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.
But action to combat the hype about CAGW is not the only target of funding by Heartland and other think tanks either. So to compare the total budget of Heartland with the total budget of various NGOs is meaningful..
Anthony said that he thought the Heartland post was sloppily written. Here’s what I think was meant (my insertions bolded):
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
“DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
Scanning the Guardian, just to see if any softening of their stance has changed, I found this little snippet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute?intcmp=122
Congratulations Anthony – you are number one enemy – and just look at the huge figures all the true scientists receive – jeez I’d spend almost that total amount (of all the collective annual payments) on my Daughter’s Wedding !!!!!
Now we know just how much skeptics are paid – can someone do the same for those in the collective feeding trough?
As in politics, I think this discussion, and other scientific ones, are no longer worthwhile. They are just mudslinging matches. Once people take a position they rarely shift. For those readers here, your hypocrisy is clear. So is mine. ‘Climategate’ was an example of all these nefarious, malicious groups and individuals shilling for research dollars. Now a similar event happens to Heartland catching Mr. Watts in the mix. You’ll claim they are not equivalent. Other people will say they are. Round and round we go. Mr. Watts, you should call up Mr. Mann and tell him now you know how it feels. We have allowed special interests on ALL sides to divide and label. We are all fodder for these manipulations. We are all complicit in this mess. We are all failing to be reasonable. Having all these discussions in text, without body language and facetime simply magnifies our inability to judge objectively, competently, scientifically. I hope the best for you Mr. Watts as I do for Mr. Mann. I honestly believe you are both probably trying your best for all. Unfortunately you are both, as are all other people involved in this mess, caught in the gears of BS.
At 7:01 PM on 16 February, linzel writes:
Whaddaya mean “we,” Kemo Sabe?
Like hell have those of us on the responsibly and scrupulously skeptical side “in this mess” been “complicit,” any more than can a man defending himself from an armed robber be considered “complicit” in that thieving predator’s crime.
Anybody who tries to aver a moral equivalence between Mr. Watts and “Hockey Stick Graph” Michael Mann – whose knowing statements of falsehoods in his federal government grant funding applications are unarguably actionable on both civil and criminal grounds – has lost touch with objective reality, and deserves damnation in the strongest possible terms.
@Tucci78
You prove my points exactly. Thank you. Making ad hominems and bad analogies to thieving doesn’t help the discussion in any way. Cheers
At 8:13 PM on 16 February, linzel posts nothing more than:
Pardon my Sicilian, but oy, gevalt! Yet another demonstrable damned illiterate who conflates simple insult (which he has unarguably earned) with argumentum ad hominem, a technical term properly used only to describe a fallacy of logic.
As I’d discussed in detail when hammering peeke a bit earlier:
linzel, your ineptitude in discourse is of a piece with your warmista co-religionists, evidence that you are both bereft of education and fatuously pretentious in your clumsy presentation in this forum.
Plainly, the character assessments you’ve received at my hands are not “ad hominems” (Gawd, what incredible gormlessness!) and you’ve yet to support any assertion that my “analogies to thieving” – i.e., that is the lawful right of a victim of armed robbery to defend himself and his property – are “bad” in any way.
If you have anything in the way of reasoned argument for that position, you hapless noodge, put it in front of the readers in this forum and let ’em judge for themselves.
They sure as hell can’t repose any trust in your powers of discrimination, can they?
[SNIP: Nice bit of sock-puppetry, linzel. Blog policies prohibit switching handles. You are either linzel or sciential, but you’re not going to be both. -REP]
At 3:36 AM on 17 February, using the handle of “sciential,” we have linzel addressing my post of 10:42 PM on 16 February with:
…which got replaced by a moderator with:
I’ve recapitulated linzel‘s message – which was properly removed by the moderator on procedural grounds as sock-puppetry rather than due to its content – because it’s a valuable demonstration of las warmistas‘ proclivity for evading the address of issues themselves (in this case the fatuous but repeatedly demonstrated proclivity among such leftie-lusers for the improper use of the expression “ad hominem” as a pseudointellectually Latinate synonym for “insult”) by way of their own perpetration of actual argumentum ad hominem, yammering about my “apparent superiority” and whining that Mr. Watts is guilty of running a “Great little show here” in which vacuous ineptitude like linzel‘s isn’t protected against contemptuous criticism thereof.
It’s not often that one can write “quod erat demonstrandum” with such wonderful pertinence.
linzel, since you plainly have no faith in your own ability to distinguish truth from fiction, why on earth should we be interested in your opinion?
I dunno. Wednesday morning I put a link to the Guardian thing in Tips ‘n’ Notes, Thursday I was too busy to spend much time on the interweb, and today … multiple threads all over, hundreds of comments and ample evidence of bogosity (now, there’s a surprise, given the band of blatherskites involved!). I know I’m getting on a bit, but still, the manically hyperactive speed of events seems to get more manic with every day that passes.
Anthony, my dear fellow, the longer you keep WUWT going, the better you look, and the worse the blather brigade make themselves look, over and over. Truth beats ‘truthiness’ every time. Top marks … again!
73 de Steve
coeruleus says:
The IRS already examined that and is fine with Greenpeace’s status.
——-
“Federal security services have identified Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as the kind of “multi-issue extremist” groups that pose a threat to Canadians, documents obtained under Access to Information show.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/security-services-deem-environmental-animal-rights-groups-extremist-threats/article2340162/
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:51 am
“Some odd stuff there. Grants would normally be known up-front, not post-publication.”
==============
Can you point me towards a link to support this statement ?
Or, in fact, was there nobody in the forest when the tree fell .
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:51 am
> If you find it “exciting” to update an article…
I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about. One of these? Perhaps this? That restored valid, useful, and unquestionably true info, that someone was trying to censor for political reasons.
> to post the funding sources on the final product like is done with scientific papers
Some odd stuff there. Grants would normally be known up-front, not post-publication.
> CO2… natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”
And they want to teach children that? Oh dear.
One source of info (not wikipedia anyway, OK New Scientist) quotes natural emissions of 770Gt pa vs 26 Gt human (with 40% reabsorbed). Happy to help you make good old wiki useful again.
link here
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
Why would you want to hide that from children? What is there to hide?
u.k.(us) says:
February 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:51 am
“Some odd stuff there. Grants would normally be known up-front, not post-publication.”
==============
Can you point me towards a link to support this statement ?
Or, in fact, was there nobody in the forest when the tree fell .
Good point – where can we find out what Hansen, Gore, et al are going to be working on in a few months time? Work can then start to discredit it before they’ve even started. Post modern science at its best? Let’s hope we can all do a bit better than that.
Seth Borenstein published one of the meanest and most mendacious articles I’ve ever seen in my life. It is all over the Web, including Yahoo News. The only “confirmation” Borenstein was waiting for was an opinion given by four (unnamed) persons of his own choice.
I really don’t understand, what Mr. Watts hopes to gain by being polite to such scoundrels as Borenstein, or by allowing one of the worst thought policemen of the AGW movement, Connolley, to post here.
Thank you so much for deleting my lengthy post on how to complain to the BBC about their treatment of this subject. After all, I don’t spend hours and hours checking my facts until they are 100% correct, my efforts are not useful or informative to your readers – they just appear like magic and require no work at all on my part to post on your site, just as it takes no effort for you to hit the delete button.
[Reply: Caroline, your post has not been deleted. Please look again. if you need help, it’s here. -REP]
Still waiting for Joe Bast to confirm the authenticity of the documents. So quick to demonize the one, but no impetus to confirm the others.
Ian, I know just how you feel and sympathize. I really do. Those other documents are just so chock full of shocking and incriminating details. I admire your restraint in waiting for Bast’s confirmation before tearing into them. The delay is nothing short of diabolical.
Alexander Feht says:
February 18, 2012 at 1:54 am
….
I really don’t understand, what Mr. Watts hopes to gain by being polite to such scoundrels as Borenstein, or by allowing one of the worst thought policemen of the AGW movement, Connolley, to post here.
Politeness is a personal virtue that encourages communication as opposed to conflict where disagreements may arise. It sets off the civilized from those of nye kulturny. Allowing a poster to communicate a dissenting message also permits you to contrast messages. Connolley actually accepted the drivel in the CM doc. It also permits you to see just how badly the writer conceptualizes his opponents. You are also capable of gaging how desperate the writer is by how far of the politness wagon they’ve fallen.
Why are Anthony Watt and the Heartland so upset about “stolen” email?
Don’t they still post links, at least, if not file server copies of the email stolen from the CRU? The so called “Climate Gate”.
Pick a position on redistributing stolen email and stick to it please.
Kelly Manning says:
February 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm
“Pick a position on redistributing stolen email and stick to it please.”
Kelly, somebody forged a document, stuck it into the stuff sent to DeSmogBlog, and the contents of the forgery are now used to defame the Heartland Institute, its donors and its projects by the mainstream press.
You should be proud.
[snip . . try and contribute . . kbmod]
Um, looking a mite paranoid there friend:
So, just to check, I put the time stamp of your supposed ‘censorship’ into the ‘find’ box. Guess what, if found your “censored” posting… I think maybe you need to practice your reading skills.
BTW, there are no censors here, but there are moderators. Things can sit in the moderation queue until some of the ALL VOLUNTEER moderator staff have time to service the queue. Sometimes WordPress will put things in the SPAM queue (for reasons only WordPress can explain) and then they can sit longer.
When folks see something offensive, it is replaced with a [snip] and some ‘tag’ of the particular moderator. So if there were something wrong with your comment, it would have been “snipped”, not censored.
With that said, I have seen some “serial idiots” put on ‘time out’ and THEN their comments get canned. (As one would expect when told IN ADVANCE it is going to happen… and they still don’t catch a clue about being offensive.)
So I suggest you get down off your Jihad Horse. Not only are you looking a bit silly, but your starting be a PITA and some of us would like to read things that matter and not paranoid fantasies…
Um, no. POLICE often conduct raids on SUSPICION of a crime, not an actual fact of crime. Further, the Tallbloke raid in particular was a botched farce in that Tallbloke had done nothing wrong and any decent forensics guy could see that. It was a FISHING EXPEDITION and netted nothing. Ergo no charges, before or after.
(My credentials include being employed to do forensics work and being involved with Law Enforcement from about 16 as an Eagle Scout were we trained with the County Sheriff and rode on calls, on up to catching a couple of “perps” when hired to go undercover at a computer company as a ‘geek’ assisting them a couple of decades later… Oh, and a few dozen rounds of “Managers And The Law” classes – mandatory every 2 years for most of a decade where I was working. Oh, and reporting to the Corporate Lawyer VP for a few years… I’ve also managed building security – including surveillance equipment and law enforcement relations. I’ll leave out the Marital Arts training as irrelevant, but my Sensei was a Police Sergeant to give some perspective…)
Furthermore, there is a crime evident in what was done to Heartland, under both Federal Fraud and California impersonation statutes. Plain, direct, and obvious. AND confessed as of now.
In the case of the UEA/CRU Emails (AKA Climategate) the emails clearly indicate “malfeasance” and attempts to blackmail editorial boards, along with deliberate attempts to slander others along with a load of other illegal or immoral acts. Including attempts to thwart the FOIA LAW. All evidence shows that the emails were LEAKED not STOLEN (a very important distinction) in an attempt to show this suborning of justice. That makes it a LEGAL and PROTECTED act under UK Law (along with an act of considerable heroism if actually done by an insider) under the “Whistleblower Statutes”.
Get it? Get it?…
So once again the “Moral Relativism” folks have trouble understanding “follow the law” and that just because they LIKE one outcome and not the other, that does not determine the actual legality… But boy can they “make stuff up”…
I suggest not trying to make a moral equivalence out of the two events as every time we see that being done we will point out the repugnant acts INSIDE the Climategate emails and the Whistle Blower Legality of Foia vs the blatantly illegal Phishing and theft of BENIGN but private Board Of Directors Confidential documents with NOTHING remotely nefarious in them.
How does that phrase go?… ‘Own Goal by Warmers’? Again…
E.M. Smith writes:
Not that I don’t agree with you about all this, but towards the end of your post there’s a whole buncha inappropriate (I’ve heard it called “pompous”) capitalization. One dictionary puts the rule like so:
Oh, the “caps lock” bit isn’t bad as an emphasis modality, but unless there’s something like a title or trademark concerned, expressions like “Phishing” and “Confidential” and “Whistle Blower Legality” in the section of your post quoted above should never get cap’d in the way you’ve done.
On t’other hand, “Foia” (like “FDA” and “USA” and “CRU”) is an acronym, and has to be written as “FOIA” to keep that meaning clear.
I definitely agree with the legal substance of your argument. There’s nothing unsavory (much less unethical or criminal) in the legitimate Heartland documents Gleick had phished from the administrators, and only someone desperate and delusional could possibly have conjured ’em so, whereas the Climategate communications (2009 and 2011) are profoundly indicative of activities which should be pursued under prevailing federal criminal law, particularly 18 USC Chapter 96 pertaining to racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations (RICO).
Dunno about how such things go in the U.K. The statute of limitations on their own FOI statute (18 months, by gawd!) ran before the perfidies of Prof. Jones et alia came to prosecutorial attention, but what’s the statute of limitations regarding crim. cons. over there?
@Tucci78:
Style rules written by someone else are for folks who can’t think for themselves. You might want to call it POMPOUS, I call it “Easier to hit the shift key than typing open bracket b closebracket then open bracket slash b close bracket” It is the moral equivalent of emphasis in speech.
SO no, I’m NOT going to bother changing for you, nor for a “style guide”.
Language usage is a fluid thing, it shifts and changes over time. Especially in the computer age. Thus the 😉 and /sarcoff>; and so much more…
Per Foia: I use F.O.I.A. and sometimes FOIA for the Freedom Of Information Act where the person doing the release called himself FOIA 2011 or some such. In keeping with proper names, I use Foia to designate the person.
At least on this side of the pond, Statute of Limitations starts when the crime is discovered for many / most things as I understand it.
You may now resume being the Style Police…