oh look, another story that says stealing emails from climate scientists then completely misunderstanding their content (and spreading that disinformation around the 'net) is just fine and dandy, but publishing information about the deniers' funding sources (and lies) aquired through misrepresentation is bad?
that's some seriously stupid "logic" there. it's even sadder that anyone would defend an organization that has in the past tried to FUD about smoking's dangers. If anyone believed them, then later got lung cancer and died, that makes the Heartland Foundation murderers. that's some quality organization y'all are defending.