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.
I agree with ZootCadillac, it gives you a smug feeling when surrounded by your friends, but out there it’s just another self defeating loss. The greater community don’t even know or care about this if you don’t take it up to them, publicly and loudly challenge them, then like all bullies they get away with it and are encouraged to go on doing it, why worry – it’s not like Heartland actually DO anything about it do they?
If this happened in a a school yard, you’d be tagged, “losers”, sorry to be harsh, but you’re playing the big game here, and that’s a weak and lame move.
Either chest up, or shut up.
@John Whitman Thanks for the response. I have so much to say in reply. I’m just a little busy right now. I want to acknowledge your comment.
@Thomas Really, must I explain it to you again in words that you can’t misunderstand?
@Thomas: You wrote “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…”
First: The IPCC is supposed to be transparent. So at least that truth comes out… They are intentionally not transparent.
Second: Gleick admitted stealing the reports. And the reports were modified. So your ilk is at least factually criminal on one count and probably on both counts as dishonest as you are misguided.
Third: There is no conclusive evidence that skeptics are guilty of the same as your ilk.
Do you understand the difference?
As expected, WUWT is carrying water for the Heartland Institute again.
Also, it’s amusing that Anthony Watts continues to write things like “I’ve been given the word today via email” whenever he is fed information by Heartland. Come on, just admit that Heartland is the source for all these pro-Heartland pieces. Honestly, no one is fooled by the ham-fisted attempts to conceal the ties between Heartland and WUWT.
@Jake Diamond Gosh. I got an email from Heartland (like a bunch of other people did). The Horror!
Good luck to Heartland. But they may have to wait another four years.
My case of grand theft has been stalled for over six years. We just toss the Democrats out of office and have a different District Attorney. (Republican) Last week we were called to the courthouse and the District Attorney apologized saying he could not understand why the case had been gathering dust for so long. It was the oldest case on the docket by far….
Given one of the thieves had an office wall plastered with 10X12 framed glossies of him shaking hand with all the democrats in the state and even Clinton, I think I have a good idea why the case got buried deep.
The last time I had talked to the previous bunch down at the courthouse I was told despite the fact of having previous records the max sentence would be 2 months probation so didn’t I just want to drop charges??? In the years before that we were called to the courthouse several times and had to sit all day only to find out the court had told the thieves they could go home first thing in the morning but never gave us the same courtesy. GRRrrrr
It is amazing all of the ways the guilty can be ‘protected’ if they have political pull even when caught red handed. It took three times of spotting the guy with the stolen property to get the cops off their butts to arrest him despite having given them name, address, phone #, drivers license, photo and current location. Each time I was told the police were “TOO BUSY” to make the arrest despite the outstanding warrant.
Complete contempt doesn’t even begin to describe my feeling for the US court system and “law” enforcement.
“I got an email from Heartland (like a bunch of other people did).”
@Anthony Watts
Of course you did. It’s obvious that when Heartland wants to push a story, they contact all of their pals for help. You are clearly on their list.
Again, my point is that you have a habit of framing these transactions in a way that seems designed to disguise your ties to Heartland. For example, I noticed you used the same technique with respect to the story about the debate between Heartland’s James Taylor and Ray Bellamy. It’s apparent that Heartland wanted to push that story and as usual, you were used as a conduit. I have no problem with that arrangement, but it seems a bit disingenuous for you to pretend that Heartland hasn’t prompted you to deliver their message to your readers.
REPLY: Oh please, I get lots of stuff from Heartland I never carry. I get lots of stuff from other NGO’s too. I carried this because WUWT covered the story – Anthony
Bob Tisdale
Today is Monday February 11th.
See you on Thursday
Actually for English speekers its C U Next Thursday
“I get lots of stuff from Heartland I never carry.”
@Anthony Watts
It’s wonderful that you want to share that information, but it is completely irrelevant to my point. Again, if Heartland feeds you a story, why don’t you explicitly acknowledge the source? As I said in my first comment, you have a history of carrying water for the Heartland Institute, so why do you continue to pretend that you were alerted to the story by an unnamed source?
Your ties to Heartland run pretty deep. I don’t think any amount of misdirection covers up the fact that Heartland uses you and your blog as a conduit for their PR.
REPLY: I did explicitly acknowledge them as a source and PROVIDED a link to the source in the article. See the very bottom. Gosh are you really that inept at reading? Apparently so. Look, you can imagine anything you want, but the fact is I carried a press release from them because it was relevant here, get over it. I find it telling that you apparently support Dr. Peter Gleick’s criminal actions. Your ties must run deep. – Anthony
(Snip. Too nasty and insulting for this moderator’s taste. ~ mod.)
(Snip. ~ mod.)
Looks like “Jake Diamond” is just another fake name. Right Mr. Clarke?
Many are eagerly awaiting the 57 page legal summary within a matter of 24 hours or less now….
fyi, as a reminder to “team” members (and all of us) not to be over-confident in our own judgment, one of my all-time favorite comments on any blog invites quotation now…. (see below)…. on Feb. 18, 2012, just two days before Gleick’s “confession” as a limited partial halfway hangout ala Watergate notoriety, a proudly self-confident Michael Tobis ridiculed the increasing speculations that Gleick was centrally involved.
Here is what Tobis said to beat back increasingly accurate blog inferences that Gleick was likely to have been involved:
Michael Tobis stumbles on Gleick’s Fakegate
Now anyone can be wrong anytime on some off-the-cuff blog comment, no doubt, but what is interesting is that Tobis and his ilk then considered it so unthinkable (“ludicrous” was his term), yet as soon as loyal team members needed to re-adjust to the new “story” how many of them (including Tobis) have since lined up to continue to bash Heartland while condoning, praising, or defending Gleick’s behavior in a variety of ways?
If it was at all reasonable to say in advance that it was “ludicrous” to think Gleick had been involved, before his own confession, then that implies the behavior was so reckless, unethical, anti-professional, and/or illegal that it should be unthinkable for any serious scientist or professional.
Yet, Gleick confessed to key parts of the unethical (and illegal) behavior. He has not yet confessed to forging the “strategy memo” but he did confess to the “phishing” of Heartland by impersonating someone else (reportedly a former astronaut and US Senator). The irony is that the spotlight focused on Gleick BECAUSE of the language of the fake “strategy memo” which Mosher and others zeroed in on. Gleick was fingered BEFORE he confessed due to the idiosyncratic language in the forged memo which seemed distinctive to him (a memo which he pretends came to him from some other source … yeah, right). Not to mention that the writer of the forged memo must have been the only person in the world who viewed Peter Gleick and his blog at Forbes to be the central bastion in the climate wars…. More popcorn…..
link for the Tobis quotation from WUWT:
Michael Tobis stumbles on Gleick’s Fakegate
“…The suggestion that someone as socially adept and successful as Peter Gleick is involved in this proposed clumsy heist and forgery is ludicrous and not worth considering either way….”
— Michael Tobis on WUWT, February 18, 2012 —
The familiar fiction character called Jake Diamond was excellent in clutching at straws, exciting in catching water in a net and entertaining in counting to infinity.
Come to think of it, this thread’s commenter calling himself Jake Diamond is too. : )
John
trafamadore says:
February 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
“Let’s see, second hand smoke doesnt hurt anyone and a GW conference each year with hand picked pseudo scientists.”
Hey Trafy! Can you say, “argumentum ad hominem?” And how about, “straw man?” Apparently these are your tactics of choice when you want to ‘compete’ with the big boys and big girls, but don’t have anything substantive to add to the discussion, and aren’t open to learning anything that conflicts with your precious little preconceptions.
Please refresh my aging memory. Who’s the one that first brought up second hand smoke in this thread? You’re the second hand smoke around here.
Here we can read about how much Heartland was hurt, yet not long ago they bragged about how they weren’t hurt:
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/06/reports-of-heartlands-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated/
If they do go to court they may regret that blog post.
Not to my knowledge. If people thought the appelation of ‘Troll’ to their actions was favorable and appreciative they have some social compatibility issues.
Before the Internet there were BBs, (Bulletin Boards); usage of ‘Troll’ was an insulting description applied to annoying posters who either ignored facts or/and used endlessly circular logic. yes, it was likely derived from the fact that these poster ‘trolled’ bulletin board threads looking for reactions and that they took pleasure in their malice. The worst of the trolls were profoundly and profanely obnoxious. Managers and moderators of BBs often had to review and approve every post if they wanted their BB to remain family friendly. Cycle times for posts getting posted to the board were often overnight.
That descriptive term migrated to the Internet when trolls found a new place to make their personal cesspools.
Before BBs and subsequently concurrently there were; a game series called D&D (Dungeons and Dragons), Sword and Sorcery fiction and the imaginative Society for Creative Anachronism who hosted many medieval fairs, games and re-enactments. These latter groups provide the colloquial usage of ‘trollop’ as meaning a female troll.
There is some confusion about formal ‘troll and trollop’ derivation; especially if one insists on formal English etymology. “Between Troll and Trollop, Or, An Etymologist’s Small Worries”
Trollops were/are female trolls in recent colloquial usage. But if you insist, strumpet will work.