Ok, you've got your ad hom chops down. You don't like McArdle's politics. (Not that she was my only "authority" btw.)
The point is not about "liking" her politics or not - it is that her being strongly biased in the same, very specific way as Heartland is makes her a less-than-perfect source for decision making. The same would apply equally, for example, if the stolen papers were from
Discovery Institute and McArdle was a known creationist.
How exactly does this pertain to Peter Gleick's unethical and, indeed, criminal actions?
Well, if she was in the line to be a member of the jury, her bias would probably get her thrown out.
As far as Gleick's actions go, what he did was unethical, yes, but also rather understandable, if his story is true. After getting the memo in the snail mail, he likely desperately wanted to know whether it was for real or not, and went a step too far in his efforts to find the evidence.
It will be interesting to see whether Heartland will actually proceed with the legal action on Gleick - i actually think they may not, because that could bring to light too many unpleasant things about HI itself.
Much of what appears in the phony “strategy memo” could have been composed only by someone with prior access to Heartland's board materials that Gleick says he subsequently sought out. Gleick is the only person, so far, who is known to have had access to the Heartland internal board documents.
No, he is not. Many people
inside Heartland had access to those papers and the data in them. As far as the authenticity goes, there's no
proof one way or the other - essentially, all we have now is Bast's word against Gleick's.
Also suspicious is that Gleick has not been forthcoming about the details of the phony memo. Was there a postmark? Did he keep the envelope and the original document that he scanned? Why does he think he was singled out to receive this information, rather than a reporter?
Well, he hasn't given any in-depth statement on the issue, just one blog post that outlined the events. If the calamity goes to court, we will surely get all the minutiae.
What i'm personally suspicious of is HI, and especially the wording in their statements. What they have said is roughly that A) the memo was not written by a Heartland staff member and B) that the memo was not written on the computers at the Heartland's offices.
Now, if what they say is true, that still leaves open many possibilities: for example, the memo could have been written by a board member, at home. Or by i.e. one or more of Heartland's "Climate experts", on a laptop while sipping a latté at Starbucks. Technically, Bast wouldn't have lied, but the memo would still be very closely connected to Heartland.
