Heartland Institute Document Leaker Comes Forward, Maintains Documents Are Real 442
The Bad Astronomer writes "Last week, an anonymous source leaked several internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a non-profit think tank known for anti-global-warming rhetoric. The leaker has come forward: Peter Gleick, scientist and journalist. In his admission, he cites his own breach of ethics, but also maintains that all the documents are real. This includes the potentially embarrassing '2012 Climate Strategy' document stating that Heartland wants to 'dissuade teachers from teaching science.' Heartland still claims this document is a forgery, but there is no solid evidence either way."
Forgery - (And obviously so) (Score:5, Informative)
Here is one article written about it (by someone who believes in AGW)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
No evidence? (Score:2, Informative)
stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting analysis of the memo... (Score:5, Informative)
Some pretty interesting and pretty detailed analysis of the memo here [theatlantic.com].
I'm inclined to say the memo is probably fake given all the weirdness surrounding it, and given who the "leaker" is.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's see.... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd hardly call a 5 year average net profit margin of 8,81% particularly fat.
Re:No evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
Anthony Watt is just another right wing corporate whore with no credentials, no scientific training, no mainstream credibility, and a big mouth (very common in the wingnut alternative reality).
It should also be noted that he was implicated in the leaked documents. He has every reason to claim that they are fake.
Re:Let's see.... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd hardly call a 5 year average net profit margin of 8,81% particularly fat.
For an established company delivering a commoditized product, that's a pretty big margin.
Honestly, I thought it would have been higher.
Re:Let's look at the track record... (Score:5, Informative)
Never mind, it's right there in Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Smoking [wikipedia.org]
The tone of the GP post was just right to punch my buttons. Even a single link in support of the rant would have been nice.
steveha
Re:Forgery - (And obviously so) (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that Megan McArdle's analysis of this document is interesting and worth reading.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/ [theatlantic.com]
For a document that supposedly is a glimpse to the inside machinations of a bunch of corporate suits, it sure has an odd tone.
See also the followup:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/ [theatlantic.com]
The metadata and timestamp analysis is interesting as well.
steveha
Gleick lied not leaked; main document is forgery (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Waiting.... (Score:4, Informative)
No experience?
Went to Harvard law school, edited the Harvard Law Review, Lecturer at Columbia, gave up a potentially lucrative career to help poor people as a community organizer. Bestselling author. Elected to the US senate.
Granted he had limited executive experience, but only one of the 8 candidates in that primary had executive experience (Bill Richardson, former governor). All the others were from the senate or house.
Re:Forgery - (And obviously so) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not really ... historically ... (Score:4, Informative)
Even today I heard someone claim that smoking pot does not have worse health effects than tobacco smoke (think about it : no filters on the sigarettes -> you're actually inhaling burning leaves directly into your lungs which will never again come out. Healthy ? Of course not.
Surely it depends on what is actually being burnt and inhaled. Normal cigarette smoke has things like formaldahyde, benzene, ammonia and acetone - all known carcinogens while normal pot smoke does not. What's ironic here is that your default position is what I heard from all source of authority, until just recently.
There is even a recent medical study indicating that moderate, chronic pot smoking increases lung capacity compared to tobacco-smokers and non-smokers alike:
http://pulmccm.org/main/2012/asthma-review/infrequent-pot-smokers-have-better-lung-function-than-non-tokers-jama/ [pulmccm.org]
And FWIW, I've never used an illegal drug in my life, not even once. I don't have a dog in the "pot is better for you" fight.
Re:Forgery - (And obviously so) (Score:1, Informative)
"Hide the decline".
You know, we've been over this many times and that quote doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Either you already know that and are trying to trick people or your intentionally staying ignorant. Ether way, you seem like an idiot for that.
Billions, Millions, whatever. [Re:Let's see....] (Score:3, Informative)
It takes in excess of $100 million to drill a deepwater offshore well these days, and it takes ~10 years after the exploration phase before the production starts (assuming success). Given those costs and a 10:1 success ratio in less-explored areas, an obscene profit margin can disappear pretty quick,
Yeah! Why, with a profit margin of only 38 billion dollars a year, at a hundred million to drill a deepwater offshore well, they'll be losing money if they drill a mere three hundred and eighty deepwater offshore wells every year, and not one actually produces oil.
Oh, wait-- the cost of drilling the well doesn't come out of their profit, it's already incorporated in their expenses. So, that forty billion dollars of profit already accounts for the costs of drilling wells. Never mind.