That’s a nice strawman you’ve built there.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

So. By quoting your extensive use the terms forgery, theft (and their respective cognates) I have misrepresented you. Would I then be properly representing you by misquoting your words?

Welcome to Earth; I’ve never met anyone from Htrae before.

The plain fact is that you have accepted as true assertions of forgery & theft from people and an organization which have documented track records of making false and/or deliberately misleading statements. If you were in fact skeptical, you would at the very least be reserving judgement, and more likely you would be taking into account the prior history of the Heartland Institute.

At its heart, denialism, whether Holocaust, evolution, HIV, climate change or any other is simply an extreme rejection of data for ideological reasons. (And note for the record that I am not saying explicitly or implicitly that denialism in one area a priori includes denialism in any others) No one has a perfectly symmetric skepticism in all areas and all directions. But when the bar to accepting information is low to non-existent on one side and unachieveably high on the other due to an ideological preference, denialism is the only accurate term.

Terribly uncivilized of me to point this all out, I know.

“so marvelously ironic.

I was going to answer your initial question in #46 about labeling deniers, but the combination of your unskeptical acceptance of the ‘forgery/theft’ assertions with your desire for your opponents to exercise skepticism makes it utterly unnecessary. Thank you for saving me the effort!”

That’s a nice strawman you’ve built there. Had I accepted the position I hold now, without question, or skepticism, I would have been posting within a day of HI brouhaha…like Greg Laden, and others.

So either address the points I’ve raised, show me where I’m wrong, and carry on a civilized conversation, or just go away.

The inconsistencies between Gleik’s forged memo, and the legit documents he stole…finding that the documents he’d stolen were of little use, or interest, tossed off a quick forgery

Steve S @ 48:

Without the forgery…suspected him as the author of the forged memo early on…our shadowy author also had to have access to the exact same documents that Gleik stole to even write that memo

These excerpts from your comments demonstrate that you have accepted the ‘forgery/theft’ assertions without skepticism, which makes your final comment:

Skepticism is healthy, and I’m glad that not everyone bought his story on blind faith.

so marvelously ironic.

I was going to answer your initial question in #46 about labeling deniers, but the combination of your unskeptical acceptance of the ‘forgery/theft’ assertions with your desire for your opponents to exercise skepticism makes it utterly unnecessary. Thank you for saving me the effort!

“You make a dubious assumption here: that the content of the documents is not damaging to Heartland. I don’t think that’s been established.”

Without the forgery, there’s little in the other documents that couldn’t be found on HI’s website. Without the provocative language and statements inserted into the forged ‘memo’, there’s no ‘there’ there, outside of names, addresses, donors, and recipients, that were, until recently, also public knowledge.

“Also, your version fails to explain how Gleick got the information that enabled him to trick the unnamed HI staffer into sending the other eight documents.”

Names, and possibly contact info for HI’s board members is available on HI’s website. If that’s not good enough, he also had email headers, and footers from earlier correspondence with HI from late January of this year, where he was extended an invitation to speak at HI’s annual banquet.

“I wouldn’t venture to guess who might have faked it. But it apparently does contain at least some information that matches items in the documents Heartland sent.”

Yes, and who do we know that had access to those HI documents? Peter Gleik, first and foremost. His sinister “Lucy Ramirez” story does not ring true. Let’s also remember that people familiar with PG’s style of writing suspected him as the author of the forged memo early on.

For the sake of argument though, let’s assume that some shadowy third party sent him the strategy memo. He receives it, opens the envelope, reads the memo, and exclaims, “Hot damn! This is worth committing wire fraud over!”. No…that doesn’t sound very plausible either. Following this line of thought a bit further though, our shadowy author also had to have access to the exact same documents that Gleik stole to even write that memo. Why didn’t he/she just send them along with the memo in the first place?

“Also, I note that many members of what you call “his intended audience” do question the strategy document.”

Skepticism is healthy, and I’m glad that not everyone bought his story on blind faith.

You make a dubious assumption here: that the content of the documents is not damaging to Heartland. I don’t think that’s been established.

Also, your version fails to explain how Gleick got the information that enabled him to trick the unnamed HI staffer into sending the other eight documents. I do think the strategy document was faked, but not by Gleick. I wouldn’t venture to guess who might have faked it. But it apparently does contain at least some information that matches items in the documents Heartland sent.

Two alternatives seem to fit everything we know: That a disgruntled Heartland insider (not necessarily an employee) made up the strategy document using some inside information and sent it to Gleick hoping that he would expose them; or that it’s part of a sting operation on Heartland’s part. But I think the latter possibility has already been discredited.

Also, I note that many members of what you call “his intended audience” do question the strategy document.

Is it your belief then that skeptics refer to themselves as ‘deniers’, and in the company of like minded folk openly discuss preventing teachers from teaching science, or referring to their mission as undermining the UN?

The inconsistencies between Gleik’s forged memo, and the legit documents he stole from HI are all seemingly designed to sex up otherwise mundane reports…never the other way. The errors never downplay HI’s works. It’s almost as if Gleik, upon finding that the documents he’d stolen were of little use, or interest, tossed off a quick forgery to make it seem as if HI was doing more than it’s public face suggested. Out of malice, perhaps. Amateurishly written, with lots of evil flourishes, just what his intended audience would eat up, and never question.

I really recommend that you read the documents

I expect to, after some of the smoke clears. Which is why I’m reserving judgement about whether any particular one is fraudulent or not. But Heartland has admitted that at least some are real. And given their track record in the tobacco controversy, they have a much greater hurdle to demonstrate veracity than Gleick does.

It is hardly likely that HI would mix these figures up in their own Climate Strategy document, or that they would attribute the figure to climate research rather than health care.

A low probability of inconsistent information in separate documents from one organization? It would suggest you’ve never been associated with any kind of bureaucracy…