Heartland releases the Peter Gleick legal briefing

Gleick_jones-Day

This was presented to the US Attorney’s office by the Jones-Day legal firm on behalf of the Heartland Institute in connection with the theft of documents by Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute one year ago today.

It is a PDF document of a PowerPoint presentation. There are some redactions (black strips) in the document that are placed to protect the privacy of some of the people involved who were the the victim of Dr. Gleick’s actions.

I present it here without comment, published at the embargo time.

Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points (PDF 5.6 MB)

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

UPDATE: Here is the press release from Heartland:

Why Isn’t Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick in Jail?

The Heartland Institute today released a 57-page slide presentation produced by its legal counsel, Jones Day, titled “Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points.” The report, presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, asked the government to prosecute Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick, a prominent climate scientist and environmental activist.

Several presentations based on information contained in this document were made to the staff of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including David Glockner, at the time head of the criminal division, and Gary Shapiro, now acting U.S. Attorney. So far, the government has not prosecuted Peter Gleick.

[NOTE: No redactions were included in the presentation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, with the exception of personal information on a donor’s check. More redactions are included in this document to protect the privacy of those Peter Gleick victimized.]

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


“Today marks the one-year anniversary of ‘Fakegate,’ the day Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and reporters documents he stole from The Heartland Institute and claimed to have obtained from a ‘Heartland insider’ and later from an ‘anonymous source.’ The documents included Heartland’s annual budget, fundraising plan, and other confidential documents. Media outlets in the U.S. and around the world reported on the ‘leak’ of ‘secret plans’ by an anonymous ‘insider’ at the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming.

“Gleick eventually confessed to being the ‘insider’ and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person – a member of Heartland’s board of directors, it soon became known – in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no ‘leak.’ Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.

The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization, retained legal counsel to formally request that the U.S. Attorney prosecute Peter Gleick for the federal crimes of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.

“We urge everyone who has an interest in the global warming debate to review the ‘Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points’ presentation and decide for themselves whether Peter Gleick should be tried for his crimes. We ask the reporters and activists who were fooled by Gleick’s lies and who used the documents he stole and may have forged to attack The Heartland Institute, rather than come to our defense as the victim of a serious crime, to revisit their decisions and cover the story again, this time honestly. And we urge everyone to ‘look under the hood’ at the real science behind the global warming scare and recognize that man-made global warming is not a crisis.”

The Heartland Institute is a 29-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.

About these ads

94 thoughts on “Heartland releases the Peter Gleick legal briefing

  1. Regarding possible civil litigation: Heartland’s lawyers warned us that if we filed a civil suit against Peter Gleick, they could not guarantee that our donors would be protected from subpoenas won by Gleick’s attorneys from a sympathetic (liberal) judge. All of the donors identified in the stolen documents could receive threatening letters from Gleick’s lawyers demanding that they surrender correspondence, emails, notes, receipts, etc. Obviously, that would be devastating to our future fundraising efforts, and a violation of our pledge of preserving the privacy of our donors. So we made the difficult choice to not pursue civil litigation.

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

  2. Many will ask, why hasn’t he been charged? The political organs of the State will never charge anyone who is working to support the State-supported orthodoxy, no matter what he does. Much the same as the rules for the Inquisition, there is no crime and no law when dealing with Heretics.

    I suppose Heartland is lucky that they haven’t been charged with being Insufficiently Deferential to the Keepers of Truth, but give it time.

  3. Sorry, they tried. But no one is going to give a damn about this document but skeptics like me who enjoy getting themselves aggravated at 9 in the morning. H.I. doesn’t seem to have the stomach for civil action for whatever reason, so barring a miracle, once again one of their guys skates away. Not only is Gleick unblemished, he’s looked upon as a hero. Truly sad..

  4. I must admit that I am disappointed in the absence of a direct accusation that Peter Gleick was the forger of the fake strategy memo. Everyone familiar with this case believes Gleick wrote the memo, given the circumstances, and given that it contains his highly idiosyncratic use of parenthesis, commas, and activist jargon that would never be used at Heartland.

    Dr. Gleick, you forged the fake strategy document, fess up.

  5. I wasn’t aware of the seriousness of this and the extent of the damage (financially). The majority of people would probably think that this was a good and moral thing for Gleick to do because the institutionalised brainwashing by the media with regards to CAGW over the last 20 years supports this mentality. The truth is that it was a callous, childlike action to obtain private information which has hurt a charitable organisation. Lets hope the courts take the appropriate action so that it deters future moronic behaviour like this.

  6. Heartland does not seem to understand that liberal activists and black panthers (possibly the same thing) are not accountable for illegal behavior in your country.

  7. It appears to be an excellent, succinct and to the point summary of everything which was discovered about Gleick, his actions, and the actions of the other participants.

    This guy in my opinion was no whistle-blower and used criminal means to not only obtain confidential documents, but to even fake a document in order to make the Heartland Institute look bad and in such a way as to deter future donation-givers. In other words he deliberately set out to destroy the Heartland Institute using scurrilous and illegal methods.

    It also appears to me that the other participants are also guilty of assisting him in this crime, and if there was any justice in this world, they too should in my opinion be charged alongside Gleick.

  8. I am surprised that this is apparently the way you go about making a complaint to the police in the US. Using powerpoint. If it were me I would have gone with something like a signed written complaint. Powerpoint just feels like a sales pitch.

  9. Imagine how quick some neo-nazi or white supremacist would be jailed/Gitmoed if he/she pulled a similar ruse against the American Jewish Congress or the NAACP.

    The importance of donor anonymity should be obvious to anyone not corrupted by a “Noble Cause” like the rise of the Nth Reich.

  10. One thing that is not mentioned is whether, as well as disagreeing with heartland, gleick also had a personal motive.

    I believe he did.

    Gleick joins ncse, getting a job to encourage the teaching of “science”, especially climate science…

    Then within days (if his plan had worked) we discover not only is his mission of key importance, because those evil heartland folks are trying to stop teaching of science – but also, heartland have personally identified gleick (in their secret strategy plan) as the number one defender of truth, justice, and science, all because of the incredible importance of gleick’s Forbes blog.

    It looks even more grubby, if you believe that gleick’s motives were not only political fanaticism, but self-aggrandisement too.

  11. I am surprised that this is apparently the way you go about making a complaint to the police in the US. Using powerpoint. If it were me I would have gone with something like a signed written complaint. Powerpoint just feels like a sales pitch.

    I’ve helped in the preparation of a few of these things, and it is a sales pitch.

    Basically, the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s office sends a team to your law firm. You ply them with refreshments and do the dog and pony show. You provide them with written supplements. Then you wait for them to decide whether or not their careers will be enhanced or harmed by the prosecution you are requesting.

    The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in the United States are thoroughly politicized entities that rampage over the innocent and guilty alike, behaving like a poster child of the destructive organizations that are described by public choice theory.

  12. At what point does Paul Nurse’s once reputable Royal Society recruit Gleick to stand with Ehrlich as exemplars of good Baconian empiricism? Faugh!

  13. This is very interesting reading. I just hope that a /very/ strong message will be its result, along with a personal penalty that will at least cause Gleik in part to compensate Heartland for its losses and lost time.

    Can anyone estimate the chances of success?

  14. Heartland Institute (@HeartlandInst) says:
    February 14, 2013 at 6:07 am

    Jim Lakely
    Director of Communications
    The Heartland Institute

    All of the donors identified in the stolen documents could receive threatening letters from Gleick’s lawyers demanding that they surrender correspondence, emails, notes, receipts, etc.

    That is the price of AGW skepticism, that all of us realists, must endure. It is the cost of minority action. If you are not prepared for it… What the hell are you doing in the kitchen? Man up! GK

  15. Robin Edwards says:

    Can anyone estimate the chances of success?
    ——-
    Oh yes. Slim and none, leaning to none. The corruption in the justice system of the United States is outrageous. It has been exposed over and over and nothing happens, so consequently it gets worse.

  16. Charle H said: ‘it was a callous, childlike action’.
    Indeed, just like the publication of stolen, private University of East Anglia e-mails, and of embargoed draft IPCC reports. Organisations and websites that do or support this kind of activity need to be roundly condemned.

  17. This thread has already gotten quite silly. There is no criminal case because Heartland felt it was important that no one see them blink and claimed that donations were actually up after the theft. And there is no civil defamation case because all the defamation was in the faked strategy document and they cannot prove that Gleick wrote it. The stuff about liberal judges and threatening subpoenas is all hyperbole.

  18. Lawfare: Legitimate perversion of the course of justice?

    When the people become wise to the fact that the Rule of Law is applied unequally; they have a historic tendency to withdraw their consent to the Rule of Law. Tyranny is then the only way for governments to maintain power.

  19. [snip. sock puppetry. ~ mod.]

    • • •

    REPLY: This person isn’t actually “Jake Diamond”, I believe (based on the trace) it is longtime detractor Phil Clarke using a fake name to get past his ban for bad behavior here. – Anthony

  20. Does anyone doubt that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) espousers would have prosecuted whomever leaked (or hacked) the Climategate material to the fullest extent of the law, if they had ever identified him (or her)? If they found the “culprit” tomorrow, does anyone think that they would dismiss the leak (or hacking) as just a “dirty trick” within the realm of politics? I don’t particularly want Gleick to be jailed for his crime. But hopefully he will be found guilt and have to wear the badge of “convicted felon” as an example to others who ascribe to the “ends justify the means” standard.

  21. @Jim lakely – Let them subpoena me. I will give them whatever they want. Just for the satisfaction of seeing justice served. My correspondence is all contained in the donations. I do not care what they want to see. I do not write what I do not expect to be made public.

  22. Why is it that some people are currently in court for wire fraud and impersonation, while the self-confessed liar and wire fraudster, Mr. Peter Gleick, roams free?

    Jan 29, 2013
    A former Meridian police officer was found guilty of wire fraud Tuesday.

    33-year-old Terrell Thompson was convicted of forging a subpoena, while employed as a police officer, in order to obtain his wife’s phone records from AT&T.

    http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/Thompson-Convicted-of-Wire-Fraud-188930071.html?ref=071

    02/06/2013
    Investment brokers found guilty of mail, wire fraud and filing false tax returns

    http://hudsonvalley.ynn.com/content/top_stories/636771/investment-brokers-found-guilty-of-mail–wire-fraud-and-filing-false-tax-returns/

  23. When will the Heartland Institute realise that if it far easier to pursue this type of case in the British Legal system. Indeed, did they ever file a complaint to the Press complaints commission or indeed raise a complaint against the BBC?

    There is a joke: “how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light-bulb …only one but the lightbulb really has to want to change”. Likewise … howmany does it take to restore the Heartland Institutes’s reputation? … only one, but they have to really want to restore it.

  24. Going after Roger/Tallbloke was the warmists’ shot over the bow regarding organized climate skepticism. Obama’s speech shows that the powers that be have an interest in CAGW fears. For the Feds not to go after Gleick seems political rather than practical. But practical it could be.

    Prosecutions that are entered are to be won, either legally or in the public domain but inconveniencing and damaging reputations. Not going after Gleick – could the evidence be bad? No. Would a jury convict? Ahh, there’s the rub.

    If anyone on a jury thinks that the ends justifies the means, i.e. preventing mass biocide is worth a little fraud, then you get the hung jury and it is over. Which doesn’t seem difficult.

    The Heartland claims the threat of CAGW is not just exaggerated, but bogus. Gleick claims that Obama and the IPCC correctly recognize the threat to the world. A jury would be asked to decide which one was right, not if Gleick did a technically/legally bad thing. Nobody will be punished for trying to prevent a Holocaust; that is what Gleick would say he was working towards. And he’d have Obama on his side.

    The government avoids litigation it can’t win unless the government is trying to make a point or harass its critics. In the Heartland vs Gleick case, it’s favour is with the defense.

  25. Gleick is held out as a great example of AGW ethics.
    Corruption is probably an organic, fundamental part of the social movement’s viability.

  26. Matt Skaggs says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:23 am
    This thread has already gotten quite silly. There is no criminal case because Heartland felt it was important that no one see them blink and claimed that donations were actually up after the theft. And there is no civil defamation case because all the defamation was in the faked strategy document and they cannot prove that Gleick wrote it. The stuff about liberal judges and threatening subpoenas is all hyperbole.
    ———————————
    Matt, I’ve often wondered what flavor is the koolade CAGWist drink?
    How can you condone this unlawful behavior.
    Peter Glieck committed a criminal act.
    The justice department is hosed.
    Between ACORN, NBPP, Brian Terry’s murder, the gun running / dope smuggling operations plus all the voter fraud maybe the koolade is laced with something bad.
    Think Matt.
    What are they doing?
    cn

  27. So, just so the hypocrisy of our government employees/administration is not doubt:

    Aaron Schwartz, computer programmer, writer, political organizer, and Internet activist, was prosecuted with the full force of the DOJ and driven to suicide for copying (from MIT servers) and publishing on the internet a multitude of government-funded research that was not being widely disseminated even though legally there was no reason to withhold them…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Investigations_and_prosecution

    Peter Gleick, climate author, researcher, activist, was ignored entirely by the DOJ for using false pretenses to essentially commit the exact same computer crime (by the legal definition, though the methods were different) against a private organization (same as MIT really) to take truly private documents that had no business being in the open without consent of the owner.

    I don’t know about everyone else who posts here, but it sure seems to me as if law and order has completely broken down in this country. The bureaucrats and political elite have a separate enforcement standard for them and their friends than all the rest of us.

  28. Agree that decision not to prosecute could well be based in the politics of AGW and energy policy.
    However, methinks that even under a conservative administration, the DoJ might still conclude it has bigger fish to fry in the absence of physical violence, no funds stolen, no guns or drugs smuggled, no one kidnapped, no attempt to bomb a gov building, no defrauding of investors, no tangible damage to prove, etc.

    It will remain, however, as Exhibit A of the lack of integrity of many in the AGW alarmist camp.

  29. Antwerpenaar says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:22 am

    Charle H said: ‘it was a callous, childlike action’.
    Indeed, just like the publication of stolen, private University of East Anglia e-mails, and of embargoed draft IPCC reports. Organisations and websites that do or support this kind of activity need to be roundly condemned.

    Apples to rutabagas, but nice try, troll.

  30. Antwerpenaar says:
    “Charle H said: ‘it was a callous, childlike action’.
    Indeed, just like the publication of stolen, private University of East Anglia e-mails, and of embargoed draft IPCC reports. Organizations and websites that do or support this kind of activity need to be roundly condemned.”
    “…just like…” well only if you think conspiring to steal documents to contain a carefully forged payload of lies designed to defame and injure is “just like” presenting unedited, factual information anonymously provided (by a whistle blower?) that sheds light on the prevarications and agenda of people abusing their positions at the expense of the general public.
    The former being an act committed with the apparent purpose to defame and harm, by lies and forgery, an organization that attempts to provide information, and the later is the presentation of damning evidence of existing corruption. Hardly “just like”.

  31. Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.
    ——————————————————-
    A willing partner in the obama culture of corruption.

  32. Gleick’s intentions were clear: he wanted to intimidate Heartland and to impair their ability to participate in the public discourse on global warming. This is a crime that strikes at the very heart of democracy. We depend of the US Attorney to defend pluralism and the right of the political minority to be heard and to participate in public policy debates. If the US Attorney won’t defend freedom of speech, then who will?

    I urge everyone to write to the US Attorney and express (in civil terms) your displeasure with his actions.

  33. Bernd Felsche says: “When the people become wise to the fact that the Rule of Law is applied unequally;”

    There is a fundamental principle of law … you don’t win … unless you go to court.

    The heartland institute claim the loss of reputation is worth $5million. Their revenue is $7million/year. They are in effect claiming that the financial loss to them far outweighs the principle. They are claiming that $5million of reputation isn’t worth the small risk that clients will be put off by them going to court (and that somehow all the publicity will not get them new clients).

    In short – it doesn’t stack up. Or perhaps more accurately, they have decided that they do not wish to have the “rule of law” … because it does not suit their profit line. Or worse, we’ve actually been lied to about the facts of this case and it is the Heartland Institute who have something to hide.

    In other words, they should have either put up the case … or shut up.

  34. The E=GREEN movement and all of it’s tentacles reach out everywhere and issue lies, distortions, fake data sets, created science, false premises, false conclusions, all designed to bring emotions up in their extreme followers. All the E=GREENS then attack the creditable sources of real peer reviewed studies that provided the complete base data and the white paper so all can attempt to disprove the Hypothesis but when it is issued a PROOF they all run to the MSM and say oh well they were paid by big Chem, big oil, big coal, big farming, big shipping, big populations so the PROOF is now tainted to all their believers. Silly Humans.

  35. Doug Proctor says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:46 am

    …For the Feds not to go after Gleick seems political rather than practical. But practical it could be.

    Prosecutions that are entered are to be won, either legally or in the public domain but inconveniencing and damaging reputations. Not going after Gleick – could the evidence be bad? No. Would a jury convict? Ahh, there’s the rub….


    ———————————————————————
    Thanks Doug, this is a possibility I didn’t consider. I’ve sat on a jury before and I think your assessment there is quite valid.

  36. I suggest that those who have the opportunity ask him why he became a thief…in public…every time… for the rest of his life. We could preface his name with “admitted thief” in any reference or communication. Just don’t ever let anyone forget.

  37. I was meaning to post earlier before getting distracted with the dreaded work. I would have asked if I was the only one who found this method of presenting a submission to a legal body just a little bit odd? It does seem more like a PR presentation than a legal document. It seems I wasn’t

    I’d have instructed my lawyer to draft a letter and submit the facts as they are and have it signed and witnessed. No more. but then the UK legal system is a much more dour thing than the razzmatazz of the US courts.

    Not a big point and I’m not making it for any effect. it just strikes me as odd. I have read the explanation given above and it makes a kind of perverse sense. Still strange to me. Ah Well.

    And thank you Heartland ( Jim? ) for explaining the situation regarding the civil case. It’s been difficult to maintain respect for the organisation whilst there has been so much uncertainty over this. I fully understand the reasons now. I might have hoped that you sought the opinion of those who might find themselves in the situation of being called to court. They may well have chosen to side with you and damn the consequences. As I have said before, have the courage of your convictions.

    All We could hope for now is that there is a media stink and the AG might reconsider their decision? But if it’s anything like the UK then I expect hands are already washed of the affair. No appeals process to a higher body?

    This is where any expertise or understanding I fooled myself that I had, runs dry.

  38. Chuck Nolan wrote:

    “Matt, I’ve often wondered what flavor is the koolade CAGWist drink?”

    [I am a skeptic, and I rarely drink anything other than water or beer.]

    “How can you condone this unlawful behavior.”

    [I don't.]

    “Peter Glieck [sic[ committed a criminal act.”

    [If you mean scamming for private documents, the police have more important things to do than pursue fraud cases where the fraudster gains no benefit and the victim claims no harm. If you mean the defamation in the strategy document, even though you and I may believe Mosher's analysis that Gleick wrote it, the evidence is insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.]

    “Think Matt.”

    [The evidence suggests that at least one of us has spent some time thinking about this.]

  39. Jake Diamond says:

    People like you seem to have no sense of perspective that this is a David versus Goliath story.

    Heartland gets private donations amounting to about $6 million per year.

    http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/2010-IRS-Form-990.pdf

    Only a small portion of that goes toward exposing the CAGW lie and I’m only guessing something like 20% or less given the breadth of policy areas they mention on their website. So that’s about $1.2 million from money freely donated to their cause going to fight CAGW.

    On the other hand you have the US federal government who collects ‘donations’ at the end of a gun barrel and they waste over $2.5 BILLION of our hard earned money per year to “Combat Climate Change” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf (Of course that’s a drop in the bucket compared to what they waste adding up things like medicare/medicaid fraud down to Obama phones and loans to failed ‘green’ energy companies.)

    (Assuming my 20% figure), that’s TWO THOUSAND TIMES MORE MONEY to ram the CAGW hoax down our throats with impunity as well as to justify billions more wasted in bad energy and economic policies, (probably over $100 billion). And all that’s not counting contributions to the progressive climate disaster “charitable organizations”, (called so the same as Heartland because they rely on charitable donations for their existence), such WWF, Sierra, etc. though, totally unlike Heartland, such rely on scaring people into giving money by advancing wild predictions and unsubstantiated claims. Plus there’s the totally slanted nonsense from lame stream media talking heads who collectively have about as many scientific neurons in their brains as a flea, (gee, maybe they took journalism in school because fluid dynamics wasn’t enough of a challenge for them…?) And I haven’t even included all the money to the another political entity who is intent on getting us all to fear CAGW for the purpose of expanding their control over us – the UN.

  40. Thank you H.I. for your clear presentation about the Legal Referral of Gleick to the US District Attorney’s Office. Although I have followed the Gleick vs H.I. situation closely from the beginning, this is the first time I have seen a comprehensive legal view with all evidence shown in logical sequence. It is decisive.

    I think your strategy is notable; a strategy to publically disclose the case; a case which the appropriate US District Attorney’s Office has not taken either timely or reasonable action on.

    Gleick is a: liar, cheat, self-confessed idiot fraud and immoral bigot.

    It is dishonorable behavior by the AGU when it openly and warmly welcomed him at their Dec 2012 Fall Meeting in San Francisco. I was in attendance and it was disgusting to see AGU leadership publicly embracing the opposite of integrity in its past integrity committee’s leader.

    Shame on the US Attorney Office system for failing the trust of the US citizens in the idea of fairness in law.

    Shame on you, the science community, for failure to openly and publically condemn Gleick’s immoral and dishonest actions. The public’s waning trust in you is understandably justified in this case.

    This is a parasitic festering Gleick. Stay away from him or risk being tainted professionally.

    I request all government grants to Gleick and the P.I. should be suspended pending the legal closure / resolution of his self-confessed crimes.

    John

  41. Mike Haseler says:
    February 14, 2013 at 9:13 am

    In other words, they should have either put up the case … or shut up.
    —–

    People keep wanting Heartland to shut up. The civil and criminal courts are only 2 courts. There is also the court of public opinion. Heartland can play in that court, and is, despite your demand that they do as you wish.

  42. Two things, if I may: There are as yet unanswered questions about Gleick and the manner in which his docs ended up at Desmogblog, combined with the way in which anti-skeptic people have used supposed ‘document leaks’ to marginalize skeptics over the last 20+ years, as I detailed last Feb 28. “Fakegate Opens a Door: More than meets the eye in the Heartland controversy” http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/fakegate_opens_a_door.html

    Second, Heartland now labels me as “Contributing Editor, Environment & Climate News”, http://heartland.org/russell-cook after perhaps a year of intensive lobbying on my part about going on the offense against accusations hurled at them rather than merely reacting defensively.

    Stay tuned. There will be more. Heartland is not rolling over and playing dead on the larger situation.

  43. Is there not a course of action using a “Mandamus” judicial remedy? (wiki link but I’m not trained in any legal aspect so I’ll take it as written and let the comments correct the error of my ways)

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

    …..In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

    …….A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of statute is required to perform a duty and which despite demand in writing has not been performed….

  44. I have been thinking about what is the high road for Heartland in this matter. Some of us believe that we are under the admonition to forgive and pray for those who despitefully use us. How about Heartland sending a letter to Gleick and to each of the organizations to which Gleick belongs or which embrace him from time to time, reminding them of the criminal and unethical behavior of their confederate. And pointing out that this reflects badly upon those groups that continue to work with him and that their apparent approval of Gleick is, by inference, an approval of his criminal and unethical tactics. Then magnanimously, Heartland could offer complete forgiveness to Gleick and to each of the organizations for their spiteful actions. Then just to be sure that the sincerity of the forgiveness is understood, Heartland should write the letters again every year, as open letters to the media as well, adding any new outfits that gather Gleick into their fold, and pointing out that despite Gleick’s unforgivable criminal behavior and the unethical and reprehensible approvals of his confederates, they are all still forgiven and Heartland is still praying for them. (Tevia’s prayer for the Czar comes to mind). Wouldn’t that be the high road?

  45. Thanks, Coals of Fire, for reminding me of this lesson.

    There are a number of standards of proof and innocence. In criminal court one is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In civil court one may have to prove one’s innocence by a mere preponderance of evidence before a trier of fact. In the court of public opinion where we play you’re damned guilty on my say so!

    I-ANAL – I Am Not A Lawyer. The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work.

  46. “Then magnanimously, Heartland could offer complete forgiveness to Gleick and to each of the organizations for their spiteful actions. Then just to be sure that the sincerity of the forgiveness is understood, Heartland should write the letters again every year, as open letters to the media as well, adding any new outfits that gather Gleick into their fold, and pointing out that despite Gleick’s unforgivable criminal behavior and the unethical and reprehensible approvals of his confederates, they are all still forgiven and Heartland is still praying for them. (Tevia’s prayer for the Czar comes to mind). Wouldn’t that be the high road?”

    Not the high road so much as the road to the looney bin, which I suspect you might be on yourself.

  47. In the UK when the Crown Prosecution Service (equivalent probably to US Attorney’s Office) decline to prosecute then you can as an individual, organisation or company issue private Criminal proceedings through the Magistrates Court. This is then dealt with by the courts in entirely the same way as if the prosecution were being taken by the CPS.

    Given that US law is derived from English law is there no similar avenue open to Heartland in the USA?

  48. The Offices of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois are on South Dearborn Street in Chicago according to their web site. Of course there is no connection between their inaction and “Chicago Rules.”

  49. pokerguy says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:22 am
    Wouldn’t that be the high road?”

    Not the high road so much as the road to the looney bin, which I suspect you might be on yourself.

    —————

    If you can’t have a little fun with this thing it WILL drive you crazy.

  50. If Heartland did a Gleick on Gleick I wonder if they would get the same support from the MSM and disinterest from the law?

  51. Stonyground says:
    I don’t think that we should ever forget that Glieck posted a negative review of the Delinquent Teenager without reading it. It cannot be proved that he wrote the forged part of the stolen documents, but when you take a look at the things that he imagines that a book he could’t be arsed to read might have said, it certainly puts him in the frame.

  52. Matt Skaggs says:
    February 14, 2013 at 7:23 am
    ….. The stuff about liberal judges and threatening subpoenas is all hyperbole.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Since I am at this moment taking a break from dealing with putting together and refreshing my memory on a criminal legal briefing that should have been over and done with 4 years ago I have first hand knowledge of just how corrupt the system is. My case would not have seen the light of day if the democrats continued in the District Attorney’s office. With a new cast of characters I have received an apology from a bewildered prosecuting attorney who stated he could not believe a case this old had not been tried years ago.

    If the people controlling the court’s do not want to let the crime into the courthouse then you are completely out of luck. You can commit grand theft (my case) or murder (a neighbor) and it will never make it to first base.

    My county is KNOWN for massive corruption. Another neighbor had to bring in the DEA to deal with the drugs in the neighborhood because all the local cops did about it was give him a traffic ticket every time he left the driveway. A colleague who worked part time at the animal shelter overhead some of the local politicians making drug deals and had to quit after she had her child threatened if she tried to do anything about it. Heck I live in the middle of no where, hardly have any contact with my neighbors and I have seen at least two drug deals and can name four drug dealers, six thieves and one murderer living on the street.

    If you think the US legal system works, you have never had the misfortune of having to deal with it.

  53. Despite what they say, it seems difficult to buy the Heartland story, “it will harm our supporters”. I would think that many donors would be proud to be part of some anti warmist suit (except for those embarrassed for supporting Heartland, okay, I take it back.) However, back when this came out, a year ago, I remember many commenting on the fact that Heartland would never move on this because they had too much to lose if they were subpoenaed by a clever defense. That hypothesis has not been shown to be incorrect. Other than prosecute, I am not sure what Heartland could do to disprove that hypothesis.

  54. Doug Proctor, nice insight. Even if the government wanted to prosecute, you are right that it could be a tough case because of the political overtones–one single diehard believer could hang the jury. But that is the point of jury selection–to keep those with axes to grind off the panel.

    The evidence here speaks for itself, and it should be a very winnable case. The Obama administration (who controls US Federal prosecutors) obviously has no interest in prosecuting, however. I wonder what it would do if the shoe were on the other foot, and a conservative activist committed wire fraud to obtain the private donor list of Greenpeace or WWF?

  55. Coalsoffire says: “How about Heartland sending a letter to Gleick and to each of the organizations to which Gleick belongs or which embrace him from time to time, reminding them of the criminal and unethical behavior of their confederate.”

    So, what if the Climategate robbers were made known and East Ang. sent such letters to Wattsup and other organizations? Would you despise them or cheer them? Perhaps your idea might have an effect opposite what you intend.

  56. trafamadore,

    Funny, I do not remember “many commenting” as you claim. How about posting those “many” comments.

    And what, exactly, does Heartland have to lose? They have already lost plenty due directly to the thoroughly unethical Peter Gleick, who seems to be some kind of hero of yours.

    Finally, I note that you are still dodging this question from another thread: how much Arctic ice is the right amount? Be specific. Since you claim to know what you’re talking about.

  57. Why doesn’t the board member that Gleick impersonated just file charges himself for identity theft/fraud and/or sue him himself? Heartland could pick up the legal tab and that neatly sidesteps any discovery mess with Heartland’s donors. Keep it simple.

  58. trafamadore says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    “So, what if the Climategate robbers were made known and East Ang. sent such letters to Wattsup and other organizations? Would you despise them or cheer them? Perhaps your idea might have an effect opposite what you intend.”

    The same warmist left that endorses every whistleblower when it suits them now is against transparency?
    The climategate e-mails were subject to FOIA laws anyway. The fact that the warmist researchers would fight every FOIA request is endorsed by the transparency-loving warmist left? Why?
    Is that not a rather stunning amount of hypocracy even for the warmist left.

    Heartland BTW was never affected by FOIA laws as they are not publically funded.

    If you endorse theft of documents from Heartland, would you also endorse theft of documents from say, the Bilderbergers, Fenton communications or TIDES? I would sure love to see what exactly George Soros pays for. For instance.

  59. Try filing it the complaint in a state that will be more sympathetic. Perhaps Joe Arpaio might be interested assisting in the upkeep of the law.

  60. Doug R writes : “Why doesn’t the board member that Gleick impersonated just file charges himself for identity theft/fraud and/or sue him himself? Heartland could pick up the legal tab and that neatly sidesteps any discovery mess with Heartland’s donors. Keep it simple.”

    I like it. Maybe send them an email to make sure they see it? Though on second thought, it’s hard to figure how that person was harmed in any important way. Perhaps I’m just not seeing it.

  61. trafamadore says: February 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm ” … Heartland would never move on this because they had too much to lose if they were subpoenaed by a clever defense. …. I am not sure what Heartland could do to disprove that hypothesis. … ”

    Entirely understandable that you would say that if you operate on the premise that there actually is a clever defense available to Gleick et al. As I noted further up, Heartland has nothing to lose and everything to gain by going on the offensive against their accusers. AGW promoters seem to be beyond oblivious of how suicidal their efforts are in lobbing corruption accusations at Heartland. I’ve been baffled by the illogic of such character assassinations that are backed by zero evidence, and hugely frustrated that skeptic organizations haven’t comprehended how vulnerable their critics are on this specific fault.

  62. My problem with this situation is that Gleick won’t be tried in the court of public opinion, either. The media simply don’t care.

    So, the end result is the Gleick gets away with it, with no ramifications.

    Is there ANYONE willing to stand up on these issues?

  63. The US. Attorney

    In addition, he has had significant responsibility for managing more than 300 employees, including approximately 170 Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Chicago and Rockford.

    Mr. [Gary S.] Shapiro became Acting U.S. Attorney on July 1, 2012, after Patrick J. Fitzgerald stepped down as the top federal law enforcement official in the Northern District of Illinois, which covers 18 counties across the top tier of the state, with a population of approximately nine million people. In January 1998, former U.S. Attorney Scott R. Lassar appointed Mr. Shapiro First Assistant and Mr. Fitzgerald retained him in that position after taking office in September 2001. In 2007, Mr. Shapiro received the Director’s Award from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys for executive achievement.

    Which of the 170 Assistant U.S. Attorneys made the decision not to prosecute? Which even saw the “Criminal Referral”? Why are names of specific officals so absent?

    As for the PPT. Is it just me or are others supprised that the particular laws violated are not listed until slide 48, 50?

    Wire Fraud Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by engaging in:
    1. a scheme to defraud (posed as board member to deprive Heartland of exclusive use of its donor list)
    2.an intent to defraud (intended to deprive Heartland by subterfuge of its confidential information, by disclosing its donors despite knowing the harm that would result, and by creating and/or posting a fake document portraying Heartland in a bad light)
    3.use of the mails or wires in furtherance of the scheme (email was used to obtain confidential information and disseminate it to hostile websites)

    Aggravated Identity Theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A applies where:
    1.In connection with certain felony violations (including wire fraud)
    2.One knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person (Gleick created phony ___ gmail account; incorporated ___’s real ___ contact information in phony signature block)

    Slide 3:

    Discussion Topics [order of presentation]
    •Background on the Parties
    •Gleick’s Requests for Heartland Donor Information
    •Theft and Dissemination of Confidential Information and a Fake Strategy Document
    •Sensitivity, Value, and Nature of Stolen Information
    •Damaging Media Coverage and Donor Scrutiny
    •Fake Strategy Memo Erodes Heartland Support
    •Gleick’s Confession
    •Federal Laws Violated
    •Insufficient Civil Remedies Provide Support for Government Prosecution

    ?…and a Fake Strategy Document? There is too much fluff in these points. It should have stuck to the essentials.

    “It doesn’t matter what I believe.
    It only matters what I can prove!” – A Few Good Men

  64. trafamadore says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    So, what if the Climategate robbers were made known and East Ang. sent such letters to Wattsup and other organizations? Would you despise them or cheer them? Perhaps your idea might have an effect opposite what you intend.
    ______

    There are climategate robbers? When that is established we can talk about it.

  65. So HI is declaring open season on themselves: “violate our rights and we will make you a hero”?

    Mike Haseler says:
    “They are claiming that $5million of reputation isn’t worth the small risk that clients will be put off by them going to court (and that somehow all the publicity will not get them new clients).
    In short – it doesn’t stack up. Or perhaps more accurately, they have decided that they do not wish to have the “rule of law” ”

    Doug R. says:
    Why doesn’t the board member that Gleick impersonated just file charges himself for identity theft/fraud and/or sue him himself? Heartland could pick up the legal tab and that neatly sidesteps any discovery mess with Heartland’s donors. Keep it simple.

    and I wonder if HI has considered that they may have disappointed anyone who made sympathy donations in expectation of legal prosecution and may lose more donations as a result of the appearance of cowardice. It may be that HI, by their decision, not only contribute to the heroic legend of the gleick, but also earn a reputation that further shames associates.

    I fully expect to hear this refrain in the msm as a result:
    Gleick was innocent. Had he been guilty, he would have been prosecuted or at least charged. Obviously HI had nothing on him and was only trying to keep people distracted from what he revealed and what else they had to hide.

    If the tail were smarter than the dog, the tail would wag the dog.

  66. DirkH says:
    February 14, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    trafamadore says:
    February 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    “So, what if the Climategate robbers were made known and East Ang. sent such letters to Wattsup and other organizations? Would you despise them or cheer them? Perhaps your idea might have an effect opposite what you intend.”

    The same warmist left that endorses every whistleblower when it suits them now is against transparency?
    The climategate e-mails were subject to FOIA laws anyway. The fact that the warmist researchers would fight every FOIA request is endorsed by the transparency-loving warmist left? Why?
    Is that not a rather stunning amount of hypocracy even for the warmist left.

    Heartland BTW was never affected by FOIA laws as they are not publically funded.

    If you endorse theft of documents from Heartland, would you also endorse theft of documents from say, the Bilderbergers, Fenton communications or TIDES? I would sure love to see what exactly George Soros pays for. For instance.
    —————————————
    You beat me to the punch. But let me also add that the climategate emails did not contain forgeries.

    A man shoots and kills another man. Was his act morally justified? Depends on the details, doesn’t it. FOIA outed emails that legally belonged to the public to scrutinize, without forgery. Gleick outed information that did not legally belong in the public domain, with a forged document mixed in. The acts of publicly distributing information obtained by whatever unknown method in the climategate case and by wire fraud in Gleick’s case are possibly similar. The ethics are not.

  67. Gleick knows he is guilty, he confessed publically.

    So, he actually has no legal position of innocence unless he claims one of the following defenses: 1) recants his confession; or 2) pleads temporary insanity; or 3) claims mitigating circumstances that were beyond his control that forced his criminal behavior.

    1 ) A Gleick defense involving a recanted confession on his part would be evidence of another higher order of magnitude of deceit and lying above his already serious level of deceit and lying. Digging himself a deeper legal hole.

    2 ) A Gleick defense involving temporary insanity which was precipitated by his involvement in an closed / mentally isolated environment which was only populated by people with crazed fanaticism about saving the earth from freedom loving humans is actually quite plausible. He can cite some other well documented instances of climate science focused individuals with integrity challenged ethics behaviors justified by crazed fanaticism about saving the earth from freedom loving humans e.g. like: Hansen of NASA; Harrabin of BBC; Revkin of the almost extinct NYT; Mann of psuedo-statistical hockeystickyness; Gore from la la Gaiaville; Pachauri and Overpeck of IPCC AR4 infamy (see CG1 and CG2); plus others of CG1 and CG2 fame. I recommend that Gleick’s defense team use this very credible temporary insanity defense. : )

    3 ) A Gleick defense involving compelling and seducing mitigating circumstances might work. And this is also the most entertaining type of Gleick defense for skeptics to witness. One example of such defense is him claiming that he was mortally threatened by the idea that Al Gore might sit on him if he did not help stem the successful HI efforts that have increased the skeptic tide. Another example of such mitigating circumstances type defense would be for Gleick to claim that Gavin at RC threatened to take away Gleick’s coveted skeptic comment censorship privileges at RC unless Gleick contributed more to ‘the cause’ wrt defanging HI. But the very best mitigated circumstance type Gleick defense is for Gleick to claim his Gaia loving and HI hating hairdresser made him a totally irresistible offer of free lifetime hair permanents like the ones Gleick constantly needs to maintain that crazy permed looking hairdo of his. : )

    As I said in a previous comment => Gleick is a: liar, cheat, self-confessed idiot fraud and immoral bigot.

    As I also said in a previous comment => I request all government grants to Gleick and the P.I. should be suspended pending the legal closure / resolution of his self-confessed crimes.

    John

  68. Matt Skaggs says:
    February 14, 2013 at 9:27 am
    Chuck Nolan wrote:

    “Matt, I’ve often wondered what flavor is the koolade CAGWist drink?”
    —–
    Sorry for my mistake.
    My point is even the media are accepting this administration’s letting this type of activity slide.
    I don’t think the case is important because I doubt it would ever get to trial.
    I just don’t like them not arresting him and making him go through the motions.
    He said he was guilty.
    It should be documented in the legal system.
    Make him write a letter to Heartland admitting what he did and promise he will never be seen driving garbage in the vicinity again………..oops, wrong story.
    But, Holder won’t even do that. Some people seem to get away with an awful lot.
    That’s what worries me.
    Again, sorry for my mistake.
    cn

  69. Well, the US attorney won’t prosecute. The city of Chicago’s District Attorney apparently won’t prosecute. The State of Illinois apparently won’t prosecute. Perhaps Heartland should move to another state that isn’t captured by the Democratic party?

  70. My understanding is that in the US the district attorney has exclusive discretion over whether or not to bring criminal charges. The victims of crimes have little or no rights in the prosecution other than as a witness.

    However because of the government’s monopoly over the prosecution of crime they surely have a duty to protect their citizens by bringing charges where there is clear evidence of crime and an admission of criminality.

    Not prosecuting in such circumstances would be a failure of the government’s duty to protect its citizens and an apparent abuse of the agreement whereby citizens allow their government to have discretion over whether or not to prosecute.

    The decision of the public attorney not to act in this case is a strong argument for the victims of crimes being given the right to bring private criminal prosecutions together with applications under criminal law for restitution.

    I would be interested to know what reasons the district attorney has given for not pursuing a criminal prosecution against Gleick despite overwhelming evidence and an admission of wrongdoing by Gleick.

  71. the alarmists waste no time at all exploiting HI’s timidity and weakness, do they?
    ‘all ur talking pts r belong to gleick’
    i wonder if the warmunist agenda includes programs to neutralize opposition by setting up fake opposition who submit with a whimper – you know – as an example to discourage the others.
    heartland’s leadership teaches that resistance is futile
    donate to heartland – support the Care to Despair Campaign!
    can we cap and tax now?
    (/bitter)
    seriously- if HI is claiming that revelation of their donors would be damaging, it totally begs an explanation of precisely how and why- not to mention what the purpose was of raising that point AT ALL. it sure provides fertile ground for suspicions of all kinds. was that the idea, then?
    it is as if somebody is trying very hard to fail and the HI explanation sounds absurd.
    Honor belongs to WUWT and those who stand on principle,

  72. Again . . . . . Gleick knows he is guilty, he confessed publically.

    I think it is productive to look at the common options available to Gleick’s for getting support for his personal immoral acts wrt HI. By ‘common options’ I mean we have a wealth of documented ‘commom options’ for Support of immoral acts (COSIA) well worn excuses of criminal of why they did immoral acts.

    I think that Gleick and his apologists for his immoral acts against HI have a wealth of excuse / justification options to garner support for his immoral acts. Here a just a couple out of many:

    COSIA #1 – Tabula Rasa Option => This is the technique of expecting your moral record is cleansed of bad entries when admitting quilt and apologizing. Gleick used this in his ‘confession’ on Huffington Post where he said, “[ . . . ] I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.” This a low hanging fruit kind of option and it is of the very weakest options for getting support for your immoral actions.

    COSIA #2 – All’s Fair in War Against Conspiracists Option => It is clear Gleick and his apologists favor this option to garner support for his immoral acts against HI. Gleick used this in his ‘confession’ on Huffington Post where he said,

    “I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”

    This claim by Gleick and his apologists of a conspriracy to prevent debate and promote secrecy is contradicted by the nature of the actions of those supportive of Gleick’s claims of alarming AGW by CO2. Here are some highly visible public supporters of his alarmism by people, news media and blogs:

    1 ) Hansen of NASA GISS who promotes the idea that the debate is over because the science is settled so unnecessary to debate with critics of alarming AGW by CO2.

    2) BBC leadership and their dutiful reporter Harrabin who coordinated to make BBC policy toallow only the alarming AGW by CO2 position. They prevented by policy a balanced view . . . . opposed public debate in their news media.

    3) John Cook’s blog and Gavin Schmidt’s RC blog both censor, disrupt, make ad hominins against and change the comments of people critical of the alarming AGW by CO2. Schmidt’s and Cook’s blogs do not allow open and transparent debate. I think Cook’s blog is several orders of magnitude more rigid against debate than Schmidt’s blog.

    Gleick and his apologists for his immoral actions were against debate and now are saying Gleicks immoral acts where done to compensate for a conspiracy to block debate by ‘conspriaist’ critics of alarming AGW by CO2. Absurd.

    Will this COSIA #2 work in the public? The public is not idiotic like Gleick and his apologists who try this ‘All’s Fair in War Against Conspiracists Option’.

    In closing there are many more COSIAs to cite but it would take several blog posts to cover them.

    Any other commenters have ideas for Gleick’s COSIAs?

    John

  73. Gleick’s behaviour has already been copied.
    See this extract from The Sydney Morning Herald of January 11 2013
    “As northern NSW baked in 40-degree temperatures this week, Mr Moylan was also feeling the heat from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
    Last Saturday, he used his laptop computer to draw up a fake press release purporting to be from ANZ Bank, saying the financial institution had withdrawn financial support for a proposed Whitehaven Coal mine in the forest.
    When he sent it to journalists on Monday morning, and impersonated an ANZ employee, the company’s stock temporarily crashed by nearly 9 per cent – equivalent to $314 million.
    Mr Moylan has not been charged, but potential offences could lead to fines of $495,000 and up to 10 years in jail. An ASIC investigator made an unannounced visit to the Leard Forest campsite this week, seizing the laptop and mobile phone Mr Moylan used for the hoax”.
    Many self funded pensioners lost money on the “hoax”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/moylan-camp-is-feeling-the-heat-in-more-ways-than-one-20130110-2cj49.html#ixzz2Kw6eeVO8

  74. D.B. Stealey says:”Funny, I do not remember “many commenting” as you claim. How about posting those “many” comments.”

    Funny, I do. It seems we disagree. We must have read different blogs last year. But in lieu of that, I just said it, so you have poof that someone has said it. A first step toward “many”….

    “And what, exactly, does Heartland have to lose?”

    I wonder. That is a could be an interesting question. It might have an interesting answer. But it seems it wont be answered by those who know.

    “Finally, I note that you are still dodging this question from another thread: how much Arctic ice is the right amount? Be specific.”

    Again, some people know how to ask questions that have specific answers. You don’t.

  75. Sorry, but I’m not comfortable with Heartland’s reasoning behind keeping its donors private. It stinks of a coverup, which in effect exonerates Gleick.

    If as the widely-believed conspiracy theory suggests Heartland is indeed a front for all manner of robber barons who would rape the environment for their own self interests then this is exactly how it would have to react to retain its cover. It would have to conceal the identities of its donors lest the dots between money and message be drawn.

    So, contrary to Heartland’s claim in the first comment, the only way it can clear its name is to take the fight forward and prove the conspiracy wrong.

    I mean, why would you want to donate money to a PR outfit that’s been so easily smeared and snuffed of credulence? Might as invest it in wind farms. At least you might stand some chance of seeing a return on your investment.

  76. @Johnny:

    As I understand the names of Heartland’s donors (at the time of the Gleick incident) are largely known now – Gleick put them into the public domain.

    What Heartland is saying, correctly I think is; Is that what litigation would do, is provide an opportunity for Gleick’s lawyers to harass the donors with subpoenas for random paperwork.

    That aside, most of Heartland’s work, and most of their donors, are nothing to do with climate change. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that somebody who donated to Heartland to support say their work on (say) healthcare issues, doesn’t really deserve to be dragged into a Gleick related lawsuit.

  77. Johnny Hooper says:
    February 14, 2013 at 10:34 pm
    Sorry, but I’m not comfortable with Heartland’s reasoning behind keeping its donors private. It stinks of a coverup, which in effect exonerates Gleick.

    __

    I’m not sure at all how your being uncomfortable with HI’s policy exonerates Gleick from fraud, deceit and theft? Perhaps you could explain that? Your reasoning, if you can call it that, seems to be the old idea that the victim has a shady reputation, therefore the perp was justified to rape her. You may wish to put HI on trial here, but the rest of us will not forget who is really blameworthy and seems to be going unpunished. Make a defense of Gleick if you will. But don’t presume that waving your arms and blowing smoke at HI exonerates your hero in any way shape or form. That’s a disgusting concept. I can’t believe you actually used the word “exonerate”. Wow. Double wow.

  78. Indeed, just like the publication of stolen, private University of East Anglia e-mails, and of embargoed draft IPCC reports. Organisations and websites that do or support this kind of activity need to be roundly condemned.

    You cannot be serious. Every newspaper in the western world does this sort of thing routinely. Virtually all the British papers did snooping that was several orders of magnitude worse than Gleick. Even the clean ones in that affair publish stuff from the likes of Wikileaks. And the US ones are no different. Would the world have been improved without the Watergate leaks?

    Newspapers and blogs would be pretty idiotic if they refused to publish information that was previously deemed secret. Especially once it is in the common domain. What they need to do is check to see if it is true.

    So in the minor world of climate reporting, all the alarmist sites that published Gleick have failed in their basic duty to report the truth. Anthony did not commission the Climategate leak, and only published what was by then commonly available information.

    If you cannot see that Anthony has consistently behaved better than most reputable British newspapers then your problem is with what he publishes, not how.

  79. Coalsoffire says:

    “I’m not sure at all how your being uncomfortable with HI’s policy exonerates Gleick from fraud, deceit and theft? …But don’t presume that waving your arms and blowing smoke at HI exonerates your hero in any way shape or form. That’s a disgusting concept. I can’t believe you actually used the word “exonerate”. Wow. Double wow.”

    Nah, Gleick’s done us skeptics a favour. The less we have to do with these creepy right-wing “think tanks” with “secret” financeers the better.

    Good riddance to Heartland.

    No-one really cares that Gleick technically broke the law. Everyone, especially the media, loves undercover scoops. Gleick might be a terrorist, he might be a liar, but he’s been martyred for his cause.

    The real story is how Heartland is reacting: like it has something to conceal. And that something is who’s paying them to spread what the MSM presumes is disinformation.

    When you fight every scientific institution in the world, you need to provide extraordinary proof that they’re all wrong. So being shady about who’s paying you just doesn’t cut it. It just makes you look extremely dodgy.

    In other words Heartland got called a duck, indignantly protested it wasn’t a duck, and then prompted quacked like a duck.

    The end result is that no conference organized by Heartland, no press release issued by Heartland, no person associated with Heartland, will be treated with any respect by the media. They might as well wear a badge that says “clear the rainforests for oil fields and tobbacco plantations.” They might as well be Donald Trump.

    So yes, it’s time to find a new sponsor. One that’s completely transparent.

  80. Johnny Hooper says:
    February 15, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    Nah, Gleick’s done us skeptics a favour. The less we have to do with these creepy right-wing “think tanks” with “secret” financeers the better.

    Good riddance to Heartland.

    No-one really cares that Gleick technically broke the law. Everyone, especially the media, loves undercover scoops. Gleick might be a terrorist, he might be a liar, but he’s been martyred for his cause.

    The real story is how Heartland is reacting: like it has something to conceal. And that something is who’s paying them to spread what the MSM presumes is disinformation.

    ——

    Again you miss the point. It doesn’t matter how shady or creepy the victim is, (and those are purely subjective evaluations) the law ought to protect them. Frauds, cheats and thieves should not be protected and lionized and exonerated for having victimized unpopular people or groups. You are entitled to criticize Heartland, and you may be right to do so. But if you forgive and even value Gleick for his help in furthering your cause against the HI you are no better than he is.

  81. If somebody stole your cows or your horse, you used to not fair well with or without a judge. If you were a wolf eating a man’s pay, you likely ended up nailed to the side of the house (or at least the outside of you). And it didn’t matter if you were liked or not liked by your neighbor. Stealing was bad and if caught punishment came swiftly and harshly. So now our livestock and pay live on the internet. Are some of you saying that in some cases stealing is not stealing? What if you were to ask your grandmother what her opinion was? Chances are you would get your ears pinned back, or worse, end up nailed to the outside of her house.

  82. WHAT IS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON GLEIK’S CRIMES?

    I’m asking because I’m wondering if a change in the White House in 2016, and therefore at the corrupt Holder Department of Justice (with Eric Holder keeping Obama’s dirt under wraps for him), will allow a second bite at the proverbial apple (provided the Dems loose) – here, meaning the Truth at stake in this case?

  83. coalsoffire says:

    “Again you miss the point. It doesn’t matter how shady or creepy the victim is, (and those are purely subjective evaluations) the law ought to protect them. Frauds, cheats and thieves should not be protected and lionized and exonerated for having victimized unpopular people or groups. You are entitled to criticize Heartland, and you may be right to do so. But if you forgive and even value Gleick for his help in furthering your cause against the HI you are no better than he is.”

    You can sook about it all you like. I’m sure you never bleated about Climategate.

    But never mind who’s right or wrong here. Let’s look at the outcome.

    If you were to poll journalists about skeptics of global warming, here’s what you’d find:

    Before Gleick’s troll

    >80% of journalists would say the “denial” is drummed up by secret payments from oil/coal/gas industrialists who are in bed with conservative politicians. This was the prevailing view.

    After Gleick’s troll

    >80% would say the same thing but they’d be able to name Heartland as the coduit for these payments and point to HI’s refusal to reveal its sponsors as definitive proof that something fishy is going on. This is now the prevailing view.

    And before you get all shouty, note this is coming from someone who is also skeptical of Global Warming, who has been reading this blog for years and certainly not a fan of Gleick.

    So like I said before Heartland’s made its own bed. Now it has to sleep in it.

  84. Could Heartland not perform a legal suit against the government for violation of the first amendment? Withdrawl of legal and police protection is certainly a punishment with the same effect as outright censorship. The fact that this is retaliation for politcal speech makes this a clear first amendment issue, violating the freedom of speech and association for Heartland and their contributors.

  85. Johnny Hooper says: February 15, 2013 at 10:04 pm ” … So being shady about who’s paying you just doesn’t cut it. … ”

    Quite the contrary. What those on the IPCC / Al Gore side seem to be spectacularly oblivious to is the shady appearance seen in hurling funding accusations – without a solitary shred of evidence to support them – that payments were made in exchange for demonstratively false, fabricated science papers, assessments, etc. To me, such a stubborn enslavement to a defense tactic like that is not only illogical, it is inexplicably suicidal to the entire cause of AGW. It’s like watching a huge passenger train hurtling down tracks ending at the edge of a cliff.

    If the AGW promoting crowd wants to save themselves, everyone to a man must drop what they are doing and start dredging up actual evidence that skeptics would tell the truth if only they weren’t paid vast sums to lie about it.

Comments are closed.