A smear job
All the Heartland Institute ever asked for was an "honest debate" about climate change. And that's exactly what the commonsense libertarian think tank out of Chicago has offered for years, on climate change and myriad other important issues.
And for having the temerity to question the high priests of the Church of Global Warming, the scholars at Heartland regularly have been eviscerated as something akin to Holocaust deniers.
Heartland's science-based questions long have raised serious doubt about the "progressive" theologians' script, often one part junk science to six parts social re-engineering. But now the climate priests have turned to nefarious, and likely illegal, means to attempt to smear the former.
On Monday, noted climate clucker Peter H. Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted to his role in a plot to discredit Heartland. He posed as someone else to obtain documents purporting to suggest skulduggery in Heartland's operations.
Some of the documents had been altered. One obviously was a fake. Who did what remains a question mark. But even then, the documents were more of an affirmation of Heartland's hardly secret mission of credibly questioning conventional warming orthodoxy. The warming theologians never have had credible answers.
Mr. Gleick isn't the first climate activist to smear those who don't worship at his clique's altar and he won't be the last. But right now, he's the most embarrassing.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.