Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession

(Received via email direct from Heartland president Bast in advance of their website posting, see Gleick’s statement/confession here – Anthony)

FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists,  policy experts, and organizations we work with.

A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a  more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.

# # #

For more information, contact Jim Lakely, communications director of The Heartland Institute, at 312/377-4000 or jlakely@heartland.org.

Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000

Email jbast “at”heartland.org

Web site http://www.heartland.org

Support The Heartland Institute today!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fakegate and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

285 Responses to Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession

  1. Ron McDonald says:

    The hysterical-warmist crowd would do well to remember the words of Seneca: “Revenge is a confession of pain”.

  2. Another nail in fanatical AGW coffin.

  3. I have been reading WUWT for a while, but have not commented. Until now. HI needs to drag every piece of filth who had a role in stealing these documents, or transmitting them on the web, into court, if nothing else but to force depositions from those creeps.

    Great work, Mr. Watts. Keep fighting the good fight.

    And to those who played a role in this crime: karma is a beast. Remember that.

  4. kim2ooo says:

    The preacher of ethics …with his pants down.

    Why he’s the guy who preaches science ethics

    A brief lesson in the integrity of science
    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Again
    AGU’s new task force on scientific integrity and ethics begins
    Threats to the integrity of science: congressional testimony

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/20/breaking-news/

  5. Paul Westhaver says:

    I bet Gleik, has got some sticky ick, running down his criminal legs all over his green liar sandals.

    I hope the Heartland Institute sues the sticky ick out of the LA times and every single person and organization who repeated the lie.

  6. Bill Sticker says:

    Now where’d I put my popcorn maker?

    This isn’t just going to break, I think ‘shatter’ is a more apposite term.

  7. dalyplanet says:

    A bit surprising, perhaps, is that Peter Gleick is the just announced American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml

    NOV 2011

  8. Jenn Oates says:

    It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.

  9. Bill Jamison says:

    California Penal Code Section 528.5 make it a crime to create an email account in someone else’s name with intent to defraud. Seems like that applies here. Maybe Federal charges too. This is serious stuff.

    It seems like the goal was to create a skeptic climategate and instead we have something that makes alarmists look bad and that rational people should be ashamed of.

  10. dean burgher says:

    Oh the humanity!

  11. Jeff says:

    Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breathe. The internet has them. They aren’t going away.

  12. dp says:

    It looks like Gleick has earned some time on the Group W bench. While the request to remove the alleged stolen documents from the Internet is at first glance heavy handed, if they are used as evidence against this self-confessed boob they will become part of the public record. I’m ok with the request.

    I trust he’s written his last missive as a representative of the Brotherhood of Climate Alarmists.

  13. Why do I keep hearing the opening theme music to Jaws playing in my head when I read this?
    Somebody is in deep — hope they have a big legal liability policy.

    Larry

  14. Flat Earther says:

    Didn’t see Revkin’sapology…nor Romms. We will wait. What is the temperature in Hell right now?

  15. bk says:

    The CAGW narrative is unravelling everywhere.

    On another front – good letter in WSJ
    http://junkscience.com/2012/02/20/wsj-concerned-scientists-reply-on-global-warming/

  16. Bill H says:

    i hope that they rake them over the coals…

    very publicly i might add…

  17. Willis Eschenbach says:

    From Eos … seems like the noble scientists forgot the ancient Roman question—Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work

    Peter Gleick
    Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA

    Randy Townsend
    American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

    In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union’s policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”

    And they wonder why we don’t trust them, even when they set up special task forces to encourage us to trust them …

    w.

  18. Copner says:

    @ dalyplanet

    > A bit surprising, perhaps, is that Peter Gleick is the just announced American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.

    Not just expert, Chair!
    http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

  19. kbray in california says:

    “In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.”

    I can understand the desire to limit dissemination of the offending documents at “unfriendly locations”, however open discussion of the documents at selective locations i.e. WUWT is useful and productive. After all, Mosh figured it out by reading them, eh?

  20. The well funded CAGW scientist has been driven to confessing about lying, stealing, and forgery because there is a single small non profit funding a private professional weather company to build an independent analysts of public government released weather results.

    I hope the letter of the law is thrown at the guilty party.

  21. DirkH says:

    Edward von Bear (@Edward_von_Bear) says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:27 pm
    “And to those who played a role in this crime: karma is a beast. Remember that.”

    Karma is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/cas_angry_beast.jpg
    or (h/t Zefal)
    http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii317/zefalafez/al_gore_fire_angry_beast.jpg

  22. J. Knight says:

    Hopefully this douchebag will be convicted of criminal fraud and sent to jail. It’s way past time these “people” pay for there criminal actions. I also hope there are civil penalties in the millions of dollars as well. HI, please…please…don’t have any mercy on Gleick. Stick it to the creep.

  23. JJ says:

    Add another name to the list of prominent crimate scientists.

  24. G. Karst says:

    Seems to me – that should be the end of Peter Gleick, professionally and ethically. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And the best thing is… he did it to himself. GK

  25. Russ R. says:

    Predictions:

    1. Desmog and other alarmist outfits will rush to support Gleick, accepting his story uncritically, and offering up plausible defenses, contorting the evidence and timeline to explain how things could have transpired. They will also continue to act as if the strategy document were authentic. They will portray him simultaneously as a hero (David standing up to Goliath), and a victim (an innocent whistleblower being harassed by evil deniers and their lawyers).

    2. It will become apparent that Gleick was in contact with Desmog prior to sending them the document cache. They knew he was the source, and they probably knew that he falsified the strategy document. They also likely received the documents ahead of the other 14 recipients, which is the only way they could have had a blog post up with all the documents AND a summary hyping up their talking points within hours of receiving them.

    3. This will take months, or possibly years to fully resolve.

  26. Alex says:

    Not just retractions: Money. Seriously, every MSM outlet has gleefully lept to stab their little knives into Heartland’s back, and they need to pay for that rash, rushed overtly political decision. NPR, WashPo, NYTimes, etc. Hang em all. Spend every nickel won from Gleek to sue the real bastards.

  27. TomRude says:

    Sad and pathetic state of affairs.

  28. AndyG55 says:

    Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. :-)

  29. Russell C says:

    And how short was the release time when this stuff went from his hands to Desmogblog & ThinkProgress? We probably have larger problems to look into besides one guy falling on his sword….

  30. TG McCoy (Douglas DC) says:

    [snip over the top -Anthony]

  31. edbarbar says:

    In a discerning world, a fraudulent email would put the nail in the coffin. I wonder, though, how much effort is underway to say this is like “Climategate.” They stole our emails, and they warped them to make us look bad. Then it seems like the same thing.

  32. Alvin says:

    I’m wondering if I believe him now. Is this a red herring?

  33. Paul Westhaver says:

    Sung to the tune of
    Una Paloma Blanca

    When Global Warming
    starts to cave in,
    and solar power fails to work,

    The warmist liars, try a new way,
    Dr Peter Gleick’s a jerk.

    He stole some papers,
    From the Heartland
    and caused a ruckus
    in the news….

    In a panic,
    he’s admitting
    The greens are
    liars too.

    Chorus:

    Documents were Stolen,
    Peter Gleick is a thief,

    Documents were faked,
    The LA Times is a rag,

    Gleick tried to make,
    His Crime seem okay.

  34. G. Karst says:

    Copner says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    @ dalyplanet

    > A bit surprising, perhaps, is that Peter Gleick is the just announced American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.

    Not just expert, Chair!
    http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

    At the bottom of the above linked page one will find:

    If you would like to offer comments, suggestions or feedback for the task force, please contact us at Ethics@agu.org.

    This would be a good moment to offer comments, suggestions or feedback for the task force! GK

  35. Markus Fitzhenry. says:

    ‘wheresmyak47 says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    Wheres the apology and admission from the email hacker!
    The moron Watts and his disciples display more hypocrasy than I care to swallow.’

    But you do care to swallow a hell of a lot of AGW cool aid. You’re not a vet, not a cop, not a hunter. Probably disqualified from holding a shooters license. Only girls would use that handle mate.

  36. DirkH says:

    edbarbar says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:59 pm
    “In a discerning world, a fraudulent email would put the nail in the coffin. I wonder, though, how much effort is underway to say this is like “Climategate.” They stole our emails, and they warped them to make us look bad. Then it seems like the same thing.”

    Does anyone still believe Dan Rather?

  37. Joe Bastardi says:

    What has to be emphasized is that at a) Heartland is transparent about their ( our as you have many with yout ) mission to disprove this AGW through debate and fact. There is nothing sinister or hidden about the intention. We are right, we know it and the day of their reckoning is upon them as the global temp responds to natural cycles. b) THIS IS PRIVATELY FUNDED, It is not a government funded gravy train. Its resources are limited and goes to show how fact is on our side as it stands so strongly with so little, against what is mountain of public funds trying to shove an agenda down our throats. As the globe cools, make sure these facts stay hot.

    Its my hope that this will draw attention to the fact that there are Good men who are doing something..standing for truth in this matter. As gas prices rise because of the handcuffs these people have put on our nation over a scam, as more jobs get shipped overseas, as more regulations are enacted that kill hopes and dreams of people seeking to better themselves in what is supposed to be a free society, let us hope that this is a key that will unlock the chains the AGW crowd has enslaved us with.

    If that is the case, then there is good that will come out of this

  38. TG McCoy (Douglas DC) says:

    Sorry Anthony,too much old west in my background..

  39. John W says:

    “I can understand the desire to limit dissemination of the offending documents at “unfriendly locations”, however open discussion of the documents at selective locations i.e. WUWT is useful and productive. After all, Mosh figured it out by reading them, eh?”

    I do not know US law but this would be what one might expect preparatory to suing for defamation as Heartland is probably under a duty to try to limit (mitigate) the damage and sue for the remaining damage done.

  40. handjive says:

    Apologies Mr Watts, ‘wheresmyak47′ is an escaped troll from Andrew Bolt’s blog in Oz.
    Letting it near a computer unsupervised is like giving machine gun to a monkey.
    You are safe. It just spews vile green invective.

  41. kbray in california says:

    Confessing on Washington’s Birthday…

    “Yes, I did it, but it wasn’t my axe.”

  42. Greg Cavanagh says:

    to Jeff
    Re: “Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breathe”

    They aren’t expecting them to disappear. This is a test of integrity for news outlets and blogs. Nothing more.

  43. Paul Westhaver says:

    Paraphrasing:

    I am now telling the truth….I WAS a thief
    But now I am not a liar any more, or a forger…
    And it was the journalists who spread the lie, not me,

    Stay tuned future statements proclaiming superior ethics…

  44. GeneDoc says:

    Peter Gleick chairs a committee at AGU:
    http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml
    Wonder what his recommendation for this committee charge will be?
    “Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles, and..”

    Might want to make some suggestions to the Executive Director, Christine W. McEntee:
    Agu_execdirector@agu.org

    How about no longer chairing the committee on scientific ethics?

    Fox guarding the hen house…

  45. Goldie says:

    Don’t think for one second this is over – back to the barricades!

    Just a little perspective here – gloating is ugly no matter who does it. Peter will undoubtedly get his day in court, where justice (or at least the law) will be served one way or another.

  46. bk says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    …..
    Well said Joe – I also hope this is the tipping point!

  47. Louis Hissink says:

    I sense an impeding need for the discovery of another couple of lead mines judging by the increased amount of lead being sprayed around from people accidentally shooting their feet rather than their usual sceptical targets.

  48. jeef says:

    If any warmist were in doubt as to the difference between failgate and climategate this should help clear it up.

  49. ChE says:

    Does anyone still believe Dan Rather?

    Chuck Johnson.

  50. Skiphil says:

    Lots of silliness in the Guardian account, but one very interesting piece of news. If it is true that Gleick has retained Chris Lehane (a notorious political mudslinger and combatant) then it is indeed going “nuclear” in terms of the ways in which Gleick et al will fight in the PR and media space:

    “In a sign of combat to come, Gleick has taken on a top Democratic operative and crisis manager, Chris Lehane. Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House is credited for exposing the rightwing forces arrayed against the Democratic president. He was Al Gore’s press secretary during his 2000 run for the White House.”

    “As one environmental campaigner said: “Now it’s gone nuclear.””

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents?INTCMP=SRCH

  51. Brian H says:

    Can anyone confirm that Gleick’s only science education was a humanities undergrad survey course? The depth of his ignorance demands an explanation.

    [REPLY: Brian, that is Dr. Gleick, and I doubt anyone can answer your question without resortng to a court order.... which they will not get. Give that one a rest. -REP]

  52. Old Mike says:

    Methinks that despite much posturing and spinning there will be many sleepless nights for many in the CAGW camp and their MSM acolytes. The odds are that the warmists and their agencies will go into full attack mode with any and all strawmen to try and deflect attention from this confession.

    I wonder why Gleick confessed? To try and forestall deeper investigation? Is he the “Captain Oates” of the team? Was he pushed into doing it? Were the authorities asking questions? Did some astute legal mind instruct him to try and limit damages when faced with incriminating evidence?

    Whatever the reason I hope the HI prosecute Gleick and those involved to the hilt.

    Old Mike

  53. IanR says:

    Other than the climate strategy document, what is there to retract? I guess it’s hard to tell because Joe Bast still hasn’t confirmed the authenticity of the documents.

  54. janama says:

    I wish it was a tipping point – but alas – they are still at it

    “”The current system is broken,” says Bob Watson, the UK’s chief scientific advisor on environmental issues and a winner of the prestigious Blue Planet prize in 2010. “It is driving humanity to a future that is 3-5°C warmer than our species has ever known, and is eliminating the ecology that we depend on for our health, wealth and senses of self.””

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/20-5

  55. cmdocker says:

    He’s upto his neck in it, and it aint water.

  56. old44 says:

    AndyG55 says: February 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. :-)
    Who better to exemplify their ethics?

  57. We still need to contend with the fact that the Epson scan software was writing the metadata to the “Strategy” forgery PDF file at 2012:02:14 12:36:20-08:00, and the DeSmogBlog was posting the file at 13:14:06-08:00 (2012-02-14 21:14:06 GMT according to the DeSmogBlog facebook page). That is 38 minutes from Gleick’s Epson scan software to DeSmog’s public blog.

    38 minutes!

    Are we to believe that the DeSmoggers vetted an anonymous document that flew over the transom for a whole 38 minutes before posting it, or were there preparatory e-mails and phone conversations from a decidedly non-anonymous source?

    This is just the first thread in a much larger unraveling.

  58. gnomish says:

    get revkin – he confirmed the authenticity of the forgery, right?
    here’s your wedge. pound it hard, plz.

  59. Mark F says:

    Hey, Peter – hearin’ them banjos yet?

  60. geo says:

    What’s the evidence Glieck wrote the faked document? I’m not saying he didn’t, I just want to know what the evidence is that he did? Personally, I find it credible that a zealot baited with “true believer” material could be lured across the line into such unethical behavior in stealing the additional documents in pursuit of a “higher truth”.

    So, tell us. . .what’s the stylistic or other evidence that points at Glieck for the author of the “faked” document? To me, the fact that he’s coming forward now tends toward proof of remorse having belatedly released he was himself scammed. Unless someone can show me that he was about to be authoritatively unmasked anyway.

  61. What if a CAGW skeptic did the equivalent of what Dr. Gleck did in an attempt to fight CAGW “progressive” movement? Would the “progressives” buy the following as rational justification?

    “I only note that claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have become increasingly difficult to justify when subjected to objective scientific investigated. A rational public debate including all sides is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, coordinated—to attack anyone who has the temerity to question the CAGW orthodoxy and to seek transparency in publicly funded climate research.”

    Dr. Gleck needs to answer for his criminal activity. These people need to know that while they may believe that certain ends justify certain means, they may have to answer for those means in both criminal and civil courts of law.

  62. Manfred says:

    Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute’s mission is (according to their taxform 990):

    Briefly describe the organization’s mission:

    “TO BRING SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE TO THE RELATED PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN SECURITY AND TO PROPOSE
    PRACTICAL AND INCLUSIVE POLICIES TO PROBLEMS AT THE GLOBAL, NATIONAL
    AND COMMUNITY LEVELS, AND PUT RESULTS INTO THE HANDS OF POLICY MAKERS”.

    Sounds like a nice green business modell.

    But who finances THAT ?

    Well, even if you don’t like them and never ever would consider writing a cheque for them, Greenpeace or WWF, YOU are one of their main funders.

    According to their “Financial Statement 2010″ contributors are:

    United Nations Global Compact Foundation
    Unoited Nations Water Mandate
    United Nations Environment Program
    University of California Berkeley
    State of California – EPA
    Die Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf

    Taxpayers money at work – at the EPSON scanner.

  63. Macker says:

    I wonder if selrahC will pay heed….

  64. LamontT says:

    “Jeff says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breathe. The internet has them. They aren’t going away.”
    ===============================

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff…. They are not expecting them to be taken down at all. This is the first formal opening salvo in taking legal action. The very first step is hire a lawyer and then after that your lawyer sends out cease and desist letters.

    The response that the people who receive the letters takes then comes into play when the case goes to court. One of the things typically a measure used is malice. Up until the C&D letter malice can’t be firmly established. But once the suspect parties have been put on notice their reactions can then be used to determine malice.

    So this was the first step in filing civil lawsuits. There are a number of valid responses that don’t require taking down the material but desmog and the rest are not taking a tact that will stand them in good stead in court. Their choice.

  65. Skiphil says:

    If a moment of levity can be allowed, it is most “interesting” and yes, gratifying, to recall a tweet from Revkin of the NY Times within the first hours of the first blog articles on Feb. 14 (irony, irony, irony that Gleick has been undone at least in good part by the prominence he tried to give himself in HI’s view of the climate wars):

    [Revkin tweet]:

    =====================================================

    Kudos to @petergleick as alleged @heartlandinst climate doc shows impact of his http://Forbes.com blogging: http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/17620769391/alleged-heartlandinst-climate-doc-i-mportant
    4:38 PM – 14 Feb 12 via web · Embed this Tweet

    =====================================================
    h/t to Steve McIntyre’s invaluable timeline, since I had not looked at much of the Twitter material before…..

  66. ntesdorf says:

    Peter Gleick has just been announced as the American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity. He is the Chaiman of this organisation, their figure head! How absolutely appropriate to appoint a self-confessed criminal to lead this Organisation.

  67. littlepeaks says:

    I wonder what drove Dr. Gleick to confess.

  68. LamontT says:

    “geo says:
    February 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    What’s the evidence Glieck wrote the faked document?”
    =========================================

    It is textual go over to Lucia Blackboard and look for the first report of the Heartland documents. It is in that responses there that the textual evidence is figured out.

    The evidence strongly suggests Dr. Peter Gleick as the author but doesn’t prove it. At this point it is up to him to prove he didn’t write it. Actually two something interesting from his confession.

    1. He doesn’t claim not to have written the fake.
    2. He doesn’t claim that the fake document he scanned and sent with the packet to everyone else was the anonymous document that got him to steal the Heartland documents in the first place. He merely states that he received such an anonymous document in the snail mail and that he didn’t alter it. Well aside from the obvious scanning it to PDF if the thing he scanned was really what he received.

  69. Anat T says:

    Brian H: Can anyone confirm that Gleick’s only science education was a humanities undergrad survey course?

    “Energy and resources’ wouldn’t count with humanities, but would it count with climate science or rather with geography and geology? I have no idea. I am in the humanities.

    Here is from Wikipedia:
    Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley, with a focus on hydroclimatology. His dissertation was the first to model the regional impacts of climate change on water resources

  70. RWS says:

    Great….another Oakland business goes belly-up (I assume). Soon we’re gonna have nothing left but pot dispensaries. Even Glieck is respectable compared to them.

  71. Theo Goodwin says:

    Gleick received a MacArthur Grant (the famous “Genius Award” – about half a million for fun) for being the wonderful, ingenious, lovable little Green America hater that he is. So, Gleick is funded bigtime by Big Climate. I hope that the MacArthur people are thoroughly investigated by some media for funding hate filled Lefties such as Gleick. Maybe a NYT science reporter will take this opportunity to begin pursuing his redemption.

  72. wws says:

    For those wondering why Gleick came forward now: just as with the cease and desist letters, you need to be thinking of the legal aspects of this case, not the PR aspects.

    Because this is absolutely going to Court.

    When there is a real fraudster using an e-mail to obtain documents under false premises, it actually is fairly easy for someone with serious IT skills to track down the email address used. Unless the perp was very skilled at forwarding things anonymously, they will usually be caught. Obviously Gleick has very poor IT skills, but was arrogant enough not to realize it. When the Demand letters went out today, Gleick went and talked to legal counsel about his exposure. That’s easy to discern, since this “confession” has clearly been heavily edited, and maybe even written by, legal counsel, not Gleick himself. He is trying to get out of civil and criminal liability, now that he realizes Heartland has the goods on him.

    Heartland may even have let Gleick know that they had traced the email to him – don’t know that, but it certainly would explain why he caved today. They had the goods on him, and he knew it.

  73. Ed, "Mr." Jones says:

    [snip -over the top - let the courts handle it - Anthony]

  74. Philip Bradley says:

    Looking through his list of publications, I don’t see any of what I would consider ‘real science’ in there. Mostly public policy stuff.

    Nothing wrong with that, but claiming to be a scientist looks like a way to bolster his advocacy activities.

    Also an AGW true believer from way back. Or if you like, one of the first to climb onboard the AGW gravy train.

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/gleick_publications.htm

  75. Keith Battye says:

    Here is Monbiot’s attempt to purify this little bit of deception . . .

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists

  76. DirkH says:

    Skiphil says:
    February 20, 2012 at 9:22 pm
    ““As one environmental campaigner said: “Now it’s gone nuclear.”””

    Nuclear self-immolation.

  77. jorgekafkazar says:

    Goldie says: “Don’t think for one second this is over – back to the barricades!”

    Right, unfortunately. There are plenty more where Gleick came from; he’s just the first one to get caught.

  78. Martin says:

    Gleick’s a bit of a hero actually. He single handedly exposed the going’s on behind the curtains at Heartland. He even got the head honcho at Heartland to email him the info – I love it!

    Heartland reckons the release has violated their privacy (climategate anyone?) and endangered their personal safety.

    “endangered their personal safety”?!… that’s a tad melodramatic doncha think!

  79. Rogelio says:

    and Desmoglob doesn’t give a @@@@ either, There saying what he did was great! I hope HI takes them ALL to court
    http://www.desmogblog.com/

  80. DirkH says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    “Maybe a NYT science reporter will take this opportunity to begin pursuing his redemption.”

    Rather would the pope recite the Lord’s Prayer backwards.

  81. It is clear Peter Gleick is the one having problems with rational thought.

  82. Claude Harvey says:

    The most entertaining aspect of all this is watching Andy Revkin throw Gleick under the bus. Now it’s “every man for himself!”

  83. “It has caused major and permanent damage…….”

    As part of the settlement Peter Gleick should be required to make a public confession, a statement, that is aired on CNN, Fox, and every other media giant.

  84. Jeremy says:

    Doctor Gleick did rush to leak
    Some private papers he stole
    “I’ll break any laws
    To futher my cause,
    I’m a highly ethical soul!”

  85. When Heartland’s lawyers get done they aren’t going to need donations any more. In fact they will be fully funded by the warming alarmists. Won’t that just be sweet.

  86. JJ says:

    Joe Bast Says:

    Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, …

    NO HE DOES NOT.

    Look at what the man wrote, not what he wants you to read.

    At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.

    He says he recieved an anonymous document. He doesn’t say the “anonymous document” was the faked document. The 2012 Proposed Budget “describes what appear to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.” The anonymous document could have been that document, or some other document that we haven’t seen.

    Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name..

    He committed wire fraud, identity theft and other crimes to get more documents.

    I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.

    He says he forwarded the documents that he received – by which he maybe taken to mean the documents he recieved from Heartland. He doesn’t say that he forwarded the “anonymous document”, nor does he deny sending documents other than those that he recieved.

    I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

    He claims he didn’t alter any of the documents sent to him. He doesnt say that the only documents he sent were the ones sent to him. He says he didn’t alter the “anonymous communication”, but he doesn’t identify it, nor does he confirm that he sent it.

    Consistent with what Gleick has claimed are several scenarios that leave him the author of the faked memo – a fact he has not denied:

    1) Someone sent him the Proposed Budget – that was the “anonymous communication.” He stole more documents, which may or may not have included the Budget that he already had in hand. He forwarded everything that had been sent to him, and he added to that package the “Climate Strategy Memo” that he had made up himself.

    2) Someone sent him a “heads up” with a few details about the Budget in it – that was the “anonymous communication.” He stole more documents from Heartland. He kept the “anonymous communication”, forwarded everything that had been sent to him by Heartland, and he added to that package the “Climate Strategy Memo” that he had made up himself.

    Even if Gleick is telling the unvarnished truth in his “confession” and half assed apology, either of those two scenarios could still be true. Keep in mind that crimate scientists are already primed to think in the “consistent with” mindset, and the fact that Gleick has lawyered up with the best sleazy democrat representation that you can’t buy, so it has to be provided to you. Every word he says from here on out is carefully chosen to be technically perjury-free, while telling the story he wants you to hear. And his lawyers have very carefully chosen for him to not claim that he didn’t write the Fake…

    And of course, all of that only applies if his “confession” is entirely truthful. It remains that he could be telling more lies.

  87. richcar 1225 says:

    It was not the criminal act of Watergate that will be remembered, it was the cover up.

  88. crosspatch says:

    Peter Gleick has just been announced as the American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.

    The irony. It burns.

    One thing I have learned about these people, the ones who complain the most about someone else doing something nefarious seem themselves to be doing what they accuse the other side of doing. If they accuse you of being funded with deep pocket backers, it generally means that they are and are projecting their own situation onto their opposition. They probably can’t really believe that so many people actually do this in their spare time without any “deep pockets” behind them. Their head would explode of they thought people were doing this for no other reason than out of a sense of decency and respect for science. In fact, I would be willing they can’t allow themselves to believe it because it would make them hate themselves more than they already do. The self-loathing has many manifestations, I suppose.

  89. RockyRoad says:

    Most nails in the coffin of CAGW take a bit of effort. This one jumped right in on its own volition.

  90. DesertYote says:

    As some here might realize, Dr. Gleick has just become a hero/martyr of the cause. Be not surprised by the mental gymnastics the greenies will be performing in the days ahead. Their base axiom on which all else rests is that the ends justify the means.

  91. Chris B says:

    An interesting quote from Mr. Gleick’s review of Mann’s new book:

    “Toward the end, Mann talks about the misinterpreted, out-of-context emails stolen from a university in the UK, with the observation and famous quote “If you give me six lines ( documents? cb. ) written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.” This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked piece of information to argue against climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science. ”

    Prophecy, or plan?

    The plot thickens.

  92. GeoLurking says:

    richcar 1225 says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    “It was not the criminal act of Watergate that will be remembered, it was the cover up.”

    Watergate is nothing compared to Solyndra or Fast and Furious.

  93. G. Karst says:

    Was Gleick connected (in any way) with the rapid response team? Could this “Richard Nixon” format confession be saving something, more important than Gleick? Interesting twist “I AM a crook, but I am not a liar (forger). Trouble is – ALL thieves are also liars… ALWAYS! GK

  94. Downdraft says:

    DeSmogBlog seems to be digging a deeper hole for themselves. They are calling Gleick a “Whistle Blower”, and making him out to be some kind of climate hero. They say “For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.”
    Have they all become unhinged?

  95. Jake says:

    wws says:
    “For those wondering why Gleick came forward now: just as with the cease and desist letters, you need to be thinking of the legal aspects of this case, not the PR aspects.”

    This is where the idea of a “modified, limited hangout” comes into play.
    If (and I did say IF) Gleick wrote the fake memo, he needs to divert ALL attention away from that. By admitting to the identity fraud, he is only admitting to a misdemeanor under CA law, and is obviously hoping to get by the civil proceeding as cheaply as possible.
    HI has to make a decision on whether to go to court and hope they can prove Gleick was actually the author of the fake memo if they want to prove “malicious intent” because as everyone has said the other documents aren’t that scary, merely inconvenient to the donors and everyone else involved.
    My opinion, they are WORRIED!

  96. DirkH says:

    Martin says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:15 pm
    “Gleick’s a bit of a hero actually. He single handedly exposed the going’s on behind the curtains at Heartland. He even got the head honcho at Heartland to email him the info – I love it!”

    So, your side operates by forging stuff and trying to delude the media into reporting falsities about their enemies. Now, you say Gleick’s a hero for that so obviously you approve of these tactics.

    Martin, the problem with that is not that you endorse lies and deception instead of an honest debate, no, that’s not a problem at all, because it works in our favor.

    Your problem with your attitude is simply this. You will lose.

  97. DesertYote says:

    Martin
    February 20, 2012 at 10:15 pm
    ###
    WOW this is great. While I am composing a comment, your appears that helps prove the very point I was making. Thanks.

  98. Just another hillbilly says:

    And the dissembling begins. Let it be noted that Aaron Heurtas, PR for the UCS, and author of the Open Letter from The Team has moved all comments from this post: http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/12/motivated-minority-climate-change-debates-lopsided-and-dangerous/
    to this post: http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/12/motivated-minority-climate-change-debates-lopsided-and-dangerous/

    To his credit, he notes that he moved the comments.

    What is truly hilarious is that the comments posted were on his “Motivated Minority Climate Change Debates Lopsided and Dangerous” post. The comments were moved to the “Sandbox.”

    If find it striking, considering Gleick is certainly a dangerous, motivated minority, and will now likely spend some time in the sandbox.

    I expect we’ll see a good amount of shifting of comments and such around the alarmist blogs over the next few days.

  99. Chris B says:

    More prophecy in a comment on Gleick’s review of Mann’s book.

    It looks like several persons were on to him.

    Posted on Feb 16, 2012 4:43:39 PM PST
    james west says:
    Dr Gleick,

    I was wondering if you could also do a review of the Strategy document leaked from the Heartland Institute? I think you may have the relevant expertise to give us special insights here. I’m sure you’ll find it a five star read.

  100. Chris B says:

    Followed up by………

    Woodshedder says:
    James, Dr. Gleick is actually at the top of the list for being the person who may have faked the Strategy document to which you refer. Strange that Dr. Gleick, normally so triumphant, has been quiet during the Fake-gate. Only time will tell if he is guilty, but there certainly is a lot of similarity between his writing style and the style used in the fake strategy document.

    LOLOL

  101. Alan Wilkinson says:

    Gleick was asked directly by both Anthony and Roger Pielke (Jr) if he wrote the fraudulent strategy paper. He has refused to answer both. Instead he called in the lawyers.

    The implication is crystal clear.

  102. BrianMcL says:

    Can’t wait to see how the BBC spin this one!

    Imagine the fuss if a prominent climate sceptic was caught stealing documents.

    Over to you Richard Black, we’re waiting.

  103. Meanwhile, in an alternate universe:
    “Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.”
    -DeSmogBlog
    —————————-
    So I guess they are okay now with the FOIA whistleblower…

  104. LamontT says:

    “Martin says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Gleick’s a bit of a hero actually. He single handedly exposed the going’s on behind the curtains at Heartland. He even got the head honcho at Heartland to email him the info – I love it!”
    ===============================================

    Exposed what exactly? That Heartland gave money to various projects some of them Pro improving climate science? That doesn’t really seem like any kind of gotcha.

  105. richcar 1225 says:

    I would bet that if the original forged document was sent by anonymous and not made up by Gleick there would be an exchange of emails to verify the source. I do not believe He would run with this without a source He trusted. Gleick must be made to testify under oath. Rep Darrell Issa (Calif) who heads the Congress Reform and Oversight Commitee needs to be informed of these developments immediately before the trail gets cold.
    http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=597&Itemid=73

  106. JEM says:

    It was barely a year ago that Gleick was known primarily for his periodic SFGate screeds deploring the expansion of water infrastructure in California. He was invisible enough in the climate wars that when I posited his name in the comments here as – I think – having been the source of some obnoxious quote, Anthony replied that he thought Gleick too obscure.

    Well, he’s not so obscure these days.

  107. Bill Parsons says:

    Chris B says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    An interesting quote from Mr. Gleick’s review of Mann’s new book:

    “Toward the end, Mann talks about the misinterpreted, out-of-context emails stolen from a university in the UK, with the observation and famous quote “If you give me six lines ( documents? cb. ) written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.” This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked piece of information to argue against climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science. ”

    Prophecy, or plan?

    The plot thickens.

    Phone call to publishers: “Can’t you remove this from my new book? It’s only a few lines – just a stupid review! What do you mean, not til the next edition? Ow-w-w, such a headache!!”

  108. Colonial says:

    Jeff (February 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm) wrote:

    Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breath[]. The internet has them. They aren’t going away.

    LamontT (February 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm) chided Jeff and pointed out that it’s about lawyers and strategy, though he mistakenly suggested it’s about the websites Heartland is sending the takedown requests to.

    The real intent is to demonstrate the extent of the damage the perpetrator has caused to Heartland’s reputation. If all blogs, warmist and otherwise, were to take down the documents as requested, it would militate against a claim of serious damage to Heartland’s reputation. However, if their requests are rejected or ignored, Heartland will have evidence to substantiate a claim of serious damage to their reputation, since the defamatory material will pop up whenever one searches for “Heartland” or “Heartland Institute”, no matter how much time has passed.

    The warmist bloggers are in an interesting pickle. On the one hand, they can assert that they have a right to continue to “report” on the documents, even though they’re fake, and in the process increase the severity of the consequences their hero is likely to face. On the other hand, they can (as I’m sure they’ll see it) “capitulate” to Heartland in hopes of lessening the consequences for Mr. Gleick.

    Will the warmists take action to spare Mr. Gleick additional liability? Don’t be silly! They’ll throw him to the wolves.

  109. MikeH says:

    This just goes to show (IMHO) that some of these scientists think they are so smart, they’ll never get caught.. It’s like I’m watching a Columbo episode (showing my age here).. I will commend Mr. Gleick on fessing up, he is at least smart enough to see the sand castle crumbling. Some people do the ‘Not Me’ defense, or the ‘someone must have logged onto my computer and created that account, I’ve been hacked!’

    Also, the posts in WUWT go to show the caliber that Sir Anthony and company maintain in this blog.. Posters may have had their suspicions they it was Mr. Gleick behind this, but others had opposing views that were rational, not delusional… For Example..

    Pat Frank says:
    February 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    It’s hard to believe that Peter Gleick had anything to do with writing the “Confidential” memo, because the grammar and syntax are so awkward. That memo is written at about a mediocre 12th grade level.
    Peter Gleick, no mater his AGW outlook, is a highly intelligent and well-educated guy. He’s also president of the Pacific Institute, and so must be entirely conversant with memo-ese. Anything he writes will surely be professional in style and presentation, quite apart from content validity.
    I’d surmise he had nothing to do with it. If it was offered to him prior to distribution, I’d expect he’d immediately nix it because its obviously shallow and unprofessional style would be a dead give-away.

    From another WUWT thread, the moderators keeping the record straight, even for someone with an opposing view…

    Brian H says:
    February 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    One commenter, btw, says Gleick’s science qualifications consist of one undergrad humanities science survey course! Plus a certitude in his own infallibility, evidently.
    [REPLY: Dr. Gleick has A Ph.D. in Energy and Resources from UCB - let's try to avoid hearsay. -REP]

    It will be interesting how DeSmellyBlog and others handles this over the next day or two. I’m sure they will try to dismiss this, watch for the ‘His intentions were good’ comments in the other blogs, he’ll be their martyr.. Also lets see how the national media presents this. Page C32, under the Oh By The Way section.. (I refuse to call them Main Stream media, they are far from main stream).. I am surprised he didn’t wait for a Friday evening announcement, that’s what the experienced swindlers (i.e. politicians) do to hide their bad behavior…

    Mr. Gleick, please stand in the corner and stay there until the adults tell you to come out.. You’ve been very bad….

  110. Johnnygunn says:

    You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
    You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – -
    But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.

    You can’t have it both ways.
    Either both were crimes or both were shenanigans.
    There is so much bullshit on both sides – it’s nose deep.

    PS – Speaking of BS – How can you damage Heartland’s reputation?

  111. Just another hillbilly says:

    Chris B has posted some of the comments, but if you are like me and cannot help but to watch the train wreck, here is a link to the comments section of Gleick’s review of Mann’s new book. Enjoy.
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R1TOPDWZU54PBO/ref=cm_cd_NOREF?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2OYVK3J7XPBQG&cdPage=3&asin=023115254X&newContentNum=30&cdMSG=addedToThread&store=books&cdThread=TxESZD5H58B2S0&newContentID=Mx26XQQZYFUP94V#CustomerDiscussionsNRPB

  112. MangoChutney says:

    I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology asking Gleick to make a sizable donation to One Water (for example).

    This way justice is done, and Heartland show they have real compassion.

    The guys career is over anyway, why kick him when he’s down?

    HI should still go for the corporates though

  113. GaryM says:

    There is no rational reason, from a legal perspective, for Gleick to have fallen on his sword like this. It can only be a political decision. That being said, he may hope that this pseudo apology might buy him some time to cover his tracks, as much as can be done. Anyone wanting to sue him on the basis of the strategy memo would do well to file quickly, and get a court order preserving documents, hardware, email, and other electronic records.

    The documents that are genuine will likely give rise to criminal culpability, but the more serious threat is the monetary damages from the faked strategy memo. The state prosecutors in California, and Illinois, and all U.S. attorneys who might have jurisdiction, are all Democrats. So prosecution is by no means a sure thing. Gleick and his political advisers may have decided it was worth the small risk of increased criminal exposure in order to delay or divert the more serious civil litigation that could come. Better to issue a modified mea culpa, and engage in “negotiations” to keep any discovery order from being entered for as long as possible.

  114. Mike Spilligan says:

    Mr Watts: Many thanks for keeping us (I’m in UK) up to date on this very important matter – it’s really bigger than CG2, IMO. I’ve no doubt that Gleick has an underlying mantra of “The end is more important than the means”, as did so many of the dictators of the last hundred years.
    I haven’t checked yet with the BBC/Black. I expect a lot of wriggling, and petty excuses – just as one might expect from a Delinquent Teenager – but the BBC is around 80 now and there should be a little maturity setting in.

  115. Mike McMillan says:

    Copner says: February 20, 2012 at 8:37 pm
    … to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.,,
    Not just expert, Chair!

    AndyG55 says: February 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. :-)

    GeneDoc says: February 20, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    Peter Gleick chairs a committee at AGU:

    You don’t think he deserves the Chair?
    ;-)

  116. Glenn says:

    I note the CAGW crowd are taking a moral equivalence approach to Cimategate vs Fakegate. I beg to differ. In Climategate (I & II) an as-yet unidentified insider or outsider (but the good money’s on an insider) obtained and published genuine documents that show a number of publicly-funded research organisations covertly and systematically politicising a prominent scientific issue while claiming to be above reproach (which they still do). In Fakegate an identified person with responsibility for ethics in science behaved unethically to obtain and publish a mix of genuine and fake documents that do nothing more than show a privately-funded organisation promoting projects consistent with its stated aims. Indeed, this organisation’s overt support for projects in the climate change field can be seen as a direct response to the covert politicisation exposed by Climategate. If we’re playing “I hold the moral high ground” here, I think I know who’s closer to the top.

  117. Martin Brumby says:

    “As one environmental campaigner said: “Now it’s gone nuclear.””

    Surely not!!

    The ‘campaigner’ must have meant to say: “Now it’s gone with the Wind.”

  118. James Sexton says:

    MangoChutney says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology
    ====================================================
    That sure didn’t sound like an apology to HI…… a mea culpa, but I didn’t read a “I’m sorry to HI or any specific parties at HI. Further, there are bigger fish to fry. Gleick put himself in the way, but, it’s likely he’s got some correspondence that we’d all like to see.

    Yeh, you almost feel sorry for the poor sap, but it isn’t like he wasn’t told. I’m all for understanding that we all fail, because we all do. But, he’s in a spot he put himself in, and, I think he’s got more to say.

  119. old44 said @ February 20, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    AndyG55 says: February 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. :-)
    Who better to exemplify their ethics?

    Email sent. Will be interesting to see what (if any) response is.

    A bit disconcerting to be continually reading about “PG”; that’s what Matt/William/Briggs [delete whichever is inapplicable] calls me.

  120. soren says:

    “””””
    You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
    You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – -
    But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.

    You can’t have it both ways.
    Either both were crimes or both were shenanigans.
    There is so much bullshit on both sides – it’s nose deep.
    “””””

    Those “Climategate” emails were public documents that people had tried to FOIA over and over again. No one ever claimed they were altered. This is a private organization that is being smeared with a fake document.

  121. julian says:

    New post at http://www.desmogblog.com/ claiming Gleick is a whistle blower and hero. Unbelievable.

  122. geo said @ February 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    What’s the evidence Glieck wrote the faked document? I’m not saying he didn’t, I just want to know what the evidence is that he did? Personally, I find it credible that a zealot baited with “true believer” material could be lured across the line into such unethical behavior in stealing the additional documents in pursuit of a “higher truth”.

    So, tell us. . .what’s the stylistic or other evidence that points at Glieck for the author of the “faked” document? To me, the fact that he’s coming forward now tends toward proof of remorse having belatedly released he was himself scammed. Unless someone can show me that he was about to be authoritatively unmasked anyway.

    The stylistic evidence is that there is an overabundance of commas, run-on sentences and not particularly commonplace hyphenations. Before Gleik’s confession, I was pretty sceptical that this was sufficient to “hang the man”. It’s commonplace for writers to consciously (and unconsciously) imitate writers they admire. Now I suspect that Peter Gleik’s admirer was himself. Perhaps the writing being below his usual standard was because he didn’t have sufficient time to polish his writing. I spend at least four times as long editing my work than I do getting the words down. I’m a slow typist.

  123. Captain Marvel says:

    3…2…1…and cue “Fake but Accurate” argument.

  124. markx says:

    MangoChutney: February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    said: “….I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology asking Gleick to make a sizable donation to One Water (for example)…..”

    Well said Mango.
    I honestly think he has dented at least parts of his career beyond repair – how could he possibly chair any committee/task force dealing with ethics now? I don’t imagine he is sleeping too well at night any more.

    Give it a little time, see what happens, but remember, in the end it is always a good thing to be kind and merciful.

  125. GeoLurking says:

    MangoChutney says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    “…The guys career is over anyway, why kick him when he’s down?”

    Would you cut someone a break if they were complicit in the attempted monetary enslavement of your children and grandchildren?

    I ask that because that is essentially what this is all about.

  126. Steve C says:

    The chair of the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity?

    The chair of the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity???

    The age of satire is officially dead.

  127. BrianMcL says:

    Climate Science Cluedo:
    Was it the chair of the ethics committee in his office with a scanner?

  128. Anton says:

    So you have a fake document purporting to reveal nasty secrets about Heartland, and treated as genuine by the Guardian tabloid. Then you have a fake open letter purportedly written by famous climate scientists regarding the fake document, and comparing it to their own REAL leaked CRU emails, but actually written by a PR agent and immediately published as real by the Guardian, which also periodically publishes Michael Mann’s paeans to himself. And now you have a weasel pseudo-apology purportedly written by a formerly obscure climate scientist (the same one that supposedly first received, and hurriedly published, the fake document, insisting it and all the others had been authenticated), but actuality written by his legal counsel, an attorney known for representing Bill Clinton and other Democratic bigwigs caught with their pants down. Is the Guardian going to report this as authentic, too?

    How do such blatantly far-left political groups manage to get government funding? How does such a vicious political propaganda rag (the Guardian) manage to stay in business? And how is it that every time a crooked climate scientist comes under scrutiny, the massive power and money of the Democratic Party in the US or the Labour Party in the UK show up out of the blue to shield and protect him, and to portray him as a martyr?

    Who is really behind all this?

  129. JamesD says:

    I keep reading posts by people complaining about Heartlands call to take down posts. I’ll repeat what I wrote before. What they are doing is call a “demand letter”. It is the first step in a lawsuit. It is part of the legal process. They are obviously following advise from legal counsel, that is all. It means they have definite plans to sue. This has nothing to do with PR or anything else. It is the first step in a lawsuit. Come to think of it, if Anthony wants to sue, he needs to send out his own “demand letter” AFTER talking to a lawyer. Actually, Anthony should not make any personal comments on this until he gets a lawyers advise.

  130. JamesD says:

    Johnnygun wrote: “You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
    You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – -
    But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.

    You can’t have it both ways.
    Either both were crimes or both were shenanigans.”

    No, the whistleblower is covered by British law, and is not considered a criminal. Gleick has now admitted guilt to fraud and identity theft. He is a confessed criminal. The whistleblower released evidence of crime and can’t be prosecuted. He broke no law.

  131. Philip Bradley says:

    Glieck has been sucking at the AGW teat for a long time, well over 20 years judging by his papers.

    I’m fond of pointing out that if the AGW catastrophe scare goes away, 90% of climate scientists will be driving taxis. I’d include Glieck in that number,

    Gleick has grown affluent and well known off the back of the AGW scare. I have no sympathy for his lame and fraudulent in several ways attempt to perpetuate the scare and his lifestyle.

  132. Geoffrey Thorpe-Willett says:

    To see how the media treats the two sides look at these BBC links about Gleik and Bast. One is a visionary, the others is a carnivore, guess who is what according to the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/features/essentialguide/vis_env.shtml
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8694544.stm

    Balance ??

  133. Man Bearpigg says:

    ”Johnnygunn says:

    February 20, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
    You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – -
    But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.

    You are such a hippocrite. You danced a jig when Heartland Documents were released, but Climategate was a ‘great crime’

    Answer, they are both crimes. But this one was not done by a lone hacker/whistleblower. This was done by someone who claims he is ethical possibly in cahoots with others – he stole documents by deception and it is alleged that he forged one. None of the Climategate emails are alleged to be forged. He will get the punsihment he deserves as he has got caught – he will probably get a lesser sentance if he pleads guilty.

    If they catch the Climategate hacker he/she too will get their punishment.

  134. boodledug says:

    1. Why in his original ‘fraudulent’ request didn’t Dr Gleick simply ask for the document he already had ? That would be it, done, all proof needed it came from HI.

    Or.

    2. How did he know exactly what to ask for in advance that so completely verified the document he already had.

    Just asking.

  135. Man Bearpigg says:

    ” MangoChutney says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology”
    —————————————
    It should not be down to HI. If a crime has been committed then it should be investigated by the police. If there is a case to answer then that is for the legal system to decide.

    If you shot someone and apologised, do you seriously think you would get away with the crime ?

  136. markx says:

    Oh, THAT Peter Gleick!

    I just popped over to desmogblog and there was his photo, up front and proud!

    What I said above I still stand by “…in the end it is always a good thing to be kind and merciful….”, but watch him very closely for a while first….. never underestimate the ability of a trapped fanatic!

  137. stuartlynne says:

    Heartland should request a DCMCA takedown as they own the copyrights on the documents in question, but only for the stolen documents.

    desmog then leaves themselves open to DCMCA issues unless they comply.

  138. Bengt Abelsson says:

    A full insider´s tale with all details – in exchange for a milder punishment – would do.

  139. Michael Snow says:

    I have had some good laughs here this morning. We can all enjoy the moment but let’s also remember this good perspective:

    Goldie says:
    February 20, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Don’t think for one second this is over – back to the barricades!

    Just a little perspective here – gloating is ugly no matter who does it. …

  140. Mat says:

    Hmm just out of curiosity what would the reaction be of the true believers if say they brought a Picasso that turned out to be a fake from a dealer who use deception to verify that fake ??

  141. John A says:

    I thought this year was going to be a quiet one in Climate Science…what do I know?

  142. MikeH says:

    The water is getting hot in the Global Warming Global Climate Change Global Climate Disruption crowd.. Their problem is that they are the ones adding the fuel to the fire themselves.

  143. Steve B says:

    “MangoChutney says:

    February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology asking Gleick to make a sizable donation to One Water (for example).

    This way justice is done, and Heartland show they have real compassion.

    The guys career is over anyway, why kick him when he’s down?

    HI should still go for the corporates though”

    It’s war mate. Would THEY would not even think about NOT kicking when you’re down.

  144. pat says:

    Wikipedia now has:

    On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted obtaining documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, by fraudulent means, “in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” [7] Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that “Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins … ” [8
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick

    note Wikipedia is still giving the impression that ALL the documents came from HI. how long before it is corrected? any bets?

  145. Peter Plail says:

    So according to Desmog, Gleick is a whistleblower. A neat redefinition of whistleblowing as this is usually done by an employee of the organisation and I presume that none of HI’s funds have found their way into Gleick’s pocket.

    What is interesting, though, is that they applaud whistleblowing – it is brave and honourable, apparently. So if it turns out that the Climategate release prove to be from an insider (the most likely source in my opinion) then they will also applaud his/her brave actions. Of course they won’t – balance, consistency and logic have never ever been part of their stance.

  146. Peter Plail says:

    It would also help the argument if everyone stopped referring to the document as a fake – it is a forgery
    fake:- One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
    forgery:- The creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one, with the intent to defraud.

    The important part here being the intent to defraud

  147. Peter Miller says:

    On the reasonable assumption Heartland eventually receives cash damages, would it not be honourable of them to set up a trust with which sceptics can be funded in their defence against unfounded warmist lawsuits – such as those of Michael Mann.

  148. PaddikJ says:

    Cross-posted from Climate Audit – Steve Mac noted that

    “No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.”

    And I commented:

    Regarding H.I., “highly damaging” seems a bit hyperbolic. True, information which should have remained confidential, such as salaries, is now public and will undoubtedly cause some internal tensions; board members’ business contact info was outed (if it wasn’t already common knowledge); and some of H.I.’s strategies for the coming year are now in the hands of their opponents. None of this seems to rise to the level of highly damaging.

    OTOH, H.I. gets 100% untainted victim status out of this. The stolen docs are utterly mundane, not a hint of malfeasance or nefariousness except the fake memo, which is just more egg on PG’s face.

    But we can’t get no satisfaction? One of the most visible & vocal (and opportunistic, as Steve once pointed out) AGW propagandists has been silenced, hoisted on his own stinky petard. The climate debate signal-to-noise ratio just improved slightly. If that’s not satisfying, what is?

    PS: There is one glaring revelation in the purloined docs, but you won’t read of it anywhere in warmsta’-land: H.I. spent only $700,000.00 on climate issues last year. That’s right, H.I. opened a can of whup-ass for about 1/1000 of what the big dogs spent. Ouch, warmers, that’s gotta hurt.

  149. MikeH says:

    From The HuffPo, Peter Gleick’s statement, the last paragraph:

    I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

    So, tho break this down:

    I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing… {snip} ..My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts –

    Translation, Heartland made me do it.. It’s all their fault…

    well-funded, and coordinated

    Unlike all of that juicy government funding all of your universities and institutes…

    the lack of transparency of the organizations

    Ok, insert UEA emails, Penn State, UVA…

    to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate

    Attack? Do you want to talk about pulling the licenses of TV weathermen who do not adhere to the AGW doctrine? Prevent debate? How about H.I. inviting all of the scientists for debates, only to be mostly rejected..

    I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

    Weak apology.. Heartland was not directly mentioned. Oh gosh golly gee, I’m sorry… :-(

    How about man-ing up? The apology should have read:
    I offer my personal apologies to The Heartland Institute members, Board of Directors and Private Citizens that I affected. (IMHO)

    So lame….

  150. Scottish Sceptic says:

    I have to say I am very pleased for the Heartland Institute. Whilst this looked a pretty open and shut case, there was the possibility of warmists attempting to destroy heartland by drawing out litigation.

  151. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    They lost every public debate, refused debate, manipulated and forged scientific evidence for years, got caught with their pants down in Climate Gate 1 and 2, will severely be caught red handed when a certain password is revealed for Climate Gate 3 files, then stole illegal private documents, then forged a document, then played victim and martyr. A fundamentalist religion?

  152. MikeH says:

    From the AGW “I can dish it out but not take it” world.

    Peter Gleicks column on The HuffPo where this statement/confession is posted, the comment section is closed.. I could understand after the first 500 comments, closing it, but that would have taken all of 5 minutes of commenting. Again, weak….

  153. MikeH says:

    So, are the police on their way to Dr. Gleick’s and DSB’s homes and offices to obtain all of the computers for hard-drive inspection? The AGW community set the standard with the TallBloke incident, and those were Publicly owned e-mails.. This is a PRIVATE institution.. If Gleick claims he was not the author of the forged documents, then he should open his doors to the authorities for forensic investigation of his equipment. Just ask TallBloke, he knows how this goes… Does anyone know if Gleick commented on the TallBloke event?

    Don’t hold you breath for those doors to open.

  154. lateintheday says:

    Suzanne Goldenburg at the Guardian continues to misrepresent the facts. She writes:
    “A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week’s sensational expose.”
    How the hell can she get away with that.

  155. So he is the brother of ‘Chaos’ author, James Gleick. Perhaps he always felt he was in his brother’s shadow, lending himself to desperately cut corners to improve his reputation. The beating of a butterfly’s wings in the West Coast has indeed caused something unpredictable.

  156. son of mulder says:

    There is no mention of Gleick’s confession on the BBC website as at 09.54 GMT 21/02/2012, not even ace reporter Richard Black has picked up on it so it can’t be true;>)

  157. Charles.U.Farley says:

    From desmogblog….

    “Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.”
    —————————————————————–
    So when are you going to start applying some rigor to the above viewpoint then brendan?
    A lie is still a lie even if you attempt to verify it with another lie.
    From your view, so vigorously held as it would appear, you and your crowd have undermined democracy whilst hypocritcally accusing others of doing the same but with no proof whatsoever, just as in the agw scam you hold so dear….another trend! :)

    We shouldnt really be surprised should we?
    AGW and its supporters use any methods fair but mostly foul whilst decrying anyone who wants to hold a differing view, not only that they want to bully and co-erce, browbeat and treat like outcasts those who wont and dont hold with their own bigoted views, Mr desmogger being a prime example of the very worst of his breed.

    You have no monopoly on the truth Mr smoggerblogger, its plain you dont grasp the concept of it.

    By the company you keep shall you be known.

  158. Viv Evans says:

    Climategate 1&2 – running and running, and the might of the alarmists’ activists/scientist/apologists/media/police forces have no clue as to who blew that whistle.

    HI alarmist’s wire fraud and faked document: one week of mayhem on the alarmists’ blogs and favourite MSM – and the mighty minds of sceptics, first and foremost a certain Steve Mosher, have the culprit nailed within days, thus forcing said culprit to wring out a ‘confession’ and lawyer up.

    Who are the idiots here?
    Alarmists, be afraid – be very afraid!

  159. pat says:

    the few post-Gleick-confession MSM pieces – and they are few – all have headlines that still suggest ALL the documents were from HI. NYT even states Gleick denied faking the fake document, which he didn’t. don’t u love the suggestion bloggers were wrong in guessing who the perpetrator was? of course the NYT piece will spread far and wide, which is why i’ve chosen another of it’s appearances in the MSM:

    20 Feb: Mercury News: from New York Times: Activist deceived institute to obtain climate change papers
    By John M. Broder and Felicity Barringer
    (from NYT link Leslie Kaufman contributed reporting.
    A version of this article appeared in print on February 21, 2012, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Activist Says He Lied for Climate Papers..)
    The document release was cast by some bloggers as the work of a whistle-blowing Heartland employee or ex-employee, when it was in fact orchestrated by Gleick, a Yale- and Berkeley-trained scientist and environmental activist who claims that he was frustrated with Heartland’s anti-climate-change programs.
    Gleick denied authorship of the most explosive of the documents, a supposed strategy paper that laid out the institute’s efforts to raise money to question climate change and get schools to adjust their science curricula to include alternative theories of warming…
    http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_20007679

    20 Feb: Time Mag BLOG: Bryan Walsh: Climate Expert Peter Gleick Admits Deception in Obtaining Heartland Institute Papers
    The major question now — beyond the legal ramifications for Gleick and the Heartland Institute — is whether the original document Gleick says he received, the strategy memo, is real or whether it’s a falsification as the Heartland Institute maintains. The problem for climate advocates, of course, is that suspicion will only grow that Gleick falsified the original document now that he has admitted using deception to get the additional memos. (And just so we’re clear, this is deception — no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.)…
    Worst of all — at least for those who care about global warming — Gleick’s act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn’t already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon.
    http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/20/climate-expert-peter-gleick-admits-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-institute-papers/

    “a backlash against climate advocates”??? “at a politically sensitive moment”????

  160. pat says:

    Wikipedia has now added this highly misleading reading of the situation:

    Wikipedia: Peter Gleick
    On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted obtaining documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, by fraudulent means, “in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” [7] Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that “Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins … ” [8]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick

  161. Heartland’s new statement says in part: “In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.

    (My bold.)

    Heartland Institute,

    The change, coming after my request and ensuing discussion on this blog, is noted and appreciated. It is the right decision and will make a big difference in the coming battle for the public’s sentiment.

    Thank you.

    RTF

  162. Disko Troop says:

    Perhaps we need a Josh cartoon of Peter Gleick carrying his cross to Golgotha. It would appear that he is to become a martyr for the cause according to many True believer websites.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

    Interesting that he has the same lawyer as Bill Clinton, advising him what to say. That worked well didn’t it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

  163. GlennS says:

    “Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source.”

    Somehow this reminds me of Clinton “I experimented with marijuana but I didn’t inhale”. Perhaps Gleick is also holding his breath on this one.

  164. RoyM says:

    I will be keeping a keen eye on Richard Black’s reporting of this on the BBC. I’m reasonably sure that if the individual involved in the release of emails from the CRU was either uncovered or confessed to the deed there would be much coverage by Mr Black. It will be very telling if this grubby little episode is kept off the BBC website.

  165. Copner says:

    > I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology”

    But he hasn’t really apologized!

    He admitted acquiring documents by fraud, but at the same time continued slapping Heartland in the face while making that admission. Essentially he mostly blames them for his actions.

    And he’ also thrown his own friends to the lions, once, possibly twice:

    1. When he forwarded the pack of documents via email to warmist blogs (dear 15 friends), he apparently gave them no indication that (according to his own account) the strategy doc was received separately, or that he had doubts about its authenticity.

    2. In his recent admission, he continues to imply the strategy doc might be real. He has thus encouraged Desmogblog, Greg Laden, etc., to continue to publicize it. If he has any indication that the strategy doc is dubious, or if his admission is disassembling in any way whatsoever, he’s led this guys into deeper and deeper trouble when he could have rescued them.

  166. Brian H says:

    MangoChutney says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology asking Gleick to make a sizable donation to One Water (for example).

    Humility would be wonderful. But it’s a personal trait, not an event. He’ll never have or show it.

    Humiliation, now, if it were thorough and public enough … Nah. Sue him into pauper-tude, say I!!

  167. Brian H says:

    Peter Plail says:
    February 21, 2012 at 1:18 am

    It would also help the argument if everyone stopped referring to the document as a fake – it is a forgery
    fake:- One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
    forgery:- The creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one, with the intent to defraud.

    The important part here being the intent to defraud

    Nah. “Forgerygate” doesn’t have any bite (unlike Barq’s). It ain’t got that swing (so it don’t mean a thing). ;)
    FakeGate it is!

  168. MikeH says:

    Disko Troop said on February 21, 2012 at 2:18 am

    Perhaps we need a Josh cartoon of Peter Gleick carrying his cross to Golgotha.

    Um.. Too close to being portrayed as The Christ. I don’t want to give the AGW crowd a savior to rally behind. Maybe tossing himself into the lion pit full of Epson scanners? Pole-vaulting?

  169. 1DandyTroll says:

    First the melancholic hippies digs their graves, then when they dug too deep, they start shoveling down their crap trying to get out. And when they need help, they first pull their saviors down to their level of muck.

    You know it’s a popcorn hour when the arrogance of the over sized ego screws everybody over in an attempt to seem intelligent. :p

  170. Andy says:

    I bet this guy will win a Nobel Prize for ethics. The reporting on this crime has been criminal. They misrepresent the facts, omit major parts of the story, and fill the voids with gibbering insults and apocalyptic predictions.

  171. DirkH says:

    We should apply the precautionary principle: never believe the words of a climate scientists.
    It is a cost-effective measure and should prevent possibly enormous economic damage.

    (I’m kidding, but this is the reaction they will necessarily get. Thank you, Peter, we couldn’t have done anything better. Look at the attempts of the MSM to paper over the falsification – they know it’s game over when it becomes known. But they can’t prevent it! Not even wikipedia can for long!)

  172. cui bono says:

    Still nothing from the BBC.

  173. Barry Woods says:

    National Center for Science Education in Oakland – appointed Peter Gleick to it’s board to fight climate change denial in education -

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/comparing-climate-skepticism-to-creationism-in-the-classroom/

    Do we really want his ethics near studenets/teachers..

  174. old44 says:

    Peter Gleick is the same author of the fake Amazon.com book review on The Delinquent Teenager.
    I am sure the lawyers will be glad to know he has form.

  175. Bill Illis says:

    The research of anyone who would act so unethically (and perhaps “forge” such a document) should be withdrawn of course. This just shows that anyone who believes very strongly in a cause is willing to do just about anything in order to further that cause.

    Gleick has written many papers, volumes on hydrological resources, become a go to climate change expert.

    How many others in his position felt very strongly about their cause.

  176. MikeH says:

    Barry Woods said on February 21, 2012 at 3:58 am

    National Center for Science Education in Oakland – appointed Peter Gleick to it’s board to fight climate change denial in education -

    So would it be safe to say that Peter Gleick is dissuading teachers from teaching science?

    Everything that they purport to be done on the Skeptics’ side are actually what they are actively doing! When looking for someone to blame on the ills of the world on, the AGW crowd needs to look in the mirror more often…

  177. jim says:

    It was mentioned earleir by someone, but needs to be repeated again.

    Desmuggers are ruining the reputation of Heartland Institute by claiming that Gleick is a whistle blower. He is not an employee of Heartland Institute, but anybody not overly familiar with the story are now being given the impression that he acquired the documents as being an insider at Heartland. The definition of whistle blower mostly means an internal employee who tells the public or someone in authority about dishonest or illegal activities.

    1. He is not an internal employee?
    2. What dishonest or illegal activities are desmuggers referring too?

    Gleick is repulsive, but desmuggers have done untold damage to the reputation of HI and Watts etc.

  178. Smokey says:

    Mike H says:

    “Everything that they purport to be done on the Skeptics’ side are actually what they are actively doing!”

    Exactly right. I’ve often pointed out that of it were not for psychological projection [imputing your own faults onto others], the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say.

  179. View from the Solent says:

    lateintheday says:
    February 21, 2012 at 1:49 am

    Suzanne Goldenburg at the Guardian continues to misrepresent the facts. She writes:
    “A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week’s sensational expose.”
    ==========================================================
    “… discredit the teaching of science to school children …”
    Unlike this, of course.
    http://thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/5026-disgraceful-climate-indoctrination-in-australian-schools.html

  180. Antonia says:

    What disgusting behaviour from a prominent alarmist.

    Well on the bright side, it’s not science, is it? Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming.

    “He believed”. That’s his problem: science isn’t about belief.

  181. Andrew30 says:

    Looks like Gleick got some of the heat that was missing.
    Is this not really anthopogenic heat of course, it is simply the result of the UHI effect.

    (UHI = Upset Heartland Institute)

  182. ProgContra says:

    One important part of all of this is the role that the sceptic blogosphere had in pointing the finger at Gleick. Would he have come forward if people hadn’t already outed him as the prime susepct?

    http://progcontra.blogspot.com/2012/02/sceptic-blogosphere-devours-gleick.html

  183. MikeH says:

    jim said on February 21, 2012 at 4:24 am

    It was mentioned earleir by someone, but needs to be repeated again.

    Desmuggers are ruining the reputation of Heartland Institute by claiming that Gleick is a whistle blower. He is not an employee of Heartland Institute, but anybody not overly familiar with the story are now being given the impression that he acquired the documents as being an insider at Heartland.

    I agree with your sentiments but in looking at a dictionary definition on whistle blower, from Dictionary.com:

    whis·tle-blow·er [hwis-uhl-bloh-er]
    noun
    a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.

    But is this THE official, legal definition of a whistle-blower? I don’t know.. But it is generally regarded that a whistle-blower is someone from inside the company or organization who has a fear of retaliation from said company/organization (fired, demoted, etc). Thus the whistle-blower protection laws in the US.. I feel that DSM is playing with a loose interpretation of the term. Something that DSM and others would not offer to skeptics (IMHO).

  184. richard verney says:

    I have not folowed this story at all closely so I am not familaiar with the facts.

    Am I right in concluding that Gleick received (or alleges that he received) the ‘fraudulent’ memo and then hacked the Heartland server so as to ascertain whether the ‘fraudulent’ memo was genuine. Then having hacked the Heartland server and found no trace whatsoever of the ‘fraudulent’ memo rather than concluding that it was likely that the memo was ‘fraudulent’ instead. he publishes the memo claiming it real.

    If those are the basic facts, at the time of publication, he could have had no confidence in the veracity of the memoo and would have had every reason to consider that it was not genuine.

    If these are the facts, it appears to me that he has likely commited an offence of hacking the Heartland server AND knowingly publishing a memo which he almost certainly knows to be false.

    Some suggest that he himself forged the memo. Obviously, I do not know whether that is the case, however, even if it is not the case, there appears (to me) to be strong reason to suspect that he published a memo which he knew was unlikely to be genuine.

  185. pat says:

    richard black’s bbc twitter page -
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/richardblack/ -
    was topped by this link just now :

    20 Feb: Huffpo: Kelly Rigg: Forget Logic, It’s Just Climate Schizophrenia
    (Kelly Rigg is the Executive Director of the GCCA, a global alliance of 300 organizations cooperating under the banner of the tcktcktck campaign. She has been leading international campaigns for nearly 30 years on climate, energy, oceans, Antarctica and other issues. She was a senior campaign director for Greenpeace International during 20 years with the organization. After leaving Greenpeace she went on to found the Varda Group consultancy providing campaign and strategic advice to a wide range of NGOs, and led the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s campaign to protect the high seas from destructive bottom fishing)
    Climate schizophrenia is not even limited to countries. As leaked documents revealed last week, 19 public corporations fund the climate change-denying Heartland Institute, some of whom scrambled to distance themselves from Heartland’s climate program. Of all the companies named, I was most disappointed to see Microsoft on the list, albeit only for the provision of around $60,000 worth of free software. Bill Gates the philanthropist is very worried about climate change, but not enough for his company to cut off support to a climate-denial group…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/climate-change-policies_b_1288473.html

  186. Paul Coppin says:

    With regard to redress for Heartland, remember, this is about donors and fund-raising. Heartland can actually quantify financial damage as a result of “permanent damage” to its reputation. Many of its donors will be low profile and shun the public eye for good political and business reasons. If as a result, they are exposed, they may curtail otherwise useful and planned donations. For an organization that defends heavily on donation funding in order to operate (whoever they are), the alleged criminal actions which have occurred here carry both a punitive and civilly redress. This is hardball – the only decisions to be made on what course to follow will be on the business case. A strong offensive by Heartland (especially if successful), will demonstrate to its donors that HI will act aggressively to protect its funding sources, which is positve spin for donors.
    The very worse thing for HI to do is capitulate on a “feel-good” strategy – they lose everything if they do. Aggressive action may well fund their war-chest and it will raise the public profile of the slime side of the CAGW crowd big time in the public eye. Their goal should be a complete and very public flogging of all of the players in this – they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Most of the miscreants will look to settle privately – none can come out of this looking good.

  187. Curiousgeorge says:

    Comments from the Agriculture community (DTN/Progressive Farmer) about this:
    ==========================================================
    Quote:

    Getting to the Heartland of the Climate Debate

    The Heartland Institute has found itself fending off attacks after documents from the group’s board meeting were posted on the internet. The group’s leader, Joe Bast, and others have argued that the documents were stolen, or fraudulently obtained, and that at least one of the documents is fraudulent. Journalists, however, have been confirming the validity of those documents, including statements declaring the funding of a researcher specifically to push teachers not to teach anything related to climate change.

    Information on the leaked documents: http://www.newscientist.com/…

    The Heartland Institute’s response: http://heartland.org/…

    An LA Times piece on the controversy, given how the Heartland Institute had praised the uncovering of documents in the Climategate story in 2009. http://www.latimes.com/…

    At the American Farm Bureau Federation meeting in Honolulu earlier this year the Heartland Institute made the case that there is no need to worry about greenhouse gas emissions. This was an exhibitor presentation, thus there was no counter argument from those who support climate science and the role of people in adding greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

    James Taylor, a senior fellow of environmental policy for the Heartland Institute, started off his presentation citing some recent headlines about agriculture and climate change.

    “If you listen to the media what you would think of course is global warming is indeed a very difficult condition for crops,” Taylor said. “What I would like to do is present some facts, and call me on it if I am giving you my opinion that is not supported by facts.”

    Taylor said he was presenting data about overall what is happening with the global climate, as well as crop production and specific climate conditions.

    “What is happening to our climate that is going to affect agriculture, and are we facing a global warming crisis in general, and one that is going to impede agriculture specifically?” Taylor said. “The answer as far as science is, and as far as data is, no we are not.”

    More: http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do;jsessionid=AFC51F804A5D24FED3617144F0AA9C0E.agfreejvm1?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc33b7544601358b96504e1298&showCommentsOverride=false

  188. Copner says:

    Assume for a moment that Gleick received the strategy document from an anonymous source, as he claims.

    Now that strategy document actually contains text along the lines “here’s some super stuff we’ll keep secret even from our own board”.

    If Gleick wanted to verify the strategy doc, the last thing he would want to look at would be he board papers, because the strategy doc supposedly contains info that even the Heartland board don’t know.

    So why would he then go do ID theft, or whatever you want to call it, to get the board papers?

    It doesn’t make sense… he stole completely the wrong papers to test the authenticity of the strategy document.

  189. pat says:

    perhaps english people will appreciate the headline more than most:

    21 Feb: Peter Gleick – the Johann Hari of climate ‘science’
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-science/

  190. steveta_uk says:

    Suzanne Goldenburg is a total moron. She calls Gleick “A leading defender of climate change”. What the F**K does that mean?

  191. pat says:

    fyi

    Wikipedia: Johann Hari
    Johann Eduard Hari (born 21 January 1979) is a British journalist who was a columnist at The Independent and The Huffington Post, and contributed to several other publications. In 2011, Hari admitted to plagiarism, was suspended from The Independent and surrendered his 2008 Orwell Prize. He also admitted to making Wikipedia edits, under a pseudonym, to attack his critics, and has said that he plans to undergo training in journalism ethics. In 2012 his website announced he was not returning to The Independent because he was writing a book…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari

    ——————————————————————————–

  192. Roger Knights says:

    Hey, guys, here’s a “dot” that just might be significant. A few months ago, in the Climategate 2 e-mails, Mann said that an investigative journalist ought to try to discover if McIntyre (and someone else, I forget who) was being secretly funded by a think tank.

    Could this suggestion have “inspired” Gleick? I think it could have played a role.

  193. Dinjo says:

    Some comments suggest that Gleick most likely didn’t author the forged document because no well-educated professional would write something so stylistically poor. That could be true, but it overlooks the possibility that the forged document was deliberately written in this manner for precisely the purpose of disguising forensic comparisons of writing styles. It also gives a negative impression of the literacy of the purported Heartland Institute author, perhaps revealing an unconscious bigotry from which not even the most saintly liberals are immune where those with whom they disagree are concerned.

  194. pat says:
    February 21, 2012 at 4:46 am

    What!? So the BBC is reacting to HI’s notice with a rhetorical face-spit? Incredible!

    What on Earth has gotten into these people?

    RTF

  195. MikeH says:

    jim commented on February 21, 2012 at 4:24 am that DSM was using the term Whistle-Blower and he felt it was an improper use of the term. Which is usually a badge of honor.

    I’ve gone to a number of legal definition webs sites, here is a clip that seems to be the common definition of a Whistle-Blower:

    The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.


    Here
    and here are two examples. So unfortunately, DSM can use the term Whistle-Blower. I might not agree with it also, but the definition is open for interpretation on this point. Let DSM think they won the battle, we’ll win the war, because I’m on the side of facts and truth.. Their side is built on (fill in the blank yourself)

  196. MikeH says:

    A minor correction to my previous posts. If I accidentally typed DSM, I was in error..
    That should read DSB (DeSmellyBlog).
    My lack of typing skills and content review are showing… sorry to any DSM’s out there….

  197. William McClenney says:

    Applying the pretzel logic algorEithm of the Theory of Inverse Reality, it spit out a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for Peter Gleick.

  198. Lady in Red says:

    Well. I have sent this and Delingpole’s piece to a handful of my fingers-in-the-ears, lalalallallalalalla eco-loon friends (sadly and highly paid scientists!).

    The play only gets more absurd. I thought it would all end with Climategate I.

    I underestimated.

    History books will be filled with humor. …..Lady in Red

  199. ShrNfr says:

    “Bill Jamison says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    California Penal Code Section 528.5 make it a crime to create an email account in someone else’s name with intent to defraud. Seems like that applies here. Maybe Federal charges too. This is serious stuff. ”

    I would not hold my breath waiting till Holder brings charges.

  200. Steve from Rockwood says:

    I wouldn’t want to be Gleick’s underwear right now.

  201. steveta_uk says:

    richard verney says:
    February 21, 2012 at 4:46 am

    I have not folowed (sic) this story at all closely so I am not familaiar (sic) with the facts.

    As everything you write after this point is total fabrication and in no way resembles the actual events, can i suggest that you read the story before commenting!

  202. Ken Harvey says:

    ”Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”

  203. Chris D. says:

    “DesertYote says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm
    As some here might realize, Dr. Gleick has just become a hero/martyr of the cause. Be not surprised by the mental gymnastics the greenies will be performing in the days ahead. Their base axiom on which all else rests is that the ends justify the means.”

    I’m waiting for the inevitable T-shirt with a high contrast image of Glieck’s face wearing a beanie.

  204. cui bono says:

    Is this the sort of thing the AAAS had in mind when they held their meeting on how to “influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”? :-)

  205. wws says:

    The reason for the “unprofessional” tone of the faked memo is likely because Gleick “knew” that all of the “climate deniers” were uneducated science hating knuckledraggers, and he was imitating what he was sure they all said in private.

    of course, in reality he was just echoing the crazed delusions of his own deeply warped mind. So I suppose we can say that this memo is more authentically written in Gleick’s “True” voice than anything else he has ever done. This hateful, nasty, vicious liar is Peter Gleick, shorn of all of his pretensions and carefully learned mannerisms.

    Ecce Homo!!!! (Behold the Man!)

  206. Garry says:

    geo says February 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm: “So, tell us. . .what’s the stylistic or other evidence that points at Glieck for the author of the “faked” document?”

    Steve Mosher has written extensively about the stylistic similarities between Gleick’s writing and that of the anonymous author over at Lucia’s blog The Blackboard, beginning last week.

  207. DJ says:

    What is the Pacific Institute, and why am I bothering with it??
    …you’ll see.. :)

    Audit report/Financial Info
    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf

    Note that founder and CEO Peter Gleick pulled down a “reported” $152,000 for 35 hrs/week..
    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/Pacific_Institute_990_tax_10.pdf

    Funding list:
    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/Funders%202009.pdf

    (notice that one of the funding sources is the University of Alabama Huntsville… isn’t that the very same outfit that funds denier John Christy???)

    Regardless……. It would seem that one institute, the Pacific, raided another institute, the Heartland, to suit its goals….showing that amongst the AGW crowd, the ends do justify the means.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting to see who owns the property the headquarters is paying $120k/yr in rent to?
    654 13TH STREET, OAKLAND, CA 94612

  208. Dudley Dobinson says:

    (Copy of my email to AGU)
    To the president of AGU

    I am assuming that Mr. Gleick has done the honorable thing and resigned as chairman of your ethics task force. May I suggest Viscount Monckton of Brenchley as a suitable replacement.

    Respectfully yours. Dudley Dobinson

  209. DavidA says:

    Paul Coppin’s post is giving me schadenfreude overload. Heartland sue Gleick, win millions, and spend the money fighting against the alarmist cause. “Big Gleick funds climate deniers”, doesn’t get sweeter than that.

    BTW twitter is showing about 3-5 a minute for Gleick the great majority are not favourable.

  210. JT says:

    “jim commented on February 21, 2012 at 4:24 am that DSM was using the term Whistle-Blower and he felt it was an improper use of the term. Which is usually a badge of honor.”

    I would limit “whistle-blower” to a person speaking out from within an organization with the truth about what that organization is getting up to. What Gleick and DeSmog et al have done, in my opinion, is better described as “Yellow Journalism”, per Wikipedia: “Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.[1] By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

  211. Ken Harvey says:

    We have already deduced that Gliek is a tad naive when it comes to IT mechanics. That said, it seems unlikely, to me, that he will be able to produce or have produced for him, satisfactory evidence of the receipt of the original forged document from some anonymous source. He is on his back waiting for the coup de grace, but Heartland will come under intense pressure to withhold the fatal blow. We might yet not see justice done.

  212. klem says:

    Hey, we have a partial eclipse happening on the Solar Images and Data Page above.
    (I realize this is off topic, sorry, I can’t help it)

  213. Tom G(ologist) says:

    This is the very reason why there is such a thing as professional licensure for those of us who practice in the real world, and why persons in academia are NOT automatically granted licensure in many jurisdictions. We are held to an overarching standard that everything we do has the underlying goal of protecting the public health and welfare. The licensure laws mostly contain a code of ethics and we can be reprimanded, fined, sanctioned, our licenses suspended and even revoked for behaviour such as Glieck’s.

    For the record, I am the current President of the Pennsylvania Licensing Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors adn Geologists and this kind of thing is not countenanced amongst professional practitioners. They wonder in academia why they cannot simply be licensed like the rest of us – the answer is, being a scholar has NOTHING to do with running a successful practice which is founded on actions on behalf of the public weal – in all senses of teh word. The big word is successful. If one of us pulled a stunt similar to Glieck’s we would lose our ability to practice and would be out of bsuiness. Academics’ words have no such consequence, except with tax-greedy politicians.

    Academia – What a ‘profession’!!!! They get tenure to protect their jobs, AND they are immune from state legislatures which empower licensing boards to police the competence, ehtics and probity of licensees.

  214. Shevva says:

    Not sure which thread/post up dates should be going in but heres another one for you HI.

    ‘Confidential documents obtained last week from the Heartland Institute, a U.S. libertarian think tank, reveal a multi-million- dollar campaign to mislead the public about climate change and subvert government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One project intended to undermine science lessons for schoolchildren. Heartland is also funding climate change contrarians in Canada and other countries, the documents reveal.’ – Can you prove it?

    http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106834

    Funny thing it was post about one hour ago so they must knwo that this is a hot potato.

  215. DR says:

    I shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the Deputy……..

  216. Scottish Sceptic says:

    Ken Harvey says: February 21, 2012 at 6:18 am

    but Heartland will come under intense pressure to withhold the fatal blow.

    Most oil companies have a lot of money tied up raking in grants from wind.

    Who’s going to make a bet with me, that if Heartland drops this case, they don’t get a very lucrative contract with one of the big-oil companies … which means they can’t spend so much time on the non-science of global warming.

  217. Luther Wu says:

    The continuing and overwhelming reaction from the left in support of Gleick, in this matter, goes far beyond an embrace of propaganda and crosses into the realm of mental disorder on a mass scale.

  218. Garry says:

    Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says February 21, 2012 at 1:30 am “A fundamentalist religion?”

    More like Scientology if you ask me. Fundamentalists are not known for misdemeanor and felony behavior.

  219. Stacey says:

    The top scientists on the Fiddlestick Team have posted a major statement on this matter over at UNReal Climate.Con.

    The statement reads:-

    End of statement.

    Ps Apparently The Chairman of the IPPC has been receiving death threats, yawn yawn yawn

  220. Randy says:

    Memo to the team. Stop hitting yourself.

  221. Dire Wolf says:

    Dr. Gleick has lectured in writing, but I don’t see any other credentials. Until other evidence arises, it appears that his main profession is writing (i.e. and English/Linguistic degree).

  222. Corey S. says:

    AndyG55 says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. :-)

    He is on quite a few boards and committees:

    PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

    Current

    •World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Water Security, 2008-present
    •Committee on Ecological Impacts of Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences, 2008-present
    •Expert Group on Policy Relevance of the World Water Assessment Program, United Nations, 2008-present
    •Human Impacts of Climate Change Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007-present
    •Climate Advisory Group, California Academy of Sciences, 2007-present
    Climate Change Technical Advisory Group, State of California, 2007-present
    Advisory Board, Environmental Research Letters, 2006-present
    •Editorial Board, Water Policy, 1997-present
    Editorial Board, Climatic Change, 1990-present
    •Board of Directors, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 1988-present
    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/gleick_cv_7-08.pdf

    He looks to be a pretty strong guard at the gate, considering recent developments.

  223. Skiphil says:

    questions, questions, questions……

    Gleick’s “modified, limited hangout” (infamous phrase from US Watergate scandal long ago) raises more questions than it answers. Among the as yet unanswered questions might be:

    1) Is it plausible to believe that Gleick did not create the “strategy” document himself?

    2) Is there any evidence that Gleick received the “strategy” document from a 3rd party?

    3) Isn’t it curious that it was specifically the language of the “strategy” document that caused Mosher and then others to focus upon Gleick as its potential author?

    4) Isn’t it interesting that only the fabricated juicy quotations in the “strategy” document gave the story its “legs” to begin with?

    Which leads me to my main question for the moment: can one really believe that Gleick has come clean and acknowledged the full range of his transgressions in this affair?

  224. jrwakefield says:

    Russ R. says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    Predictions:

    1. Desmog and other alarmist outfits will rush to support Gleick, accepting his story uncritically, and offering up plausible defenses, contorting the evidence and timeline to explain how things could have transpired. They will also continue to act as if the strategy document were authentic. They will portray him simultaneously as a hero (David standing up to Goliath), and a victim (an innocent whistleblower being harassed by evil deniers and their lawyers).

    http://www.desmogblog.com/whistleblower-authenticates-heartland-documents

    “Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.”

  225. fp says:

    Hmm, they’ve removed Peter Gleick’s name from this page:

    http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

    It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

  226. More Soylent Green! says:

    I see Gleick has learned the wisdom of “Be First with the Truth”

  227. polistra says:

    Couple of non-barking dogs all of a sudden: New Superstitionist and AntiScientific AntiAmerican were gleefully covering the leak. Today they have nothing at all on the story. Down the Memory Hole!

  228. Frank K. says:

    Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

    One thing is for sure…this is NOT going away anytime soon. And I predict that this kind of extreme behavior by the warmists will increase this year due to the election in November in the U.S.

    And to the U.S. readers – please remember this event when you vote in November. The CAGW scientists get BILLIONS in taxpayer dollars, while simultaneously advocating the destruction of our coal, oil, and natural gas industries (and in some cases nuclear too).

  229. Chris B says:

    I’m going to read the book, Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.

    “AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work

    Peter Gleick
    Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA

    Randy Townsend
    American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

    In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union’s policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”

    Published 22 November 2011.

    Citation: Gleick, P. and R. Townsend (2011), AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(47), 433, doi:10.1029/2011EO470009.”

  230. dan says:

    I had fight with Gleick on the twitter few few weeks ago about climate text in EU. See the link what he said to me.
    http://goo.gl/LJoxf

  231. Bruce Cobb says:

    Despite the attempts by Curry and others to do damage control, distancing themselves and the Warmist side from Gleick’s actions, they are only deceiving themselves if they can’t see that he represents what amounts to an ideology clothed in the trappings of science. It is an ideology which is, in fact, devoid of ethics, with one sole purpose; its own survival.

  232. son of mulder says:

    Still a bit slow at the BBC as at 15.05 GMT 21/02/2012 no sign that this is a news story. They were much quicker the other day. I’d particularly like to read Richard Black’s views on this. As he signed off last time “Who’s raising a flag now for openness in the lobbies of climate change debate?”

  233. Johnnythelowery says:

    William McClenney says:
    February 21, 2012 at 5:31 am
    Applying the pretzel logic algorEithm of the Theory of Inverse Reality, it spit out a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for Peter Gleick.
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    Hahaha. That’s great. But i tested your results. All i get when I put input: ‘Gleick’ through the AlgorEithm
    is Hockey stick shaped path to which position to take on climate science that leads directly to the biggest pile of cash. White noise, red noise, mumbo Jumbo–hockey sticks. IT’s always AGW. AGW is the shortest path to the biggest piles of cash to be made–and that’s the position to take. Aside from starting a Southern Televangelist church! Say..somewhere around Nashville.

    Gleick is the ANTI-FOIA

  234. Larry Butler says:

    A felony has been committed. Does anyone have the number of the arrest warrant or police report, yet? Why is it when these crimes are committed and the perpetrator publicly admits to the crime’s commission, white collars don’t get arrested, particularly academics who think they live outside the law behind those university walls? If this is a crime, as it appears, let’s get it to court and him in the can so the rest of them can see him. If this is just he said/you said propaganda, let’s find out who lied and publish their discredit for all to see.

    Wanna bet no arrests take place?

  235. Mark Bowlin says:

    This is another example of the consequentialism of the green movement. In their Orwellian worldview, prevarications in defense of the planet are not only just ethical but carry a moral imperative.

  236. David Corcoran says:

    Gleick is the Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics and Integrity?

    So this is what passes for ethics among the alarmists. Figures. The AGU is a laughingstock now.

  237. Bart says:

    MangoChutney says:
    February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    “… I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology …”

    Surely, you jest. As well leave an injured, poisonous snake alive in the grass. You gotta’ cut off the head.

    Personally, I have a vision of condign punishment that would make Genghis Khan blanch and sick up. Prosecuting him to the full extent of the law and suing him down to his last nickel is showing mercy from that vantage point.

  238. Perry says:

    Gleick has admitted “My judgment was blinded by my frustration”. Next he’ll be consulting with medical staff and they will claim he is unable to plead in court, due to him being tired and emotional. My comment is that being warmist or socialist is akin to being mentally disturbed, so Gleick is for now the most prominent example of climate lunacy.

    Trenberth has been knocked back at the WSJ and who’s to judge whether his undying belief that his “missing heat” is hiding in the deep ocean is yet another example of incipient insanity?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … %3Darticle

  239. It’s 15:30 on 21 February here in the UK and the BBC’s Ace Environment Correspondent has this to say about the Gleik confession:-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/richardblack/
    Spoiler alert!
    He does not mention it. Not a word.

  240. Richard M says:

    {ShrNfr says:
    February 21, 2012 at 5:39 am

    “Bill Jamison says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    California Penal Code Section 528.5 make it a crime to create an email account in someone else’s name with intent to defraud. Seems like that applies here. Maybe Federal charges too. This is serious stuff. ”

    I would not hold my breath waiting till Holder brings charges.}

    Exactly, as I stated in the “breaking news” thread I suspect that Gleick is taking a small risk for the team. The idea is to make him a martyr and continue to claim the HI fake strategy is real. I believe this has been hashed out by those who continue to fund cAGW. His statement makes it possible that the fake document is real and none of the cAGW faithful will look at the evidence Mosher and others have uncovered. Gleick will cop a plea to reduced charges and not face any jail time. He will then go back into the limelight and continue to claim the fake document is real. The press will only cover his side of the story. HI needs to understand this and take appropriate action.

  241. Garry says:

    MikeH says February 21, 2012 at 1:26 am: “From The HuffPo, Peter Gleick’s statement, the last paragraph:”

    When I looked this morning, Huffington was not accepting comments on this matter, and none were posted. And Revkin had only three, two from the same guy who looks to have a fairly diseased and cultish mindset, referring to Gleick’s frauds as “the nobility of science” and ending with “I want to salute Peter Gleick.”

  242. JDN says:

    Once again, modern ethics is nothing but mob rule. Gleick is probably still a professor of ethics.

  243. David Ball says:

    In Canada CTV news is portraying Andrew Weaver as a “climatologist”. Many here will recognize the distinction between computer climate modeler and “climatologist”. Contact them to make a correction. news@ctv.ca

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-oil-sands-not-so-dirty-after-all/article2343985/
    What Weaver is claiming is that the oil sands are a far smaller carbon footprint than coal. This is a “are you still beating your wife” question. Don’t all coal plants have scrubbers on the chimneys by law? He is using the MSM to play games and misinform the public. If it is stated the oil sands are worse than coal,he wins. If the oil sands are better than coal he wins. It is a very carefully constructed media release. Anyone who has a clue about the discussion will see the deception. Those who are unaware will follow blindly. We have to stand up to this kind of manipulation.

  244. TedK says:

    Jake says:
    “February 20, 2012 at 10:39 pm
    … By admitting to the identity fraud, he is only admitting to a misdemeanor under CA law, and is obviously hoping to get by the civil proceeding as cheaply as possible.
    HI has to make a decision on whether to go to court and hope they can prove Gleick was actually the author of the fake memo if they want to prove “malicious intent” because as everyone has said the other documents aren’t that scary, merely inconvenient to the donors and everyone else involved.
    My opinion, they are WORRIED!””

    What’s California got to do with it? Heartland has no offices in CA. Sorry, CA may get to hang a bad boy misdemeanor tag on Gleick’s fraud; the Feds will hit him with felony charges… And that’s just for the identity theft portion. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

    Libel, damages, forgery, malicious intent to defame/injure, etc. They’re all awaiting investigation. And somehow, I don’t expect any reasonable federal prosecution team to only take Gleick’s word for specifics and details. They’ll take his paperwork, trash, computer and electronic communications apart looking for details on his “anonymous” communications partner.

    Want to take bets on how much they can find?

    After the states and Feds get their prosecutions completed, then maybe Rep. Issa will be interested. Depends on how tangled a mess they uncover.

    Any one that’ll give odds that Gleick plans to sing and intends to ask for immunity? Oh, you warmistas and CAGW trolls don’t think martyrs sing? Just wait’ll he starts toting up decades of group accomodations at the publics expense.

  245. Frank K. says:

    I have been investigating just what this secretive “Heartland Institute” is all about, and their nefarious plans for America! Here is their super-secret website:

    http://heartland.org

    And their shocking mission statement:

    http://heartland.org/about

    Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

    [gasp] Promote free-market solutions? How dare they!

    Of course they are well-funded:

    Funding: Approximately 1,800 supporters support an annual budget of $6 million. Heartland does not accept government funding. Contributions are tax-deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

    WHY – how are the courageous CAGW scientists supposed to compete with this well-funded machine when all they have is a paltry $2.6 billion?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf

    /sarc

    (PS – send the Heartland Institute a donation if you can…)

  246. RBM says:

    Oh what a tangled web they create
    when they aspire to regulate

  247. b_C says:

    http://ncse.com/news/2012/02/source-heartland-leak-steps-forward-007220

    First concrete fallout?
    “As part of NCSE’s expansion to defend the teaching of climate science, Gleick had agreed to join NCSE’s board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.”

  248. What if this was part of a political strategy? Liberals seeing that they may not win elections on a “green” issue have picked someone to take the fall and take the “high ground” and change sides. It will be interesting to see how the liberal candidates react.

  249. G. Karst says:

    fp says:
    February 21, 2012 at 7:00 am

    Hmm, they’ve removed Peter Gleick’s name from this page:

    http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

    It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

    Wow. Peter Gleick’s name was there yesterday. He will now be erased from all boards. Just goes to show, how quick someone can be thrown under the bus. He is now learning the meaning of the word “disappeared”. It is a travesty worthy of Mann etc. GK

  250. Brian H says:

    David Ball says:
    February 21, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Your point about tactics is valid, but the “scrubbers” are irrelevant; they’re for sulphur and particulates. CO2 removal and sequestration (CCS) is a whole ‘nother thing. A flagrant economic, technical, and ecological failure wherever attempted.

  251. Somewhere Peter Gleick’s name is going onto the door to an office with the words, “Climate TV Pundit” below it. CNN or MSNBC? Once he is out of prison he will be TV’s newest “expert”.

  252. Keith Sketchley says:

    “Brian H says:
    February 20, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    Can anyone confirm that Gleick’s only science education was a humanities undergrad survey course? The depth of his ignorance demands an explanation.

    [REPLY: Brian, that is Dr. Gleick, and I doubt anyone can answer your question without resortng to a court order.... which they will not get. Give that one a rest. -REP] ”

    REP, what do you mean by “that is Dr. Gleick,”? I do not use the term “Doctor” except for medical doctors, because it is widely used as an argument from authority and so many holders are not competent. I’m even looking for a different term for a medical expert, as many are not competent.

  253. Third Party says:

    from:(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group-admits-lying-acquire-heartland-climate-documents) ref’d above:

    “They (NYT) noted that Climate Progress is affiliated with the Center for American Progress (CAP), but did not point out that CAP received $7.3 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations.”

    Nope, just pure (as the melting driven snow) Science there. The funding is settled.

  254. MangoChutney says:

    I knew I’d get called for my view, but:

    The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

    The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187

    Gleick has only himself to blame for his predicament, but I really don’t think we should allow him to become a martyr for The Cause

  255. Jimbo says:

    Richard Black (BBC), where are you? Not so quick off the mark this time I see. Heh, heh. ;>)

  256. MikeH says:

    Third Party said onFebruary 21, 2012 at 11:25 am

    from:(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group-admits-lying-acquire-heartland-climate-documents) ref’d above:

    “They (NYT) noted that Climate Progress is affiliated with the Center for American Progress (CAP), but did not point out that CAP received $7.3 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations.”

    I am not defending the Pacific Institute or CAP, but from the referenced article:

    Pacific Institute, the group that lied in order to obtain the documents, received $275,000 from Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2006

    .

    Now maybe that covered Gleick’s expenses for that time, I don’t know. But $275,000 over 6 years, I’m not seeing any covert conspiracy. But, you know the character of the person by the company he keeps…

  257. Ian L. McQueen says:

    @Flat Earther February 20 “What is the temperature in Hell right now?”
    If it’s underground, as it is according to common belief, then it is several million degrees according to Al Gore.

    Apologies if someone else has made the same observation; I have skipped most comments.

    IanM

  258. Malcolm Miller says:

    The warmists are in a panic because they see the rise and rise of public disbelief in their religion. In desperation, they will lash out at any entity they perceive as ‘the enemy’. The desmoggers represent the Inquisition of this religion, and the confession their first martyr. If they think he has been thrown to the lions he will simply be their hero, and also a victim of an evil power.

  259. Hot under the collar says:

    Has the world gone mad this week.
    First I see the LA Times quoting mein kampf in a debate on climate change and to defend an article on stolen and fraudulent documents suggesting an institute was anti science and wanted to ban teaching of climate science in schools. (maybe the author wants to replace the science books with mein kampf for bedtime reading).
    Then, only after being named and “dobbed in” by others, the person who admits to fraudulently obtaining the documents by impersonating a director of the institute and falsifying an email address turns out to be the chair of the American Geophysical Union “Task Force on Scientific Ethics” and was to be a member of the board of directors of part of the NCSE expansion to “defend the teaching of climate science”. He then does not admit he is the author of the forged document (about as believable as “the dog ate my thesis”) and in consequence leaves his colleagues under suspicion.

    Now all we require is for Jones et al to “fess up” to redefining the meaning of the peer review process to stop scientists publishing if it questioned their work. …..sorry …what email?…..it said what?…
    Ok, so the dog ate the thesis data but by a consensus of 98% of peer review redefiners they say it proved that man made CO2 is the dominant force in climate change causing global warming …..since the last ice age. Oh and the dogs paw deleted the backup server data as well.

    What the “Paragon of the scientific community club” need to understand is that by undermining the peer review process then scientists and the public alike are entitled to be skeptical about any work they publish or peer review. I thought scientists were supposed to enjoy debate and proving and disproving hypothesis was science. “The debate is over” and “the science is settled by consensus” is not science it is just a meaningless statement and has bored people away from their argument. Ultimately to author a fraudulent document in support of their argument means the science is certainly not settled.

  260. Rev Dr E Buzz Coolio says:

    I’ve encountered enough Professors and professional researchers to know who this guy really is…there is a lot of dishonesty, greed and mistrust n minds in fields like these, the political fields…as well as a healthy dollop of fantasy, egomania, self-inflation, self-exaggeration, self-aggrandization.

    Like Occupy, it is a fantastic social experiment…just how low would one stoop? Simple scenarios we ask children sometimes to gauge their morality and selfishness.

    Well, these are adults, but the fields they are in lack morals…

    Take neuroscience…as political a field as there is…calling conservatives insane.

    One person I know who has a PhD in that field obsessed over eugenics, was a fascist for all intents and purposes, hated conservatives and was altogether a total asshole.

    He’s not the only one.

  261. Hot under the collar says:

    At the risk of sounding egotistical please feel free to use “consensus of peer review process redefiners”, or variations thereof,without accreditation. I’m rather proud of that one I think that sums it up well. Just remember you read it here first folks!

  262. M. Simon says:

    Gleick is going to need more than Chris Lehane.

    He has made Time and they are none too complimentary.

    http://news.yahoo.com/heartland-scandal-why-cheating-hurts-climate-science-100500010.html

  263. Jimbo says:

    Richard Black BBC
    “I don’t normally do requests, as they say – but I’ve a lot of messages via emails, blog comments and Twitter asking for a follow-up post on the Heartland Institute, and am happy to oblige.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17126699

    He has basically concentrated on Heartland and generally ignores Gleick, does not condemn his illegal actions etc. Richard Black is not a journalist but a global warming advocate who writes for the BBC.

  264. Keith Sketchley says:

    Charles.U.Farley says: February 21, 2012 at 2:01 am From desmogblog….
    “Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
    That’s standard neo-Marxist lines. They claim to be democratic, yet maneuver to violate what the majority decides. What they mean is better called “tyranny of the majority”, which is an organized mob (bigger and more “respectable” than the Occupy mob, which initiated force against individuals who wanted to enjoy public parks and deal with people they choose, and against businesses by invading them.

    They bash “industry” as always bad, consistent with the New Left version of Marxist exploitation theory. (Noting Ayn Rand’s book “The New Left – the Anti-Industrial Revolution”, or its new edition retitled “Return of the Primitive”. “Industry” can be taken two ways, as business or technology.)
    They claim to be “progressive” yet are actually trying to turn back to feudal times if not cave dwelling times – a world lit only by fire, a dismal world for human life.
    “Responsibility” is always doing what they advocate – controlling humans.

    Of course they know best – many self-annointed priests like Peter Gleick – and they’ll force you to comply.

  265. mandas says:

    [snip - if you care to make personal accusations against me, have the courage to put your name to it, otherwise don't comment - Anthony]

  266. J Bowers says:

    “Another nail in fanatical AGW coffin.”

    That coffin must have ten times more iron than wood by now, and still no corpse inside.

  267. Brian H says:

    J Bowers says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    “Another nail in fanatical AGW coffin.”

    That coffin must have ten times more iron than wood by now, and still no corpse inside.

    Au contraire. It holds the scientific credibility and integrity of every researcher who contributed to the hokum that is (C)AGW theory. .

  268. Chuck says:

    The climate change denial crowd has no problem believing they have found faults in the science (which doesn’t claim 100% certainty, only scientifically valid results) and these faults never rise to the level of undermining data. But, got forbid someone point out the many monied interest on the denial side, the many outright lies and distortions disguised as science, which unsurprisingly exclusively benefit the funders of the denial industry.

    The lack of a serious discussion, with scientific facts understood by most parties, is a stark reminder of the utter nonsense peddled here.

    good luck finding Truth, through the cesspools of the internet pseudo-science denial machine.

    Bought and Paid for denial machine? check.

    ah, but read-on, you never know what Al Gore will (be reported to) do next!

    it would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. Non-scientists, without any pretense of grasping the data, making grand statements about the fraud of AGW. And missing the irony all the time…

    If you care to think, ask yourself, “Where’s the data to support the denial?”
    yes, DATA.

  269. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Chuck says:
    February 28, 2012 at 9:17 am

    The climate change denial crowd has no problem believing they have found faults in the science (which doesn’t claim 100% certainty, only scientifically valid results) and these faults never rise to the level of undermining data. But, got forbid someone point out the many monied interest on the denial side …

    You talk about “monied interest on the denial side” … dude, you’ve slipped your moorings. There are billions and billions of dollars going to AGW believers to support their claims. Al Gore alone put up $300 million, which is about the Greenpeace budget. WWF, NRDC, and

    And on the other side we have … Heartland Institute, which from their report spent $388,000 on climate …

    Chuck, you say “god forbid someone point out …”, but god doesn’t forbid you from pointing out and detailing for us “the many monied interest [sic] on the denial side”.

    Step up to the plate here, son, and start listing the “many monied interest”, no one’s stopping you. Because to date all you have backing up your claims is your big mouth, and around here, that won’t get you any traction at all. Who are the “monied interest” that you are referring to?

    JoNova lays it out well:

       Entity,	USD budget
    Greenpeace	                                         $300m
    WWF	                                                 $700m	 
    Pew Charitable Trust	                                 $360m
    Sierra Club	                                          $56m
    NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example)	 $750m
    UK university climate fund (just another govt example    $360m
    Heartland Institute	                                 $6.4m
    US government funding for climate science and tech     $7,000m
    US gov't funding for “climate related appropriations”  $1,300m
    Annual turnover in global carbon markets	     $120,000m
    Annual investment in renewable energy	             $243,000m
     
    US government funding for skeptical scientists	   $ 0
    

    As they say, time to put your money where your mouth is … where is this mythical “monied interest” you claim is supporting the skeptics?

    w.

    PS—A protip if you want to get some traction: if you call people “deniers”, you look like an idiot, and you get your vote cancelled automatically by many people. I can see that it might give you a warm fuzzy feeling to insult people like that, but it is poor tactics, and even worse strategy.

  270. Chuck says:

    [snip. You may not label skeptics "denialists". Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  271. Chuck says:

    Skeptic: A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

    you feel like that’s accurate here? QUESTION ALL OPINIONS?

    shielding the predisposed from any chance to considering another POV (which just happens to be supported by the vast majority of credible scientists). GREAT. you’ve done your work.

    lower than low.

    this site is a facade.

    REPLY: Dear “Chuck”, Speaking of facades, I find it really interesting that in your email address you represent yourself as being in Spain, but your IP address says you are in a suburb of Los Angeles. What I’ve always wondered is why do people like yourselves lecture others on facades, when you are living one yourself? If you have something to say to me directly, have the courage to put your name to it. I doubt that you do. – Anthony Watts

  272. Smokey says:

    Chuck,

    You have no concept of what a scientific skeptic is. A skeptic says: prove it. Or at least, provide solid supporting evidence.

    The claim is made by the alarmist crowd that runaway global warming will result from “carbon” emissions. I am skeptical, so without any appeals to authorities [other than emperical evidence from planet earth], explain why I should believe your catastrophic AGW nonsense.

  273. Is Chuck for real? I thought it was the grandest of sarcasms, especially ending with “where is the DATA?”

  274. Chuck says:

    First, Smokey, you don’t know me, and i’ve only stated truths so far. Unless, you see an un-truth? Please let me know. As you’re a skeptic, you’ve obviously checked the studies and their results. Which part of the scientific community’s data is flawed, based on your understanding? could you provide supporting evidence to show the data is flawed?

    now, mind you, what you cite, should be significant enough to actually call into question the scientific community’s conclusions. For example, minor transposition of #’s, done by error and corrected once identified is not usually sufficient to call the conclusions into question, unless of course they were a fundamental part of the original study. The studies that attempt to discredit the scientific conclusions typically are afflicted with obvious erros, but let’s see what you’ve got and maybe it won’t be so fatally flawed. happy to take a look.

    Fred, real as can be. Please, engage. happy to show you the light.
    but, you should know something about data first — do you?
    i hope so, but truly doubt it considering your pointless comment advances no claim other than, “can you believe someone doesn’t think like us?” yeah, that’s a good sign that you’re more empty than substantive. i hope for your sake, it’s the latter. let’s see.

  275. Chuck says:

    Mr Watts,
    hahaha. i used to live there. Changing it, to “formerlyin” is not worth my time and would result in losing contacts.

    Would you like my email address to include my personal address too, so you can personally attack me for asking, GASP, to show what part of the DATA is flawed? I love that you’re tracking my IP. But to use that flawed logic you’ve used, to assert that i am a facade, is completely absurd.
    ooh, but please do check my website, it’s top-notch!

    I’m still waiting for the first substantive DATA-based opposition to the global scientific consensus.

    would you like to start?

    thanks.
    Charlie.

    REPLY:
    Ah the typical projection, making up an issue on something not said. I get a 404 on your website from here BTW. Sure we’ll (and readers are already responding) be happy to debate you. But I don’t personally waste time with people anymore that don’t have the integrity to use theirs when calling out mine with denigration.

    Be mindful of the site policy and you’ll do just fine. – Anthony

  276. Chuck,
    I’ve been analyzing the real data (not what if models) for the last five years. Read http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf. and http://www.retiredresearcher.wordpress.com. That’s what the data tells me. It may shatter your trust in the subjective research of the IPPC bible.

  277. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Chuck, just a reminder that I’m still waiting for you to put your mouth where your money is

    w.

  278. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Chuck says:
    February 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    … ooh, but please do check my website, it’s top-notch!

    I get:

    Safari can’t open the page “http://howaboutsomesubstantivedebate.com/anytime”, because Safari can’t find the server “howaboutsomesubstantivedebate.com”

    Typical, Chuckie is “all hat and no cattle” as we used to say on the ranch where I grew up … his website perfectly exemplifies the schizophrenic AGW reaction to the word “debate”, first they say the skeptics don’t want to debate and then, they themselves refuse to debate.

    Your website neatly automates that process, Chuckie, it is indeed top-notch, you get the whole accept/refuse debate thing with no human interaction needed!

    w.

  279. Chuck says:

    Anthony,
    this site distorts the meaning of skeptic, and hid under that distortion to delete my earlier comment. that you have tracked my location and announced it to everyone is not projecting, it’s real. and yet, you call me a facade for using an email address, with my name in it, of a place i used to live. your ethics is the facade. i’m not censoring anyone, why are you?

    Fred,
    these are not science websites. the evaluations of the data are not peer reviewed, which actually does have a real impact on accuracy, which i happen to care about. If you know science you’ll know that peer-review is a major step towards credibility. but, looking for peer-review, i only found the home page, which sells used computers.
    /climate.pdf, posits as true, without first evaluating, “For decades scientists and politicians have debated the issue of climate change. Unfortunately, international politics and energy policies have been the main driving force.” this is the kind of statement that requires support to be taken seriously. none given.
    /co2olr.pdf – nonsensical commentary layered over real graphs.
    Are you a peer-reviewed climate scientist?

    Willis,
    where to start? your $$$ infatuation is causing blindness, to scientific fact. that’s the point, the data. you refuse to get serious, instead, pointing out that the government funds scientists. That’s been true for 100′s of years. must be that all our science is bogus, eh?
    Claims i refuse to debate… well, there’s no point in debating $, since it’s all around us. there’s no point in debating, my website, which is clearly an appeal for “substantivedebate/anytime” Yet, you attack me on these frivolous points.

    DATA, gentlemen, it’s in the public domain, go ahead and let’s get into it, show me where it’s wrong, through evaluation of the data itself.

    The rest, is just “noise,” thou y’all are mighty good at it!

    REPLY: “Chuck” can’t use the scroll bar apparently, his comment is right here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/statement-by-the-heartland-institute-on-gleick-confession/#comment-907660

    You don’t like any of us here, and your website is broken. See: http://www.whois.net/whois/howaboutsomesusbtantivedebate.com

    Isn’t even registered. Pants on fire and all that.

    You are technically challenged and angry. We get it. I recommend that readers don’t waste any more time on this troll as he offers nothing of substance. I sure won’t. – Anthony

  280. Willis Eschenbach says:

    First, Chuck said:
    February 28, 2012 at 9:17 am

    The climate change denial crowd has no problem believing they have found faults in the science (which doesn’t claim 100% certainty, only scientifically valid results) and these faults never rise to the level of undermining data. But, got forbid someone point out the many monied interest on the denial side …

    I asked Chuck a reasonable question, viz, what “monied interest[s]” are you talking about?

    In response, Chuck now says:
    February 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Willis,
    where to start? your $$$ infatuation is causing blindness, to scientific fact. that’s the point, the data.

    Where to start, you ask? Start by answering the question. What monied interests?

    You are the one who brought up the “monied interests”, not me. You’re the one saying god forbid someone point out the monied interests. Here’s your chance. Point them out.

    So … what monied interests are you infatuated with? You brought them up, you explain them, or go away. You can’t just make unsubstantiated claims here, this is a science site.

    I’m still waiting for you to explain your infatuation with the monied interests, and let us in on the secret of who they are … put up or shut up, my friend.

    w.

  281. Chuck,
    It is obvious that you are not my peer in that you are not able to understand the data analysis that I have done. I stopped publishing years ago when I retired from doing research at EPAs Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory. If you google “Fred H. Haynie” you can find several of my peer reviewed pubs. I’ve shown you the data. You show me where my analysis is wrong if you are able to understand it. One reason I retired early from EPA was because politics was becoming more controlling over research and research reports. The IPPC is a political organization. What are your scientific qualifications? Show me the data.

  282. Smokey says:

    Chuck says:

    …i’ve only stated truths so far. Unless, you see an un-truth? Please let me know. As you’re a skeptic, you’ve obviously checked the studies and their results. Which part of the scientific community’s data is flawed, based on your understanding? could you provide supporting evidence to show the data is flawed?

    Glad you asked. I have a tiny bit of sympathy since you’ve obviously gotten your misinformation from thinly trafficked alarmist echo chambers, and you’re up against commenters above who are light years ahead of your understanding of the subject. I’ll show you why the “consensus” [which does not, in fact, exist] is wrong:

    There is no difference in the rising trend line since the LIA, from both before and after the rise in CO2. The long term trend line is exactly the same, whether CO2 was 280 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. That conclusively deconstructs the endlessly repeated claims of CO2=CAGW. There is no accelerated warming, as has been endlessly predicted. Whatever effect CO2 may have, it is negligible regarding temperature. On the other hand, the biosphere is benefitting greatly from the added CO2, and will contiue to do so as CO2 levels rise.

    Until/unless rising CO2 pushes temperatures beyond the parameters of the Holocene, the null hypothesis remains unfalsified, and the alternate hypotheses: CO2=catastrophic AGW and CO2=AGW, both fail. The spurious and occasional correlation between a long term warming trend like the Modern Warm Period, and the short term rise in harmless CO2 is merely coincidental, and mostly the result of the MWP which ended ≈800 ±200 years ago.

    Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct explanation. The simplest explanation is that CO2 is such an insignificant bit player that it can be disregarded. Its effect is too small to measure. Natural climate variability is sufficient to explain all global warming and cooling without invoking an extraneous variable like CO2 – which has never caused temperature changes in the geologic past. Why would it now?

    The planet is falsifying your belief system. There is no accelerated warming, and despite the fact that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise, for fifteen years temperatures have stagnated. And there are other proxies more accurate than the rise in “carbon” to explain natural global warming.

  283. Chuck says:

    [snip - there will be no debating here from a guy who lies about his own website - bug off - Anthony]

  284. Brian H says:

    At last! Chuck-ed. Thang kew.
    :)

Comments are closed.