Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« BBC World Service on Fakegate | Main | Redoubt or bunker? »
Friday
Feb242012

Gloves off

The gloves appear to have come off in the Fakegate affair, with Heartland calling in the FBI.

The Chicago-based free market Heartland Institute has called in the FBI and threatened other legal action against a global warming proponent who has admitted stealing emails from the institute in a bid to embarrass and discredit the group’s questioning of climate change.

Heartland officials tell Washington Secrets that they have been in talks with the FBI over the case against prominent global warming proponent Peter Gleick, co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute. Heartland is getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the FBI will act on.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (73)

It will be interesting to see what turns up.
Speaking of fraud, politicisation of climate science etc, has anyone seen this?
http://www.stopcp.com/cpclimategate.php
Thoughts?

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarbara

Hmmm. Not sure about this course of action. Gleick's reputation is already in tatters, it would be better to be magnanimous wouldn't it?

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

I think a bit of scepticism is called for here.
What does 'called in the FBI' mean, and how would one do that?
Why does this story only only appear in a free tabloid?
And why does the headline say 'called' when the text says 'have been in talks with' - who called who?
Why is the story so lacking in any detailed facts?

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Matthews

if u research all MSM coverage of this scandal, u will realise virtually every headline still suggests ALL documents were from HI. that is the perception of the millions who only read headlines. better to clear this up in Court.

interesting that Hudson has put up this:

22 Feb: BBC Paul Hudson Blog: Drax axes plans to build new biomass power stations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/drax-axes-plans-to-build-new-b.shtml#comments

has a new thread today:

23 Feb: BBC Paul Hudson Blog: February's huge temperature contrast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/februarys-huge-temperature-con.shtml

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

I'm not sure this is the wisest course of action. On the other hand, given the warmists reaction to the climategate whitewashes, if there's no prosecution, they'll say he wasn't guilty, if he was he'd have been charged. Tricky.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Nothing about it at HI's new Fakegate website, where they are inviting people to submit tips and posts to help enquiries.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterNicholas Hallam

It's a bit of a pantomime - but as far as I can see, raising the questions about Gleick's activities and getting them into the flow of "nooze" is a positive thing if it provokes further discussions and examination of other related issues.

All together now, "Oh, yes he did!"

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterTomO

Not sure what you guys are on about?

This IS the right action! Gleick broke the law and must suffer the consequences for his actions. Will HI have to release the names of their donors? I don't believe so, even though the creationists are attempting to use this to justify his actions I doubt Gleick will get anywhere with this line of defence. Remembering he is the one potentially going on trial, not HI.

regards

Mailman

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Gleick’s lawyer John Keker, “Heartland no doubt will seek to exploit Dr. Gleick’s admitted lapse in judgement in order to further its agenda in the ongoing debate about climate change, but if it wants to pursue this matter legally, it will learn that our legal system provides for a level playing field.” Keker added, “Dr. Gleick looks forward to using discovery to understand more about the veracity of the documents, lay bare the implications of Heartland’s propaganda plans and, in particular, determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why.”

This could be disasterous for Gleick and DeSmog. Discovery is a two edged sword in the American legal system.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Buck

If you read the full article Gleick is totally unrepentant and with the immense backing of the CAGW movement is planning to 'go for' Heartland in any trial. So no, letting him off is not now an option.

One hopes that a way will be found to drag the trigger-happy bloggers into the mix as well for distributing the fake and the stolen private documents, maintaining them on-line even after they knew of the crime.

The impression must not be formed that, like a certain cabal of climate scientists, they are all above the law because they have some kind of divine right bestowed upon them by a complicit governing class
who prefer to keep the green tax income and the media they seem to have in their pocket for the purposes of maintaining the status quo.


For them there must be no mercy.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered Commenterjazznick

Mailman - totally agree.

If Gleick has any defence for what he did, let a jury decide if it's adequate - it's not up to the blogosphere to decide if the man has "suffered enough".

I'm sure plenty of fans thought Garry Glitter has suffered enough as well.

P.S.

Barbara, since William Randolph Hearst's number one crime is listed as "1) has a direct connection to the British monarchy" I can only assume this is written by some American conspiracy nutter who thinks that actually means something.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk

Buck

At the one level I tend to agree, but he has already been found half-guilty by the usual suspects including the MSM an not guilty at all by others. The wonderful Jo Nova sums it up nicely.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/is-stealing-ok-alarmist-climate-scientists-not-sure-in-tumult/

Also we might think his reputation is in tatters, but we would do - wouldn't we? Heartland's reputation has been damaged in the eyes of some, and redress is surely justified. If he is allowed to slip away, that would be much harder. Have we ever been anything but magnanimous? - where has it got us?

There was clear evidence of wrong-doing in the CG emails, but has that been pursued??

This post at WUWT yesterday tells you all need to know about how much integrity the "cause" will having going forward.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

Incredible, the bleeding hearts here.

The Law is the Law. Gleick (allegedly) broke the law. He needs to answer to the law, no ifs or buts. No exceptions.

In the developed world we are entitled to be protected by the law. That entitlement comes with responsibilty. That responsibilty requires that we obey the law. Motive, or being a dickhead academic is no excuse. Failure to obey the law must result in consequences, otherwise we are in tin-pot dictatorship territory.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterHector Pascal

Barbara -
the Archant Board is surely top-heavy for a rural publisher! more than one Rothschilder alumni and all their papers seem to promote CAGW and were uninterested in Climategate despite it being in their backyard so to speak:

http://www.archant.co.uk/about_board.aspx

Feb 2011: Financial Times: EL Rothschild buys stake in Weather Central
Lady Rothschild told the FT that ELR, which holds the family’s investments in The Economist magazine and an agriculture venture with Bharti Enterprises, could make capital available “when and if needed” to develop Weather Central’s international profile in India, Latin America and other markets.
In a statement, Sir Evelyn said that “as weather becomes more extreme around the planet, with greater human and financial ramifications, we believe that Weather Central will play a major role in mitigating damage and improving lives”.
Asked whether the investment was a bet on climate change, Lady Rothschild said: “Whatever your politics are about what is causing it, clearly weather is becoming a greater and greater factor for commodities, for corporates as well as for individuals.”
Weather Central represented “a content play at the highest level, with the highest degree of integrity, providing something that people need,” she added, likening it to The Economist.
“We like to do good by doing well, and we think we’re investing in companies that are making a positive impact on the world,” she said.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/67ee5828-2d8d-11e0-8f53-00144feab49a.html#axzz1nII2SES9

June 2011: WantChinaTimes: E. L. Rothschild invests in China's 'weather'
Weather Central provides real-time reports on weather, traffic and news. It is the only data provider to the China Meteorological Administration and the supplier to every weather channel on the mainland.
She said she had watched the weather news on CCTV at 7:30 p.m. using equipment provided by Weather Central, which, she believed, was the best in the world.
With 400 million people in China watching the weather news, the company has invested in a significant portion of this business in China, including weather channels in 26 provinces.
Furthermore, Weather Central launched MyWeather.com in the United States last month, which, she believed, is the world's most accurate and personalized digital weather service for customers.
Rothschild said that while her company has mainly collaborated with China's state-enterprises, it is also discussing agreements with some private-sector businesses on wind energy, adding that the group had unique wind technologies.
She also predicted that China would lead the world in the renewable energy market, adding that she and her husband had visited some alternative energy companies in China...
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=11&id=20110627000105

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Sorry steveta_uk, comparing what Gleick did with what Gadd (Glitter) did is utterly fatuous.

It's all about calmly picking your battles as far as I'm concerned. At the end of the day if Gleick is convicted, what is achieved? A single warmist will be written off as a rogue, Megan McArdle has already suggested a mental illness defence.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

Gleick's defence will probably end up damaging his own cause further and will in no doubt cause more reputational damage for the PI, AGU and NCSE - remember NCSE were initially hoping to make money from what they called "deniergate" - that constitutes an additional motive.

HI and the FBI may want to suggest and pursue a conspiracy theory - theft, fakery, defamation directly and indirectly via churnalism and funding by deception. It does appear all joined up.

Gleick is now a dangerous, very dangerous loose cannon. How do climate alarmists get him to shut up and take his judicial medicine?

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Heartland I think, MUST do this.. because the 'fake' doc with al the juicy quotes is still being proclaimed as real.
Hopefully whoever produced it confesses soon.

If Peter was sent a fake.. he has no obligation to defend that person.
If Peter, and or others produced it, it would be better to clear the air now.

Jail time is irrlevant, it is the reputational damage to 'activist' climate science that might open a few eyes. plus the damage to the reputation of environmental journalism. that leapt onthe fake. and are still defending it as real.. or fake but accurate (it is not)

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barbara
Had a quick look and it seems to be very interesting. Will look more thoroughly later.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

A federal crime appears to have been committed - so it is only right for the FBI to be involved.

"What Are Identity Theft and Identity Fraud?
The short answer is that identity theft is a crime. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception."

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Wonder what happened to the envelope Gleick received the fake document in - fingerprints, postage etc could all be used to track down the person who kicked all of this off (assuming it wasn't Gleick himself of course)

I've written before that I think HI should be lenient on Gleick and not allow him to become a martyr, but after seeing his invitation to attend HI meetings and the reasons why HI won't out their donors, I think Gleick should look avoid dropping the soap in the showers

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterMangoChutney

It will be interesting to see what turns up.
Speaking of fraud, politicisation of climate science etc, has anyone seen this?
http://www.stopcp.com/cpclimategate.php
Thoughts?

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:12 AM | Barbara>>>>>


"the Albert Einstein of useful idiots - Director of the UEA CRU, "Professor" Phil Jones. "

That quote will stick in my mind whenever I think of AGW.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

I fail to see the objection to the Heartland Institute seeking redress under the prevailing law.

I can see objections to not taking any action. For example it could lead to accusations that they have something to hide (from the discovery procedures that, presumably, apply), that the "faked" memo was genuine afterall, and could encourage repeat attempts to discredit the institution. If someone publishes false information about you or your alleged activities, you have no alternative but to defend yourself and to face up to the discovery procedures that that entails. Been there. Done that.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered Commenteroldtimer

Paul Matthews Feb 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM

What does 'called in the FBI' mean, and how would one do that?

I think you simply go to your local FBI office and tell them that you have evidence that a federal crime has been committed. I think they are obliged to investigate from that point.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

because the 'fake' doc with al the juicy quotes is still being proclaimed as real

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM | Barry Woods


Then HI has to sue those that are publishing such proclamations.

These people will hold Gleick up as a martyr, if he is convicted, regardless of the facts anyway. You know how they work.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

Mailman

I agree. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

Trivia. Under Federal practise, one contacts (i.e., "calls in") claims of criminal conduct to just the US Attorney's office, the FBI, or any law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. When you "call in" they may likely tell you to "call elsewhere". In short, calling (visiting) the FBI is exactly what most folks would do, even if they had no attorney. They may also be asked to not make public that the FBI is investigating. At the HI web site, they do through around the word "criminal". It's believable HI contacted Fed authorities. A cursory review of what's been admitted does seem to indicate the likelihood that several Federal laws were violated. It would be difficult, imho, for the FBI to decline to at least do a prelim investigation. Given the current AG, it's anyone's guess whether the US Atty would prosecute. Wouldn't be surprised if the guy is awardd the Medal of Freedom, four Nobels and asked to run for UN Sec Gen.

Those thinking identify theft should be excused simply do not understand or willful ignore the seriousness. If he's NOT prosecuted, then you'd better go hide in a cave without wireless.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM | Martin A>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry for going off thread for a moment.

My apologies for perhaps being a bit rude to you regarding your questioning of MDGNN about back radiation.

There has been an excellent thread discussing this in scientific terms on the Tallbloke blog.

regards,

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Discovery? There is no discovery of Heartland. The case will be United States vs Gleick. In the event of a civil case, Heartland might be obliged to reveal some stuff, but discovery is not guaranteed for non-relevant proprietory information. Defence will move, the judge will decide.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterRhoda

I feel bad for Gleick. He has spent so much time in groupthink with fellow advocates that he did not know right from wrong. Were it not for the suspicious chronology of his "confession" I would recommend the magnanimous option but I suspect that he has not yet rediscovered his ethics and given us the full truth.

He has inadvertently done skeptics a huge favour, and so are the websites proclaiming this fakes as the truth. Initial reactions were a great Rorschach test and as the facts accumulate we can see which journalists have, or lack, the integrity to offer full corrections to their readers.
.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered Commentergenemachine

Democrats attempt to smear Heartland by hitting Indur Goklany for accepting "illegal outside payments"
from them while working for the DoI.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/23/climate-mccarthyism-democrat-congressman-demands-hearing-on-interior-employee-linked-to-heartland/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+globalwarmingorg+%28GlobalWarming.org%29

Warmistas desperate to justify Gleick's last stand with anything that will deflect attention from their man,
even if it's unjustified.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM | Unregistered Commenterjazznick

Barbara
I know very little about Common Purpose except that there are a number of conspiracy theorists around — of which Stop Common Purpose is the most virulent — who believe that they are a highly secretive organisation planning to undermine democratic society.
I'm not sure why they have come up with this idea and so far I have not seen on their assorted web sites any evidence to support it.
Bit like CO2 and "positive feedbaack": long on assertion and handwaving; short on hard evidence!

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Initial reactions were a great Rorschach test and as the facts accumulate we can see which journalists have, or lack, the integrity to offer full corrections to their readers.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM | genemachine


Totally agree with you there, the most notable in my eyes being at the BBC, clearly demonstrating once again that the organisation and in particular their science coverage, is running out of control.

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

I wonder if HI would have gone down this route if Gleick had confessed to the fake memo as well - at the moment he has confessed to actions that open him up to a criminal prosecution but has put in place a defence against the probably more damaging (to his credibility and finances) civil charges relating to libel / defamation.

Getting the FBI involved probably opens up access to a lot more of the documentary evidence on the source of the 'anonymous memo' and how that came to be in Dr Gleick's possession ;-) .

A couple of more general points:
1 - Regarding Gleick's HuffPo article, while on first reading the obvious interpretation is that the 'anonymous document' referred to is the fake memo, it is possible to read in sufficient ambiguity that would allow him to eventually confess to the creation of the fake memo without out-right contradicting the article as written.

Read the following very carefully:

"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it."

and
"The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication."

Now see if you can add in Gleick writing an additional fake memo based on the anonymous document and incorporating elements from the other docs, and including that as an addition to the documents Gleick received. Yes, it's requires a stretch of interpretation, but it is not outright contradicted by the article. Rewording one sentence slightly would remove the ambiguity: "I forwarded, anonymously, only the documents I had received, including the anonymous document, to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues

2 - Who (else) could have written the fake memo?
The faker had access to the same documents as Gleick leaked, and did not include any information from documents not 'later' in Gleick's possession. The memo specifically mentions Dr Gleick in a way that would appeal to his ego, addresses particular issues of interest to him (Forbes, educational material), and casts Revkin and Curry, both of whom PG had had recent run-ins with in a 'bad' light (if you start from the basis that HI are the bad guys, which Gleick believes). The suggestion that some anonymous outside third party would have written the memo in this way really requires a suspension of disbelief (and why create and send the memo rather than sending PG the authentic documents?). Insider whistle-blower theories have the same snag - why not leak the authenticatable documents, and why the absence of facts that would require further documentation to prove. This leaves only 2 even remotely credible alternatives:
1 - Gleick wrote the fake memo himself
or
2 - Someone at Heartland is an evil genius (MWAHAHAHAAA) and prepared this strategy memo, not as an internal HI document but with the sole intention of trapping Dr Gleick. It is just too carefully tailored to him and his interests and ego to have come about accidentally.

Obviously, one of the above 2 scenarios is a million times more likely than the other...

Feb 24, 2012 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan B

@Rhoda, exactly what I wanted to say...

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

RKS Feb 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM
My apologies (...)
No probs. It's just my nature to keep asking questions until, finally, I understand. MDGNN's comments and his answers are always a bit too cryptic for me to figure out precisely what he is saying, so I can then see if it makes sense - his remarks on 'thermalisation' for example.

There has been an excellent thread discussing this in scientific terms on the Tallbloke blog.
Thanks - I'll take a look.

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Gleick may be putting on a brave face here but I doubt the rest of the Gang of 15 are feeling so sanguine at this moment.

Let's face it HI and sceptics generally have nothing to hide; the CAGW movement has fought and continues to fight tooth and nail to avoid opening themselves to scrutiny. Why, for instance, has Mann spent a fortune to keep his emails hidden?

I have always believed (and I'm sure I'm not alone) that the only thing that will bring the CAGW scam down is the courts. The only time that I'm aware of that the CAGW case has been brought before genuine judicial scrutiny was when a parent took the teaching of Gore's Inconvenient Truth to the High Court in the UK where it was ripped apart.

I think Gleick has opened a can of worms here and will live to regret it bitterly.

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterstanj

I'm with mailman on this. I notice here and at watts up with that a number of apparently sceptic posters I've never seen before asking if we shouldn't be magnanimous?

No we bloody shouldn't. Will they agree to grant FOIA immunity if they ever catch him? Not on your life!

And Gleick and his lawyers make me want to gip up frankly. I just hope HI get a decent lawyer who stops them turning it into a farce.

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDuncan

It's all about calmly picking your battles as far as I'm concerned. At the end of the day if Gleick is convicted, what is achieved? A single warmist will be written off as a rogue, Megan McArdle has already suggested a mental illness defence.

Feb 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Buck

He has to be proscecuted. You only have to read Mann's output on the subject to understand why.

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen richards

genemachine:

I feel bad for Gleick. He has spent so much time in groupthink with fellow advocates that he did not know right from wrong. Were it not for the suspicious chronology of his "confession" I would recommend the magnanimous option but I suspect that he has not yet rediscovered his ethics and given us the full truth.

I'm with you, Barry Woods and anyone else backing Heartland in taking a strong line. There are bound to be things they know that we don't know so I'd back them whichever way they chose but this feels a lot better. Whether Gleick reforms or not it's vital that his wrongdoing is faced up to, his credibility reduced to zero and his power to influence anyone anywhere within delta of the same number.

But I really wanted to highlight "I feel bad for Gleick." We are all I assume at a vast distance from the guy. There are those close to him that may, at the right moment, after they've heard the whole story from the repentant hydrologist (and there will be others at fault in this that aren't getting the same heat), say "Poor Peter" and I could imagine it having validity. But we must also be fully aware of the desire of the Team, its controllers, PR agents and sockpuppets to make the whole world sing Poor Peter, just as they tried so hard to do with Poor Phil before him. As a public statement it's crap.

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Rhoda,

You said what I was trying to say :)

Regards

Mailman

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Ps. Will people STOP using the @ symbol when addressing a reply to others.

Thus ain't twitter, but more importantly, when the f@@k did people get so stupid as to NOT recognise when they are being addressed!??!?!!?

GRRRR!!!!

There, that feels better :)

Regards

Mailman

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

genemachine:

I feel bad for Gleick.

I don't! And if the twunt had showed ANY sort of contrition I still wouldn't! Because it would just be crocodile tears anyway.

And I vomit at the "momentary lapse of judgement" crap too. I've heard enough of that junk from our esteemed politicians over the years. Much like my repellent ex MP Margaret Moran, Gleick and co are horrified to discover that the law applies to THEM and then employ every weasly trick in the book to get off the hook, right down to feigned mental illness.

A momentary lapse of judgement is when you catch your wife in bed with someone and kill them both. Not when you scheme over weeks, create fake email accounts, repeatedly mis-represent yourself as another individual to defraud and smear someone. It is the difference between murder and manslaughter, and it is for the court to decide at sentencing whether it should be considered when determining the punishment/leniency. It is within the courts gift! It is NOT a bloody joker that you can play (via your slimy PR wonk) the moment you get caught!

Grrrrrrrr.

Hang em high!

Feb 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterduncan

Rhoda,

I suspect the talk about discovery concerns a possible civil action for defamation, not the federal crimes at issue here.

In any case, discovery isn't a carte blanche to dig into and publish anything and everything you have a mind to.

Feb 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

@Mailman, never used twitter in my life. Standard etiquette on lots of message boards. Maybe Twitter picked up on it and used it? Certainly on this blog long before the host joined twitter.

So are we going to start a @BBD style comment explosion and take this off topic.

I am ready, got the thermos and sandwiches at the ready.

Are you big enough? ;-)

Feb 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

"Call in the FBI" means to prefer Federal charges against Gleick under statutes covering interstate defamation, fraud, identity theft-- whatever "ethicists" of Gleick's putrescent stripe perpetrate on behalf of their idiotic save-the-planet Cause.

Case could be a valuable precedent here... in terms of grand-theft conspiracy to commit fraud,misappropriations, misrepresentation, and so on and on, Green Gangsters such as Al Gore, Hansen, Mann, will have a lot to answer for.

Who knows, mayhap such initiatives may even jump-the-puddle.

Feb 24, 2012 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Blake

I am not persuaded by Buck's arguments above that there is nothing to be gained by not prosecuting Doctor Gleick.

On the contrary, doing so could well set an example to "encourage the others" (as Voltaire might have put it).

Feb 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Boyce

dear, oh dear - what I meant to say is:

I am not persuaded by Buck's arguments above that there is nothing to be gained by prosecuting Doctor Gleick.

Feb 24, 2012 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Boyce

A "lapse of judgement" that covered more than two weeks between obtaining the documents and distribution?

This is not just a very long lapse of judgement. It strikes me as strange under the circumstances. I suspect that not all the interesting facts and names are out yet, so it's probably premature to be getting all magnanimous.

Feb 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

[Snip - raise the tone please]

Feb 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterHuhneToTheSlammer

Sorry, Bish :-(

Feb 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterHuhneToTheSlammer

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>