Posted: Feb 25, 2012 2:40 pm
The Heartland Institute has a good reason to claim that the memo is fake: If it is real, the organization is guilty of withholding information from parts of the board. This is a serious violation!
And now that several analyses of the actual text in the memo show that Gleick is one of the least like authors and that Heartland Institute insiders like Bast are the most likely, the denialosphere is spinning with confusion. Most of them are still in denial.
Others have come up with the excuse that the text analyses obviously show Heartland insiders as the most likely authors, since large parts of the memo was a cut&paste job from other Heartland Institute documents. That is supposed to explain why analyses show the HI's own as the likely authors, but it does not explain all the claims about how it must be Gleick because the memo was in his writing style. How can the writing style be Gleick's, but at the same time, the memo is most likely written by Heartland insiders?
Oh, the hilarity of the denialists and their denial.
And now that several analyses of the actual text in the memo show that Gleick is one of the least like authors and that Heartland Institute insiders like Bast are the most likely, the denialosphere is spinning with confusion. Most of them are still in denial.
Others have come up with the excuse that the text analyses obviously show Heartland insiders as the most likely authors, since large parts of the memo was a cut&paste job from other Heartland Institute documents. That is supposed to explain why analyses show the HI's own as the likely authors, but it does not explain all the claims about how it must be Gleick because the memo was in his writing style. How can the writing style be Gleick's, but at the same time, the memo is most likely written by Heartland insiders?
Oh, the hilarity of the denialists and their denial.