that means you have to ignore the shocking, TRUE, malfeasance shown in the Climategate emails.

This smells very focused and deliberate, regardless of the ineptness of the execution. The leftist media and their supporting blogs will never care or mention the differences between public and private institutions or the fraudulent, forged documents, all that’s important to them is to get a gotcha moment to build their propaganda on. One has to wonder what the world might be like if they put this much effort into the actual science instead of propaganda.

59. Kids usually have night fears so they hide beneath the blankets. If challenged, they can become aggressive as they don´t like to face truth. As long as they play with their favorite toys, like “global warming”,etc. and feel being indulged and retributed by others, everything is fine, but there are responsibilities in the world, you know, and they can´t irresponsibly spoil things around, making their families and society suffer through actions like building “wind mill towers”, etc.: Gigantic and useless toys, just for the sake of their satisfaction, destroying all achievements, developments and evolution of the human kind.
It is not a matter of applying without reasoning such a crazy “precautionary principle” and do whatever they like without taking into account the consequences. In the history of our planet many ideologies have brought not other but deep suffering and nothing of the paradises they so illusorily promised. So take it cool, relax and think if all this is not falling in fanaticism.

60. Copner says:

Putting aside the strategy doc for a moment, I really can’t believe people are talking about copyright with regards to the other docs.

If somebody obtained a copy of your personal financal documents by phishing or pretexting, or whatever you want to call it – and then arranged for unredacted copies to be published all over the internet – do you really think your biggest complaint (and your own legal redress) is going to be based on copyright?

61. DirkH says:

A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am
“Needless to say, the young folks at our party — many of them US Marine veterans of multiple combat tours in Iraq and Vietnam — were entirely familiar with McMaster’s principle of “Be First With the Truth,” (which has been universally adopted within the UWS armed forces). ”

Do they also tolerate being smeared by fabrications?

62. cui bono writes “I know little of US law ”

It may be more complicated. I believe desmogblog is based in Canada. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which covers what is in the US First Amendment; but it is different. It could be interesting, legally, how this turns out.

63. R. Gates says:

Heartland said:

““We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.”

——-
So I would hope that the Heartland Institute will openly condemn the release of all the Climategate emails as well as all the defamatory speech direct toward the scientists involved.

64. TG McCoy (Douglas DC) says:

Private organizations have proprietary information. They have the right to closely hold information.
Public Organizations have no such right.CRU/UV/ Etc. all use our tax dollars.
FOIA is what it is all about. If they are ashamed of the process at which they arrived
at their conclusions, then they stonewall. I am convinced that the Climate gate
release was an inside job.
Heartland was an attempted smear.They got chaught…
there seems to be a difference…

65. Are CAGW espousers really willing to argue that the public doesn’t have the right to see emails that should have already been released under FOI before they were leaked? But the public has the right to see documents (including confidential financial documents) obtained by fraudulent means from a private entity that is in no way subject to FOI? Is there a First Amendment right to forge documents?

66. csanborn says:

I’m all the way with Heartland Institute on this.

67. wsbriggs says:

sceptical says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:47 am
To you and all the others who believe that Free Markets mean no government. The purpose of having a government is to protect one’s rights from those who would seek to initiate force, or commit fraud. The latter is very much on display right now – HI had every right to seek redress in via legal action, or if it comes to it, in court.

68. JJ says:

A physicist says:

At a dinner party at our house last night, the topic was “doctrine and truth”, …

But right back at the dissembling on Monday AM, huh?

Do tell, what is the UCMJ position on lying, forgery, theft, espionage, and distribution of confidential materials? Perhaps you should ask Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Uh-huh.

69. Richard Sharpe says:

A physicist says on February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am

That is why the Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”

It seems that you have gone beyond the unintentional parody horizon.

I must also congratulate you on your brazen hypocrisy. Great work.

70. John Greenfraud says:

I agree with Cadae, the main document was an obvious fake and a cursory read exposed it as a fraud to all but the most gullible. The very thought of someone wanting to prevent teachers from teaching science is comical to anyone here. The word “science” of course was being used as a synonym for their AGW cult beliefs. While the conflation of terms has always played a big role in the AGW propaganda the minion that wrote it didn’t have a clue. Made perfect sense to him, right? LOL

71. Phil C says:

Steve S says: “Heartland has already stated that the memo was fake.”

“The Memo,” yes — they have stated that & I referenced that fact. But they remain silent on the remaining 100 pages of documents released. Authentic or not? If they’re not Heartland’s documents, then who are they to tell anyone to take them down?

72. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

Snapple said on February 20, 2012 at 6:16 am:

If Joe Bast wants to clear this up, all he has to do is post a screen-save of the email sent with the attachments. Then we call all see what documents were actually attached and to whom they were sent.

Perhaps Joe Bast accidentally sent this email to the wrong person and he doesn’t want that Anonymous Donor to know he messed up.

At this post Snapple said on February 19, 2012 at 9:23 am:

Joe Bast could post a screen shot of the email his duped staffer allegedly sent. We could all see if the Climate Strategy document is on it. We could also see who got the email. Bast is telling his donors that he has contacted the FBI and police. Chicago FBI Special Agent Royden “Ross” Rice states that, based on media accounts, the FBI has no legal basis to investigate.

http://www.legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2012/02/heartlands-hypocrisy.html

Which got this reasoned reply from DirkH on February 19, 2012 at 9:45 am:

Snapple, you don’t seem to believe their word, so why would you believe a screenshot? If you don’t know how to fake a screenshot and would like to learn it, contact me for an offer.

So Snap-Snap-Snappy-Snapple, did you have a problem with DirkH’s reply that warranted reposting your request at a different piece?

BTW, speaking of possible violations of the law, Snapple is a trademark of the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. You did get permission to appropriate their trademark for use as an anonymous blog handle, right?

73. Justthinkin says:

Go HI and Mr.Bast. Only by really exposing the dirty politics of the alarmists can this scam really start to be questioned by a majority of people.For those of you who say the HI is going to far,bullocks! You don’t fight bullies with warm,fuzzy feelings.For far to long we have let these guys get away with fraud,theft,and deception.It is time to fight fire with fire,only ours will be spontaneous,not acts of arson like the eco-cultists and fake scientists use.
Do not bother wasting your time on trying to convince warmista apoligists or pointing out the differences between private documents and tax-payer funded ones.
Take them all to court,and let’s see whose “facts” stand up in a court of law!

74. DirkH says:

Phil C says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:36 am
““The Memo,” yes — they have stated that & I referenced that fact. But they remain silent on the remaining 100 pages of documents released. Authentic or not? If they’re not Heartland’s documents, then who are they to tell anyone to take them down?”

Are you warmists that thick? No intelligent ones left? Now you’re saying, hey, the rest could be forgeries as well, so anyone can publish them?

75. harrywr2 says:

Charles Bruce Richardson Jr. says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:23 am

Is there a First Amendment right to forge documents?

A libel case brought by a public figure in the US normally must contain ‘malice’.

The definition of ‘malice’ in a libel case is that there was a ‘reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false’.

The ‘fake’ memo obviously harms the reputation of Heartland. The only remaining legal element is whether or not those who published it did it with ‘malice’.

Someone is going to have to explain to a judge how publishing a memo from an unknown source that Heartland has stated is fake isn’t ‘reckless disregard’.

76. Jimbo says:

Wiglaf says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:23 am

“(2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; … (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings;”

Don’t these two contradict one another? How do you do “4″ without violating “2?”

Take the offending pages down, replace with “nothing found” and publish retractions pointing the the url (which points to nothing found).

77. JimB says:

Reminds me of the fake document re: GWBush’s air national guard service. Those who deal in forged documents can truly pay for the misdeed.

78. A physicist says:
A physicist says: “Needless to say, the young folks at our party — many of them US Marine veterans of multiple combat tours in Iraq and Vietnam — were entirely familiar with McMaster’s principle of “Be First With the Truth,” (which has been universally adopted within the US armed forces). ”

DirkH asks: Do [Marines] also tolerate being smeared by fabrications?

Of course Marines often are “smeared by fabrications.”

And Marines know too that victory over smears comes by truth, not by lawyers.

That is the simple principle that the Heartland Institute has not grasped.

79. JJ says:

R. Gates says:

So I would hope that the Heartland Institute will openly condemn the release of all the Climategate emails as well as all the defamatory speech direct toward the scientists involved.

Of course you hope that. But you also konw that HI has the ability to discern and employ moral principles, so you know that it is a false hope.

Climategate involved publically funded material. The Fakegate theft was of private, legitimately confidential material.

The Climategate materials involved gross professional misconduct (on the public dime, no less), and expositions of falsehoods and violations of the law. the Fakegate stolen materials were not incriminating.

The basis of the legitimately derogatory commentary around Climategate was based on authenticated emails. The illegitimate defamatory commentary directed toward HI from Fakegate was based on a fabricated memo.

You can hope to erase legitimate distinctions between these two circumstance – obliterating inconveneient moral principles is the liberal way. But it ain’t gonna happen.

80. Jimbo says:

That is why the Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”

That’s why they want the lies to come down. Can you please publish your bank account details on WUWT. Thanks in advance. ;>)

81. Scottish Sceptic says:

Some have been saying “will this go to court”? Because as far as I can see, the eco-nerds who published the false material want to brazen it out. Like the non-science of global warming, they are so full of their own self-belief that they cannot seen how flimsy their case is.

It would seem to me that the bloggers are foolish enough to go to court on a case they cannot hope to win on the law. So, in the face of such stupidity, the HI really have no option; Unless almost everyone just puts their hands up and gives in (from the bloggers to the BBC), the HI cannot come out of this with a reputation allowing them to function as a think tank/lobby group unless they win in court … which looks very likely.

The only way I can see the enviros winning, is if they so bog down the HI in legal argument that they are unable to function as an organisation for years and run out of money to fund the legal bill.

82. David Ball says:

Let me get this straight, a forged document that might reveal how poorly funded the skeptics are compares to a release of emails ( perpetrator or whistleblower, whatever you like ) that shows that CRU science is completely unreliable to base policy on, yet billions have been spent on it. The similarities are uncanny, ……..

Do I really have to put a sarc tag on that?

83. Scottish Sceptic says:

Jimbo says: February 20, 2012 at 7:50 am<

Wiglaf says: February 20, 2012 at 6:23 am

“(2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; … (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings;”

Don’t these two contradict one another? How do you do “4″ without violating “2?”

This what you find at the post:
Jimbo says: February 20, 2012 at 7:50 [message removed]

Then somewhere on the site you write:

On 20th February we published a post contributed by “Jimbo”, it has been drawn to the attention of the management of this site that this post was libellous**. We have removed the content and wish to apologise to Jimbo. We particularly wish to emphasis that we do not think Wiglaf made love to a haggis and this in no way represents the views of the management of the site.

**obviously (but given current events best be safe) totally in jest and for illustration only.

84. David Ball says:

Also a big “hello” to a physicist !! How ya doin’ buddy?

85. TheGoodLocust says:

Hopefully this doesn’t go to trial – I’d be afraid that it would get OJ Simpsoned.

I must say though, this whole incident demonstrates an incredible lack of creativity among the warmists. They get slammed with damning leaks and in response they steal and fabricate their own anti-Climategate.

I wonder what left-wing organization has their fingers on this cookie jar? MM?

86. JamesD says:

The hoaxster trolls are here. So for those new to the story, here are the facts:
1. The Climategate emails were not illegal obtained. They were released by an internal whistleblower showing evidence of illegalities. This whistleblower did not break the law, and can not be prosecuted. However, he remains anonymous as he’ll lose his job if he is exposed and become a pariah amongst his friends.
2. The Climategate emails had been collected because of an FOIA request, but illegally held back.
3. The Heartland 7 documents were obtained by illegal fraud. The person stole these emails and impersonated someone, probably felonies.
4. The 8th document with the most explosive content is a proven fake.

87. David Ball says:

R.Gates, what are you doing on the internet? Thought you wanted to be a noble savage? Do they have internet capabilities?

88. AnotherPhilC says:

That the London Guardian used material either obtained evidently by “blagging” or actually faked leaves it open to accusations of hypocrisy considering its reports directed against other newspapers accused of blagging in the lead up to the Levenson Inquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/31/press-privacy-information-commmissioner

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/feb/02/information-commissioner-leveson-inquiry?INTCMP=SRCH

Blagging = obtaining private information by deception.

89. Ryan says:

Publishing leaked documents is in no way illegal, no matter how confidential the HI says they are. Presenting the fake document as real could get some bloggers in trouble, but the threat of legal action for going against HI’s confidentiality was one of the funnier things I’ve heard today. It’s like they’ve never heard of the first amendment, or they think they’re the NSA or something.

90. A physicist says:
A physicist says: :The Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”

Richard Sharpe says: It seems that you have gone beyond the unintentional parody horizon. I must also congratulate you on your brazen hypocrisy. Great work.

Richard, if your post said the same of the Heartland Institute, then their lawyers would aggressively threaten you with lawsuits … doesn’t that policy strike you as more than a little bit wrong-headed, and just plain un-American?

As for hypocrisy, the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth” leaves no room for it — because “Be First With the Truth” is a principle that either is embraced entirely, or else in the end, rejected wholly.

That is why the Heartland Institute is traveling down an exceedingly slippery moral path.

91. juanslayton says:

Jimbo: Take the offending pages down, replace with “nothing found” and publish retractions pointing the the url (which points to nothing found).

And this thread (with all previous related threads) will self destruct at ?? hours Zulu? I don’t see how the specifics of the take-down demand could be upheld. They need to find the forger. No question about his liability.

92. Urederra says:

Geoffrey Thorpe-Willett says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:21 am
To John Anderson. I complained to the BBC about the Richard Black article, his response was :

That awkward moment when you file a complaint about the behaviour of a journalist and it is the said journalist the one who replies to your complaint.

You cannot expect any reparations or fault confession when the person who you are complaining about is the only one reading your complaint.

93. Jimbo says:

Phil C says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:36 am
““The Memo,” yes — they have stated that & I referenced that fact. But they remain silent on the remaining 100 pages of documents released. Authentic or not? If they’re not Heartland’s documents, then who are they to tell anyone to take them down?”

Give it up! You sound like a journalist who erroneously thinks he onto something sinister.

If they remain silent it means only one of two things. They are fake which makes matters worse for your side. They are genuine in which case they can take them by legal action. Does it really matter?????

I presume their silence means that they are genuine, and so what?

94. JDN says:

Defamatory statements are, as they say, actionable. DeSmog & others aren’t doing parody nor are they attacking the faked letter as a fake. So, clearly, if the faked letter is defamatory, and there are so many internal and external clues that it is defamatory which they are ignoring, and yet they persist in making false accusations on the Heartland Institute, they will be in trouble in any court in any country. So, the HI threats against the primary blogs for defamation seems likely to win.

If you remember the Sarah Palin private e-mail hack. The fellow who hacked the much derided Palin’s private e-mails got 1 year in jail (suspended I think). So, that part of the HI threat the have the hacker arrested is valid.

Here’s an interesting case where a fictional story libelled a wildlife park and they were forced to take it down. The ACLU objected, of course, and won because the site was a satire site and should never have been taken seriously in the first place: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/giraffe-satire-can-go-back-up-on-web-site
However, if DeSmog & others aren’t satire sites but have represented themselves as legitimate news sites, this option isn’t open for them regarding the faked letter.

And, yes, you can get a DMCA takedown on any document you created because only have copyright. Thus, any document HI can prove is theirs, they own the rights to and can force it off any website they want. Obviously, the CRU do not own the copyright for their documents because they are a public organization with FOIA obligations. It’s somewhat a grey area about copyrights and government organizations these days. It’s possible that the UK government could start issueing DMCA takedown notices for the CRU e-mails based on copyright. Of course, that would bring up the whole FOIA thing that they are avoiding. I’m sure the HI e-mails will stay available on foreign web sites, but, the blogs that have been using them to accuse them of misdeeds won’t be able to keep them up and possibly not link to them. NOt sure I support that last one, but, that seems to be how things are going these days.

The one important grey area is commentary. Commentary on a document is fair use if you do not use the entire document to do so. I haven’t seen any high profile case where people have been forbidden to comment on information illegally obtained… quite the opposite. So, that part is never going away unless I’ve missed some new doctrine.

95. AnotherPhilC says:

\$44,000 here, and \$44,000 there, and pretty soon were talking 20 minutes of Al Gore’s time.

96. A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am

At a dinner party …..

It appears to me that the US Armed Forces thoroughly appreciate a principle that the Heartland Institute has utterly failed to grasp: the vital role in democracies of open critical discussion, as an essential corrective to arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.

That is why the Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”
==========================================================

Do you read what you write before clicking the post button? What you utterly fail to grasp, is that HI was first with truth and asked people to take down the lies to begin with. Places like DeSmog opted to print and propagate lies even after learning,(if they didn’t know beforehand) that in all likelihood they printed and propagated lies. If you truly want an honest discussion on the climate issue, you should start by going to places like DeSmog and insist that they quit lying and propagating lies. But, then, if that were to occur, most of the alarmists sites would shut down.

Personally, I’m sorta sad HI has done this. This has been fun times to just point and laugh at the people insisting on propagating these lies. But, I do understand HI’s angst about the lies out there about them.

97. Ted Swart says:

I must confess that I find the Heartland reaction incredibly sad. The casualty in all of this is that we tend to get pulled away from the main purpose of WUWT. The dishonest warmists are prone to claim that skeptics are anti-science — even although we know that they have broken all the ground rules of genuine science. I sincerely hope that WUWT will not be distracted for too long by what is after all a peripheral issue and will get back to focusing on the publicising of genuine science. The AGW hypothesis and even more so the CAGW religion are totally off the map when it comes their bizarre fixation on the totally discredited unscientific hypothesis that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. Genuine science is incredibly important to the well being of the human race and we need to focus on trying to undo the damage to the image of science which has resulted from the perversion of the basic scientific ground rules of openness and reproducibility.

98. JJ says:

A physicist says:

A physicist says: :The Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”

Non-sequitur. “Be First With the Truth” does not proscribe taking action against Falsehood and Fraud (such as the Fake Memeo) – to hold such is clearly perverted. Nor does that principle force one to accept theft, fraud, espionage, and breach of confidentiality over matters that do not involve exposure of wrongdoing. Again, see the UCMJ, and how it treats spies vs whistleblowers. hint: one of those renders one eligible for being placed before a firing squad of his peers.

<i.Richard, if your post said the same of the Heartland Institute, then their lawyers would aggressively threaten you with lawsuits … doesn’t that policy strike you as more than a little bit wrong-headed, and just plain un-American?

Using a falsehood to create a strawman – twofer! You guys give each other points for packing multiple illegitimacies into a small space? HI would do no such thing. You made that up, then stuffed it with straw.

As for hypocrisy, the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth” leaves no room for it — because “Be First With the Truth” is a principle that either is embraced entirely, or else in the end, rejected wholly.

Ergo, you are well on your way to rejecting it wholly.

That is why the Heartland Institute is traveling down an exceedingly slippery moral path.

There is no moral imperative for the innocent to suffer thieves and liars.

99. Jimbo says:

Ryan says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:16 am

Publishing leaked documents is in no way illegal, no matter how confidential the HI says they are. Presenting the fake document as real could get some bloggers in trouble, but the threat of legal action for going against HI’s confidentiality was one of the funnier things I’ve heard today. It’s like they’ve never heard of the first amendment, or they think they’re the NSA or something.

So you wouldn’t complain if someone came into your house, took lots of your documents and published them on the net? Would it be legal? Answers on a post card. ;O)

100. Hunt says: February 20, 2012 at 3:53 am
> Heartland still has a link to the illegally obtained “climategate” docs:
> http://heartland.org/policy-documents/death-blow-climate-science
> Although if you click the megaupload link, it’s been closed down by the
> feds for racketeering. Kind of says it all.

In response to seeing “closed down by the feds”, I checked out the link.
One of the 3 badge-like logos has “anti-piracy warning”, and another
mentions intellectual property. 2 of the 4 criminal charges mentioned have
to do with copyright infringement. I tried a web search with the terms
“megaupload” and “copyright”, and it appears to me that megaupload.com
was a huge “file sharing” site that got themselves into a megaton of deep
trouble, for copyright infringement and money laundering. What I don’t
see is linkage to Climategate.

The Wikipedia article on Megaupload mentions recent indictments and
arrests, on basis that allegedly Megaupload was “dedicated to copyright
infringement”. Also mentioned was DOS attacking of some US government
organizations and copyright-related organizations after the 1/19/2012
shutdown. Further in this Wiki article, illegal activity appears to me to be
dominantly mentioned as copyright infringement. This Wikipedia article
does not mention climate-anything.

Since the Heartland Institute appears to me to favor corporate interests,
I wonder why they (according to an above link) chose megaupload.com as
a place to get Climategate e-mails.

101. If its ok to post fake but true documents, then i suggest a WUWT Competetion!!!

“Fake but True Climategate mails ” Mails we never read.

Anthony, I mentioned this over at Lucia’s and people love the idea. Create fake but true climategate mails, as a writing competation!!

Moshpit, or CTM, will judge the winners.. or maybe you Bish or mcIntyre

102. LamontT says:

Heartland is following the exact correct legal steps one should in a case like this. CRU should have done the exact same thing if they where going to pursue legal course about the publishing of the emails. Note it is very telling that CRU chose to not do so and instead has spent countless hours saving face by pursuing a very likely nonexistent hacker.

The legal process moves at a snails pace compared to the world of the internet. Which means that this will be entering court months from now. This notice is the first salvo in going to court and is the correct first step if you are going to pursue legal remedies and not just talk big. What reaction is taken by those who are sent the notice will be used as part of the legal case. They now can not claim to not know the status of the docs and the defiance shown now by the blogs receiving notice will cripple any defense they put up later.

For those thinking this is some how hypocritical of Heartland it isn’t. One of the core tenets of libertarianism is private property rights. And libertarians consider one of the valid reasons for government to exist is enforcing private property rights. From their point of view this is definitely a private property issue and they appear to be pursuing it. The reaction will be telling and I fully expect this to go on for quite some time as warmists appear to have no idea of the mine field they just ran joyfully into and are continuing to dance in.

103. DirkH says:

A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:57 am

A physicist says: “Needless to say, the young folks at our party — many of them US Marine veterans of multiple combat tours in Iraq and Vietnam — were entirely familiar with McMaster’s principle of “Be First With the Truth,” (which has been universally adopted within the US armed forces). ”

DirkH asks: Do [Marines] also tolerate being smeared by fabrications?

Of course Marines often are “smeared by fabrications.”

It must be something with your brain that stops you from processing questions.

104. A physicist says:

JJ says: There is no moral imperative for the innocent to suffer thieves and liars.

JJ, when it comes to family safety and personal possessions your post is entirely correct.

But when it comes to public dialog your post is entirely mistaken. The Marine principle “Be First with the Truth” recognizes that lies invariably are deployed against truth … and that truth invariably withstands the assault of lies.

That why the US Marines live-and-breath the dynamic strategy “Be First with the Truth” instead of the passive Heartland Institute strategy “Our lawyers will contact you.”

105. Foxgoose says:

A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am
“Needless to say, the young folks at our party — many of them US Marine veterans of multiple combat tours in Iraq and Vietnam

Vietnam ended in 75 – your “young” dinner guests must have been around 60.

Sounds a bit like “climatology” to me.

106. Ryan says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:16 am

Publishing leaked documents is in no way illegal, no matter how confidential the HI says they are. Presenting the fake document as real could get some bloggers in trouble, but the threat of legal action for going against HI’s confidentiality was one of the funnier things I’ve heard today. It’s like they’ve never heard of the first amendment, or they think they’re the NSA or something.

You really don’t understand the first amendment and freedom of the press do you?

So you are saying that if someone were to illegally access your personal records, say your medical records, or your employment history, or your tax returns and then published all sorts of lies about you based on those confidential documents, including a forged document that implied you were involved in some improper behavior, that you should just smile, pat them on the head and wish them good luck with their slander and libel?

The old saying about your freedom of speech stops at my nose, or you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater apply here. They are intentionally misrepresenting facts with the intent of discrediting HI and destroying their organization. (that is called lying, slander and libel for those of you who are ethically challenged).

As mentioned above any of the documents that are real, are protected under copyright and HI has an absolute right to control their use and publication in the public domain. Intentional copyright violation can be a very expensive error for a publisher. Their only defense against such a charge is “fair use” which is obviously not applicable if they are trying to use those documents to weave a false narrative, and have intentionally and repeatedly miss-characterized the content of those documents (rounding up dollar amounts) asserting facts not in evidence etc. Stating funding was granted when it was only under discussion etc.

The ability of some of you to totally miss the point is simply astounding. You would squeal like a stuck pig if the same behavior was directed toward yourself or a friend or your business, but some how it is perfectly ok if this sort of public deception is practiced against an organization you dislike.

Larry

107. A physicist says:
A physicist says: “Needless to say, the young folks at our party — many of them US Marine veterans of multiple combat tours in Iraq and Vietnam.”

Foxgoose says: Vietnam ended in 75 – your “young” dinner guests must have been around 60.

Foxgoose, I just plain mis-typed: the Marine NCOs at our dinner party had (among them) 20++ years of combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. And needless to say, it is mighty instructive to listen to these Marines discuss lessons-learned from their years of service.

It was BrigGen Herbert Raymond (“HR”) McMaster whose well-respected book (among US military commanders and historians in general, and Marines in particular) Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam first illuminated “Be First with the Truth” as a bedrock principle of American military strategy.

One point that comes home (literally) to my wife and me is that the bedrock principle “Be First with the Truth” can sustain a trooper, and sustain that trooper’s family, through years of grinding conflict.

The Heartland Institute simply does not understand that “Our Lawyers will call You” can never provide the sustainment of “Be First with the Truth”.

108. Genghis says:

Snapple says: If Joe Bast wants to clear this up, all he has to do is post a screen-save of the email sent with the attachments. Then we call all see what documents were actually attached and to whom they were sent.

If Joe Bast were to do that, he would lose the legal right to keep the documents private.

Obviously you are hoping that Joe Bast is stupid and doesn’t know the law. Sadly for you and your side though, it appears that Desmog and the warmers are the idiots.

109. Larry,

Speaking for myself, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between complaining about publishing the documents and complaining about any and all commenting about the documents.

Heartland has stated that they demand that “all posts that refer or relate in any manner to” the documents be removed.

Do you support this thread and all others like it being completely “disappeared” from the internet forever? Does Heartland have any business making that claim?

Why they insist on going that far is beyond me. Not only do they not have a leg to stand on, but it is absolutely horrible PR. What can they possibly hope to gain by threatening everyone, friend and foe alike, with this “legal” demand?

RTF

110. JJ says:

A physicist says:

JJ says: There is no moral imperative for the innocent to suffer thieves and liars.

JJ, when it comes to family safety and personal possessions your post is entirely correct.

It is universally correct, your non-responsive blather notwithstanding. There is no moral imperative for the innocent to suffer thieves and liars.

For confirmation, you may visit with your friendly neighborhood JAG regarding the UCMJ. Ask how it treats thieves, forgers, liars, and spies. Inquire as to when 10 USC 1034 applies, and when it does not. Determine the penalties applicable when it does not. Your invocation of the Marine Corps and your intentional misinterpretation of principles to dress up your attack on HI is offensive.

111. Mark Nutley says:

They will take them down but will always refer to them, the damage has been done, mission acomplished

112. D. J. Hawkins says:

Snapple says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:16 am
If Joe Bast wants to clear this up, all he has to do is post a screen-save of the email sent with the attachments. Then we call all see what documents were actually attached and to whom they were sent.

Perhaps Joe Bast accidentally sent this email to the wrong person and he doesn’t want that Anonymous Donor to know he messed up.

Are you daft? That e-mail is material evidence in an on-going police investigation. Why not demand that the results of a rape kit be published on-line for the perpetrator to get a heads up? Good grief!

113. Richard T. Fowler says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:51 am

Larry,

Speaking for myself, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between complaining about publishing the documents and complaining about any and all commenting about the documents.

Heartland has stated that they demand that “all posts that refer or relate in any manner to” the documents be removed.

Do you support this thread and all others like it being completely “disappeared” from the internet forever? Does Heartland have any business making that claim?

I think you are misunderstanding their request, they are asking the groups who have been intentionally misrepresenting those documents to not only remove the documents but their libelous and slanderous misrepresentations of those documents. I do not for a minute believe that their intent is to “disappear” legitimate public discussion of the issue, only the biased misrepresentations they have posted the steer the uninformed to jump to erroneous conclusions.

For example suppose a group was advertising a drug that had a name that mimicked a real drugs name and were asserting lots of improper and unproven benefits of that clone drug.

The rightful trade mark holder for that drug name could demand that they take down the advertisement and all their bogus claims but would have no right to ask unrelated discussion groups to wipe their discussions about that bogus drug. They could only ask them not to link or display the removed illegal advertisement.

Anthony and WUWT along with some other sites, have always acted in good faith (included appropriate warnings and disclaimers) and in fact have been trying to correct those misrepresentations. It would not be beneficial for the HI to ask for total purging of discussions, even if they could demand removal of the discussion on some thin legal technicality. In fact our discussions pointing out the many misrepresentations and twisted coverage would likely be useful in their case to help show that the blogs like desmog could have and should have known that the information they were pushing was incorrect, and intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

In fact Anthony and WUWT and similar sites are probably protected under fair use doctrine as they were providing news and educational service regarding the misrepresentations.

Larry

114. [SNIP: John, that sort of baiting is uncalled for. His son is a marine who was wounded in action and his buddies did not need to be forced to do what marines do: support one of their own. -REP]

115. Genghis says:

A physicist,
Are you really supporting the theft of private property and the slander of the victim of the theft?
Why don’t you put up a blog with copies of the stolen property and repeat your slander?
Or do you not have the courage of your convictions?

116. A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:16 am

Which “truth” are sites such as Desmog being first with? The truth of a fake document? Doubleplusgood!

117. A physicist: “One point that comes home (literally) to my wife and me is that the bedrock principle “Be First with the Truth” can sustain a trooper, and sustain that trooper’s family, through years of grinding conflict.

The Heartland Institute simply does not understand that “Our Lawyers will call You” can never provide the sustainment of “Be First with the Truth”.

Your tirade is more appropriately applied to the CRU emails. Application of “Be first with the truth” to the Heartland documents is completely wrong, considering the primary item in question is a fake. Fake “truth” isn’t truth at all.

However, since you seem so intent on allowing the illegal dissemination of private property, how about you post your credit card info so we can all go buy some stuff.

118. jim hogg, Glasgow says:

Wouldn’t it be encouraging, inspiring maybe, if there was one organisation out there that was populated by people whose only concern was the achievement of greater understanding – of climate or anything – instead of the pursuit of a particular agenda, ideological or otherwise. As a genuine sceptic I find the HI’s response to this totally trivial affair both heavy handed and hypocritical. So what if people get an insider’s view of discussions . .! And why don’t they demonstrate clearly that the summary document is a fake, and more importantly, what parts of it are accurate and what parts are false. . . A plague on both their houses . . Truth/accuracy are always the first casualties when ideologies/agendas (is there a difference?) clash.

119. Jim says:

This has nothing to do with the Marines. It has to do with theft, something that has already been established WRT the Heartland Institute and, BTW, NOT established WRT EAU. Heartland is doing absolutely the right thing in going after the criminals who executed this theft. I hope they catch them and see them in prison.

120. John Whitman says:

Heartland said:

““We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.”

– – – – – – – –

R. Gates says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:21 am

“So I would hope that the Heartland Institute will openly condemn the release of all the Climategate emails as well as all the defamatory speech direct toward the scientists involved.”

– – – – – – –
R. Gates,

So, are you suggesting your associates and their institutions who were involved in the docs from CG1 & CG2 got some bad legal advice? You seem to be hinting that their legal counsel apparently told them erroneously they had no case to block blogs from using unauthorized release of real public documents that were, long before their CG1 & CG2 release, subject to dispute under FOIA.

It appears to me the legal counsel of those involved in the docs released in CG1 & CG2 do know the difference between those public fund produced documents and the HI’s private fund produced documents.

I suggest if you do not understand to give your CG1 & CG2 involved associates a call. They do know through their counsel’s advice.

John

121. MarkW says:

sceptical says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:47 am

Even in the free market, it is the responsibility of the govt to prosecute criminal activity.
Weren’t you aware of that?

122. Steve S says:

Jim Hogg:

Just how do you propose HI prove they didn’t author the faked memo?

123. Bart says:

This is such a tempest in a teapot. Even the supposedly incriminating fake document is not particularly noteworthy. It is very weak tea indeed compared to the conspiracies revealed by the Climategate e-mails.

124. George E. Smith; says:

“”””” cui bono says:

February 20, 2012 at 4:11 am

There seem to be three issues here:

(1) Identity theft / fakery by the person who got the documents, fabricated one, and made them public.

(2) Whether a website is entitled to display a fake document when the source institution has stated it is a fake. “””””

There you go cui, writing nonsense: “”””” Whether a website is entitled to display a fake document when the source institution has stated it is a fake. “””””

Um! cui, in this instance, the “source institution” has NOT stated it is a fake; they presented it as a fact. And evidently they are presently un-identified.

Heartland, Institute; which IS NOT the “source institution ” HAS stated it is a fake; and they should know it is since they ARE NOT the source of it.

Understand the difference ?

125. Smokey says:

Steve S says:

“Just how do you propose HI prove they didn’t author the faked memo?”

Lack of motive. Why would they deliberately shoot themselves in the foot?

126. MarkW says:

If this does end up in court, one of the first issues that will be raised by the defense attorney is what efforts did Heartland take to protect it’s rights once it had discovered the theft.
If Heartland did nothing, as many of you are suggesting, the defense attorney would sieze on this failure to act as evidence that Heartland itself did not consider these documents to be important, and the damage to it’s reputation to be trivial.

127. Jeremy says:

Tale of the Tape:

1) Heartland Institute: A private advocacy group with a well known bias
2) CRU: A scientific center [snip, over the top], largely publicly funded

1) Phished e-mails/documents from HI show normal political advocacy group activity, that is to say, advocacy
2) Released e-mails/documents from CRU show world-renowned scientists doing exactly what scientists shouldn’t be doing, that is to say, advocacy.

1) HI leak has its most important document shown to be a fabrication
2) CRU leak has it’s owner admit the e-mails are his and genuine

1) HI leak has numerous warmist blogs saying we can’t trust a PAC. (oh we can’t trust a political group? Wow, what else is new desmog?)
2) CRU leak has numerous skeptic blogs displaying prima-facie evidence that we can’t trust climate science.

1) HI issue has major media outlets jumping on the gun VERY QUICKLY do denounce Anthony and HI for their “ill-gotten” funding.
2) CRU leak is going on 3 years and still no major media outlet has given it its due.

1) HI leak demonstrates that skeptics and all their political advocate groups operate on a few tens of millions per year, and that’s stretching it.
2) CRU leak demonstrates that even with many hundred billions of dollars thrown at climate science, the warmists cannot manufacture the truth or even comply with FOIA laws.

128. Ryan says:

@ Jimbo 8:55 AM:

The story is someone at HI mistakenly cc’d an email to someone who wasn’t signed on to HI’s confidentiality agreements. It’s like when Rep. Anthony Weiner accidentally tweeted a picture of… well… anyway, he didn’t even try to tell blogs to take the picture down. It was too late.

My opinion is they have every right to be upset with any employee who violated a confidentiality agreement, or any blog that presents the fake document as real, even after HI’s insistence otherwise. But they have no legitimate gripe with any non-HI employee publishing their real memos. First Amendment baby. Go America.

129. yawn says:

Wait, so if these docs are indeed faked, what right does the HI have to demand their removal?

130. yawn says:

If the HI wants the docs removed, it will have to confirm which ones are real and which ones are fake. I hope they take it to court, so that the truth can come out once and for all. They will have nothing to hide behind then (including pathetically lame threats in an attempt to cover their behinds).

131. A physicist says:
Steve S says: “Just how do you propose HI prove they didn’t author the faked memo?”

Smokey says: “Lack of motive. Why would they deliberately shoot themselves in the foot?”

That’s what soldiers do, when a battle is imminent that they are destined to lose. John Mashey’s report was set to release information that substantially overlapped the leaked Heartland memos,, such that threatening to sue everyone has provided both a plausible excuse, and a media distraction, that has helped Heartland to evade responding to Mashey’s report. As for “who leaked the memos?”, it is plausible that we will never know.

Such tempting tactics are why institutions and persons are utterly untrustworthy, whose core commitment is other than “Be First with the Truth.”

132. yawn says:

Wow, the HI is getting really, really desperate, making insane threats left and right:

[snip. Will post if you delete personal email info. ~dbs, mod.]

133. Smokey says:

yawn says:

“Wait, so if these docs are indeed faked, what right does the HI have to demand their removal?”

So the mouth-breather wouldn’t mind if I posted on-line a faked document showing him molesting 6-year old boys, along with a photoshopped pic? What right would yawn have to demand their removal?

134. Bill Jamison says:

After reading the response from DeSmog it sure seems that this will only be resolved in court. Time to break out the popcorn!

135. Foxgoose says:

Foxgoose says: Vietnam ended in 75 – your “young” dinner guests must have been around 60.
Foxgoose, I just plain mis-typed

Whatever.

I’m not American myself, but your attempt to drape yourself in the national flag and enlist military heroes in your attempted defence of theft, fraud and libel seems repellent and tacky to me.

136. yawn says:

@Smokey

The HI has been extensively posting on the fakery that is Climategate, so their hypocrisy shines through again. Unless, of course, the documents are all correct, as the HI’s actions and statements indicate.

137. The clown who runs this blog and his fellow climate change belivers have post and threads where is says he will not take his post/threads down with the frake and fraud information on them.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com

used to be a well known and well liked blog but took a trun for the worst

138. yawn says:

[snip. You cannot state to another commentator: "You are lying." without solid proof. You had best tone down your comments. That was strike two. ~dbs, mod.]

139. JamesD says:

Yawn, since the faked document slanders them, they have a right to have it removed from blogs.

As far as this action, it is part of the legal process. This letter is known as a “demand letter”. What this means is that Heartland has definitely decided to pursue legal action, and is operating under the advise of a lawyer(s), not a PR firm. The offending blogs better talk to a lawyer, and I can confidently predict that such a lawyer will tell them to remove the fake document. The documents which have a good chance of being genuine, I don’t know. Depends on the laws. They were obtained by identity theft, so obviously they were illegally obtained. Their lawyer will have to advise them on that.

140. McComberBoy says:

Wow, the squeaking and squawking from the R.(usty)Gates is as annoying as ever. Particularly this part: “…as well as all the defamatory speech direct toward the scientists involved.”

How can legitimate quotes from real emails be defamatory? Your real beef with this is that the truth came out in the Climategate emails and it was damning, not defaming. Dizzy Dean, among others, once said, “It aint bragging if you can back it up”. Just as clearly, it isn’t defamation if it is the truth.

141. JC says:

Aphysicist is only trying once again to hijack a thread for his own purpose.

I have known many Marines in my life including my father. Some of them fought in Iraq. It has been my experience that Marines like to use bluster in their training. This aides in building comradery and a sense of purpose. As Col. Nathan Jessep said in A Few Good Men “We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something .” Powerful words.

That being said, the notion of “Be First with the Truth” might sound good and puff up a few chests but it has very little to do with our armed forces and even less to do with this conversation. Your use of it only shows you for the hypocrite you are.

JC

142. Dan in California says:

jim hogg, Glasgow says: February 20, 2012 at 11:14 am
Wouldn’t it be encouraging, inspiring maybe, if there was one organisation out there that was populated by people whose only concern was the achievement of greater understanding – of climate or anything – instead of the pursuit of a particular agenda, ideological or otherwise.
—————————————————
That’s why I come to this website. It’s not perfect, but does an excellent job of portraying the climate facts with long threads of thoughtful discussion, and a few trolls for seasoning.

143. Billy Liar says:

Ryan says:
February 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm

But they have no legitimate gripe with any non-HI employee publishing their real memos. First Amendment baby. Go America.

So, Ryan, when you write that book and I steal copy and put it on the internet for all to read; that’ll be OK then?

144. yawn says:

“[snip. Will post if you delete personal email info. ~dbs, mod.]”

Huh? Delete what?

145. yawn says:

["denial"?? snip. Read the site Policy and abide by it or your comments go into the spam folder. ~ dbs, mod.]

146. yawn says:

@McComberBoy

“How can legitimate quotes from real emails be defamatory?”

Correction: Quote-mining and fake quotes. Taking quotes out of context to present them as something they aren’t is extremely dishonest. “Climategate” is nothing but a fake controversy based on quote-mining and misinformation.

147. yawn says:

@Billy Liar

“So, Ryan, when you write that book and I steal copy and put it on the internet for all to read; that’ll be OK then?”

He would have lost money then. Are you saying that the HI was going to sell those documents in order to make money?

148. A physicist says:

JC says: That being said, the notion of “Be First with the Truth” might sound good and puff up a few chests but it has very little to do with our armed forces and even less to do with this conversation.

JS, please let me express the hope that you and other WUWT readers will not mind verifying that “Be First with the Truth” is a core doctrine of David Petraeus’ Multi-National Force-Iraq Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance, as published in Military Review.

IMHO, the directors of the Heartland Institute would do well to ask themselves why “Be First with the Truth” has proven itself to be sound doctrine.

149. JJ says:

JC,

That being said, the notion of “Be First with the Truth” might sound good and puff up a few chests but it has very little to do with our armed forces …

That is not correct. “Be First with the Truth” has legitimate meaning as a guiding principle within the US armed forces, and specific meaning and intent with respect to counter terrorism/counter insurgency strategy.

Neither of those meanings is what “A physicist” is trying to make of it in his self-serving, flag wrapping, global warming politics exercise, and that is the problem.

150. McComberBoy says:

Yawn,

I started to write a cogent reply, but realized that you really can’t read it with your head buried that far into the sand. When you have read even one of the ‘climate gate’ emails, none of which have been alluded, much less proved to be fake, come on back. Until then just stay in the little troll cave in your mother’s basement.

And don’t bother to respond. You are on my permanent comment skip over list. A new record. You made it in one post in only one hour.

151. gnomish says:

yawn:
the climategate emails were not taken out of contexts – THEY ARE THE CONTEXT.
none were FORGED by professional habitual fraudsters who should be in jail.
and you are not the 800 lb mannian sycophant in the room – that’s the fake fizzizist.
say it, yawnling: forgery forgery lies deceit treachery;
say it, yawning: theft by deception of billions and billions = fraud
the climategate emails just proved it was neither innocent nor accidental – incontovertibly.
say it, yawner; liars, fakers, conmen in labcoats, crooks with degrees, stealing your children’s future, wrecking the world economy.
say it yawnette: scammers with unlimited ambition. and you must be getting some, eh?

152. Mike H. in Spokane says:

The Marine Corps principle is not ‘First with the truth’ it’s ‘First in war, First in peace.’ Truth is expected.

Navy in Vietnam and Marine in Vietnam era. 65yo. Leave the military out of your politicing

153. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:18 am

Larry, I hope you are correct. Your explanation is reasonable, but what they wrote, taken at face value, is over the top. Hopefully they will see fit to clarify this. Because the apparent meaning of their demand #2 is wrong, both morally and legally.

Thanks for your interpretation.

RTF

154. IAmDigitap says:

The guy calling himself a physicist, is just another internet troll who obviously doesn’t work in physics, because if he did, he’d be mortified, someone would find out what he’s been seen repeatedly, endorsing as physics.

He’s believed in Mike Mann’s hockey sticks.
He’s believed in Mike Mann’s treemometers: he can’t even grasp that “light, relative humidity, sunlight, temperature, CO2/canopy O2/root zone precipitation quantity, precipitation periods,

*sixteen minerals in more or less proper proportion,” thing.

He knows those hockey sticks are real math, and those treemometers are real, and that magic gas is real, because he thinks we all don’t know about the heating potential
of the class of gas whose main constituent water, covers the earth to about 70% worth,
and is an atmospheric pressures phase-change
refrigerant.
He’s appalled that we can’t believe someone combed out the miniscule footprint of CO2 then combed out the MORE miniscule MANMADE CO2 footprint and quantified it in correlation with the temperature of the globe, to within a tenth of a degree or so.

He can believe every instrument on earth is broken and ‘not showing the heating as it is’ as though people caught calculating doomsday with Math, they didn’t know was Fake,
makes THEM the ones to watch for signs of genius and finally being right one day.

A man made fake math to calculate what fake treemometers would say about yesteryear, and the answer is we all have to stop using fire.

But these internet trolls aren’t in the least affected by the infrared astronomy field’s revelations that the amount of infrared downwelling is LESS now than fiftee years ago.

Their take on things is that you are denying carbon sin.

To the troll claiming he was a physicist somewhere once,
that is high quality scientific construction to him.

He’s an internet scammer from somewhere like Kooks@Cooks@Kweenslund.

155. Alan Watt says:

From the stolen Heartland marketing plan (a real document, not the faked one):

In late 2011, Heartland negotiated an agreement with Griswold and Griswold, a DM consulting
firm, to produce approximately 1 million DM letters in 2012. Griswold will manage the writing,
printing and mailing of the letters and “caging” the returns, and pass through to us bills from
vendors. Because of some delay in getting started, we expect the actual number of letters to be
sent in 2012 will be 800,000.

If Griswold’s plan is correct, Heartland should end 2012 with approximately 18,000 new donors.
We currently have only 1,800 donors, so this would be quite an accomplishment. Griswold
further forecasts that Heartland would net \$500,000 in the second year of the campaign, and
would end 2013 with some 33,000 donors.

Seems reasonable to me — HI wants to broaden their support base from a relatively few major contributors to a larger group of more ordinary means.

Well I just gave them a \$250 donation online. And my employer will match the contribution. Until this little dust-up I hadn’t realized what a thorn in the side HI is to the AGW movement.

Anthony: If I could have, I would have designated my donation to support your project. If you put up a contribution link, I’ll donate directly. WUWT is a fantastic resource.

156. Ryan says:

@ Billy Liar 1:16

Publishing an entire manuscript is definitely copyright infringement. Publishing memos of obvious political and journalistic relevance is almost certainly fair use under 17 USC Sec 106.

157. yawn says:

@McComberBoy

Ooh, what a great way to make your case. Simply repeat the same old talking points.

The mails are not fake, but quotes were faked and taken out of context to create the fake controversy called Climategate. That was what I wrote. And you decided to start throwing around straw men and red herrings instead.

Typical.

158. yawn says:

@IAmDigitap

The hockey stick has been confirmed and verified by independent researchers multiple times.

Your attacks on Mann are just pathetic. The least you can do is to try to be honest about it. You clearly have no idea what Mann’s position is, or what it is based on.

Remember, Mann started his research as a student, and focused on finding natural causes for climate change. What he found was not what he expected. He did find natural cycles, but on a regional scale. But with the hemispheric average, the regional cycles canceled each other out.

So, please, stop it with the nonsense now. Try to educate yourself about the real background story.

159. Scottish Sceptic says:

I’ve been wondering about the possible outcomes:

0. The ignore the release (too late obviously) := the affair blows over with a few bloggers claiming victory.
1. The HI issue notices & bloggers desist, HI takes no further action := a few bloggers don’t go home claiming victory.
2. The HI settle “out of court” := a few bloggers go home to their wives and try to explain why they have to move to a smaller house.
3. The HI go to court and loose := the world’s press go crazy saying “it’s all proved that sceptics lie” … and lots of other ridiculous stuff. In other words they now believe that they have a god given right to say anything about sceptics. This could backfire … the public don’t like to see martyrs, but more than likely it will be taken as evidence of everything bad that has ever been said about the HI and sceptics in general.
4. The HI go to court and win, I presume it would be an action against a limited number followed by threats to most other participants, who would have little option but to settle out of court.

:= Obviously their first tactic would be to say it doesn’t matter … it was the theft/fraud and obvious the judge was going to come down against that, it doesn’t prove the Hearland were right. However, a much bigger impact is likely to be the media editor;s confidence in the global warming scare that (used to) lay the golden egg. We can hear the conversation even now: “look I just want you to tone down your language, stick to facts … and if you can’t find any, find another subject“.

Yes … the main change will be a loss in confidence … the loss in that belief in invincibility, in the certainty they hold the moral highground, that their cause is greater than the law. Not even trying to save the planet justifies fraud and theft.

It could well precipitate a few other settlements like the FOI/mann case.

160. Robert says:

JJ thank you for your comments, my dad was a Marine who served in the Pacific during WWII. He wouldn’t have made it through the first post by “a physicist” without blowing his top. There are no “former” Marines, he was one till the day he died and would have viewed the posts by “a physicist” as someone trying to use the honor of the Corps. for their own ends. That is not something, or someone, the old man would have had any respect for. Bury him with the UCMJ for he knows not of what he speaks.

161. David A. Evans says:

Tony Mach says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:12 am

Now, if they had asked bloggers to take down obviously false statements (or at least distance themselves clearly from false statements), they would have my full sympathy.

I believe that request was made very soon after the publications.

Colin Porter says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:38 am

Anthony
Does this notice mean that you will likewise have to clean up your previous blogs on the subject in order to remove adverse comments from the likes of Chris Colose, Karl L or even William M Connolley. Unfortunately, you will be damned if you do and damned if you don’t, especially from people like Connolly, a veteran in the area of censorship.

Unlikely under “fair use” and the fact that opposite views were allowed.

sceptical says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:47 am

Didn’t take long for Heartland Institute to back off its mission and turn to the intrusive power of government when it wanted something from the government. So much for the statists at Heartland Institutes belief in the free market.

So you don’t expect them to report burglary either or perhaps they should just “send in da boys”?

A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am

I suggest you read and understand McMaster before quoting.

USMC is not a private entity!

DaveE.

162. Smokey says:

yawn,

If you actually believe the nonsense you’re posting, then you must have come here from one of those small echo chamber blogs like RealClimate, Pseudo-Skptical Pseoudo-Science, tamina, or similar.

None of the principle characters have stated that the Climategate emails are fake. And if they had been fabricated, then all those named in them would have loudly objected. And there were scores of names. And note that there are thousands of Climategate emails. Many are incriminating, and to dismiss what they are saying with the throwaway retort that they were “taken out of context” is lame. And how do you explain the Harry_read_me file, in which the programmer states that he is fabricating years of temperature records? So you will understand that you sound like a lunatic here, claiming that it amounts to nothing. Climategate was the turning point.

Next, Mann’s original Hokey Stick was last used by the IPCC in 2007. They can no longer publish it. Why not? Because it has been debunked. So now the IPCC uses inferior spaghetti charts that look more confusing and less alarming than Mann’s original chart.

Michael Mann is a known climate charlatan, who used the Tiljander proxy after he was told it was no good. He used it anyway, because it gave him the hockey stick shape he needed. Mann knew that road work and bridge building overturned lake sediments that were used as Mann’s proxy. Ms Tiljander found that the resultant proxy gave upside-down results and told Mann, but he published anyway, without informing anyone of the corrupted proxy. When he was caught by Steve McIntyre, he furiously tap-danced. But he was proved a charlatan, and guilty of scientific misconduct in Mann08. That fits with his actions in MBH98/99, when he used extremely dubious “treemometers”. Those peprs were deconstructed, which is why his scary chart is now the butt of jokes.

The only reason that Michael Mann is employed is due to his rainmaking ability. He brings in \$millions, so universities cast aside their integrity and professional ethics, and defend him. But we know the truth about Michael Mann. Obviously, you do not.

163. David A. Evans says:

Phil C says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:36 am

“The Memo,” yes — they have stated that & I referenced that fact. But they remain silent on the remaining 100 pages of documents released. Authentic or not? If they’re not Heartland’s documents, then who are they to tell anyone to take them down?

So you have no problems with me publishing your bank account details?

DaveE.

164. yawn says:

Smokey

Echo chamber? This blog is nothing but an echo chamber, so your hypocrisy is quite hilarious.

I have never claimed that the e-mails are fake, so once again you are misrepresenting my statements. I have pointed out that quotes have been taken out of context to misrepresent them, and portray them as something they aren’t, thereby creating a fake controversy.

Case in point: Your mindless parroting of the “Harry_read_me” lie. It would have taken you less than 30 seconds to find the actual context and purpose of the quote:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

The hockey stick has not been debunked. Rather, it has been confirmed over and over. Where did you get the idea that the IPCC can no longer publish it? Also, I thought you [snip: strike two.] all think the IPCC is a bunch of liars, so why would they NOT publish it even if it was debunked?

Your attacks on Mann are simply pathetic. Mann started his work in the 1990s trying to find natural causes for the global warming. What he found was not what he expected. He did find natural cycles, but on a regional scale. But with the hemispheric average, the regional cycles canceled each other out.

Mann brings in millions? What are you talking about?

165. Snapple says:

[SNIP: You ARE familiar with the term "thread bombing", right? And you know the fate of thread bombers, right? -REP]

166. Billy Liar says:

Ryan says:
February 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm

@ Billy Liar 1:16

Publishing an entire manuscript is definitely copyright infringement. Publishing memos of obvious political and journalistic relevance is almost certainly fair use under 17 USC Sec 106.

Publishing entire memos is almost certainly not fair use.

167. Billy Liar says:

yawn says:
February 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

@Billy Liar

“So, Ryan, when you write that book and I steal copy and put it on the internet for all to read; that’ll be OK then?”

He would have lost money then. Are you saying that the HI was going to sell those documents in order to make money?

Don’t be daft. If they lose donors as a result of the publication of the documents there’s going to be a liability case somewhere.

168. yawn says:

@Billy Liar

What does losing donors have to do with copyright infringement?

169. Paul Coppin says:

Since DeSmogBlog is a Canadian operation, things could get dicey for it. The Canadian courts have abundant case law requiring blogs to take down purloined material. If its been further shown that the person who solicited the email was Canadian, then there is acharge in Canada’s criminal code, “Personation”, which may have legs. Personating for the purpose of a [criminal] libel, would be a nasty turn of events for the guilty… The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not normally protect against overt activities that are the direct purview of the Crminal Code. And as for freedom of speech, the Charter is virtually worthless.

170. Ludwig, that you from littlegreenfootballs blog?

171. I think Heartland is going about this in the wrong way, however legal their actions are. I would suggest forcing everyone who has copies of the documents to identify them with large letters those that are fraudulent and those that were stolen, so that anyone visiting any site where they were visible would know the character of those posting or commenting on the information. It won’t matter to the ‘true believers’, but it would destroy the effectiveness of the documents in supporting their agenda.

172. With the exception of the faked document this is not the response I would have hoped from the Heartland’s Institute.

This whole affair however has been very educational about which AGW bloggers are true believers who couldn’t give a s**t about truth. The combination of jumping the gun and their weasel word responses after Heartland said the memo was fake was ample demonstration of where their priorities lay.

173. Gary Hladik says:

steven mosher says (February 20, 2012 at 9:10 am): “If its ok to post fake but true documents, then i suggest a WUWT Competetion!!!”

Judging by his fake open letter to Heartland from “Ray, Gav, & Dave”, Josh will have the inside track:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/joshs-open-letter/

174. wheresmyak47 says:

Publishing these documents is incomparable to the hacking and distribution of private emails that Heartland was party to. In there own interest they should just shut up.

175. Smokey says:

wheresmyak47 says:

“Publishing these documents is incomparable to the hacking and distribution of private emails that Heartland was party to.”

What documents would those be? Surely you’re not referring to the work product that my taxes paid for, and which I have every right to review.

And:

“In there [sic] own interest they should just shut up.”

I disagree. Publicizing wrongdoing is most appropriate. By knowingly and maliciously perpetuating a lie, their reputations will always be damaged. Because the internet never forgets. Desmog now has the option of climbing down, or expending funds on hefty legal bills. Easy choice, really.

176. A physicist says:

Breaking news:

The Origin of the Heartland Documents
by Peter Gleick

“At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy … In a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. … I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.”

Many more details are at Gleick’s weblog.

Now if only the hacker of the CRU emails would similarly come forward, the world could start to rationally address the only question that counts for our children: whether or not the link GHG $\Leftrightarrow$GHE $\Leftrightarrow$AGW $\Leftrightarrow$CAGW is a sobering reality.

177. DirkH says:

Smokey says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm
“wheresmyak47 says:
“In there [sic] own interest they should just shut up.”
I disagree. Publicizing wrongdoing is most appropriate. By knowingly and maliciously perpetuating a lie, their reputations will always be damaged. Because the internet never forgets. Desmog now has the option of climbing down, or expending funds on hefty legal bills. Easy choice, really.”

I agree. The creation of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Heartland was an amateurish fake but a professional PR campaign. Many PR people involved here. Why is the DeSmogBlog PR person taking these risks? Well, it’s a gamble. The PR henchmen of the warmists calculate that they can build on that freedom of information leakage trend the public seems to like even if legally they don’t have a leg to stand on. Also, by adding forged documents, they repeat a tactic that has often been successfull in smearing the opponent. Joe Stalin did it from the beginning of his career and he was quite successfull, might the warmist PR persons think.

We also see here that they have unleashed a lot of astroturf, at least that’s what I think, I’ve never heard of all these Matts and Phils and Mikes who all talk like they’ve been lobotomized.

Probably they’re Pearl scripts anyhow.

So this is really warmist knucklebending 100%. We’re approaching the endgame. It’s TIME for the lawyers.

178. A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:06 pm

Breaking news: …

Ahhh damage control begins — “that post reads like an “My lawyer told me I should …” admission which shunts responsibility for the fabricated document off on some unnamed anonymous source while admitting to the lesser crime of fraudulently obtaining confidential documents as a means to avoid larger exposures.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if the “offending” documents get pulled down per the HI request.

Larry

179. John M says:

Now if only the hacker of the CRU emails would similarly come forward

Talk about false equivalence.

If nothing else, the “hacker” appears to be much, much smarter than Gleick.

Beyond that, there is no evidence that the “hacker” distributed false documents to anyone.

180. Richard Sharpe says:

yawn says on February 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm

The hockey stick has been confirmed and verified by independent researchers multiple times.

Except, as we now know from ClimateGates I and II, they are not really independent.

181. A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am

. . . It appears to me that the US Armed Forces thoroughly appreciate a principle that the Heartland Institute has utterly failed to grasp: the vital role in democracies of open critical discussion, as an essential corrective to arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility. . .

That is why the Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”

This is just unmitigated blarney. No self-respecting US Marine would take calumny, insult, and libel lying down, and if legal action were the best riposte (as opposed to the rational alternative, a fist to the nose), that’s what he would take.

You have just turned “truth” on its head. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. So let’s have the Warmist clique defend their forged document and the allegations stemming therefrom as the “truth” and see how far they get.

Heartland has had its honor and reputation besmirched by unscrupulous miscreants. It owes its donors and supporters a vigorous and unrelenting defense. Let’s hope their lawyers have the fists; watch out Warmist noses!

/Mr Lynn

182. DirkH says:

Mr Lynn says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm
” A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...]
You have just turned “truth” on its head. ”

Hey, he’s a warmist. (Maybe even a professional one…)

183. Smokey says:

yawn says:

“Your mindless parroting of the “Harry_read_me” lie…”

I’ll let the readers decide for themselves if that is a “lie”:

Here’s the programmer’s words, verbatim:

“Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
What the hell is supposed to happen here?
Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.

[my emphasis]

Thirteen years of fabricated temperature records! And you can bet the invented numbers didn’t show cooling.

I fondly recall the spanking that Steve Milloy gave to Lambert in their debate, so using Deltoid as an ‘authority’ is pretty weak tea. Lambert is about as wacked-out as they come, almost as bad as Tamina. Furthermore, it’s a strawman link that didn’t even refer to my statement.

yawn says: “This blog is nothing but an echo chamber…”

How deluded. WUWT has gained enormous popularity primarily because it never censors different scientific points of view. RealClimate, Pseudo-Skeptical Anti-Science, Closed Mind, and most other alarmist blogs routinely censor polite, factual comments simply because they score points for the skeptic side. Thus, they become echo chambers consisting of only like-minded commenters. And as a result of their censorship, their traffic numbers suck. WUWT is the antonym of an echo chamber. But as I’ve oftern said, if it were not for psychological projection, the alarmists wouldn’t have much to say.

Next, yawn steps in it again:

“The hockey stick has not been debunked. Rather, it has been confirmed over and over. Where did you get the idea that the IPCC can no longer publish it?”

Post any IPCC publication dated after 2007 showing Mann’s original hockey stick chart and I’ll retract. I have not been able to find it. And the IPCC LOVED Mann’s MBH99 chart! It was much scarier than what they use to alarm the public now. The IPCC hated to give up Mann’s chart, but face it: it was so thoroughly debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick that no one can use it any more without sacrificing their credibility.

Next, yawn says:

“Your attacks on Mann are simply pathetic.”

On the sidebar you can find A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. Read it, and you will never look at Michael Mann the same way again. It is a damning indictment of a mendacious little tyrant who schemes to pervert the peer review system, threaten journals, get colleagues fired, conspire to dishonestly inflate Phil Jones’ CV, and in general act like the reprehensible, unethical individual that he is. The book is extremely well documented, indexed, and referenced with footnotes, and it’s an easy read. Mann is the worst of a conniving lot, but you can see the lengths some people will go when big money is at stake.

Finally, yawn says:

“Mann brings in millions? What are you talking about?”

I’m talking about this:

Recent Michael Mann grants:

Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons:  \$250,000

Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases:  \$1,884,991

Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model:  \$541,184

A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices:  \$330,000

AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship,: \$23,000

Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana: \$759,928

Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions: \$459,000

Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium:  \$68,065

Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC):  \$100,000

Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results: \$102,000

Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia:  \$315,000

Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability: \$133,000

Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation: \$14,400

Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years: \$20,775

Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere:  \$214,700

Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport: \$20,775

Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison:  \$381,647

The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change:  \$266,235

Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations: \$270,000

Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium:  \$78,000

Total:
\$6,232,700

Mann collected \$1.8 million to ‘study mosquito vectors’ – in addition to many \$millions more in other payola not listed here. Why would someone pay Mann, instead of a biologist or an epidemiologist, to study disease transmission? It was payola, pure and simple. Big money is the motivation for climate charlatans like Michael Mann. He had a choice between being ethical and being dishonest. We know which path he chose.

184. A physicist, your cheap exploitation of the US Marines’ good name to make illogical arguments in defense of fraudsters while attacking the victim is cringingly tasteless and quite frankly, disgusting. Clearly you lack common sense, but have you no shame as well, Sir?

185. A physicist says:

Peter Kovachev says: A physicist, your cheap exploitation of the US Marines’ good name to make illogical arguments in defense of fraudsters while attacking the victim is cringingly tasteless and quite frankly, disgusting. Clearly you lack common sense, but have you no shame as well, Sir?

Peter, please let me commend to you USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List; a list that for many years has informed our family’s reading choices. If within its compass you discern any substantial departure from the bedrock principle “Be First with the Truth”, then please do not hesitate to post it.

186. philincalifornia says:

A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Breaking news:
The Origin of the Heartland Documents
by Peter Gleick
“At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy … In a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. … I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.”

Many more details are at Gleick’s weblog.

Now if only the hacker of the CRU emails would similarly come forward, the world could start to rationally address the only question that counts for our children: whether or not the link GHG GHE AGW CAGW is a sobering reality.
———————————-

Leave my children out of this birdbrain.

I’m proposing this as a strong contender for most idiotic post of the year so far.

REPLY: Ditto that, “A Physicist”, take a timeout, I’m done with your thread bombing for 24 hours at least – Anthony

187. A physicist, you don’t think too good, do you? What do the USMC and your family’s book selections have to do with your defense of a self-confessed cad and your patronizing and scolding of his victim for seeking legal redress? You can’t blame yhe USMC for that…one would hope.

188. JJ says:

A physicist says:

Peter, please let me commend to you USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List; a list that for many years has informed our family’s reading choices.

Uh huh.

Say, while you are enjoying that well deserved vacation that Anthony has sent you on, you might want to add the UCMJ to your reading list. Then you might gain a frigging clue as to the matters you are blathering on about. They are not as you claim.

189. Jeremy says:

Jeremy says:
February 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Tale of the Tape:

1) Heartland Institute: A private advocacy group with a well known bias
2) CRU: A scientific center [snip, over the top], largely publicly funded

I confess I don’t precisely remember what was snipped out, but I believe I said “of excellence”.
Bad weekend guys?

190. Stephen Richards says:

R. Gates says:

February 20, 2012 at 7:21 am

What is the matter with you half-witted trolls. The CRU emails and documents belong to the taxpayers of the UK and in some part, the US. They are not PRIVATE PROPERTY, you idiots. Can’t you grasp even the simple basics of the language.
HI is a private charity. In the same way that WWF, Greepeace, FoE etc would not want their private details published and in the same way that you cannot walk into Monsanto and steal their documents. They’re Private, plonkers !!

191. Stephen Richards says:

Smokey says:

February 20, 2012 at 6:43 pm
yawn says:

I have watched and read the sceptic sites for many many years and your post here is the most cleverly put together, the cleanest and clearest put down of a complete idiot and the most ‘precise’ I have ever read.

It’s a great shame that the idiot to whom you addressed it is too stupid to recognise it’s qualities

192. yawn says:

@Smokey

“WUWT has gained enormous popularity primarily because it never censors different scientific points of view.”

ROTFLMAO! The mods are nuts here. Every single comment is screened, and the censorship is one of the heaviest I have ever seen on any site!

Wow, you really are something… Talk about closing your eyes to reality!

And that Gish Gallop of yours… priceless.

[you would need to advance evidence of your assertions . . the policy here is to allow everything "sciency" through while snipping profanity, ad homs, religion and politics at all times taking account of the context. Discouraging trolling is a judgement call always and when in doubt decisions are kicked up the line. Point out the heavy censorship please . . . I would say that the wide range of dissenting opinions posted here are not equalled anywhere on the web quite frankly . . . kbmod]

193. Smokey says:

Stephen Richards,

Thank you.

I note that Mr Yawn wasn’t censored, despite his squeals of censorship. The glaring difference between WUWT and alarmist blogs like RealClimate, tamina, Closed Mind, and Pseudo-skeptical Anti-science is that those blogs all heavily censor opposing points of view if they contain scientific facts contrary to the blog’s narrative. They do not want readers to even be aware of any facts that contradict their climate alarmism. As a result, they turn into self-reinforcing echo chambers, inhabited by a handful of closed-minded head nodders like Mr Yawn. WUWT, on the other hand, allows all scientific points of view without censorship, letting readers decide what is true and what is nonsense. The result is over a hundred million hits in only five years, and close to a million reader comments.

I’ve provided a thorough refutation of yawn’s assumptions and specifically answered his question about Mann, which is no doubt why he’s so angry. But then he seems to be an angry person anyway. If he was snipped I suspect it was for using the D-word or being off topic. It was certainly not for expressing a scientific point of view, as anyone who visits this site knows. Just ask R. Gates, Joel Shore, Phil., or any other warmist commenter.

194. yawn2 says:

[snip . . OT . . you are in danger of being seen as a troll, why not try and add something to our collective knowledge and so avoid that impression? . . kbmod]

Comments are closed.