So, it turns out that Heartland was behind the Heartland leak after all.

The evidence seems to suggest that Heartland’s Joe Bast wrote a memo, then he and/or Heartland-symp blogger Steven Mosher sent it secretly to Peter Gleick. Peter Gleick then obtained additional material from Heartland, which came to him at his request but all to easily to be explained as a mere oversight on the part of some administrative or secretarial staff. The only thing missing here is evidence that Bast or Mosher or someone suggested to Peter that he verify the memo by asking for related documents from Heartland. But that would be too easy.

Anyway, it now seems clear that the document, the allegedly faked internal strategy memo with the most damning text in it (but nothing really different from what is shown in other verified Heartland documents) was fed to Gleick, presumably in an effort to engineer his downfall as an incipient board member of the National Center for Science Education.

Brilliant. Heartland: 1 … NCSE: 0
…
-http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland-1_ncse-0.php#more

So it is conspiracy after all. Peter Gleick never wrote the fake document, and man never walked on the moon.

Weird! You weren’t here writing that when some anonymous hacker stole the “climategate” e mails. All this concern for the Heartland heartbreakers’ honesty is mere concern trolling.

On second hand smoke (2007)
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/11/01/wheres-consensus-secondhand-smoke

Asbestos (2002)
http://heartland.org/editorial/2002/09/22/testimony-asbestos-litigation-0

Inconvient Truth (2006)
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/july-2006-inconvenient-truth-about-al-gore

These are all displayed on their site. How can anyone consider them hidden?

……………………………

Sheez, my eyes hurt.

How did you ever come to the conclusion that Gleick is a faker? While there are some questions about his behaviour, being a fake is not one of them. If anything, he himself says that he did what he did in order to confirm that Heartland is the source of the documents.

He put himself on the line to confirm that what he was presenting was not fake, that what he, himself, received from Heartland was the real deal.

Take your head out of the sand and give it a shake.”

Well let’s see. Gleick has already admitted to doing something that is legally a crime in some places (identity theft to execute a social engineering hack), so it isn’t completely unreasonable to think that he may have (in an “ends justifies the means” sort of way) also actually used those documents he social engineered to create another (more damaging) document. Since that damaging document is the one document he didn’t get from Heartland directly (heck of an oversight for a would be social engineer), it’s the one document that can not be confirmed as being real. Hmmm, what a coincidence.

You see, that’s the way most people are going to see it. If he was willing to lie about A because he’s a believer, he might just be willing to lie about B. The authenticity of document is now very much in question. Declaring it a fake is not as unreasonable as some seem to think.

And as it is the only document among the released that illustrates any smoking gun, there is no need for Heartland to defend anything.

This is all about Peter Gleick and the Alarmists’ attempts to discredit global warming skeptics through lies and forgeries.

Game, set, match.

Utter bilge.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012)%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20(2).pdf

(169)Messier Tidy Upper
“Congress has a group set to investigate this affair or at least some elements of it. ”

No
1) A congressmen wants to investigate Indur Goklany for conflict of interest.
2)Heartland openly lists him as a contributor, which suggests what he is doing isn’t illegal
http://heartland.org/indur-goklany

“Apparently one careful study by Brendan DeMille and Richard Littlemore has concluded the heartland memo they claim is faked is not.”

Meanwhile people who believed they were fake were able to (correctly) predict Gleick was the leak because of the characterists of the document. In science this is called predictive power.

(162) Ron1
“How did you ever come to the conclusion that Gleick is a faker? While there are some questions about his behaviour, being a fake is not one of them. If anything, he himself says that he did what he did in order to confirm that Heartland is the source of the documents.

He put himself on the line to confirm that what he was presenting was not fake, that what he, himself, received from Heartland was the real deal.”

WRONG. Gleick said the anonymous document and the documents he requested from HI weren’t fakes. He never said he released the anonymous document. Writing a fake document is perfectly consistent with what he said.

Read what the man and his lawyer said, not what you want him to say.

This is another black eye for global warmthers and could balloon into a full-blown scandal. Those supporting Glieck might be wise to put some distance between him and themselves.

Oh, shut up, you myopic moron.

That is, he lied, and in doing so made himself a hypocrite and undermined his own and many others’ efforts promoting ethical conduct. That you are willing to overlook his duplicity while condemning HI for lying makes you a hypocrite too.

Oh, the humanity – our strategic reserves of popcorn are running low.

@ dmbeaster: Gleick claims to have received from an unknown source by mail (not email) a “document”, no “s” at the end, so singular. He claims to have authenticated that said document (again singular) with the documents (with s at the end, so plural) he received from Heartland (after impersonating someone else – see “HP pretexting”* for reference). At least try to read Gleick’s statement with a critical eye, will ya?

* “Partially as a result of the case [HP's pretexting], however, congress passed a law specifically prohibiting pretexting.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hewlett-Packard_spying_scandal&oldid=468460001#cite_ref-22

Gleick wanted to confirm the authenticity of documents anonymously leaked to him. The Heartland Institute will not confirm that directly to Gleick (since they are in the business of lying, and will not communicate with people who can effectively counter their crap), but they will provide the information to some anonymous person by sending the same information to the anonymous person over the internet. There is no fraud, deceit, or anything wrong with this. The Heartland Institute gave the information voluntarily to some stranger over the internet – they had no concern about releasing the information – they just rudely would not give it to Gleick. Except for the one document, Heartland confirm that Gleick’s documents are all accurate.
So just deal with the fact that the documents show the fraud at the core of climate denial organizations such as Heartland.

And, to the equivocators, dumping a hundred million years worth of sequestration into the environment in 150 years… probably, catastrophic.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/faked_heartland_institute_is_a.php

Apparently one careful study by Brendan DeMille and Richard Littlemore has concluded the heartland memo they claim is faked is not.

Plus :

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartland_institute_under_cong.php

Congress has a group set to investigate this affair or at least some elements of it.

Finally, here’s PZ Myers (Pharnygula blogs) typically aggressive take :

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/21/no-sympathy-for-the-devil/

on the whole issue for those who haven’t yet seen that.

Hope folks find these interesting / handy /enjoyable.

oy!

“It couldn’t possibly be Peter Gleick! Look at all his essays on ethical science, how dare you besmirch his name!”

*Peter Gleick confesses to obtaining the documents through identity theft, but denies faking one*

“Wait, Gleick did it? Well, this is a surprise, but this just goes to show how principled he is, waging war against bad science. My hero! Hang on, you’re accusing him of making a fake? It couldn’t possibly be Peter Gleick! Look at all his essays on ethical science, how dare you besmirch his name!”

Sigh. Essentially, ‘hypocrisy is OK provided it is done by the people I like’.

I think Dr. Schmidt has a point, although he overstates the case — probably out of disappointment with a trusted colleague.

“I saw that you did no understood what I said.
“

You’re not a native English speaker are you? That’s nothing against you, but it does apparently limit your comprehension of what you read here.

Once again, I understand this situation better than you. Here’s the proof:

“and PETER GLEICK IS THE FAKER!!!!!”

Sorry; that’s just an emotional reaction. You need to take a break and put things in perspective.