10 replies to this topic

[NewfoundlandFrog]

I have zero comment on the rightness or wrongness of the released docs.  I'm happy with what is already well and truly documented in, for  example, the tobacco papers and don't need a "__gate"

That said,  compare the rhetoric of this release to the rhetoric of the "Climategate" era on various  denier blogs. Imagine the reaction if the climate research community  had even tried to attempt to use such language.

Imagine for example some of our resident crew roasting Jones, Mann, etc if they had tried this release . Remember what they did say: 1. this was illegal, 2 here's what we meant by the out of context quotes.

Not so Heartland.   ...

The following statement from The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution:
Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several  documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget,  fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen  from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s  president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was  traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has  not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland  Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and  discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone  associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express  Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and  gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to  immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from  them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations  from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to  publish retractions. [Imagine the derision if Jones/Mann/etc. had said this!]

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not  wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents.  We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal  offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for  damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular  to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from  the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions. []

How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by  an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland  board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board  materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are  criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person  and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.  [Anyone else come to mind who should be prosecuted???, naaahhhh.]


Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors  whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to  many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents  were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to  support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and  our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming  debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity  impugned. [Worried about anyone else??? Naaahhhh.]

Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal  acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common  decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change  debate to sit back and think about what just happened. [Uh, Nov 2009 ring a bell???]
  

Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before  we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of  their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when  judging their credibility now and in the future. [Good God.]

[Whisky Dude]

[George F. Will]

Sounds like lawyer talk to me...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

George F. Will, on 16 February 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

Sounds like lawyer talk to me...

True. But you know very well the hay, the alleged conspiracies, the alleged dishonesty and cheating that would have been made out of such talk by a number here.

[George F. Will]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 16 February 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

True. But you know very well the hay, the alleged conspiracies, the alleged dishonesty and cheating that would have been made out of such talk by a number here.

It is interesting to note the difference in how the incidents were handled.  Heartland was more prepared in handling this situtation.  Maybe scientists should employ the same risk management techniques.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

George F. Will, on 16 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

It is interesting to note the difference in how the incidents were handled.  Heartland was more prepared in handling this situtation.  Maybe scientists should employ the same risk management techniques.

Heartland is at base a communications/PR organization. Science research groups are not.

[George F. Will]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 16 February 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

Heartland is at base a communications/PR organization. Science research groups are not.

Very true.  I think of the Von's case with Jack in the Box all the time...

[RSF]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 16 February 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

Heartland is at base a communications/PR organization. Science research groups are not.

Must be one of those dirty liberal ones, being based in Chicago after all.....

[George F. Will]

Megan McArdle goes through great length to cast doubt on HI's memo.

[Frog79]

George F. Will, on 17 February 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Megan McArdle goes through great length to cast doubt on HI's memo.

Yes, she pretty much debunks Heartland document's authenticity and she is a known warmist, hardly friendly to skeptics.  But at least she's honest, unlike some here.  Andy Revkin, rabid alarmist at the NYT, published the document but now also thinks it may be fake.

I have no problem with the stolen documents (the authentic ones, if any) being published.  They show nothing of importance anyway.  What I have a problem with is alarmists' publishing a fake document in an attempt to smear a free-enterprise think tank.  

As for trying to equate this with climategate, Newf and Duq are delusional yet again.  The fraud here is that at least one of the documents is clearly a fake while the climategate emails are real, confirmed by Mann, Jones, et al.  Not only that but the few non-faked, stolen Heartland documents that are apparently authentic only have donor information and nothing incriminating.  

Contrast that with the climategate emails which detail AGW scientists attempting fraud, data manipulation, admissions that climate models are wrong, attempts to keep skeptic research out of the peer-reviewed literature, etc.  

As far as I know no skeptic has made up and leaked fake documents like the warmistas have done with the Heartland document.  That just shows you how the ethics-challenged alarmists do business when they are losing.  But hey, the end justifies the means when you are drinking the AGW kool-aid.

[Frog79]

George F. Will, on 16 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

It is interesting to note the difference in how the incidents were handled.  Heartland was more prepared in handling this situtation.

That's because Heartland has nothing to hide and was smeared with fake documents spread by dishonest (possibly criminal) alarmists.  The AGW scientists, OTOH, were caught red-handed with authentic documents detailing the hiding of data, conspiring to obstruct FOIA requests, perverting the peer-review process, admitting their models were crap, etc.  When you are guilty  you tend to panic when caught and that is what happened with Climategate.  Fortunately the public and politicians are onto their scam now, in large part because of Climategate.