Clmategate vs. deniergate, fake-gate or sucker-gate

Note: I’m having problems getting the table formatting to display the internal grid, but I’m going to post now, rather than wait to work out how to get around this.

The following is a comparison of the climategate and Heartland document release. I chose to compare them using the criteria provided by the PCC.  As far as I can see this is a pretty well open and shut case. The publication of information stolen from the Heartland Institute is against PCC code of conduct because there is no public interest and it breaks numerous sections whereas the release of climategate emails was fully justified by public interest.

Name	Climate gate	Denier-gate /fake-gate /sucker-gate
Who	University of East Anglia Emails	Heartland Institute
Public/Private	Public	Private
Type of information released	Emails and data	Board-meeting and fund-raising documents
Had it been requested under FOI	Yes	No
Required to be released under FOI	Yes	No
How obtained	Unknown as to whether legal or illegal means used	Obtained by deception.
Was the information accurate or otherwise break the PCC requirement 1 (I) that “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”	No.	Yes, both sceptics and non-sceptics agree.a key document was fabricated.
Was there any breach of the PPC code on privacy 3 (i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.	Yes	Yes
Were any clandestine devices or subterfuges used in breach of 10 (I) “The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.	Documents were obtained and it does not appear they were authorised. However the exact circumstances are unknown and it remains possible they were lost by the company or otherwise obtained without resort to clandestine methods or subterfuge	The press clearly published material from messages which were clearly obtained by an interception of emails intended to go to a director using a subterfuge in clear breach of this section.
Was there a public interest defence?
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.	The information commission ruled that the law on FOI had been broken.	The is no suggestion of serious crime or impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.	Not Applicable	Even if it were argued that global warming is a threat to public safety, the information published did not provide anything substantial or anything that could not be reasonably guessed at by a outside observer using other publicly available sources on the organisation.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.	It is generally accepted that the climate scientists were saying one thing in private and saying something different in public. The lack of warming is a notable example. This was a substantial issue which went to the core of their public role and the public had a right to know it was being misled.	No evidence that the public have been misled by the Heartland institute has come out of these documents. The only revelations of any substance are that e.g. Microsoft who publicly support green issues were donating money but apparently for appropriate projects.
Was a reasonal attempt made to verify the material before publication.	Many organisations such as the BBC sat on the emails for weeks.	Material from the documents was published very quickly. In the case of the BBC, this was around 12hours and as their journalist put it: “I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of the contents are real, and they have not done so – ergo, they are real.”