Here's an aside in a post I wrote about Roger Pielke Jr. two years ago, who was mad about a study criticizing his father but didn't have much substantive to say about it:
an interesting choice of tactics here - during the whole stolen climate emails thing, some people wanted to focus on the privacy invasion and illegal theft, which I thought would be viewed as an attempt to distract people from the content when the content wasn't that bad. Here, denialists and unhelpful types like Pielke Jr. are ignoring the PNAS study content and screaming about blacklists. Maybe it's like the lawyer's saying that if you can't pound any arguments in your favor, pound the table instead.
I'm just trying to be consistent here. Content is king. Set aside the strategy document. Heartland has now had plenty of time to review and deny the accuracy of the other documents and it hasn't. The docs seem generally supportive of John Mashey's analysis of public records. The outrage you're hearing from the denialists are attempts to distract people from the content when the content is bad.
Time to send the IRS and state attorney generals after these fake charities.
