Tonight, a prescient prediction made on WUWT shortly after Gleick posted his confession has come true in the form of DeSmog blog making yet another outrageous and unsupported claim in an effort to save their reputation and that of Dr. Peter Gleick as you can read here: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic
In a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source (Heartland) says it isn’t verified (and a fake) but that’s not good enough for the Smoggers and is a threat to them, so they spin it and hope the weak minded regugitators retweet it and blog it unquestioned. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Suzuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.
Laughably, the Penn State sabbaticalized Dr. Mike Mann accepted it uncritically.
Twitter / @DeSmogBlog: Evaluation shows “Faked” H …
Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic bit.ly/y0Z7cL – Retweeted by Michael E. Mann
Tonight in comments, Russ R. brought attention to his comment with prediction from two days ago:
I just read Desmog’s most recent argument claiming that the confidential strategy document is “authentic”. I can’t resist reposting this prediction from 2 days ago:
Russ R. says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Predictions:
1. Desmog and other alarmist outfits will rush to support Gleick, accepting his story uncritically, and offering up plausible defenses, contorting the evidence and timeline to explain how things could have transpired. They will also continue to act as if the strategy document were authentic. They will portray him simultaneously as a hero (David standing up to Goliath), and a victim (an innocent whistleblower being harassed by evil deniers and their lawyers).
2. It will become apparent that Gleick was in contact with Desmog prior to sending them the document cache. They knew he was the source, and they probably knew that he falsified the strategy document. They also likely received the documents ahead of the other 14 recipients, which is the only way they could have had a blog post up with all the documents AND a summary hyping up their talking points within hours of receiving them.
3. This will take months, or possibly years to fully resolve.
Russ R. is spot on, except maybe for number 3, and that’s where you WUWT readers and crowdsourcing come in. Welcome to the science of stylometry / textometry.
Since DeSmog blog (which is run by a Public Relations firm backed by the David Suzuki foundation) has no scruples about calling WUWT, Heartland, and skeptics in general “anti-science”, let’s use science to show how they are wrong. Of course the hilarious thing about that is that these guys are just a bunch of PR hacks, and there isn’t a scientist among them. As Megan McArdle points out, you don’t have to be a scientist to figure out the “Climate Strategy” document is a fake, common sense will do just fine. She writes in her third story on the issue: The Most Surprising Heartland Fact: Not the Leaks, but the Leaker
… a few more questions about Gleick’s story: How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted? Did he just get lucky?If Gleick obtained the other documents for the purposes of corroborating the memo, why didn’t he notice that there were substantial errors, such as saying the Kochs had donated $200,000 in 2011, when in fact that was Heartland’s target for their donation for 2012? This seems like a very strange error for a senior Heartland staffer to make. Didn’t it strike Gleick as suspicious? Didn’t any of the other math errors?
So, let’s use science to show the world what they the common sense geniuses at DeSmog haven’t been able to do themselves. Of course I could do this analysis myself, and post my results, but the usual suspects would just say the usual things like “denier, anti-science, not qualified, not a linguist, not verified,” etc. Basically as PR hacks, they’ll say anything they could dream up and throw it at us to see if it sticks. But if we have multiple people take on the task, well then, their arguments won’t have much weight (not that they do now). Besides, it will be fun and we’ll all learn something.
Full disclosure: I don’t know how this experiment will turn out. I haven’t run it completely myself. I’ve only familiarized myself enough with the software and science of stylometry / textometry to write about it. I’ll leave the actual experiment to the readers of WUWT (and we know there are people on both sides of the aisle that read WUWT every day).
Thankfully, the open-source software community provides us with a cross-platform open source tool to do this. It is called JGAAP (Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program). It was developed for the express purpose of examining unsigned manuscripts to determine a likely author attribution. Think of it like fingerprinting via word, phrase, and punctuation usage.
From the website main page and FAQs:
JGAAP is a Java-based, modular, program for textual analysis, text categorization, and authorship attribution i.e. stylometry / textometry. JGAAP is intended to tackle two different problems, firstly to allow people unfamiliar with machine learning and quantitative analysis the ability to use cutting edge techniques on their text based stylometry / textometry problems, and secondly to act as a framework for testing and comparing the effectiveness of different analytic techniques’ performance on text analysis quickly and easily.
What is JGAAP?
JGAAP is a software package designed to allow research and development into best practices in stylometric authorship attribution.
Okay, what is “stylometric authorship attribution”?
It’s a buzzword to describe the process of analyzing a document’s writing style with an eye to determining who wrote it. As an easy and accessible example, we’d expect Professor Albus Dumbledore to use bigger words and longer sentences than Ronald Weasley. As it happens (this is where the R&D comes in), word and sentence lengths tend not to be very accurate or reliable ways of doing this kind of analysis. So we’re looking for what other types of analysis we can do that would be more accurate and more reliable.
Why would I care?
Well, maybe you’re a scholar and you found an unsigned manuscript in a dusty library that you think might be a previously unknown Shakespeare sonnet. Or maybe you’re an investigative reporter and Deep Throat sent you a document by email that you need to validate. Or maybe you’re a defense attorney and you need to prove that your client didn’t write the threatening ransom note.
Sounds like the perfect tool for the job. And, best of all, it is FREE.
So here’s the experiment and how you can participate.
1. Download, and install the JGAAP software. Pretty easy, works on Mac/PC/Linux
If your computer does not already have Java installed, download the appropriate version of the Java Runtime Environment from Sun Microsystems. JGAAP should work with any version of Java at least as recent as version 6. If you are using a Mac, you may need to use the Software Update command built into your computer instead.
You can download the JGAAP software here. The jar will be named jgaap-5.2.0.jar, once it has finished downloading simply double click on it to launch JGAAP. I recommend copying it to a folder and launching it from there.
2. Read the tutorial here. Pay attention to the workflow process and steps required to “train” the software. Full documentation is here. Demos are here
3. Run some simple tests using some known documents to get familiar with the software. For example, you might run tests using some posts from WUWT (saved as text files) from different authors, and then put in one that you know who authored as a test, and see if it can be identified. Or run some tests from authors of newspaper articles from your local newspaper.
4. Download the Heartland files from Desmog Blog’s original post here. Do it fast, because this experiment is the one thing that may actually cause them to take them offline. Save them in a folder all together. Use the “properties” section of the PDF viewer to determine authorship. I suggest appending the author names (like J.Bast) to the end of the filename to help you keep things straight during analysis.
5. Run tests on the files with known authors based on what you learned in step 3.
6. Run tests of known Heartland authors (and maybe even throw in some non-heartland authors) against the “fake” document 2012 Climate Strategy.pdf
You might also visit this thread on Lucia’s and get some of the documents Mosher used to compare visually to tag Gleick as the likely leaker/faker. Perhaps Mosher can provide a list of files he used. If he does, I’ll add them. Other Gleick authored documents can be found around the Internet and at the Pacific Institute. I won’t dictate any particular strategy, I’ll leave it up to our readers to devise their own tests for exclusion/inclusion.
7. Report your finding here in comments. Make screencaps of the results and use tinypic.com or photobucket (or any image drop web service) to leave the images in comments as URLs. Document your procedure so that others can test/replicate it.
8. I’ll then make a new post (probably this weekend) reporting the results of the experiment from readers.
As a final note, I welcome comments now in the early stages for any suggestions that may make the experiment better. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies investigating this have far better tools I’m told, but this experiment might provide some interesting results in advance of their findings.
Here’s some material from the Pacific Institute site, written while the Fakegate plot was being hatched:
Dear Friends,
There’s a Los Angeles Times clipping from 1993 hanging on the wall at our Oakland office: “Study Forecasts Ill Effects of Possible Warming Trend.” That story was about a groundbreaking Pacific Institute study on climate change. The Pacific Institute turns 25 this year, a striking milestone. We have led the call to put climate change mitigation and adaptation into action; we have put the human right to water on the global agenda and water conservation and efficiency into local policy; we tackle environmental and human health with local communities and social responsibility with multinational corporations and the United Nations, and our influence continues to grow. Celebrating a quarter century is a time to assess how the Institute’s efforts to produce innovative, influential research and to get it into the right hands are changing things! I invite you to share this celebration with us each month and see both where we’ve been and where we’re going. This is just the beginning…
Peter Gleick
President and Co-founder
Pacific Institute
Standing Up to Editorial Bias on Climate Science – Peter Gleick Writes, Thousands Respond
On January 27, Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick responded to the op-ed piece “No Need to Panic about Global Warming” published in The Wall Street Journal, which claimed climate change was not occurring. In his Forbes blog post, Dr. Gleick said, “The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of The Wall Street Journal in [the climate sceince] field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered to The Wall Street Journal, and were turned down.” That letter was subsequently published in Science magazine.
Responses from Dr. Gleick’s post by climate scientists, environmental activists and organizations, and the public have been remarkable — sparking investigations of the sixteen scientists who signed the op-ed submitted to the WSJ; dozens of editorial pieces in prominent publications and by organizations such as The Huffington Post, Catholic Alliance for the Common Good, The New York Times Dot Earth Blog, The Australian, Media Matters, and Climate Progress debunking the WSJ’s flawed and misleading arguments about climate science; and thousands of comments and conversations on blogs, social media outlets, and forums on the current climate dialog in the media. Later that week, The Wall Street Journal implicitly acknowledged their “climate goof” by accepting a letter from 38 climate scientists, including Peter Gleick, who responded to the WSJ op-ed.
“While much of the opposition to addressing the issue of climate change is political,” Dr. Gleick commented, “it often hides behind pseudo-scientific claims, with persistent efforts to intentionally mislead the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change.”
With efforts by well-funded climate change deniers to sow confusion and delay action by Congress and the public, the Pacific Institute has taken a stand to address climate science misinformation and to push for planning to
prepare for increasingly severe negative impacts of climate change.
-Read Peter Gleick’s blog “Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at The Wall Street Journal.”
-Read the climate scientists’ Wall Street Journal letter.
-More about climate change.
Heartland’s lawyers need to send Gleick a letter asking him to preserve his cell phone, and not to delete any of his texts and e-mails. They need to be sure he preserves all communications by which he set up the one- time-only e-mail account.
Given his amateur and apparently rushed forgery, I am sure he left plenty of tracks. He will be under tremendous pressure to try to cover those tracks which will only make things worse.
Changed document numbers ((2), (3)) might have a quite simple explanation: when downloading documents from web (including web-based e-mail) using Windows 7 (and possibly other OS), first instance of the document will be saved with correct title (i.e. filename.doc).
Every time you download the same file after that, W7 will save the file with added number (1), (2), (3) etc. (ie filename (1).doc, filename (2).doc, etc)
Gleick makes no claims about sending it multiple times. In fact, in the email he sent out he even states that the mailbox they are sent from is going to be deleted so there is no possibility of either sending again or having an email exchange.
No matter how many times you forward a PDF or save it or print it or whatever, the modification time in the META data will never change.
For those who doubt this I’ll issue a challenge. Change the meta data modification time (and the Instance UUID) in any one of the PDFs to a different time and post the modified PDF somewhere I can get it (to verify it) together with what you did to achieve this.
Also may want to consider our list of potential authors. At a minimum, I’m including Bast, McElrath, Gleick, and a group that I call HI-unattributed (which includes a scattering of other heartland documents of mixed authorship).
Now to counter criticism that the sample does not include a fair representation of “Lucy Ramirez’s”, I’m also thinking about including Littlemore, DeMelle, and Laden.
We’ll see if it crashes my computer.
Some change in comment: if you receive several times a document by mail with the same title, a mail program automatically adds (2), (3),… to the latest version, at least it does in Eudora, before storing it in the attachment box. Thus Greg Ladem received the same or different files with the same title.
That can be copies forwarded by others, who received it from Gleick too, but that may be that the fake document and/or others was/were forwarded several times by Gleick, awaiting comments of one or more of the “15” and altering some parts of the document. DeSmog was maybe smart enough to skip the receive number addition, but Greg only published the latest version as is.
How often do climate scientists change the leading in their documents?
How many climate scientists know how to change the leading in their documents?
How many climate scientists know what leading is?
“Leading” is the spacing between lines in a document, actually Microsoft word uses the term “Spacing” and is very cluncky to change.
Another tell is the graphic styling, the style of the fake memo is different than the authentic ones. For instance the fake one uses 16 pt leading and all of the Heartland documents are all 14 pt even when double spaced. Plus there are other graphic styling differences, I point them out here.
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2012/02/desmogbloggate.html
If anybody has access to any documents produced by Gleick’s send it to me and I can analyze it.
TerryS says:
February 23, 2012 at 6:42 am
Gleick makes no claims about sending it multiple times. In fact, in the email he sent out he even states that the mailbox they are sent from is going to be deleted so there is no possibility of either sending again or having an email exchange.
That is what Gleick says, but at least Greg Laden received the same (or different versions of the) fake file at least three times… But indeed it may be simple forwarding by mutual friends…
Re: Ferdinand Emgelbeen
The mail program will not change either the modification time or the Instance UUID contained in the meta data of the PDFs. You can rename the file to whatever you like, the meta data will remain the same.
Gleick only sent the documents out once and deleted the mailbox he sent it from so there should be no possibility of comments or multiple.
If DeSmog has copies of the PDFs that pre-date those sent to the “15” then DeSmog acted in concert with Gleick and are thus claiming to have verified documents they helped to compile.
(1) Also, do not overlook the fact that PC time can be changed, to ‘backdate docs’ (when reproduced ‘again’) for instance …
(2) And – PDF docs can be edited as they stand (i.e., they need not be the product or output of some other process e.g. Adobe Acrobat, Distiller PDF-Print etc. to have content changed), using any one of several pdf edit tools.
.
For samples of writing to test see:
Peter Gleick’s Blog: Water By Numbers
Note his characterization: Climate BS Award
For potential people and training documents see:
The Pacific Institute http://pacinst.org/
Pacific Institute Staff & Board
Pacific Institute Publications
National Center for Science Education
NCSE Board of Directors
NCSE Staff
NCSE Supporters
Here goes a sample done manually:
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/ieEdi
Berényi Péter said, “Can someone ask Dr. Gleick for a better scan of the memo he has allegedly got by snail mail? 2012 Climate Strategy.pdf is an awful B&W scan of pretty low quality….I suppose he still has the original in his possession. Also, he may publish a high resolution scan of the envelope the memo was sent in.”
Ha! That’s funny, Mr Berényi. Anthony’s current venture has no doubt caused Dr Gleick to freak again and so has no doubt misplaced / spring cleaned-away / accidentally eaten or otherwise lost the habeas documenti. I’m betting too that his laptop was stolen or was inadvertantly put by someone in his fridge whereupon the powerful fridge magnets regretfully wiped out his hard drive. Or, perhaps it was a solar magnetic storm. Yeah, that’s the ticket; a solar forcing.
Paging Mr Connolley ! You seemed so impatient earlier on. Come on now Sir, show us lazy peons how to run a proper document analysis. An aggressive, hyper-active Alpha male like you should have had it done, published and peer-reviewed by now.
For writing samples and persons see:
The Pacific Institute
Peter Gleick’s Blogs</a
Note 2001 Climate B.S. of the Year Awards
Also: <a href=http://ncse.com/about/The National Center for Science Education
They are almost forcing Heartland Institute to takes steps which will force Dr. Gleick to testify under oath. Then lying will be a felony for which he would likely serve time–the justice system cannot allow perjury to go unpunished. If Dr. Gleick is forced to admit that he forged the key document, DeSmogBlog will be exposed as what we already know they are.
@TerryS
PDFs are actually (marginally) editable, if you have Acrobat Pro.
My analysis said: “IT”S A COOK BOOK”!!
Actually, using 3rd party tools they are editable; sometimes in limited ways (font sets might be restricted for instance depending on the 3rd party tool).
I have used such 3rd party tools to annotate/markup for shop (floor) personnel various technical ‘schematic’ pdfs with additional info. At other times I have also ‘scrubbed’ various identifying title blocks and such from PDF files, and on occasion even unselected the ‘no select-and-copy’ option feature that can be invoked when printing/producing/outputting a PDF file.
Examples of 3rd party pdf editors: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=pdf+editor&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
.
Good one, Mr Hardy Cross! The word subset certainly appears frequently enough. We all become enamoured of certain words or terms and use them heavily. Now some may say that the software is configged to spot such repetition, but one can’t be always sure, as we use many words over and over again and the programmers may not have been able to design for or calibrate for unusual repetitions. Even with our advanced systems, it never hurts to eyball something whenever possible.
Ok- so maybe this is TL;DR stuff.
I did some research into the documents. I found some things that were inconsistent between the Strategy document and the other Heartland documents. They may be small, but if the Strategy document is coming from a member of the Heartland board, wouldn’t it be at least correct and consistent?
I dunno, maybe it’s just me….
“Strategy” document – “Development of our ‘Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms’ project.
Heartland 2012 Fundraising plan calls this the “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools”
“Strategy” document – “We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor.”
Heartland 2012 Fundraising plan – “”We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $5,000 per module, about $25,000 per quarter, starting in the second quarter of 2012, for this work. The Anonymous Donor has pledged $100,000 for this project” Wouldn’t that be paying Dr. Wojick $75,000? The other $25,000 for the project would be for materials, supplies for the curriculum, etc? At $5,000 per module for THREE quarters of 2012, that would be 15 modules total, not 20.
“Strategy” document – Regarding the drop in funding by the Anonymous Donor – “He has promised an increase in 2012-see the 2011 Fourth Quarter Financial Report” There is no mention the Fourth Quarter financial report (Part of the “Binder” document) of a promise by the Anonymous Donor to increase donations. The paragraph on page 10 of the “Binder” document regarding the Anonymous Donor has been cut off. In the Fundraising plan (pg. 20) Heartland mentions the amount the projects Anonymous Donor has agreed to fund and “those we hope he will agree to fund as the year progresses.” The amount he has already pledged is $1,000,000 (Fundraising document, pg 21, Table 6), which is an increase of $21,000 over 2011 giving total.
“Strategy” document – regarding funding from the Koch foundation in paragraph “Increased climate project fundraising” – “We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists”
Heartland 2012 Fundraising plan – “We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the network of philanthropists they work with.” Pg 7
“Strategy” document; Funding for parallel organizations – “At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports and paid a team of writers $388,000 in 2011 to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered.” “Another $88,000 is earmarked this year for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.”
Heartland 2012 Fundraising plan, pg 13 – “Heartland pays a team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of editions of Climate Change Reconsidered, the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. Another $88,000 is earmarked for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.”
Heartland pays the scientists $300,000 an year, NOT $388,000. The total with the expenses is $388,000.
However, in the 2012 Heartland Budget, pg. 8, table 2 – payment to lead authors and contributors is listed as $140,000 in 2011. The rest of the 2011 budget went to center staff ($140,000), SEPP to recruit authors and host meetings ($84,000) and Heartland to fundraise, edit, proof, publish and promote the book ($24,000).
Also notable is the changing of “scientists” as authors of the NIPCC in the Heartland document to “writers” in the “Strategy” document. Telling that the author of the “Strategy” document does not consider the NIPCC to be a scientific document.
“Strategy” Document – Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland. The funding levels mentioned for Craig Idos, Fred Singer and Robert Carter is payment for work on the NIPCC report. The “Strategy” document makes no mention of this.
The “Strategy” document uses the term “consider expanding…, if funding can be (found) obtained” twice on one page.
The last paragraph of the “Strategy” document also seems to be entirely someone’s opinion. The only fact I can find in this paragraph supported by any of the Heartland documents is the funding for Anthony Watts for tracking temperature station data.
Use of the term “anti-climate” in the “Strategy” document; this term is being used, by a supposed Heartland board member & AGW skeptic to describe other AGW skeptics.– I found 4 Heartland documents that use the term “anti-climate”. The term is consistantly used to by AGW proponants to describe AGW skeptics. It is not a term AGW skeptics have used to describe themselves.
FWIW…..
Acrobat is made by Adobe, the Adobe Creative Suite comes with Illustrator.
With Illustrator you can open any “unlocked” pdf file (which the Heartland Documents were) and do ANYTHING to that document then simply resave it as a pdf.
PDF files are fully (if rather messily) editable with Adobe Illustrator and marginally editable with Adobe Acrobat and a number of 3rd party editors.
The problem is that a PDF file consists of a number of objects that have to be edited separately, and the composition of the objects can be very weird. Usually it is easier to edit the source file and make a new PDF, but if this isn’t possible fairly extensive editing of the PDF is perfectly possible but time-consuming.,
@TerryS says:
February 23, 2012 at 5:49 am
“Re: Dave
The significance is that there are 2 DIFFERENT Budget documents, for example.
The document contents are the same but the documents are different. It has nothing to do with how different OS’es handle timestamps. The files sizes are even different.
PDF is not an editable document format. ”
Actually you can, all you need is the right tools.
A pdf analyzer not free but that is able to erase incriminating meta data otherwise pdf files record every byte put into it, even when you have deleted the bytes.
http://www.pdfanalyzer dot com
A free pdf analyzer, however to edit you need to pay
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-tools/PDF/PDFAnalyzer.shtml
A list of different tools for pdf and other documents
http://zeltser.com/reverse-malware/analyzing-malicious-documents.html
How to put viruses into pdf
http://www.sudosecure.net/archives/636
Free pdf edit tool
http://www.labnol.org/software/edit-pdf-files/10870/
So, there’s abunch of stuff you can do. :p
Here is a sample from the faked HI doc:
“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”
Here is Gleicks review of Donna Laframboises book he wrote in October:
“This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change. It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarizes the state of science on climate change. The IPCC reports — the most comprehensive summary of climate science in the world — are so influential and important, that they must be challenged by climate change deniers, who have no other science to stand on. LaFramboise recycles these critiques in a form bound to find favor with those who hate science, fear science, or are afraid that if climate change is real and caused by humans then governments will have to act (and they hate government)….
Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don’t need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you. If you respect science, then you ALSO don’t need this book, since there’s no science in it, and lots of pseudo-science and misrepresentations of science. See, especially, the section trying to discredit the “hockey stick” — long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd. Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it, but you won’t find out about that in this book.”
Granted, two words do not automatically show that he wrote the fake doc. That said, those of us who write a lot have our own linguistic quirks, our own personal style. Unless you are trained in the art of writing dialog, or something along those lines, these quirks and ticks typically go unnoticed by the writer. Again, the use of the words “influential” and “anti-climate” don’t prove that he wrote the fake, but the use of the same words and language does not help his cause.
Re: _Jim
> Actually, using 3rd party tools they are editable;
Re: MissBrooks
> PDFs are actually (marginally) editable, if you have Acrobat Pro.
And what possible reason is there for DeSmog to employ these tools and modify the PDFs?
I accept that there might well be a perfectly innocent explanation of why DeSmog has 2 different versions of 4 of the files but I can not think of one. Why, for example, would they open the PDFs in an editor?