Electric Vehicle Bunkum Fraud And Waste

[SgtRock]

Dear PeteInTexas:

--Please at least, pay enough attention, to get those facts which are not in dispute, correct.  We only have Gleick's word for any of this but as of yesterday,  Gleick states that he requested documents under an assumed name, not that the documents were sent to him in a response to an allegation. So far as I know, no one, repeat no one, is alleging that documents were sent to anyone to refute any allegations by anyone.

--If indeed Gleick was mailed any documents, we do not know what fake name was used, it is impossible to say for sure, but it seems likely that he used the name of someone who was trusted by the person he was requesting the documents from.

--I hope someone gets a handle on this before some poor dupe commits suicide, as happened the the Andrew Gilligan BBC scandal, where BBC was forced to retract the accusation that the Blair government had falsified intelligence about Saddam Hussein, after a government minister who had been promised anonymity, was subsequently outed and took his own life.

--Now, Gleick has already put the lives of people and their families in jeopardy, and has admitted he lied about some things, why should grant him any credibility or good intentions whatsoever.

"He was born ignorant, and has been losing ground ever since."
Fred Allen 1894 1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[PeteInTexas]

Dear PeteInTexas:

--Please at least, pay enough attention, to get those facts which are not in dispute, correct.  We only have Gleick's word for any of this but as of yesterday,  Gleick states that he requested documents under an assumed name, not that the documents were sent to him in a response to an allegation. So far as I know, no one, repeat no one, is alleging that documents were sent to anyone to refute any allegations by anyone.

I seriously can't understand what you are trying to say here.

[SgtRock]

Dear PeteInTexas

--You said:

"I don't condone the "pretexting" behaviour [sic] but, if the document in question is fake, why did Heartland respond with more related documents?

--I will try to synopsize. Peter Gleick alleges that he was sent a super secret insider memo. Gleick then alleges that he used a false identity to obtain other documents which contained "personal information" as well as details of funding and disbursement.

--You see, No one even alleges that "Heartland respond[ed] with more related documents?". Gleick claims that Heartland sent him the documents in question because he used a false identity. He has made no announcement as to the pretext used. You see, we already know that Heartland did not send anything to anyone named "Peter Gleick". And if, indeed they ever sent anything to anybody, other than a trusted friend, would they not have redacted "personal and family details"?

--I have not been able as yet to get a copy of the alleged documents. When I do I will go over them an give you my honest analysis. You might want to know that many people who have had a look  at the "Secret Insider Memo", say that is is clearly a forgery, because it makes multiple mistakes, which no insider would be likely to make.

--I it looks very much like Peter Gleick used the illegally obtained documents to assist him in forging the "Secret Insider Memo" and to include with it, when he did a mass release to all of the AGW alarmist sites. Even the tinfoil hat greenie weenies, either could not stomach or could not swallow all of this, so one or more of them ratted him out so to speak.

--This just in. The Administration's favorite Stalinist bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency scrubbed their database of grants to Peter Gleick's Pacific Institute. See link below:

http://junkscience.com/2012/02/23/breaking-epa-scrubs-web-site-of-gleick-grants/

--After they had been caught they restored the information:

http://junkscience.com/2012/02/24/sneaky-epa-restores-gleick-grants-to-grant-awards-database/

--Just let me see if I understand your position. It is wrong to raise private money to encourage teachers to include information about both sides of the AGW controversy. But it is right to use taxpayer money to encourage the teaching of only one side. Is that about right?

--Please consider giving us a synopsis of events (considering those facts not in dispute) from your point of view. I am not to sure I even understand, what you are trying to allege.

"Three weeks in the lab will save you a day in the library every time"
R. Stanley Williams 1951 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether