Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo

This press release, initially published here, is reproduced in full below.

FEBRUARY 27, 2012 – The Heartland Institute today released an analysis of the fake “climate strategy” memo circulated by Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick to fellow environmental activists and journalists on February 14, 2012.

The analysis, written by Heartland President Joseph Bast, refutes the most damaging claims that appear in the forged memo:

  • The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund Heartland’s climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for a health care reform project.
  • “[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been Heartland’s goal. Heartland is working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political.
  • Heartland does not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. It pays them to help write and edit a series of reports titled Climate Change Reconsidered, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.
  • Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

The analysis is accompanied by a copy of the forged memo with the forger’s own words highlighted. (Note: Text that is not highlighted is not necessarily accurate, and often it is not. Such text generally paraphrases text appearing in one of the stolen documents but was deliberately twisted or falsified to create a false impression.)

The analysis and marked up copy of the fake document can be found at Fakegate.org.

Previous press releases from The Heartland Institute plus links to more than 100 news reports and commentaries on the global warming scandal can be reviewed at Fakegate.org. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.

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

86 Responses to Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo

  1. LeeHarvey says:

    Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.

  2. Latitude says:

    Surely he shouldn’t be prosecuted for a little lapse of memory….lapse of ethics…brain fart….like this…………

    Throw the book at this hypocrite……………..

  3. kim2ooo says:

    Concise Report!

  4. Ken Smith says:

    This entire flap–like the larger ongoing row about the climate–drives me again and again back to the early 17th century observations of Francis Bacon. Here he provides an apt description of what Peter Gleick (and all of us) are liable to become, absent critical reason:

    “an inquisitive man is a prattler; so upon the like reason a credulous man is a deceiver: as we see it in fame, that he that will easily believe rumours will as easily augment rumours and add somewhat to them of his own; which Tacitus wisely noteth, when he saith, Fingunt simul creduntque: so great an affinity hath fiction and belief.”

    _The Advancement of Learning_

    http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5500/pg5500.txt

  5. mike about town says:

    wow…this whole thing is painful for AGW enthusiasts.

  6. Victor Barney says:

    I continue to except the Hebrew inspired Scriptures on this topic and as the “SABBATHS” were given as both an eternal “SIGN” of YHWH’S people, so is his NAME, YAHWEH, as his son YAHSHUA! Watch!

  7. ChE says:

    So, you remove the yellow highlighted parts and what you’re left with is material that was in the other documents, as far as I can tell.

  8. kristy says:

    I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.

  9. Dianna says:

    By the way, the Pacific Institute has put out a new statement.

    Back to work!

  10. Victor Barney says:

    p.s. …as long as the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease(Genesis 8:22). WATCH! Just saying…

  11. MarkW says:

    kristy says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.
    =========================
    The legal wheels grind slowly. If this case does go to trail, I’d be very surprised it it takes less than 3 years for the trail to actually start.

  12. TheGoodLocust says:

    Sound a bit similar to the analysis I did in the comments at Stoat:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/02/so_is_it_a_fake.php#comment-6233653 (towards the end of the comment)

    The document is clearly fake on so many levels:

    a) Budget
    b) Terminology
    c) Origin
    d) File info
    e) Viewpoint (written from theirs instead of ours)
    f) Style (capitalization, lack of signature, etc)

  13. Great free publicity for Heartland. This strikes me as easily the most important bullet:

    Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

    They clearly do. I’m much more a follower of Heartland as a result.

  14. JJ says:

    ■Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

    i·ro·ny    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
    noun, plural -nies.

    1. Peter Gleick made up a fake story about someone trying to keep him from blogging for Forbes, and in doing so got himself evicted from Forbes.

    James Taylor from Heartland blogs for Forbes, and had great fun dissecting Gleick’s histrionic rants. Of all the entities in the world that might have wanted to keep Gleick out of Forbes, it surely was not Hearltand.

  15. JJ says:

    LeeHarvey says:

    Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’?

    I would rather that they only used “global warming”. Using the CC term just allows the global warming nuts to define the debate using ever changing and confusing language. Their claim was global warming caused by people, and that is a very specific claim.

    “Climate change” is meaningless in the context of this debate, and unintelligible when they use it (as they nearly always do) when they clearly mean to say “anthropogenic global warming” . They end up saying the equivalent of “Scientists concur that this climate change was caused by climate change”.

  16. gringojay says:

    Good that WUWTers aren’t the only ones who “ride tall in the saddle” for “truth, justice & the american way”…. “High ho” science – (&) “away” (we go)!

  17. Peter Miller says:

    It is interesting to note that there are at least a few in the CAGW cult who are capable of recognising the difference between right and wrong – I am referring to ethics, not science here.

    Prof Richard Betts of East Anglia is one of them; unfortunately there are too few like him.

  18. RayG says:

    RE the Pacific Institute’s “independent investigation” that is mentioned in Update 64, I assume that it will be chaired by Muir-Russell with Edward Acton as a senior consultant.

  19. More Soylent Green! says:

    JJ says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    “Global warming” is just as misleading as “climate change.” We know the climate changes naturally and “global warming” implies it’s not natural. AGW is not misleading, except when somebody implies all global warming is man-made.

  20. ChE says:

    PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT

    The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned regarding recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and has hired an independent firm to review the allegations. The Board has agreed to Dr. Gleick’s request for a temporary leave of absence. Following a distinguished career in energy and environmental policy, Elena Schmid has been appointed as the Acting Executive Director. The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?

  21. kristy says:

    @MarkW

    I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.

  22. Robert Austin says:

    LeeHarvey says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    “Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.”

    LeeHarvey,
    I would propose that it is just you alone and the alarmists that would be “feel better” if they were able to “disappear” the term “global warming”. When the Hockey Stick graph was the ubiquitous symbol of climate science, what did it show? It showed global temperature vs time? it showed global warming, not some vague concept called climate change. While some scientists are undoubtedly evaluating weather events as evidence of climate change, the fundamental marker for CAGW is an increase in global temperatures. The push for the change from global warming to term “climate change” and the subsequent unsuccessful attempt to remake the issue into “climate disruption” was and is simply an attempt to muddy the waters.

  23. Caleb says:

    RE: “LeeHarvey says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.”

    Don’t give me that “Climate Change” bull. First of all, when you change the vocabulary you are in essense changing the ball-field. (For example, change the word “wife” to the word “partner,” and you’ll get a look. Change it to “aquaintance,” and you’ll really be in trouble.) “Global Warming” got the press, so “Global Warming” is what they are stuck with.

    Second, you are changing the topic from really vile behavior to merely moderately vile behavior. The topic of this thread is not whether we use the words “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.”

    Are you trying to change the subject? If so, nice try.

    .

  24. Robert Austin says:

    ChE says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    “What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”

    I guess “social Justice” is so “last week”. the flavour of the week is now “social equity”.

  25. Dianna says:

    @ChE “What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”

    Boiler plate. It’s one of those meaningless feel-good phrases; do yourself a favor, and don’t think about it too hard. Phrases like that suck you in and, as you thrash about, seeking meaning (the words have meaning, but the phrase…no so much), you encounter only emptiness.

    Since “social justice” has been beaten to death then had its skin dried and stretched for a drum-head, a new phrase was needed.

  26. dave38 says:

    ChE says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?

    Nothing at all.
    It says more about their politics than their policies!

  27. Deadman says:

    Veritas Vos Liberabit

    I don’t care what side
    of politics you’re on, but
    they are wrong who’ve lied.

    We’ve all heard enough
    phony spin. We cannot trust
    those who fake their stuff.

    It’s simple: when you
    have to lie, then your claims must
    clearly be untrue.

    Honest folk delight
    in speaking truth—it’s clear-cut;
    facts are ever right.

  28. StuartMcL says:

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
    ————————————————–
    Have you missed the fact that at the core of the politics behind the whole “carbon pollution” meme is distribution from the rich to the poor on a global scale.

  29. Coach Springer says:

    ChE says:

    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT

    The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned regarding recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and has hired an independent firm to review the allegations. The Board has agreed to Dr. Gleick’s request for a temporary leave of absence. Following a distinguished career in energy and environmental policy, Elena Schmid has been appointed as the Acting Executive Director. The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality [equity]” have to do with any of this?
    ======================================================================

    There’s something like this in nearly every organization’s mission statement. There has to be a vague civil righteousness to it. Has to be. Because they all do it, they all have to do it. Otherwise, you’re, well, uncivil. Trouble is, if you could look these non sequitirs of sorts up, they all mean “self righteousness.” But they can always hire an ethicist like Gleick or Garvey to be the great deciders.

    Also, it seems the highlighted stuff is the forger verbatim and useful for authorship analysis. Some of the unhighlighted stuff is Heartland based but paraphrased or otherwise compromised by the forger and unsuitable for authorship attribution, while other unhighligthed material is direct cut and paste from Heartland.

  30. Jim says:

    Something that jumped out at me from the highlighted portions of the memo is the comma after the parenthetical “e.g.”…. “in-house experts (e.g., Taylor)…”

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think that’s correct, and it seems to me to be quite unusual to put a comma there. If Gleick has that trait in his formal or informal writings, that would be a strong indicator (unless I’m wrong and it’s correct usage,). :)

  31. Ron Dean says:

    kristy says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    @MarkW

    I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.

    Frankly, the FBI has no need to hurry. Gleick does not present an immediate danger or flight risk, so they can and will take their time in the investigation before taking any arrest action.

  32. polski says:

    I assume now that since Gleick has more time on his hands with his leave of absence from PI and might actually read Inhofe’s book before the inevitable review. Then again, why waste time reading it when you already know what you are going to say? He should read at least one chapter so as to take his mind off all the clatter he has started!

  33. old44 says:

    The question remains, how many times has Peter Gleick pulled this stunt before.

  34. wwb says:

    I didn’t notice anyone mentioning that this more or less shows that Gleick did make the fake. Though he denies he made the fake memo, heartland analysis of the fake shows that the fake memo was a combination of copy an paste from other stolen docks and out right fabrication. It looks bad for Peter Gleick, as the fake memo needed the fraudulent obtained documents to be made! So, who made the fake?

  35. Ed_B says:

    “Have you missed the fact that at the core of the politics behind the whole “carbon pollution” meme is distribution from the rich to the poor on a global scale.”

    While this has been stated many times, I still have yet to see definitive proof that the key scientists are thusly motivated. I suspect it has been a gravy train that was too ego fullfilling to resist. Then it became a “cause” to save the world.

  36. Neo says:

    It will be interesting to see how and if the Pacific Institute tries to put this sordid chapter “under the rug.” Unlike ClimateGate, Dr. Gleick confessed to most of the activities that were “less than legal.”

  37. eyesonu says:

    It appears that the forger of the fake document may have been under a lot of pressure (time constraints) to get it completed as was done with the scanning on Monday afternoon Feb 13 so it could be ready for public distribution on Valentine’s Day on Feb 14.

    The forger had his Valentine in hand for the desired outing to come. As it turned out those who received the Valentine ended up with a sticky mess in their hands. Very embarrassing when caught out in public.

    Irony in that Heartland was the intended receipient for the messy hands? Their hands appear to be clean.

    Better watch where they wipe this mess as it will leave condemning evidence and stains on hard gained reputations.

  38. Richard says:

    Warmists won’t believe this anymore than we believe desmogblogs claim that they have proven the memo is genuine. The memo has to be proven fake by an independent source.

  39. observa says:

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?

    What Coach Springer said but also it’s a particular signature form of recognition that you’re at another great Beauty Pageant in a glorious and illustrious history of such pageantry by the addition of- ‘and World Peace.’ Ditto with deciphering ‘social equity’, the same way as you’d read Amen or Allah Akhbar at the end of a dissertation.

  40. D. J. Hawkins says:

    kristy says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    @MarkW

    I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.

    In addition to Ron Dean’s comment, I would add that this is something that the US District Attorney’s office is very much hoping will disappear quietly on its own. It is loaded with political baggage, some of it likely to rub off on their boss no matter how they try to compartmentalize it. A scandal involving Republicans, or other obvious evil-doers ;-) would have them falling all over themselves to bring the knave to justice. When it might lead to an own-side goal, well, not so much. I’m sure Heartland will stay in the doorway, clearing their metaphorical throat every once in a while to let them know someone is watching.

    Likely the DA’s office will try to dissuade Heartland in the persuit of a civil action, lest they “damage” the criminal case. If I were Heartland, I’d forge ahead and let the DA keep up as best he can.

  41. Re the ‘social equality’ statement I think it is apt to paraphrase a statement once made by historian Simon Schama ‘The history of Britain can be seen a a perpetual struggle between on the one hand a people striving for social justice and on the other a people striving for freedom and liberty’. It seems to me that this struggle is what gives our civilisation its vitality and creative power. ‘Social justice’, ‘Social equality’ or what ever you call our need to care for each other seems to be one of our fundamental evolutionary attributes – just as much as our desire for ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’.

  42. Matthew W says:

    MarkW says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    kristy says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.
    =========================
    The legal wheels grind slowly. If this case does go to trail, I’d be very surprised it it takes less than 3 years for the trail to actually start.
    ===========================================================================
    ===========================================================================
    To some degree, I hope that the investigation takes a long time if it means that they are digging very deep and finding how many tentacles this case may have !!!

  43. CrisT says:

    StuartMcL says:

    February 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
    ————————————————–
    Have you missed the fact that at the core of the politics behind the whole “carbon pollution” meme is distribution from the rich to the poor on a global scale.

    Not exactly Stuart. The intention appears to be to impoverish the majority of people in developed nations (ordinary people trying to make a living to pay their mortgages or rent, cover their bills and raise their families) in order to make them equal to those in the undeveloped world.

    The actual rich will enrich themselves further, and get to feel good about themselves at the same time about all the social equality they’re creating. To paraphrase the Russ Cargill character in the Simpsons Movie, they want to kick ass for good old Mother Earth and give something back. Not the money, but something.

  44. Henry chance says:

    Social equity.
    Take from those that have till they become have nots.

  45. Mark B. says:

    Expect Gleick to spend as much jail time as William J. Clinton and Sandy Berger combined. Some of us them are “more equal” than the rest of us.

  46. Fast Eddie says:

    [SNIP: No, it wouldn't. It is also against site rules to use more than one screen name. Pick one and stick with it or be snipped. -REP]

  47. boston12gs says:

    Certainly we don’t want Gleick to be indicted before the new administration takes over. Remember all the political-payoff pardons Clinton handed out in his last few days in office? Let’s keep Gleick off the radar until the prospect of receiving a pardon from the current administration has passed. THEN he should be indicted. And promptly.

  48. jtom says:

    Politically, the Justice Dept. is in a no-win position. The Repubs are already screaming about unequal protection under the law under them – the Black Pather voter intimidation, Fast and Furious, suing states that don’t kow-tow to the Administrations lack of immigration enforcement, trying to block voter ID laws, and so on.

    Not pursuing this would just give more cannon fodder to the Republicans. “If you don’t believe and do exactly what this Administration wants you to believe and do, they will give you none of the protections guaranteed under the law. It may not affect you now, but it may next week. If you don’t force them to stop now, who will be there to help you when the come for you?” That would be quite a soundbite, and while some subjects may be difficult for the average voter, not prosecuting someone after confessing to something clearly criminal is very easy to grasp.

    Of course, if they do pursue Gleick, they will irritate one part of their voter base.

    It would be interesting to see what they would do if someone stole the list of contributors of a major Dem PAC.

  49. wermet says:

    ChE says: February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    “What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”

    It relates to a concept in socialism. It used to be that most people, at least the tolerate ones, believed in “equality of opportunity” for all people. However, since equality of opportunity still allows a great deal of variation in results due to individual efforts and innate ability, a new concept was needed. This lead to new the terminology, social equality. Social equality essentially means the equality of results, regardless of individual effort or ability.

    And so, with this seemingly minor change in language, our society is poised on the brink of major changes in thinking and governance. We take a step away from the belief that people can improve their station in life through hard work and diligent learning. We move a step closer to “[f]rom each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — Karl Marx.

  50. Mr. Gleick MUST end up in jail over this. And he MUST be made to pay restitution. And he MUST be made to describe his illegal actions, in toto, to the media. A video of that description MUST also be uploaded to YouTube and all other major video upload sites for future reference.

  51. DesertYote says:

    ChE says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
    ###

    Everything. The whole point of all of this AGW stuff is to use it as a pretext for bring about the great Marxist utopia. “Social Equality” is pure Marxist jargon.

  52. dwright says:

    Game, Set, and Match.
    Wow the trolls are still attacking on several fronts, trying to create non-issue scandals and such up here in Canucklehead land.
    Busted, busted, and more, flailing for anything to distract the “sleeping giant” of people fed up with being lied to.
    I watched the film “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930, Universal Studios) the other day.

    In the last gasps of the Kaisers Germany, schoolteachers were sending schoolchildren to battle, to fight and die for a cause that they did not understand.
    Sound familiar?
    It should, if we don’t want to repeat history again.
    dwright

    Ps. Congratulations on the Bloggies win, Mr Watts, tireless Mods and all Contributors; you absolutely deserve that respect.

  53. LeeHarvey says:

    @Caleb, Robert Austin, anyone else:

    My point was that by simply saying ‘global warming’ they’re playing into the hands of those who would want to paint anyone who doesn’t toe the Malthusian line as an anti-science knuckle dragger who’s being paid off by the Koch brothers. If we want our side to come off as being authoritative, wouldn’t it be better to demonstrate that we clearly don’t know even what the temperature/CO2 response of the earth’s atmosphere is? Let them try to muddy the waters all they want – the remedy is to provide facts without hysteria.

  54. DirkH says:

    eyesonu says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    “It appears that the forger of the fake document may have been under a lot of pressure (time constraints) to get it completed as was done with the scanning on Monday afternoon Feb 13 so it could be ready for public distribution on Valentine’s Day on Feb 14.”

    On Feb 12 realclimate had a whiny post about alleged death threats against CliSci’s (by “Rasmus”). Maybe that tripped Gleick out.

  55. DirkH says:

    wermet says:
    February 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    “We move a step closer to “[f]rom each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — Karl Marx.”

    Has been tried. Doesn’t work. The Soviet Union made profits illegal. So entrepreneurs became criminals.

  56. wayne says:

    ChE:
    Read on their appointee Elena Schmid:
    http://www.resource-solutions.org/pressreleases/2010/012810.htm

    Answer your question? This is all about energy… your monthly bills,

  57. stuartlynne says:

    The best restitution that Gleick could make would be to perform some mandatory number of debates on a Heartland platform against Heartland selected opponents on Heartland selected topics. Say two a month for a year.

    Keeps him out of jail (he probably doesn’t really belong in jail as much as we would love to see it happen and it would just make him a martyr.)

    And it would achieve Heartlands stated objective of finally getting him onto a debating platform.

  58. Doug Proctor says:

    Don’t take Gleick to court: stay the proceedings if Gleick will publicly apologize, attest that to his current knowledge the faked document was fake, that he was invited previously to speak at Heartland conferences, and that he is prepared to debate in a televised program on the scientific basis

    a) that man’s contribution to the warming trend since 1850 is greater than that of solar contributions, and

    b) that observational evidence supports IPCC computer modelling of CO2 and water vapour radiative power,

    c) that the GISTemp temperature profiles are not in the adjustments but in the data,

    d) that the prior 34 years of temperature changes support the higher end of CAGW theory, and, finally,

    e) that the prior 34 years of temperature changes do not similarly support normal solar processes with a minor, insignificant human addition.

    We skeptics have been given a gift, should we choose to take it. If Heartland simply goes the FBI and punishment route, then a grand chance at a debate worthy of an Edward Murrow – McCarthy event will be missed.

  59. IanR says:

    It seems strange that Heartland is posting the memo and yet wants others to take it down. Again, this is all going to backfire.

  60. Peter says:

    I have been waiting a long time to see aclimate scientist perp walked. Gleick barely qualifies, but better than nothing.

  61. Doug Proctor says:

    IanR says:
    February 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm
    It seems strange that Heartland is posting the memo and yet wants others to take it down. Again, this is all going to backfire.

    I agree this is all going to backfire unless Heartland uses Gleick to force a debate on the technical merits of CAGW (see my comment about IanR’s).

    If Heartland uses this for vengeance, then two things will happen. The first is that the warmists will (rightly) see the skeptics as no better than they claim them to be. The second is that, as a skeptic I (and perhaps many others) will wonder if anger and personal dignity is more on the table on Heartland’s and some other skeptics’ side, rather than a desire to correct a bad political position based on unsound scientific principles and inadequate data.

  62. Christopher Hanley says:

    “What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?….”

    Hayek in The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism:
    “Social is a weasel word that has acquired the power to empty the nouns it qualifies of their meanings.”

  63. Brian H says:

    ChE says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
    As no one seems to have noticed, you misquoted. It’s “equity”, not “equality”. Equity is much more punitive and legalistic language; it suggests justice, “fairness”, and enforcement of claims. On the basis of “social(ist)” criteria. I.e., it’s code for class warfare.

  64. Brian H says:

    Correction: Coach Springer and others noticed the wording change (comments clearing moderation after I wrote the above).

    It is interesting (and typical) that “equity” also (and usually) means capital and claims on capital. So it can be “excused” as referring to enhancement of “social capital” or some other nebulous concept. But make no mistake. It is actually referring to “social justice”, a phrase much beloved and employed by certain notorious “community organizers”.

  65. Brian H says:

    Gleick’s “temporary” replacement is Elena Schmid. She’s been a player in the CA energy subsidy games for some time (2006 citation):
    For renewable energy to become a “critical part” of the energy mix, KEMA’s Schmid indicated what is needed is a combination of greater public awareness, more public-private financing, technology advances and greater accountability for regulators and energy providers.”
    Evidently big on public financing and regulating private energy investors ….

  66. Brian H says:

    Sorry, blown tag. Cite ends at … providers.”

  67. mamapajamas says:

    @LeeHarvey says:
    February 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm
    ” If we want our side to come off as being authoritative, wouldn’t it be better to demonstrate that we clearly don’t know even what the temperature/CO2 response of the earth’s atmosphere is? Let them try to muddy the waters all they want – the remedy is to provide facts without hysteria.”

    The problem is that facts without hysteria puts people to sleep. The AGW crowd figured that out a long time ago, thus Stephen Schneider’s 1989 remark that they had to exaggerate the problem to get people’s attention. “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

  68. Man Bearpigg says:

    If the statement is true, then the person that wrote the memo from fragments of the purloined documents must have had access to those documents in order to create the fake.

    We are closing in now and I have it now in my mind who created the fake and I bet he is reading this blog very closely.

  69. Perry says:

    Social equity and social equality are not the same things. Equity is a general condition characterized by justice, fairness, and impartiality. Equality means value equal to all others in a specific group.

    Justice is a word which confuses people. It is defined as a system or application of law: the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law. However, there are unjust laws. According to Muslims, Sharia law is founded on the words of Allah revealed in the Quran, and traditions gathered from the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Women have fewer rights under Sharia. It might be the law, but it isn’t justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

    Napoleonic Code is derived from Roman law. US law descends from English common law, except in Louisiana. Its civil code has kept its Roman roots and some of its aspects feature influences by the Napoleonic Code, but is based more on Roman and Spanish civil traditions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

  70. WB says:

    Not to be a killjoy but that analysis from Bast is crap. He’s presented the strategy doc which we all believe to be the forgery, and he’s shown bits in yellow as apparently being the forger’s work but Bast has stupidly left unhighlighted the error about the 200k from Koch bros. So either that info was not the forger’s work and HI made the error themselves, or it’s meant to be highlighted. Either way Bast isn’t up to par to manage this sort of public response. Leave it to McIntyre and Mosher, is my advice.

  71. Perry says:

    IanR & Doug Proctor,

    The FBI are now involved in this case. It seems to me that P. Gleick will have to persuade them to leave him alone. What’s that phrase? Oh yes; “They Always Get Their Man”.

    A bigger point to consider; this also about dealing with the egregious reports at Desmog and the Guardian et al. P. Gleick is just the visible tip, a marker for where to dig and expose the corruption beneath the surface. The Pipsqueak P. Gleick will be wrung until his Pips Squeak. Alliteration rules.

  72. hro001 says:

    Brian H says: February 27, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    ChE says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

    What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?

    As no one seems to have noticed, you misquoted. It’s “equity”, not “equality”.

    Well, I noticed … and the “vital mission” of the Pacific Institute is, in effect, a copy ‘n paste (slightly modified) of the “three pillars” of the “broad political concept” known as “sustainable development”:

    ‘Sustainable Development’ is an official term, coined in a 1987 report produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Entitled Our Common Future or the Brundtland Report (after the Chairman of the commission, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland), the report defines ‘sustainable development’ as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; this includes economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity: [emphasis added -hro]

    For source and other fascinating aspects of this “broad political concept” please see:

    Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos

    Pachauri’s already on the “sustainable development” bandwagon, btw … and if his “vision” for AR5 is realized, we can expect to see sustainable development “pervading” the reports of WGs I, II and III.

  73. 1DandyTroll says:

    Perry says:
    February 28, 2012 at 12:35 am

    “Social equity and social equality are not the same things. Equity is a general condition characterized by justice, fairness, and impartiality.”

    But of course, in their little world they’re trying to be first to “trademark” a word to pretty much degrade the oposition from start.

    So, essentially, they’ll now believe that every critic of theirs will be seen as, unjust, unfair, and partial. If I’m not mistaken that’s a trick of the demagogues in the PR/propaganda trade: demonize the oposition from start.

  74. Berényi Péter says:

    Jim says:
    February 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    Something that jumped out at me from the highlighted portions of the memo is the comma after the parenthetical “e.g.”…. “in-house experts (e.g., Taylor)…”

    You may be on the right track, but nothing is simple. Publications on pacinst.org are full of this “(e.g.,” thing, even those unrelated to Gleick (e.g., How Can an EMS Manage GHG Emissions? by Kevin Brady, Five Winds International).

    (e.g., labor and environmental standards, the treatment of animals)
    (e.g., prices paid to farmers)
    (e.g., research on HIV/AIDs and cancer, provision of clean drinking water in developing countries)
    (e.g., Vogel 2005, 2008)
    (e.g., Elliott and Freeman 2003)
    (e.g., Fehr and Schmidt, 1999; Andreoni, 2006; Benabou and Tirole, 2006)
    (e.g., Becchetti and Solferino 2005)
    (e.g., Auger et al. 2003, 2008; Dickson 2001; Mohr and Webb 2005; Loureiro and Lotade 2005; De Pelsmacker et al. 2005; Hertel et al. 2009)
    (e.g., types of polo shirts)
    (e.g., Richardson and Stahler 2007; Baron 2009a)
    (e.g., SA8000 standards)
    (e.g., Nike, Adidas, Reebok, and IZOD)
    (e.g., Roth and Ockenfels 2002; Ariely and Simonson 2003; Bajari and Hortsecsu 2003, 2004)
    (e.g., Lucking-Reiley 1999)
    (e.g., Resnick et al. 2006)
    (e.g., Hossain and Morgan 2006)
    (e.g., Katkar and Reiley 2006)
    (e.g., similar items of different size or color)

    Could it be the case, that Gleick has not acted entirely alone, but someone at the Institute, whose regular job includes such tasks, gave a hand in proofreading “2012 Climate Strategy.pdf” before its publication? Do we have a latent witness after all?

  75. MarkW says:

    kristy says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    This isn’t the kind of case where the perp gets arrested before the trial. So no, we don’t get to see Gleick do the frog march.

  76. MarkW says:

    From a legal standpoint, there are a lot of clocks that start ticking once a formal arrest is made. Right to a speedy trial and all that. So it’s pretty normal to not arrest someone if they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk.

  77. Peter Miller

    Thanks. However, please note I’m at the Met Office Hadley Centre, not UEA.

    Oh, and I don’t consider myself part of an “CAGW cult”. I am convinced that AGW exists and that the negative impacts will probably outweigh the positive ones, but as for “catastrophic” I’m not sure. May be, may not be – lots more work to do there…..! As far as society’s response is concerned, weighing up the costs of action vs. those of inaction, well it’s all down to our collective attitude to risk. People’s opinions clearly vary hugely on this, and it’s not my job to tell people what to do. I only give them my interpretation of the scientific evidence – what they do with that information is up to them.

  78. MarkW says:

    IanR says:
    February 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    There’s a big difference between posting something and claiming that it is true, and posting something in order to debunk it.

  79. NK says:

    Everyone commenting that Gleick should be criminally prosecuted are way off base. First off the Lefty prosecutors in Calif and the US Justice Dept. will never go after a fellow Lefty. Secondly, they shouldn’t. This is sophmoric stuff, piting one tax subsidized nonprofit against another. If heartland was damaged, let them sue Pacific and Gleick. Ultimately, I believe HI will financially profit from this affair, so they’ll wind up suing Pacific and Gleick for injunction, to prevent any future lies about HI. Gleick is professionally destroyed of course; we’ll soon see a press release from Pacific that Gleick has left to spend more time with his family and explore other opportunities. That’s fine, Gleick will have paid the proper measure for his fraud.

  80. DavidCobb says:

    It will most likley go down like this. The FBI will open an investigation. put a gag order on all material (preventing civil action). They will stretch the investigation out until November or longer (depending on the election). Then they will decline to prosecute. Meanwhile Gleick will cop a plea to a lesser (misdomeaner) on the state charges and get defered ajutcation and community service.

  81. NK babbles on February 28, 2012 at 6:10 am:

    Everyone commenting that Gleick should be criminally prosecuted are way off base. First off the Lefty prosecutors in Calif and the US Justice Dept. will never go after a fellow Lefty. Secondly, they shouldn’t. This is sophmoric stuff, piting one tax subsidized nonprofit against another. If heartland was damaged, let them sue Pacific and Gleick. Ultimately, I believe HI will financially profit from this affair, so they’ll wind up suing Pacific and Gleick for injunction, to prevent any future lies about HI. Gleick is professionally destroyed of course; we’ll soon see a press release from Pacific that Gleick has left to spend more time with his family and explore other opportunities. That’s fine, Gleick will have paid the proper measure for his fraud.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. What good is a justice system if it doesn’t let climate justice warriors get by with anything they want?
    In other news, nobody ever gets prosecuted fro this kind of thing, anyway:
    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/02/cloud-shepherd-.html

  82. DonS says:

    ChE says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm and many others: Note that he did not say “equality”, he said “equity”. These two words are very different in their actual use in the society. Equity is much more meaningful. See also “chancery”. The history of “equity” is the history of a word taking on more and more meanings in different contexts.

  83. John Whitman says:

    Richard Betts says:
    February 28, 2012 at 5:51 am

    @Peter Miller

    Richard Betts says:
    February 28, 2012 at 5:51 am

    @Peter Miller

    Thanks. However, please note I’m at the Met Office Hadley Centre, not UEA.

    Oh, and I don’t consider myself part of an “CAGW cult”. I am convinced that AGW exists and that the negative impacts will probably outweigh the positive ones, but as for “catastrophic” I’m not sure. May be, may not be – lots more work to do there…..! As far as society’s response is concerned, weighing up the costs of action vs. those of inaction, well it’s all down to our collective attitude to risk. People’s opinions clearly vary hugely on this, and it’s not my job to tell people what to do. I only give them my interpretation of the scientific evidence – what they do with that information is up to them.

    – – – – –

    Richard Betts,

    Appreciated your comment. Here are some of my comments and questions.

    Do you, as the most fundamental premise, hold that any CO2 added to the atmosphere by any activity of man must be managed by government? I do not.

    Do you maintain the classic Malthusian postulate that certain people should control the reproduction of other people in general? I do not.

    I notice that you say ‘lots more work to do there’. I agree, but not if you are implying that it is the IPCC that basically has that ‘lots more work to do’. I agree only that the work that is needed (and has been noticeably missing for ~20 years) is much more broadly independent (aka skeptical) science that isn’t screened out by current CAGW biased gov’t funding organizations. I am not saying there have not been impacts from some significant independent (aka skeptical) scientists in the past ~20 years; there has been. I am saying it was intentionally underfunded if it is true that we have had a totally free marketplace for climate science (and related economic/industrial). That lack reasonably proportional amount of independent climate science is sufficient evidence of active manipulation of the free marketplace of scientific ideas by IPCC/gov’ts/media/scientific bodies who were guided/aided by ideological environmental groups; but to the credit of blogs like this that manipulation is now widely & publically recognized.

    John

  84. TomB says:

    LeeHarvey says:
    February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’?

    It’s just you. I’ve long since decided that allowing the warmists to get away with changing the term allows them to change the debate.

  85. David Johnson says:

    Apparently Greenpeace has a new boat.
    It cost four times HI’s yearly budget.
    http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-02/inside-brand-new-high-tech-rainbow-warrior

  86. Bob says:

    Regarding the subdebate here on “social equity”. From the context of the whole sentence: “The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.” – it obviously refers to the well established notion of three pillars of “sustanability”. Sustainability concerns precicely that: environmental protection, economic development, and social equity. Social equity in this context has precisely NOTHING to do with the notion of “left” political governance.
    Sustainability Its just a way of encompassing all relevant effects of any human activity such as running a buisness, building a brige, driving your kid to school, or whatever. Relevant in the sense that they do matter in some way, but they do not necessarily have a clear pricetag or liability label on them.

    To assess the sustainability performance of an activity lets take the example of driving your kid to school:
    In the economic sense you achieve a desired function: transporting kid from point A to B. You also suffer economically, e.g. you pay for the gas and incremental value-loss of your car due to the driving. There are also more indirect economic effects but these are easy enough to consider as they directly affect your wallet. Now, your drive also produce effects in the environment and often indirectly on social equity issues. Such effects are often called “externalities”.
    In the environmental sense you emit some gases and rubber tire particles to the environment that have (small, but still) unwanted effects such as toxic effect on organisms (including humans), global warming counted as kg CO2-equivalents is typically added here as an undesired environmental effect. But no one is held accountable in terms of paying for these “external” environmental effects. By using your car you also take advantage of all emissions and resource extracted from nature in order to build the car, the roads, produce the gas, the motoroil, etc.
    The social equity aspect just means expanding the effects from not only covering traditional “environmental” effects but also effects on – you guessed it: social equity, i.e. human social phenomena that are considerered worthy of protection or establishment such as human rights, gender equity, ethnological equity, religouos equity, the right of kids to be kids, etc.
    If parts of your car was produced by child labour on a next to nothing salary, your kid-to-school drive can be considered have a bad impact on social equity, given of course that you think underpaid child labor is a bad thing.

    Now comes the most difficult part: how to compare all these effects? For example, how big is the cost of 3 hour of child labour compared to the cost of toxic effects due to air emission of 0.05 kg benzene-equivalent? It is ONLY in this sense of how things should be valued that any discussion of political values such as left-right policies has any bearing on sustainability. The effects will occur regardless of opinion. But people value the effects differently and it is a matter of preference and subjective choice. It is not inherent in the idea of sustainability that anyone must have adhere to a certain preset idea of what is good or bad. Sustainability assessment only acknowledges that in order to know if it is sustainable or not you must include some idea of what is a desired state of things including social equity issues.

    So, assessing the sustainability of a given activity only means looking at ALL these effects: economic, environmental, and social – good and bad – paid for or not.

    Now, please do not confuse my post of taking a stance for or against the concept of sustainability or any specific value on externalities, sustainability is only a perspective on things. Clearly the concept attracts “environmentalists” as they put a high value on environmental and socal equity impacts and it is a tool to assess responsibility for these effects.

Comments are closed.