Heartland to release Gleick prosecution file

Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...

Peter Gleick – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

The one year anniversary of the Dr. Peter Gleick theft of Heartland documents under false pretenses is coming up on Valentines day, Feb 14th.

I’ve been given the word today via email that there will be some documents released from Heartland that day, and they won’t be stolen ones.

Many people contributed to help Heartland, and Heartland is planning on putting all the cards on the table now. They write:

On Thursday, February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute is releasing  a 57-page report produced by its legal counsel, Jones Day, presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in support of criminal prosecution in the matter.

On February 14, 2012 – one year ago – Fakegate began. Like Climategate, it was a scandal revealing the dishonesty and desperation of those who claim man-made global warming (alias “climate change”) is a crisis. Fakegate involved criminal activity, repeated lying, and outright theft by a high-ranking scientist in the global warming movement. How the mainstream media covered the incident spoke volumes about how liberal bias pervades media today.

Details here.

About these ads

93 thoughts on “Heartland to release Gleick prosecution file

  1. Frankly I find this ridiculous. Another mistake by Heartland. They can’t get a criminal prosecution, so what? They should have the courage of their convictions, put the money that we give them up front and pursue a civil case. If they are so confident of the material then it should be no risk.

    Instead we all get to see the dirty laundry and that’s great in our voyeuristic society but it will make all of it inadmissible in any case that will never happen anyway.

    They probably think they can damage Gleick enough to do his career, such as it is, harm. That’s already been tried and he’s shrugged it off. The MSM will shrug this off. It will not even be a squall in a teacup.

    It’s the behaviour of the beaten and it sorely disappoints.

  2. This is great stuff. The legal avenging of the revenge of the lying nerds. Did these losers ever play sports in high school, or get a date?

  3. Gary S. Shapiro is the US Attorney for Chicago and was only appointed last summer, although he was a top Deputy to former US Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald for years.

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/meetattorney.html

    I’m not seeing explicit confirmation of whether his status changed from “Acting” US Attorney to a more lasting apptmt, but he might be urged to take a fresh look at the case.

    While dealing with Gleick would not confer the legal prestige of putting away Chicago mobsters, it would be a lot easier and safer. Anyone who cares more about law than about partisan politics ought to see the right thing to do here…. Perhaps Shapiro, who does not seem like an overtly partisan guy, will decide that the integrity of his office matters more than pleasing his DC superiors in this case. Some, though not all, US Attorneys prove a streak of independence when faced with their own integrity issue.

  4. Oops, Spoke to soon. So far, they’ve “declined to prosecute.” Still, it’s nice to see they’ve been trying.

  5. So far, the U.S. Attorney has declined to prosecute Gleick.

    What is the basis of the US Attorneys decision to not prosecute?
    MtK

  6. I knew they hadn’t let go of this! I sure hope it goes ahead – and I sure hope the media cover it PROPERLY. Every reporter is going to look like a fool if they don’t start playing straight. That means covering the scam of CAGW, too.

  7. I’m shocked that felony charges haven’t been filed against Gleick. He should have already been tried and convicted.

  8. trafamadore says: “Okay. Please show the link to the 57 pages?”

    Is English a second language for you, trafamadore? Or are you without a calendar?

    The post reads, “On Thursday, February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute is releasing a 57-page report…”

    Today is Monday February 11th.

    See you on Thursday.

  9. Maybe I don’t understand how the Rule of Law is supposed to operate in the USA.

    Gleick has admitted that he committed wire fraud in pretending to be a member of the board of THI in order to obtain “super secret” documents.

    There is evidence of a crime. A person who admits to having committed the crime. But no prosecution?

  10. Bernd Felsche,

    Exactly right. Normally, a prosecutor such as Attorney General Holder would be all over a slam dunk case like this. Another easy notch on his belt. Prosecutors love easy wins.

    So what happened? The Obama Administration happened. So much for justice.

    You can just imagine the hue and cry that would erupt if someone like, for example, Steve McIntyre had done something remotely similar, and then admitted to it. Federal charges and an easy conviction would result, followed by a civil suit.

    Is there any doubt?

  11. Heartland fundraising was damaged by Gleick, therefore it seems a no-brainer that he can be sued for a considerable amount in damages. As we saw scientific societies reward him his reputation is apparently intact, any criminality is being ignored, so let’s see how he and his bank balance weather a civil suit

  12. Honestly Im a bit S and T of both Heartland and AIT losing ALL their cases re Mann ect and NOT going after the man but complaining about it here. Its really time something was done legally and monetarily about this fraud

  13. Bob Tisdale says:

    February 11, 2013 at 6:54 pm
    trafamadore says: “Okay. Please show the link to the 57 pages?”

    Is English a second language for you, trafamadore? Or are you without a calendar?
    The post reads, “On Thursday, February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute is releasing a 57-page report…”
    Today is Monday February 11th.
    See you on Thursday.

    I’m still laughing…

  14. Leaving aside the Gleick-Heartland thing, I was taken by the picture of Gleick performing at DAVOS and it struck me that was all he is and that is what DAVOS and so many of these international fora really are, theatre. And there is money in theatre. If you want to understand how the science got so far away from the conduct of proper, objective scientific inquiry in this area you only need to consider the distorting effect of the demand for junk papers and follow up performances by the celebrities of the tabloid scientological theatre. Gleick is just a climate science Kardashian, flashing his little celebrity titties of knowledge, spitting out peer reviewed LPU’s ( least publishable units) or doing whatever it takes to keep those invites coming.

    NOthing to worry about folks just a busker without a licence.

  15. Bob Tisdale says:”The post reads, “On Thursday, February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute is releasing a 57-page report…”

    Ahh, why thank you Bob, so you are correct. Where is the enterprising researcher Gleich when you need him…?

  16. Consider this. The former Governor of NJ literally mismanaged funds of numerous wealthy clients and used client funds (millions) to cover poor bets he made on European securities. Was this Legal? No,
    Was he prosecuted? No!
    Did he donate to Obama? yes.
    Enough said.

  17. Some people have very clearly misunderstood what is happening here.

    This is not Heartland making a case for a civil action. This is Heartland admitting defeat. They can’t get the criminal case they wanted ( and in my opinion deserved. As pointed out Gleick clearly admitted to at least wire fraud which i believe is a felony in the US ).

    This is Heartland hoping to try Gleick in the court of public opinion and clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to pursue a civil action. Once all this information is in the public domain no future case would consider it fair evidence.

    This is very much Heartland giving up and saying ” we were right all along, you can read for yourself, but they won’t help us”. It’s a last gasp effort in the hope that someone in the MSM will reconsider a previous position and donate some space to saying so.. They don’t do admission of wrong unless pressed into a corner.

    And after a few pages of copy on the usual blogs it will all go away as though it never happened.

  18. ON reflection I find myself in agreement with those who are calling for a civil law suit. If the U.S. Attorney for reasons of politics no doubt, is choosing not to prosecute then all this amounts to..the release of the 57 page document is just so much hot air. I really can’t understand why they won’t sue this guy. Anyone?

  19. ZootCadillac says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    It’s the behaviour of the beaten and it sorely disappoints.

    Maybe so, but far more prevalent on the the side that’s doing most of the losing.

  20. Bill Jamison says: “I’m shocked that felony charges haven’t been filed against Gleick. He should have already been tried and convicted.”

    Really? Heartland’s noble purpose, without exception, has always been to push disinformation for industrial benefit and, of course, industrial funding. So they have had to be very very careful in what they use to try to squash Gleich, and not incriminate themselves. That took some time, it seems, but it is certainly not “shocking”.

  21. Step by step. Good. Pace this out, while the AGW community continues to embrace the lyisng pos. .

  22. trafamadore,

    If Bob Tisdale’s comment didn’t show you to be a complete friggin’ idiot, your comment above proves it. You never gave one single example of “disinformation” by Heartland. ALL the disinformation was done by Gleick. This is just more psychological projection from a somewhat stupid member of the alarmist cult. And a teacher to boot; God help your propagandized students.

  23. D.B. Stealey says: “you to be a complete friggin’ idiot”

    Ha Ha. Good one. Let’s see, second hand smoke doesnt hurt anyone and a GW conference each year with hand picked pseudo scientists. It’s that enuf? Your sense of outrage is actually outrageously funny.

  24. D.B. Stealey says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:32 pm
    trafamadore,

    If Bob Tisdale’s comment didn’t show you to be a complete friggin’ idiot, your comment above proves it. You never gave one single example of “disinformation” by Heartland. ALL the disinformation was done by Gleick. This is just more psychological projection from a somewhat stupid member of the alarmist cult. And a teacher to boot; God help your propagandized students.

    =========================================================================
    He must teach, what I think is called, “situational ethics”. The more familiar term is, “The end justifies the means”. (Gleick’s specialty.)

  25. @Trafamadore: You wrote: Really? Heartland’s noble purpose, without exception, has always been to push disinformation for industrial benefit and, of course, industrial funding.
    ++++++
    Please inform us. What disinformation? Show the disinformation and prove it.

  26. “What is the basis of the US Attorneys decision to not prosecute?”

    Oh Come On – Friends of Obama don’t get prosecuted. Just ask John Corzine. Or Robert Menendez. Compared to those guys, Gleik’s offenses don’t even count as chicken feed.

    Just like everything else “justice” in this country is now completely politicized. Thank you, Eric Holder.

  27. @Trafamadore: The Tralfamadorians are a fictional alien race… I did not realize that at least you are self described to be as such. You seem to be in good company of fictional scientists and perhaps you are too self absorbed to realize what deep down inside you know about yourself.

    I only wish the self deprecating beings that you are and whom you associate will some day soon realize the harm of you create by existing in a fantasy world… a world of abundance gone down the tubes. Your ilk makes me all the more anxious to right your wrongs.

    When you’re old and close to recounting your life, I hope it is you who realizes that your life was spent making the world a less good place thrive.

  28. Trafamadore, you cant even spell Gleick’s name correctly, repeatedly. This and failing to read the Heartland’s press release correctly urge me to ask you; maybe you should finish your education first before commenting here?

  29. @mods: I wrote my post in haste and the grammar was horrible. I have corrected it here. I apologize!

    @Trafamadore: The Tralfamadorians are a fictional alien race… I did not realize that at least you are self described to be as such. You seem to be in the good company of fictional scientists and perhaps you are too self absorbed to realize what deep down inside you know about yourself.

    I only wish the self deprecating being that you are and beings whom you associate with will some day soon realize the harm you create by existing in a fantasy world… a world of abundance gone down the tubes. Your ilk makes me all the more anxious to right your wrongs.

    When you’re old and close to recounting your life, I hope it is you who realizes that your life was spent making the world a less good place for life to thrive.

  30. Bernd Felsche says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Maybe I don’t understand how the Rule of Law is supposed to operate in the USA.

    Gleick has admitted that he committed wire fraud in pretending to be a member of the board of THI in order to obtain “super secret” documents.

    There is evidence of a crime. A person who admits to having committed the crime. But no prosecution?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Three Words…. Liberal Control Agenda

    CAGW is a part of that agenda. the means to get there doesn’t matter and people Like Obama, Jarrett, and others in this admin are criminals who will protect their own.. Remember this is the CHICAGO Federal Attorneys office… Thus CHICAGO thug politics is the norm.. Just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Gun Running in Yemen, among other illegal acts by this administration which have been swept under the rug…

    There is a lot of stuff under that rug along with people Obama and company has destroyed under the bus..

  31. trafamadore says: February 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm ” …. Let’s see, second hand smoke doesn’t hurt anyone … ”

    For the benefit of those of us who fell off a turnip truck after just being born yesterday, please provide the time, place, and full text of any individual associated with the skeptic side who ever made such a statement. Please, take your time, we will wait……….

  32. The release of the file will have some very positive results.. It will show the inept abilities of the US Attorneys office. It will show deliberate indifference by the Obama Administration and the corrupt nature of this Administration. (like we needed more evidence of this). Excerpts will show that the EPA and its regulations are built on falsified data.

    Having this in the public domain is not a bad thing… Now getting the main stream media to report on it is another issue..

  33. Oh Dear.

    The Thing which calls itself ‘Dr. Peter Gleick’ … is … still alive ?

    How absolutely terrible. The Thing should have never been born.

  34. Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says: “For the benefit of those of us who fell off a turnip truck after just being born yesterday, please provide the time, place, and full text of any individual associated with the skeptic side who ever made such a statement. Please, take your time, we will wait……….”

    As in the classroom, I ask, can someone pls help Mr. Cook?

  35. trafamadore says:

    Ha Ha. Good one. Let’s see, second hand smoke doesnt hurt anyone …

    I believe their claim is that the dangers of second-hand smoke have been overstated, and those of casual second-hand smoke (not by family members of smokers) have been considerably overstated.

    Hopefully, with the rise of e-cigarettes, this debate will become moot.

  36. ” Like Climategate, it was a scandal revealing the dishonesty and desperation of those who claim man-made global warming (alias “climate change”) is a crisis. ”

    A stunning level of hypocricy by Heartland in that sentence. Stealing mails from CRU was fine, just don’t steal anything from us. Getting access to drafts to the IPCC report under false pretenses to publish them was apparently also fine.

  37. trafamadore says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    … and a GW conference each year with hand picked pseudo scientists.
    ————————————————

    Are you aware that Dr. Gleik was invited to speak at one of those Heartland conferences and turned it down? Just before he lied to ‘em about his identity to get unauthorized access to their documents. Nice guy!

  38. Bernd Felsche says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Maybe I don’t understand how the Rule of Law is supposed to operate in the USA.

    Gleick has admitted that he committed wire fraud in pretending to be a member of the board of THI in order to obtain “super secret” documents.

    There is evidence of a crime. A person who admits to having committed the crime. But no prosecution?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Prosecution depends on many factors. Availability of police, prosecution and court time will set prorities. Burglary and car theft may not get police response let alone prosecution. Weapons crime, violence and narcotics crimes may be prosecuted first. Poor or good evidence that can be set aside in court will stall a case. A stolen and forged policy paper with no tangible damages would not likely be prosecuted. If Gleick had verbally assaulted his wife and wounded her self-esteem he might be in jail now.

    And yes, political correctness and influence are likely at play but would never be admitted.

  39. “Thomas says:
    February 11, 2013 at 11:58 pm
    ” Like Climategate, it was a scandal revealing the dishonesty and desperation of those who claim man-made global warming (alias “climate change”) is a crisis. ”

    A stunning level of hypocricy by Heartland in that sentence. Stealing mails from CRU was fine, just don’t steal anything from us. Getting access to drafts to the IPCC report under false pretenses to publish them was apparently also fine.”

    Don’t let the facts get in the way of your prejudice! Firstly, and although not proven the CRU emails appear to have been hacked by an insider who apparently wanted the world to see the dishonesty of the warmist claims. Secondly, the IPPC report was leaked by at least one individual who had legitimate access to the report. In neither case has anyone from the skeptic side of the argument sort to introduce promulgate falsified and dishonest material.

  40. Opps! the last sentence should read:

    In neither case has anyone from the skeptic side of the argument sort to promulgate falsified and dishonest material.

  41. trafamadore, You mentions Pseudo scientists? You mean like the ones who still believe that the global climate models are correct and it is the planet that is wrong? Those asshats you mean?

    God help your students if the grammar and spelling in your posts is typical of your educational standards, let alone your obvious inability to argue any case with actual facts or evidence, your lack of the capability to apply logic and your complete lack of scientific understanding that “if the observation does not match the theory, then the theory is wrong” science 101.

    The earth has NOT warmed whilst CO2 has climbed for almost 2 decades now.

    Your alarmist “peer reviewed, consensus scientists” are being proven more and more wrong by the actual observation of what is actually happening, as each month passes. And that is what you SHOULD be teaching your students.

  42. Despite his misdeeds, Gleick is a lifetime member of the NAS. From JunkScience;

    The situation with America’s National Academy of Science is somewhat more complicated. The Academy is divided into many disciplinary sections whose primary task is the nomination of candidates for membership in the Academy. Typically, support by more than 85% of the membership of any section is needed for nomination. However, once a candidate is elected, the candidate is free to affiliate with any section. The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon…

    http://junkscience.com/2012/02/21/gleick-and-the-nas-how-did-become-a-member-will-he-stay-a-member/

    He has molested ethics, and probably the law as well, in the same way as he’s molested science; sort of a Jerry Sandusky of climate science.
    But, I suppose we shouldn’t be too hard on him. After all, Stephen Schneider said it was ok to find his own moral and ethical line, and what greater good can there be than “saving the planet”?

  43. Ehrlich, Gleick, and who else go into this growing hall of shame? I think it would be instructive to keep a log of the faux moralists and intellectual/academics who have used public laying and calls for lying to push their extremist nonsense.
    Steve Schneider comes to mind for this list. Who else?

  44. RESnape,
    There is no evidence anything was stolen out of CRU, much less that a skeptic did the leaking/stealing.
    Also please show any forged CRU papers, as well as any taken out of context.
    Dissembling is something you seem to have a lot of practice with.
    But then so do many AGW kooks.

  45. REsnape, the police report is clear in that they believe the CRU mails were stolen from outside and all arguments I’ve seen supports this:

    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx

    I know that some people would like it to have been an insider job even if the police disagrees.

    To become a reviewer of the IPCC report you had to agree not to distribute it further, an agreement that was signed in bad faith by the leaker. But don’t let facts get in the way…

  46. >>ZootCadillac says:
    February 11, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    Some people have very clearly misunderstood what is happening here.<<

    Yes, you and trafamadore, for a start.

  47. @daveburton
    February 11, 2013 at 10:52 pm

    Your comment seems to have joined the ‘missing heat’……or the dog ate it…….or it’s been lost.

  48. Politicized prosecution in the U.S has been facilitated by the stifling of the Constitutions 5th amendment allowance of juries to make presentments via a footnote in 1940-ish to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Now juries only respond to what a prosecutor gives to them. However, the authority is still there, but few jury members know that a grand jury still has the authority to investigate something on their own and make a “presentment” which must be acted on by the court.

  49. catweazle666 – Where exactly is Zoot wrong? I don’t see any evidence that Heartland intends to pursue this civilly. Best I can tell, it’s just whining.

    I know Heartland folk read this blog, so for them: I have lost any faith in your organization I may have had. You refuse to take a stand, therefore, I refuse to offer any support. Change your ways and I’ll change mine. I’m not a fan of wasting my donations.

  50. Looks like the trollops cashed their checks this week. They’re back in force spouting absurd claims, blowing brimstone and challenging without facts nor truth on their side.

    Don’t feed the trolls and trollops!

    Ignore their blather and without influence their weekly paychecks from eco-greens will wither and drift away with the rest of their obscurations and falsifications.

  51. trafamadore says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Bill Jamison says: “I’m shocked that felony charges haven’t been filed against Gleick. He should have already been tried and convicted.”

    Really? Heartland’s noble purpose, without exception, has always been to push disinformation for industrial benefit and, of course, industrial funding. So they have had to be very very careful in what they use to try to squash Gleich, and not incriminate themselves. That took some time, it seems, but it is certainly not “shocking”.

    Considering you can’t even spell the name of one of your heroes properly, when it’s spelled properly in the text you quoted, why should we believe the accuracy of anything you say?

    Of course you totally ignore the mass of “industrial” funding received by alarmists, like Jones, Mann, etc…

  52. @atheok, In the case of trafmadore, I figure he comes here to learn, and he’s been schooled rather nicely several times. Mission accomplished.

  53. Mac the Knife says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:23 pm
    What is the basis of the US Attorneys decision to not prosecute?
    ========
    Friends in high places. Justice may be blind, but she hears the clink of silver well enough.

    Ironically, the “land of the free” has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Having learned nothing from prohibition in the 1920’s which created the era of the Chicago gangster, in the early 1970’s the US created highly profitable drug cartels by limiting competition via the legal system. This allowed illegal drug monopolies to flourish, which significantly increased the financial incentive to expand the drug trade. As happened in the 1920’s this led to an ever increasing cycle of violence as groups sought control of the highly lucrative drug business, while the funds generated were used to corrupt police and public officials at all levels. This highly profitable situation remains to this day with devastating effects on portions of the US population. Officials that have spoken out have been removed from office, effectively silencing any discussion of alternatives. Too many folks on both sides of the law now rely on the drug trade for their living for them to support a change.

  54. Heartland should have pursues a Writ Of Mandamus to compel the attorney general to do his job and file charges.

  55. I look forward to reading HI’s forthcoming 57-page legal report produced by its legal counsel that was submitted to the US Attorney’s Office in Illinois.

    It will be an education.

    I am sure the AGU’s leadership will continue their moral support and fawning adoration of AGU member Gleick in spite of whatever the legal report says.

    I am sure the US House of Representatives leadership will use the report as leverage.

    John

  56. @trafamadore.

    You are deflecting. Stay on the issue at point. This is about a clearly admitted case of wire fraud. Whatever your perceived notion of Heartland’s business and whatever the actual facts of that very broad business they have no bearing on the actual acts of wrongdoing in this particular instance. Would you have a rapist admit his crime and then suggest that he should not be prosecuted because his victim believes in sky gods and ghosts? It’s irrelevant and deflection.

    @Thomas. It appears the hypocrisy is closer to home. You are fully aware that no evidence exists that the CRU emails were ever stolen. There exists an opinion by a member of the police team. There is no more or no less evidence for this than there is evidence to suggest they were a leak. No more or no less. Nobody knows.
    Whatever the truth of that matter it has nothing to do with Heartland. They were not involved in the obtaining or the dissemination of the material so I fail to understand your point.

    The Thomas, you go on to mention the draft IPCC report as thought that was obtained under false pretences. That’s clearly not the case. A reviewer, properly accepted as such, decided that it was in the public interest to release the draft IPCC report. We know this because he made it plain to us all who he was and why he did this. Publication was by that same person.

    This again has nothing to do with Heartland.

    So your logic is that because you misunderstand what you perceive to be wrongs by some other parties both known and unknown you insist that Heartland have no cause for complaint in a clear and admitted case of deception ( I’m trying to avoid the spam bin here ).

    I think I’m not alone in following your logic.

    @catweazle666 please tell me exactly where I am wrong in this. And please don’t lump me with trafamadore. I may not be the most academically blessed person to ever visit here but I’d like to think my comprehension skills are far above those displayed by that particular persistent troublemaker in these comments.

    As for comments about trolls? I hope none of that was directed in my direction. My posting history should show that I make my thoughts known here in good faith with a genuine will to further the discussion. I was always told to say what you mean and tell the truth, no matter how distasteful.

    To me this shows that we are at the end of it and apart from a little show to come Gleick has walked away from a crime hurt only in the eyes of people who already had no respect for him. i.e. Scott Free.

  57. trafamadore says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    “a GW conference each year with hand picked pseudo scientists.”

    Scientists supporting the AGW theme have been repeatedly invited to Heartland conferences almost all have ignored the invitations. I can’t recall his name but there was one AGW proponent that did attend and speak and was courteously received. Typically, trafamadore makes derogatory statements without even bothering to do any research.

  58. @atheok

    Are you quite sure that you have understood the meaning of the word trollop?

    trol·lop
    n.
    1. A woman regarded as slovenly or untidy; a slattern.
    2. A strumpet.

    The only connection it might have with the word troll is in the old English meaning of ‘to roll around’ you know, in the hay, like I believe some young people are wont to do :)

  59. ZootCadillac says:
    February 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    “Frankly I find this ridiculous. Another mistake by Heartland. They can’t get a criminal prosecution, so what? They should have the courage of their convictions, put the money that we give them up front and pursue a civil case. If they are so confident of the material then it should be no risk.”

    ZootCadillac, it is easy for you to play the armchair lawyer but perhaps you do not really understand the law. Do you not think that Heartland has had legal advice on this matter? Do you not comprehend that in a civil case, the plaintive must be able to show damages? It is debatable whether Heartland was damaged by Gliek’s actions. Heartland lost some donors but gained other donors through the publicity. Arguably, the publicity raised Heartland’s profile at the expense of Gleik and his crowd.

  60. ZootCadillac on February 12, 2013 at 9:03 am

    @atheok

    Are you quite sure that you have understood the meaning of the word trollop?

    trol·lop
    n.
    1. A woman regarded as slovenly or untidy; a slattern.
    2. A strumpet.

    The only connection it might have with the word troll is in the old English meaning of ‘to roll around’ you know, in the hay, like I believe some young people are wont to do :)

    – – – – – –

    ZootCadillac,

    Perhaps a feminine gendered troll should be called a trollette?

    I officially do not support calling a feminine gendered troll a troll bitch. That would be uncivil. N’est ce pas?

    John

  61. @Robert Austin

    It’s not particularly easy to play the armchair lawyer as it’s not my field. It’s especially difficult considerer that I’m from the UK and although the UK and the US share a common basis in law our laws and tests regarding libel are much different. So you are correct in assuming that perhaps I don’t fully understand the law. I do have some experience of it however.

    I know Heartland had legal advice on this matter. I expect that I paid, in part, for that. I do understand that in a civil case damages would have to be proven. I also know that a loss of sponsors as a direct result of the actions are easily proven and would show damage. A gain in some other sponsors be it net or otherwise is in no way an offset to the fact that monetary damage was received. The plaintiff can also show malice in this case. The history of attack from Gleick and associates can clearly demonstrate a will to harm Heartland.

    Heartland have persistently claimed that they are the wronged party and that they are confident that their evidence supports this position. The AG for reasons unknown to me does not support this stance. That’s why a civil case must be undertaken. Unless of course they have received advice not to pursue as it’s not a case they can win. Then I’d like to see that advice because a great many of us have paid for it with donations. If it turns out that the advice contradicts the confident position of Heartland then we should hear about it.
    If the advice supports that confident position than we should not be seeing games played in the media, we should be seeing writs issued.

    But this is just my opinion. IANAL armchair or otherwise.

  62. @John Whitman

    You raise a good point John. I personally consider the pronoun troll as pertaining to the internet, to derive from the verb ‘to troll’ as in one who trolls ( trawls ) the internet in search of prey ( forum posters ) to antagonise, promote anger and instigate argument.

    It actually used to be a bit of an artform and was done by people who would expose internet idiots and bigots for what they were. Using clever argument, inciteful dialogue and intelligent traps to make a person so incensed that their own bad behaviour, lack of reasoning and understanding could be shown to the community that was being deceived.

    It’s become so very much different since then. It’s a shame. The internet troll was a funny and clever person to watch at work. now it’s just a word to describe anyone who wants to argue in a forum ( that’s flaming ) and anyone who holds a contrary viewpoint to the consensus of the community where the ‘troll’ is posting.

    Trolls used to be a good thing but in the terms of the internet they were never Scandinavian, goat-eating beasts living under bridges and so not gender specific. That’s again, another thing all together :)

  63. { trafamadore says:
    February 11, 2013 at 10:28 pm
    Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
    As in the classroom, I ask, can someone pls help Mr. Cook? }

    Aha…..
    I have had my doubts regarding your claim to be a teacher. But as a very good student of many disciplines including the teaching profession, I recognize this ploy. It is most often used by inferior teachers, who, when confronted with a question beyond their mental capabilities, deflect the question to much brighter students, thus preserving a modicum of respect.

    Old habits will sneak up on you.

  64. ZootCadillac *You* may have no evidence that the CRU mails were stolen, but then you don’t have access to the complete police investigation, do you? I take their opinion ahead on an anonymous person on Internet any day. They have access to the computer logs, but to track hackers that take the minimal precaution of using proxies in other countries require a lot of work if it is at all possible so they couldn’t identify the thief. Russian media has claimed it was Russian hackers, but I don’t know if they have any evidence either, or if they just base it on the fact that the mails first appeared on a Russian website.

    You claim this has nothing to do with Heartland, but the sentence I quoted and that I think was hypocritical was written by Heartland. If they think stealing information is so bad they shouldn’t gloat over stolen information.

    You shouldn’t buy Rawls sob story why he felt obliged to leak the IPCC report either. He signed a non disclosure agreement and violated it deliberately once he had found a single sentence he could take out of context and make a big issue of. Not that I think anyone was surprised it was leaked. Given the number of reviewers it was inevitable, and in the long run it doesn’t matter.

  65. ZootCadillac on February 12, 2013 at 10:23 am

    – – – – – – –

    ZootCadillac,

    I enjoyed your well styled reply about a broad view of trolls both in myth and in the Internet. Thanks.

    I can have some close empathy with those on the internet who find it good intellectual exercise to randomly pick a position in a blog thread on the spur of the moment and make a best argument for it. I would not consider that behavior as trolling if done so by saying in advance that it is what one is doing. The devil’s advocate position is educational and honorable. I think the threshold for being a troll is when over a sufficient timescale it becomes obvious that a commenter is intentionally using a condescending and contemptuous behavior toward a blog venue with the goal of discrediting the venue’s reputation. A troll in that sense is attempting a goal other than any specific dialog thread per se. It takes a while to see that is what a commenter is consistently doing.

    But, recently when Lazy Teenager was banned here at WUWT, I initially concurred . . . . then I started to have the feeling that something greater was lost in doing so than was gained. The feeling still surprises me.

    Also recently, after more than 4 years commenting often here at WUWT, I was called a troll for the first time by one of the most prolific commenters here on WUWT; by richardscourtney. Apparently there was a perceived fundamental threat to WUWT’s reputation by my recent comment pattern. That was quite interesting, to say the least. My philosophical journey and education continues into the unknown country that is the future.

    John

  66. I agree with ZootCadillac, it gives you a smug feeling when surrounded by your friends, but out there it’s just another self defeating loss. The greater community don’t even know or care about this if you don’t take it up to them, publicly and loudly challenge them, then like all bullies they get away with it and are encouraged to go on doing it, why worry – it’s not like Heartland actually DO anything about it do they?

    If this happened in a a school yard, you’d be tagged, “losers”, sorry to be harsh, but you’re playing the big game here, and that’s a weak and lame move.

    Either chest up, or shut up.

  67. @John Whitman Thanks for the response. I have so much to say in reply. I’m just a little busy right now. I want to acknowledge your comment.

    @thomas Really, must I explain it to you again in words that you can’t misunderstand?

  68. @Thomas: You wrote “To become a reviewer of the IPCC report you had to agree not to distribute it further, an agreement that was signed in bad faith by the leaker. But don’t let facts get in the way…”

    First: The IPCC is supposed to be transparent. So at least that truth comes out… They are intentionally not transparent.

    Second: Gleick admitted stealing the reports. And the reports were modified. So your ilk is at least factually criminal on one count and probably on both counts as dishonest as you are misguided.

    Third: There is no conclusive evidence that skeptics are guilty of the same as your ilk.

    Do you understand the difference?

  69. As expected, WUWT is carrying water for the Heartland Institute again.

    Also, it’s amusing that Anthony Watts continues to write things like “I’ve been given the word today via email” whenever he is fed information by Heartland. Come on, just admit that Heartland is the source for all these pro-Heartland pieces. Honestly, no one is fooled by the ham-fisted attempts to conceal the ties between Heartland and WUWT.

  70. Good luck to Heartland. But they may have to wait another four years.

    My case of grand theft has been stalled for over six years. We just toss the Democrats out of office and have a different District Attorney. (Republican) Last week we were called to the courthouse and the District Attorney apologized saying he could not understand why the case had been gathering dust for so long. It was the oldest case on the docket by far….

    Given one of the thieves had an office wall plastered with 10X12 framed glossies of him shaking hand with all the democrats in the state and even Clinton, I think I have a good idea why the case got buried deep.

    The last time I had talked to the previous bunch down at the courthouse I was told despite the fact of having previous records the max sentence would be 2 months probation so didn’t I just want to drop charges??? In the years before that we were called to the courthouse several times and had to sit all day only to find out the court had told the thieves they could go home first thing in the morning but never gave us the same courtesy. GRRrrrr

    It is amazing all of the ways the guilty can be ‘protected’ if they have political pull even when caught red handed. It took three times of spotting the guy with the stolen property to get the cops off their butts to arrest him despite having given them name, address, phone #, drivers license, photo and current location. Each time I was told the police were “TOO BUSY” to make the arrest despite the outstanding warrant.

    Complete contempt doesn’t even begin to describe my feeling for the US court system and “law” enforcement.

  71. “I got an email from Heartland (like a bunch of other people did).”

    @Anthony Watts

    Of course you did. It’s obvious that when Heartland wants to push a story, they contact all of their pals for help. You are clearly on their list.

    Again, my point is that you have a habit of framing these transactions in a way that seems designed to disguise your ties to Heartland. For example, I noticed you used the same technique with respect to the story about the debate between Heartland’s James Taylor and Ray Bellamy. It’s apparent that Heartland wanted to push that story and as usual, you were used as a conduit. I have no problem with that arrangement, but it seems a bit disingenuous for you to pretend that Heartland hasn’t prompted you to deliver their message to your readers.

    REPLY: Oh please, I get lots of stuff from Heartland I never carry. I get lots of stuff from other NGO’s too. I carried this because WUWT covered the story – Anthony

  72. Bob Tisdale

    Today is Monday February 11th.

    See you on Thursday

    Actually for English speekers its C U Next Thursday

  73. “I get lots of stuff from Heartland I never carry.”

    @Anthony Watts

    It’s wonderful that you want to share that information, but it is completely irrelevant to my point. Again, if Heartland feeds you a story, why don’t you explicitly acknowledge the source? As I said in my first comment, you have a history of carrying water for the Heartland Institute, so why do you continue to pretend that you were alerted to the story by an unnamed source?

    Your ties to Heartland run pretty deep. I don’t think any amount of misdirection covers up the fact that Heartland uses you and your blog as a conduit for their PR.

    REPLY: I did explicitly acknowledge them as a source and PROVIDED a link to the source in the article. See the very bottom. Gosh are you really that inept at reading? Apparently so. Look, you can imagine anything you want, but the fact is I carried a press release from them because it was relevant here, get over it. I find it telling that you apparently support Dr. Peter Gleick’s criminal actions. Your ties must run deep. – Anthony

  74. Many are eagerly awaiting the 57 page legal summary within a matter of 24 hours or less now….

    fyi, as a reminder to “team” members (and all of us) not to be over-confident in our own judgment, one of my all-time favorite comments on any blog invites quotation now…. (see below)…. on Feb. 18, 2012, just two days before Gleick’s “confession” as a limited partial halfway hangout ala Watergate notoriety, a proudly self-confident Michael Tobis ridiculed the increasing speculations that Gleick was centrally involved.

    Here is what Tobis said to beat back increasingly accurate blog inferences that Gleick was likely to have been involved:

    Michael Tobis stumbles on Gleick’s Fakegate

    “…The suggestion that someone as socially adept and successful as Peter Gleick is involved in this proposed clumsy heist and forgery is ludicrous and not worth considering either way….”

    — Michael Tobis here on WUWT, February 18, 2012 —

    Now anyone can be wrong anytime on some off-the-cuff blog comment, no doubt, but what is interesting is that Tobis and his ilk then considered it so unthinkable (“ludicrous” was his term), yet as soon as loyal team members needed to re-adjust to the new “story” how many of them (including Tobis) have since lined up to continue to bash Heartland while condoning, praising, or defending Gleick’s behavior in a variety of ways?

    If it was at all reasonable to say in advance that it was “ludicrous” to think Gleick had been involved, before his own confession, then that implies the behavior was so reckless, unethical, anti-professional, and/or illegal that it should be unthinkable for any serious scientist or professional.

    Yet, Gleick confessed to key parts of the unethical (and illegal) behavior. He has not yet confessed to forging the “strategy memo” but he did confess to the “phishing” of Heartland by impersonating someone else (reportedly a former astronaut and US Senator). The irony is that the spotlight focused on Gleick BECAUSE of the language of the fake “strategy memo” which Mosher and others zeroed in on. Gleick was fingered BEFORE he confessed due to the idiosyncratic language in the forged memo which seemed distinctive to him (a memo which he pretends came to him from some other source … yeah, right). Not to mention that the writer of the forged memo must have been the only person in the world who viewed Peter Gleick and his blog at Forbes to be the central bastion in the climate wars…. More popcorn…..

  75. The familiar fiction character called Jake Diamond was excellent in clutching at straws, exciting in catching water in a net and entertaining in counting to infinity.

    Come to think of it, this thread’s commenter calling himself Jake Diamond is too. : )

    John

  76. trafamadore says:
    February 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    “Let’s see, second hand smoke doesnt hurt anyone and a GW conference each year with hand picked pseudo scientists.”

    Hey Trafy! Can you say, “argumentum ad hominem?” And how about, “straw man?” Apparently these are your tactics of choice when you want to ‘compete’ with the big boys and big girls, but don’t have anything substantive to add to the discussion, and aren’t open to learning anything that conflicts with your precious little preconceptions.

    Please refresh my aging memory. Who’s the one that first brought up second hand smoke in this thread? You’re the second hand smoke around here.

  77. “ZootCadillac says: February 12, 2013 at 10:23 am
    @John Whitman

    You raise a good point John. I personally consider the pronoun troll as pertaining to the internet, to derive from the verb ‘to troll’ as in one who trolls ( trawls ) the internet in search of prey ( forum posters ) to antagonise, promote anger and instigate argument.
    …”

    Not to my knowledge. If people thought the appelation of ‘Troll’ to their actions was favorable and appreciative they have some social compatibility issues.

    Before the Internet there were BBs, (Bulletin Boards); usage of ‘Troll’ was an insulting description applied to annoying posters who either ignored facts or/and used endlessly circular logic. yes, it was likely derived from the fact that these poster ‘trolled’ bulletin board threads looking for reactions and that they took pleasure in their malice. The worst of the trolls were profoundly and profanely obnoxious. Managers and moderators of BBs often had to review and approve every post if they wanted their BB to remain family friendly. Cycle times for posts getting posted to the board were often overnight.

    That descriptive term migrated to the Internet when trolls found a new place to make their personal cesspools.

    Before BBs and subsequently concurrently there were; a game series called D&D (Dungeons and Dragons), Sword and Sorcery fiction and the imaginative Society for Creative Anachronism who hosted many medieval fairs, games and re-enactments. These latter groups provide the colloquial usage of ‘trollop’ as meaning a female troll.

    There is some confusion about formal ‘troll and trollop’ derivation; especially if one insists on formal English etymology. “Between Troll and Trollop, Or, An Etymologist’s Small Worries”

    Trollops were/are female trolls in recent colloquial usage. But if you insist, strumpet will work.

Comments are closed.