The timing of the Heartland Institute document theft?

The original story broke on Desmogblog as per their web page at "Created 2012-02-14 14:13"

One document called "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy" is claimed by Heartland to be a fake. In it's document properties it's the only one of the bunch that was scanned and it was created as shown it the Document Properties: "2/13/2012 at 12:41:52 pm"

Does this quick turnaround time mean anything?

10 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    So it's a theft, interesting that when it was climategate it was o.k and the people had a right to know, although climategate was nothing but innuendo and edited, out of context, quotes.

    This (if true) is a clear statement that these deniers are directly funded, I seem to recall not that long ago Watts ran one of his little opinion pieces with quotes from several of those named, with them saying they were not funded, carter was certainly one of those, Watts himself has admitted to $90,000 in funding, this was not mentioned in the leak he felt the need to volunteer it, perhaps fearing what may be leaked next, It will be interesting to see them try to squirm out of this after all that talk of honesty and transparency, watts is already going into overdrive, your effort here is no better (Document Properties: "2/13/2012 at 12:41:52 pm) so what, if this proves to be true denier have not shoot themselves in the foot but in the head, the constant claims of no links to oil money are shown for the lie we have all suspected they where for some time.

    Heartland is of course just one of a number of such groups like Cato etc and most of these name various combination's of the people mentioned and a few others like Willie Soon as consultants each of these groups will be paying amounts to them as well, based on the claimed numbers for Heartland if say Fred Singer ($5,000 per month) he is getting similar amounts from each he would be getting several hundred thousand a year (+expenses) which will just be more money.

    On a bright note I guess the K12 education program will have to be shelved as if one did appear now that would pretty much confirm the authenticity of the documents.

    It would also seem with all this indignation flying around that deniers don't like a taste of their own medicine.

  • 9 years ago

    It may or may not mean something... though it is very interesting that this one document was scanned and the others not. That would be one way to hide how a faked document was originally created.

    This whole thing smells a bit like memogate.

    Now with the Brits doing a criminal investigation into climategate 2.0, I wonder what will happen with this one. This doesn't sound like an insider whistleblower thing, so the guilty party may have fewer legal protections than 'FOIA' (assuming he is inside...).

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Statement from the Heartland Institute : "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."'

    How touching. They were not troubled with such questions of ethics when they regurgitated the stolen emails, happily using the silly term "Climategate" and refusing to publicise how 5 separate investigations found no fraud or illegal behaviour.

    What a bunch of pompous hypocrites. No wonder the tobacco industry loves them so much

  • Gringo
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    <<Does this quick turnaround time mean anything?>>

    Not necessarily anything which backs up HI's claim that it is fake.

    Why claim it is fake when many of its contents can be found in other, non-faked documents out of the whole batch?

    Here's my take on it.

    One of the other documents states the full path of the file-name. That path includes the name of HI president Joseph Bast's assistant. It is likely that all documents came from that directory. Thus, it is also likely that the alleged fake Strategy Memo was created and printed by Joseph Bast himself outside of HI offices. That would explain it's different format and wording. It was eventually given to his assistant for filing and was then scanned very recently and given the file-name "2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf", the "(3)" possibly indicating a third version.

    It is not unlikely that creating a physical document of that confidential nature outside of HI offices violated some internal HI security regulations.

    Joseph Bast (along with his wife Diane Bast) is the only high profile HI board member who receives a compensation (and who appears to work full-time for HI; other board members are generally executives at large corporations). Joseph Bast therefor has a direct interest in claiming the memo is fake, not because of its contents but because of its original format. An organization which relies heavily on anonymous donors cannot have a president handling physical confidential documents outside of HI offices.


    As for my 'take on events' described above, a very recent Defense Fund-raising Email send out by HI's president Joseph Bast appears to confirm at least parts of it. In it, Joseph Bast writes:

    "Most of the leaked documents appear to have been written by me for a board meeting that took place on January 17. I have not yet had a chance to compare the ones that are posted online with the originals I wrote, so I don't know if they are authentic or have been altered. " (1)

    Bast then claims the Strategy Memo to be false. In the same email, he specifically requests donations and apologizes for the fact that the names of donors were revealed:

    "We promise anonymity to many of our donors because nobody wants the risk of nutty environmentalists or Occupy Wall Street goons harassing them. We know that privacy is important to you."

    Many of the other board members are also donors and they might be critical of Bast's handling of the issue. For that reason, the outcome of this scheduled February 17th (tomorrow) board meeting could be interesting.

    Correction: the 'scheduled board meeting' mentioned above was Januray 17th, not tomorrow. Either way, it is interesting to see what will happen with Mr Bast's position. Personally I believe his latest fund-raising memo does not do HI's cause much good.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • glise
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    GCNP (and different alarmists) continually pretend that technological expertise is on their element yet they could't look to come to a decision that including little snipets from different materials could make it complicated to make certain authorship. the shortcoming of an trustworthy or logical end is revealing to who they are and why they suspect what they suspect. It has little or no to do with logic or technological expertise. you are able to not argue technological expertise and logic with somebody who refuses to verify some thing in an trustworthy and logical way. They concluded that that's likely from PG. that would not recommend he did it yet in accordance with context, it particular looks probably to me. He admitted to fraudulently procuring the emails. in view that they did not supply a smoking gun, he probable presented it. It fits completely interior the alarmists view of the universe IMO. IMO, that's approximately politics. genuinely there is an element of technological expertise, yet some with a definite political bias are exaggerating the technological expertise and ignoring something that threatens that exaggeration.

  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Well deniers are now calling this 'desmogbloggate' lol. It's funny that they are still attempting to show the papers were fake when Heartland themselves stated most of the papers were real.

  • 9 years ago

    I have to agree with Jungle Jim here, the hypocrisy is pungent yet the irony delicious.

    I don't really care of the Heartland Institute funds skeptics (I pretty much assumed it before). But the defensive backpedaling does brings the words "Serve's you right" to my mind.

    "Life is tough, sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue"

  • 9 years ago

    It means that you will clutch at any straw to try defend a bunch of utterly busted John Birch Society nutcase liars if they offer support for your anti-science paranoia.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    It's not a theft if it is faked

  • 9 years ago

    It's not a theft if it is faked

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.