Heartland publishes an “Open Letter to Directors of the Pacific Institute”

Fakegate: Open Letter to Directors of the Pacific Institute

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 – Today, The Heartland Institute sent the letter below to the following members of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute:

Peter Boyer, Trustee, The Ayrshire Foundation
Gigi Coe, Trust for Conservative Innovation
Joan Diamond, Chairperson, The Nautilus Institute
Anne Ehrlich, Senior Research Associate, Stanford University
Eric Gimon, Department of Physics, University of California – Berkeley
Corey Goodman, Managing Director, venBio LLC
Margaret Gordon, Second Vice-President, Port of Oakland
Malo Andre Hutson, Affiliated Faculty, University of California
Olivier Marie, Business Strategist, Haas School of Business
Richard Morrison, California Advisory Board, The Trust for Public Land
Robert Stephens, President, MSWG, Inc.
Michael Watts, Geography Department, University of California, Berkeley

We will post at www.fakegate.org any replies we receive. Previous press releases from The Heartland Institute plus links to dozens of news reports and commentary on Gleick’s transgressions can be reviewed at Fakegate.org. The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.


February 29, 2012

Dear _________:

On February 27, the Pacific Institute made the following announcement:

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 …

The Heartland Institute’s staff, directors, donors, and other victims of Mr. Gleick’s crime look forward to reviewing the outcome of your investigation. Please confirm that you intend to make public the results of your investigation.

I hope that you and the firm you have hired will pay special attention to the documents I have enclosed:

  • The emails Gleick exchanged with Heartland prior to committing his crime, in which he was respectfully invited to debate Heartland Senior Fellow James M. Taylor on the issue of climate change at Heartland’s anniversary benefit event in August. In these emails, Gleick is informed of Heartland’s policies regarding the confidentiality of its donors and why we adopted that policy. Gleick declined the invitation to debate.
  • The emails Gleick used to steal documents intended to be read only by members of Heartland’s board of directors. Gleick falsely assumed the identity of a member of Heartland’s board on the same day (January 27) that he declined the invitation to debate climate change with Taylor.
  • The forged memo Gleick included with the stolen documents and falsely represented, in his message accompanying the documents to 15 allies and journalists, to have come from The Heartland Institute. I have highlighted the forger’s own words, as opposed to text that was copied and pasted from the stolen documents, and included my own analysis of this fraudulent document.
  • Gleick’s partial confession, in which he admits to having stolen the documents but claims that the memo, which he previously said came from The Heartland Institute, came “in the mail” from an anonymous source. He claims he stole documents because “a rational public debate is desperately needed,” a debate he had just declined to participate in. He offers his “personal apologies to all those affected,” presumably including people he knew his actions had put in harm’s way. He does not say or offer to do anything that would limit or undo the harm he caused.

I hope you will tell me, as you review these documents, if you recognize the author of the highlighted text of the forged memo, and if you believe Gleick received it from an anonymous source, and if you believe Gleick has shown any personal remorse for what he has done.

Finally, please pass along the following questions to the “independent” firm you hired to investigate Gleick:

  • Did Gleick use Pacific Institute computers to establish the Gmail email account under the name of a Heartland board member?
  • Did Gleick use Pacific Institute computers to establish the Gmail email account under the name of “heartlandinsider@gmail.com,” which he used to send the fake memo and the stolen documents to 15 media outlets?
  • Does the investigative firm intend to examine whether Gleick is the author of the fake memo?
  • Does the outside firm have access to all of the personal computers Gleick may have used to write and send the emails or to write the forged memo?
  • Is the fake memo or any trace of it on Gleick’s personal computer(s)?
  • Is the fake memo or any trace of it on the Pacific Institute’s computer system?
  • Is there evidence (as a blogger says) that the fake memo was scanned into a PDF document on a scanner at the Pacific Institute?
  • Does the Pacific Institute have possession of the hard copy of the fake memo or the envelope in which it was supposedly sent?
  • What steps does the Pacific Institute plan to take to preserve these and other documents relevant to the investigation?

Sincerely,
Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute

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

NOTE: Michael Watts, Geography Department, University of California, Berkeley is no relation to Anthony Watts, proprietor of this blog – Anthony

About these ads

99 thoughts on “Heartland publishes an “Open Letter to Directors of the Pacific Institute”

  1. Personally, I think letters like this have ever so much more impact coming not from anyone on Heartland’s board of directors, but from an attorney, formally warning them to preserve the evidence even as it invites response.

    Email from an individual can often be ignored. Email from an attorney — especially if accompanied by a court “discovery” order — cannot. Who cares, after all, about their independent investigative firm? The only firm that matters is the legal firm representing the Heartland institute, which is surely not fool enough to try to do this on their own without counsel.

    rgb

  2. Anne Ehrlich is on the Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute? How deliciously appropriate. She and her husband Paul are among the least successful of the failed serial doomcasters that include Holdren, Hansen, and Stephen Schneider. No wonder they’re teamed up with a loser like Gleick.

    w.

  3. That letter would have force only if it were written under legal letterhead, and accompanied by a demand letter for the preservation of evidence. Otherwise, sending it seems like naive posturing to me. The Pacific Institute board can ignore that letter with complete impunity.

    Mr. Bast neglected to include posthumous board member Stephen Schneider (in memoriam) among the recipients, by the way. That was an opportunity lost.

    REPLY: This letter is for public consumption, the letters going out from the legal team are not. – Anthony

  4. “What steps does the Pacific Institute plan to take to preserve these and other documents relevant to the investigation?”

    Good luck with that one…
    Possibly the most important question there, which in my experience dealing with large companies and organizations, will be answered with a PR response, if at all.

    Definitely worth putting some pressure on, however – destruction of evidence raises presumption of guilt, not to mention an Obstruction of Justice charge.

  5. It would be more forceful from a lawyer at a prominent law firm. IMO, it still signals that HI are willing to play hardball on this if PI and Gleick do not come clean on the source of the fake strategy document.

  6. Ditto comment No. 1 from Robert Brown. I earn most of my living testifying and consultig as an expert witness in court cases. Not only does a message carry more weight coming from an attorney, Heartland would be well advised to stop making public comments, clam up and allow an outside counsel handle all communication. I don’t think there is anything to hide, but I know the workings of loose words in legal procedings.

  7. Robert Brown,

    Isn’t the FBI already on this case (so reported here on WUWT)? It would be hard to fathom that the FBI are not already crawling around P.I. unless they are not fully “on board” that this is a serious issue. Also, we don’t know (and probably will not know) what communication H.I.’s legal team might have had with P.I. This “open letter” from H.I. is more for P.R. value and to put P.I. on the spot in public than anything else.

  8. Willis, I was struck by Anne Ehrlich’s name too. Googling for her took me soon enough to the Wikipedia page for her husband. It was fun in its way to read the following about the famous interaction with Julian Simon:

    This exchange eventually led to the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would decrease between 1980 and 1990. Ehrlich bet they would increase. Ehrlich ultimately lost the bet. Over the years the two maintained a public debate, but the two never met face to face. Ehrlich considered Simon a “fringe” character, and refused to meet.

    A fringe character who also happened to be right. The last sentence put the radio silence that’s been imposed on characters like Steve McIntyre into a fresh light.

    I doubt Steve would sign up for everything Simon taught. But that’s not the point. If you prove these guys are wrong you’re “fringe” and they refuse to meet you. If you agree with them and thus become wrong with them, as Gleick obviously did, they’ll shower you with kudos, MacArthur Genius and all.

    Good letter, Mr Bast.

  9. A Muir Russel type investigation? Just gobsmacking. That may have worked with the Brits to some degree, I seriously doubt it will work with us Yanks.

  10. Is a copy of the full letter sent by HI to the Pacific Institute available ? Lots of times a letter such as this includes a “cc” listing the name of a law firm. That will often serve as a rather pointed wake-up call that all of these communications are being reviewed by competent legal counsel.

  11. Unless the “(as a blogger says)” post has changed, it doesn’t allude to the “fake memo was scanned into a PDF document on a scanner at the Pacific Institute“.

    “• Is there evidence (as a blogger says) that the fake memo was scanned into a PDF document on a scanner at the Pacific Institute?”

  12. This is turning into the classic of all whodunits. This could become a case study for all first year IT students. I love it.

  13. Frank I hope to XXXXX that they have ior are using legal council and that they are not posting the legal letters, because they have been told not to and this is just “sample” of the legal letters that have beeen sent. Otherwise the whole thing is a joke.

  14. Anne Ehrlich!

    Alllllllrighty then. That certainly explains things.

    But I thought we were all supposed to be dead by now?

  15. OPEN CAUTION TO THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE

    Dear PI,

    I suggest that you and your independent investigators resist the temptation to use the failed Phil Jones defense in your strategies.

    Let me paraphrase and reword slightly the infamous Phil Jones defense for you {italized words and the strike through are mine-JW}

    “[ . . . ] Why should I make the data evidence examined by PI’s independent investigator and the results of the independent investigation available to HI, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

    PI board of directors, your independent investigation’s credibility hopefully will not be impeached due to interference by you or by interested third parties who can have conflicts of interest with your independent investigators.

    John

  16. Robert Brown says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Personally, I think letters like this have ever so much more impact coming not from anyone on Heartland’s board of directors

    This is a polite letter pointing out some facts that one may not wish to ignore before signing off on the ‘internal whitewash’ investigation that many organizations engage in. I.E. Hire a ‘blind man’ to investigate…then hold up the report from the ‘blind man’ that authoritatively states that he ‘didn’t see anything’. The backsides of the Board is ‘duly’ covered. They had an investigation…no wrongdoing was found…back to business as usual.

    Heartland has now publicly provided to each of the board members documents that would appear in an ‘actual’ investigation and the questions the ‘internal investigator’ should be answering.

  17. From commenter oMan at CA, and my reply:

    Posted Feb 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It will be interesting to learn who paid for the equipment used by Gleick, and any expenses he incurred, in preying on Heartland. He seems to be the recipient of public funds in various roles. Suppose his computer and email account were funded by a US government grant. That might establish a possible link between a felony and assets purchased with taxpayer money, or a diversion of those assets to purposes outside the scope of the grant, or false claims against the government for payment in respect of activities outside the scope.

    This kind of thing is very well-developed law in the field of medical claims and, I think, increasingly in cases of misdirected public funding of scientific work. Even poor accounting and proper segegation of assets can be problematic.

    It is also an area where private relator actions can be brought if the government does not act.

    The closer you look, the worse it gets.

    neill
    Posted Feb 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This would seem the strongest motivator to get the Feds moving into this. Even if the current DOJ leadership is averse taking action against a CAGW leader, the criminal misuse of taxpayer dollars may not leave them a choice in the matter.

  18. Boudumoon says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
    “Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?”

    Wikipedia says:
    “Peter H. Gleick (glick[1]; born 1956) is an American scientist working on issues related to the environment,”

  19. Joseph Bast,

    My evaluation of HI has so far grown significantly more positive with the unfolding of the Gleick affair. But, my evaluation of PI has exactly the opposite trend.

    Thank you Mr. Bast and also your associates for offering an independent view that does not derive from the alarm oriented activists that have successfully manipulated IPCC centric climate science. That kind of independent source of ideas and information is required for a constitutional republic to retain the values of independent thought, speech and actions.

    I assess that your organization’s public credibility stock is appreciating nicely. Congratulations.

    John

  20. I’m surprised at how many of the mainstream papers have published comments in support of Gleick. Bast’s letter appears to be laying the groundwork for (whatever) actions to follow in the full knowledge that there will be a firestorm of criticism. Since it appears that the lawyers are circling, it might be a good idea if this blog set parameters. Meanwhile (snip if necessary):

    Lucia stated a day or two ago on her blog:

    Should Heartland sue someone (and I think they likely will) I have no idea how the courts will view this. I certainly can’t guess the level of monetary damages that might be awarded for harms like “potential loss of the public ear”. I also have no idea how the fact that the damaging memo was revealed to be fake which tended to limit any harm the Heartland’s reputation would affect any outcome.

    Still, at least hypothetically, had people come to believe the fake memo was real and believed that the memo truly expressed views and behavior of Heartland, Heartland’s reputation would have been dealt some very real damage that would not have accrued based on the other 7 memos leaked in fakegate.

    My 2 cents on the growing pile.

    In days gone by, a power-hungry prince might lace a piece of vellum with virulent poison and send it to his / her victim. Murdering one’s way to the top seems to have been almost commonplace among royal families in the Middle Ages. The Heartland “Strategy Memo” looks like such an attempt. Though it appears to have been dashed off hurriedly, in an almost satirical manner, the “appeals to the emotions” and deceitful rhetorical tactics, which Peter Gleick had attributed to the motives of skeptics in his 2007 address to Congress, salt this document subtly.

    Like many, I am curious about the writer’s many implications, innuendos, and contrary meanings, but I don’t think additional interpretations are necessary, other than to support a few general conclusions about the letter’s origins, it’s tone and it’s purpose.

    The memo is a fraud, and an act of impersonation. The copies of the memo distributed to the public blacked out the signee, apparently Heartland’s attempt to preserve the the actual board member’s name.

    The intended readers of the letter were: the warmist community, the taxpayers, legislators, the general,uncommitted public, and (possibly) classroom children studying global warming. We know that it was distributed by Peter Gleick, so that part of the letter-writer’s intent was carried out. Finally, regardless of whether PG knew that the letter was phony, its intent, contrary to his publicly expressed sentiment, was clearly to head off any open debate with skeptics – he had just refused this offer.

    It was intended to: embarrass fund recipients and Heartland, discourage donors, embolden and hearten the warmist community, horrify legislators and members of the public and persuade them to vote against skeptical points of view, and validate the “victimhood / underdog” status of warmists. Heartland is presented as an evil bureaucracy, impassively plotting to undermine the IPCC and warmists who get in their way.

  21. I agree with others who said any correspondence should come from an attorney. Lawyers will pick on any little thing, twist the meaning, and then try to use it against you. On the other hand, getting teams of attorneys involved doesn’t help anyone except the attorneys. (Yes, I’ve watched this sort of stuff in action and the companies involved were damaged beyond repair. Both went belly-up while the attorneys laughed all the way to the bank.)

  22. I suspect that the Director’s Liability carrier (insurance is my specialty) has already informed the Board of the Pacific Institute the precarious position they find themselves in, and that in cases of wilful misconduct, they may be on their own. I imagine the legal bill at the PI wil consume much of their funds for the next while.

  23. My “conclusion” to the above comment.

    A suit can and should be brought against Peter Gleick. His crimes include: wire fraud, libel, character defamation of the signed board member, defamation of Heartland (laws on institutional defamation differ by state) damages for lost income (for Heartland).

    Newspapers which spread the story without verifying its authentic sources can be accused of libel as well.

  24. Bob says:
    February 29, 2012 at 11:24 am
    Boudumoon says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
    “Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?”

    Wikipedia says:
    “Peter H. Gleick (glick[1]; born 1956) is an American scientist working on issues related to the environment,”

    [SNIP: Really uncalled for. -REP]

  25. dfbaskwill
    February 29, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Gleik. It’s pronounce similar to “Wile E” as in Coyote.
    ###

    HEY! Be nice! No insults.

  26. I assume this is a preemptory statement to make the ensuing PI whitewash more obvious to the public. HI’s legal staff will or already have send a more pointed and concise communication that will hold up in court when the information is or might be witheld. This will establish whether or not PI is voluntarily witholding information before legal discovery begins and would give HI reason to ask the judge to compell PI to disclose the facts completely. That’s just my take.

  27. Boudumoon says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
    Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?

    I’ve heard one of his friends pronounce it “Glyke” (rhymes with “Mike”).

  28. By Gleick’s own assertions, this is ‘war’. Now we hear the baying of the Heartland legal hounds, as they catch the ‘scent’ and chorus bark ‘trail’!

    “…..Cry ‘Havoc’, and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial!” Indeed, Mr. Shakespear! Indeed!!!

  29. Should Heartland ask the Pacific Institute to have their independent investigators to investigate if there were others involved in the crime?

  30. >>It was intended to: embarrass fund recipients and Heartland, discourage donors, embolden and hearten the warmist community, horrify legislators and members of the public and persuade them to vote against skeptical points of view, and validate the “victimhood / underdog” status of warmists.

    If that doesn’t say RICO, I don’t know what does.

  31. I think Anthony’s right. The version on the law firm’s letterhead has already been served. It’s longer, more technical, and puts them on notice in no uncertain terms that any document destruction will come back and bite like a cobra. This one is for PR effect.

    No hackeysack tonight.

  32. I’m not a lawyer.
    In my experience it is normal to request a response with clear and civil letter. This gives the other party a chance to respond. When there is no suitable response you resort to lawyers and courts. I think this is what Mr. Blast is doing. I trust that he has good advice.

  33. Gleick finally let leak
    his phishing skills were weak
    when bloggers punched his beak
    and lawyers did he seek.
    He still has lots of cheek
    the facts he tries to tweak
    yet it looks very bleak
    since truth will Heartland seek.

    Hopefully this will help the pronunciation problem, for those who didn’t pick up enough clues from this post’s title and accompanying excellent graphic.

  34. I’ve heard one of his friends pronounce it “Glyke” (rhymes with “Mike”).

    FWIW, that would be correct German.

    REPLY:
    That is the correct pronunciation AFAIK – Anthony

  35. Otto Zilch says:
    February 29, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    >>It was intended to: embarrass fund recipients and Heartland, discourage donors, embolden and hearten the warmist community, horrify legislators and members of the public and persuade them to vote against skeptical points of view, and validate the “victimhood / underdog” status of warmists.

    If that doesn’t say RICO, I don’t know what does.
    *************************************************************

    Well, obstruction of justice is a qualified offense, but unless Gleick et al. start doing something else,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#RICO_offenses

    I doubt anyone could be tried under RICO.

    Wishful, conspiratorial thinking. If he had indeed been colluding on this document heist, possible forgery, and dissemination with malicious, libelous intent, well . . .
    I just don’t see any convictable evidence there (yet).

  36. @Bill Parsons says:
    February 29, 2012 at 11:50 am

    “A suit can and should be brought against Peter Gleick.”

    If he was doing it during business hours, or working hours if he’s on call 24/7, doesn’t US have laws that dictate he was doing it as a representative of the organization as a whole, and so a suit could, or should, be brought against the institute too as well?

  37. ChE on February 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm:

    I’ve heard one of his friends pronounce it “Glyke” (rhymes with “Mike”).

    FWIW, that would be correct German.

    REPLY: That is the correct pronunciation AFAIK – Anthony

    WHAT?! But that title, the graphic…!

    Ah heck with it, let’s go with an infallible unimpeachable reference, Wikipedia!

    Peter H. Gleick (pronounced glick;[1] born 1956)….

    Their reference on NPR, click to play the audio broadcast (sorry Anthony):

    http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147263862/climate-scientist-admits-to-lying-leaking-documents

    Aha! We’re both wrong! Or, NPR thus Wikipedia is wrong! Well, someone’s wrong, and I’d rather it not be me!

  38. Boudumoon says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?

    Classic!

  39. Well, if anyone were seeking damages, PI would be a much better bet than Gleick.

    I predict a rise in the HI annual revenue in a few months…..

  40. The forged memo Gleick included with the stolen documents and falsely represented, in his message accompanying the documents to 15 allies and journalists, to have come from The Heartland Institute. I have highlighted the forger’s own words, as opposed to text that was copied and pasted from the stolen documents, and included my own analysis of this fraudulent document.

    Shot across the bow.

  41. first a reply to the pronunciation thing as my surname has a Germanic spelling too and is often mispronounced.With Germanic names the correct pronunciation is to always sound the second vowel hard. so ie is ee and ei is aye. However how you pronounce your own surname and have others do it is a matter of choice.

    To the letter. I’m very confused about this. I’m not sure what it serves. I’m concerned that there is not an official police investigation into this.

    If this had happened in the UK the moment that Gleick made his public confession I could as a matter of public duty, telephone the police ( local or Metropolitan-London-, the police are national here much in the way you have federal investigators, each county has a force but they are all the same entity overall. We don’t have Sheriffs. ) to say that I have seen a crime both committed and admitted to and the police would be bound by law to start an investigation as long as I made it clear that I wanted charges pressing. They would then investigate and offer evidence and a recommendation for prosecution (or not) to the crown prosecutor ( like the attorney General )

    I’m concerned that no official investigation is underway here. I don’t doubt that the lawyers are on the case and that HI will be seeking redress but if I was bringing this case in the UK both my lawyer and investigating police would be advising me to say nothing in public for fear of prejudicing any case.

    I asked HI and JL (via Twitter where I’ve had a number of friendly conversations with both accounts ) if they could confirm that Gleick would be pursued to the full extent of the law and that they would be pursuing any civil case on top of any case the state might bring. ( the reason for this being that I’m prepared to make a donation to the legal fund but only if I have assurances that the money is being used for the purposes I intend ) but oddly got no reply. Twice. I’ve talked to Jim a few times. The silence is odd.

    It seems clear to me that laws have been broken. It does not seem clear that there is any actual complaint being pursued yet.

    It would be nice to have that clarified ( without prejudice of course )

  42. On the pronunciation issue, in England we would say Glyke as in Mike.
    On the radio interview Judith Curry gave that included Scott Mandia, both of them, and the radio host, used Glick as in Dick.

    It surprised me, but everyone seemed confident about it.

  43. Boudumoon says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
    Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?
    _____________________

    It’s anyone’s guess how people choose to pronounce their names, but if the owner sticks to the German, it would rhyme with Mike. It’s most likely Yiddish origin would see it pronounced as the much more common Glick meaning “luck,” (yes I know, what irony) a word associated to the German glueck). It’s a rare spelling though, with only seven Gleicks registered in the 1820-1957 New York passenger lists, with most of them from Germany.

    Hey, why not write Gleick and ask him? He might appreciate the cheerful diversion into family history.

  44. Gary Meyers says:
    February 29, 2012 at 11:32 am

    I think it’s pronounced Glick, as in ick, click ,or trick
    ——————————————————————-

    Youre all wrong.

    Its pronounced Gleick as in “Tool”.

  45. If the fake memo was written on a PI computer there would be evidence of that. One wonders whether Gleick would have been quite that stupid, but his other actions in this affair give us no reason to underestimate the depth of his stupidity. At the moment Gleick is in the crosshairs as an individual. However if the PI does anything at all to help “clean up” his work computer, delete his no doubt backed up files, or or sanitise their email system, then the PI itself becomes involved in this situation directly as a collaborator. And the courts take a very dim view of anyone who attempts to alter or cover up potential evidence even if this is done before legal action commences, if it appears that this was done in anticipation that legal action might occur.

  46. zootcadillac says:
    February 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    ____________________

    Yes, odd indeed. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that as with the East Anglia U case, Mann and others, the trend is exhonorations and whitewashes, as if there’s a common decision to avoid criminally prosecuting any promiment CAGW proponents. I’m now beginning to wonder if they can get away with murder in broad daylight in the middle of a football stadium filled with attentive witnesses, all with their cell phone cams on. Naaaah, don’t mind me, I’m just being paranoid.

  47. clipe says:
    February 29, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    The forged memo Gleick included with the stolen documents and falsely represented, in his message accompanying the documents to 15 allies and journalists…

    Shot across the “journalism” bow.

  48. Boudumoon,
    http://ww3.tvo.org/video/162826/james-gleick-information says it’s “Glick”
    Interestingly, TVO has carried on suppressing information while giving Revkin and Romm air time and special attention as per the inclination of “The Agenda” flagship program Producer Daniel Kitts

    It’s as if from Downtown Toronto they have never heard of Steve McIntyre. it’s as if he cannot ever be mentioned on TVO, our overly well paid state TV channel. It’s sucked over a billion $ from Ontario in the past decade.
    Producer Daniel Kitts is given props at DeSmog for his statements over at the Globe and Mail newspaper. It seems that the Gleick brothers, Gelbspan, Kitts, and Desmog have a circle.
    The many opposing comments made in return to Kitts’ and other Producers’ false assertions on TVO blogs, have all since been cleansed from the TVO blog site. http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blog/climate-change-questionable-coverage. TVO was active in stifling free and open discussion of climate issues.
    TVO also asserts that some such stories have only one side, so they will give the other side no opportunity to respond to claims..

  49. If the fake memo was written on a PI computer there would be evidence of that.

    We know that it was scanned, so that’s moot.

  50. Shouldn’t these be the questions being asked by the police or other investigating authorities?

    Gleick has admitted assuming the identity of another person by which he used deception to steal private documents belonging to HI. HI has demonstrated that the stolen documents were used, by copying and paraphrasing, to create part of a fake document. Once disseminated the genuine documents were intended to give the fake document a spurious credibility and thereby the forger sought to use the fake document to damage or destroy the reputations of HI, its donors and others.

    Yet there doesn’t appear to be any official investigation. Or if there is, it seems it has no urgency. Why? No warrant. No request to preserve evidence. Why the delay? Speed in dealing with digital crime, in this case a fake document and emails, is essential, to preserve and analyse evidence.

  51. “A suit can and should be brought against Peter Gleick.”

    If he was doing it during business hours, or working hours if he’s on call 24/7, doesn’t US have laws that dictate he was doing it as a representative of the organization as a whole, and so a suit could, or should, be brought against the institute too as well?

    I don’t know the dates of Gleick’s hiring to work at PI. I’ve always assumed he acted on his own. I did notice some commenters at Climate Audit, a few days ago, were suggesting a subpoena of minutes from the PI board meetings.

  52. They need to see if he has changed computers or gotten rid of a scanner.

    Asset tags:

    Anthony: has Gleick made comments here. Have a look at the user agent if you can.

  53. It’s a very good letter. It means that Gleick’s institute will find it more difficult to have a whitewash enquiry.

    No doubt there are attorney’s letters flying here and there behind the scenes and criminal enquiries getting started up.

  54. Bill Parsons says:
    February 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Note: I just confused the Pacific Institute, which, I’ve read somewhere Gleick himself founded, with National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which he was slated to join a few weeks ago. My bad.

    A commenter at CA recently suggested a subpoena of the NCSE records.

  55. Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 29, 2012 at 10:26 am
    Anne Ehrlich is on the Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute? How deliciously appropriate. She and her husband Paul are among the least successful of the failed serial doomcasters that include Holdren, Hansen, and Stephen Schneider. No wonder they’re teamed up with a loser like Gleick.

    w.

    Nicely said, Willis! Of that lot, I’ve only seen Holdren speak, at the NAE “Grand Challenges” summit in Chicago, April 2010. What a depressing presentation, see:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf

    He introduced the concept of “Climate Disruption” as I recall. Enjoy, Charles the DrPH
    p.s. CTM, great logo! “LOOOO-SER!!”

  56. ChE says:
    February 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    If the fake memo was written on a PI computer there would be evidence of that.

    We know that it was scanned, so that’s moot.

    Not at all – if there’s a .doc file that is the source of the scanned document, then that would be very telling, especially if its last modified date predates the scanned .pdf.

    At this point, you’d probably have to look at deleted files….

  57. “ChE says:
    February 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    If the fake memo was written on a PI computer there would be evidence of that.

    We know that it was scanned, so that’s moot.”

    The assumption by many is that Peter Gleick used a PI computer to draft the fake memo, printed it out and then scanned it back in. This was presumably done to remove the metadata that is embedded in all files.

    There would still be ample evidence on whatever computer this file was written on, even if the file had been deleted. There are dozens of places that information about files is stored. The average user might not know this.

  58. NPR had some ‘splain’n to do last week when they announced that their frequent on-air guest on matters of climate ethics had just admitted to lying and stealing. They pronounced his name as rhyming with ‘click’.

  59. I’m assuming that this letter from Joseph Bast is written with the full agreement of lawyers working behind the scenes. I cannot imagine that Bast would not, from the start, have worked together with lawyers.

    This case is unusual, in that normally the prosecution’s work is done by a small unit AFAIK, even in Watergate we did not see the phenomenon of crowdsourcing to produce evidence that can be used by the prosecution, as we have seen here.

    This crowdsourcing has happened for another reason, which also makes this situation unique. For far too long, corruption has reigned in Climate Science. Hamlet’s uncle is still on the throne. All those loyal to the truth have been driven out into exile, into blogland. And from blogland, we are calling out the pieces of evidence, knowing how important it is that this ring of corruption be broken, and, I guess, sensing that it will take a court case to do this, since every single “investigation” so far has proved to be yet more corruption.

    This is a moment of history, and I very much doubt that this reality is lost on Bast. He must know he has to practice ethical strategy first, middle and last at this moment in time, and that he needs all the legal wisdom he can find, to do this.

  60. Not at all – if there’s a .doc file that is the source of the scanned document, then that would be very telling, especially if its last modified date predates the scanned .pdf.

    At this point, you’d probably have to look at deleted files….

    True enough, and presumably the real letter from the lawyer makes it clear that all documents must be preserved. That would include hard disks. And Gleick probably isn’t swift enough to actually scrub the disk. There wasn’t any doubt left by the public letter from Bast that HI isn’t accepting the cock-and-bull story about the fake being mailed to Gleick, and they’re going for discovery.

    This is going to get interesting. PI will hang him out to dry rather than submit to discovery. Gleick might as well sing now.

  61. 26south says:
    February 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    If Heartland don’t sue and win they have lost. Legal action is the only way to make the MSM and warmists unable to bury this story.
    ______________________________________
    Whether the story gets buried by the MSM, or not, the AGW supporters general websites and blogs are still routinely bashing HI and praising Gleick. They all parrot the meme that HI is the bad old propagandist trying to warp young minds in the classroom while funded with tons of dirty oil money.
    You can count on the leftys to alter the truth and include a healthy dose of hateful and poisonous rhetoric, as always.

  62. Paul Erhlich is an honorary director of the David Suzuki Foundation. The DSF, I understand, financially supports the Pacific Institute. Now it makes sense.

    Perhaps the source of the faked memo is the DSF? That would be rich. The DSF is based in the Pacific time-zone, is it not? And the DSF would have regular mail deliveries to the Pacific Institute, possibly delivered by hand. No postmark ….

  63. I’d pronounce it as seemed appropriate, so I say with a long “I” sound, rhyming with “mike”. Don’t really care how he pronounces it.

    Another example comes to mind, Favre.

  64. Proctor says:
    February 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Paul Erhlich is an honorary director of the David Suzuki Foundation. The DSF, I understand, financially supports the Pacific Institute.

    If PI comes down, will others follow?

    RICO, anyone?

  65. PronounceNames.com does not guarantee the accuracy
    of any names and pronunciation on this website
    Home | Lookup Pronunciation | Submit Pronunciation | Browse Names

    Gleick

    The pronunciation of Gleick is not known

    Would you like to submit the pronunciation of Gleick?
    “I pronounce him “Guilty” as charged.”
    Would you like to request the pronunciation of Gleick?
    “I request 15 years.”

    Lookup pronunciation of another name:
    “Mann…”

  66. I don’t know why some here assume the “public” correspondence is a replacement for legal correspondence, as though The Heartland Institute cannot walk and chew gum simultaneously. Granted, it is common practice to restrict all communication to lawyers… BUT when their reputation and financial viability are under such sustained dishonest assaults they may have decided they cannot afford to work only the slow back-channel routes of lawyers’ letters. HI clearly see the need to defend their work, personnel, donors, and mission vigorously in public while the legal proceedings may be proceeding. I expect such letters are also being sent, though.

    p.s. A note on relevant pronunciations:

    Peter Gleick (rhymes with “prick”) is rather glum (rhymes with “scum”) because his plot (rhymes with “snot”) has not proved strong (rhymes with “wrong”) and so he’s earned a major FAIL (rhymes with “jail”). [not implying i possess any predictive powers about what will happen to him with the legal system]

  67. “NOTE: Michael Watts, Geography Department, University of California, Berkeley is no relation to Anthony Watts, proprietor of this blog – Anthony”

    Ha ha!

    I was just wandering whether Anne Ehrlich (Pacific Institute board member) had any relation to a certain Paul Ehrlich.

    It turns out she is his wife.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_H._Ehrlich

  68. Jeff Wiita says:
    February 29, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    Should Heartland ask the Pacific Institute to have their independent investigators to investigate if there were others involved in the crime?

    HI should also ask if there’s evidence that PG has done this before.

    Here’s a startling (to me) thought: Maybe PG was inspired by others in his clique telling him of their successful phishing exploits. Why haven’t we heard of them blowing the whistle and reaping the publicity? Maybe because, if they found embarrassing material, they used it to make their victims buy their silence by donating to green foundations and causes.

    This is a matter that deserves private inquiries directed at in-the-know insiders in big corporate donors to the green cause. I hope the question is repeatedly raised in the skeptical media.

  69. Boudumoon at 10 40 am says:
    Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?
    In our northeast Scottish dialect “Buchan” we have the wonderful word “glaikit” which means stupid, foolish, giddy. To glaik (rhymes with fake) can also mean to cheat. This is from the same root as Shakespeare uses when he says “gleek” as in Midsummer nights dream (see comment by Steve McIntyre)

  70. To all those who thought the letter should have come from an attorney instead of the Board of the Heartland Institute. I am fairly confident the letter was written by an attorney and sent by the board of Heartland to the Pacific institute. Why? Because the questions they ask in the letter appear to be a partial list of the first set of interogatories that each board member and officer of the Pacific Insititute will be required to answer in a lawsuit. Further, the letter is a veiled threat to the Pacific Institute to not destroy any evidence or work product of the independent investigators because the Heartland Institiute will want that information as discovery in the lawsuit. Further that each director and the the employees of the Pacific Institute should not engage in distruction of evidence which could be grounds for a criminal obstruction of justice charge if Glieck is prosecuted and could have civil implications as well.

    What is not stated in the letter but implied is that each of the Directors of the Pacific Institute should check the limits of their E&O coverage and determine whether they personally had anything to do with Glieck’s actions and that since their are criminal aspects to the potential charges, their E&O coverage will not protect them and they will be personally liable under the fiduciary standards applicable to a director of a not for profit.

    The letter is the functional equivalent of letting your intended target watch you load your gun just before you unload the entire clip in their direction. I thought it was a great letter.

  71. “Does the Pacific Institute have possession of the hard copy of the fake memo or the envelope in which it was supposedly sent?

    It is not likely that the memo was ever inside a standard envelope because the scan would have shown evidence of this as marks or lines dividing the documents into thirds (see below). Those are not present in the PDF document.

    I have a high end Epson Scanner that I use to proof my Negatives and Slides for my large format photography so I am intimately familiar with how Epson Scan works. I examined the PDF of the memo at high magnification, then I ran some tests on my own scanner. Epson Scan is able to save to PDF directly, so there are no intermediate TIFF files or other software involved. In all probability the memo was saved directly to PDF using 300 DPI and High Compression. The size of the memo PDF file matches those parameters. The software version in the memo properties tells me that the Epson Scan software used is newer than mine, and that might point to an all-in-one Epson machine, rather than a flatbed scanner like mine.

    I have attached a screen image from my computer showing the rough first draft of this post which I printed, folded and scanned. The arrows in the image linked below point to the folding marks my scanner captured.

    http://www.josesuroeditorial.com/Other/Tests/1138678_zJt5bk/16/1731552107_hG9zCD7/Original

    My question is: Does the Pacific Institute or Gleick own an Epson all-in-one machine?

    Best,

    Jose

  72. People will first forget how to pronounce his name; then they will forget his name; then they will forget what he did; then they will forget him.

    “If your name is ________________ , and this story is about a __________________ , there is no such thing as media bias. This story transcended media bias.” From June 2011 interview with Andrew Breitbart.

    Fill in the blank with the most recent subject of public opprobium. Remember the “e/i” rule: “Use i before e, except in cases of infamy”

    Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart dies at 43
    By the CNN Wire Staff
    updated 11:46 AM EST, Thu March 1, 2012

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/01/politics/breitbart-obit/index.html

  73. Louparte at CA

    In my opinion, (I’m a lawyer w/federal criminal defense experience in wire fraud cases), a US Attorney would not bring charges on this. An important reason would be that federal jury verdicts must be unanimous. All jurors must agree to convict. That would be a very tall order for a prosecutor in Gleick’s case. Another reason would be that Gleick had no intent for pecuniary gain.

    I agree that the offense fits into the language of 1343. But even if you disregard the intent issue, it would be nearly impossible to find a jury that would unanimously convict Gleick on a polarizing issue like this.

    It looks like a rock solid ciivil case though. Law suits don’t depend on prosecutorial discretion.

    Sue the jerk from all directions. Take him for all he’s worth. Make him squirm in a deposition. Make the board members of organizations he was affiliated with squirm. That’s doable. Getting a federal prosecutor to indict will be a lot more difficult.

  74. An open letter from the Pacific Institute to Heartland Institute:

    “The directors of the Pacific Institute are extremely disappointed about what has happened.

    “We are disappointed that you have on numerous occasions attempted to spread disinformation about climate science.

    “We are disappointed in the way you have smeared the reputation of a good and ethical man. For it is no less than your willful spreading of disinformation that has forced Peter Glieck to take the courageous steps he has taken. You have forced Peter to impersonate a director and steal your confidential documents.

    “Now that His Ethicalness has been forced into a prolonged vacation, he is considering what steps he should take in order to receive redress from the wrongs you have done to him. We have received a text from Hawaii where he is forced to endure hours of relentless sunshine which has been especially painful, since it reminds him of global warming, and everything you have done to prevent meaninful action.

    “However, His Ethicalness has noted, with irony, that because you forced him to steal your documents, it has rebounded on you terribly. He notes the high praise he has been afforded in the media – Andrew Revkin has called his actions “creditable”, and that is the least complimentary of them. It would not be an exageration to say that His Ethicalness has been feted and the whole tawdry affair of your spreading of misinformation is now the news story of the year. It is there for all to see.

    Yours etc, PI”

    [Disclaimer: This is not really an open letter from PI. I never phished or hacked it, but I did make it up. It is fake]

  75. Heartland Institute makes Richard Nixon look like a saint.

    REPLY: and you give angry clueless people a bad name.

Comments are closed.