The Fakegate Timeline – from soup to nuts

UPDATED: NEW TIMELINE FILES POSTED 2/29 3PM PST

see below for full sized PDF file and and Excel file

There have been a number of different people working on timelines recently. Reader A. Scott has contributed a complete and highly detailed timeline of the Gleick Keystonian Caper aka Fakegate. It is presented here in entirety, both as a PDF file for easy viewing and emailing, and also as an Excel file for use as public resource tool. There’s also a timeline put together by Copner over at Lucia’s in this thread with his timeline document here. I present them both here for readers to evaluate and use. Note: since this is a complex document, reader input on any typos is welcome. – Anthony

Guest post by A. Scott

NOTES ON THE IMPETUS, EVENT, AND TIMELINE:

Dr. Peter Gleick has been mad at Heartland for years, but tweaked more so of late – fed up with Heartland, and with you (WUWT) and other “deniers”.  He was appointed head of AGU’s Ethics board – something he has pontificated about, while never understanding his role, that he is one of more polarizing figures himself – and now feels he has “power” to push his agenda.

The NCSE opportunity comes about – they are starting a heavy “Climate Change” education push, and intend to go after classroom AGW advocacy. Gleick sees chance to kill a lot of birds with one stone to push AGW agenda, get support to teach it in schools, and to hurt you, WUWT, “deniers” in general AND his long running enemy – Heartland.

Setting aside Mosher and the “crowd-sourced peer to peer review” that identified him as a suspect, Gleick could not have received the Heartland package until after 1/16/12 when the Board Meeting documents were first prepared.

And in reality he could not have received before 1/29/12 – as the  Board Directly was prepared 1/25/12 and the Meeting Minutes were prepared 1/29/12. Since they were all included in the package – he cannot have received the “pre-texted”  document package before 1/30/12.

And as the Strategy document included information directly from the Board Meeting documents – the earliest it could have been created was 1/16/12. Considering Mosher’s fingering him based on style, punctuation etc., it seems highly likely the Strategy document was prepared by Gleick after his receipt of the Heartland documents.

Penn State ran a multi-part “Climate Ethics” series from Jan 5 thru Feb 10, 2012.

NCSE released their “Defending Climate Science in Classroom” campaign early January – with rollout 1/13/12 thru 1/20/12 with Gleick announced as high profile participant, and also featured prominently in their rollout.

At the same time – Jan 13 thru 27 – Gleick was trading emails with Heartlands Joe Bast communications director Jim Lakely, who had offered Gleick chance to debate James Taylor – to continue their feud in person at Heartland function.   Gleick brought up Heartlands non-public donor list again 1/16 – a day before Heartlands Board meeting. On 1/27/12 Gleick finally turned Heartland down.

Gleick also has email exchange with Tamsin Edwards, because he dislikes her blog name questioning the “models”, which draws in Barry Woods, who has also had run ins with Gleick in past. Gleicks twitter comments, and emails, prompt David Appell, generally a warming advocate, to in early February, criticizing Gleick for essentially lying – telling him to “just tell the truth.”.

Barry Woods ends up in an extension of the email exchange between Gleick and Tamsin – posting the exchange online – and noting that Gleick complains about polarization, but fails to see that he is a big part of that issue.

Its easy to see the Gleick was becoming increasingly combative and agitated. In his 1/26/12 email to Woods he said he had:

“…ran out of patience with any chance of rational discussion with WUWT, Bishop Hill, or the regular tweeters and bloggers of that group. It became clear it was an unproductive time sink with a group whose minds were closed to fact, and whose primary tool was ad hominem attack. The systematic and coordinated and dishonest attack on me after my negative review of LaFramboise’s book was only one example that made it clear that rational debate was not possible and dissenting views not tolerated.

Within a few days of this exchange we know he pre-texted Heartland and received the documents, and the rest is history.

It is very interesting that DeSmog, Think Progress, Forbes and Huffington all come up involved with or commenting on Gleick during all this as well – especially regarding the NCSE “Defending Climate in Classroom” program.

Then there is the proof that DeSmog could not have only had the documents for an hour as they told Politico.

The timeline shows (and Mosher said he had other support confirming)  that the documents were received about 9:15am PST. One of Littlemore’s documents has a Modified date at 9:59AM PST, meaning he had to have received before then, and then saved it. DeSmog posted the stories at 1:13 (Demelle) and 1:14pm EST (Littlemore) – which means they had documents at least 4 hours.  It seems HIGHLY unlikely they both, along with Think Progress, all could have written the detailed stories that appeared if they only had docs for an hour … much more to investigate there I think.

METADATA

Here is basic metadata I compiled from various files. I compared the docs Littlemore uploaded, as they appear to be same as what is at ThinkProgress and Greg Laden.

The original files were uploaded by DeMelle in the first DeSmog Blog story – DeMelle’s files are the original “clean” versions … and appear to be “as received” posted unchanged.

Littlemore re-uploaded his own copy of the files to DeSmog’s servers and because they already existed with same filenames, a duplicate file was created – hence the (2), (3) etc appended to file names.

I don’t think there is any useful inference gained from review of Littlemore’s docs other than that it gives valuable insight into WHEN DeSmog got the documents.

Likewise, as they appear to be grabbed from Littlemore (note the file names match – they have the appended numbers) I don’t believe the Laden or ThinkProgress versions offer any real benefit – except, again, by looking at any modify dates in their files we can see when they received them as well.

The bottom line … ONE of the Littlemore files has a Modified Date of 9:59AM PST. Using all the evidence available (the DeSmog post times, tweets, Facebook posts etc) it appears DeSmog’s server or publishing platform is set to MST and in reality it is pretty certain they posted the stories at 1:13 and 1:14pm PST respectively for DeMelle’s and Littlemore’s versions.

If the “Insider email was sent at 12:13pm as claimed by Keith Kloor via David Appell’s blog, it cannot (as we now know to be true) have come direct from Heartland in the Central time zone – that would be 10:13am PST.

From all this we can confirm that DeSmog’s statements to Politico – that they had the documents for just an hour before posting the story – is completely false. In fact I believe we can see evidence at a clumsy attempt to fabricate evidence to support that Politico claim.

Since Littlemore’s save (Modified) date was 9:59am and they posted the story at a little after 1pm PST – we know the Politico claim must be false. We also can deduce, from the fact that ThinkProgress first posted the story at 3:10pm EST/12:10pm PST (or more likely, based on other evidence actually at 2:10pm EST/11:10am PST), the Insider email cannot have come from the PST time zone as 12:13PST would be 3:13 EST – AFTER the post time of the ThinkProgress story.

So where was the Insider email sent from?

In order for the known timing to work; the 9:59am PST “save” date from Littlemore at DeSmog, and the 3:10pm EST (or most likely 2:10pm EST) posting time for the ThinkProgress story … assuming the 12:13pm date offered by Kloor via Appell is accurate – the Insider email had to have been sent from the Eastern Standard time zone … 12:13pm EST is two hours prior to ThinkProgress’ earliest possible publication date, and would be 9:13am PST – which comports with the 9:59am PST “save” time by Littlemore.

The question is – who sent it – as Peter Gleick is based on the West Coast?

To find the answer you have to follow a little bird ….

Amused – you need to be careful to separate the DeSmog files – the DeMelle versions uploaded with the first story at 1:13pm PST and the Littlemore versions he re-uploaded with the 2nd story.

The Demelle versions are the same files as on ThinkProgress and the file modified dates are unchanged from the created dates. The Littlemore files (also again, at Laden’s) are the ones with the changed modified dates – to 2/14.

We can be thankful the Keystone cop team at DeSmog did do the two uploads – that Littlemore DID blunder and change the files …. if he hadn’t we would not know they had the files on or before 9:59am PST on 2/14.

Which shows conclusively that DeSmog wasn’t truthful with Politico when they said they had the files for only an hour before posing them.

I think its likely that DeSmog INTENTIONALLY re-saved the 2nd version of the files – they were all saved at 12:36-12:38pm PST with one at 12:55pm PST – they posted the stories at 1:13 and 1:14pm PST. This would show the Politico statement was true.

I think it was an deliberate, planned attempt at a deception to try and provide support for their alleged timeline.

They wanted the world to believe the Insider email was sent, he could say look at these files, we uploaded them when we got them.

Littlemore’s copies of documents posted have all been re-saved since creation date:

Littlemore Strategy DOC:
PDF-1.5
x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26
pdf:Producer>EPSON Scan
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:36:20-08:00 (2/14 – 12:36 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
xmpMM:DocumentID>uuid:0d826409-6a19-411c-ae09-b5f400186c52
xmpMM:InstanceID>uuid:e5477a6f-aa33-4521-b161-1ae07ed0a258

DeSmog Strategy DOC:
PDF-1.4
x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26
pdf:Producer>EPSON Scan
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 (2/13 – 12:41 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
xmpMM:DocumentID>uuid:0d826409-6a19-411c-ae09-b5f400186c52
xmpMM:InstanceID>uuid:692440ef-d85e-4cec-afef-742d339ece7b

ThinkProgress Startegy DOC:
PDF-1.4
x:xmptk=”Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26
pdf:Producer>EPSON Scan
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00 (2/13 – 12:41 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00
xmpMM:DocumentID>uuid:0d826409-6a19-411c-ae09-b5f400186c52
xmpMM:InstanceID>uuid:692440ef-d85e-4cec-afef-742d339ece7b

All of the Littlemore DOCS compared:

Fundraising:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T09:59:58-08:00 (2/14 – 09:59:58 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-01-16T10:02:55-06:00

Agenda:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:36:02-08:00 (2/14 – 12:36:02 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-01-16T10:46:43-06:00

Littlemore Strategy DOC:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:36:20-08:00 (2/14 – 12:36:20 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-02-13T12:41:52-08:00

Board Directory:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:36:51-08:00 (2/14 – 12:36:51 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-01-25T15:04:36-06:00

Budget:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:37:56-08:00 (2/14 – 12:37:56 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-01-16T10:00:38-06:00

BINDER:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:38:39-08:00 (2/14 – 12:38:39 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-01-16T11:06:01-06:00

Board Meeting Package:
xmp:ModifyDate>2012-02-14T12:55:23-08:00 (2/14 – 12:55:23 PST)
xmp:CreateDate>2012-01-16T10:48:58-06:00

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

Here are the documents illustrating the timeline:

(Note, as can happen with any complex document, just after publishing here, a small error was discovered in these files, where Heartland/Bast is referenced for email exchanges, it should be Heartland/Lakely) This error doesn’t affect the timeline itself. Mr. Scott is offline at the moment – so I’ll wait for him to provide an update. – Anthony)

FAKEGATE_TIMELINE_ASCOTT_rev2-24-12
FAKEGATE_TIMELINE_ASCOTT_rev2-24-12
(XLS) Requires Excel or Open Office or Excel Viewer (free here)

UPDATED FILES POSTED ON 2/29

FAKEGATE_TIMELINE_ASCOTT_rev2-28-12
(PDF) View in your browser

FAKEGATE_TIMELINE_ASCOTT_rev2-28-12
(XLS) Requires Excel or Open Office or Excel Viewer (free here)

(XLS) Requires Excel or Open Office or Excel Viewer (free here)

About these ads

85 thoughts on “The Fakegate Timeline – from soup to nuts

  1. Dr. Peter Gleick … was appointed head of AGU’s Ethics board – something he has pontificated about, while never understanding his role, that he is one of more polarizing figures himself – and now feels he has “power” to push his agenda.

    I don’t think it was power to push his agenda as much as being on an Ethics board put Dr. Gleick in a position to making sure everybody else is being ethical.

  2. I’d be interested in seeing what if any commentary Gleick included with the documents while presenting them to his 15 friends. Is that out in the open, or a guarded secret?

  3. Last I heard, Desmogblog’s star blogger Ross Gelbspan is in Brookline, MA, if that’s the least bit helpful.

    He is the central figure in my online articles over the past two years, including what I had today at American Thinker: “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html

    Excerpt: “… If the current situation involving Peter Gleick looks eerily similar to the Watergate burglar story, is it not a good idea to start peeling back more layers of this mess, since there are indications that there has never been any validity to the portrayal of skeptic climate scientists as untrustworthy shills of the fossil fuel industry?”

  4. Again, I can’t resist reposting this prediction from 8 days ago, seeing that A. Scott’s excellent work is making a rather strong case for item #2:
    —————————————————————————————-
    Russ R. says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    Predictions:

    1. Desmog and other alarmist outfits will rush to support Gleick, accepting his story uncritically, and offering up plausible defenses, contorting the evidence and timeline to explain how things could have transpired. They will also continue to act as if the strategy document were authentic. They will portray him simultaneously as a hero (David standing up to Goliath), and a victim (an innocent whistleblower being harassed by evil deniers and their lawyers).

    2. It will become apparent that Gleick was in contact with Desmog prior to sending them the document cache. They knew he was the source, and they probably knew that he falsified the strategy document. They also likely received the documents ahead of the other 14 recipients, which is the only way they could have had a blog post up with all the documents AND a summary hyping up their talking points within hours of receiving them.

    3. This will take months, or possibly years to fully resolve.

    —————————————————————————————-

  5. Zowie! That’s going to leave a mark… for a very long time.

    Given your analysis here, the feds had better get in there and confiscate computers & servers pronto. If they’ve already mucked around with saved/mod times, the longer they have to play, the greater the damage they do; or the more complex the tech analysis. Be sure to send Heartland a copy!

    Take note Heartland and Anthony! A.Scott, with the aid of others, has demonstrated intention of the perpetrator’s to hide or confuse their actions and activities in libeling your names and reputations. Another indication that they knew beforehand that their planned actions were illegal.

  6. “…ran out of patience with any chance of rational discussion with WUWT,”

    Does this mean that he has been here at WUWT, discussed with the WUWT’ers, given up, and has now disappeared…? Which username is missing nowadays?

  7. Something wrong with this?
    ” We also can deduce, from the fact that ThinkProgress first posted the story at 3:10pm EST/9:10am PST (or more likely, based on other evidence actually at 2:10pm EST/8:10am PST) ”

    Only PST is only three hours behind EST, yes?
    RR

    REPLY: Yes, some typos there, that’s the value of having lots of people look at it and review it here. Will fix that, thanks – Anthony

  8. Russell C says: February 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    “…He is the central figure in my online articles over the past two years, including what I had today at American Thinker: “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html…”

    Good article Russell!

    I’ve had a suspicion that many of these activities highlighted in your article and Climategate had RICO types of collusion if they were ever proved.

  9. Well, we knew he was becoming unhinged, but wow, some of that is rubber room stuff. I think it was his butthurt from Taylor that sent him over the edge…… It will be interesting to find out who else knew about the faked memo.

  10. I recently pointed out to a relative that over the past few years I had heard her claim at one time or the other that the following proved AGW was real: Heat waves / cold snaps, rainy periods / droughts, more tornados / fewer hurricans. So I asked her if she could cite me an example of any weather trend that she would regard as DISproving AGW.

    She could not. I asked why, and she simply said “Because there aren/t any.”

  11. Russell C says (February 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm): “Last I heard, Desmogblog’s star blogger Ross Gelbspan is in Brookline, MA, if that’s the least bit helpful.

    He is the central figure in my online articles over the past two years, including what I had today at American Thinker: ‘Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy’ ”

    Thanks, Russell. Lots more to read at the “Climategate Country Club” link in the American Thinker article.

  12. You may also want to consider the timing of Climatereality’s Youtube video dated 2/23/2012 bashing Heartland for teaching curriculum. Was this cooridinated with Gleick? Could they produce this in less than 10 days?

  13. In the part where it states, “Gleicks twitter comments, and emails, prompt David Appell, generally a warming advocate, to in early February, criticizing Gleick for essentially lying – telling him to “just tell the truth.”. The link with the word “criticizing” takes me here…..http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

    But, I think we were meant to go here…. http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/02/peter-gleicks-delinquent-thoughts-on.html

    REPLY: I agree, fixed thanks for the help – Anthony

  14. There’s something called, I believe, the “Long Tail” which means the extraordinary difference it makes in eg cutting costs and still get a profit, if there is a huge audience / number of subscribers / commenters / buyers. Normally a court case’s material is collected by one lawyer’s outfit, I would suppose. But here we have “crowdsourcing” at its finest, providing instant defence material for Heartland.

    Much as Gleick may have sought out / had handed to him on a plate / the most expert bully in the lawyering profession with Keker, I just get a feeling that competing with the “Long Tail” of crowdsourcing here may be new territory even for Keker.

    People here have been working all hours to piece all this together, because standing up for truth is a powerful driver. I seriously doubt that the other side could match our efforts even if they tried.

    Heck, they just did, and got themselves a name for it. Gleicking. Gleickenspiel.

    Newspapers and the warmist blogs have shown they have given up their most basic ethical practice, of checking facts before publishing, in this case. “Review” committees have shown that they have given up their most basic ethical practice, of asking questions of both sides, of giving both sides chance to respond.

    But we still entertain the hope that the courts have not completely abandoned the basic principles of justice, and have not given up their ancient fourfold system of prosecution, defence, prosecution responds to defence, and … drum roll… defence responds to prosecution (and to prosecution’s response)… plus the use of a jury.

    This is important. This is history in the making.

  15. Taphonomic:
    Whether things done by NCSE were coordinated with Gleick or not, I consider it very likely that Gleick did the phishing attack in order to enhance his position at NCSE. There are many facets of that angle, and I believe it is one of the items that makes it clear he wrote the fake memo, from motive on down.

  16. kwik says: February 28, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    “…ran out of patience with any chance of rational discussion with WUWT,”

    Does this mean that he has been here at WUWT, discussed with the WUWT’ers, given up, and has now disappeared…? Which username is missing nowadays?

    IIRC, Anthony warned him not to use inflammatory language, and said that, if this condition was met, fine with WUWT.

    Sounds similar to what has happened recently with WMConnolley, who was IIRC snipped and warned likewise to keep off offensive language which WMC then wrote about on his blog in a way that gives the impression he had been banned from a blog (WUWT) that claimed it allowed all shades of opinion to be published.

    All the more reason that a court case is needed, to help break the vicious circle “WUWT are (eg) hypocritical” “How do you know?” “Stoat and DSB and the Guardian say so” “Have you checked they were correct?” “Don’t need to. They are trustworthy, unlike the hypocritical WUWT” “Have you checked at WUWT?” “Are you mad? they’ve already been shown to be hypocrites”…

  17. Anthony, as you probably know, this is “Opengirl” and “John Billings”. ~Dave

    [snip]

    I have recorded my first notice and this one, and laboriously all of your correspondents to all of the ‘sticky’ threads’, as screensavers so that the general public will be aware should there be a problem.

    [noted – It’s already recorded in many places. I typically don’t bother to respond to shapeshifters who haven’t the integrity to even keep the same screen name while at the same time lecture me and others on “morality”. Moderators delete this “concern troll” at will – Anthony]

  18. Nicely investigated, assembled and documented.

    It could be interesting to include:
    – Gleick’s tweets just prior to the 14th through the present. If there’s a smoking gun prior to the 14th it may have been purged. Thereafter his tweets were few but interesting nonetheless.
    – Mashey’s IRS report release. If desmogblog received the documents before your timeline presumes, it’s unlikely that Mashey was immediately involved. But his involvement may help frame what occurred on that day.

  19. I would never have believed this but

    “Gleichschaltung” (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ]), means a political policy of “coordination”, “making the same”, “bringing into line”, among the goals of this policy were to bring about adherence to a specific doctrine and way of thinking and to control as many aspects of life as possible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung

    The truth is even stranger than fiction!

    A “Gleichschaltung: is EXACTLY what Peter Gleick and his CAGW green eco-fighters have in mind. They seek to control the way of thinking in as many aspects of life as possible! Through infiltration/control of unelected government bodies (EPA, IPCC), institutions, NGO’s and the like.

    For more details see: Karl Dietrich Bracher “Stages of Totalitarian “Integration” (Gleichschaltung): The Consolidation of National Socialist Rule in 1933 and 1934″ pages 109–28 from Republic To Reich The Making of the Nazi Revolution Ten Essays edited by Hajo Holborn, New York: Pantheon Books, 1972.

    WOW WOW WOW. History Repeating.

    Etymology

    Gleichschaltung, as a compound word, is better comprehended by those who speak other languages by listing its predecessory uses in German. The word gleich in German means alike, equal, or the same; schaltung means something like switching. The word Gleichschaltung had two uses in German for physical, rather than political, meanings:

  20. AFPhys : February 28, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    “Somehow the Copner and Watts Excel files need to be merged.
    Both have important info to collate.”

    Pamela Jones over at Grocklaw used a side by side timeline in some of her presentation of the newSCO (aka Caldera) debacle.

    It seemed to work quite well.

  21. When I was college I frequently felt that I had no business at a university that had reserved parking spaces for Nobel Laureates and where every other student seemed much much smarter than I. I don’t feel like that many places, but I did there…and boy howdy do I feel like that here.

    Excellent work.

  22. Thanks all for the comments – thanks Anthony as well.

    This effort started within a day of the Feb 14 document dump, intending to verify in detail the times, and zones, of DeSmog, TP, etc’s postings It quickly mushroomed into something much more. In addition to my research, drilling down to as deep as possible – which includes attempting to verify time zones for each source, and then verify them.

    Anthony encouraged a “check it three time” detail level when this began – and I’ve tried to check the facts that are verified to a fairly high degree of certainty.

    For example starting with a “posted” time on a web story, 1st try to determine the web sites time zone, then use Facebook, Twitter and other tools to try and “prove” your assumption on time zone with these supporting “crosschecks.”

    I’ve also tried to follow the excellent “peer to peer” work by many others – the Steve’s; Mosher & McIntyre, along with the gangs at Climate Audit, Lucia’s and others. I’ve tried to note “H/T’s” in the spreadsheet – some I know I’ve missed.

    What you see is an internal working document, warts – lots of warts – and all. There are plenty errors, typo’s, incomplete areas and the like. It’s been like peeling an onion – as you see each new detail, each new line of reasoning in a comment, etc. it opens another whole path … in some cases its just been get the data and source noted and to go back to later. Some are notes to myself – and lines of inquiry – other may be obsolete or answered as I have not spent time cleaning old data that may be updated with what we know now.

    It’s a work in progress – several days back I expanded from just the 2/14 (and related documents etc) timeline to try to include what I think of as the “motivation” timeline – Gleick’s posts, comments etc. Copner, Mosher and others at Lucia’s are working on an excellent version of that.

    I’m formatting some of my notes on that for them as well – although from what I see they’ve been very thorough. A lot of their info is in current version of this file (which I’ll update to Anthony to be posted a bit later).

    Keep in mid this is a data file – my plan was/is – once data is closer to complete – to put into a more readable/useful timeline format. In the end collecting and compiling the data and info, while its “hot” (and available – as some has already disappeared) became the priority to making it pretty ;-)

  23. Given the pain this is causing the glickers, perhaps “foot” should replace “soup” in the title.

  24. It also seems somewhat ironic that in German, gluck, with 2 dots above the u, means luck.

    So to quote Jeremy: “The truth is even stranger than fiction!”

  25. Jeremy says:
    February 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm
    “A “Gleichschaltung: is EXACTLY what Peter Gleick and his CAGW green eco-fighters have in mind. They seek to control the way of thinking in as many aspects of life as possible! Through infiltration/control of unelected government bodies (EPA, IPCC), institutions, NGO’s and the like.”

    Oh, surprised? All cults do that. Specifically, you don’t want your cult members to hear opposing opinions. That’s why they are so riled up about any skeptic blog, no matter how small.

    Ah good translation for “Gleichschaltung” would be “synchronization” IMHO.

    Did somebody already come up with the term “Gleickschaltung”? ;-)

  26. Excellent work, A. Scott. You have done a great service with this. Same to all those who have contributed to uncovering the details of this. Thank you all.

    I love this: “Gleick was becoming increasingly combative and agitated. In his 1/26/12 email to Woods he said he had: “…ran out of patience with any chance of rational discussion with WUWT, Bishop Hill, or the regular tweeters and bloggers of that group.”

    Double-congratulations to one and all for apparently helping him jump off the ethical cliff!

  27. Fun with words. But my German is not gut, to put it very mildly.

    How about a “Gleick” as a new term for the deliberate “leak” of fake information? Or, more specifically, a leak that backfires spectacularly.

    For example, I think somebody gleicked that Bush document to Dan Rather.

  28. Lucy Skywalker said @ February 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    People here have been working all hours to piece all this together, because standing up for truth is a powerful driver. I seriously doubt that the other side could match our efforts even if they tried.

    Heck, they just did, and got themselves a name for it. Gleicking. Gleickenspiel.

    This is important. This is history in the making.

    That brought a tear to my eye.

  29. sherlock says:
    February 28, 2012 at 3:30 pm
    I recently pointed out to a relative that over the past few years I had heard her claim at one time or the other that the following proved AGW was real: Heat waves / cold snaps, rainy periods / droughts, more tornados / fewer hurricans. So I asked her if she could cite me an example of any weather trend that she would regard as DISproving AGW.

    She could not. I asked why, and she simply said “Because there aren/t any.”

    Talk about DENIAL!!! That’s a classic–I nominate it for quote of the decade!!

  30. I still wonder about Gleick’s past activities, most particularly in the area of California water policy, and whether his eagerness to engage in funny business with Heartland was brought on by past success in traducing the bounds of law and ethics in other spheres…

  31. rurroh:

    ” We also can deduce, from the fact that ThinkProgress first posted the story at 3:10pm EST/9:10am PST (or more likely, based on other evidence actually at 2:10pm EST/8:10am PST) ”

    Yep – should be:

    “We also can deduce, from the fact that ThinkProgress first posted the story at 3:10pm EST/12:10pm PST (or more likely, based on other evidence, actually at 2:10pm EST/11:10am PST) ….”

  32. sherlock;
    To make the point clearer, you could have asked, “What hypothetical weather trends could disprove AGW?” Then explain that having at least one test that needs to be passed is a basic qualification for any scientific theory. If there isn’t one (or more) then it can’t be called science.

  33. I’d be interested in seeing what if any commentary Gleick included with the documents while presenting them to his 15 friends. Is that out in the open, or a guarded secret?

    I have seen nothing indicating who the 15 recipients are nor any evidence they exist. IMO the only one’s we’ve seen had likely access are DeSmog, possibly ThinkProgress (although they could have gotten documents from DeSmog as theirs are identical to Demelle’s posted on DeSmog).

    I think Laden’s much later story was just a download off DeSmog’s Littlemore story.

    David Appel might also also have been a recepient – as his version of file is the original as used by DeSmog – but again he uploaded only recently. And he would have had email header oinfo and not had to get it from Keith Kloor.

    I suspect the “Fakergate 15″ is really the Fakergate 1 or 2 ….:

  34. Nice work.

    I especially like the hat tips. I love volunteer army of david projects. and every david matters

  35. Warmatologist Gleick,
    Incredibly tried to be slick,
    With his buds at desmog,
    (a daft warmista blog),
    He’ll be spending time swinging a pick.

  36. From soup to nuts…….. .
    I guess we know where most of the nuts are.
    Is this story going to be a nutcracker?

  37. @ A. Scott

    You have done an excellent job of indexing or compiling the data into a very useful format. My first observations of your work left me very impressed.

    As all this began to develope at ‘light speed’ and as I tried to keep it all straight in my mind I wondered how it might be possible to organize into some kind of format that could quickly be checked without scanning the numerous posts and comments over several blogs. You have done that plus more. You are to be congratulated big time! You are certainly a ranking officer in the ‘army of ones’ assembled in this battle for the truth. Kudos for all those involved.

  38. “I don’t think it was power to push his agenda as much as being on an Ethics board put Dr. Gleick in a position to making sure everybody else is being ethical.”

    Ah, but if he’s the watchdog and approves of this behavior, then nothing anyone does under his watch is unethical. It’s not that dissimilar to George Soro’s campaign to get progressive Attorney Generals into office. Ultimately, they’re the ones that make the call on what’s legal and not.

  39. What’s the point of doing all of this research if law enforcement has no intention of enforcing the law? In a sane world, Gleick and his co-criminals would have been arrested long before now, but in an Obama/Holder world, up is down, wrong is right, and bad is good, and these fanatics will never be prosecuted.

  40. don’t let this one get away, plz.
    if he topples, the dominoes will be falling all around the world.
    gleickshaltung on the chain gang would be perfect to cleanse the palate after a banquet of schadenfreude.

  41. “[H]e said he had: ‘…ran out of patience with any chance of rational discussion with WUWT, Bishop Hill, or the regular tweeters and bloggers of that group.'”

    Huh?

    “[H]e said he ‘ran out of patience….'”, or “[H]e said he had run ‘out of patience….'” The past tense and past participle are not hard to figure out. The word “had” doesn’t work before “ran,” “rang,” “sang,” or “went.”

  42. Steven Mosher, (and the rest) thanks … I know I missed a lot of Hat Tips – apologies to those I missed … collecting and indexing all that data is mostly a manual deal, lotta work – copy, paste, edit, sort etc … the time zones are really easy to get screwed up on so I base-lined everything to GMT and used formula to calculate the other zones – but it important to also reference the probably source timezone for verification. The next version of the sheet has some conditional formatting to identify the implied “source” time zone as much as possible as well.

  43. 52.Anton said:

    February 29, 2012 at 5:22 am

    “…What’s the point of doing all of this research if law enforcement has no intention of enforcing the law? In a sane world, Gleick and his co-criminals would have been arrested long before now, but in an Obama/Holder world, up is down, wrong is right, and bad is good, and these fanatics will never be prosecuted…”

    And, in a sane world, anyone on the “other side” who confesses in public to the same crime now has a precident.

    If the leaker/hacker that released the Climategate emails is ever identified, the Obama/Holder world will have a pretty hard time arguing which one was worse. But Gleik’s actions have already been tried in the court of public opinions – something that may be far worse than a fine or jail time.

    Who’d want to hear his opinion on ANYTHING after this?

  44. Gleick should have gone through Army Officer Candidate Skool: “I will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do”

    An ounce of prevention . . . . .

  45. http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/02/mann-on-heartlands-education-plan-so-amoral-it%E2%80%99s-almost-hard-to-put-into-words/

    As someone who was a victim of leaked confidential documents, do you have any sympathy for the Heartland Institute, whose internal memos were leaked by Peter Gleick?

    It’s funny, I do in a sense. But it’s only to a point. There has been some tendency to compare these two things and create a moral equivalency between the two, but I don’t think that equivalency actually exists. The leaked e-mails, we’ve now had nine different investigations, and they all came to the conclusion that there was no impropriety. This was a misrepresentation, taking people’s words out of context. There was no attempt to fudge data or hide evidence or any of these claims that have been made. In retrospect it really was a smear campaign that was used to discredit climate science.

    On the other hand this really reinforces what we already sort of knew, that Heartland Institute was one of a number of these think tanks or front groups funded by industry or certain right-wing special interests to manufacture false controversy, to attack climate science and individual climate scientists. It reinforced what we already knew, but it also brought out some interesting details that to my knowledge Heartland has actually admitted to. That there was this program to indoctrinate K-9 school children with climate change denial propaganda. To me that is so pernicious, and I am genuinely horrified by it. I’m all too aware that those who will bear the brunt of our emissions today are going to be our children and grandchildren. They’re going to bear the costs of our cheap energy today. So there’s this effort to misinform the very people who will bear the greatest cost of climate change. To me that is so amoral it’s almost hard to put into words.

  46. Anton says:
    February 29, 2012 at 5:22 am

    What’s the point of doing all of this research if law enforcement has no intention of enforcing the law? In a sane world, Gleick and his co-criminals would have been arrested long before now, but in an Obama/Holder world, up is down, wrong is right, and bad is good, and these fanatics will never be prosecuted.

    Just like the investigative work, the demand for prosecutorial follow-up with the appropriate agencies and politicians can be crowdsourced as well….

    .

  47. Some interesting developments ….

    “Older Tweet results for @TP_Green are unavailable.”
    “Older Tweet results for @DeSmogBlog are unavailable.”
    “Older Tweet results for @RLittlemore are unavailable.”
    “Older Tweet results for @climatebrad are unavailable.”
    “Older Tweet results for @james_hoggan are unavailable.”
    “Older Tweet results for joe romm are unavailable.”

    The above accounts (and probably some others at Twitter) no longer offer any posts older than 2/22/12 ….

    Can you say “running for the hills…”

    I know you can. ;-)

    Revkin has also deleted posts, and I read the story about AGU deleting several posts and adding a new one. Its a veritable landslide and picking up steam.

    Discuss.

  48. Hmmmm …. now they seem to be working – that is weird – others worked, showed older tweets … yet all of them stopped at 2/22.

    Mod’s feel free to delete above posts

  49. Hey Nerd

    Perhaps you might be bothered to read the REAL facts about Heartlands education initiative rather than the crap in the fake Strategy memo ginned up by poor Mr. Gleick and/or his cronies, when there was nothing incendiary in the real documents.

    Heartland promotes teaching BOTH sides of the climate debate. That is called education – indoctrination is what the Geicks of the world want taught.

    And while we’re at it – since you think what Heartland does is morally repugnant – how about you share with us how morally disgusted you are with places like DeeSmogBlog and the like – whose sole purpose is to literally attack those with a different opinion than theirs?

  50. Maybe I didn’t understood the timeline well but, was the fake memo scanned (2/13/12 8:41PM) a day before Gleick’s phishing (2/14/12 6:13PM)? In that case, how it is that the faked memo quotes some of the phished docs? I imagined Gleick got the docs, and then made up the fake memo, but the dates above contradict that.

    Been up and working for many hours, so my logical routines are a bit strained. If I’m making a stupid mistake be compassive!

  51. or how about getting gores propaganda film out of elementary schools?
    or how about getting rid of television commercials with terrorist liberal teachers blowing up elementary school students for not agreeing with c02 thermageddon narrative?
    i could go on, nerd, because that’s where a few of your agw billions have gone… polar bears falling out of skies, suicidal kangaroos – your crowd can’t get more stalinist.

  52. Matthew W says:
    February 28, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    @ Lucy
    “Gleicking. Gleickenspiel”

    How about adding “Gleickenenfreude”

    …. or even Gleickshaltung

  53. sherlock says:
    She could not. I asked why, and she simply said “Because there aren/t any.”

    Hm – then how will you ever know it stopped?

  54. The thought occurs that if the pro-CAGW ‘science’ truly held water, they wouldn’t need to indulge in this sort of name calling. As they do; to use a card players analogy, it indicates they’re bluffing on a very poor hand indeed.

  55. I figured that a quick hash analysis would let you eliminate duplicate documents so that the metadata only need be analyzed once. To my surprise, files that should hash the same – do not.

    The Desmog and TP faked memo hash the same:
    MD5Hash~Filename
    2DA8760ECF3B1D8F72B2EE5BCEF4DB6B~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\TP\2012-Climate-Strategy.pdf
    2DA8760ECF3B1D8F72B2EE5BCEF4DB6B~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Desmog\2012 Climate Strategy.pdf

    The Littlemore and Laden faked memo hash the same:
    MD5Hash~Filename
    5498AEA088E18F48E68D494E9F7CB47F~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf
    5498AEA088E18F48E68D494E9F7CB47F~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf

    But if they wanted to prove the provenance of all, they could not. Something is different between the Laden/Littlemore versions and the Desmog/TP versions. It’s the same with all the documents really. The Laden/Littlemore versions match each other and the Desmog/TP versions match each other. But they do not match between the sets.

    MD5Hash~Filename
    2624816FA5836F2C529D0A1DF808D133~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\Board Meeting Package January 17.pdf
    2624816FA5836F2C529D0A1DF808D133~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\Board Meeting Package January 17.pdf
    2DA8760ECF3B1D8F72B2EE5BCEF4DB6B~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\TP\2012-Climate-Strategy.pdf
    2DA8760ECF3B1D8F72B2EE5BCEF4DB6B~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Desmog\2012 Climate Strategy.pdf
    5498AEA088E18F48E68D494E9F7CB47F~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf
    5498AEA088E18F48E68D494E9F7CB47F~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf
    552805BE7680A53D3EE6F2A85BA854BE~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf
    552805BE7680A53D3EE6F2A85BA854BE~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf
    58B2A8AE466247242A516EACB1CC4FAB~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\2010_IRS_Form_990 (2).pdf
    58B2A8AE466247242A516EACB1CC4FAB~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\2010_IRS_Form_990 (2).pdf
    822C6D698455BBCFA699288D5854BCD0~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\TP\1-15-2012-2012-Heartland-Budget.pdf
    822C6D698455BBCFA699288D5854BCD0~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Desmog\(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget.pdf
    B65DBA59A99844E873C38FC77926ED8F~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Desmog\(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan_0.pdf
    B65DBA59A99844E873C38FC77926ED8F~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\TP\1-15-2012-2012-Fundraising-Plan.pdf
    B959ACBD9C012FF15E535ED8BF6B953E~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\Binder1 (2).pdf
    B959ACBD9C012FF15E535ED8BF6B953E~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\Binder1 (2).pdf
    DEBCD7F1D1A43153D57F370F993953CE~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\2 Agenda for January 17 Meeting.pdf
    DEBCD7F1D1A43153D57F370F993953CE~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\2 Agenda for January 17 Meeting.pdf
    E8576B491CA6A022905401975227ECFB~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Littlemore\(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget (2).pdf
    E8576B491CA6A022905401975227ECFB~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Laden\(1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget (2).pdf
    ED5912A1E66D315646856BD5586E6B6E~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\TP\Binder1.pdf
    ED5912A1E66D315646856BD5586E6B6E~C:\Work\Fakegate\Dox\Desmog\Binder1.pdf

  56. Nerd,
    So you can “indoctrinate” (i.e. teach) pupils with one side of an argument but not the other.
    How then, when they are grown up, will they learn how to make their minds up about what car to buy, what Airline to use, what breakfast food to eat if they don’t have all the relevant facts?
    Children are not stupid.
    Give them all the facts and let them decide for themselves.
    You obviously don’t believe that.
    Or perhaps you suspect, deep down, that, really, you are, perhaps, mistaken.

  57. I tried posting this earlier but it didn’t show up so I’ll try again:
    Proof reading comment,
    The timeline shows (and Mosher said he had other support confirming) that the documents were received about 9:15am PST. One of Littlemore’s documents has a Modified date at 9:59AM PST, meaning he had to have received before then, and then saved it. DeSmog posted the stories at 1:13 (Demelle) and 1:14pm EST (Littlemore) – which means they had documents at least 4 hours.
    Which is inconsistent with:
    The bottom line … ONE of the Littlemore files has a Modified Date of 9:59AM PST. Using all the evidence available (the DeSmog post times, tweets, Facebook posts etc) it appears DeSmog’s server or publishing platform is set to MST and in reality it is pretty certain they posted the stories at 1:13 and 1:14pm PST respectively for DeMelle’s and Littlemore’s versions.
    One suggests one hour, the other 4 hours, from the statements made it would appear that the PST times are the ones that the author believes but it should be straightened out, not all readers here are necessarily familiar with US time zones.

  58. Tom B:
    Your hashing of the files makes sense, although the naming – file and file(1) could be the cause. HOWEVER, MS Office doesn’t ‘delete’ anythin when you edit a file, it rather ‘comments it out.’ This way you can revert. It does this even after a save if you know how to look at the file. When dealing with large documents with lots of formating, it has occassionally done this to me scraping work because it failed a save and did a ‘revert’ on load.

  59. Hashes cannot be affected by changes in the filename. The hash is generated solely from the file content. It is independent of filesystem, storage media, filename or path. It is a reliable means for identifying duplicative files regardless of any of the above. That’s why it’s referred to as “a digital fingerprint”.

    Having the hash change on an Office document is not unusual since it is altering the file whether you want it to or not (i.e.; the last accessed application level metadata). That is not true, however, with the PDFs. So something, however minor, was changed in these documents.

    Moreover, there is only one MS Word document in this collection (the “Minutes of January 17 meeting.doc”) and that is present only in the Desmog collection. None of the other three include this file. Track changes was not enabled, so revision history is lost, though we know this is “version 3″ of the document and was created by “jbast” on Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:59:00 AM.

  60. TomB – “The Laden/Littlemore versions match each other and the Desmog/TP versions match each other. But they do not match between the sets.”

    That is correct. Littlemore’s story was posted one minute later than Demelles original story at DeSmog. Regardless, he saved and re-uploaded all the documents, in doing so giving them a new “Modified” date of 2/14/12. There is no logical reason for him to have done so.

    There is however a VER GOOD other reason to do so.

    By doing these he/they accomplished an important goal – the “Modified” time on the Littlemore version of the files shows between 12:36pm and 12:55pm – they published the story at 1:14pm … all PST.

    This makes the statement they gave to Politico – that they only had the documents a short time – that they published them within an hour of receipt. They wanted people to believe they received the “Insider” email at 12:13pm PST, and having these files re-saved at 12:36 to 12:55 supports this, and the Politico story claim.

    Paraphrased, this is the timeline they want people to believe:

    ‘We got the files at 12:13pm from the Insider. We can prove that because when we saved and uploaded them starting at 12:36 and ending at 12:55. We published the story at 1:14pm. See – aren’t we smart – it all fits!’

    BZZZZZZZTTTT!!!

    Nope. Not.

    That WOULD have worked perfectly. They could say – ‘hey look, there is an unchanged clean version in DeMelles first posting at 1:13pm, but we musta saved them or sumpthin’ when we uploaded for Littlemore’s story – you can clearly see they say 12:36 to 12:55pm – we ain’t misrememberin’ – honest.’

    Except for one pesky fact. While all the other Heartland documents were modified between 12:36 and 12:55pm PST – Littlemore’s version of the “Fundraising” document was saved …. at 9:59 AM PST.

    Let me repeat that – Littlemores copy of “Fundraising” document was saved at 9:59AM PST.

    The original Heartland document (as uploaded with Demelle’s DeSmog story and at ThinkProgress) was created and last modified 1/16/12 at 10:02 AM CST.

    Someone forget to keep track of ALL the documents they were trying to carefully manipulate to manufacture evidence to support their claimed timeline.

    When at first you practice to deceive, what a dangerous web you weave.

    A Keystonian (as in Cops, not pipeline) blunder … and one that unravels all their carefully planned work at faking (this is Fakegate right?) a timeline.

    That one document – saved at 9:59 AM PST – shows that DeSmogBlog had the files hours earlier than they claimed. It proves the claim DeSmog made to Politico – that they only had the files for an hour before publishing – was not only false – it was KNOWINGLY FALSE.

  61. I believe Greg Laden’s files are immaterial – his story was much later that night and he simply copied Littlemores.

    ThinkProgress actually published their story an hour earlier – 3:10 EST/12:10 PST – than DeSmog’s Demelle story 4:13 EST/1:14 PST – (although they later tried, using Think Progress Facebook post announcing the story, and their commenting system – which is Facebook as well). TP’s files are un-modified as are Demelle’s at DeSmog.

    Either DeSmog and Think Progress were working together and received all the files much earlier, or both TP and Demelle received copies of the Insider email with the files attached.

    This would require the Insider email to have been sent at 12:13 EST/9:13 AM PST. IF, as DeSmog tried to show it appears with the file modifying and “1 hour” claim to Politico, the Insider email was sent at 12:13 PST – that would have been 3:13pm EST – 3 miniutes AFTER Think Progress published the story.

    Dave Appel also has a clean set of files at his site – un-modified – same as Demelle’s DeSmog, and the TP files. Unknown when, or how, he got them – however, keep in mind Appel was who Keith Kloor passed along the Insider email “detail” info – it is the ONLY know source for the 12:13 time (which does NOT include any timezone info).

    Kloor says someone sent him the email info – but not a copy of the email itself (which would have header info) – which, for some reason he then passed on to Appel to blog about …

  62. PHIL – was simply a TYPO – this is the correct timeline:

    The timeline shows (and Mosher has said he had other support confirming) that the documents were received about 9:15 am PST. One of Littlemore’s documents has a Modified date at 9:59 am PST, meaning he had to have received before then, and then saved it.

    DeSmog posted the stories at 1:13 pm PST (Demelle) and 1:14 pm PST (Littlemore) – which means they had documents at least 4 hours. It seems HIGHLY unlikely they both, along with Think Progress, all could have written the detailed stories that appeared if they only had docs for an hour … much more to investigate there I think.

    The bottom line … ONE of the Littlemore files has a Modified Date of 9:59 AM PST. Using all the evidence available (the DeSmog post times, tweets, Facebook posts etc) it appears DeSmog’s server or publishing platform is set to MST and in reality it is pretty certain they posted the stories at 1:13 pm PST and 1:14 pm PST respectively for DeMelle’s and Littlemore’s versions.

    Perhaps Anthony or one of the mods can update the story text to correct.

  63. I would note – Anthony has posted new and updated version of the Excel file and the PDF – with significantly more information.

    Make sure you check the GleickTimeline tab in the Excel sheet – it contains all relevant tweets by Gleick since January – and some related tweets from others. I matched my data with Copner’s great list from Lucia’s in that tab. I captured the link to each tweet, including those in Copner’s list, so you can go and look at it directly.

    I included a few key Gleick “events” in that list from the main timeline as well – mostly the Heartland emails on debate and Gleick’s phishing – for reference. At some point will incorporate all the tweets etc from that tab to the timeline ….

    There are some very interesting comments in the tweets ….

  64. A. Scott says:
    February 29, 2012 at 7:31 am
    Hmmmm …. now they seem to be working – that is weird – others worked, showed older tweets … yet all of them stopped at 2/22.

    Mod’s feel free to delete above posts

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

    FBI or legal eagles copying files / accounts?

  65. A. Scott says:
    February 29, 2012 at 6:11 am

    the time zones are really easy to get screwed up on

    Now, if only the planet were a nice flat disk with a constant sun angle … I know! We’ll make a model and pretend! That’ll work!

  66. I believe the Leo Hickman and Gleick tweets around 1/22 re: Gleick having a fax machine to be very interesting … as well the names of some of the others tweeting with Hick,am around that time as well

    At Lucia’s “Amused” has found CCITT encoding in one of the files – meaning the file was scanned and saved at fax resolution. The only document in the group that displays at that low resolution is the Strategy document.

    Hickman was also one of the very first to tweet about the stories first appearing – within less than 15 minutes. And within minutes after that had a long string of tweets lined up regarding the contents.

    And a recent tweet from him points to this vapid excuse-making:

    @Leo Hickman:
    Gleick’s actions kick off intriguing ethics debate: “The morality of unmasking Heartland” …

    http://theconversation.edu.au/the-morality-of-unmasking-heartland-5494

  67. Another interesting question – who is @carbon meme … they tweeted within minutes of the original Think Progress story, which was first posted at 3:10pm EST … and within minutes of DeSmog’s posting of their story at 1:13pm PST

    In fact they tweeted the link to the DeSmog story 9 minutes before DeSmog tweeted them about the story.

Comments are closed.