Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted

 

Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a packed meeting in the Palace of Westminster (don’t tell the Clerk of the Parliaments), at which Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke even more brilliantly than usual on “global warming”, and engagingly answered many questions from Parliamentarians and the public.

Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade “global warming” as nonsense). The Minister indicated – in effect, and with scarcely-concealed regret – that the party line set by David Cameron in response to various opinion polls, focus groups and other such artifices for identifying and following a consensus rather than setting a lead, and not the objective scientific and economic truth, was likely to remain the basis of UK climate policy.

In reality, orders issued to our elected nominal “government” by the hated, unelected Kommissars of the EU, our true government, who have exclusive competence to decide and dictate the UK’s environment and climate policies, are and will remain the basis of UK climate policy, regardless of what (or whether) Cameron and his vapid focus groups think (if “think” is the right word). Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.

Over tea and scones at the National Liberal Club while Dick was with the Minister, several of us discussed what we call Fakegate – the frauds recently perpetrated to the detriment of the blameless Heartland Institute. Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic, that somehow scientists who commit frauds ought not to be prosecuted for them, for otherwise academic research would become impossible.

I hear this unsoundly-founded point so often that it is hard to keep an even temper. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether perpetrated by a scientist or by anyone else. The mistreatment to which the Heartland Institute has been subjected by a fraudster and counterfeiter constitutes several serious, imprisonable offenses, known in US law as felonies. The perps, whoever they be, should be investigated, brought for trial, prosecuted, and fined or – better still – imprisoned. Punishment for specific, manifest scientific frauds in no way prejudices, compromises, or trammels the freedom and purity of academic research. It protects and enhances them.

Three frauds are evident in Fakegate. First, wire fraud by whoever used electronic means to obtain internal documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by what the ineffable Richard Black of the unspeakable BBC calls “subterfuge” and what the criminal law bluntly calls “deception”. Secondly, circulation of a counterfeit document purporting to be a true Heartland document. Thirdly, reporting of the affair with reckless disregard for whether the counterfeit document was genuine on the part of the loony-left BBC, the Pooterish Scotsman, Britain’s Marxist daily The Guardian, and various blogs, notably the relentlessly malevolent and consequently uninfluential Desmogblog.

Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses) of the US Codex Iuris deals with “Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses”. Paragraph 1341 defines “fraud” simpliciter:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property” [or, by Paragraph 1346, “the intangible right of honest services”] “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to … procure for unlawful use any …  article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, … or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by … such carrier according to the direction thereon, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. …”

In general, whoever knowingly perpetrates across state boundaries or recklessly perpetuates a deception calculated to cause financial or pecuniary advantage in goods or services to some or suchlike loss to others commits the Federal criminal offense of fraud.

If the deception be furthered by electronic means, it is wire fraud. If it be furthered by the use of counterfeit documents, it is a distinct count of fraud. If it be furthered by reckless and detrimental publication and repetition of the contents of counterfeit documents as though they were the real thing, when no steps before publication had been taken to verify that the documents relied upon were true, it is also fraud.

Let us begin with the wire fraud. The relevant US statutory offense seems to me to be 18 USC 1343 (Wire Fraud) of the US Codex Iuris, which opens with these words:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property” [or, by Paragraph 1346, “the intangible right of honest services”] “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

I am unfamiliar with US law, and cannot confirm that these provisions still stand part of the US code, or that they have not been amended, or that there is no case law or rule of interpretation preventing their application in the present case. On the face of it, though, the obtaining of documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by a scheme or artifice whereby the fraudster misrepresented himself as a Board member of the Heartland Institute was achieved by electronic means across state boundaries between the Pacific and the Great Lakes.

The term “interstate commerce” is interpreted latae sententiae in US law, since it is widely defined in the US Constitution itself. Therefore, the fraudster would not be able to escape a wire-fraud charge by asserting that his deception of the Institute was not “in interstate commerce”. Even if the court were to find that the deception was not “in interstate commerce”, the deception would still constitute fraud simpliciter under paragraph 1341 of the Code, though not wire fraud under paragraph 1343.

Next, the fraud arising from the creation and circulation of the counterfeit document. Whether or not the fraudster who deceived the Institute also uttered the bogus document, he certainly circulated it. Consequently, even if he thought but did not know it was genuine, his reckless circulation of it without having verified that it was genuine, and in the company of other documents obtained by fraud, would constitute a distinct but connected fraud charge – and, given the malicious content of the counterfeit document and the very grave harm that it was calculated to do to the Institute, a very serious charge at that. The court would also take account of the fact that the perp had obtained all documents but the counterfeit document from the Institute and was, in the circumstances, under a particular duty to verify the genuineness of the document before circulating it with the others.

Finally, there is the fraud perpetrated by the various news and in

ternet media, especially in the UK (where Marxism is many journalists’ creed) in perpetuating the Fakegate fraud by rushing to publication or broadcast without having verified the genuineness of the document that turned out to be counterfeit. Here, the well-established legal doctrine of mens rea applies. To commit a crime, one must know that one is committing a crime, or one must act in a manner calculated to cause harm to another while being reckless as to whether the harm that one’s actions are calculated to cause constitutes a criminal offense.

Fraud charges against the guilty news media and blogs would not be likely unless and until the Fakegate fraudster had first been brought to justice before a Federal court.

The dripping malevolence of the commentaries by the various news media and blogs on what the counterfeit document purported to reveal about the Heartland Institute’s supposed attitude to the teaching of science in schools would count very much against them in court. The intent to cause harm to the Heartland, and to cause collateral damage to Anthony Watts and others, is very clear. On the other hand, those who at least acted promptly by publishing Heartland’s announcement that the document was counterfeit will have mitigated their crime to some extent. Those blogs that continue to publish the counterfeit document rather than removing it, and one blog that pretended to “confirm” the document as genuine, will face long prison sentences.

Or will they? Much of the scientific criminality surrounding the “global warming” scam only happens because the fraudsters in white lab-coats reckon that they are untouchable. They have the protection of governments, who are themselves profiting mightily by the scam; they are fawned upon by the news media, much as Al Capone was in Chicago; they are lionized by their academic institutions for the massive government grants they attract to investigate what, day by day, becomes more visibly a teacup tempest rebranded as Apocalypse; and, worst of all, the skeptics who ought to report the frauds – and without whose reports the authorities are unlikely to act ex proprio motu – are a bunch of wee, cowering, timorous beasties.

Since fraud across state boundaries is a Federal offense, any citizen of the United States, whether or not he is in any way connected with any of the parties to the frauds, has the right – and the duty – to go to his nearest police station and make a complaint that frauds have been committed to the detriment of the Heartland Institute. The complainant does not need to have any connection with the Institute, nor any permission from it. He just has to be as outraged as I am.

All he has to do is to go in and ask the police to investigate the frauds that have occurred. The facts are plain enough, and so is the law. The police will be bound to investigate and to pass a report of their investigation to the District Attorney, who, in matters of interstate fraud, would be likely to consult the State’s Attorney General. On the facts as I now have them, prosecution would certainly result, and conviction would be very likely.

But will anyone act? Around the fragrant tea-table overlooking the silent Thames, there was a marked reluctance to do anything other than talk about it. One said, “I couldn’t possibly make a complaint. Just think of all the unwelcome publicity.” In fact, there would be no publicity, since any complainant not connected with the Heartland Institute will play no further role in the case once he has undertaken the simple duty of reporting the fraud to his friendly, local police station.

Another said, “We really mustn’t interfere with academic freedom in this way.” Yet the action of the fraudster was not an exercise of academic freedom, still less a triumph for it. It was an abuse of it. It was a fraud. It was an offense. It was a serious offense. Read the Code.

The law, said Cicero in a beautiful passage in his De Legibus, is founded upon and rooted in love.  And what is a sin? In Christian theology it is a failure of love. A sin is a sin because its fake-etrator is knowingly or recklessly doing harm and, to the extent of the harm done, is failing to love the victims of his wrongdoing. It is precisely because of the harm done to the Heartland Institute and to Anthony Watts and others that the sin – in law the offense – is grave. And it is precisely to prevent such harm from being done that the law provides punishment for fraudsters – as long as someone, anyone, has the guts to go into a police station and start the ball rolling by making a complaint.

If just one or two of the numerous scientific frauds that are being reported to me were instead reported to the police, and if prosecutions and convictions were to ensue in just one or two cases, the “global warming” scam would come sharply to an end. Those scientists working in climate and related fields who have acted or published fraudulently (there are just a few of them, and they know who they are) would once again be reminded that they are not an untouchable, priestly caste at liberty to ignore the laws that the rest of us must follow. As the late Lord Denning used to say, in that gentle Hampshire accent of his, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
mkelly

The Good Lord states: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.”
Some of the saddest words anyone can read. Freedom lost is not oft gained back.

ferdberple

How was Gleick identified? Wasn’t the fake reportedly similar in style to his writing style?
Imagine if an ordinary citizen had done this to Coca-Cola or General Electric. How long would it take before the FBI was knocking down their door?

jack mosevich

“Gleick-gate”: the prison door shutting behind him

klem

Wow, that is a long list of felonies committed by this so-called ‘whistleblower’.

Severian

Of course, anyone who expects that our justice department, given the current leadership, will do squat on this, well, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in North Dakota. One ICE agent and over 200 Mexican nationals dead due to Operation Fast and Furious and we can’t get anything done by our justice dept, what are the odds one case of wire fraud will get any traction?

kim2ooo

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Thank you for this post.
Soooo…if I brought charges in my state…Mr “Perp” would have to show-up in my state to defend?
That could add up to a lot of travel time – just here in the USA 🙂

Man Bearpigg

What I find amazing is that the Police are not (or do not seem to be) proactively involved. Surely if a criminal offence has been committed it is it is the Police /DA/ or whatever legal system is employed where the offences took place to prosecute?

Monckton is absolutely correct…it is time to put them in jail if necessary…their models were designed to deceive and Gleick and those who support the kind of conduct they represent must be prosecuted…and please this is no place for timidity and bleeding hearts. The time has come for some frontier justice.

A physicist

Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

Rogelio

I’m afraid Monckton is right. I think one or two succesfull prosecutions would suffice. In any case Global temps are not following the agenda at all, in fact one suspects that many lukewartmers are quickly converting to skeptics or even AGW deniers at this stage. As always the data win’s. Even Conolleys graph put up recently from 1978 to current UAH satellite is no showing any significant trend *although they all love to put a trend line through the data haha

Academic freedom means that an academic can say whatever she can scientifically support, without fear for the consequences on career prospects, income, freedom or personal safety.
Committing fraud does not fall under academic freedom.

Joe

I think the best legal recourse for Gleick is to come clean, get a VERY speedy trial, and wrap it up in November-ish just in time to make Obama’s lame-duck list of Presidential Pardons.

Theo Goodwin

I am very pleased to see this post. Gleick should do hard time in a penitentiary for his crime. His considerable wealth should be used to compensate those who suffered because of his crime.

Whether or not one favors this sort of thing often depends on whether or not the person obtaining the documents illegally is acting in a way one perceives of as being beneficial (to one’s personal prejudices, if nothing else). One can work back through many famous cases from Viet Nam down through the present where documents have been “outed” by a process that strictly speaking breaks the law, but where what the documents reveal seems to justify the action a posteriori.
Climate skeptics, for example, speak of the individual(s) who outed the “Climategate” postings as being some sort of hero, in spite of the fact that what he or she or they did is almost certainly, strictly speaking, a criminal act. Of course so is some of what was being revealed by Climategate emails — arguably criminal acts.
In at least the U.S., there is now some degree of protection for “whistle blowers” — people who violate a privacy law to reveal overt lawbreaking on the part of somebody else. Of course this law is hardly consistent, and there are countless exceptions especially where “national security” or “government” is concerned, which is why Wikileaks is in such trouble. Nor does the open publication of “leaked” documents consistently reveal lawbreaking in the first place — in many cases it is merely embarrassing or something that really is private and none of anyone’s business.
For these reasons I think the best thing to focus on in the case of fakegate (why is it that since Watergate — which has nothing to do with a gate — all subsequent leaked documents have to have a “gate” appended? Human language is so strange…;-) is not so much the nominal legality of the alleged phishing of the documents but rather the far more serious charge of fraud. Turnabout is fair play (legal or not, it is fair) so if Climategate was “good” then Fakegate might have been “good” if it weren’t for the “fake” bit!
After all, who bloody cares how climate skeptics are funded, or if? Talk about major league tempest in the smallest of teapots! There are (as has been pointed out) mountains of money available, much of it from highly suspect sources, for any work that supports the “cause” of CAGW and its solution, mandatory carbon trading and the deconstruction of modern civilization. Is there some sort of rule that states that climate skeptics have to be brave and self-sacrificing and pay for their own efforts? Not at all — but of course one way the warmists like to claim that skeptics are biased is by alleging that they are really the catspaws of Big Oil or Coal Mining Capitalists, and are being paid to promote a point of view they don’t even really believe in, in exchange for being made wealthy by under the table payoffs.
Which is truly, truly laughable. I wish. In case any Big Oil execs are listening, don’t hesitate to make me an offer. I can be easily be bought, especially to do work I’m doing anyway without any sort of compensation. Goodness, I guess it is time for me to take a trip down to the Caymans to set up my very own offshore account.
Not.
Sigh.
No, the real issue is the Fake bit. Faking documents to smear an entire body of individuals so that they collectively are taken less seriously in a scientific debate is appallingly unethical, and whether or not it is against civil law, it is almost certainly not outside of the realm of lawsuits seeking compensation and restoration of reputation. Granting agencies should also take careful note, as this is precisely the sort of fraud that corrupts grant funded research in this arena — using any means necessary to not only fail to give fair consideration to opposing arguments, but to destroy those who offer those arguments by any means necessary. That is (and continues to be, at least for me) one of the most shocking things revealed by the Climategate documents — that a cabal of scientific researchers would actually conspired to have journal editors and individuals who sought to publish legitimate scientific results that contradicted their own results discredited and fired. They tried to professionally ruin people for the sin of disagreeing with them!
If you want something that will crush science, it is letting this sort of thing go unpunished. I still await “justice” here, in the form of actual censure and professional consequences for those involved. But I suspect that I will wait for the rest of my life for that.
For justice in the Fakegate case — well, I’m guessing that one thing the Heartland institute does have is enough money to sue the hell out of people for fraud and slander. I’m also guessing that at least some of the individuals involved have gone beyond the bounds where even the most tolerant of wink wink, nod nod, you know what I mean you know what I mean is going to be an acceptable solution. There will indeed be some public eviscerations now, in an effort to salvage what little is left of an already shabby reputation for self-policing of clearly inappropriate means and methods in supposedly scientific inquiry.
rgb

Scottish Sceptic

Lord Monckton, is there anything we can do in the UK?
The BBC believe they are immune from any kind of action, the Guardian likewise don’t believe the Heartland will take them to court.
Somehow we have got to get this to court and show that the law does have a say over what happens when it is totally unethical, immoral and illegal.

Steve Richards

So, who will make a complaint against the British press/meda?

Rob

4. Identity Theft. The wire fraud is separate from stealing the person’s identity.

P. Solar

His lordship is right of course. All the previously known nation states of Europe ceased to be democracies when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by their respective parliaments.
What future generations will despise us for in not out “carbon emissions” but our total acquiescence when democracy was taken from us at the stroke of a pen.
No wonder, then prime minister, Gordon Brown made sure he absent from the photo call for the biggest act of collective treason ever committed.

On top of that, Christopher, The ‘perp’ came right out and admitted it (albeit in a whingy, almost arrogant fashion), so the ball is already on the tee for the ‘investigation’ to proceed. I’m….turning….blue….

“Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic”
Any other approach is WRONG, seems to be Lord Monckton’s opinion…
I wonder who he meant 😉 !
To be honest it would be better if whoever did whatever, confessed now apologised without reservation. Climate Science could see what a dark politicised hole it had gone down, draw a deep breathe and get back to science. Unlike some I take no pleasure in the ‘downfall’ of any particular scientist.

G. Karst

To publish a forged document should always carry a risk of incarceration. Risk can only be perceived, if there is an actual consequence, for ignoring such risk. This makes prosecution necessary, especially if the fraud is clear cut and provable. Such blatant disregard to due process results in cavalier attitude, and such actions will become more frequent.
Gleick should be censored by his peers, but more important, the law should be prosecuted to it’s fullest extent. This will go a long way in preventing such tactics, by anyone… skeptic or advocate. I call on the FBI to act quickly, to secure all evidence, and our courts speedily render judgment. As to Gleick’s peers… shame and dishonor on you all. Your days are numbered, if you cannot demonstrate and enforce scientific standards.
Thank goodness, such behavior is relatively rare in the community. GK

Can someone living in Virginia make this complaint?

RockyRoad

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am

Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.

Bullcrap, physicist. That is one of the biggest lies you have ever stated.
Go get a moral basis, for if you really believe what you have stated above, your are in league with Gleick. And everything Monckton describes as nefarious behavior can be attributed to you–for it makes you equivalent to an accomplice and without moral or legal basis–and you do so willingly.
In addition, I believe you owe everybody you’ve inpugned, especially the accurate and honorable Lord Monckton, a public apology. And do it quickly, sir–do it quickly! Here and now!
(You may be a “critic”, but you are so absolutely and completely wrong on this it simply boggles the mind.)

Charles.U.Farley

Conolley as Baldrick.

In answer to Scottish Sceptic and Steve Richards, my posting points out that fraud charges would not be brought in the UK until they had been brought in the US. The UK frauds depend upon proof – not available within the jurisdiction – that the counterfeit document is just that. So our American cousins must go to the police first (it costs nothing) and then, as soon as convictions for fraudulently circulating a counterfeit document to Heartland’s detriment have been obtained in the US, we can make sure that the police here are asked to investigate the criminality of our too-Marxist media in also circulating the counterfeit document before they took any steps to verify it.

Disko Troop

The result of this fraud is that Greenpeace have now commenced a campaign of multinational proportions to vilify and harass the employees of Heartland. How politicians and even the ordinary members of Greenpeace cannot see the irony in this is beyond me. I could not associate myself with such a disgusting and vile organisation such as Greenpeace and still look at my reflection in the mirror every morning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/23/scientists-heartland-documents-under-fire
“However, Greenpeace and other campaigning groups were working hard on Wednesday to expose a number of individuals who were revealed in the documents to be on Heartland’s payroll, and were planning to put pressure on the publicly-funded institutions that were the main employers.”
That disgraceful communist rag, The Guardian, is cheering this on.
No wonder the GWPF in the UK refuses to reveal its funding.
Self snipped comment to finish

RockyRoad

Robert Brown says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:16 am


For justice in the Fakegate case — well, I’m guessing that one thing the Heartland institute does have is enough money to sue the hell out of people for fraud and slander.

No, suing them for fraud and slander is sufficient. No need for adding “hell”–fraud and slander is definitely sufficient.

JP

“Whether or not one favors this sort of thing often depends on whether or not the person obtaining the documents illegally is acting in a way one perceives of as being beneficial (to one’s personal prejudices, if nothing else). One can work back through many famous cases from Viet Nam …”
Let’s forget about ‘Nam. The Ellesberg case was unique in its time and place. What Gleick did was commit wire fraud (probably 2 counts at the very least). Are these people so niave that they think they are truly above the law. And even with a fellow traveller in the White House, it will be very difficult for the DOJ not to prosecute this case. And if there is a change in parties at the WH and Congress. Gleick could be looking at a decade in the slammer as well as an abrupt end to his career.

That will be the same clerk of parliaments who has written three state secret certificates for FOI requests of mine.
All about covering up what the Lords knew about the peers who are fraudsters.

Latitude

I see a bigger picture….
Gleick is not only the head of the ethics committee…
..he’s supposed to be smart enough to do climate science
What he did is so over the top butt stupid…..
Anyone that does something this stupid,
their judgement about anything can’t be trusted

mbabbitt

A great part of the outrage of this crime is that so many on the climate alarmist side are reflexively rationalizing, excusing, or condoning this behavior. This might be the bigger story – spinning an event so as to make it into something it is not. It exemplifies the Modus operandi of the global warming science community in its core.

Butch Corcoran

No one is interested unless the perp is named Murdock.

Beesaman

The real issue is knowingly stealing someone elses identity to acquire private correspondence.
That is what he will do time for, if there is any justice.
We have a number of journalists here in the UK who have done time or will be, for similar offences using mobile phones and emails.
There was no academic worth in this act and to say there was besmirches the reputations of the rest of us academics who work honestly.
The information he stole from the Heartland Institute was not in the general publics interest as it did not and was not likely to reveal any wrongdoing under the law. Just because you disagree with your neighbour does not give you the right to steal letters from his mailbox while dressed as the mailman. The fact that it appears that having found no legal wrongdoing it would appear that he went on to fake another document (perhaps with outside assistance) not only calls into account his integrity, but also the balance of his mind.

DirkH

Barry Woods says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:31 am
“Climate Science could see what a dark politicised hole it had gone down, draw a deep breathe and get back to science.”
Back to pretending their GCM’s can tell us anything about the future, you mean.

So Lord Moncton, what you were telling a certain sceptic in the UK to do.. collate lots of documents and go into a police station in the UK.. was just WRONG then…. ? ie nothing has happened yet in the USA…
Perhaps A physicist has a point..
Heartland will do what is I hope in the best interests of Heartland, not Lord Monckton, who I believe is part of the problem now.. the general public just don’t know or care about this and do not know or care about anybody who is involved. People that polarise the debate are the problem. Allways have been to some extant, this has prevented nornal science progressing as it should..
The fact that Andrew Montford was invited to speak at the Met Office yesterday, I hope would give a moments pause for thought that alternative approaches may be beneficial, and ultimatley more producitive to achieving the goal. Just an opinion.

Cassandra King

For a proud nation that founded democracy around the world, that fought for freedom at the highest of costs your words sound like an epitaph Lord Monkton.
Our political class have surrendered that supreme quality that marks a free nation of free peoples from an enslaved subject peoples. They have eagerly and secretly handed over something that is not in their gift to give, our sovereignty is not and never was theirs to give away and yet the UK is now to all intents and purposes an enslaved subject state, and to make it worse we didnt go down fighting, our freedom and sovereignty were stolen and the theft covered by lies.
A nation that no longer makes its own laws, houses the supreme judicial authority is no longer a free nation. And yet who among the gutless parasites of Westminster is speaking out? Even your cabinet member feels too afraid to stand up and speak freely under his own name. What nameless fear stalks the corridors of Westminster that free born men cannot stand for their values and speak their minds?
The EU is sinking into the abyss of a new dark age and the CAGW fraud has wreaked incalculable damage on the European economy, the unelected kommissars swagger and preen and act as though they represented a single nation, they do not. They represent nothing but a cancerous evolution of politics, a tawdry collection of non entities and puffed up fools who believe that they alone hold the keys to the future, their dream of a USSR Mk2, the perfection of a state ruled by a technocrat elite unencumbered by such outdated concepts as democracy. The true enemy of the professional politician remains the electorate, we are their most dangerous enemy and their ultimate is to remove that threat. The CAGW fraud has always been a useful vehicle and tool for the EU architects, it allows them to remove freedoms and stifle democracy under the fabricated illusion of an external threat.
The tragedy of our fall from saviour of the world to the sorry pathetic spectacle of a slave state in just one generation, oh how the mighty have fallen not in one last glorious battle but given away by traitors in the night.

Mike M

I relish prosecution of Scientific American who is STILL trotting out the headline a week later: Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program
It was not a leak it was a theft. There is no “Anti-Climate Education Program”.

amoorhouse

So why are the BBC, Guardian, DesmogBlog etc. (and the Telegraph!) in the act of praising Gleick not also praising Mr. FOIA. They are equating the two but are not them treating them equally.
Strange

No. Unless it was a conspiracy with the NCSE? and/or smeg blog etc.
Far better to ask the court to order Gleick to facilitate a set of conferences discussing the various areas of contention, an open public debate. If he doesn’t comply then lock him up, after all he’s the one requesting debate.
It should also be beneath ‘us’ to engage in petty vindicativeness, his reputation if not career is ruined already and I would not wish the US penal system on anyone.

DirkH

A physicist says:
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am
“Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.”
I quote from your link: “Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda ”
But Lord Monckton argues factually. He explains the crimes committed. You don’t argue factually against it because you know he’s right. So you throw up that link with total disregard for its content. Have you even read the text you linked to? I doubt it.

Grant

A Physicist says
“Mr. Monckton’s critics will argue that his WUWT essay exhibits the readily-verified Characteristics of Demagoguery. And the essay itself establishes that these critics are correct.”
No, demagoguery would be encouraging retaliation on you for your senseless posts. He makes a case for prosecuting Gleick based on his criminally fraudulent behavior and damage he has done to individuals who are participating in this discussion about climate change and public policy that addresses it. Heartland has a difference in scientific opinion, has the right to make their case to the public on what they think truth is.
Moncton is stating that they have a reasonable expectation that the law should protect them from malicious acts from idiots like Peter Gleick.

John West

Gleick is a hero; he’s proven beyond any doubt that his ilk will do anything for the “cause”. Everything associated with his name is tainted forevermore; no paper, report, letter, editorial, or opinion that he’s ever been a part of will ever again have any credibility outside of the ever dwindling population of true believers. The IPCC AR5 will most likely cite some of his work and there won’t be enough popcorn to go around as it will discredit the entire work.

Mike M

I should have said still trotting out the headline a week later AND despite the Gleick’s confession and resignation.

Neville

It’s important to note that obtaining information (the parts that are genuine) from the Heartland Institute by impersonating their rightful owner is what several of Murdoch’s journalists in the UK are under arrest for right now. Nevertheless, many people on the left manage to applaud the one (because Murdoch is a political opponent) while excusing the other (because Gleick is an ally). This underlines how careful we need to be about allowing people like this to define what ‘human rights’ are. In their minds their friends will always be “more equal than others”.

DesertYote

A physicist
February 23, 2012 at 8:08 am
###
No one cares what you think except your anti-human fellow travelers. The more you post the more desperate you look.

That was a party political broadcast by Lord Monckton whose total indiscretion about a ‘private meeting’ which he did not attend, and naming a cabinet minister attended of political parties he is in opposition too, has potentially put into jeopardy lots of work by lots of people.. and very possibly all future meetings.
well done

Louis Hooffstetter

If they decide to appoint a special prosecutor, Ken Cuccinelli gets my vote.

A Physicist
If anyone can be charged with demagoguery the surely it must be Peter Gleick.
Attacking the the institute as he has been doing for some considerable time for the express purpose of closing down the debate is a classic case of demagoguery.

DesertYote

Barry Woods
February 23, 2012 at 9:00 am
###
You appear to be under some delusion that both sides are wrong because they have politicized the debate. That is non-sense as there is no debate. It is all politics and has always been politics. One side want to destroy western civilization as a means to bring about their great Marxist utopia, the other side wants to stop them. Global warming is just a pretext.

can’t type when cross. sorry.