The one year anniversary of the Dr. Peter Gleick theft of Heartland documents under false pretenses is coming up on Valentines day, Feb 14th.
I’ve been given the word today via email that there will be some documents released from Heartland that day, and they won’t be stolen ones.
Many people contributed to help Heartland, and Heartland is planning on putting all the cards on the table now. They write:
On Thursday, February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute is releasing a 57-page report produced by its legal counsel, Jones Day, presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in support of criminal prosecution in the matter.
On February 14, 2012 – one year ago – Fakegate began. Like Climategate, it was a scandal revealing the dishonesty and desperation of those who claim man-made global warming (alias “climate change”) is a crisis. Fakegate involved criminal activity, repeated lying, and outright theft by a high-ranking scientist in the global warming movement. How the mainstream media covered the incident spoke volumes about how liberal bias pervades media today.
Details here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Despite his misdeeds, Gleick is a lifetime member of the NAS. From JunkScience;
The situation with America’s National Academy of Science is somewhat more complicated. The Academy is divided into many disciplinary sections whose primary task is the nomination of candidates for membership in the Academy. Typically, support by more than 85% of the membership of any section is needed for nomination. However, once a candidate is elected, the candidate is free to affiliate with any section. The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon…
http://junkscience.com/2012/02/21/gleick-and-the-nas-how-did-become-a-member-will-he-stay-a-member/
He has molested ethics, and probably the law as well, in the same way as he’s molested science; sort of a Jerry Sandusky of climate science.
But, I suppose we shouldn’t be too hard on him. After all, Stephen Schneider said it was ok to find his own moral and ethical line, and what greater good can there be than “saving the planet”?
Ehrlich, Gleick, and who else go into this growing hall of shame? I think it would be instructive to keep a log of the faux moralists and intellectual/academics who have used public laying and calls for lying to push their extremist nonsense.
Steve Schneider comes to mind for this list. Who else?
RESnape,
There is no evidence anything was stolen out of CRU, much less that a skeptic did the leaking/stealing.
Also please show any forged CRU papers, as well as any taken out of context.
Dissembling is something you seem to have a lot of practice with.
But then so do many AGW kooks.
REsnape, the police report is clear in that they believe the CRU mails were stolen from outside and all arguments I’ve seen supports this:
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx
I know that some people would like it to have been an insider job even if the police disagrees.
To become a reviewer of the IPCC report you had to agree not to distribute it further, an agreement that was signed in bad faith by the leaker. But don’t let facts get in the way…
>>ZootCadillac says:
February 11, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Some people have very clearly misunderstood what is happening here.<<
Yes, you and trafamadore, for a start.
@Dave Burton
February 11, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Your comment seems to have joined the ‘missing heat’……or the dog ate it…….or it’s been lost.
Politicized prosecution in the U.S has been facilitated by the stifling of the Constitutions 5th amendment allowance of juries to make presentments via a footnote in 1940-ish to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Now juries only respond to what a prosecutor gives to them. However, the authority is still there, but few jury members know that a grand jury still has the authority to investigate something on their own and make a “presentment” which must be acted on by the court.
Gleick and Lewandosky.
A marriage made in heaven.
catweazle666 – Where exactly is Zoot wrong? I don’t see any evidence that Heartland intends to pursue this civilly. Best I can tell, it’s just whining.
I know Heartland folk read this blog, so for them: I have lost any faith in your organization I may have had. You refuse to take a stand, therefore, I refuse to offer any support. Change your ways and I’ll change mine. I’m not a fan of wasting my donations.
Looks like the trollops cashed their checks this week. They’re back in force spouting absurd claims, blowing brimstone and challenging without facts nor truth on their side.
Don’t feed the trolls and trollops!
Ignore their blather and without influence their weekly paychecks from eco-greens will wither and drift away with the rest of their obscurations and falsifications.
Considering you can’t even spell the name of one of your heroes properly, when it’s spelled properly in the text you quoted, why should we believe the accuracy of anything you say?
Of course you totally ignore the mass of “industrial” funding received by alarmists, like Jones, Mann, etc…
@ATheoK, In the case of trafmadore, I figure he comes here to learn, and he’s been schooled rather nicely several times. Mission accomplished.
Mac the Knife says:
February 11, 2013 at 6:23 pm
What is the basis of the US Attorneys decision to not prosecute?
========
Friends in high places. Justice may be blind, but she hears the clink of silver well enough.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
Ironically, the “land of the free” has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Having learned nothing from prohibition in the 1920’s which created the era of the Chicago gangster, in the early 1970’s the US created highly profitable drug cartels by limiting competition via the legal system. This allowed illegal drug monopolies to flourish, which significantly increased the financial incentive to expand the drug trade. As happened in the 1920’s this led to an ever increasing cycle of violence as groups sought control of the highly lucrative drug business, while the funds generated were used to corrupt police and public officials at all levels. This highly profitable situation remains to this day with devastating effects on portions of the US population. Officials that have spoken out have been removed from office, effectively silencing any discussion of alternatives. Too many folks on both sides of the law now rely on the drug trade for their living for them to support a change.
Heartland should have pursues a Writ Of Mandamus to compel the attorney general to do his job and file charges.
I look forward to reading HI’s forthcoming 57-page legal report produced by its legal counsel that was submitted to the US Attorney’s Office in Illinois.
It will be an education.
I am sure the AGU’s leadership will continue their moral support and fawning adoration of AGU member Gleick in spite of whatever the legal report says.
I am sure the US House of Representatives leadership will use the report as leverage.
John
@trafamadore.
You are deflecting. Stay on the issue at point. This is about a clearly admitted case of wire fraud. Whatever your perceived notion of Heartland’s business and whatever the actual facts of that very broad business they have no bearing on the actual acts of wrongdoing in this particular instance. Would you have a rapist admit his crime and then suggest that he should not be prosecuted because his victim believes in sky gods and ghosts? It’s irrelevant and deflection.
@Thomas. It appears the hypocrisy is closer to home. You are fully aware that no evidence exists that the CRU emails were ever stolen. There exists an opinion by a member of the police team. There is no more or no less evidence for this than there is evidence to suggest they were a leak. No more or no less. Nobody knows.
Whatever the truth of that matter it has nothing to do with Heartland. They were not involved in the obtaining or the dissemination of the material so I fail to understand your point.
The Thomas, you go on to mention the draft IPCC report as thought that was obtained under false pretences. That’s clearly not the case. A reviewer, properly accepted as such, decided that it was in the public interest to release the draft IPCC report. We know this because he made it plain to us all who he was and why he did this. Publication was by that same person.
This again has nothing to do with Heartland.
So your logic is that because you misunderstand what you perceive to be wrongs by some other parties both known and unknown you insist that Heartland have no cause for complaint in a clear and admitted case of deception ( I’m trying to avoid the spam bin here ).
I think I’m not alone in following your logic.
@catweazle666 please tell me exactly where I am wrong in this. And please don’t lump me with trafamadore. I may not be the most academically blessed person to ever visit here but I’d like to think my comprehension skills are far above those displayed by that particular persistent troublemaker in these comments.
As for comments about trolls? I hope none of that was directed in my direction. My posting history should show that I make my thoughts known here in good faith with a genuine will to further the discussion. I was always told to say what you mean and tell the truth, no matter how distasteful.
To me this shows that we are at the end of it and apart from a little show to come Gleick has walked away from a crime hurt only in the eyes of people who already had no respect for him. i.e. Scott Free.
trafamadore says:
February 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
“a GW conference each year with hand picked pseudo scientists.”
Scientists supporting the AGW theme have been repeatedly invited to Heartland conferences almost all have ignored the invitations. I can’t recall his name but there was one AGW proponent that did attend and speak and was courteously received. Typically, trafamadore makes derogatory statements without even bothering to do any research.
@ATheoK
Are you quite sure that you have understood the meaning of the word trollop?
The only connection it might have with the word troll is in the old English meaning of ‘to roll around’ you know, in the hay, like I believe some young people are wont to do 🙂
ZootCadillac says:
February 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm
“Frankly I find this ridiculous. Another mistake by Heartland. They can’t get a criminal prosecution, so what? They should have the courage of their convictions, put the money that we give them up front and pursue a civil case. If they are so confident of the material then it should be no risk.”
ZootCadillac, it is easy for you to play the armchair lawyer but perhaps you do not really understand the law. Do you not think that Heartland has had legal advice on this matter? Do you not comprehend that in a civil case, the plaintive must be able to show damages? It is debatable whether Heartland was damaged by Gliek’s actions. Heartland lost some donors but gained other donors through the publicity. Arguably, the publicity raised Heartland’s profile at the expense of Gleik and his crowd.
– – – – – –
ZootCadillac,
Perhaps a feminine gendered troll should be called a trollette?
I officially do not support calling a feminine gendered troll a troll bitch. That would be uncivil. N’est ce pas?
John
@Robert Austin
It’s not particularly easy to play the armchair lawyer as it’s not my field. It’s especially difficult considerer that I’m from the UK and although the UK and the US share a common basis in law our laws and tests regarding libel are much different. So you are correct in assuming that perhaps I don’t fully understand the law. I do have some experience of it however.
I know Heartland had legal advice on this matter. I expect that I paid, in part, for that. I do understand that in a civil case damages would have to be proven. I also know that a loss of sponsors as a direct result of the actions are easily proven and would show damage. A gain in some other sponsors be it net or otherwise is in no way an offset to the fact that monetary damage was received. The plaintiff can also show malice in this case. The history of attack from Gleick and associates can clearly demonstrate a will to harm Heartland.
Heartland have persistently claimed that they are the wronged party and that they are confident that their evidence supports this position. The AG for reasons unknown to me does not support this stance. That’s why a civil case must be undertaken. Unless of course they have received advice not to pursue as it’s not a case they can win. Then I’d like to see that advice because a great many of us have paid for it with donations. If it turns out that the advice contradicts the confident position of Heartland then we should hear about it.
If the advice supports that confident position than we should not be seeing games played in the media, we should be seeing writs issued.
But this is just my opinion. IANAL armchair or otherwise.
@John Whitman
You raise a good point John. I personally consider the pronoun troll as pertaining to the internet, to derive from the verb ‘to troll’ as in one who trolls ( trawls ) the internet in search of prey ( forum posters ) to antagonise, promote anger and instigate argument.
It actually used to be a bit of an artform and was done by people who would expose internet idiots and bigots for what they were. Using clever argument, inciteful dialogue and intelligent traps to make a person so incensed that their own bad behaviour, lack of reasoning and understanding could be shown to the community that was being deceived.
It’s become so very much different since then. It’s a shame. The internet troll was a funny and clever person to watch at work. now it’s just a word to describe anyone who wants to argue in a forum ( that’s flaming ) and anyone who holds a contrary viewpoint to the consensus of the community where the ‘troll’ is posting.
Trolls used to be a good thing but in the terms of the internet they were never Scandinavian, goat-eating beasts living under bridges and so not gender specific. That’s again, another thing all together 🙂
{ trafamadore says:
February 11, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
As in the classroom, I ask, can someone pls help Mr. Cook? }
Aha…..
I have had my doubts regarding your claim to be a teacher. But as a very good student of many disciplines including the teaching profession, I recognize this ploy. It is most often used by inferior teachers, who, when confronted with a question beyond their mental capabilities, deflect the question to much brighter students, thus preserving a modicum of respect.
Old habits will sneak up on you.
ZootCadillac *You* may have no evidence that the CRU mails were stolen, but then you don’t have access to the complete police investigation, do you? I take their opinion ahead on an anonymous person on Internet any day. They have access to the computer logs, but to track hackers that take the minimal precaution of using proxies in other countries require a lot of work if it is at all possible so they couldn’t identify the thief. Russian media has claimed it was Russian hackers, but I don’t know if they have any evidence either, or if they just base it on the fact that the mails first appeared on a Russian website.
You claim this has nothing to do with Heartland, but the sentence I quoted and that I think was hypocritical was written by Heartland. If they think stealing information is so bad they shouldn’t gloat over stolen information.
You shouldn’t buy Rawls sob story why he felt obliged to leak the IPCC report either. He signed a non disclosure agreement and violated it deliberately once he had found a single sentence he could take out of context and make a big issue of. Not that I think anyone was surprised it was leaked. Given the number of reviewers it was inevitable, and in the long run it doesn’t matter.
– – – – – – –
ZootCadillac,
I enjoyed your well styled reply about a broad view of trolls both in myth and in the Internet. Thanks.
I can have some close empathy with those on the internet who find it good intellectual exercise to randomly pick a position in a blog thread on the spur of the moment and make a best argument for it. I would not consider that behavior as trolling if done so by saying in advance that it is what one is doing. The devil’s advocate position is educational and honorable. I think the threshold for being a troll is when over a sufficient timescale it becomes obvious that a commenter is intentionally using a condescending and contemptuous behavior toward a blog venue with the goal of discrediting the venue’s reputation. A troll in that sense is attempting a goal other than any specific dialog thread per se. It takes a while to see that is what a commenter is consistently doing.
But, recently when Lazy Teenager was banned here at WUWT, I initially concurred . . . . then I started to have the feeling that something greater was lost in doing so than was gained. The feeling still surprises me.
Also recently, after more than 4 years commenting often here at WUWT, I was called a troll for the first time by one of the most prolific commenters here on WUWT; by richardscourtney. Apparently there was a perceived fundamental threat to WUWT’s reputation by my recent comment pattern. That was quite interesting, to say the least. My philosophical journey and education continues into the unknown country that is the future.
John