DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Change Denial in Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Change Denial in Canada Climate Change Denial in Canada: An Evaluation of the Fraser Institute and Friends of Science Positions by Aldous Sperl A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography Carleton University Ottawa, ON ©2013 Aldous Sperl Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du 1+1 Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-94577-3 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-94577-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada Abstract Anthropogenic climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing our civilization, yet collective action is being hindered by the existence and promotion of a climate denial discourse. This research uses discourse analysis to critically examine the climate-related online web-output of two prominent climate change denial organizations found in Canada: the Friends of Science and the Fraser Institute. Rooted in the climate denial literature, and drawing on the framework of Argumentative Discourse Analysis, this research demonstrates the existence of a 'discourse- coalition' working to counteract the creation of meaningful climate policy in Canada over the last decade. The findings of this analysis support previous conclusions about the nature and purpose of the climate denial industry, thus showing that the general denial discourse is highly resilient over time and space. It is further argued that that climate denial in Canada is part of a wider philosophical struggle linked to the modern conservative movement defending the Dominant Social Paradigm. Acknowledgements This work has been both a struggle and an incredible journey of self-development. I am pleased to say that, looking back at it, I have both learned about the subject under study and, perhaps more importantly, have learned something about myself. Indeed, this journey has sparked new questions in how I wish to live my life and what path I should follow. For this new and unexpected perspective I am incredibly grateful. However, this thesis would never have been achievable without the support of my supervisor Mike Brklacich. His constant patience and encouragement despite my changing ideas, life priorities, nagging doubts, and confusion during the process has been a blessing. I have also greatly appreciated the 'hands-off approach he has taken in allowing me to make this my own thesis while still providing constructive support. Second I'd like to give a truly heartfelt thank you to Chris Russill, for agreeing to be my advisor and for providing excellent feedback, encouragement, and for being a part of the thesis from the beginning. The expertise and support of my committee members (Mike and Chris) has proved invaluable and without them I cannot imagine this project coming to fruition. I'd also like to acknowledge my friends and family for the support they have provided. Most importantly I'd like to thank Gen for her encouragement, understanding, and patience with me during this time. I'd also like to thank Taylor, Jacquie, and Jon for planting the idea of doing a Master's degree in the first place in my mind. Last, I'd like to thank my family for their words of wisdom that have often guided me through the frustrations and tests of endurance that I have experienced while working on this project. iii Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables..........................................................................................................................................................vi List of Figures....................................................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 - Introduction and Thesis Overview...................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research Question & Significance:............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Thesis Overview..........................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 2 - Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Discourse Analysis.......................................................... 8 2.1 The Evolution of Climate Science.............................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Public Opinion and Climate Change ........................................................................................................15 2.3 Climate Change Denial.............................................................................................................................21 2.4 Justifying the Research Agenda............................................................................................................... 40 2.5 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................42 Chapter 3 - Theoretical and Research Frameworks........................................................................................43 3.1 Poststructuralism ..................................................................................................................................... 43 3.2 Types of Discourse.................................................................................................................................... 44 3.3 Positionality and Reflexivity.................................................................................................................... 49 3.4 The Approach - Defining Discourse and Explaining the Analytical Framework..................................53 3.5 Methodology and Methods.....................................................................................................................57 3.6 The Data Set..............................................................................................................................................70 3.6 Concluding Thoughts................................................................................................................................76 Chapter 4 -Analysing Climate Change Denial in Canada: FOSand FI Positions ........................................... 78 4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................78 4.1 Analysis Results for FOS Texts................................................................................................................. 84 4.2 Analysis Results for Fraser Institute texts............................................................................................ 102 4.3 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................120 Chapter 5 - Discussion.......................................................................................................................................121 5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................121 5.2 The Production of Texts in Recent History..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Heartland Institute Under Attack Global Warming Fever Drives Scientists to Desperation
    GREEN WATCH BANNER TO BE INSERTED HERE The Heartland Institute Under Attack Global Warming Fever Drives Scientists to Desperation By Matt Patterson Summary: It was Valentine’s Day, but it was no love letter. On February 14, 2012, renowned environmental scientist Peter Gleick transmitted to a group of liberal bloggers and journalists documents that he obtained from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think-tank specializing in environmental policy. Gleick’s goal: destroy Heartland, a group that has mobilized scien- tists who are skeptical about global warm- ing. Gleick faked his identity and pretended to be a Heartland board member to obtain some of the documents. One of the docu- Dr. Peter Gleick - Thief ments that Gleick sent was a fake, created Yale and received his Ph.D. in Energy and social equity.” In 2010 the Pacifi c by Gleick or parties unknown to prove what and Resources from the University of Institute received more than $2.2 million wasn’t true. Gleick’s reckless, unethical and, California, Berkeley in 1986. He is in grants and contributions from a mix of most likely, criminal action shows just how currently president of the Pacifi c Institute foundations (e.g. Hewlett, Packard, Robert desperate green activists are to prop up their for Studies in Development, Environment, Wood Johnson, Rockefeller Brothers, overblown claims about global warming. and Security, which he co-founded in Rockefeller) and government agencies r. Peter Gleick was a trusted 1987. (e.g. Sacramento County and the Florida and respected scientist, with a Dcareer studded with honors and The Oakland, California-based research May 2012 awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Better Science - Where Is the Recent Warming?
    Better Science - Where is the Recent Warming? Two Friends of Science members published the following letters in the Readers’ Forum section of the September 2012 issue of “The PEG Magazine”, the official publication of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). HERE'S SOME BETTER SCIENCE Re: Online Denials Not Well Founded, by J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol., and Let's Get Back to Applying Science, by Joe Green, P.Eng., Readers' Forum, The PEG,April 2012. A return to the appropriate application of science would be most welcome. But how do we define Science? Since the 17th century a scientific method with accepted standards has developed. Researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of observed phenomena and design experimental studies to test them. Fundamental is the principle of full transparency, with data and methodology archived and shared so results can be verified and reproduced independently by other scientists. This has not been the pattern for the climatologists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who have shown a total disregard for these procedures by withholding data, refusing to reveal or discuss methodology, and essentially ignoring evidence contrary to their hypothesis. PhiI Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia has not been forthcoming. Despite numerous freedom of information requests and enquiries, data and its associated methodology have not been fully released for independent due diligence. This is notwithstanding that this is the temperature data set presented as primary evidence of late 20th century warming, and the basis for draconian policy and taxation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global Warming
    Science in Context 26(1), 137–152 (2013). Copyright ©C Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0269889712000312 Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global War ming Richard D. Besel California Polytechnic State University E-mail: [email protected] Argument Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 testimony before the U.S. Senate was an important turning point in the history of global climate change. However, no studies have explained why Hansen’s scientific communication in this deliberative setting was more successful than his testimonies of 1986 and 1987. This article turns to Hansen as an important case study in the rhetoric of accommodated science, illustrating how Hansen successfully accommodated his rhetoric to his non-scientist audience given his historical conditions and rhetorical constraints. This article (1) provides a richer explanation for the rhetorical/political emergence of global warming as an important public policy issue in the United States during the late 1980s and (2) contributes to scholarly understanding of the rhetoric of accommodated science in deliberative settings, an often overlooked area of science communication research. Standing on the promontory of the rocky rims in Billings, Montana, there is usually a distinct horizontal line between the clear, blue sky and the white, snowcapped Beartooth Mountains. But the summer of 1988 was different. A fuzzy, reddish tint lingered across the once pristine skyline of “Big Sky Country.” The reason: More than one hundred miles to the south, Yellowstone National Park smoldered in one of the most devastating forest fires of the twentieth century (Anon. 1988, A18; Stevens 1999, 129–130).
    [Show full text]
  • The Dilemma of Reticence: Helmut Landsberg, Stephen Schneider, and Public Communication of Climate Risk, 1971-1976
    History of Meteorology 6 (2014) 53 The Dilemma of Reticence: Helmut Landsberg, Stephen Schneider, and public communication of climate risk, 1971-1976 Gabriel Henderson Aarhus University Aarhus, Denmark “Most of the crucial issues of human survival that will confront humanity over the next few decades will call for ethical and political value judgments – decisions on how to act in the face of uncertainties. … Human value judgments are too important to be left exclusively to the experts.” – Stephen Schneider1 “Science is not as objective as some people think. Often human value judgments (or even prejudices) make things move as much as curiosity or the search for answers as to ‘why.’” – Helmut Landsberg2 During the tumultuous mid-1970s, when energy and food shortages, environmental pollution, and political instability induced suspicions that America was increasingly susceptible to increased climatic instability, American climatologists Helmut Landsberg and Stephen Schneider disagreed strongly on whether scientists should engage the public about the future risks and urgency of climate change. On the one hand, Schneider, a young climate modeler with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), expressed explicitly an unwillingness to embrace reticence as an appropriate response to the risks of climate change. To illustrate the gravity of the situation, he frequently resorted to vivid and frightening metaphors to convince the public and policy makers that I want to express my gratitude to Ruth Morgan and the anonymous reviewer who contributed thoughtful suggestions to improve and refine the scope of this article. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Center for Science Studies at Aarhus University for their suggestions to strengthen my narrative and flow of argument: Dania Achermann, Matthias Heymann, and Janet Martin-Nielsen.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Jacobs
    Climate Science Newsletters By: Albert Jacobs ___________________________________________________________________________ CliSci # 82 2011-12-21 Four Sceptic Scientists testify before the Canadian Senate Committee. The Senate Energy & Environment Committee Hearing with Drs. Ross McKitrick, Ian Clark, Jan Veizer and Tim Patterson took place on December 15th 2011. The video is now on YouTube at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW19pPFfIyg#t=65> ------------------------------ The COP 17 aftermath The conclusions of COP 17 are found on <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011//eng/l04.pdf> In the words of Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director: “The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get- out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak,” “Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.” And on December 12th: <http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/canada-formally-withdrawig-from- kyoto-protocol/> Canada put a full stop after Jean Chrétien’s folly. We do not quote DeSmogBlog very often, but they seem to have blown their top: " Canada's decision to turn its back on its international obligations confirms yet again that Stephen Harper and his carbon cronies are securing a hellish future for generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters
    BSTXXX10.1177/0270467617707079Bulletin of Science, Technology & SocietyPowell 707079research-article2017 Article Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2016, Vol. 36(3) 157 –163 The Consensus on Anthropogenic © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Global Warming Matters DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617707079 10.1177/0270467617707079 journals.sagepub.com/home/bst James Lawrence Powell1 Abstract Skuce et al., responding to Powell, title their article, “Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?” I argue that the extent of the consensus does matter, most of all because scholars have shown that the stronger the public believe the consensus to be, the more they support the action on global warming that human society so desperately needs. Moreover, anyone who knows that scientists once thought that the continents are fixed in place, or that the craters of the Moon are volcanic, or that the Earth cannot be more than 100 million years old, understands that a small minority has sometimes turned out to be right. But it is hard to think of a case in the modern era in which scientists have been virtually unanimous and wrong. Moreover, as I show, the consensus among publishing scientists is demonstrably not 97%. Instead, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%. Keywords global warming, climate change, consensus, peer review, history of science Introduction Consensus Skuce et al. (2016, henceforth S16), responding to Powell What does consensus in science mean and how can it best be (2016), ask, “Does it matter if the consensus on anthropo- measured? The Oxford English Dictionary (2016) defines genic global warming is 97% or 99.99%?” consensus as “Agreement in opinion; the collective unani- Of course it matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Radio Canada's
    Friends of Science friendsofscience.org climatechange101.ca Press Release November 26, 2019 Radio Canada’s “Décrypteurs” Climate Fail (CALGARY) Friends of Science Society have issued a letter to Radio Canada condemning recent coverage of the CLINTEL “No Climate Emergency” declaration as poor and biased journalism. On Nov. 23, 2019, fact-checkers at Radio Canada’s “Décrypteurs” claim to have deconstructed the list of scientists who issued the Climate Intelligence - CLINTEL “No Climate Emergency” declaration to the UN. A larger group of CLINTEL signatories and expanded scientific explanation was presented on Nov. 20, 2019 to the European Parliament, as reported by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Radio Canada’s fact-checking team claim few of the CLINTEL signatories are climate scientists, but this is a term which only came into use about 2005. It is irrelevant in the complex field of climate where physicists, atmospheric scientists, geoscientists, astrophysicists, oceanographers, volcanologists and chemists among others, all have input to and understanding of climate change science. Radio Canada relies on information from the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). IFCN certified “Climate Feedback” as an accurate source to evaluate such climate news, but it is really a group of self- interested scientists who issued a disrespectful and fact-fail review of the CLINTEL ‘No Climate Emergency” document, as detailed in this Friends of Science rebuttal. While the “Décrypteurs” claim some CLINTEL signatories are not scientists, it is ironic that CBC/Radio Canada regularly report on Al Gore’s climate proclamations and give headline coverage to Greta Thunberg, neither of whom are climate scientists and both of whom are engaged in a global carbon offset promotion scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • BLACK SWANS by Dr Gerrit J. Van Der Lingen (© 2015)
    BLACK SWANS By Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen (© 2015) Christiana Figueres is a Costa Rican diplomat. She was appointed Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on May 17, 2010. She succeeded Yvo de Boer. The UNFCCC organises annual climate conferences, called COPs (Conferences Of the Parties to the UNFCCC). The first one was held in Berlin in 1995. The last one (COP20), at the time of writing this essay, was in Lima, Peru, 1-12 December 2014. Christiana Figueras chaired that conference. In her opening address she said, among other, the following: “The calendar of science loudly warns us that we are running out of time”, and “Here in Lima we must plant the seeds of a new, global construct of high quality growth, based on unparalleled collaboration building across all previous divides. History, dear friends, will judge us not only for how many tonnes of greenhouse gases we were able to reduce, but also by whether we were able to protect the most vulnerable, to alleviate poverty and to create a future with prosperity for all”. Maurice Newman, Chairman of the Australian Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, wrote an article in The Australian newspaper of 8 May, 2015, titled: “The UN is using climate change as a tool, not an issue”. About Christina Figueres he wrote: “Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s framework on Climate Change has the answer? In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 1 of 6
    Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 1 of 6 Larry Bell, Contributor I write about climate, energy, environmental and space policy issues. OP/ED | 1/10/2012 @ 4:12PM | 3,332 views Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us. The research was conducted by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM), which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. It takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles. As noted in the paper, the IPCC models also fail to incorporate climate modulating effects of solar changes such as cloud-forming influences of cosmic rays throughout periods of reduced sunspot activity. More clouds tend to make conditions cooler, while fewer often cause warming. At least 50-70% of observed 20th century warming might be associated with increased solar activity witnessed since the “Maunder Minimum” of the last 17th century. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-c... 1/13/2012 Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes Page 2 of 6 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in a Prosperous Green Future Investing in a Prosperous
    Recommendations for Budget 2010 InvestingInvesting inin aa ProsperousProsperous GreenGreen FutureFuture Bird Studies Canada • Canadian Environmental Law Association Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society • Centre for Integral Economics David Suzuki Foundation • Ducks Unlimited Canada • Ecojustice Environmental Defence • Équiterre • Friends of the Earth Greenpeace Canada • International Institute for Sustainable Development MiningWatch Canada • Nature Canada • Nature Conservancy of Canada Pembina Institute • Pollution Probe • Sierra Club Canada Social Investment Organization • Wildlife Habitat Canada • WWF–Canada Dan Sokolowski Executive Summary “We need to take action, we owe it to future generations.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper1 Budget 2010 is a prime opportunity to create enduring economic and environmental benefi ts for Canadians. The Green Budget Coalition’s priority recommendations for Budget 2010 are: 1) Protecting Ecosystems and Biodiversity: A Necessity in the Face of Climate Change, 2) Investing in Canada’s Freshwater Future: Beginning with the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Basin, and 3) Renewable Energy: Attracting Investment, Creating Jobs. Adopting these three recommendations alone would stimulate over eight thousand new jobs in renewable energy, ensure a clean source of drinking water for millions of Canadians, and protect key elements of our marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Investing in renewable energy and a national water is perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of strategy will expedite the transformation of
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Is the Science Really Settled?
    CLIMATE CHANGE: IS THE SCIENCE REALLY SETTLED? by Lawrence Solomon SPPI COMMENTARY & ESSAY SERIES ♦ February 25, 2010 CLIMATE CHANGE: IS THE SCIENCE REALLY SETTLED? A PRESENTATION TO THE COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION by Lawrence Solomon | February 10, 2010 Thank you, Stuart, for that introduction. I’m grateful for the opportunity to address this gathering, although I’m not that pleased anymore with the title of my talk. “Climate Change – Is the Science Really Settled?” That seemed like a good title back in October, when Stuart invited me to come here. But a lot has happened since October. Chiefly, Climategate happened, one month later, in November. For those of you who haven’t heard of Climategate, this was the release – probably by a whistleblower – of some 3000 documents, many of them emails between some of the most important promoters of the global warming hypothesis. I call the “doomsayers,” not to be pejorative but because that term, “doomsayer,” most accurately describes their message. Before those emails came to light, the doomsayers were already in trouble. Public opinion in the US, the UK and other countries had already swung against the thesis that man is responsible for dangerous global warming. After the Climategate emails came to light, elite opinion began to turn against the doomsayers. I can now tell you with great confidence that there won’t be a cap and trade bill, there won’t be a national carbon tax, there won’t be national legislation of any significance, not in the US, not in other countries that have not yet adopted greenhouse gas legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Redacted Response
    From: Gillis, Justin To: Andrew Dessler Subject: RE: thoughts on Heartland Leak w.r.t. cloud feedback Date: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:23:54 AM Yes, he was making that complaint. "My papers get special treatment from the cabal," etc. etc. I have to say I read the reviews of the '11 paper, at your suggestion, and they looked completely professional and on-point to my unpracticed eye. -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Andrew Dessler Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:07 PM To: Gillis, Justin Subject: Re: thoughts on Heartland Leak w.r.t. cloud feedback He's been trying to publish this, but it's been rejected at least twice and a third rejection is on the way (I think). Dick doesn't understand R^2 or, more likely, the argument is just a squirt of squids' ink designed to confuse. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Gillis, Justin wrote: > He had choice words to say about your paper, by the way. "R-squared of .02! Can you believe that!" I take it that means he didn't like the width of your error bars, or some such... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: On > Behalf Of Andrew Dessler > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:18 AM > To: Gillis, Justin > Subject: Re: thoughts on Heartland Leak w.r.t. cloud feedback > >> I trust you're treating these e-mails in strictest confidence, as I will. > > yes, do not worry. > >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: On >> Behalf Of Andrew Dessler >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:59 AM >> To: Gillis, Justin >> Subject: Re: thoughts on Heartland Leak w.r.t.
    [Show full text]