The double-standards of Conservatives are legend, and often simply pass "as the norm."
But this one "takes the cake" -- when you dig into the rationalizations that this very influential think-tank front group is now standing behind.
"It's not Fair!" is hardly a resounding defense, given their own investigative history ...
Heartland Institute: Hoist With its Own Petard
by Jonathan Rosenblum, prwatch.org -- Feb 25, 2012
[...]
Finally, Heartland’s heavy-handed attempts to threaten bloggers and environmental organizations that published the leaks took a bad turn. Heartland’s General Counsel Maureen Martin emailed or Fed Exed legal threats to half a dozen bloggers or environmental organizations. Not surprisingly, the bloggers published the letters and wrote about the threats, supercharging the controversy. “Climate Denial Gate!” blared the blogosphere.
Given that Heartland gained a global reputation for publishing hacked email exchanges between climate scientists, many find their moral outrage over the release is a bit hard to swallow.
Heartland’s History of Exploiting Stolen Documents
Heartland has not always been so interested in the legalities. The environmentalists’ resentment of Heartland dates to a 2009 episode when a still-unknown hacker — believed by many to be an activist climate change denier — heisted hundreds of emails from climate change experts at the University of East Anglia in the lead up to the Copenhagen global climate change meetings. The documents cast several scientists in a bad light for advocacy tactics but, after various peer reviews, did not change any of the scientific conclusions that the planet continues to heat up due to human patterns of energy consumption. Heartland published the illegally hacked documents in an attempt to discredit the theory of climate change. They succeeded in generating an international media storm.
[...]
The Heartland Institute can "dish it out" --
subterfuge and document dumps -- but they sure can't take it ...
Here's their recent defense claiming it's different this time -- because it's their agenda that has been targeted and exposed.
It's different this time -- because "It's Only OK If You're a Climate Denial Front Group" ...
Heartland vs. Climategate
by Walter Starck, quadrant.org.au -- Feb 28, 2012
Although climate alarmists have attempted to present the public release of the Heartland Institute documents as being a scandal for climate sceptics comparable to the one Climategate has been for AGW proponents, the comparison is spurious in several key respects:
-- Heartland is a private advocacy group, whereas Climategate involved publicly funded scientific research.
-- Climategate entailed a legal and ethical obligation to FOI. Heartland does not.
-- The Heartland documents were obtained by criminal impersonation of a Heartland board member. It is unknown if the Climategate documents were obtained illegally or were released by a whistle blower.
-- No malfeasance was revealed in the Heartland documents. The Climategate documents exposed multiple ongoing instances of scientific misconduct and conspiracy to illegally thwart FOI requests.
[...]
[...]
Heartland can "make hay" from ambiguous, non-consequential technical statements made by climate scientists at the U.K.’s
University of East Anglia (aka
ClimateGate) where
more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen ...
But when someone does "roughly equivalent" to expose against them --
well it's 'a capital offense' -- it's an infringement on their '
private sector advocacy rights'.
Besides the Heartland Institute never claimed to adhere to ethical principles of FOI (Freedom of Information) -- the public disclosure of means and methods does not apply apparently, when you are a Climate Denial Front Group ...
They DO have to protect their sponsors' oily anonymity. And please general public DO NOT read those private discussions of their 2012 tactics and methods ... Please just delete the files if someone happens to forward them to you ...
signed your Heartland Institute pals!
Heartland Institute Caught With Its Pants Down on Global Warming
by RP Siegel, triplepundit.com -- Feb 17, 2012
[...]
The “allegedly fake” strategy document opens with the following statement.
Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight to prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global warming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012. This document offers such a set of priorities. I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff. More details can be found in our 2012 Proposed Budget document and 2012 Fundraising Strategy memo.
These priorities include:
-- Heartland’s 2012 Fundraising Plan, which shows that they expect to raise $7.7 million, a 70 percent increase over last year. Their budget for the year is $6.5 million.
-- A plan for a K-12 school curriculum to be developed by a consultant that will, “show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.” An anonymous donor has pledged $100,000 to cover this expense.
-- Funding for parallel organizations, such as the NIPCC to “undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports.” They include $388,000 for a team of writers. (Hmmm, that’s pretty good money.)
[...]
-- Expanded Climate Communications, where they say, “Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts). Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”
[...]
Funny how the "targeted" influential climate scientist, that they had identified as 'an opposing voice to be kept out' -- Funny how he
only had to "ask for" those planning documents, that they be sent to "an additional forwarding address" ...
That hardly sounds like 'Grand Theft Auto' to me. Someone at Heartland had to click "Send" afterall. Oooops! Someone at Heartland is not getting their Annual Bonus this year.
Heartland emails show ease in which Gleick accessed sensitive files
by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, 24 Feb 2012
It turns out to have been surprisingly simple for Peter Gleick to obtain highly sensitive material from the Heartland Institute – once he assumed the identity of a board member.
All it took was a single email sent on 27 January 2012 asking Heartland to add an additional email address to its mailing list for board members, according to a chain of emails released by the rightwing thinktank on Friday afternoon with the names redacted.
"Can you please add (or have the appropriate staff member add) this personal email address to the Board mailing list for all future Board communications?"
Gleick wrote, impersonating an unidentified board member.
[...]
Quick get the email police! A series of emails went to the wrong cc address.
That guy had better send them back!
Besides Peter Gleick has said "sorry" -- if it's good enough for Rush Limbaugh, it should be good enough for him, right Conservatives?
All's fair in love and war -- and ironic justice, right Deniers?
The Origin of the Heartland Documents
huffingtonpost.com -- 02/20/2012
Peter H. Gleick
President, Pacific Institute
[...]
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Peter Gleick
I suspect Peter Gleick's motives for "subterfuge and document dumps" against the Heartland Institute, more than justify his means ... the means of "asking for them, under an assumed name" ...
Oh my, the humanity! Heartland's "non-public" agenda was exposed ... What will they do now!?
Except kick and scream -- "That's not fair! We have rights you know."
-- The citizens of an ever-warming planet -- not so much.
Their sponsors are paying good money for this Heartland service afterall -- they can't have citizen-poser do-gooders, exposing Heartland's long-term efforts at 'social engineering.'
That would ruin everything!
... Unless of course, their denial-work has already accomplished it's prime goal -- that of getting the majority of the public to hang their heads and say in futility:
Oh what's the use? ... Who really knows what's happening anyways? It's all just 'he-said, she-said.'
When are we gonna see a Who-Cares-Gate, anyways?