[Da Coyote]

D*mn, Ms Saunders actually wrote a pretty honest article.

Good on her.

Now, I humbly request that she gets together with some science folks who can actually do numerical analysis - and then she can write the article showing that this idiot and his cohorts purchased their degrees from the back of a cerial box...and are so stupid that they could serve in the West Wing.

[Red6]

To a leftist, the “ends justify the means,” even if this means you have to kill 6.5 million Jews, slaughter the mountain people of Vietnam, have the Killing Fields... Ethics is a made up term anyhow, an some bogus notion of right and wrong in a secular world without morals that are absolute. There is no real underlying noble principal at work since these eco issues in reality are nothing more than facade arguments for their economic, social and political movement.

[Eldon Tyrell]

Re read it -
She spent half her time talking about Heartland, and inclyuded teh obviously forged most damaging document as “still to be determined”.

This is - purely - smoke screen. A kindly worded semi-apology - that is STILL talking about the rape victim’s short skirt.

Note that she did not mention ONE SINGLE NEWSITE that went public with these documents. Certainly - any that contacted Heartland - were told they were stolen and fake.

“Fake but stolen” is an appropriate article title. Anything less - is just spin.

[rogue yam]

The linked article isn’t as bad as many but it still doesn’t make plain the real issue here.

The bottom line to this story is that only one of the released documents was damning of the Heartland Institute and that document, the “strategy memo”, was a transparent fake.

Gleick did not just lie to Heartland in order to steal their documents. He lied and stole genuine documents and then bundled them together with a forged memo in order to more convincingly pass off the forged memo as real.

The leftists are claiming that Gleick did nothing more than steal and distribute genuine documents that prove Heartland to be a bad actor.

Saunders, in the posted article, fails to directly rebut this lie.