Not to spoil the surprise, the answer is: I dunno, but the Arbiter
is [was] bored.
This is a follow-up to the Heartland Leak stuff, which ended up posted in various places but (apparently most notably) DeSmogBlog. Heartland have (I think; perhaps only implicitly) admitted to all of them, except the Climate Strategy which they declare to be faked.
Various people have done various bits of textual analysis, which may or may not have been convincing to them, but I can’t see anything that convinces one way or another. Heartland still says its fake, DeSmog says “The DeSmogBlog has no evidence supporting Heartland’s claim that the Strategic document is fake” – which isn’t exactly strong evidence for its genuineness (update: but they have now bumped that up to Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic). It looks like their stern resolve to expose The Truth is going to be tested: Heartland are sending out legal-looking emails (and possibly letters too; there is some suggestion that their legalese isn’t very good, but their intent is clear). Would Heartland really want to fight this through the courts? Imagine the dialogue:
H: this memo is a fake! You can tell it is, it says things we’d never do, like we’re anti-climate.
D: of course you’re anti-climate. Everyone knows that. Look at this, and this, and…
And so on. Would that play well? Dunno. But, probably H have no choice: having called it a fake, they have to act like it is.
Meanwhile, no-one has questioned John Mashey’s stuff, and that may in the end be more important.
[Update: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html. JA has changed his mind. Its now exciting, and PG is a complete and utter twat of the highest order. The Watties are having fun with PG running the AGU ethics committee.]
[Update: so, PG leaked it, but I still haven't seen anything definitive on whether its a fake or not.]
* Fakeducation For Years From Heartland
* Keep your eye on the ball says Brian.
* Nature says he was naughty, but have the grace to wonder In a much-quoted Editorial in March 2010 (Nature 464, 141; 2010), this publication urged researchers to acknowledge that they are involved in a street fight over the communication of climate science. So would it now be hypocritical to condemn Peter Gleick for fighting dirty?
* What people think about the Heartland leaks