Heartland has yet to produce a press release, but I thought in the meantime I’d share some behind the scenes. If/when they do, I’ll add it to this post.
UPDATE: 11:45AM -The press release has been added below. One of the key documents is a fabrication
UPDATE2: 2:30PM The BBC’s Richard Black slimes me, without so much as asking me a single question (he has my email, I’ve corresponded with him previously) or even understanding what the project is about Hint: Richard, it’s about HIGHS and LOWS, not trends. No journalistic integrity with this one. – Anthony
I’m surprised at the number of articles out there on this where journalists have not bothered to ask me for a statement, but rather rely on their own opinion. To date, only Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian has asked for a statement, and she used very little of it in her article. Her colleague, Leo Hickman asked me no questions at all for his article, but instead relied on a comment I sent to Bishop Hill. So much for journalism. (Update: In response to Hickman, Lucia asks What’s horrible about this?)
(Update: 10:45AM Seth Borenstein of the AP has contacted me and I note that has waited until he can get some kind of confirmation that these documents are real. The Heartland press release is something he’s waiting for. Contacting involved parties is the right way to investigate this story.)
Here’s the query from Goldenberg:
Name: Suzanne Goldenberg
Email: suzanne.goldenberg@xxx.xxx
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk
Message: Hello, I am seeking comment on the leak of the Heartland
documents by Desmogblog which appear to suggest you are funded by them. Is
this accurate? Thanks
MY REPLY:
===============================================================
Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.
They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.
It is simply for this special project requiring specialized servers, ingest systems, and plotting systems. They also don’t tell me what the project should look like, I came up with the idea and the design. The NOAA data will be displayed without any adjustments to allow easy side-by-side comparisons of stations, plus other graphical representations output 24/7/365. Doing this requires programming, system design, and bandwidth, which isn’t free and I could not do on my own. Compare the funding I asked for initially to
get it started to the millions some other outfits (such as CRU) get in the UK for studies that then end up as a science paper behind a publishers paywall, making the public pay again. My project will be a free public service when finished.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Description from the same (Heartland) documents:
Weather Stations Project
Every few months, weathermen report that a temperature record – either high
or low – has been broken somewhere in the U.S. This is not surprising, since weather is highly variable and reliable instrument records date back less than 100 years old. Regrettably, news of these broken records is often used by environmental extremists as evidence that human emissions are causing either global warming or the more ambiguous “climate change.”
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who hosts WattsUpwithThat.com, one of the
most popular and influential science blogs in the world, has documented that many of the
temperature stations relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or paved surfaces. It is not uncommon for these stations to over-state temperatures by 3 or 4 degrees or more, enough to set spurious records.
Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications. Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t widely publicize data from this new network, and puts raw data in spreadsheets buried on one of its Web sites.
Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new
temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at WattsUpwithThat.com. Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DeSmog, as part of their public relations for hire methodology to demonize skeptics, will of course try to find nefarious motives for this project. But there simply are none here. It’s something that needs doing because NOAA hasn’t made this new data available in a user friendly visual format. For example, here’s a private company website that tracks highs and low records using NOAA data:
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/yesterday/us.html
NOAA doesn’t make any kind of presentation like that either, which is why such things are often done by private ventures.
================================================================
That above is what I sent to the Guardian, and also in a comment to Bishop Hill.
The reaction has been interesting, particularly since the David-Goliath nature of funding is laid bare here. For example, Al Gore says he started a 300 million dollar advertising campaign. The Daily Bayonet sums it up pretty well:
Hippies hate Heartland « The Daily Bayonet
What the Heartland document show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.
Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.
Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.
Here’s a clue for DeSmog, Joe Romm and other warmists enjoying a little schadenfreude today. It’s not the money that’s beating you, it’s the message.
Your climate fear-mongering backfired. You cried wolf so often the villagers stopped listening. Then Climategate I & II gave the world a peek behind the curtain into the shady practices, petty-feuding and data-manipulation that seems to pass for routine in climate ‘science’.
So enjoy the moment, warmists, because what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees. That’s not something I’d think you’d want to advertise, but knock yourselves out. It’s what you do best.
I see none of the same people at the Guardian or the blogs complaining about this:
Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.
This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.
(Update: Dr. Hansen responds here)
Or the NGO’s and their budgets (thanks Tom Nelson)
With tiny budgets like $310 million, $100 million, and $95 million respectively, how can lovable underdogs like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and NRDC *ever* hope to compete with mighty Heartland’s $6.5 million?
Heartland is projecting a boost in revenues from $4.6 million in 2011, to $7.7 million in 2012. That will enable an operating budget of $6.5 million, as well as topping up the fund balance a further $1.2 million.
[Sept 2011]: Greenpeace Environmental Group Turns 40
Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, now has offices in more than 40 countries and claims some 2.8 million supporters. Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from “direct action” activists to scientific researchers.
Last year, its budget reached $310 million.
[Nov 2011]: Sierra Club Leader Will Step Down – NYTimes.com
He said the Sierra Club had just approved the organization’s largest annual budget ever, about $100 million for 2012, up from $88 million this year.
[Oct 2011]: Do green groups need to get religion?
That’s Peter Lehner talking. Peter, a 52-year-old environmental lawyer, is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s most important environmental groups. The NRDC has a $95 million budget, about 400 employees and about 1.3 million members. They’re big and they represent a lot of people.
But me and my little temperature web project to provide a public service are the real baddies here apparently. The dichotomy is stunning.
Some additional added notes:
“Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications.”
For the record, and as previously cited on WUWT, NCDC started on the new network in 2003 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/annual-reports.html Heartland may have confused the Climate Reference Network with the updated COOP/USHCN modernization network which did indeed start after my surfacestations project: What the modernized USHCN will look like (April 29, 2008)
They then asked for 100 million to update it NOAA/NCDC – USHCN is broken please send 100 million dollars (Sept 21, 2010)
###
Moderators, do your best to keep the sort of hateful messages I’ve been getting in the past 18 hours in check in comments below. Please direct related comments from other threads to this one. Commenters please note the site policy.
=============================================================
PRESS RELEASE 11:45 AM – source http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 – The following statement from The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Communications Director Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.
Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.
The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.
Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.
One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.
We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.
Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.
Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.
But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.
Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.
The law suit whic led to the EPA Endangerment Finding, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, (2007) was brought by a group of highly visible and well-funded NGO’s and Environmental Law Groups, supported by politicians from twelve US states and three cities, in one of the most creatively constructed legal suits ever mounted. The gambit of suing the EPA, in order to force them to do something that was their primary objective anyway, was a masterpiece of legal machination, especially when there are so many connections between the litigants and the EPA. These were the organisations involved:
Center for Biological Diversity,
Center for Food Safety,
Conservation Law Foundation,
Environmental Advocates,
Environmental Defense,
Friends of the Earth,
Greenpeace,
International Center for Technology Assessment,
National Environmental Trust,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Sierra Club,
Union of Concerned Scientists, and
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
All these groups receive major funding from the eco-billionaire foundations; for example, just in 2010, Environmental Defense received $300,000 from the Goldman Foundation, to “Create a practical and effective implementation plan for California’s Global Warming Solutions Act”, on top of the $1.1 million they received in 2009 from the Joyce Foundation. It was that foundation which had provided the start-up funds for Richard Sandor, Maurice Strong and Al Gore’s now defunct Chicago Climate Exchange in 2003, when then Senator Barack Obama was a Joyce director.
In 2008, Natural Resources Defense Council received $500,000 from the Joyce Foundation to fight against new coal plants and $450,000 again in 2010 for the same purpose. This is just scratching the surface of the massive funding made available to these groups by the “liberal” foundations, including George Soros and his Open Society Institute, the Packard Foundation, Ford, Sandler, Grantham and the like.
The Centre for Biological Diversity has an annual budget in excess of $7million, and in 2009, they opened a $17million Climate Law Center in San Francisco, with initial funding of $6.3 million from the California Community Foundation, The Sandler Foundation, The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, and others. Their stated aim is “to establish new state and federal laws that will eliminate energy generation by the burning of fossil fuels – particularly coal and oil shale.”
Anthony should have applied to the EPA for a grant, they have loadsa money to give away:
2 December 2009
Researchers Ron Falta and Larry Murdoch from South Carolina’s Clemson University have received an $891,000 grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency to study the safe storage of CO2 in geological formations located below the earth’s surface.
EPA Awards $1.9 Million in Environmental Justice Grants http://tinyurl.com/84kduwh
Release Date: 10/05/2010, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/ej-smgrants-recipients-2010.html
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/3366/print
More than 2,200 nonprofit groups have received grants from the Environmental Protection Agency over the last decade, including those that lobby and sometimes sue the agency. One of the most prominent, the Natural Resources Defense Council, was cited in a recent audit for failing to properly document more than a third of the $3.3 million (euro2.7 million) it received in three EPA grants.
More EPA beneficiaries, to fund “education and outreach”, “emissions trading investigation”, “green power promotion ” and the like. This is just a selection, there are many more.
Earth Day Coalition
Award Date: 16/06/2010 Cum Award: $25,000
Environmental Defense
Award Date: 23/08/2006 Cum Award: $415,000
Environmental Defense Fund Inc.
Award Date: 22/12/2010 Cum Award: $400,000
Environmental Defense Fund Inc.
Award Date: 19/06/2008 Cum Award: $70,000
Environmental Law Institute
Award Date: 03/08/2010 Cum Award: $225,000
Greenhouse Gas Experts Networks Inc.
Award Date: 16/12/2010 Cum Award: $162,117
H. John Heinz III Ctr for Sci Econ & the Env
Award Date: 28/10/2008 Cum Award: $250,000
Natural Resources Defense Council
Award Date: 10/11/2010 Cum Award: $1,150,123
Winrock International
Award Date: 25/06/2009 Cum Award: $362,114
Winrock International
Award Date: 16/06/2008 Cum Award: $415,600
Winrock International
Award Date: 10/09/2009 Cum Award: £832,520
World Resources Institute
Award Date: 22/09/2006 Cum Award: £479,014
World Resources Institute
Award Date: 23/06/2008 Cum Award: £400,000
World Resources Institute
Award Date: 17/08/2010 Cum Award: £200,000
World Resources Institute
Award Date: 06/07/2010 Cum Award: £315,000
United Nations Environment Programme
Award Date: 16/12/2010 Cum Award: £1,095,000
Reblogged this on contrary2belief and commented:
It’s a trap.
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Theft is theft…get it?
The UK police would not have raided Tallbloke, if there had there been no crime they were investigating, get it?
==========
R. Gates, you know exactly where the dividing line between rational and irrational thought is, then you make a statement that sits on the razors edge, and watch the replies.
What would we do without ya 🙂
Wonderful Blog. Looks like it has been noticed by the powers that be, as they have unleashed a small troupe of useful idiots. The log must be threatening to muck up or has already mucked up some cash stream. I am impressed by the low quality of the trolls that have become active, it must still be a low budget operation
JC Leblond says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“Interresting that the “faked” document is full of figures that are confirmed in the other documents, and that much of the content has been confirmed either from the other documents or the people named (including the K12 curriculum: David Wojick did confirm working on this for the Heartland Institute). It seems the faked document is extremely precise and factual. ”
You mean the faker has READ the other documents before he produced it? Un-be-lie-vable.
Peter,
Do some research. EPA changed acceptance criteria to 90% CI from usual 95% and still the RR was less than 2 based on the meta study done. Look up what a meta study is to understand the mine field that they create by themselves. A judge threw out the EPA finding only to be overruled on a technicality…………that his court did not have jurisdiction I believe. None of the issues of fact changed.
Now I am not as convinced as some that second hand smoke cannot cause health issues but the science used by the EPA did not show that it was, so they changed the criteria. Part of the problem is what exposure to second hand smoke means. The levels of exposure are several orders of magnitude in variance. At high levels, e.g. mom and dad each smoke several packs a day, I would be surprised if it didn’t raise the risk of lung cancer.
Reminds me of what I believe Mark Twain once said… “A Lie goes halfway around the world while the Truth is putting on its shoes.”
Truth is on your side, Anthony!
Keep Up the Good Work!
All the Best!
Jim Jelinski
I am not bothered by the fact that Greenpeace raises hundreds of millions of dollars a year to fund their programs.
I am not bothered that the WWF raises similar amounts for their propaganda.
The Heartland has every right to raise money in an effort to get their message out the way that they want to.
But it bothers me how publicly funded groups take tax payers money to advance their own unproven causes (NASA, IPCC etc) and I am annoyed that people would accuse WUWT of taking money “on the quiet” to produce a web-site dedicated to the disclosure of “public” data that does not appear to be easily available to the public. Some head-shaking is in order here.
Anthony,
I believe your blog is no longer a blog. You have turned the corner to a truly powerful media outlet and the backlash from the press was misjudged. To imagine that they would jump on such a low amount of money as an incentive to post bad information. Do these idiots even know you run a business? Then to fail to grock the fact that you would be publishing the SAME data AGW promotes. FEAR!
The idiots should be singing your praises, yet you get scorn. International scorn!!
Very,very impressive and thank you — for the millionth time.
You have a mission, whether you choose accept it or not …. 🙂
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm
David says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?
============================
Private organization, vs publicly funded CRU, get it?
—-
Theft is theft…get it?
The UK police would not have raided Tallbloke, if there had there been no crime they were investigating, get it?
============================================================
That was beneath you, R. Gates.
Well at least one thing has been accomplished.
A whole pack of CAGWsters have been lured over here to show just how naive and uninformed they really are.
het Anthony. I dont know any of the facts.
what I do know is this – tell it straight. warts and all.
It’s always the coverup and the lies that get you, like it got them in climategate 1 and 2.
warts and all mate.
Quote: “Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.”
Faked and altered documents – I don’t see the problem here, that is simply standard operating proceedure for the CAGW extremists and typical of that which the CAGW supporters support.
@Richards in Vancouver –
Uh oh. I put gasoline in my car earlier today and I support this site too. I guess that makes the link between Watts and big oil even more rampant.
🙂
[SNIP: Peter, insults are not witty banter and the theme of second hand smoke is off-topic and done on this thread. -REP]
Ahahaha, ahahaha, ahahaha, ROFLMFAO, this is the best they got? $44k worth of funding? Are you freaking kidding me? Its worse than we thought! … hahaha .. these people are truly desperate!
Anthony, keep up the good work! and I hope you get $44M next time, at least then perhaps it would be work talking about. And your stuff is the rare exception that is probably worth the $44M.
This crap is just priceless!
Craig Goodrich says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm
You have fallen prey to a red herring, diversionary tactic. Don’t scratch the fleas. They only bite harder.
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“Theft is theft…get it?”
Yes, we get it. You want to excuse fraudsters in the publicly funded, orthodox climate science community by foisting upon us a false equivalence between the climategate leaker and con artists who misappropriated ho-hum details from a skeptical foundation. Fail.
JC Leblond says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“Interresting that the “faked” document is full of figures that are confirmed in the other documents…”
Interesting that someone cut and pasted a fake page together from remnants of others? For the life of me, I cannot imagine why.
Peter says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:31 pm
“…some people are questioning the honesty, integrity, and competence of our most prominent scientific and academic organizations.”
What do you mean “our”, Kemo Sabe?
Let me get this straight. Because his beliefs are not the true beliefs as “proved” by the models, Watts is the antichrist and has the ethics of a diseased wombat for accepting Heartland money –some of which is fossil fuel industry money– to put together a website that displays government, i.e. YOUR, data in a human readable/digestible form. Meanwhile Phil Jones is the second coming for breaking the law (FOIA) and inciting others to do the same, because his cause is just. The Team actively tried to discredit and destroy the careers of those who disagreed with them, but that’s OK because they have truthiness on their side. I don’t get it.
If the whole memo talking about preventing teachers from teaching science in the classroom is debunked, then what’s the problem? If it isn’t, then I think Anthony’s hands are clean if he breaks all ties to them. It’s really that simple. Do people honestly expect that only one side of this debate can legitimately provide funds, i.e. Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club? Why do their funds and those they fund not produce a cry of bias? Or perhaps we know that accusations are always true–well at least those from the Left & the Greens–and protestations of innocence are always lies. If that’s the case, then it seems to me that the Spanish Inquisition and Salem quit far too soon, and we waste far too much money on our legal system.
[SNIP: Sorry, but the second hand smoke topic is DONE. -REP]
David says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?
============================
Private organization, vs publicly funded CRU, get it?
—-
Theft is theft…get it?
The UK police would not have raided Tallbloke, if there had there been no crime they were investigating, get it?
————————————–
Really, I do get it. The police are investigating a POSSIBILITY of a crime. The Heartland theft was apparently theft, and they have the right to make this accusation. This does not mean your allegation of the FOIA release as being analogous is accurate. It likely is not.
******************
John Billings says: February 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm
1. The Heartland Institute is a free market thinktank. Their goal is to promote the free market , or libertarianism, or something. Either way, it is a right-wing political organisation. Were not the alarm bells ringing when they offered you money?
******************
Pardon me, but . . . Really???
I think your statement rather sums up the entire situation. The thought that Free Markets = Right Wing = Alarm bells, leads automatically to; they are bad people and not allowed to provide support to anything they believe to be worthwhile.
Why is it the enviro-nazis believe that their point of view is absolutely correct and anyone questioning it is absolutely wrong? Believing only they should be funded and allowed free speech while everyone else should be held to standards that are only defined when they, the enviro-nazis, believe they have been breeched?
JC Leblond says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Interresting that the “faked” document is full of figures that are confirmed in the other documents, and that much of the content has been confirmed either from the other documents or the people named (including the K12 curriculum: David Wojick did confirm working on this for the Heartland Institute). It seems the faked document is extremely precise and factual. Troubling for a fake. The Heartland Institute has said it was fake, therefore it must be fake. Lets not question their integrity.
============================================
Read up…… it’s pretty clear this was a fake.
Lets drop the euphemisms the FORGED document!
Who ever used social engineering to get the documents to be sent to the wrong email address, was guilty of criminal impersonation, and theft by deception, and wire fraud (used a phone) not to mention all those who are opening themselves up to slander and libel charges and some pretty hefty legal fees.
In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.
California’s “False Impersonation” Laws
Penal Code 529 PC
California’s false personation laws make it a crime to impersonate someone else in order to harm that person, or to gain a benefit for yourself.
Theft By Deception
Iin the state of California crimes related to fraud, include the crime of theft by deception.
It is where a person deceives in order to gain access to goods, property or services.
This may bankrupt some of the major CAGW media shills, and will surely destroy any shred of credibility that they might have had as honest journalists, given they have violated numerous primary responsibilities of a real journalist.
The exact charges will of course depend on the jurisdiction the criminal activity took place in, but I think who ever did this has opened a very large can of legal trouble if they can be found.
Larry
Anthony you are being purposefully targeted for character assassination by innuendo.
The whole thing is totally political. You are a threat. You have to understand that nothing absolutely nothing is beneath these people. They are absolutely unprincipled and totally dishonest.
I guarantee you have made the George Soros/moveon.org enemies list. Be careful my friend.
There is nothing they will not stoop to.
this is a little O/T, but I followed the link to Hansen’s reply and then clicked on a link he thinks is a good analysis of billionaires and the climate crisis…(hint: Outing the Oligarchy)
Which is a screed. A leftist screed, naturally. OWS-type screed, Van Jones type screed. Which has this riveting passage in the Oct 13th entry
“Today’s crisis of capitalism requires a rethink of the system that governs it. If unruly capital was a foreign dictator, the US State Department would demand that it step down because it’s lost legitimacy, seize state assets until they can be sorted out, then fund fair elections for new government to decide how do we distribute resources to fulfill the peoples needs and aspirations.”
http://ifg.org/programs/plutonomy.html
Sad, really
Amazing! Sounds like some of the political mud-smearing campaigns currently happening. I wouldn’t be surprised to find this is the work of someone in government.