AGW a cult for college educated white liberals that makes them useful to the Left.
He’ll be back like a bad foot fungus until he is stripped of his academic credentials.
(( ping ))
The scumbag liar and thief Gleick even lies in his cofession!
The last thing on earth the "global warming" scammers want is real debate, because... "The science is settled."
They still have Heartland as being the villain.
Back in April 2011, Peter Gleick was exposed by Calwatchdog.com for misleading about the amount of water California agriculture uses.
Read here:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/no-shortage-of-water-myths-or-mythmakers/
Back in April 2011, Peter Gleick was exposed by Calwatchdog.com for misleading about the amount of water California agriculture uses.
Read here:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/no-shortage-of-water-myths-or-mythmakers/
Back in April 2011, Peter Gleick was exposed by Calwatchdog.com for misleading about the amount of water California agriculture uses.
Read here:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/no-shortage-of-water-myths-or-mythmakers/
Back in April 2011, Peter Gleick was exposed by Calwatchdog.com for misleading about the amount of water California agriculture uses.
Read here:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/04/05/no-shortage-of-water-myths-or-mythmakers/
The DeSmogBlog, which has long covered the impacts global warming and fossil fuel industry-backed misinformation campaigns, on Tuesday released internal documents from the Heartland Institute -- "the heart of the climate denial machine" -- that discuss "its current plans, many of its funders, and details" confirming years of suspicion and reporting on their goals and machinations.
Cheers,
OLA
The fraud claims to have "solicited" the information fraudulently. But he received the material he asked for.
How does that constitute "stealing," as claimed by the Heartland Institute?
If he stole data he should pay the price. I he simply appropriated information which would otherwise be obtained legally, where's the foul?
Of course there is the other matter of claiming that he received data "anonymously" which he very weell could have manufactured after receiving data to make the fraud more believeable.
The lack of moral and ethics on the perp's part is clear.
Did I miss any Lib responses?