Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Here is something from your link:
>> To recap for those who weren't following along at home, last week, someone emailed a bunch of climate bloggers documents that purportedly came from the Heartland Institute, a think tank which has been active in promoting skepticism about global warming:
>> Dear Friends (15 of you):
>> In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.
So, like so many profitably industries the powers that be are aligning to oppose the science of global warming like the cigarette industry did with the medical case against tobacco and cigarettes.
I don't see anything wrong with stealing documents or releasing them to the public when done in a whistleblower role … like Wikileaks, remember them?
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 22, 2012 at 9:29 pm
The content of the real stolen documents was unremarkable-- however they were confidential documents which were obtain by fraud and theft by Gleik --he has already confessed to these crimes.
If the company violated were Apple, Oracle, Google, HP etc- then Gleik would be in jail tonight and all his computers and records would be in police custody.
The 2 page document faked by Gleik was written by Gleik , according to forensic experts--it has his typical writing style and punctuation errors--it was writing through different software and originated in California--not Chicago.
The fact that Gleik forged a document and committed fraud is the final nail in the coffin of Gleiks career--he is now a pariah.
He will very probably end up in jail for a long time and will definitely end up bankrupt
--also the case now involves the FBI as there was interstate fraud and theft by Gleik
Unfortunately Gleik has severely damaged the reputations of the many decent, ethical scientists whom he conned.
Posted by Rufus, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Heartland is funded by Big Oil to attempt to discredit and attack Climate Change.
The documents give us a look into some of the shady dealings of Heartland and the biostitutes who take the oil money.
Such as "a senior policy analyst at the Department of the Interior, had broken rules by accepting a monthly stipend" from Heartland.
"Greenpeace has written similar letters of protest to six universities including Harvard, the University of Missouri, Michigan Technical University and Arizona State University in the US, and the University of Victoria and Lakehead University in Canada about scientists revealed to have received funds from Heartland to work on its big anti-IPCC effort.
...the funds violated conflict of interest regulations for government-funded research projects."
Unremarkable, yes, if one is wearing the same blinders as you.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Gleik now faces Federal and Local indictments for fraud, theft and forgery.
The respective Grand Juries are apparently now in motion
The Gleik civil case in which he is the defendant together with his company is in place--that is why his company has attempted to distanced itself from Gleiks act of fraud, theft and forgery--they put this statement on their company website on Wednesday
The Guardian, Nation, Atlantic etc have all called Gleik a fraud and said that the real documents are unremarkable
Gleiks faked and fraudulent 2 page document is what his -- now past--friends fear
Gleik is now a pariah in the scientific climate reasearch community
Gleik has destroyed the credibility of the AGW scientific community
Posted by Marie Lawrence, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Feb 24, 2012 at 10:44 am
Sharon - you were asked about the content of what was released.
Funny line! <crickets>
so true !!! Sharon won't acknowledge the content (golly, shucks, it's "unremarkable" apparently because it doesn't fit her world view.)
It's a toxic subject these days, where one side won't even look at facts, or even discuss their former positions. McCain warned us of climate change, Palin was for cap and trade, both just 3 years ago. were they untruthful then, or untruthful now? We know Romney's untruthful all the time, he also flipped on climate change to court the tea party.
"No GOP candidates or policymakers want to touch the issue, and those of us trying to educate them are left frustrated," Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN <my emphasis>, told InsideClimate News. "Climate change has become a third rail in politics."
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm
You do realize your posts are internally inconsistent. You claim Gleick is facing indictments and then say grand juries are meeting.
You can't have both. Oh, well, at least you quit pretending you were a lawyer a few years back.
Of course, I can't find independent sources for some of what you claim is happening. Seems to me that Gleick has *admitted* he phished to get access to e-mails and internal documents--deceptive, yes, but theft? Heartland and its cronies are claiming Gleick forged one document, but the evidence for that seems to be lacking at this point.
Many of the supposed repercussions you claim are happening seem to be, well, not actually happening.
And, yes, there's the problem of the actual content of Heartland's memos. <crickets> sums it up nicely.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2012 at 12:49 am
I read some of the coverage--and you're embellishing as is your wont. No charges have been made and, from what I've read, no grand juries have convened. Gleick has acknowledged phishing to get the e-mails, but has denied writing any and passing them off as someone else's work. Not really a case of document forgery of the sort that brings criminal prosecutions. Well, as I said ages ago, it's a good thing you no longer pretending to be a lawyer.
I asked you because what you were claiming was said was something that had little do with the reportage I had read.
For someone upset about falsehoods, I find your own disregard of the facts quite curious.
And, yes, your unwillingness to deal with the content of the e-mails is amusing.
Posted by Jarred, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm
This article by Steven F. Hayward annihilates the lame attempts to defend Gleick by the Warmists. It is gratifying to see that the greatest scientific fraud in recent history is finally entering its death throes, its fast-dwindling cohort of supporters having been winnowed down to a last alliance of the overtly mendacious and the hopelessly gullible.
Posted by That User Name is already, a resident of another community, on Feb 26, 2012 at 8:29 pm That User Name is already is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Heartland does not disclose it funders. Isn't that strange?
Part of the documents you call insignificant:
"The documents showed that the institute planned to provide climate sceptical materials to teachers in the USA to promote their ideas to school children. Furthermore, it can also be read, that climate sceptics were being paid by The Heartland Institute, namely the founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), physicist Fred Singer ($5,000 plus expenses per month), geologist Robert Carter ($1,667 per month) and a single pledge of $90,000 to meteorologist Anthony Watts." Web Link
Funny that Heartland now doesn't like leaked emails. They sang a different tune two years ago during climategate:
Very ironic. Or disingenuous. Or bald face liars. Choose your term.
In 2009, Heartland said:
"The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position.... This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly."
Seems like they liked openness and transparency. What happened?