Who the hell told Uncle Ruckus (no relation) about slashdot?

I wonder if you could build enough of these to produce an artificial rainshadow effect downwind?

Excerpt from HB0368 (the "Monkey" bill):
"(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects."
Source

I can't even begin to count how many times I've been told "Evolution 'skepticism' has NOTHING to do with Climate Change skepticism!"... from where I sit it's all there in black and white.

Yeah, I guess I'd be upset too if I accused someone of forgery without sufficient evidence to support that claim.

Peter Gleick says "I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication." ... and that "The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget." (link).
You have not provided enough evidence to support the accusation of forgery.

"Are you suggesting that someone at the Heartland Institute offices in Central time zone scanned a document using a scanner configured as being in the Pacific time zone?"
Without a full investigation into the matter we can't rule out that a computer at the Heartland Institute was incorrectly configured to Pacific time. It happens.
It's also possible that a travelling member of the Heartland Institute scanned a copy of the document in pacific time.
To jump to the conclusion that the document is a forgery is simply not supported by the evidence available.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe Peter Gleick didn't "print one of them out and then scan it back into electronic format".
It's also possible that the person who prepared the original package of documents added a scanned copy of the 2012 Climate Strategy and then emailed the package off to Peter Gleick (posing as a board member).
All this is to say: Based on the available evidence it is very far from certain that the 2012 Climate Strategy document is a forgery.

Sure. The documents that are printed directly to PDF are the ones the Heartland Institute CAN'T deny ownership of.
The document in question could be a scan of an authentic document by someone who didn't have access to the soft copy.

The contents of the article you've linked to are, at best, conjecture.
The only way to know for sure is if the Heartland Institute turns over a full copy of their email & document archives.

You're going to have to provide some evidence for that.
The closest I've heard is that Heartland hasn't admitted yet that they authored the document. Considering the damning content I expect they'll confess sometime after hell freezes over.