Now we know who pays our trolls

[TerryM]

Groups like Heartland have played a huge role in corrupting American politics, and after experiencing some of the consequences of this kind of corrupt influence (e.g. 8 years of the Bush Administration), anything that thwarts them is good. As an American, I take their contribution to the destruction of our political system personally.

I have no idea of where Gleck stands re the law, but I have a hard time condemning what he did "morally" because of why he did it.

He isn't a Linda Tripp in my book - she's evil, and he's not. But this is a political judgment.

Mind you, I can afford this - if I am called as a juror for his case, I would disqualify myself for bias.

He took his chances with the law, and if there is a legal penalty, so be it.

My position is not directly associated with my position on AGW - it is more associated with my opposition to and contempt for Karl Rove style thuggery, which is political and not the subject of this thread.

I'm not so sure that it's possible to discuss the tactics of Heartland Institute without involving politics at some level - after all one of their claims was that they could influence politicians. I think their Machiavellian campaigns against the American public is only done because of their potential to vote. I doubt they would have any interest in how the average American thought, unless that average American, at the polls, could disrupt their plans.

Lets not forget that as well as Global Warming, Second Hand Smoke and High Internet Fees, Heartland was also trying to influence the recall vote in Wisconsin.- that's definitely political.

As far as Gleck - if you trespass on someones property to halt a murder, it's usually forgiven.

[PhillipS]

I'm not so sure that it's possible to discuss the tactics of Heartland Institute without involving politics at some level - after all one of their claims was that they could influence politicians. I think their Machiavellian campaigns against the American public is only done because of their potential to vote. I doubt they would have any interest in how the average American thought, unless that average American, at the polls, could disrupt their plans.

Lets not forget that as well as Global Warming, Second Hand Smoke and High Internet Fees, Heartland was also trying to influence the recall vote in Wisconsin.- that's definitely political.

As far as Gleck - if you trespass on someones property to halt a murder, it's usually forgiven.

I"ve been following the evolution of the story on google news and I find it interesting that now 'legal experts' are saying that it is unlikely that Gleick will be charged with any crime. Despite what Heartland claims Gleick didn't steal anybody's identity - he simply said he was a director. Without argument that was a lie and a deception - but it's not illegal here in America. The 1st Amendment allows us to say we're anybody we want - it is up to the listener to ask for ID. The Heartland staff who got Gleick's request didn't verify who they were sending the documents to, which was their responsibility to do, they just emailed him everything he asked for. And since they chose to send the documents to him that weakens any claim that the docs were stolen. It's not like Gleick pointed a gun at them.

Initially I thought that Heartland would certainly file a civil suit against Gleick - but one analysis I read pointed out that if Heartland sues Gleick then there is a strong likelihood that additional Heartland internal documents will become public through the discovery process. I thnk the last thing Heartland wants is more exposure of their inner workings.

So I expect that Heartland will settle for attacking Gleick through the blogosphere and watching him take the damage to his career for being a whistleblower.

[LakeEffectKing]

I"ve been following the evolution of the story on google news and I find it interesting that now 'legal experts' are saying that it is unlikely that Gleick will be charged with any crime. Despite what Heartland claims Gleick didn't steal anybody's identity - he simply said he was a director. Without argument that was a lie and a deception - but it's not illegal here in America. The 1st Amendment allows us to say we're anybody we want - it is up to the listener to ask for ID. The Heartland staff who got Gleick's request didn't verify who they were sending the documents to, which was their responsibility to do, they just emailed him everything he asked for. And since they chose to send the documents to him that weakens any claim that the docs were stolen. It's not like Gleick pointed a gun at them.

Initially I thought that Heartland would certainly file a civil suit against Gleick - but one analysis I read pointed out that if Heartland sues Gleick then there is a strong likelihood that additional Heartland internal documents will become public through the discovery process. I thnk the last thing Heartland wants is more exposure of their inner workings.

So I expect that Heartland will settle for attacking Gleick through the blogosphere and watching him take the damage to his career for being a whistleblower.

....unless it is found that he authored the forged document....then you might see some legal action....otherwise I agree that we most likely won't see much .....at least not from Heartland....

Others?....maybe or maybe not

[TerryM]

....unless it is found that he authored the forged document....then you might see some legal action....otherwise I agree that we most likely won't see much .....at least not from Heartland....

Others?....maybe or maybe not

What 'forged document' - there is a paper that Heartland Claims they didn't write -

and that Gleick said had been sent to him by a person claiming to be an insider.

Knowing that Heartland Institute is an organization paid to lie, and that Gleick, having the original documents, would have no motivation to forge anything.

Who's version passes the stink test?

[LakeEffectKing]

What 'forged document' - there is a paper that Heartland Claims they didn't write -

and that Gleick said had been sent to him by a person claiming to be an insider.

Knowing that Heartland Institute is an organization paid to lie, and that Gleick, having the original documents, would have no motivation to forge anything.

Who's version passes the stink test?

Sorry I'll restate:

....unless it is found that he authored the forged document that Heartland claims they didn't write....then you might see some legal action....otherwise I agree that we most likely won't see much .....at least not from Heartland....

Others?....maybe or maybe not

[PhillipS]

....unless it is found that he authored the forged document....then you might see some legal action....otherwise I agree that we most likely won't see much .....at least not from Heartland....

Others?....maybe or maybe not

You're correct - if Gleick wrote the 2 page strategy memo and released it claiming it was an authentic Heartland document he may be in hot water legally.

But remember - the 'evidence' that the memo was forged was that its metadata showed it had been scanned from a paper document and that its creation date doesn't match the other Heartland documents Gleick released. But now that Gleick has come forward with his account of receiving the memo by mail from an anonymous person the metadata can be interpreted either way. So it's inconclusive.

There is an interesting article in today's Huffington Post in which an authorship analysis program called JGAAP was used to assess possible authors of the memo. This approach was first suggested by Anthony Watts. Six independent analyses were run using writing examples of Peter Gleick, Joe Bast, and the Heartland staff. Three of the analyses used the full memo, three used the memo with identical text removed. (The article gives the full methodology) Here are the results:

Heartland Strategy Memo.docx

Canonicizers: none

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 0.0

2. Joe Bast 3.2756019350109358

3. Heartland Staff 5.861152017670673

4. Peter Gleick 7.631295386657848

5. Joe Bast 10.572152376359865

6. Peter Gleick 11.883756639524362

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 0.0

2. Joe Bast 2.599109316906122

3. Heartland Staff 6.170704701235744

4. Joe Bast 9.570177815725275

5. Peter Gleick 13.307560177813828

6. Peter Gleick 13.695029284565496

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word stems as events

1. Strategy Memo 0.0

2. Joe Bast 3.8820363096787065

3. Heartland Staff 7.695783407036921

4. Joe Bast 12.653793919968829

5. Peter Gleick 14.734167804512905

6. Peter Gleick 16.420190717794636

Heartland Strategy Memo 2.docx

Canonicizers: none

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 1.938705726184192

2. Joe Bast 2.9968217577188563

3. Heartland Staff 5.5472178990613275

4. Peter Gleick 8.156321472803725

5. Joe Bast 9.863690024204885

6. Peter Gleick 11.241849893833598

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 4.183330096592706

2. Joe Bast 5.2640798702672384

3. Heartland Staff 7.577255315445771

4. Joe Bast 8.593442340043726

5. Peter Gleick 12.32193237311855

6. Peter Gleick 16.31481171381239

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word stems as events

1. Strategy Memo 3.188360519110196

2. Joe Bast 4.783646657279247

3. Heartland Staff 9.110105530159261

4. Joe Bast 12.56463219477823

5. Peter Gleick 14.959700479974499

6. Peter Gleick 16.735394841607917

And the articles conclusion:

According to the above six analyses, which as I caution above may contain unknown errors, the most likely author of the climate strategy memo is Heartland Institute president Joe Bast.

Interesting, but not incontrovertible.

[TerryM]

The documents mentioned by name a few people that had been 'let go' over the past year. Can't help but wonder if one of them might not have been the other source.

While a number of names and dollar figures were revealed, some research into the other funding that these people / organizations are receiving might be revealing. I've always wondered about Singer - Tobacco and now Climate - but what other outfits have been paying for his lies over the years?

[LakeEffectKing]

You're correct - if Gleick wrote the 2 page strategy memo and released it claiming it was an authentic Heartland document he may be in hot water legally.

But remember - the 'evidence' that the memo was forged was that its metadata showed it had been scanned from a paper document and that its creation date doesn't match the other Heartland documents Gleick released. But now that Gleick has come forward with his account of receiving the memo by mail from an anonymous person the metadata can be interpreted either way. So it's inconclusive.

There is an interesting article in today's Huffington Post in which an authorship analysis program called JGAAP was used to assess possible authors of the memo. This approach was first suggested by Anthony Watts. Six independent analyses were run using writing examples of Peter Gleick, Joe Bast, and the Heartland staff. Three of the analyses used the full memo, three used the memo with identical text removed. (The article gives the full methodology) Here are the results:

Heartland Strategy Memo.docx

Canonicizers: none

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 0.0

2. Joe Bast 3.2756019350109358

3. Heartland Staff 5.861152017670673

4. Peter Gleick 7.631295386657848

5. Joe Bast 10.572152376359865

6. Peter Gleick 11.883756639524362

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 0.0

2. Joe Bast 2.599109316906122

3. Heartland Staff 6.170704701235744

4. Joe Bast 9.570177815725275

5. Peter Gleick 13.307560177813828

6. Peter Gleick 13.695029284565496

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word stems as events

1. Strategy Memo 0.0

2. Joe Bast 3.8820363096787065

3. Heartland Staff 7.695783407036921

4. Joe Bast 12.653793919968829

5. Peter Gleick 14.734167804512905

6. Peter Gleick 16.420190717794636

Heartland Strategy Memo 2.docx

Canonicizers: none

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 1.938705726184192

2. Joe Bast 2.9968217577188563

3. Heartland Staff 5.5472178990613275

4. Peter Gleick 8.156321472803725

5. Joe Bast 9.863690024204885

6. Peter Gleick 11.241849893833598

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events

1. Strategy Memo 4.183330096592706

2. Joe Bast 5.2640798702672384

3. Heartland Staff 7.577255315445771

4. Joe Bast 8.593442340043726

5. Peter Gleick 12.32193237311855

6. Peter Gleick 16.31481171381239

Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word stems as events

1. Strategy Memo 3.188360519110196

2. Joe Bast 4.783646657279247

3. Heartland Staff 9.110105530159261

4. Joe Bast 12.56463219477823

5. Peter Gleick 14.959700479974499

6. Peter Gleick 16.735394841607917

And the articles conclusion:

According to the above six analyses, which as I caution above may contain unknown errors, the most likely author of the climate strategy memo is Heartland Institute president Joe Bast.

Interesting, but not incontrovertible.

Interesting.

Not sure if you have seen The Atlantic's Megan McArdle's set of pointed questions....IMO, the questions she asks (and if you don't know her, she is a rather prominent supporter of the AGW hypothesis) certainly generate red flags as far as Gleick potentially being the author....but also not incontrovertible.

The questions Ms. McArdle asks:

How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?

How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted? Did he just get lucky?

www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/some-more-thoughts-on-heartland/253449/

[dabize]

I"ve been following the evolution of the story on google news and I find it interesting that now 'legal experts' are saying that it is unlikely that Gleick will be charged with any crime. Despite what Heartland claims Gleick didn't steal anybody's identity - he simply said he was a director. Without argument that was a lie and a deception - but it's not illegal here in America. The 1st Amendment allows us to say we're anybody we want - it is up to the listener to ask for ID. The Heartland staff who got Gleick's request didn't verify who they were sending the documents to, which was their responsibility to do, they just emailed him everything he asked for. And since they chose to send the documents to him that weakens any claim that the docs were stolen. It's not like Gleick pointed a gun at them.

Initially I thought that Heartland would certainly file a civil suit against Gleick - but one analysis I read pointed out that if Heartland sues Gleick then there is a strong likelihood that additional Heartland internal documents will become public through the discovery process. I thnk the last thing Heartland wants is more exposure of their inner workings.

So I expect that Heartland will settle for attacking Gleick through the blogosphere and watching him take the damage to his career for being a whistleblower.

I must say that I find the fact that Gleick suckered them into giving him the docs ironic as hell, seeing that this is what Heartland is all about - suckering people into believing things that aren't true.

[PhillipS]

I must say that I find the fact that Gleick suckered them into giving him the docs ironic as hell, seeing that this is what Heartland is all about - suckering people into believing things that aren't true.

You're right - and Heartland is having an atomic hissy fit about it. I suspect that anybody, of any affiliation, who has been responsible for safeguarding proprietary or classified information must be shaking their head at Heartland just merrily sending out everything Gleick requested. Talk about your rookie mistake. I know that during my years at the Pentagon we took information security a little more seriously.

I guess Gleick used the magic word "Please" - so how could they say no?

Part of me almost hopes that they sue Gleick because that would result in Bast, Watts, SInger, Idso et al all having to testify under oath. I'd love a seat in the courtroom for that testimony.

[FPizz]

I thought the article on Yahoo earlier said that he admitted to creating the fake strategy document...

[PhillipS]

I thought the article on Yahoo earlier said that he admitted to creating the fake strategy document...

No, he didn't.

[TerryM]

Wonder if Heartland may face a suit for not protecting the identities of various donors who wished their identities to be kept secret.

[dabize]

Wonder if Heartland may face a suit for not protecting the identities of various donors who wished their identities to be kept secret.

If so, it will be one of the rare instances that the grotesque conception of responsibility embodied by the American legal system actually coincides with justice.

I hope the lawyers end up with all the money in that one..........

[dabize]

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/09/case-study-anthony-watts-and-info-fascism-in-action/

Here's a link containing a You tube of a WUWT troll training session

Revealing, if not interesting

[cheetah440]

"the ends justify the means"

[dabize]

"the ends justify the means"

Did Andy tell you that?

I missed it.........

[cheetah440]

Did Andy tell you that?

I missed it.........

nobody told me and nobody paid me either. ;-(

Who do I call or email to get paid for this?

[TerryM]

nobody told me and nobody paid me either. ;-(

Who do I call or email to get paid for this?

I think you have to have something to offer before they buy you off. You know, an education, a good work history - you know - something that would impress the rubes.

[cheetah440]

I think you have to have something to offer before they buy you off. You know, an education, a good work history - you know - something that would impress the rubes.

Want to compare w2's for the last decade?

[dabize]

Want to compare w2's for the last decade?

Uh oh, Terry.........he's gonna hit you with his wallet..........

It could be painful - I hear that Heartland pays using hard cash..........

[TerryM]

Want to compare w2's for the last decade?

No - I'm not interested in selling out - and I didn't mean to imply that I know that you can't make some bucks from them - send them a bill, might surprise us all.

After this little fiasco some of the paid for stooges may feel that the damage to their reputations is worth more than the pittance they were being paid. They might stage some sort of mini-revolt, where they'ed threaten to tell the truth unless the fee structure improves. Some might see this as black mail, but I'm sure that with the right lawyers, negotiations could be reached. In the mean time a work stoppage or work slowdown might be part of the negotiating strategy.

In a scenario like this, the possibility that they will be taking on new paid help might expand to the point that some on this list could be seen as valued commodities.

Good Luck in your Job Quest

[WxMidwest]

So it's your contention that if Global Warming scenario's play out as forecast, it would be so radical and expensive to do anything - that no one should consider it?

I believe that is :

Fantasy Theme #9

'climate change mitigation as money-spinning scam'

as used by the 'Institute of Public Affairs', and Australian think tank linked to Heartland Institute.

It's fascinating how these fabrications make their way around the globe.

Thanks for playing.

Heartland is in my pocket, I've been exposed, damn that obscure Aussie Think Tank for programming me with propaganda ideas, shiiite... There are always 2 sides to even Terry's 1-sided story. Heartland is just the other side's George Soros. It doesn't matter when it's coming from Terry's side though. Yes, both sides have a certain amount of funding from big backers. Be it Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands who owns stock in Dutch Royal Shell, Executives at Exxon, or Georges Soros & Progressive PACS on the other side; While the Big Banks get the bailouts who fund all these different ventures. Welcome to the real world, Terry. The Money-Changers have been money spinning since the beginning of time, what makes your side "immune" from it. As far as global warming scenarios, believing in tail events like, "there is no global warming" is just as bad as following extreme garbage I/O IPCC models to a T that have no base in reality. I'll reserve myself in the likely "winning" happy-medium camp. Until then you can cherry pick for your ultimate feedback mechanism that sends the Earth's dynamic non-linear climate system into a hell spiral while the other crony capitalist oilers look for a variable that halves the sun's Incoming Solar Radiation.

[TerryM]

Heartland is in my pocket, I've been exposed, damn that obscure Aussie Think Tank for programming me with propaganda ideas, shiiite... There are always 2 sides to even Terry's 1-sided story. Heartland is just the other side's George Soros. It doesn't matter when it's coming from Terry's side though. Yes, both sides have a certain amount of funding from big backers. Be it Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands who owns stock in Dutch Royal Shell, Executives at Exxon, or Georges Soros & Progressive PACS on the other side; While the Big Banks get the bailouts who fund all these different ventures. Welcome to the real world, Terry. The Money-Changers have been money spinning since the beginning of time, what makes your side "immune" from it. As far as global warming scenarios, believing in tail events like, "there is no global warming" is just as bad as following extreme garbage I/O IPCC models to a T that have no base in reality. I'll reserve myself in the likely "winning" happy-medium camp. Until then you can cherry pick for your ultimate feedback mechanism that sends the Earth's dynamic non-linear climate system into a hell spiral while the other crony capitalist oilers look for a variable that halves the sun's Incoming Solar Radiation.

Last happy medium camp I saw was when the fortune tellers stumbled onto a fortune

[dabize]

Last happy medium camp I saw was when the fortune tellers stumbled onto a fortune

I bet the goalposts moved for them in their orgiastic joy too........

[PhillipS]

Heartland is in my pocket, I've been exposed, damn that obscure Aussie Think Tank for programming me with propaganda ideas, shiiite... There are always 2 sides to even Terry's 1-sided story. Heartland is just the other side's George Soros. It doesn't matter when it's coming from Terry's side though. Yes, both sides have a certain amount of funding from big backers. Be it Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands who owns stock in Dutch Royal Shell, Executives at Exxon, or Georges Soros & Progressive PACS on the other side; While the Big Banks get the bailouts who fund all these different ventures. Welcome to the real world, Terry. The Money-Changers have been money spinning since the beginning of time, what makes your side "immune" from it. As far as global warming scenarios, believing in tail events like, "there is no global warming" is just as bad as following extreme garbage I/O IPCC models to a T that have no base in reality. I'll reserve myself in the likely "winning" happy-medium camp. Until then you can cherry pick for your ultimate feedback mechanism that sends the Earth's dynamic non-linear climate system into a hell spiral while the other crony capitalist oilers look for a variable that halves the sun's Incoming Solar Radiation.

Wow, that was a fascinating rant. Did you write it yourself - or did the voices in your head help? Just askin'.

[TerryM]

Just stumbled across Richard Siegmund Lindzen on another thread.

Seems to have ties to:

Heartland Institute

Cooler Heads Coalition

George c. Marshal Institute

Cato Institute

ExxonMobil

OPEC

Apparently he was, at least at one time, worth $2500/day to the denial propaganda machine, and had at least one of his books underwritten by OPEC. He's an old man now, but his recent rants can't be written off as rapid onset Alzheimer's, as he's been spouting the same, bought and paid for junk for years.

It's not as if he doesn't know that what he does is dishonest, he lied about taking Big Oil's money before he was exposed. Only a person who knew that what he was doing was wrong would lie about it.

I'd rather listen to John Ensign lecture on the sanctity of marriage.

[WeatherRusty]

Just stumbled across Richard Siegmund Lindzen on another thread.

Seems to have ties to:

Heartland Institute

Cooler Heads Coalition

George c. Marshal Institute

Cato Institute

ExxonMobil

OPEC

Apparently he was, at least at one time, worth $2500/day to the denial propaganda machine, and had at least one of his books underwritten by OPEC. He's an old man now, but his recent rants can't be written off as rapid onset Alzheimer's, as he's been spouting the same, bought and paid for junk for years.

It's not as if he doesn't know that what he does is dishonest, he lied about taking Big Oil's money before he was exposed. Only a person who knew that what he was doing was wrong would lie about it.

I'd rather listen to John Ensign lecture on the sanctity of marriage.

A bit more revelation as to what is going on in the head of the snake.

HERE

[cheetah440]

Uh oh, Terry.........he's gonna hit you with his wallet..........

It could be painful - I hear that Heartland pays using hard cash..........

He's the one who inferred I am uneducated, have a poor work history etc. He made the statement, I simply said let's compare one metric related to "work history" that he was so quick to throw out there. I simply respond.

[cheetah440]

No - I'm not interested in selling out - and I didn't mean to imply that I know that you can't make some bucks from them - send them a bill, might surprise us all.

After this little fiasco some of the paid for stooges may feel that the damage to their reputations is worth more than the pittance they were being paid. They might stage some sort of mini-revolt, where they'ed threaten to tell the truth unless the fee structure improves. Some might see this as black mail, but I'm sure that with the right lawyers, negotiations could be reached. In the mean time a work stoppage or work slowdown might be part of the negotiating strategy.

In a scenario like this, the possibility that they will be taking on new paid help might expand to the point that some on this list could be seen as valued commodities.

Good Luck in your Job Quest

what the hell are you talking about? It;s like you live in an alternate universe. Gleick is the only one who has a damaged reputation. Nobody else. Nobody is being paid to say anything. What the hell are you talking about?