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 CAGW fraud industry are scared, frightened and very desperate. This last ditch smear attack was coming, we all knew it was coming and quite frankly Its a wonder it has taken the CAGW cult to fabricate this one. The CAGW cult fraudsters dont even realise how sad and pathetic they appear, have lost the basic ability of self examination. How long did it take the CAGW fraudsters to fabricate this attack? A coordinated offensive months in the planning that was hoped to smear sceptics is fast turning on the perpetrators, its a gas attack across the lines and those who turned on the taps forgot to see which way the wind was blowing!
I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to WUWT and Heartlands for their hard work bringing the truth to a larger and larger audience, you will receive no Nobel prizes, no medals or awards from the bought and paid for establishment. The only reward is the hard struggle to tell the truth, no red carpet treatment by the fawning poodles of the entertainment ‘industry’, no politicians lining up for photo ops.
The CAGW fraudsters last great offensive of the war, it has failed almost before it began of course, and of course only the CAGW cults client stooges in the MSM will cover it. Whatever they have to say is no longer being heard as it was even two years ago, in a glorious turn of fortunes the CAGW cult has turned up a day late and a dollar short and its utterly hilarious to us sceptics, the spectacle of this last major offensive spluttering to a halt even as it begins is deeply deeply satisfying.
Those behind the CAGW fraud must be stupid to the point of retarded to think that this kind of coordinated attack would actually work, must be so desperate to believe that their stooge MSM could spread it wide and deep enough to have any effect at all, they simply do not have the power and authority or reach they once did, its game over for them really and this proves it. So sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the CAGW fraudsters making fools of themselves, we earned it folks, and I suppose in lieu of any other reward this will do nicely, very nicely indeed.
Martin says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm
“All this is in the alleged faked document. It seems that Heartland needs to come clean and admit that the alleged faked doco is actually not faked at all.”
So the fact that the fakers mixed true information they retrieved in with the fake stuff means the fake stuff is true? You have no critical thinking skills at all, do you?
I hope the National Post is paying attention to this.
Warmists attempt these tactics at their own peril: the good folks here swiftly demolish pretension and get to the heart of the ridiculous contradictions of both the ‘science’ espoused by the warmists and now their espionage and slander of WUWT. They’re so convinced of their moral rectitude that they never question whether the ends justify the means, even if the means turn out to be breathtakingly stupid.
Keep up the good work, Anthony and all you defenders of science, logic, reason and WUWT!
Martin says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm
“This is very interesting. I suggest the folks here read the document mentioned.
Heartland alleges that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.
The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material they have in hand. It addresses five elements:
[…]
All this is in the alleged faked document. It seems that Heartland needs to come clean and admit that the alleged faked doco is actually not faked at all”
The obvious conclusion is that the forger had access to the “other material” that DeSmogBlog have in hand when making the forgery. “Stop teachers from teaching science”? The forger must believe the “Republican War On Science” rethoric by Mooney.
Wait. Did I say Mooney? Isn’t he a regular DeSmogBlog contributor?
Yes Martin, that is indeed very interesting.
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Shake off your mind and read what was written. No where did I say he was guilty of anything. My point was that they considered the theft of the Climategate files to be a crime. You really should read what is written rather than what you expect to be reading”
Perfectly OK to assume an outside denier rather than member of the CRU of East Anglia University was suspect, R. gates. You really shouldn’t read what is written in newspapers.
Please don’t answer my comment.
Thanks for everthing you do Anthony. Your patience with the lazy, incompetent and malicious is worthy of respect.
Martin,
A forged document wouldn’t have much value if it didn’t include some of the genuine information in the other documents. In fact, it’s a pretty sloppy job as it is, which suggests it was done hurriedly to meet a publishing deadline. (The first time I read it, it read like a CAGW activist’s wet dream of what Heartland would say.) Desmogblog is now defending its use of the forged “strategy” document by claiming that the topics it addresses are also raised in the other (apparently genuine) documents, ignoring the outrageously false specifics.
But in an action for defamation, it is the falseness of the particular statement, not the general subject matter, that is at issue. I certainly hope someone files some kind of civil action so discovery can be conducted on the publishers of this faked document, to determine where it originated.
What did the authors of the desmogblog and skepticalscience articles know, and when did they know it?
They aren’t journalists. They are a cheerleading squad for Barack Obama. This is what happens when people vote Left.
@Tucci78
“The exchange of point and counterpoint in comments within this forum is – somehow – not supposed to be “argument.”
No. But if you disagree, and that bothers you nee to look no further than the mirror:
“Got any support for that contention, bubbie? Something from the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny or some other source you’re yanking out of Fantasyland?”
“Keep right on shoveling, peeke. Just make damned sure that your manure doesn’t wind up on other people’s shoes.”
‘t Is exactly this kind of frothing at the mouth that makes me skeptical of skeptics as well. And if that is a fallacy, so be it.
Heartland has stated the “Strategy” document was forged. It is this document that contains the prejudicial comments – including the part about discouraging teachers from teaching science:
This document as has been noted was a scan, created Monday of this week, by an Epson scanner. Scanning the document strips all traces of originating information from document properties. Reading the document shows it is largely comprised of data compiled from other documents.
What is also revealed however, is that the writing style, both what and how it is phrased, and key punctuation, is different.
Below is the section on the Climate Education initiative from the detailed 29 page “Fundraising Plan” document. That PDF has NOT been stripped of document properties, and shows it was created by Joseph Bast on 1/16/2012 at 10am.
This commentary greatly expands on the alleged “Strategy” document, and the description of the education program shows they have engaged a professional, well connected and credentialed individual, to create a teaching program that meets the requirements and explores both sides – noting these items are controversial. There is nothing remotely similar to or whatsoever related to the alleged comment that the goal was to dissuade teachers from teaching this topic.
Several other notes …
First, the alleged “Strategy” doc author states “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain”. However, a read of the lengthier and more detailed education comments in the “Fundraising” document shows no mention of the term “uncertain” – only the word “controversial” was used … its use is an inflammatory embellishment.
Second, I would note the author in the alleged “Strategy” document makes the comment about dissuading teachers from teaching after use of a dash. Here too the comment is an inflammatory embellishment, with no similar mention made in the longer and more detailed education section in the validated “Fundraising” document.
Third – the author in the “Fundraising” document in all of its 29 pages – used the “dash” in a sentence a total of 3 times. Each of these times he used them in a pair – as I did in prior and this sentence – in place of comma’s. The “Strategy” author used dashes a like 3 times – but in just two pages. And each time as a single dash, used in place of a semi-colon – to add a modifier or extension to the sentence.
Last – no other document in the group at desmog contains wording remotely similar to the inflammatory statements in the alleged “Strategy” document.
For example: the “Fundraising”, “Binder1” and “Budget” PDF files are all validated as created by J. Bast. The writing style is similar in each and every one. Straightforward – free of inflammatory embellishments – exactly as one would expect from a professional organization. The “Strategy” document on the other hand has several inflammatory embellishments – both uncharacteristic of the writings of J. Bast – and not found in any of the other documents.
Draw your own conclusions.
It is sad that these people have so much hatred that they would attack Heartland, and those associated, in the first place – especially when it exposes their hypocrisy – exposes the huge, orders of magnitude, difference in funding for the AGW brigade vs the skeptical science side.
Worse though, that they would be so desperate they would forge a document to make it seem worse.
Having read desmog blog on occasion, and knowing that one of the worst of them all – a man with few scruples – David Suzuki – is behind them …. guess it should be no surprise.
I’m getting the sense that the battles are intensifying in the broader war to defend truth. Here in the Bay Area the battles are raging over the One Bay Area Plan; something that came out of AB32 and SB375 to force the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions and mitigation of large sea level rise in the state (California). Critics of the premise and the planning process have caused the planners to change their language and even produce training programs to counter the critics.
The alarmist are seeming a bit more desperate these days as their arguments continue to fall apart. But I’m expecting the rancor to escalate dramatically in the next months.
Seen in an email on a mailing list I am on:
What a naive fellow he is. NOT!
Magoo says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Anthony, keep the receipts and accounts for the job at hand and publish them on Watts Up With That at the end of the year when the job is complete. This will account for all the cash and show that you personally didn’t profit in any way – all cash was spent on research. Return any unspent money to the Heartland Institute. This will show that you did it purely in the name of science for all, both pro & anti AGW, and in no way was it for personal profit.
===============
Magoo, please stop. Not only is this chump change, Anthony deserves monetairy compensation for his time. I am not saying he is taking any in this project. I am saying it is fine if there was some. Private funds to a private citizen to make public records easier to understand. One articulate historic barb would call this “Much ado about nothing”
From the “Budget” PDF posted at deSmog. Makes one say hmmmmmmm …..?
Ron House says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Lots of people are reading this thread, many of whom will be here for the first time, not knowing who to trust. I submit for their consideration this observation: look at the freedom with which Anthony’s opponents get their material posted on this web site, some of it, IMHO, crossing the line into defamation. Now go to any alarmist blog you please and try to get a similar attack posted about the owner of that blog. Fact: this is where the free speech is, that should tell you something.
===========
I agree completely. I wish your post could have been the first comment on this thread.
Martin says:
This is very interesting. I suggest the folks here read the document mentioned.
When are you gonna?
Heartland alleges that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.
And it most likely is. The faked part are not necessarily the facts drawn from the other stolen documents. It would be stupid to fake those, as there is nothing the least bit untoward about those facts. The likley fake part is the language that they are wrapped in – persuading teachers to not teach science and such nonsense.
Heartland’s assertion that this document is faked is supported by some curious facts:
1. Unlike all of the other documents alleged to have been written by HI, the “Climate Strategy” is a PDF of a scanned page.
2. Unlike all of the other documents alleged to have been written by HI, the “Climate Strategy” PDF has no authorship metadata.
3. The language used to describe the items is more in line with how alarmists see HI, than how HI would describe itself.
4. Unlike all of the other documents alleged to have been written by HI, the “Climate Strategy” is not on the agenda for the meeting with which these documents were associated.
HI also claims that there are factual errors in the document …
reap what you sow – there is (a degree of) justice… after all!
NYT has long article up; the forgery is mentioned only in one sentence, and in a way that casts doubt not on the intentions of the perpetrators, but on Heartland’s statement.
“Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/in-heartland-institute-leak-a-plan-to-discredit-climate-teaching.html
“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.”
This describes, in a nutshell the tactics currently being investigated and prosecuted in the UK. Many journalists at News Corporation newspapers used this tactic to steal documents, although there is no evidence they ever faked or rewrote them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9085073/The-Sun-arrests-police-focused-on-long-term-criminality.html
And it’s the same Suzanne Goldberg who has been trying to get toilet paper banned for years. Just go through the history of her articles to see the kind of looney hate, conspiracy theories, bias, and hysteria she has tried to generate in society over the years.
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:26 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?
So Tallbloke is guilty until proven innocent, R.? Simply because he was subject to an investigation?
—–
“Shake off your mind and read what was written. No where did I say he was guilty of anything. My point was that they considered the theft of the Climategate files to be a crime. You really should read what is written rather than what you expect to be reading.”
You should really get your head out of your you know what. Tallbloke has nothing to do with this, nor have you shown that the Heartland Institute regarded the release of CRU files to be an acceptable practice or any relevance of Climategate to this incident or to Heartland. And “theft is theft” makes no more sense than to say that all dogs are white. But it appears you would be a strong advocate for the FBI raiding their offices and homes, for at least the crime of releasing personal information from a private organization.
Dang! Have to run to the store for more popcorn.
From a poster at BBC Black’s site
“FakeGate” It has a really nice ring to it eh !
The Heartland crime reminds me of RatherGate, when Dan Rather wanted to believe a fake document so badly that he didn’t do proper confirmation. The rest was history. Rather lost his job, and his dishonorable reporting will follow him like a bad dream for the rest of his life.
Likewise with the Heartland situation. Whoever stole the documents runs the risk of a prison sentence, and probably has to provide for a family and a mortgage. Heartland really doesn’t lose much over this, but the perpetrator risks all. Stupid.
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 9:26 pm
RockyRoad says:
February 15, 2012 at 7:56 pm
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?
So Tallbloke is guilty until proven innocent, R.? Simply because he was subject to an investigation?
—–
Shake off your mind and read what was written. No where did I say he was guilty of anything. My point was that they considered the theft of the Climategate files to be a crime. You really should read what is written rather than what you expect to be reading.
============
R Gates,wow? you are a being a little thick here. ” they considered the theft of the Climategate files to be a crime”. Neither you or they (the police) know a crime was committed, as it could have been the work of an internal whilste blower of PUBLICALY FUNDED MATTERS, subject to FOIA, wheras this was a theft of private information (revealing nothing nefarious) not subject to any FOI, and apparently, finding nothing evil in the real documents, further tainted with fraud. Admit it R Gates, the two situations are not analogus.