Heartland Demands DeSmogBlog Remove ''Climate Strategy" Document

Sun, 2012-02-19 14:34Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Heartland Demands DeSmogBlog Remove ''Climate Strategy" Document

Why isn't this girl smoking?

DeSmogBlog will leave them in place - in the public interest

Heartland Institute general counsel Maureen Martin has sent letters to the DeSmogBlog and several other publications demanding that we remove all Heartland-related documents that we posted on February 14, as well as all related commentary.

After due consideration, we could see no basis in fact or law for Heartland's demand that we remove these documents.

The Heartland letter is reproduced in full below with our observations.

Re:      Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

Dear Mr. DeMelle:

On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.

On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).

Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.

Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.

DeSmogBlog: As soon as we learned that Heartland claimed the Climate Strategy document was “fake,” we posted a story, informing our readers and linking to Heartland's claim.

It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:

1.         The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.

DeSmogBlog: Heartland has never identified the alleged “obvious and gross misstatements” in the “climate strategy” document. We have not identified any. Neither does Heartland specify anything “unlawful” about publication of the “climate strategy” document.

2.         As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.

DeSmogBlog: Since Heartland does not know whether the “other documents” are fabricated, altered or authentic, we are at a loss to understand how Heartland is in any position to allege that the documents posted on DeSmogBlog were obtained by “improper or fraudulent means.”

3.         Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.

Desmogblog: Again, since Heartland does not know whether the “other documents” are fabricated, altered or authentic, we are at a loss to understand how Heartland can allege that the documents were obtained or disseminated “in a malicious or fraudulent manner.”

Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Very truly yours,

Maureen Martin

General Counsel

We look forward to learning the results of Heartland's investigation concerning the documents mentioned in their letter of February 18 and would encourage Heartland to include the “Climate Strategy” document within the scope of that investigation.

Comments

Joe Bast could clear up everything if he posted a screen shot of the email that was sent. We could see what documents they sent and whom they were sent to.

Maybe Joe Bast just made a mistake and clicked the wrong name in his address book.

 

Their latest press-release on this issue equally shows a staggering amount of hypocrisy (not to mention their inability to use quotation marks correctly):

“We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.

“ [sic] For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.

“[sic] We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.”

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-publishers-faked-and-stolen-docume

And all this while there are still multiple posts and comments on their site about Climategate including a link to a megaupload file where all illegally obtained CRU emails could be downloaded.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/death-blow-climate-science


 

Actually, I think they are using correct use of quotation marks.  

You’re right. I started to doubt my initial claim after reading your response and checked it.

 

This Bast fellow does not seem to be the brightest bulb in the string, or perhaps his elevator does not go all the way to roof, or maybe he’s one taco shy of a combination plate, or possibly all three problems pertain.

In any case, Bast really ought to calm down before pushing the “send” button, or ask somebody to check his work. See the comically stupid antics he’s lead through by a retired US Air Force colonel:

http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/

Looking good is a key specification for carpetbaggers and Bast is failing badly on that account.  No wonder Heartland seems to have so much trouble find enough rubes with deep pockets.

Hats off for you guys.
The Heartland has no legal legs, and no balls either. Just bully tactics to attempt to force you into submission.
Unlike the CRU emails, these documents where not obtained “fraudulently” : one of their own employees gave them up all by him (her) self voluntarily. Oops. Now it’s just freedom of speech.

Actually not quite true… impersonating a Board member is a fraudulent elevation of privileges. Some Murdoch journalists are under investigation for doing precisely that.

I expect though that history will view this lack of legality as unimportant against what was revealed. Cf. the Pentagon Papers, the release of which legally was treason.

But, once it’s out, it’s out… nobody can be required to keep other folks’ secrets.

 

Hats off for you guys.
The Heartland has no legal legs, and no balls either. Just bully tactics to attempt to force you into submission.
Unlike the CRU emails, these documents where not obtained “fraudulently” : one of their own employees gave them up all by him (her) self voluntarily. Oops. Now it’s just freedom of speech.

Here is http://www.reddit.com/r/climate which is the Reddit category (/r/climate) for climate change issues.

Reddit has been following closely the Heartland astroturfing documents.

Good catch, Considerata !

It starts to add up now.

HengistMcStone already pointed out evidence of astro-turfing (revealed by the “Fundraising” document) that the Heartland is engaging in astro-turfing for their “Fracking” project.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy#comment-725322

But also for their “Operation Angry Badger”, one of the projects of action is :

<blockquote>Create blogs that shadow small town newspaper coverage of the controversy</blockquote>

Now, how do you “shadow” small town newspaper coverage with “blogs” if not by some form of massive intrusion of comments into newspaper coverage, using astro-turfing or another disingenuous form of blogging ?

And if they really do not at least facilitate, if not actively engage in, astro-turfing, then why don’t they reveal the 30 (yes, that is thirty!) domain names that they are maintaining ? Even discarding the 4 “forward” domain names (whatever they are), and their own heartland.org name, that still leaves 25 domain names unaccounted for….

 

Some HI owned domain names:

http://heartland.org/  - no brainer ;-)

http://news.heartland.org/

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

http://globalwarmingheartland.org/

http://www.news.globalwarmingheartland.org

http://freetochoosemedicine.org/contact/

 

Heartland translation: Please do not expose us & our underhanded tactics…..it’s not fair….just because.

Gold, just pure gold.

Perhaps they need to be reminded of the response to Arkell v Pressdram…

Why does it take so long to ‘authenticate’ a few short documents? The H.I. cannot be that  lacking in personnel with lieracy skills, can they? Surely this is not the explanation.

So perhaps the H.I. has reacted to its own directives and removed all documents from its server that were in any way related to those posted by DeSMogBlog. This of course would have included the original H.I. documents. Now we will never know what is authentic and what is bogus and fake.

Another simpler explanation is that H.I. simply don’t do ‘authentication,’ and they are now faced with a task that is entirely novel within their organisation. Taking this as a working hypothesis, is there any evidence to support such a view?

They know that all the documents are precisely and concisely correct.

Gleick stepping forward essentially calls them out on that.  Sooo.. they need a new tactic going forward.  Namely going after the document he scanned.

This response strongly suggests that Bast is in, deep, deep, trouble over there at Heartland because of this.  I suspect some of the backers, possibily including the “Anonymous Donor” in the fake/altered/authentic (they still won’t tell us which is correct) fundraising document, are furious and Bast is just engaging in an internal PR stunt.  I can’t see how deSmogBlog or any other web site taking these down can have any impact beyond making a few people feel good that we’re after those bad people who are talking about these fake/altered/authentic documents.  Like the CRU emails it’s out there and people will be talking about these for years.

> they still won’t tell us which is correct

Ehm, the notion of ‘correct’ is semantically void in their universe

If this were the case of stolen bicycle, Heartland’s argument would amount to this:  “Someone stole a bike from us.  You’ve got one that looks a lot like it.  We won’t look at the serial number to verify if it is ours, but give it to us anyway.”

I remember that guy from the playground when I was eight.

 

Dude, I think you’re remembering an episode of “Full House” when someone stole Michelle’s bicycle, lol!

Try again my friend!

I just emailed Joe Bast to tell him that I had the documents in question on my harddrive but didn’t know how to erase them.

I offered to mail him my laptop if he first sends me a new one.

John McManus

John how cruel of you

“I just emailed Joe Bast to tell him that I had the documents in question on my harddrive but didn’t know how to erase them.

I offered to mail him my laptop if he first sends me a new one.”

Ahahaha nice one. That’s just the thing. It’s on thousands of peoples hard drives now & on several websites.

Can’t put the cork back in the bottle Joe.

 

Richard & Brendan - I’ll be surprised if you guys don’t live to regret this.

There is no conflating this with the UEA/Climategate emails.  3 years later no one has proved that those emails weren’t made public by someone on the inside, a whistleblower who’d had enough of the obfuscation. Plus the research was paid almost entirely with tax dollars, and subject to FOIA which the “scientists” involved (emphasis mine) clearly undertook to disrupt (in their own words…)

The Heartland budget and fundraising plans were obtained by fraudulent means. The “climate strategy” memo was simply made up, and it’s beyond reason that you two don’t know who did it. 

At the end of the day, all this exposes is that:

- leftist eco-doom mongers will go to no end to protect/advance a clearly failing hypothesis/meme

- despite all the hype by same eco-doom mongers and eco-socialists, “big oil” and “big fossil fuel” were virtually no where to be found among Heartland’s donors (Koch and Murray Energy, with most of Koch’s dollars going to healthcare)

- a small but motivated group armed with a miniscule budget and a steady stream of inconvenient facts can scuttle the prevailing paradim (see Copernicus/Galileo…instructive here)

- Greenpeace, Sierra, NRDC, and WWF alone have budgets orders of magnitude greater than Heartland, and spend far more on “climate” policy, yet they’re losing. If your facts are solid, you don’t lose this debate with the war chest these people have.

“There is no conflating this with the UEA/Climategate emails.  3 years later no one has proved that those emails weren’t made public by someone on the inside, a whistleblower who’d had enough of the obfuscation. Plus the research was paid almost entirely with tax dollars,”

The research of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia located in the United Kingdom was funded almost entirely with tax dollars? Are you sure about that? Or are you just repeating nonsensical claims you read on some denier blog?

“The Heartland budget and fundraising plans were obtained by fraudulent means.”

Says who? Heartland? Heartland has a long history of claiming bogus stuff. It is not up to Heartland to determine if the documents were obtained fraudulently but to a judge.

“The “climate strategy” memo was simply made up…”

Again, says who? Heartland themselves and a couple of bloggers playing amateur CSI?

That the strategy memo looks different than the other documents is obvious, yet that does not mean anything. Heck, even the memo could be real while all the other documents are fake.

“…and it’s beyond reason that you two don’t know who did it.”

No, it is beyond your reasoning. Normal people think in a rational way and do not reach a conclusion based solely on their own bias and circumstantial ‘evidence’ and certainly do not take for granted whatever Heartland claims.

”- leftist eco-doom mongers will go to no end to protect/advance a clearly failing hypothesis/meme”

See? All rationality is out of the window. How scientific!

”- “big oil” and “big fossil fuel” were virtually no where to be found among Heartland’s donors (Koch and Murray Energy, with most of Koch’s dollars going to healthcare)”

Carefull now! Heartland prohibits anyone (and that includes deniers like yourself) to even comment about those documents. Best not even to think about them if you want to avoid black helicopters hovering over your house!

”- Greenpeace, Sierra, NRDC, and WWF alone have budgets orders of magnitude greater than Heartland, and spend far more on “climate” policy, yet they’re losing.

‘A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.’
Winston Churchill

That basically sums up why lying is so much cheaper and more effective than telling the truth.

 

 

1) CRU funding? Where do the dollars come from that the entities in bold give to CRU (below they thank their donors), if not tax dollars?  WWF and Greenpeace and the other eco-socialist NGO’s are the exception, but we know where their interests lie.

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):”

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

2) fraudulent means? stick around and watch this play out. It is illegal to obtain private information via computer under false pretences. You’ll see.

3) memo made up - stick around.  just remember when the final facts are in: when you rely on what is convenient and in line with your beliefs, without ever checking your facts or questioning the prevailing wisdom, this is what happens.

4) correct, my reasoning. and you’re essentially saying it is not reasonable to suspect those who broke the story and have attempted to use it as a weapon against HI, and were the first to have it up on their blogs might have anything to do with the faked memo or obtaining the actual fundraising and budget docs by unlawful, fraudulent means, or know who did. yep, ”normal people thinking in a rational way” would never be inclined to draw that connection.

5) eco-socialism/eco-doom mongering going to no end - the facts will speak for themselves here, when the history is written. and I don’t just mean this black eye for neo-environmentalism with Heartland.  Bigger picture. 

6) big oil/big coal absent from their list of donors - you try and divert again. you saw the documents. where are they? facts matter, even when they hurt your Litany that “big oil/big coal” throw “enormous” funding behind the “campaign of confusion”.

6) Heartland funding vs. opponents/your suggestion that it’s a lie that eco-NGO’s spend more  - Heartland’s budget is approx. $6.5 million, about a quarter to “climate change”.  Below are recent annual budgets for major “climate change” alarmist NGOs promoting the exact opposite of what Heartland promotes:

Greenpeace: $300 million (46 times greater than Heartlands)

Sierra Club: $100 million (15 times greater)

NRDC: $95 million (14 times greater)

WWF: $200 million (30 times greater)

Just who do you think is ignorant enough to believe that these outfits, combined with the UN, US’s NASA and NOAA, and western EU govts. promotion of climate alarmism, is being overwhelmed by Heartland’s use of 25% of a $6.5 million budget? It begs the question. With the BILLIONS the aforementioned entities have spent promoting Thermageddon, if their hypothesis was even remotely sound, no measley $6.5 million and an annual conference of “skeptical” scientists could stand in its way. Particularly not with the blogosphere and the mainstream media promoting the prevailing paradigm.

“That basically sums up why lying is so much cheaper and more effective than telling the truth”.

You said it, pal!

Carbonicus ( or is it Poptech?) , you obviously struggle to see the difference between money spent on scientific research for the benefit of mankind………..and money spent by private companies to lobby, spread doubt, misinform, greenwash, undermine science and invent controversy…….for the benefit of private corporate profits. 

I was going to convey some basic analogies, but hey……you can’t fit a square peg in a round hole. Why try. Your ideology shapes your beliefs, not facts.



 

“2) fraudulent means? stick around and watch this play out. It is illegal to obtain private information via computer under false pretences. You’ll see.

3) memo made up - stick around.  just remember when the final facts are in: when you rely on what is convenient and in line with your beliefs, without ever checking your facts or questioning the prevailing wisdom, this is what happens.”

Good news!  So… they are going to confirm that all the documents are real, and that they sent them in order to prosecute this case?

Me thinks Heartland won’t bother.  Which is probably why they are taking the PR line at this time, backed by vacuous legal statements.

Carbonicus ( knew that was going to be a troll as soon as i saw the name), can you ask your mates to release the other 195, 000 emails so we can all see the whole picture? Do you see anything wrong with that?

The pro side are up for it……..deniers……not so much. Why do you think that is?

FOI!? Don’t be rediculous. All parties knew it was simply a tactic to hold up research. The data was always freely avaialble on the web. They didn’t need to send a single FOI request.

”- leftist eco-doom mongers will go to no end to protect/advance a clearly failing hypothesis/meme

- despite all the hype by same eco-doom mongers and eco-socialists”

I was wondering when your right wing ideology would show. Carbonicus, can you explain why conservative governments like in German, France & N.Z are in on hype? Have they all become eco-socialists? Are conservatives now leftists too? Just how far to the right are you? I mean, are we talking Mussolini? 

 

It would appear that Mr. Bast has studied at the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley School of Law.

Joe Bast replied by email, stating that my message had been sent to their forensic team, their lawyers and the FBI. Sounds fair and balanced to me.

John McManus

If I were Joe Bast, I would be polishing my resume right about now.

Any self respecting company will now immediately place any resume with Bast’s name on it into the circular filing cabinet.

 

His career is about to BAST OFF.

Heartland’s Communications Director Jim Lakely says his private twitter account was briefly hacked on Feb 17/18.

http://twitter.com/#!/jlakely/status/170785625002360832

http://twitter.com/#!/jlakely/status/170888746592514051

http://twitter.com/#!/jlakely/status/170940035196129280

 

Lucia has an analysis of how the “faked” document could still be defamatory despite being *largely* a cut-and-paste job from legitimate documents: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/how-might-the-fake-memo-presented-as-real-defame-heartland/ .

Funny, we’re not getting much credible denialist argument here. Perhaps they’re drawing a blank in face of Heartland’s naked hypocrisy.

Blue Monday.

:-)

about Peter Gleick that is.

In all of this hoorah Joe Bast’s reaction, both public and through e-mail responses, seems way over-the-top for someone who one would think would want to reassure and maintain high-giving donors. If I were Microsoft, for instance, Bast’s public reactions would have me sever ties with Heartland faster than a speeding bullet, far more so than the document revelations.

The content and tone of Bast’s reactions are more directed to the denialist rank and file, more like a copy-and-paste of Marc Morano’s propaganda and conspiracy mongering. Could Heartland’s Board of Directors really approve of Bast’s approach, particularly in the sensitive situation it now finds itself with previous donors given the public revelations of the donors’ names? Or is Bast out of control and/or the Board incomptent. It seems completely self-defeating to me.

Any thoughts?

I was a bit surprised too to be honest, about how they appear to have opted for this rather aggresive approach. Plurocratic ‘think-tanks’ such as Heartland usually prefer to do their ‘business’ in a rather secretive manner with ocassionally a public event for the ‘scientists’ they pay and the public which they influence, like the Heartland sponsored, Heartland paid Climate Conference with Heartland paid sceptics and Heartland paid reporters.

But I guess their options were limited after their confidential documents were published:

  • continue ‘business as usual’ and pretend it never happened while facing criticism from their (future) donors, their friends in the denialosphere and the press for years to come which sooner or later is bad for Joe Bast, for Diane Bast, for the Bast’s mortgage and for Heartland, in that order;

or

  • focuss on an (aleged) forged memo and have your friends in the denialosphere do the same, claim over and over again that what has happened is outrageous and intimidate each and every single blog which even dares to talk about ‘the documents’ with legal action while initiating a media campaign to inform about your actions against those ‘mean leftist treehuggers who committed fraud’.


 

for them to do is close up shop and start a new clone of it.  Like “Institute for the American Heartland”…

Maybe they can donate all their gear to the new clone (Its supposed to be a charity, right?), and perhaps keep the same address.

Of course it could be the cultural divide created by the Atlantic Ocean, but the HIgate statements coming from H.I. don’t sound right for the circumstance. There all a bit namby pamby.

They includes stuff like - () “Fake documents” in the plural? () Thievery and forgery conflated into one. () Still unable to ‘authenticate’ the stolen documents. () The content of the ‘fake’ one -  “It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.“   () Gleick accused of being the likely forger but nowhere accused of libel or defamation. () Talk of ‘fraud & defamation’ but with respect to both ‘stolen and forged documents’.

HIgate may be too complex for H.I. to get its head round. Then it could be overly complicated for reasons we can only speculate about.

(BTW - Highgate is a famous cemetry so I thought the HIgate name rather fitting.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

He only ‘confesses’ that he is Heartland Insider, not that he faked the memo.

Still, very bad judgement of Mr Gleick. I guess he will soon take his place next to Al Gore as the deniers’ most despised warmist.

 

Stupid, stupid move. Just adds fuel to the ‘hysterical warmist’ mantra that’s always hovering around types like Gleick, Hansen et al.

Skeptics will run with this for months!

I am really sorry for him. I guess he was goaded into it. He was targeted in those documents, but it was still a tragic mistake for him and for his important cause.

Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession

FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists,  policy experts, and organizations we work with.

A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a  more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.”

Seriously.  That is all.  So far they have accusations and vacuous legal statements.

Let me spell it out for you Lara.  In a legal letter to any organization or person you must actually spell out your grievances.  In detail. You must provide evidence, otherwise its just BS.  Any and all lawyers can tell you that.

Also, does this mean you guys are dropping your statements that you can’t tell whether some of the documents are real or altered?  Is this the new tactic?  I’m just trying understand the new angle you guys are using on all this.

In an earlier comment I said I felt it was wrong to hound a particular individual – without at that time naming Peter Gleick. He has done an honourable thing by confessing to a dishonourable act. Any expressions of sympathy, such as some already posted, will be seen as condoning the dishonourable aspect and will be used to discredit all those who share his views on climate change.

No, Ronald, I think we can support the man and honour his courage in speaking out. The lying deniers will smear him and us no matter what we say or do, so to H with ‘em.

Pages

[x]
Heartland Institute Unabomber Billboard

The Heartland Institute is reviving its global warming skeptics' gathering this week in scorching hot Las Vegas for the ninth “International Conference on Climate Change” — which DeSmog long ago dubbed “Denial-a-Palooza”.

Sin City is a fitting spot for the world's most anti-science front group to convene its friends who deny the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and...

read more