Pacific Institute reinstates Peter Gleick – but won’t provide confirmation of the “independent investigation”

UPDATE4: 6/7/12 11AM PST The independent investigator is named, see update #4 below.

UPDATE5: 6/7/12 11:15AM PST Heartland has just released a statement, read it here.

UPDATE6: 6/7/12 1:15PM PST Josh weighs in with some biting satire in a cartoon here

Breaking news from the Pacific Institute website: http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/statement6612.html

PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT

The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute. An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute. This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.

Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment. We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

“I am glad to be back and thank everyone for continuing their important work at the Pacific Institute during my absence,” said Dr. Gleick in a statement. “I am returning with a renewed focus and dedication to the science and research that remain at the core of the Pacific Institute’s mission.”

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

Of course there’s no mention of who conducted this “independent investigation” nor are we given the opportunity to read it.

There’s no mention of it it prior releases:

News Updates and Press Releases

[6/06/12] Dr. Peter Gleick Returns to the Pacific Institute

[5/31/12] Survey of Water Suppliers Launched to Better Understand How Water is Priced in California

[5/24/12] Training Now Available Online for Cost Effectiveness of Water Conservation and Efficiency Model

[5/16/12] Pacific Institute May Update: Mobile Phones to Improve Water Access for Poor; New Model to Evaluate Urban Water Efficiency; Community Choices Tool Tested in Ghana, and More

But hey, this is climate science politics, so anything goes.

Since we heard about this some time ago (May 21st 2012) from Guardian reporter Suzanne Goldenberg, it seems the fix was in. Oddly, there’s no mention of this new official announcement at the Guardian today per the search I made. The last mention of Gleick was May 24th. (Update: they finally got around to posting their article at 12:03PM EDT today)

Maybe they were distracted by Wisconsin.

UPDATE: I’m waiting on an email reply from their press contact to these two questions:

1. What organization, law firm, or group conducted the investigation?

2. Why has that investigation not been made public?

I would call them, but with my hearing issues telephone interviews could be misunderstood. Anyone want to make the call for me? Tel: 510-251-1600

UPDATE2: They aren’t talking with openness or providing any details.

I received a response from Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross at 3:59PM today.

She says:

It was conducted by an independent professional investigation firm. The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way. It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.

So, there is no way to confirm the investigation even took place. Since they even refuse to name the firm, it could be entirely made up for all we know.

UPDATE3: 6PM PST Two queries to Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross sent after her 3:59PM PST response regarding the disposition of the issue of the fake document have gone unanswered. The second query advised her that I had an approaching deadline, and that was related to the radio interview I gave from 5:20 to 5:30PM on the nationally syndicated Lars Larson show regarding the Pacific Institute. The nation knows the story now. Since then, according to comments left here, others have spoken with her, so I know she wasn’t out of the office.

Meanwhile I seem to have scooped everyone with this story, including the Guardian which still has nothing up on it as of this writing. I also scooped Climate Progress’ Joe Romm, who posted a “breaking news” item almost two hours after mine, but of course can’t bring himself to point to my website as the source for breaking the story. “Integrity” all around with these clowns it seems.

Romm, like the Pacific Institute, doesn’t want to talk about the fake document, which was demonstrated by an independent investigation that WAS revealed with full disclosure to have likely been authored by Peter Gleick.

Some advice to the board of the Pacific Institute: This question is not going away, and will be asked at any meeting where Dr. Gleick appears or submits an opinion. You really need to deal with the issue, because all you’ve done so far is draw suspicion on yourselves.

BTW it bears repeating that Heartland has scored a prize plum in all of this, not only are their donations up, but the have secured Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as the featured keynote speaker for their annual dinner in August.

Readers may recall that Dr. Peter Gleick turned down this same invitation as keynote speaker on the same day he declined the offer then posed as a Heartland board member to obtain board documents under false pretenses.

I hope somebody hands Governor Walker some bottled water to hold during that address, it would be great symbolism since Gleick had not the courage to fill that spot.

UPDATE4: Apparently feeling the blowback from the lack of transparency, Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross sent me an email this morning stating:

The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.

I am waiting for confirmation that they performed the review from one of the two partners at the firm.  http://www.iecounsel.com/ If I get credible confirmation, I’ll edit the headline to fit the facts as they are known.

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

326 Responses to Pacific Institute reinstates Peter Gleick – but won’t provide confirmation of the “independent investigation”

  1. Chris B says:

    War is peace. Hot is cold. Fraud is virtue. What next? Obama re-elected?

  2. James Ard says:

    Indeed, the fix was in. That Goldenberg got the tip off is all we need to know. I welcome back their ethics expert onto the Team. Can’t they see how stupid they are?

  3. Robin says:

    “to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.”

    By any means necessary apparently.
    But an able, imaginative, creative writer can be important to a futurist oriented organization. At least his dedication to the mission was never an issue. Fuzziness on means is just a small lapse.

  4. Dave L. says:

    Whitewash! Did anyone expect anything different?

  5. barryjo says:

    Probably the same review board that exonerated Michael Mann.

  6. bubbagyro says:

    He did not do anything wrong, and he sincerely apologizes for his poor judgment.

    Huh?

  7. clipe says:

    Big mistake. The magnifying glass will only become more focused

  8. tallbloke says:

    I see the warmist footshootings continue apace.

  9. Peter Miller says:

    “I am returning with a renewed focus and dedication to the science and research that remain at the core of the Pacific Institute’s mission.”

    Yeah, right.

    In the world of real science, he would not have been heard of again. In climate science……………….

  10. temp says:

    “which are not(<—-) condoned by the Pacific Institute"

    is this a typo… or just the truth coming out?

  11. Olen says:

    Reading it smiley face stickers came to mind. I wonder if they are scented.

  12. Skiphil says:

    UNREAL….. we knew it would be a whitewash but they don’t even pretend that they might want to be credible!!!

  13. Eve Stevens says:

    They don’t seem to care if the public knows how crooked they are. That is because the fix is in?

  14. JEM says:

    Pacific Institute has always been Gleick’s sandbox. Doesn’t matter that he’s defecated in it, it’s still his.

  15. hro001 says:

    And there’s a perfectly valid reason that Pacific Institute should not be held to the standards of “transparency” that Gleick was demanding of Heartland, isn’t there?! /sarc

    It would not surprise me in the least that – if the report of this so-called “independent investigation” were to be made public – one would find that it was (you should pardon the expression) modeled on those conducted by Oxburgh and Muir Russell. In both of these, the primary principle underlying the mode of “investigation” appears to have been: Ask all the wrong questions of the wrong people in order to ensure that you always get the right answer!

  16. just some guy says:

    Nauseating, but not unexpected. Gleick is a co-founder of Pac Institute. The real question is: Is there going to be a lawsuit over this?

  17. Paul_K says:

    “An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.”

    I seem to recall that he admitted publicly that he was guilty of a number of criminal acts. The independent review has confirmed that he really was guilty of a number of criminal acts.
    So that’s, er, OK then.

  18. Kozlowski says:

    Gleick coming back to the public eye is the best thing that can happen.. for us.. ;) Let him come back and keep on showboating. He is an embarrasement to their cause and exposes them for the frauds they really are.

  19. quidsapio says:

    everyone should tweet him congratulations on apparently *not* being a liar and a document faker

  20. just some guy says:

    “I seem to recall that he admitted publicly that he was guilty of a number of criminal acts. The independent review has confirmed that he really was guilty of a number of criminal acts.
    So that’s, er, OK then.”

    The forgery of the fake memo is the issue.

  21. beesaman says:

    Gleick is a dishonest man, that is something that no whitewash can hide and all of his future work will be tainted by that one simple fact.

  22. To whitewash a confessed criminal act is beyond Muir….beyond Russell….beyond the Penn State/Mann ‘double’ limbo under the hockey stick. Pacific Institute has set the high water mark in water scientist coverups. Doubtful that the Heartland civil suit will reach the same conclusion, so justice is merely postponed.

  23. Dan says:

    Deplorable, unreservedly deplorable!

  24. Green Sand says:

    Well there you go, you get to learn something every day.

    My lesson for today? Being wrong in thinking that the UK “Establishment” had cornered the market in whitewash! Wrong again in the thought that the brave new world would not succumb to the old world established traits.

    Welcome to the ever expanding control of the elite!

  25. Andrew says:

    Heartland did a huge mistake with the billboard thing and not prosecuting Gleick

  26. Ron says:

    Says way more about the Pacific Institute than Gleick. Ouch on them.

  27. George Daddis says:

    Lewis Carroll would have been proud of that Wonderland statement.
    An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of Bernard l. Madoff has supported what Bernie has stated publicly regarding his interaction with his investors. Therefore he is reinstated as CEO. (Please issue “a get out of jail free” card for poor Bernie.) /sarc
    The fact that Gleick confessed to a federal crime which clearly caused damage to another party is apparently of no import. All you have to do is confess and get that confession certified and you are in the clear.

  28. Mac the Knife says:

    def. “surreal” – 2. having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream ; unreal; fantastic ..

    That sufficiently describes it….

  29. Latitude says:

    I thought internet “fishing” was against the law?

  30. just some guy says:

    Kozlowski says:
    June 6, 2012 at 3:36 pm
    “Gleick coming back to the public eye is the best thing that can happen.. for us.. ;) Let him come back and keep on showboating. He is an embarrasement to their cause and exposes them for the frauds they really are.”

    I was about to say you are probably wrong because the logical thing for Gleick to do now would be to keep a low profile. But then I got to thinking, Gleick is just not that smart. So I do concur.

  31. Ian says:

    Clearly the Pacific Institute’s vaunted “standard of ethics” is not a standard that even the president is required to adhere to; i.e., they don’t have a standard of ethics.

  32. Andrew says:

    Looks like Cucinelly is miles ahead in the re-election. Walker has won as well. Romney needs to be advised of the AGW scam with all the proof and data so that when he wins all these people and organizations can be brought to justice

  33. Martin457 says:

    I’ve heard better stories from Tommy Chong.

    “Oh yeah, these guys over here said it was all cool.”

  34. Ric Werme says:

    No mention of the forged document, I wonder what the review board did with that part of the investigation.

    I think the next move will come from the Heartland Institute.

  35. Chris B says:

    Perhaps a Star Chamber has absolved him. Has anyone seen Holdren in public lately.

  36. DocMartyn says:

    I am still waiting for him to be arrested for identity theft; a crime which he has admitted to in public.

  37. Jeremy says:

    Pacific Institute and Integrity have long since parted company.

  38. John M says:

    I presume the Grauniad’s style guide would list this as an example of the correct usage of the term “cleared”.

  39. CraigR says:

    “run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics” What ethics? what standard? …non existent.

  40. Ray Donahue says:

    Hi All, Would this reinstatement be something that Heartlands attorneys were waiting for??

    Any tort attorneys want to weigh in??

  41. Gary D. says:

    Decent Interval comes to mind.

  42. jack says:

    …”This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”
    Say what? Further confirmed what? Knew of what? Involved in what?
    This statement is vapid and not even a proper sentence. What did Gleick say that they were satisfied with? Did he not admit to being involved?
    They can’t rationally address the issues so they don’t.

  43. Well you didn’t expect Gleick to fall on his sword did you? He and the others at the Pacific are true believers and when you have a righteous cause all becomes acceptable. This by the way goes for all sides of any question that have substituted faith for reason.

  44. eyesonu says:

    Skiphil says:
    June 6, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    UNREAL….. we knew it would be a whitewash but they don’t even pretend that they might want to be credible!!!
    =================

    Maybe credibility is not a desired trait. They will attract more of the like minded without it.

  45. Athelstan. says:

    It wouldn’t be the seven dwarfs without Dopey.

  46. Gunga Din says:

    Didn’t he a position that had something to do with ethics? Are they changing their name to “The Pathetic Institute”?

  47. J. Felton says:

    Boy, do I have a lot of four letter words the Mods would be fast to snip.

    This is ridiculous. At least it shows that anything connected to the Pacific Institute is fit to be ignored or thrown into the trash bin.

  48. sophocles says:

    … it’s the _intent_ which counts, not the actions.
    The only sin is to be found out.
    And of course, nobody is fired for an itty bitty little sin… no matter how huge.

  49. Howling Winds says:

    Man, I am just *shocked* the Pacific Institute has reinstated Peter Gleick! I should have never “bet the farm” on this issue but that’s just my own stupidity.

  50. Malcolm says:

    Pacific wouldn’t do this unless they knew that Heartland were unable or unwilling to press charges.

  51. Glenn says:

    “It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.”

    Sorry, Nancy, it is not. Someone created and publicized the fake Heartland memo. If the alleged investigation was confidential, why did you and are you now talking about it?

  52. Kaboom says:

    Now that the PI has thrown in their lot with their rainmaker it’s the proper time for Heartland to file their lawsuit. It’s no longer just the private person to face court but the institute and its officers as well. Good thing they already worked on their discovery, that will streamline the process.

  53. John Greenfraud says:

    They now have a liar and a thief in charge of ethics? Was he cleared by John Corzine and Bernie Madoff? It just doesn’t get any better than this.

  54. just some guy says:

    “It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.”

    So someone needs to call out Suzanne Goldenberg on her BS when she said , “That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.”

  55. Pamela Gray says:

    My guess: lawyers on contract with the institute. If they are not employees, it is an independent review “on behalf” of the institute.

  56. Doug Eaton says:

    I predict that Gleick will spend the next several years of his life in court with Heartland and that it’s going to cost a lot of money. I also predict that in a civil suit, the jury will be far less forgiving than the “independent” ringers who conducted this investigation. I’m guessing it was probably the same team of lawyers who came up with the alibi that the forged document had been sent to Gleick in the mail and that he had nothing to do with its creation.

    Heartland will not let Gleick off the hook for this.

  57. Smokey says:

    Heartland would have to show damages to win a court case. But their donations have gone way up as a result of Gleick’s identity theft, so I don’t think Heartland will pursue legal action.

    And of course there was nothing ‘independent’ about PI’s faux ‘investigation’, because someone paid for the results. Who pays the piper, calls the tune. So who paid for the Fakegate investigation? George Soros?

  58. geography lady says:

    Does any of this surprise anyone? I think not.

  59. benfrommo says:

    Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment. We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

    If people can not see the multiple logical fallacies in that one paragraph they should realize that they have no logical ability. Seriously, if I murder someone, I can just say I am sorry and its forgiven? The organization claims that they abhor murder, but accept the person back with a simple appology? Outregous!

    But at the very least we can lump the Pacific Institute with other unethical organizations. Start talking to your representatives and senators. I know I am and I will keep pushing the issue that the person in charge of the Pacific Institute is a confirmed crook. He told us that himself in his own words! Identity theft is not a crime that any president of an organization should be guilty of.

    So yes, this will come back to bite the organization in the rear. You can not simply tell people that an appology is acceptable, and yes I am curious how they cleared him of writing the forged memo. Whoever ran that investigation has some answers to make such as how experts in the past have shown that it was Gleick who is the probable author of that memo….and how did they clear him? Just by accepting what he said? This organization has absolutely no morality or ethics. Of course, we could have said that before when we saw the “ethics” chair of the organization commit identity theft and probably wrote the false memo.

  60. Caleb says:

    He’s baaaack! And now he’s really, really hopping mad. Therefore it sjouldn’t be too long before he shoots his other foot.

    I wonder if these fellows have any idea what carttons they are.

  61. garymount says:

    I’m thinking of documenting all the malfeasance I’ve encountered during my climate science studies, but I’m waiting for 3 TB hard drives to get cheaper.

  62. George E. Smith; says:

    I thought he confessed to his crimes; maybe he’s catholic, and that’s all it takes for salvation.

  63. Adrian O says:

    THE ETHICS! THE ETHICS!

    When is an external investigation going to reinstate Gleick as an ethics watchdog?
    Are they going to let the AGU’s ethics on the fritz?

  64. Ted says:

    Naturally!

  65. chris y says:

    “An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute…”

    Translation-
    After consulting with our private donors, government granting agencies, NAS and IPCC contacts, the Pacific Insitutute has satisfied itself that Peter Gleick has not caused irreparable harm to our funding channels.

  66. noaaprogrammer says:

    “‘President Nixon has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the United States and run counter to the country’s policies and standard of ethics over its almost 200-year history. The Watergate Commission accepts President Nixon’s apology for his lapse in judgment. We look forward to his continuing leadership in the country’s ongoing and vital mission to advance its domestic and world agendas.'”

    Every crook would love 3 lashes with this kind of a wet noodle!

  67. Richard M says:

    One way to look at this is since they didn’t publish the investigation then just claim it didn’t happen. If anyone asked me about it I’d just say “what investigation?”.

  68. Kevin Ryan says:

    This was most likely a fait accompli from day one. Their investigation was going to tell us nothing about Gleick’s ethics, but rather the ethics, or lack thereof, of the board of the Pacific Institute.

  69. Rational Deb8 says:

    I’m just shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!! /sarc

    did anyone really expect anything different from these sorts? Truly disgusting, but there it is.

  70. Jolly farmer says:

    I just spoke to Ms Ross. She repeated the “independent counsel” line. We need to be ready for the Guardian and BBC to start their parroting.

  71. d says:

    Well it just shows what type of organization the Pacific Institute is. Maybe one day the greenies will stop listening to people like al gore and peter glelick etc

  72. Merovign says:

    We have to settle on a new name for them, like the Pacific Institute of Fraud, or the Pacific Criminal Institute, or whatever.

    If they actually disapproved, he wouldn’t be back. Maybe (*maybe*) a confessed criminal who humiliated his coworkers and organization could get a second chance at a regional meat-packing plant – but a research institute that depends on PR and its public image?

    They don’t care about what he did, and his suspension was a formality. In the “real world” people are fired and humiliated for posting risque personal ads to the local paper or “borrowing” office equipment.

  73. mfo says:

    I wonder if it was Nava & Gomez, Attorneys at Law.

    As an aside just enter Peter Gleick and see what comes up:

    http://www.instantcheckmate.com/

  74. Tom Murphy says:

    Truly, this is the birthday of AGW, as well as its ugly twin – CAGW, as a bona fide religion. The false penance by Gleick and the “private” selling of indulgences by the Pacific Institute were especially moving.

    If anyone had reason to doubt past assertions of whitewashing by official committees on previous deceit by the AGW faithful (e.g., Climategate 1 and 2), let the mendacious actions of the Pacific Institute be the prima facie example of the contempt Warmists have for humanity.

    To reiterate Gleick’s own words, “To those climate [alarmists] and [warmists] who don’t like [reality] and hence don’t care: please stop imposing your distorted sensibilities on the rest of us.” – http://tinyurl.com/3h4f3hs (Forbes link – dated October 4, 2011).

  75. Peter Laux says:

    Excellent ! This is the best possible result.

    This type of in house corruption repels the neutral fair minded. It screams, “stinking fish”!

    Their ability now to hold any moral or political high ground is even more severely compromised, if not ruined.

    In the egocentric minds of those in the Pacific Institute they have regained lost ground but in reality have lost more.

  76. John Terry says:

    WTF? No really….WTF?????????????????

  77. Pat Frank says:

    Wonder how long it’ll be before the NCSE sees its way clear to re-appoint Peter Gleick to its board.

  78. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Ric Werme says:
    June 6, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    No mention of the forged document, I wonder what the review board did with that part of the investigation.

    I think the next move will come from the Heartland Institute.

    I may be wrong, but I don’t recall anything at all from the good Dr. re the forged document. If my recollection is correct, then the weasel-worded statement could be strictly true; Gleick said nothing of the forgery and PI is only commenting on what he said in public, which would also include his admissions regarding potentially criminal acts. It seems they only wanted to know if what he said (or the final version) was reasonably accurate. They ignore the forgery because Gleick didn’t say anything about it. Some Jesuit or someone trained by them wrote this press release.

  79. Darren Potter says:

    By taking Gleick back the Pacific Institute has shown their true colors.
    Birds of a feather flock together.

  80. Bill H says:

    Integrity? Nope…. Everything done by the pacific institute is now suspect to fabrication and lies… way to go idiots… next thing ya know Obama will make him head of the EPA…. he will do anything illegal to get his agenda done..

  81. Robert of Ottawa says:

    As usual, the Warmistas hide their data, perform Pal Review and generally cover their arses.

    The Pacific whatever has no credibility; neither does Gleick. All we have here is a Pacific Institute press release proclaiming clenliness. This is obviously self-serving and unconvincing.

  82. Chris1958 says:

    What a mess!

  83. Mickey Reno says:

    “the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”

    Gleick is on the staff, isn’t he? Did you mean to say that “Other than our founder and president, none of the Pacific Institute’s staff knew of or was involved in any way.?”

  84. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Another falshood. I call out the Pacific Institute for merely issueing a press release of an “investigation”. I will not believe it until I know who the investigators were; what was investigated; see the records of the meetings held during the investigation and the minutes of those investigators.

    This is just normal behavior for the Warmistas. Simply make a statement and damn those who want to see, like, you know, actual evidence.

  85. u.k.(us) says:

    I hope somebody hands Governor Walker some bottled water to hold during that address, it would be great symbolism since Gleick had not the courage to fill that spot.
    ===========
    Ummmmmmmmmmmm,
    Nothing is as it seems.
    These guys play to WIN.

  86. Robert of Ottawa says:

    To restate my case more clearly:

    I do not believe ANY investigation took place because I am offered no evidence.

  87. George Daddis says:

    As I said indirectly below, all this statement says is that Gleick confessed to a crime and an independent group certified that he confessed to that crime. This is the epitome of hutzpah.

  88. Steve says:

    To me, this binds the Pacific Institute to Gleick for any future litigation by Heartland…clearly, he is their boy and his actions are their actions…

  89. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    What did you expect? He was cleared by a prestigious panel of noted ethical US climatologists: Hansen, Mann, Revkin, and Romm.

  90. MikeEE says:

    Odd turn of events in a time when executives are regularly fired for this type of unethical behavior. It really says a lot more about the Pacific Institute than it does about Peter Gleick, and none of it’s good.

  91. Skiphil says:

    This was not any impartial “investigation” but rather a legal and political process of deciding where they would make their stand. Evidently they believe they can best fight any future legal or public battles with Gleick inside the tent…. surely their “investigation” made sure no damaging evidence will be retained, and/or they have pulled it into a client/counsel confidentiality status. Clearly they have hunkered down and will simply fight all attempts at real investigation.

    Next move, Heartland….

  92. Glenn says:

    Holy moley! Romm is a certifiable nutjob. But likely not the only one that won’t realize how bad this all makes the Guardian, Gleick, the Pacific Institute, and Romm look. His “reversal of fortune” line is a hoot!

  93. James Sexton says:

    We win! :-) More than climategate, Gleick proves our case!

  94. Jeremy says:

    You would think that a communications professional like Nancy Ross would be capable of writing English!

    “It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.”

    You mean”personal matter”! How pathetic!

  95. Gail Combs says:

    ”This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”
    _____________________________________
    ERRRrrrr Pacific Institute I hate to tell you YOUR PRESIDENT is a self-confessed criminal who practiced identity fraud, I would say that that means your staff WAS involved. You know the big dude at the top.

  96. Mark says:

    Did anybody expect anything else? Think of the billions of stolen dollars at stake here.

  97. Paul Coppin says:

    It seems that many of you still require the short course in Liberal moral relativism. He’s back because that segment of society doesn’t care about what you think, because you are inherently defective, and any means necessary to rout you out is just fine, perfectly acceptable and appropriately just. Deniers get no consideration because they are fundamentally flawed, wrong. and corrupt. In Liberal moral relativism you don’t actually count, and you are an impediment to a “just society” and are therefore quite expendable . There is no moral failure in dispensing with deniers (or conservatives).
    Liberal moral relativists only counsel themselves, and any action that furthers the cause is just. The means is simply irrelevant.

  98. Gunga Din says:

    Merovign says:
    June 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    We have to settle on a new name for them, like the Pacific Institute of Fraud, or the Pacific Criminal Institute, or whatever.
    =============================================================
    I still like “The Pathetic Institute”.

  99. Gail Combs says:

    Andrew says:
    June 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Heartland did a huge mistake with the billboard thing and not prosecuting Gleick
    _________________________________________
    Bringing a case to court is up to the District Attorney and not Heartland if the charges are criminal.

    All Heartland can do is sue for damages in a civil suit. At this point if I was Heartland, I would wait a bit and see just how many big Corporate sponsors pull funding because their names were made public and they are getting pressure from the Eco-bots. I would also time my lawsuit to come just before the November elections so it makes a big news splash.

    Pacific Institute has just made themselves a big wide target for Heartland by reinstating Gleick. BTW If a friend who makes flags got named in a lawsuit (with all other US flag manufacturers) and had to PAY because some idiot got his arm broken folding a flag made by another company, I would certainly not be trusting the American court system to protect me.

    I bet the “independent investigation” run by Pacific Institute had absolutely nothing to do with the ethics of the situation and had everything to do with how open Pacific Institute is to criminal charges or a civil suit. That would certainly explain why Pacific Institute is being so closed mouth about the whole situation but feels comfortable with bringing Gleick back on board.

  100. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ Jeremy on June 6, 2012 at 7:29 pm:

    Either that was (bad) sarcasm, or you’re unaware that personnel is a real word, with a real definition. I linked to it for you, just in case.

  101. Jarryd Beck says:

    The guy should have been fired, posing as a board member of another company to access secret information is not something that one just “apologises” for and all is forgiven. Clearly the Pacific Institute is as bad as Gleick.

  102. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:

    To take a page from MSM reporting of the Wisconsin recall election:

    Breaking news: Gleick narrowly survives independent investigation; could be indicted any day now …

  103. Ha, Anthony, I read your suggestion for the Governor to have a bottled water in his hand. Knowing the hoax of some bottled waters, I recalled the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, during the torch relay. Quoting from http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/display/category/student_pranks/

    “Cross-country champion Harry Dillon was scheduled to bear the flame into Sydney, where he would present it to the mayor, Pat Hills. After making a short speech, Hills would pass the flame along to another runner, Bert Button.
    Thirty-thousand people lined the streets of Sydney waiting for Dillon to arrive. Reporters stood ready with their cameras to record the historic occasion. Finally the runner appeared, bearing the flame aloft, and everyone began cheering. As the crowd pressed forward a police escort surrounded the runner in order to keep order.
    With this escort around him, the runner made his way through the streets all the way to the Sydney Town Hall. He bounded up the steps and handed the torch to the waiting mayor who graciously accepted it and turned to begin his prepared speech.
    Then someone whispered in the mayor’s ear, “That’s not the torch.” Suddenly the mayor realized what he was holding. Held proudly in his hand was not the majestic Olympic flame. Instead he was gripping a wooden chair leg topped by a plum pudding can inside of which a pair of kerosene-soaked underwear was burning with a greasy flame. The mayor looked around for the runner, but the man had already disappeared, melting away into the surrounding crowd. (The handle was pained in silver paint, still wet, adding to the discomfort. Seen on national TV.)

    Maybe the URL above is a candidate repository for the Gleick story?

  104. Mark says:

    The “investigation” commissioned by the board of directors was likely focused on the degree to which the Pacific Institute, and more importantly its board members, might be criminally or civilly liable. The investigation had nothing to do with right and wrong. D&O (director and officer) liability insurance is expensive and has caps on liability. If the board could be actually liable (or even end up looking culpable) for serious charges they would all be heading for the exits.

  105. William McClenney says:

    We really do need an ice age…………….

  106. EthicallyCivil says:

    If the investigation “cleared” him, why was it important to note that none of the institute staff had anything to do with it?

  107. Katherine says:

    This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.

    Apparently, the Pathetic Institute mean “staff” in the sense of “a group of officers appointed to assist a civil executive or commanding officer”; in which case, the investigation didn’t look into Gleick’s actions, just those of the little people.

  108. GaryM says:

    Hopefully Heartland will file suit, then subpoena the Pacific Institute for all documents regarding the “investigation.” The usual battery of FOIA objections commonly used to withhold documents wouldn’t apply in civil discovery. There’s no chance the documents could be withheld then.

    And if Heartland was willing to spend a few more bucks, they could take the depositions of the “investigators.” That would make fascinating reading.

  109. geoffchambers says:

    By chance an undated photocopy of the investigation report has come into my hands. I’ll be forwarding it to WUWT in a plain brown envelope.

  110. By chance an undated photocopy of the investigation report has come into my hands. I’ll be forwarding it to WUWT in a plain brown envelope. Please don’t mention my name, and destroy the envelope.

  111. J.Hansford says:

    It is a sign of the changing times.

    It is a coup to have Governor Walker address the Heartland Annual Dinner…. The Pacific Institute should bear in mind that both the tide of politics and science is turning against them… If they and people like them, continue to be the aggressors in a propaganda war against scientific principles and common decency. If they continue to use pseudo science and outright chicanery to promote detrimental political agendas, they in the future, may find themselves bought to account in an atmosphere totally different to the one that they currently enjoy.

    I don’t say this with any relish or childish triumphalism. The truth is, despite the conservative, decent people that we be, we have little influence ultimately over those who crave power and attain it. Just as we have no real power now, except to appeal to those with decency themselves…. and it is heartening to see that Governor Walker sides with the decent and courteous.

    I would suggest that the Pacific Institute set to rights their commitment to scientific rigour and debate. Perhaps Peter Gleick should ask for an invitation to attend, to apologize and to debate…. Just for starters.

  112. Bill Tuttle says:

    “…his actions…run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history.”

    Gleick founded PI — his ethics *are* PI’s ethics, and they’re obviously situational.

    It’s official — warmie “independent investigation” is now synonymous with warmie “peer review.”

  113. MJW says:

    Gleick got a double secret exoneration.

  114. Grant says:

    “The Task Force on Scientific Ethics for the well-respected American Geophysical Union has quietly expunged the name of committee chairman Peter H. Gleick from its website — following Gleick’s admission that he used a false identity to obtain confidential documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank.”

    We’re watching.

  115. A. Scott says:

    Pacific admits he violated their ethics polices. Gleick CONFESSED he committed a crime and breached every possible ethical standard in existence.

    But everything is OK because he “apologized”…. to THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS!

    I too am glad they have chosen this route. They have shown the nation and the world that ethics are no longer of ANY importance to them – that even eggregious violation and confessed unlawful acts are just fine as long as you apologize to your Board of Directors.

    Ask Best Buy founder Dick Schulze how he feels about that. He failed to report alleged wrongdoing (later found unjustified) by the then CEO – taking the complaint direct to the CEO instead of to the Board. Despite the Boards finding there was NO misuse of company property etc they removed Schulze as Chairman, and he will also leave Board at end of current term.

    The Pacific Institute is simply full of equestrian excrement – right up to their disgusting little eyeballs.

  116. A. Scott says:

    Here is their Board of Directors:

    Board of Directors

    Peter Boyer, Trustee of The Ayrshire Foundation, member of the National Advisory Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Chair for Rocky Mountain Institute National Solutions Council.

    Gigi Coe, former Director of Strategic Planning at the California Public Utilities Commission and former Assistant Executive Director, California Energy Commission.

    Joan M. Diamond, Chairperson, Chief Operating Officer/Sr. Scenarist at The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability. Consults for policy and research organizations undergoing major change.

    Dr. Anne H. Ehrlich, Senior Research Associate, Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University.

    Dr. Eric Gimon, postdoctoral researcher in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Dr. Peter H. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.

    Dr. Corey Goodman, Managing Director and co-founder of venBio LLC; Adjunct Professor at UCSF; Chairman of the Board of Second Genome, Oligasis, and Ossianix; member of the Board of NeuroTherapeutics and Mirna; elected member of the National Academy of Sciences; and member of the California Council on Science and Technology.

    Margaret Gordon, Second Vice-President of the Board of Port of Oakland Commissioners and a founding member of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project.

    Dr. Malo André Hutson, Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Department of City and Regional Planning, specializing in community and economic development, regional planning, and urban health.

    Olivier J. Marie, business strategist, former Partner at Accenture and Booz Allen & Hamilton, Energy Analyst. Works with MBA students from the Haas School of Business New Sector Alliance helping non-profit organizations.

    Richard Morrison, former Senior Vice President and Director of Environmental Policies & Programs, Bank of America.

    Dr. Robert Stephens, founder and former President of the Multi-State Working Group on Environmental Performance (MSWG). Retired in 2004 as the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management and Sustainability at the California Environmental Protection Agency, he is currently the Chair of the International Committee of MSWG and serves as Secretariat to the United Nations Environmental Program, Best Practices Network for Sustainable Development.

    Professor Michael J. Watts, Professor, Geography Department at the University of California, Berkeley where he specializes in Third World development, forestry issues, and world geography.

  117. A. Scott says:

    And here is their “Funders List” …

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/funders_2011.pdf

    I DO NOT ADVOCATE nasty responses to either Board of Directors or their funders. That said well expressed, honest, civil comments would be well appropriate in my opinion.

    Anthony/Mods feel free to remove any of this if you feel appropriate, but it is direct from their website.

  118. jonathan frodsham says:

    I knew this would happen, you see to the warmists Glieck is a hero. He will have even more power now. Heartland should have prosecuted him.

  119. NZ Willy says:

    It’s funny, but when I “connect the dots”, I get that the “independent investigator” was none other than Suzanne Goldenberg herself !?! It would explain everything.

  120. Luther Wu says:

    They’ve taken more rope… with which to hang themselves.

  121. Glenn says:

    “Climate Science Watch”, a program of the “Government Accountability Project” according to Wiki, which receives funding from Soros’ Open Society Institute, supposedly promoting corporate
    accountability by protecting whistleblowers – “welcomes” Gleick’s reinstatement:

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/06/06/pacific-institute-reinstates-peter-gleick-after-heartland-institute-incident/

    For some odd reason I get this feeling that they only want to hold accountable those that do not drive around only making left hand turns.

  122. ferd berple says:

    We are not sure who wrote the report exonerating Glieck, but the writing style looks a lot like the forgeries.

  123. DavidA says:

    Can we now refer to her as Suzanne ‘Nostradamus’ Goldenberg?

  124. Skeptic says:

    That Gleick was reinstated was pretty much a given. No matter the extent of the lie, the data corruption or the crime all are justifiable, understandable and accepted within the alarmist cabal.
    What I want to know is will one of these people be brought before a judge and jury. This pussy-footing around has been going on too long. I want to see someone’s head on a pike!

  125. Chris B says:

    George E. Smith; says:
    June 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    I thought he confessed to his crimes; maybe he’s catholic, and that’s all it takes for salvation.
    ————
    Were Gleick Catholic he’d have to make amends, where doing so would not further harm the aggrieved party, he’d have to resolve not to repeat the error and he’d have to do penance, among other things, for the “serious lapse in judgement” to be forgiven.

    It appears the Passivic Institute is far more lenient.

  126. davidmhoffer says:

    I think I understand. Itz all about the staff, not the president.

    See, Nixon said he knew nothing and did nothing, but his staff knew something, so he was guilty.

    Now Gleick is totaly different. Gleick said he did something, but his staff knew nothing, so he is innocent.

    From now on, the police will not need to bother questioning suspects, only their staff. Makes a ton of sense when you think it through.

  127. Ben of Houston says:

    Three to one says that a marijuana possession conviction means you are ineligible to sweep their floors, but confess to multiple federal felonies that exactly undermine your credibility and get your job back.

  128. Phil Ford says:

    Gleick’s reinstatement is bad enough, but the arrogance of the Pacific Institute is simply breathtaking. They are a total laughing stock, completely devoid of any moral authority and without doubt have scored another (yes, yet another) own-goal with their patronising prevarication and deliberate obfuscation. Taking the public for fools is probably not a wise policy direction, going forwards.

    The thought of having to endure the sneering, hectoring tones of an allegedly ‘exonerated’ (hah!) Gleick as we go into another dismal round of Rio+20 propagandising is truly depressing. I hope all climate realists will use every opportunity available to remind Gleick and his craven paymasters (and shameless supporters in the media) that just saying something is so, doesn’t make it so.

    2 + 2 does not make 5. It never will, not matter how urgently they insist otherwise.

  129. James Allison says:

    Its unlikely the PI could lower the bar any further without touching the ground.

  130. HomerS says:

    Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics.

    So he’s an ethical retard.

  131. John Bills says:

    (The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for) his lapse in judgment…..

    Excuse me while I puke.

  132. Smokey says:

    James Allison,

    PI is doing the ultimate 2-dimensional Flatlander Limbo!

    There is exactly zero clearance between the bar and the ground.

  133. alex says:

    Excuse me, was there any doubt? A very logical move of PI.

    PG is a hero and PI desperately needs him as a director.

    Anybody who would expect anything different has his head in the clouds.

  134. mfo says:

    Perhaps it is a publicity stunt connected to “Last Call at the Oasis” ……..”the film is a shallow left-wing screed with commentary from a coterie of disreputable activists. That’s hardly surprising, given that it comes from Participant Media, the same folks who produced Al Gore’s propagandistic “An Inconvenient Truth. Commentator Peter Gleick is exhibit number one.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/06/06/oasis-film-is-an-intellectual-desert/

    Gleick appears at 1.50

  135. Bill Tuttle says:

    James Allison says:
    June 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm
    Its unlikely the PI could lower the bar any further without touching the ground.

    Even as we speak, there’s a flatbed trailer hauling a Ditch Witch approaching the front gate…

  136. Leo G says:

    “Independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way (in what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute).”
    What on earth does that mean? That Dr. Gleick was not a Pacific Institute staff member? If staff knew of then they were not involved, and if staff were involved they did not know of? That the independent review conducted by the non-independent outside counsel supported something that Dr. Gleick said publicly about his dealings with the Heartland Institute?

  137. David Jones says:

    Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment.

    Clearly “The Institute” and Gleick are irrefutably ethically challenged. Furthermore each and every individual board member of PI is likewise ethically challenged, otherwise they would not be prepared to be associated with something as shonky as this. In addition each other organisation with which the board members is publicly associated is likewise drawn into this mess as it is seen to have a member of its board (or “advisor” or other euphemism) who is publicly ethically challenged. They need to be called on this matter, every one of them.

  138. tallbloke says:

    Gunga Din says:
    June 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm
    Merovign says:
    June 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    We have to settle on a new name for them, like the Pacific Institute of Fraud, or the Pacific Criminal Institute, or whatever.
    =============================================================
    I still like “The Pathetic Institute”.
    ==============================================================
    The Pass-if-Gleick Institute

  139. tallbloke says:

    A. Scott says:
    June 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm
    And here is their “Funders List” …

    http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/funders_2011.pdf

    I DO NOT ADVOCATE nasty responses to either Board of Directors or their funders. That said well expressed, honest, civil comments would be well appropriate in my opinion.

    Two names on there of immediate interest:

    The US EPA and the Gulbenkian Foundation, which the warmies accused of being big oil deniers when they funded the Lisbon Workshop I attended.

    And from the directors list:

    Richard Morrison, former Senior Vice President and Director of Environmental Policies & Programs, Bank of America.

    Follow the money.

  140. David Jones says:

    I have posted a comment at “Climate Science Watch” which is a shorter version of my comment regarding all associated with this being ethically challenged. I very much doubt that any moderator will allow it through!

  141. hro001 says:

    NZ Willy says: June 6, 2012 at 10:18 pm

    It’s funny, but when I “connect the dots”, I get that the “independent investigator” was none other than Suzanne Goldenberg herself !?! It would explain everything.

    And in the rather conspicuous absence of any evidence to the contrary, I found The Goldenberg Factor to be highly suspect, as well.

    Readers might be interested in my dot-connecting exercise in which I conclude that it may be time to call in the used car salesmen – in order to inject a note (however feint) of integrity into the fields of “climate science”, environmental advocacy and “reporting”:

    Prophets of doom forecasting gloom … while Gleick re-enters his room

  142. Bob Sullivan says:

    Why would any organization want a leader who will hereafter be known as the ethically-challenged Peter Gleick?

  143. “…An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute…”

    So they say that they support THIS public statement:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

    “…Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

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

    Peter Gleick

    So that statement from PI can be truthfully edited to say “…An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick (the President of the Pacific Institute) has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute, that is, he “…solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…”

    And they’re OK with that?

    Truly insane…

  144. Jaz says:

    They are morally bankrupt and obsessed with grants and position.

    Not that any of it matters, the public don’t give a monkeys about global warming.

  145. Berényi Péter says:

    Is Being “Morally Challenged” a Disability?

    If yes, we may be in serious trouble with Gleick.

  146. Mark says:

    So, as I see it, Gleick has NOT been “cleared” as Ms. Goldberg claims. They have simply accepted his version of events – “Yes, I was a naughty boy and acted unethically and possibly illegally in obtaining the confidential property of a third party, but (cue smoke and mirrors) I definitely did not fake that faked document over there, honest, scout’s honour”.

    The narrow definition of their release seems to be that “no-one found any evidence that Gleick forged the fake document”, which is almost certainly because 1) nobody looked for any and 2) the only possible evidence would come from Gleick himself and he’s hardly likely to fess up.

    So, we’re left in to position where PI accept and apparently condone the fact that one of their staff “fraudulently” obtained third party documentation. They noticeably don’t feel the need to apoloigise ON BEHALF OF PI to Heartland for their staff’s “lapse of judgement” and for his actions which “run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics”, but are satisfied that his personal apology to their own board is sufficient. In no area of business would this be acceptable. Not one.

    I’d also be interested to know whether this investigation considered whether Gleick used any PI facilities, equipment or technology in the course of obtaining the Heartland documents. If he did, he could be said to be acting on behalf of PI, which brings them uncomfortably close to a seat next to him in the dock.

  147. Scarface says:

    “I am glad to be back and thank everyone for continuing their important work at the Pacific Institute during my absence,”

    OMG this man has a HUGE ego.

    Don’t worry though. He will make a similar ‘mistake’ since he learned nothing of it.
    In fact, he only got rewarded for his crime. That will stimulate him to continue his misbehaving.

  148. Harriet Harridan says:

    This is great news. The PI is now just another CAGW shrill organisation that nobody will take seriously.

  149. The report found that the emperor is wearing clothes!

  150. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:

    Saw the name …. that is not a bad idea! We sceptics could do with encouraging more professional standards.

    Not sure of the name but off the top of my head the course would include:
    1. The philosophical basis of science
    2. The history & development of climate science from the 18th to 21st century
    3. The history and development of climate models (stasis, milankovitch cycles, Camp century cycles, CO2, solar, etc.)
    4. A closer look at CO2 + feedbacks (the current theory)
    – sources of CO2 & attribution to mankind
    – CO2 warming radiative warming
    – Calculating direct warming response
    – sources of feedbacks and evidence
    – predicted effects and evidence
    5. Solar models, changing sulphate levels and other overlooked drivers.
    6. Noise, natural variation and statistics of climatic signals
    7. The development of Environmentalism & the global perspective
    8. A study of the marketing methods of environmentalists.
    9. The political and legislative framework of carbon markets
    10. Marketing, PR, & engaging with political process

  151. A Lovell says:

    What was the alternative for them? To sack him? To discipline him? To admit he is a criminal? To admit he has gone so far beyond the realms of acceptable behaviour and the scientific method that he is irredeemable? Or that his actions were utterly unacceptable in any context?

    They simply couldn’t do it. They are so far into denial, and have painted themselves into such a tiny corner there was simply nothing for it but to exonerate him. They just couldn’t do anything else.

    This is a sad, but inevitable outcome. Fortunately, it will serve to work against the very goal they seek to achieve. That is what we can take from this development.

  152. Adam Gallon says:

    I’ve shamelessly copied & pasted the Nixon allogry, as posted above, onto Romm’s forum. I bet it gets deleted pdq!

  153. Jimbo says:

    Imagine if Dr. Roy Spencer had carried out the actions of the wire fraudster and self confessed liar Peter Gleick. What about Anthony Watts?

  154. Phil Ford says:
    June 6, 2012 at 11:33 pm
    2 + 2 does not make 5. It never will, not matter how urgently they insist otherwise.

    Oh yes it will. As soon as it’d be enough to inform the authorities about your neighbor saying that 2 + 2 doesn’t make 5 for your neighbor and his family to end up in labor camps, and for you to get his property, everyone and his dog will be singing “2 + 2 makes 5!” in America, as they do in Russia, and as they are learning to do now in the European Union.

    Who are you to say that 2 + 2 doesn’t make 5? Your educational and scientific credentials, please. Your tax forms for last 12 years, please. When, exactly, did you stop raping your daughter? Step outside and get in the van, please. Yes, that one, with bars on the windows. What did you say? What warrant? Here’s your warrant [a ruthless poke in your teeth by the AK-47 butt].

    In Russia, they’ll beat you to death for saying things much more obvious than “2 + 2 = 4.” Here, in the supposedly “free” world, they ban you from almost any forum for almost any attempt to tell the most basic rational truth. Even here, on WUWT, a pathetic “Peace Corps hero” is lecturing skeptics about his pot-smoked parasitic views on life — and many find it in themselves to praise him. The same people will quickly find it in themselves to agree that 2 + 2 does makes 5, don’t you worry.

    You still think that Green Faith is funny, somehow? Or do you hope that some entertaining yourself with Excel graphs would stop anything or shame anybody? They’ve got all the power and all the money, all your institutions, schools, and media outlets are under their control, and they couldn’t care less if you prove them wrong. Go ahead, keep telling yourselves that “we are winning.”

    Gores, Gleicks, Krugmans and Hansens drink champagne and laugh in your face. Today. Now.

  155. richard verney says:

    just some guy says:
    June 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    I would not place the bar as high as that.

    In my opinion, the issue is: did he put forward as true and without caveats a document that he had reasonable grounds for considering the authenticity of which to be suspect? Of course, if he faked the document, he would have breached that test. Likewise, if he had either reasonable grounds for suspecting his source to be unreliable or ‘dodgy’ or even if he considered the contents of the document itself to be suspicious and therefore unlikely to be accurate.

  156. Jimbo says:

    What if Heartland impersonated a board member of the Pacific Institute to get documents? What if the US President behaved the way Gleick did? Answer: Heartland would be savaged and the US President would be impeached. As for Gleick he gets a slap on the wrist to return to ethics matters. Wow!

  157. Steve C says:

    “The Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity”?? Bwahahahaaa! Perm any one from three. No, not that one …

  158. Glenn says:

    richard verney says:
    June 7, 2012 at 2:45 am

    “In my opinion, the issue is: did he put forward as true and without caveats a document that he had reasonable grounds for considering the authenticity of which to be suspect? Of course, if he faked the document, he would have breached that test. Likewise, if he had either reasonable grounds for suspecting his source to be unreliable or ‘dodgy’ or even if he considered the contents of the document itself to be suspicious and therefore unlikely to be accurate.”

    Gleick claims that he conned Heartland into their docs after he received the memo from an anonymous source, in order to verify the memo. That is a very lame story.
    The author of the memo does seem to have had some inside knowledge of Heartland accounts, mainly just putting a spin on them and adding a little lie or two.
    The implication of this is that either someone with inside info provided Gleick with the memo, or someone just had real good guesses about Heartland and sent it to Gleick, or Gleick forged the memo after he stole the other authentic docs.
    IMO, most likely the latter. In any event, Gleick owns the memo as the real docs do not verify the language in the forged memo. He is at least as guilty as he would be were he telling the truth about an anonymous source sending him the memo and sending it off without considering its authenticity.

  159. Georgegr says:

    Dr. Gleick is not cleared. The investigation finding only verifies Dr. Gleicks public confession statement as correct. In teh rpess release cited above and the follow up email from the Pacific Institute does not state clearly that Gleick did not worte the forged memo or that he was not involved in its making in any way. Why not? That is whatt everyone want an answer to. Strangely weak statement, heh?

    It is then interesting to go back and analyse Dr. Gleicks public confession which is now supposedly verified by the review. The thing is that the public confession by Gleick was worded very careful and ambigious way so that it creates the appearance for the casual reader that Dr. Gleick denies having written the forged memo, while in fact he does no such thing. I am a lawyer and I know weasel words when I see them… For sure, he did not formulate that “confession” all by himself.

    The ambiguioty of his confession was commented on a number of times when the public statement was made. I repost with some edits from the confession thread:
    ********************
    “JJ says:
    February 20, 2012 at 10:24 pm
    Joe Bast Says:

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

    NO HE DOES NOT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So when the Pacific Institute and the report now use equally careful wording as the orginal confession statement, what do they really say? Notice also how the subsequent email carefully parrots the lines on the “findings” from the press release:

    “The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”

    In fact, none of the statements say much at all and Pacific Institute certainly do not in any way deny that Gleick wrote the memo. Why not!? In stead the press release and email only say that the investigation “SUPPORTED WHAT DR: GLEICK PUBLICLY STATED”. This is circular reasoning.

    I believe a direct question to the Pacific Institue is in order:
    1. Did the investigation conclude that Gleick did not write the forged memo?” and;
    2. Did the investigation confirm that Gleick was not in any way involved with the production of the forged memo, directly or indirectly?”; and
    3. Did the investigation confirm that Gleick had no reason to believe that the memo did not originate from Heartland?”

    Ask those questions and see what the answer is. My guess is that the will weasel away from them. If so – we know the answer. If they answer properly and confirm that Gleick had nothing to do with the creation of the forged memo”

  160. Blade says:

    Pacific Institute reinstates Peter Gleick

    “The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute…

    That is just stunningly idiotic. We can now accurately call the Pacific Institute a criminal organization, because it is an organization that employs confessed criminals!.

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

    In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.

    The only question is, who is more stupid? The Pacific Institute for being idiotic enough to welcome the perp back, or, Peter Gleick for agreeing to return and ruin whatever reputation they may have previously enjoyed.

  161. Bill Tuttle says:

    “…An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute…”

    His interaction, in this instance, consisted of admissions of identity theft, theft by deception, and wire fraud, all of which are felonies. Any bets as to when “a decent interval” will elapse and he’ll be hitting the lecture trail again to pontificate on about scientific ethics and integrity?

  162. Jimbo says:

    A crime has been committed. It’s now up to the authorities to do their job. Heartland now needs to take legal action or remain silent on the matter.

  163. mac says:

    A dishonest scientist accepted back into the fold by a discredited organisation. That’s climate science for you.

  164. Lars P. says:

    A Lovell says:
    June 7, 2012 at 2:03 am
    “What was the alternative for them?”

    As Jimbo says:
    June 7, 2012 at 2:54 am
    “What if Heartland impersonated a board member of the Pacific Institute ”

    What would one expect to happen to the person who would put in circulation a totally false statement about PI strategic plans – put there what you imagine – and what would people expect Heartland to do in such case?
    The relativisation of ethics is a huge blow to a civil society.
    It is sad, these exonerations, whitewashes and push of dirt under the carpet instead of properly addressing the issue make the situation only worse.
    This socio-religious movement has its own ethics and logic. The ethic that is ok to lie to your opponent, to achieve the greater good. The logic to harm your opponent by all means is ok to achieve the greater good of their vision. It is not new tactics and morale, we’ve seen it before.
    They do not want to discuss science or to use proper ethics, so it remains our work to bring the discussion back to science and show the flaws of their ethics to the larger public, again and again.
    We need to turn each stone that they put in their construction and show the cockroaches to the public, from pyramid schemes, “ethics”, “scientific work”, pal-review and so on. What a world of filth and decay under the facade.
    Very sad indeed. Wonder who will be distancing themselves and not participating in meetings where PI and PG will be part?

  165. mac says:

    Does this mean that Peter Gleick and the Pacific Institute now qualify for the their own 2012 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award?

    If it does there can be no finer recipient than Peter Gleick.

  166. Jace F says:

    It’s probably going to do more damage to the credability of the other Whitewashes in the long term.

  167. Steve in SC says:

    I suspect that Gleick founded the Pacific Institute in order to launder grant money and to give himself a cloak of expertise. I believe it to be a sham organization.

  168. Gail Combs says:

    James Allison says:
    June 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm

    Its unlikely the PI could lower the bar any further without touching the ground.
    _______________________________________________
    At this point they would have to reach WAY UP to make it to the sewer.

    The sad part is how many people will see nothing wrong with the whole mess.

  169. mac says:

    Obviously a climate scientist being cleared by an independent panel is not the same as normal justice being done and being seen to be done.

    Post-Normal Justice has now entered the climate science lexicon.

  170. Jimbo says:

    There is another important question. Did Gleick use the Pacific Institutes computers to carry out his acts against Heartland?

  171. barn E. rubble says:

    Has the Heartland Ins. &/or all/any of the affected donors not pursued further legal avenues for redress? Have no charges been considered in any jurisdiction?

  172. techgm says:

    The true shame is that no one will be surprised by this.
    BTW, given the response, “It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter,” does the Pacific Institute receive any public funds?

  173. Georgegr says:

    Sorry for the spelling errors and half baked content of my 3:22 post. It was accidentally submitted before proof reading. Still, the content is more or less what I wanted to say.

    Gleick is by no means “cleared” of writing the forged memo. At least, judging by the press release, the investigation made no such finding.

    In fact, all circumstantial evidence so far points clearly at Dr. Gleick, in my opinion. This evidence now includes the fact that neither Dr. Gleick in his confession nor the investigation and subsequent press release make it clear that Dr. Gleick did not write the forged memo, despite that this is the obvious million dollar question that everyone wanted an answer to.

    A clear finding of no such involvement on Gleick’s behalf would of course be of great importance and would be shouted loud and clear from the rooftops by teh Pacific Institute and Dr. Gleick. Instead all we get is more ambiguity with circular reasoning – weasel words! Why I wonder… Well not really. I think that speaks for itself.

    It all reminds me of Bill Clinton’s statement “I did not have sex with that woman” (depending of the definition of “sex” of course…).

    Looking at the carefully worded statements, even if Dr. Gleick did forge the memo, the statements do not constitute a lie. Of course, they are misleading but not an outright lie. No doubt the usual suspects at the Guardian, the New York Times etc. will do their job, parroting on and portraying the statement as proof of Dr. Gleick not forging the memo, forgetting to mention the other, confessed illegalities (not newsworthy anymore). Objective achieved! Gleick is cleared in the eyes of the public. This is how things work all to often in those circles.

  174. Gail Combs says:

    Alexander Feht says: @ June 7, 2012 at 2:39 am

    ……Who are you to say that 2 + 2 doesn’t make 5? Your educational and scientific credentials, please. Your tax forms for last 12 years, please. When, exactly, did you stop raping your daughter? Step outside and get in the van, please. Yes, that one, with bars on the windows. What did you say? What warrant? Here’s your warrant [a ruthless poke in your teeth by the AK-47 butt]……
    _____________________________________
    Unfortunately I am afraid you are correct. All one has to do is look at the Senator from Chappaquiddick to see how well “truth” can be spun for the rich and powerful. If it was you or me driving that car we would still be in jail instead of “serving” in the Senate for over forty years.

    In 1969 America proved to the world we are not a nation ruled by law but a nation ruled by power and money.

  175. Luther Wu says:

    techgm says:
    June 7, 2012 at 5:01 am

    The true shame is that no one will be surprised by this.
    _________________________
    That was exactly my thought: “I’m not surprised”… and few will be surprised.

  176. Luther Wu says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 7, 2012 at 4:30 am

    The sad part is how many people will see nothing wrong with the whole mess.
    ____________________
    There will be far more people who know the action for what it is, but will loudly defend it as gospel.
    I’m not sure if I could call it sad, it’s just the way it is.

  177. Shevva says:

    It’s all about politics and not about science, it has never been about science, I really do believe everyone needs to start understanding this, different rules apply.

  178. Bill Tuttle says:

    techgm says:
    June 7, 2012 at 5:01 am
    BTW, given the response, “It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter,” does the Pacific Institute receive any public funds?

    Oh, yes, indeedy. About $1,584,350 from the EPA, for one — which info has been scrubbed from the EPA’s grants database, but drop in at JunkScience-dot-com for a screenshot chuckle. For starters, PI got $200K for its “Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program,” which is greenie gobbledy-gook for “a couple of people sitting around a table throwing ideas at the wall to see which one sticks”…

    http://junkscience.com/2012/02/24/more-grants-to-gleick-scrubbed-from-epa-grants-database/

  179. Midwest Mark says:

    “These are not the droids you’re looking for. Move along, move along.”

  180. Pamela Gray says:

    There have been other religions who have “independently” investigated a member clergyman, even a top clergyman, forgiven him, and moved forward…to the next time, and the next time, and the next time. Even conservative institutions have played that forgiveness game. I remember several quite funny public pulpit confessions replete with sobbing theatrics from the one caught with his hand in the cookie. And sure enough, they got to continue with their religious flock because they forgave him. Gleick and the flock that forgave him, have now joined the ranks for many such buffoons.

  181. Andrew Greenfield says:

    OT but this is in my view as a scientist far far more important than this silly Gleick affair

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/7/another-hockey-stick-broken.html

    In the end, it will be this story about selective picking of trees and total statistical non-significance ie Yamal and now Gerbis SH Hockey Stick scandal, that can be used to destroy the AGW team. Also of course the reduction of old temperatures by NCDC to show recent warming will also be brought into the court case as De Facto evidence of fraud. Nothing will change (even without all these sensational postings) until some person/politician with clout is prepared to pay big bucks to initiate legal proceedings. I think AGW will collapse very quickly once claims for compensation start.

  182. matthu says:

    “In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.”

    The trouble (as I see it) is that it is difficult to pinpoint any property or honest services that Heartland have been intentionally deprioved of.

    Information, yes – Property, no. (I think Heartland even admitted that their donations had increased subsequent to Fakegate.)

  183. papiertigre says:

    Any bets as to when “a decent interval” will elapse and he’ll be hitting the lecture trail again to pontificate on about scientific ethics and integrity?

    I’m going with 17 days. 17 days later Peter Gleick is back in the saddle, Donna Laframboise reported on March 9, 2012.

  184. Pittzer says:

    This is like watching Charlie Sheen.

  185. copner says:

    Somebody slipped a copy of a document under my door. I can not verify it, especially since it is not on headed paper, and is unsigned and undated, but I propose to scan it, create a GMail account called pacificinstinsider@gmail.com, and then send it out with various genuine Pacific Institute PDFs (I’ve downloaded their form 990 from their site for this) to various media outlets.

    The text begins…

    June 2012
    Confidential Memo: 2012 Pacific Institute Investigation

    Given the increasingly controversial issues relating to the interactions between Dr. Gleick (a high-profile climate scientist), and anti-climate organzations such as the Heartland Institute, it is useful to evaluate the set of interactions.I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Seriously, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

    Heartland are obviously in the right on the Gleick issue. And Gleick is a self admitted liar and fraudster, and that’s even before we get to the obviously forged document.

    But unless Heartland sue, the story that will be recorded forever more, is that Gleick exposed Heartland, and the forged memo will be used as a stick to beat Heartland forever more.

    Yes, their donations may have gone up in the short-term, but their reputation has been sullied, and their confidential information stolen and used against them.

  186. copner says:

    @matthu

    I believe information is covered.

    But even if it’s not, they has been an attempt to deprive Heartland of services, for example, by exposing people they work with (such as consultants, and attendees of their conferences) and then targeting them via their employers.

  187. Richdo says:

    “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” – Megan McArdle, re Peter Gleick confession, Feb 21, 2012. . http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

    Any doubt that this applies more broadly to the PI and any gleick appologists should now be errased.

    On a positive note … the obumber administration can/will now claim that their policies (i.e. lack of investigation and prosecution of a crime) have saved or created another “green job”.

  188. 26south says:

    Heartland should sue or everyone should drop this. It is going nowhere and only a civil court case could resolve the issues. This is getting boring.

  189. EEB says:

    Gleick is back on the job?! Thank God! For a while there I feared mankind was certainly doomed.

    I’m going to play my Starland Vocal Band records ALL DAY LONG!

  190. Coach Springer says:

    What they meant: “After an independent investigation, it has been revealed that no one else wanted the position so we’re stuck with Gleick. We are confident that it won’t make that big a difference to those who support us. What it will mean to governments and others who we intend to influence will have to be determined later. The may already know we are committed ideologues devoted to Malthusian actiivism in which case it won’t matter and we won’t even have to pretend to factual science.”

  191. Chuck Nolan says:

    A. Scott says:
    June 6, 2012 at 9:39 pm
    Here is their Board of Directors:
    ………Dr. Peter H. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security…..
    ————
    I thought Gleick had the word ‘ethics’ in his title or something.
    Was I wrong?
    I read through the BOD list and I don’t see where anyone is checking PI’s ethics.

  192. Bill Tuttle says:

    copner says:
    June 7, 2012 at 6:29 am
    @matthu
    I believe information is covered.

    Correct. Priorietary information is sole property of an organization; the organization may choose to give that information to an outsider, but the outsider must sign a non-disclosure agreement.

    Gleick used identity theft to secure proprietary information. As president of PI, his actions also made PI liable to fines and penalties — regardless of the results of an independent investigation — unless he can prove he did not use any PI equipment during his “interaction” with Heartland.

  193. Chuck Nolan says:

    So now that Gleick is back we can get on with the mission that started this whole mess
    …”I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. ”

    When’s the debate?

  194. Jim Clarke says:

    “We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.”

    Is this a line from a fictional science foundation in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ or ‘1984’? No. This is reality, but Ayn Rand and George Orwell could not have written it any better.

  195. hunter says:

    Nothing expresses the moral bankruptcy of the big green NGO industry better than this decision.

  196. Stephanie Clague says:

    “It was conducted by an independent professional investigation firm. The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way. It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.”

    They are of course lying, there was no independent investigation undertaken. How can you tell? The PI would have named the firm doing the investigation, there is no need to keep it a secret if they had included a simple confidentiality clause in the contract and everyone would be able to see which firm was contracted and know how reliable and professional they are. Do they really think we are that stupid? Do they have such a low opinion of the heartland institute? They are in for a shock if they make that mistake.

  197. John West says:

    Alexander Feht says:
    ”They’ve got all the power and all the money, all your institutions, schools, and media outlets are under their control, and they couldn’t care less if you prove them wrong.”

    And still can’t manage to enact significant legislation or convince the average person.

    Gores, Gleicks, Krugmans and Hansens drink champagne and laugh in your face. Today. Now.

    Yep, there have been a lot of ill-gotten gains. I’m sure their grandchildren will appreciate that even as they curse the stigma they’ve inherited from the charlatans while they squander every last penny.

    I expect now that the information age is coming into its own, that it will be difficult indeed to keep this episode out of the history books. This time will be studied intently and even their own “side” will abandon them. The media has CYA in place and the politicians do too. The scientists who “should’ve known better” will be the ones history blames, and rightfully so. It’s one thing for someone without a scientific background to fall for something akin to “Ban DHMO”, but for someone with a science background to not just fall for it but promote it for profit/acclaim/ideology is inexcusable.

  198. Thomas says:

    As I recall the investigation of Wegman by George Mason University was never made public either, yet I found no sign of outrage at this blog at that time. Funny that.

  199. Chuck Nolan says:

    Now for the reality. (I’ll use the word nobody. By this I mean most of the 99%.)
    1 Nobody knows who Dr Peter Gleick is.
    2. Nobody knows what the Pacific Institute is.
    3. Nobody knows what Heartland Institute is.
    Worst yet. Nobody cares.
    Randomly ask people what they think. They don’t know.
    If it’s not on The View, a new movie, some actor’s latest rant or NASCAR they don’t care.
    The ‘investigation’ from PI was just for the MSM.
    PI told the MSM it’s over … do not to touch it again. If some outsider sticks his nose in it they have a response. “The investigation proved no wrongdoing.”
    Because, just like ‘nobody cares’. IPCC and proponents of CAGW don’t care about ethics.

  200. TomRude says:

    Cream them in court!

  201. Man Bearpig says:

    a ‘lapse in judgment’ and ‘apologized’ Well, that’s all OK then.

    The man committed fraud!! So is fraud now seen as a good thing or a misdemeanour? Anyone ever had their ID stolen like someone from Heartland did!!! When on earth is Heartland going to do something about this ? They are starting to look rather weak now Gleick has his job back as if nothing had happened.

  202. Chuck Nolan says:

    This is California. Remember, Nancy Peloci, Barbara Boxer, Ninth District Court of Appeals…..
    to paraphrase … Ethics, we dohn need no steenking ethics.
    Never forget Nancy said we need to pass the bill to see what’s in it.
    Then got reelected.
    go figure.

  203. jorgekafkazar says:

    “‘Integrity’ all around with these clowns it seems.”

    Integrity? You want climate holiness and integrity, too? Geesh.

    /sarc

  204. gnomish says:

    once again, they’ve slick willied, as expected.
    heartland gave up all the talking points.
    but that’s wonderful because it’s all about donations, right? those dinners have to be catered.
    this slapstick is pathetic and it is a negative sum game.

  205. JJ says:

    Pacific Institute investigated itself, and found that it was AOK? Who’da thunk it?

    Maybe UEA and Penn State should try that “lets investigate ourself” tactic when they run into trouble. Oh, wait …

  206. Political Junkie says:

    Did Hartland suffer damages as a result of Gleick’s criminal activity?

    Yes, it is a matter of public record that some sponsors pulled out.

    Have they made up for the loss? Perhaps. But that’s not necessarily relevant to the issue of the specific donations lost as a direct result of Gleick’s crime.

  207. MattN says:

    I love the smell of whitewash in the morning. This must be the “investigation” the Guardian refered to weeks ago. Clearly inside info being fed to them.

  208. Jenn Oates says:

    Hmmm…lemme think…if I screwed up that badly–or my organization had a highly-ranked member who did–and I knew I had no moral or legal leg to stand on regarding the actions of said scofflaw, I think my MO would be to make a token suspension of duties, wait for a few months, claim to be investigating the matter, wait for a few months, hope it all dies down, and voila! Reinstate the scofflaw, saying that everything is cool now because an “independent” “investigation” cleared him of all scofflawishness! Of course, we can’t actually give details of anything due to “personnel” issues, but trust me, we paid a lot of money for an impartial investigation and we’re completely cleared of any wrongdoing. Moral high ground once again attained!

    Now, I’m not even close to being a lawyer, but wouldn’t Discovery require that even those supposedly confidential personnel issues be revealed should a court case ensue?

  209. Roger says:

    The institute says “Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way” EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT Gleick of course.

  210. Skiphil says:

    There is no good reason to believe that anyone but Gleick forged the memo.

    If the Pacific Institute has an “investigation” (sic) that produced evidence that the forger could be anyone other than Gleick they should produce the evidence (e.g., what is and is not shown by rigorous forensic examination of Gleick’s computer and email records etc.).

    Otherwise, the only reasonable position is to SUSPECT with some confidence that Peter Gleick forged the memo. While it is often impossible to “prove a negative” it is not difficult to produce a comprehensive investigative report (supposedly already conducted on behalf of the PI board) which would throw much doubt on the supposition that Peter Gleick is the forger. Unless or until PI produces some convincing material, Gleick is the most likely candidate for forger…..

  211. AJB says:

    Suzanne wassername at the Gruan 17.03 BST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/peter-gleick-reinstated-heartland-expose

    The usual do no wrong idolatry and coffee-mugs waste of column inches.

  212. TomRude says:

    From the Guardian article: “The Pacific Institute indicated in the statement that it had found no evidence for Heartland’s charges that Gleick had forged one of several documents he released last February.

    But the Institute offered no further information on the findings of the investigation, or any evidence to support the claim of having conducted a fully independent investigation. It gave no further explanation for its decision to reject Heartland’s charges that Gleick had faked a document.

    Nancy Ross, a spokesperson for the Pacific Institute, said the review would not be released because it was a confidential personnel matter.”

    How convenient!

  213. @Chuck “Now for the reality…”

    Completely agree. Much of this is ivory towers lobbing water balloons at each other. If we are to establish a beachhead and realize any serious momentum in this war, we must reach into the upcoming generations and communicate to them where they are at and in a manner they understand.

  214. KnR says:

    AJB typical Suzanne wassername article in fact Pacific Institute have not claimed that Gleick has not ‘forged one of several documents ‘ to date they make no statement on this issue.
    Or is it that once again she is using her PI crystal ball ?

  215. rogerknights says:

    “I remember several quite funny public pulpit confessions replete with sobbing theatrics ….”

    Scenes We’d Like to See.

  216. TomB says:

    jack says:
    June 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    …”This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”
    Say what? Further confirmed what? Knew of what? Involved in what?
    This statement is vapid and not even a proper sentence. What did Gleick say that they were satisfied with? Did he not admit to being involved?
    They can’t rationally address the issues so they don’t.

    Exactly. They seem to be saying that the “investigation” cleared the Pacific Institute and any of it other members or employees. That doesn’t address Gleick’s actions, so is a non-absolution absolution.

  217. grypo says:

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/06/heres-who-did-peter-gleick.html

    REPLY: Yes I got the same email today at 920AM, I’ve been attempting to confirm with the firm that they actually did it. See my update above. – Anthony

  218. Bill Tuttle says:

    Thomas says:
    June 7, 2012 at 8:35 am
    As I recall the investigation of Wegman by George Mason University was never made public either, yet I found no sign of outrage at this blog at that time. Funny that.

    Ah — a graduate of Doc Gleick’s “Situational Ethics 101″ class checking in with an “apples to grapefruit” smokescreen.

  219. Rob Dawg says:

    The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.

    Okay, so Pacific has just violated their previously stated employee confidentiality policies.

    Will the contradictions never cease?

  220. George Lawson says:

    Does anyone have the means of finding out who the sponsors are of the Pacific Institute. They should at least be told that their continued sponsorship is now tainted by the organisation that has a self confessed criminal at the top. We should keep an eye on the documents that are put into the public domain by the PI, and see whether any funding body is mentioned, at which time we should all bombard the funding body about the criminal activity of the head of the Pacific Institute.

  221. Oddly, the Independent Employment Counsel website (www.iecounsel.com) gives no address or any indication as to where they are based. A bit of Googling finds they are in San Rafael, California.

  222. Niels says:

    We now know the identity of the investigators. But be very careful about what you say. Here are their terms, directly from their site:

    “Indemnity:
    You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless IEC, and each of its respective partners, employees, representatives and agents, from and against all claims, losses, costs, damages, liabilities, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys fees) arising out of: (a) your activities in connection with the Site; (b) any violation of these Terms by you; (c) any improper or unauthorized use of the Materials by you; and (d) any allegation that anything you transmit through or in connection with the Site infringes or otherwise violates the copyright, trademark, trade secret, privacy, or other rights of any third party.”

    I am speechless …

  223. Darren Potter says:

    Michael Mann displays his lack of honesty – “Climate scientists jumped on the news. ‘I’m very pleased to learn that Peter has been exonerated,’ Michael Mann of Penn State told ME.”

    Peter Gleick was not exonerated by the independent review. The review only agreed with “what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute”. Gleick himself has admitted wrong doing: “Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute …” “… Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment.”
    Gleick – “In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.”

    Michael Mann’s current employer should give him a chance to retract his dishonest and misleading statement, and if Mann refuses, P.S.U. should terminate him.
    If P.S.U. fails to act, then they are sending the message to their students that dishonesty is acceptable behavior.

  224. Smokey says:

    George Lawson says:
    June 7, 2012 at 11:54 am

    “Does anyone have the means of finding out who the sponsors are of the Pacific Institute. They should at least be told that their continued sponsorship is now tainted by the organisation that has a self confessed criminal at the top.”

    One of PI’s main sponsors is George Soros, who is himself a convicted felon on the lam. Being birds of a feather, I doubt that Soros is bothered by propping up a self-confessed criminal. Soros probably views supporting Gleick as a net benefit.

  225. Skiphil says:

    IEC = a pair of lawyers specializing in employment law

    There has not been the slightest indication that they possess any experience or expertise in the kind(s) of investigation required for this case, nor has there been any indication that a real investigation (computer forensics etc.) was ever conducted.

    All we have here is a whitewash to say “we didn’t find any evidence of further wrongdoing because we were careful not to look for any!”

    So they re-affirm Gleick’s own statement and that’s it?????

    This is what these charlatans of climatology consider rigorous! From the activists to the scientists it is all one huge farce…… these people can’t even pretend to be credible.

    The fakers of Fakegate are not even faking it anymore……

  226. hro001 says:

    As I just posted at BH:

    Goldenberg appears to be the first to break MSM silence on PI’s “Statement” – and uses it (predictably) for another hit piece on Heartland in which she recycles the myths and memes of the fake memo.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/peter-gleick-reinstated-heartland-expose

    Interesting fact-free headline though:

    Peter Gleick reinstated by Pacific Institute following Heartland exposé

    Investigation finds that Gleick did not forge confidential documents he obtained from free-market Heartland Institute

    Thursday 7 June 2012 17.03 BST

  227. Jolly farmer says:

    No comments allowed on the Guardian’s 7th June article.

    I would have asked:

    “what evidence do you have to back up the statement that there was evidence of “a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.?” A document from Heartland, or one from another source? P Gleick, perhaps?”

    The Guardian is losing circulation and money. The Manchester Guardian would have torn the PI to shreds.

  228. David A. Evans says:

    Not checked all the comments but I think you’re all missing one important point.

    The policy document was an obvious forgery! It’s a distraction from the real point of the exercise, that was to get the donor list.

    Get the donor list and harass major donors, that was the point.

    Anyone think Gleick is a prominent climate scientist?

    Is PI really that big?

    Sacrifice them both for the cause!

    DaveE.

  229. Fred 2 says:

    “This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.” So, Gleick wasn’t a member of the Pacific Institute when he was its head? Isn’t that some kind of fraud also?

  230. hro001 says:

    Geeze …. this is even worse than I thought! The “expertise” of this two-person shop known as “Independent Employment Counsel” clearly does not in any way resemble that required to investigate Gleick’s behaviours and actions.

    It’s almost as if they were hired to paper over any concern that PI’s staff might have expressed following disclosure of Gleick’s disgrace.

    Then again, I suppose IEC could have sub-contracted with … oh, I dunno … an “investigative journalist” of Goldenberg’s calibre to do this part of the work for them. This would certainly go some way towards explaining how the Guardian might have “learned” of this alleged “clearance” on May 21, would it not?!

  231. Tom Monroe says:

    Does this mean anything (from the IEcouncil.com website):

    Although not intended to be advertising, the site might be considered advertising. The attorneys responsible for the site are Cynthia E. Maxwell and Gary P. Scholick. Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Scholick are licensed to practice law in California. IEC’s attorneys do not seek to practice law in states, territories or foreign countries where they are not permitted or properly authorized to do so. IEC’s attorneys do not seek to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing the Site in a state, territory or foreign country where the Site fails to comply with applicable laws and ethical rules. In addition, this site is void, is intended to have no effect, has no effect, and should not be reviewed in any jurisdiction where this site is prohibited by law.

    They are licensed to practice law in California. I guess “investigation” is probably not practicing law – still seems a little weird to do an investigation via remote control. Wouldn’t you want a local firm?

  232. SPreserv says:

    “Internal Attorney Investigations:
    IEC’s attorneys conduct independent, objective, impartial internal investigations of claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and other workplace misconduct. The investigations comply with internal alternative dispute and complaint resolution procedures and state and federal law that delineate employer obligations to address workplace concerns.”

  233. Steve McIntyre says:

    I wonder what the terms of reference were.

  234. apachewhoknows says:

    apachesknow
    The only good lie is a dead lie, the truth knows this well together with “how”.

  235. Snapple says:

    Someone above asked about Gleick’s customers. I don’t know the answer, but the National Intelligence Council gathers a lot of information on water security. They issued a recent document about water and national security. Gleick also does research on water and terrorism.

  236. Luther Wu says:

    Investigator: Dr. Gleick, did you forge the document in question?

    Dr. Gleick: Why no, some woman I’d never seen before handed it to me while I was at a horse show in Houston.

    Investigator: Thank you, Dr. Gleick. I knew it had to be something like that.
    Case Closed.

  237. Bruce Cobb says:

    A further independent investigation has revealed that Independent Employment Counsel conducted its “investigation” by simply asking Gleick if he had forged the document in question, and him saying “no”, to which they replied “good enough for us!”

  238. Chuck Nolan says:

    Steve C says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:20 am
    “The Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity”?? Bwahahahaaa! Perm any one from three. No, not that one …
    ——————
    They got their ‘protection & economic’ part of their mission ok. They protected their economics.

  239. I beg to differ says:

    I am not throwing stones at the firm that conducted the investigation, but I would like to note the following: First, by having the matter investigated by counsel (i.e. attorneys) it is pretty certain we willnever really know what the findings are, other than what is offered up by the Pacific Institute. The Institute can say there were no findings, but it doesn’t really mean anything. Second, this group is more HR / Labor oriented than scientific, so how did they conduct their review?

    My gut is that this investigation probably is independent, but I very much doubt The Institute will ever really release it.

  240. just some guy says:

    From The Guardian’s article today:

    “The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland’s donors’ list – which it had kept private – as well as a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools. ”

    It seems to me they are copying and pasting drivel from the forged memo into a “news” article. Isn’t that illegal?

  241. Tom Murphy says:

    Thomas says:

    “As I recall the investigation of Wegman by George Mason University was never made public either, yet I found no sign of outrage at this blog at that time. Funny that.”

    Perhaps no sign of outrage was noted by you because (1) the Wegman report was retracted (pro-AGW web sites are still referencing the fake memo as “real”), (2) Wegman actually received punishment for his act in the form of a letter of reprimand by GMU (Gleick has not receive any discipline from the Pass-if-Gleick Institute), and (3) DeSmogBlog.com published their own investigative report (“Strange Inquires at GMU… and Even Stranger Comments”), which was readily-accepted by AGW apologists as the “real-deal” well before GMU announced their conclusions – http://tinyurl.com/7az9goq (DeSmogBlog.com link).

    Too bad your man Gleick is unable to reference any form of public atonement assigned to his self-admitted crimes.

  242. mfo says:

    What do Employment Counsel, LLP actually do?

    “Outside investigators are typically hired to look into employee complaints that could lead to major lawsuits or that are too politically sensitive for an internal person to handle.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/04/02/BU70127.DTL

    http://www.iecounsel.com/callawyer.html

    http://www.iecounsel.com/sacbee.html

  243. Chuck Nolan says:

    The sad part is it’s not about science. Our science is as good as theirs and nobody ‘knows’ what the climate will do. What’s stopping them is political.
    I’m thankful enough people in power are able to keep the UN at bay.
    This would not be a good time to give greater control over to the UN. The US Congress is already doing above and beyond the call of duty.
    Since the US is held in such low regard throughout much the world we might not get a ‘fair shake’ if some dispute should arise.
    Somehow I don’t see BO or Hillary as being fantastic negotiators on our behalf.

  244. Rob says:

    It’s just a matter of time before Independent Employment Counsel find Bernie Madoff innocent and discover Michael Jackson is alive. This is a profitable sideline for any science fiction business out there.

  245. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    The Pacific Institute accepts Gleick’s apology and reinstates him on that basis. As far as I can see, the investigation simply confirmed that the facts are no different from those that are already known and that no other Institute staff were involved.

    So the investigation is not relevant if you are looking for justification for reinstatement. It seems that Gleick’s apology was good enough for the Institute.

    It may not be good enough for the rest of us, but the real test is whether it is good enough for the clients of the Pacific Institute. I am not in a postion to judge that or to influence their judgement.
    Whether or not Gleick is tainted goods with respect to the Institute’s missions and claims about themselves is a matter for that market and those who can influence opinion therein.

  246. sceptical says:

    Peter Gleick has been cleared of any wrong doing. The focus is now on what Fakegate taught us about how some people want to “stop the teaching of science” in schools.

    REPLY: “Cleared” ??? prove it or kindly shut up Mr. Flesch. Start with showing us the report, oh, wait…

    But you know, I still have the option of filing charges against Gleick here in California, since he violated a new state law and named me in the fake document…and with idiotic statements like yours, it gives a strong impetus for me to do so. – Anthony

  247. robr says:

    So I was wondering what this institute looked like, so I googled it’s address and found that it was a rather small building of office suites. For some reason, when I think institute I think ivied manor, but most are probably just what Pacific is, an office suite. Anyway I googled the address, 654 13th street, Oakland, CA, to see who else used the building, expecting some dentist offices and such. What I found was:

    California Pan Ethic Health Network http://www.cpehn.org/ part of Take Action California http://www.takeactionca.org

    The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water http://www.ejcw.org

    West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project http://www.woeip.org

    And a reference to the Environmental Defense Fund w/ Telephone number.

    I guess it is just a coincidence that the prestigious Pacific Institute would share offices with a bunch of activists.

  248. Chuck Nolan says:

    Their markets are our governments.

  249. Chuck Nolan says:

    ’nuff said

  250. Theodore says:

    I think the Pacific Institute did not think this whitewash through very well. They are thinking of this as a political issue that they can brush away by giving their supporters a ruling that Gleick was cleared without realising the legal ramifications. By not firing Gleick for actions he took on their premises as their President using their equipment they are opening themselves up to criminal charges. If they had let Gleick fall on his sword, PI could have avoided legal blame for his conduct. In endorsing it, they have very likely made it possible to prosecute the organization and leadership under RICO laws. The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act allows prosecution of the organization and leaders of it (the board) if there is a pattern of criminal activity such as wire and mail fraud (which Gleick has confessed to) that further the interests of the organization.

    It also allows Heartland to pursue not only Gleick but the Pacific Institute under RICO civil suits that allow triple damages. Gleik committed criminal offenses to further the interests of the Pacific Institute using resources provided by the Pacific Institute, and they have now determined that his behavior is acceptable to the organization. They may have kept Gleick in the political science fight by giving him a veneer of whitewash. But they might end up having their organization convicted under organized crime statutes for furthering their interests by racketeering and corruption.

  251. u.k.(us) says:

    To reinstate someone, who has admitted committing wire fraud (unless my understanding of wire fraud differs from the statutes), would seem to set a bad precedent.

    Or, shall future activists believe they will (at worst) be “Gleicked”, and continue in their efforts to rid the world of the pests envisioned in fevered dreams.

  252. DavidA says:

    The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.

    Independent Employment Counsel Are Us
    Independent Employment Counsel While You Wait
    Independent Employment Counsel, And Shoe Repairs!

  253. Luther Wu says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    It seems that Gleick’s apology was good enough for the Institute …the real test is whether it is good enough for the clients of the Pacific Institute.
    ________________________
    One would think that most of the Pacific Institute’s clients are government entities, of one form or another. On that basis, Gleick, et cie are likely to become even richer than they are infamous, as the eco-loons seem to have control of gov’t. at all levels- especially in CA- and Gleick’s antics have been highly praised in those circles. He’s the hero that “exposed” HI, after all.

  254. Theodore…we can only hope you are correct. I keep waiting for a real court to get ahold of these issues somewhere.

  255. Owen in Ga says:

    sceptical says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    Peter Gleick has been cleared of any wrong doing. The focus is now on what Fakegate taught us about how some people want to “stop the teaching of science” in schools.
    Sceptical: either you forgot your /sarc, or you are spreading lies from a known forgery for which public cease and desist notice has been posted. You are in danger of being named in a lawsuit for defamation! I don’t know why you would risk that.

  256. BigWaveDave says:

    Why does such an obviously political organization like PI get to keep their non-profit status?

  257. DirkH says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    “It may not be good enough for the rest of us, but the real test is whether it is good enough for the clients of the Pacific Institute. I am not in a postion to judge that or to influence their judgement.
    Whether or not Gleick is tainted goods with respect to the Institute’s missions and claims about themselves is a matter for that market and those who can influence opinion therein.”

    “Market”? He got several EPA grants. Your entire administration is tainted goods, so if anything, wire fra*d and forgery makes him more acceptable to them. Maybe he’s good with Adobe Illustrator as well, who knows, maybe that talent could come in handy some day.

  258. Skiphil says:

    sceptical says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Peter Gleick has been cleared of any wrong doing. The focus is now on what Fakegate taught us about how some people want to “stop the teaching of science” in schools.
    ====================================================================

    Nice!! In two sentences you manage to show us that you fail Logic 101, Evidence 101, History 101, Journalism 101, English 101, Propaganda 101, etc. etc……… Impressive performance!!

    Want to try again? Start by noticing that Gleick is not “cleared” — it is confirmed that he maliciously lied, slandered, and committed fraud, at a minimum. Whether he also forged the fake document that you continue to quote as if it were real is a further issue apparently not even touched upon by this farcical “investigation”. Don’t continue to propagate a FAKE quotation propounded by a FAKE document. It may please your fellow activists but it does not earn any respect from anyone who knows anything about the case.

  259. Further editing to their statment gets filled in, piece by piece:

    It can now be edited to say “…An independent review conducted by Independent Employment Counsel, LLP. on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick (the President of the Pacific Institute) has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute, that is, he “…solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…”

    How much do you want to bet that this Independent Employment Counsel, LLP becomes the prefered counsel for any future “climate scientist” mis-deeds. They’ve already set a good precedent for other complaints of fraud. Having a world-renowned climate scientist like the self-confessed fraudster Peter Gleik as one of their satisfied customers really adds to their resume.

  260. Malcolm says:

    BORING! This has gone on long enough. Either Heartland press charges or they shut the @&£* up and accept that Gleick has screwed them over.
    I’m a confirmed denier, but I’m very disappointed with the way that Heartland has handled this.

  261. Skiphil says:

    [from "Financial" section of PI website: "The Pacific Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization established in 1987...."]

    Separate from any criminal or civil actions which might proceed about Gleick’s actions, both the State of California and the US federal govt. have powers and responsibilities in relation to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, i.e., the Board of Directors of the PI has fiduciary and legal responsibilities not to run illegal or politically partisan activities. Perhaps readers with relevant legal and political knowledge could explore whether Gleick and PI have endangered their 501(c)(3) status etc.

    I realize quite well that under current US and Calif. administrations there may be great reluctance to pursue anything against these darlings of the enviro-whacko left, but even the most ideological bureaucrats will sometimes decide to jettison political allies who have become inconvenient, embarrassing, or just too much trouble.

  262. Owen in Ga says:

    Theodore: There will have to be a change in leadership at the Justice Department for any RICO action to be taken. The Feds have to prosecute it as they have never recognized a state taking jurisdiction (that I know of but not being a lawyer I may have missed a case). The current administration is all in on this eco-mess and have shown that they WILL NOT prosecute fellow travelers. I am not sure a Romney administration would be much better though as his official campaign position (at least in New Hampshire) was Pro CAGW. I really would have preferred a more neutral stance that looked for sound science to guide policy. I am not hopeful the charlatans will be swept out.

  263. Theodore says:

    This also makes me wonder if the leak about Gleick being cleared a week or so ago was intentional. They may have sent that up as a trial balloon to see if the other members of the hockey team would speak out and say they couldn’t accept clearing Gleick in the interests of the cause. SInce we didn’t hear the ‘climate scientists’ clamouring for Gleick’s head for dishonoring their profession, Pacific Institute decided they could go forward.

    I am sure if their are emails about that it will all come out in the court case discovery.

    And cblf, as long as Heartland can afford a lawyer or find one to do it for them for free the Pacific Institute has just opened the door to turn Heartland Versus Gleick into Heartland Versus Gleick et. al.

  264. connolly says:

    Notwithstanding not knowing the precise grounds of Heartland’s civil action, the Pacific Institute as the imposter’s employer will carry liability for his acts and damages in tort against Heartland. It sounds like the standard practise in litigation that the employer backs its employee. It is highly probable that the contracted law firm didnt “clear” the imposter but rather advised Pacific Institute on its defensive strategy. A critical component of that strategy is to “clear” the imposter. If nothing else it may mitigate damages awarded by a court against the imposter’s employer. These are long days on the climate alarmist Serengetti and the killing off of what remains this imposter’s and his disgraceful employer’s reputations in a court of the United States will make satisfying viewing. Justice will be done. Eventually.

  265. Gleick to Huffpo earlier: I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

    I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks lies of climate change is are strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts own lies — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

    There, fixed it for you. We all agree about your statement of the need for a “rational public debate”. Now please, when are you going to organize that with Heartland?

  266. Skiphil says:

    Malcolm says:
    June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    ====================================

    Sorry if you are bored but maybe you should just focus on other stuff. There may be a variety of reasons HI is taking their time…. in legal terms hardly any time has passed. The most obvious aspect is that if there’s any prospect at all for federal criminal charges (which is not at all under the control of HI) then it may well make most sense for them to see that process go forward.

    Even if they suspect or believe that their only option is going to be a civil case, it is far from obvious that they should rush into that process. They have plenty of time to research, gather more info, consider options, and let Gleick and his allies squirm. In fact, since PI has announced this whitewash outcome of an “investigation” (sic) it may be that civil suit prospects for Heartland have improved (I’m not a lawyer, I don’t claim to know). It may well be that HI wanted to know the terrain better (whether PI would stand with Gleick etc.) before they make their own decisions.

    I, too, am anxious to see proceedings and resolutions in these matters, but if Heartland has good legal advice (I assume they do) then there are probably good reasons they have not announced a case. It does not mean they will not do so.

  267. connolly says:

    “By not firing Gleick for actions he took on their premises as their President using their equipment they are opening themselves up to criminal charges. If they had let Gleick fall on his sword, PI could have avoided legal blame for his conduct.”
    Not sure about that Theodore. Don’t know about the US. But in Australia, an employer would carry vicarious liability for the imposter’s damage. If they dismiss him they admit fault unless they can prove that he was on a frolic of his own and acted against his employers interests. Of course if they called it as a criminal fraud and dismissed him they would have a defense. But that of course would leave Pacific open to defunding from the AGW gravy train. So they went with a sham of “clearing” the imposter and probably hoping that the Heartland action falls over. There is an old saying in the law. A bad case doesnt get any better with time. This one sure wont. There is another old saying in Australia. Don’t cuddle mugs. They die in your arms.

  268. A lolt of thoughtful replies here.

    We now know that Heartland took a calculated risk with their poster, that in immediate terms of benefits paid off. I would hope however that Heartland have taken notice of concerns here, that Heartland need to be seen to take legal action against Gleick, lest people be content with the memory of Ms Goldenberg’s misleading and downright false statements.

  269. DirkH says:

    Malcolm says:
    June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    “BORING! This has gone on long enough. [...] I’m a confirmed denier, but I’m very disappointed with the way that Heartland has handled this.”

    1.) You’re what? Please check again what’s on your membership card.
    2.) No we won’t stop. Now go away and report to your superior.

  270. Merovign says:

    ]Malcolm says:
    June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    BORING! This has gone on long enough. Either Heartland press charges or they shut the @&£* up and accept that Gleick has screwed them over.
    I’m a confirmed denier, but I’m very disappointed with the way that Heartland has handled this.

    Heartland can’t force the DOJ to do anything, and the DOJ is politically beholden to the other side right now.

    They have no reason to rush into a civil case while the DOJ is dragging it’s feet on this. It makes at least as much sense to wait until the DOJ acts (or refuses to act). Lawyers cost a lot of money.

  271. just some guy says:

    I think what we are seeing here is really just legal manuevers being played out with attorneys pulling the strings.

    They probably realized that PI would have likely been a much bigger and juicier target, financial, than Gleick. So now they’ve taken steps to protect PI and it’s board of directors, and have succeeded. Here is why:

    1. PI can now say they had nothing to do with it and did not condone it.
    2. PI can now say that none of thier employees were involved (other than Gleick).
    3. PI can now say they did the responsible thing by doing an independent investigation, with Gleick on leave of absense until the investigation was finished.

    I believe this is not over by far and probably the next action we see will be a civil suit against Gleick. (unless the DOJ actually takes action first.)

  272. Snowlover123 says:

    We all knew that Peter Gleick was going to return to the Pacific Institute, so this comes as no surprise. Nothing much really surprises me with the AGW Fraud lately.

  273. Ian H says:

    The nature of the law firm hired suggests that serious consideration was given at PI to firing Gleick. Their remit would be to consider the question of whether his activities constituted sufficient grounds to fire him. Gleick will no doubt have claimed that his Heartland related activities were not conducted in the workplace and were political activities conducted in his own time. Employment law makes it difficult to fire someone for activities they undertake outside the workplace. Doing so risks a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

    To support this viewpoint I note the quote about “not lying to employees”. This looks tightly focussed on precisely the question of whether anything was done IN THE WORKPLACE for which he could be fired. Lying to other employees or to the board would have done it. But they didn’t find evidence of that. It looks to me like the report was equivocal. Consequently the board seems to have decided that they didn’t have grounds to sack him. Having decided not to bite the bullet and get rid of him they then became obliged to issue statements clearing him and welcoming him back. I bet it was awfully close though.

    Personally I think they’ve made a big mistake. Activities which bring the organisation into disrepute and damage its reputation do constitute grounds for dismissal in many places, and there is no question in my mind that Gleick’s activities have brought PI into disrepute. Indeed I question whether he can even continue to do his job effectively given the controversy that will now dog his heels wherever he goes.

    In my opinion they chickened out of firing him because the report couldn’t find clear-cut lawsuit-proof grounds for doing so. However if it were me on that board I would have sacked him anyway. Every day he continues to be employed at PI he damages their reputation further. Better to lance the boil and face the lawsuit if necessary than allow this to continue indefinitely.

  274. Gail Combs says:

    matthu says:
    June 7, 2012 at 6:18 am
    …..The trouble (as I see it) is that it is difficult to pinpoint any property or honest services that Heartland have been intentionally deprioved of.

    Information, yes – Property, no. (I think Heartland even admitted that their donations had increased subsequent to Fakegate.)
    _________________________________________
    Actually I think you are incorrect. If ONE donor quit donating because of harrassment from their name being made public that is all it will take and if I recall that has already happened. Private donors who donated AFTER fakegate don’t really count.

  275. Gail Combs says:

    Ian H says:
    June 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    The nature of the law firm hired suggests that serious consideration was given at PI to firing Gleick…..
    __________________________________________
    In many cases upper management has a signed but undated letter of resignation on file that the company can use in cases like this. However since Glieck started PI, that may not be the case in his situation.

  276. Bill Parsons says:

    The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment

    … and a small stipend, which will apply toward his wife Edith’s retirement accounts in Cozumel.

  277. Andy says:

    If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses, but it is completely ethical to hack into a computer and steal private emails to be selectively edited and then presented out of context on the internet. I’m sure someone will set me straight if my summary is incorrect.

  278. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Andy says: June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    Well, gee, Andy, if someone hacked into a computer, stole private e-mails, edited them and presented them out of context, that would be unethical. But nothing like that happened. If you don’t know that, you should, since that would make you willfully ignorant. If you do know that, then you are simply dishonest. Neither case befits an Associate Professor at a prestigious school. Now toddle off and pontificate for someone who will be impressed.

  279. Bill H says:

    just more circular peer review from supposed climate scientists…

    i wonder if they get dizzy going round and round?

    they got what they wanted… a criminal who will do and say anything to complete their agenda..

    Pacific Institute is truly an ongoing criminal enterprise..

  280. Andy says:

    Well Robert, perhaps you could explain the origins of the emails from “climategate”. They didn’t come from a hacked computer? If that’s the case, every major news organization in the world got it wrong.

  281. Bill Tuttle says:

    Malcolm says:
    June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    BORING! This has gone on long enough. Either Heartland press charges or they shut the @&£* up and accept that Gleick has screwed them over.
    I’m a confirmed denier, but I’m very disappointed with the way that Heartland has handled this.

    Scroll upthread and click on the link at Update 5 — and rejoice!

    Sic, ‘em, HI!

  282. Glenn says:

    Andy, of course! Except you misspelled consensus. You got us dead to rights. Excellent report you wrote there. Thinking about writing for the Guardian? Nothing but love. Good luck. One question, please. What specific “planning document” are you referring to?

  283. Glenn says:

    Andy, the only private stuff I know of that was hacked was on a sceptic’s computers, by the police. Would it be unethical to claim that the police edited emails they found and presented them out of context?

  284. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Andy says: June 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    If that’s the case, every major news organization in the world got it wrong.

    Typical for a climate scientist: an appeal from authority and an appeal from ignorance in the same sentence. It *might* have been an inside job. I could very well be wrong, but forty years of computer work suggests to me that this was a leak rather than a hack… not that a hack would require the ultra-sophisticated national level skills. Unless FOIA comes forward or makes a mistake and gets caught, we won’t know for sure. Every major news organization in the world has no more information or insight than any of us. Not impressed.

    What you have not bothered to address, so far, is the rest: Steve McIntyre and others have provided a great deal of context for the e-mails. In context, they are even worse. Private? The e-mails held by your school are NOT yours. They can be FOIAed and subpoenaed. No talk of kids, or dates or “honey, pick up some bread on your way home.” in the climate-gate e-mails, but a great deal about corruption.

  285. Bill Tuttle says:

    Andy says:
    June 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    If that’s the case, every major news organization in the world got it wrong.

    It’s not the first time that’s happened. Two major FUBARs they famously made (with major political ramifications) were declaring Tet ’68 a Communist victory and declaring Al Gore the winner of the 2000 presidential election — before the polls closed.

    If newsies got every story *right*, there’d be no reason for them to issue corrections or retractions.

    Not that they’re particularly consistent at doing that…

  286. Bill Tuttle says:

    Andy says:
    June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses…

    You’re either willfully ignoring the fact that the “planning document” in question is a forgery or you have early-onset short-term memory loss.

    …but it is completely ethical to hack into a computer and steal private emails to be selectively edited and then presented out of context on the internet.

    The e-mails were leaked, they were not selectively edited (UEA admits they’re the genuine article), and none of them were presented out of context — you can read the original streams in context at several of the links archived here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

    I’m sure someone will set me straight if my summary is incorrect.

    You’re welcome.

  287. Bill Tuttle says:

    Gail Combs says:
    June 7, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    matthu says:
    June 7, 2012 at 6:18 am
    …..The trouble (as I see it) is that it is difficult to pinpoint any property or honest services that Heartland have been intentionally deprioved of.
    Information, yes – Property, no. (I think Heartland even admitted that their donations had increased subsequent to Fakegate.)
    _________________________________________
    Actually I think you are incorrect. If ONE donor quit donating because of harrassment from their name being made public that is all it will take and if I recall that has already happened. Private donors who donated AFTER fakegate don’t really count.

    Gail is correct. However, information (such as the HI donor list) is *proprietary* information, and Gleick obtained that illegally. If he did it using PI equipment, he also made PI liable to prosecution.

  288. Bill Tuttle says:

    Andy says:
    June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses…

    It’s not only unethical, it’s a felony.

    If you actually *are* an “Associate Professor at a prestigious school,” you might want to keep a lower profile so your boss doesn’t twig to your lack of reading comprehension and information retention…

  289. Glenn says:

    “By saying that its investigation confirmed Dr. Gleick’s account, the institute implicitly backed his assertion that he was not responsible for creating a document labeled a fake by Heartland that was disseminated along with other genuine ones.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/science/earth/scientist-peter-gleick-is-reinstated-after-deceit.html

    The relevant part of the PI’s statement:
    “…outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.”

    As far as I know, the only interaction Gleick and the Heartland Institute has had is when he pretended to be someone else in an email to them and they sent him certain documents.
    Does distributing a memo allegedly acquired from an anonymous source to others constitute “interaction” with HI?
    In any event, it seems clear that the carefully worded press release is not explicit in this regard. I suspect this was intentional.

  290. Thomas says:

    Tom Murphy “Perhaps no sign of outrage was noted by you because (1) the Wegman report was retracted (pro-AGW web sites are still referencing the fake memo as “real”), (2) Wegman actually received punishment for his act in the form of a letter of reprimand by GMU”

    1. The Wegman report has not been retracted. At the contrary GMU cleared Wegman for any wrongdoing in it.
    2. Another article containing parts of the text of the Wegman report had already been retracted for plagiarism by the journal that had originally published it, and oddly enough GMU found that text to be plagiarism and reprimanded Wegman for it.

    So there would be some interest in finding out how GMU thought when they cleared the Wegman report. I guess this is the wrong blog to ask for impartial treatment of people on both sides of the fence, though.

  291. George Lawson says:

    It seems to me that the only way to get details of the report from the Pacific Institute is for someone to send an email to the PI posing as one of their directors and requesting the information. After all this is what Gleick did with Heartland, and he has been exonerated for his actions!

  292. Max says:

    The news that the Pacific Institute has reinstated Peter Gleick is just shockingly! They now have a liar and a thief in one hand! His suspension was only a formality and they don’t care about what he did!

  293. Lars P. says:

    sceptical says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    “Peter Gleick has been cleared of any wrong doing. The focus is now on what Fakegate taught us about how some people want to “stop the teaching of science” in schools.”

    Interesting, why do warmists try to hide behind “sceptics” appearance? “sceptical” of what? And then run in doing logical falacies – trying to think as a skeptic would do but missing – similar to what the forger of that forged document did.
    I as skeptic do not want to stop teachers from teaching science. Quite the contrary – and I understand I speak of the skeptic community – we want teachers to teach science and skeptical thinking. Not bias and falacies but hard science and logic. Physics, chemistry, astronomy.
    Try again sceptical try hard to check each of your sentences, are they right or is it only a feeling that you got from certain sites and you did not check the facts?
    Where is that “stop the teaching of science” from? It is from a forged document – check it, be sceptical and check the information.
    But why do I lose my time here and waste blog space? Very probably “sceptical” is just another warmist that post his non-sense and does not follow-up in a logical conversation. I’ve seen this too often.

  294. Painfully predictable: the Pacific Institute was probably tired of quietly continuing to pay Gleick full salary & benefits while getting no official “productive” work out of him during his “leave of absence” – so they needed to devise a way to rehabilitate this “hero of water resources and discoverer of evil strategies”… Besides, he has been elevated to folk hero by many (for his “selfless” efforts to expose the evil Heartland plans and embarrass its “Big Oil” donors). Can’t wait to read the official AGU scientific ethics task force position on the matter. The poor man was blinded by the incessant, focused obfuscation of evil-doers; and after all, he did apologize! Perhaps someone should “plead” with the AGU to have this beacon of truth return! Ethics@agu.org From the AGU Ethics Task Force Charge:

    http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/pdf/TaskForceCharge_2011-11-21.pdf

    “• Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles.”

    Aside: there must be several mineral water “brands in waiting” which could have a lot of fun with this episode (and make a buck in the process)!

    Kurt in Switzerland

  295. Ken Harvey says:

    No whitewash here. The very opposite. Pacific has simply tarred itself with the same brush.

  296. Paul Coppin says:

    Ian H says:
    June 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    The nature of the law firm hired suggests that serious consideration was given at PI to firing Gleick. Their remit would be to consider the question of whether his activities constituted sufficient grounds to fire him. Gleick will no doubt have claimed that his Heartland related activities were not conducted in the workplace and were political activities conducted in his own time. Employment law makes it difficult to fire someone for activities they undertake outside the workplace. Doing so risks a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal….

    +1…

  297. Garry Stotel says:

    Expect Richard Black at the BBC to write a triumphant statement…. I would cancel my BBC license and get rid of the TV, but my kids don’t let me…..

  298. Bill Tuttle says:

    Thomas says:
    June 8, 2012 at 1:57 am
    I guess this is the wrong blog to ask for impartial treatment of people on both sides of the fence, though.

    If you’re looking for kindred souls who are willing to equate an academic investigation into a complaint of plagiarism that was either
    a) retracted or
    b) not retracted, and either
    c) never released or
    d) released, but only in sections
    in which the subject was either
    a) not punished or
    b) punished, consisting of a
    c) reprimanded but then
    d) relieved of the reprimand
    with an HR report which is being rather feebly portrayed as an investigation into several violations of federal laws, then, yeah, you’ve probably come to the wrong place.

    Nice try, though.

  299. Man Bearpig says:

    If Gleick is president of said organisation, would he not have the final say in anything. Like ‘hey I’m a good guy, I am now officially exonerated from all crimes past and present .. oh yeah, and future crimes I have yet to commit’.

  300. Blade says:

    Coach Springer [June 7, 2012 at 7:30 am] says:

    “What they meant: “After an independent investigation, it has been revealed that no one else wanted the position so we’re stuck with Gleick…

    LOL. That’s gotta be it! :-)

    Andy [June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm] says:

    “If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses, but it is completely ethical to hack into a computer and steal private emails to be selectively edited and then presented out of context on the internet. I’m sure someone will set me straight if my summary is incorrect.”

    You are incorrect. Public versus Privately owned. Are you obfuscating the differences intentionally or out of ignorance?

  301. Mark Smith says:

    My bad- I meant to write independant employment counsel i.e. an anonymous person- could be my cat.

  302. Pamela Gray says:

    Andy, I hope you never have to deal with a teenager who presents the kind of rebuttals you have presented here. I have. The standard response is this in case you ever have to face such a teenage argument:

    Teen: “Joe got caught with heroin and meth in his pocket! All I had was weed and a bit of cocaine! Geesh!!!”
    You: “Then you are saying if your friend decides to rob a bank, it is okey dokey for you to sniff rat poison up your nose, because you think robbing a bank is worse. Good argument. Thanks honey for setting me straight. Here’s your next high. On me.”

    Come on Andy. Where the heck is your common sense on this?

  303. Ron says:

    Wondering what some of these foundations, government agencies and wacked green ngo’s – all listed as PI funders – would say of the board’s decision to re-instate a confessed liar and alleged criminal to a position of leadership? It would be worth summoning a response from, say, the Canadian Mortgage Corporation …

    Alpern Family Foundation
    S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
    Bureau of Reclamation
    California Environmental Protection Agency
    The California Endowment
    California Energy Commission
    California Public Utilities Commission
    California Urban Water Conservation Commission
    The California Wellness Foundation
    Canadian Mortgage Corporation
    CISCO Foundation
    Community Water Center
    The Data Center
    Department of Water Resources
    Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
    East Bay Community Foundation
    Environmental Defense Center
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection
    Flora Family Foundation
    The Herrington Fitch Family Foundation
    Foundation for the Global Compact
    Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation
    The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation
    Green For All

  304. more soylent green! says:

    Is there any real practical difference between Gleick and the Pacific Institute? Sure there are board members, but don’t they all owe their positions and allegiance to the good Dr?

  305. Tom Murphy says:

    Thomas says:

    “The Wegman report has not been retracted. At the contrary GMU cleared Wegman for any wrongdoing in it… Another article containing parts of the text of the Wegman report had already been retracted for plagiarism by the journal that had originally published it, and oddly enough GMU found that text to be plagiarism and reprimanded Wegman for it.”

    You’re seemingly conflating the issue to have it both ways. The journal paper, which was issued in 2008, incorporated a large portion (pertaining to networking within the climate sciences) of the Congressional report, which was issued in 2006. Indeed, Wegman et al 2008 referenced the incorporation of the Congressional report. The initial claims of plagiarism were directed not at the journal paper but the Congressional report. However, the UMass academician alleging wrongdoing correctly pursued the claim through GMU rather than through Congress or the journal – http://tinyurl.com/2g3jcy8 (USA Today link).

    To its credit, GMU reviewed both the Congressional report and the journal paper for evidence of plagiarism. Regarding the Congressional report, GMU found no occurrence of scientific misconduct – this being the document that questioned the statistical outcomes of climate science. I understand you desire to view this internal investigation that resulted in this conclusion, but for reasons noted below, pursuing such action is non-productive given the confirmation of plagiarism.

    Subsequently, the journal (in consultation with GMU and Wegman) announced the paper’s retraction – this being the supplemental document that asserted certain intent on the part of some in climate science when publishing statistical outcomes. And to the extent that the two complemented one another on the networking in climate assertions but with the paper being retracted, the presumption (certainly by the AGW apologists) was that the Congressional report was questionable (at the very least) and irrelevant (at the most likely) – http://tinyurl.com/3ojodjx (DeSmogBlog.com link).

    As reported by Science Insider on June 2, 2011, following an e-mail issued by the journal “Computational Statistics and Data Analysis” or CSDA:

    “This article [i.e., Wegman et al 2008 - which contained portions of the 2006 Congressional study] has been retracted at the request of the Editor in Chief and co‑Editors, as it contain portions of other authors’ writings on the same topic in other publications, without sufficient attribution to these earlier works being given… The principal authors of the paper acknowledged that text from background sources was mistakenly used in the Introduction without proper reference to the original source.” – http://tinyurl.com/79oe8zu (Science Insider link).

    You can even visit the journal’s online page that references the paper and note the word “RETRACTED” – http://tinyurl.com/d3lqmoy (CSDA link).

    Therefore, the Wegman report vis-à-vis its networking in climate science discussion was essentially retracted – sufficient evidence was found to “discredit” the paper rather than “physically-remove” it from existence. The perception of being “a little bit pregnant” in scientific publication – there’s plagiarism here but no worries overall – is a non sequitur, once a paper has been retracted. To assert otherwise is a bit disingenuous and indicative of desire to have your cake (Wegman is irrelevant) and eat it too (Wegman wasn’t retracted).

    Regarding your assertion that GMU “cleared” Wegman of any wrongdoing, the GMU Provost issued a public statement on February 12, 2012 which stated:

    “Concerning the Computational Statistics article, the relevant committee did find that plagiarism occurred in contextual sections of the article, as a result of poor judgment for which Professor Wegman, as team leader, must bear responsibility… As sanction, Professor Wegman has been asked to apologize to the journal involved, while retracting the article; and I am placing an official letter of reprimand in his file.” – http://tinyurl.com/cq5wreq (Connect2Mason link).

    I don’t know your background, Thomas, but in academia an official letter of reprimand being placed in your personnel file certainly can be viewed as punishment or discipline. And the self-admitted close association between the journal paper and Congressional study has implications for both even if only one has censured.

    If you want GMU to reprimand Wegman for that portion in the Congressional report found in the journal paper, then I suspect you enjoy beating dead horses.

  306. Hugh K says:

    Yet another example of the alarmists’ definition of an honest debate.

  307. Theodore says:

    “Andy says:
    June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses, but it is completely ethical to hack into a computer and steal private emails to be selectively edited and then presented out of context on the internet. I’m sure someone will set me straight if my summary is incorrect.”

    Well there are some clear factual errors in your position that need corrected, but hopefully they are accidental not intentional.

    Falsehood #1: The Climategate emails have not been selectively edited, they are available in ther entirety.

    #2: When those emails are put into context, to other actions that were public knowledge, they are even more damning than just taken on their own.

    #3: There is no evidence these emails were hacked. In fact, the evidence points to an insider within UEA releasing the emails because of criminal actions (even if the statute of limitations had expired) that Jones and others had taken to conceal the emails. The first leak, of the temperature record was publicly admitted by McIntyre at Climate Audit. When UEA denied his data request that summer, someone within the university leaked the data to McIntyre. Maybe because they felt morally compromised by denying the request or maybe to give him the data and hope he went away. Then the second leak coincided with a second FOIA denial (which probably assembled the FOIA file) meaning the UEA was going further and further from a factual and ethic application of the law. Whistleblowers in organizations often do so because they have been repeatly ask to commit criminal or ethical violations, like lawyers realizing they have filed false claims to deny valid FOIA requests.

    #4: Gleick did not just obtain documents under false pretenses. He committed criminal fraud to do so. He then very likely took the criminally obtained documents and then committed forgery to create the fake strategy memo and used it to launch a political campaign. So the forgery to misrepresent the documents takes it far beyond the pale and even beyond someone stealing documents and releasing factual ones. As you allege happened with Climategate but have no evidence to support.

  308. Not Fooled says:

    A quick search with Bing and Cynthia E Maxwell was a contributer to the DNC in 2004. But coorelation is not causation.

  309. Pointman says:

    Yup, climate “science” at its best.

    Climate science was seduced into the environmental movement, with the politically useful role of producing an endless stream of authoritative but increasingly scary predictions. Its most high-profile practitioners gradually became what can only be described as the media stars of the movement, but what actually happened, was the more they sucked greedily on the teat of notoriety, the more they degenerated into nothing more than advocates, masquerading as scientists.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/

    Pointman

  310. P. Solar says:

    According to their website the two partners seem to be the sole people at Independent Employment Counsel, LLP

    It looks like a pretty small hubby and wife outfit in California. They don’t even give a physical address on their contact page. Just email and tel/fax. Probably work from home.

    They are specialised in employment dispute resolution. Seems an odd choice to do and “independent” inquiry into wire fraud.

    Let me be really cynical and guess that they are personal freinds of Gleick.

  311. Doug in Seattle says:

    I don’t know who the two people at IEC are, but that in itself doesn’t mean they are not ethical and competent investigators. Still, we should be seeing a report in a matter as important as this (especially with Prof. Mann calling this an exoneration).

  312. Steve McIntyre says:

    I’ve never heard of “Canadian Mortgage Corporation”. The federal agency is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation – perhaps that’s the donor. Hard to figure out why a Canadian federal mortgate and housing agency – if that’s who it is – would donate to Gleick.

  313. Bill Tuttle says:

    Doug in Seattle says:
    June 8, 2012 at 8:17 am
    I don’t know who the two people at IEC are, but that in itself doesn’t mean they are not ethical and competent investigators.

    They specialize in investigating complaints of harassment in the workplace, not violations of federal law — which is a moot point, given Gleick’s public admissions.

    Still, we should be seeing a report in a matter as important as this (especially with Prof. Mann calling this an exoneration).

    Mann can call a pig’s hind leg a sirloin steak, but that doesn’t make it kosher.

  314. Max Hugoson says:

    Tale of two institutes:

    1. Max Planck Institute –

    Scientific research institute which employees REAL researchers, doing REAL experiments and producing REAL papers and results….tangible and reproducible.

    2. Pacific Institute –

    A group of alledged “scientists”, actually political activists who got “enviromental” or “climate science” (translate, NON-science, or NON-sense) degrees. Who run around making noise about CONTRIVED research and CONTRIVED/non-reproducible, results…bent towards their personal, emotional/political adgendas.

    WOW! Lot’s of similarities there. SARCASM OFF for now..

  315. Thomas says:

    Tom Murphy, you have the chronology backwards. GMU delayed their investigation and didn’t come to any conclusion until after Wegman’s journal paper had already been retracted, leaving GMU little choice but to reprimand Wegman.

    You seem to consider the congressional report also retracted, but I’ve argued with AGW skeptics who still cling to it as a relevant document based on that GMU cleared it, so I think that statement and the justification for it is still very much relevant. There are also more serious issues with the Wegman report that would have been interesting to see if the GMU investigation even touched.

  316. Jeremy says:

    Steve Mcintyre says, “Hard to figure out why a Canadian federal mortgate and housing agency – if that’s who it is – would donate to Gleick.”

    Unelected government agencies all over the Western world are donating money to CAGW Propagandists (NGO’s and other such stuff like the Pacific Institute), often money goes overseas.

    In return, these unelected government agencies get reports and media coverage from these CAGW Propagandists that help promote the need for action, which is what they want. It is rampant. I have seen cases where a UK government agency is sponsoring advertising only in Canada, simply to raise awareness about CAGW in Canada. of course, these agencies can then reference these “media reports” in Canada to add weight to whatever agenda they desire, “In Canada, it is reported that …..” The idea is that local readers in the UK will be impressed by the “weight of evidence” and will likely conclude that if so many countries, including Canada, are reporting instances of CAGW then it must be true.

    The UN is one of the worst offenders. I believe Donna Laframboise has uncovered a lot of this cross-pollination where unelected government agencies pay NGO’s to write reports that they want to hear. Peter Gleick has been screaming about the forthcoming calamitous scarcity of H20 for over twenty years. It is, of course, totally untrue – there is and always will be plenty of water – and every junior school kid knows that the hydrological cycle constantly extracts fresh water from our oceans and much of it precipitates on land – providing a constant supply of fresh water…

  317. red wolf says:

    It’s worth pointing out that Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian is that odious paper’s resident and reliable Court Jew, she was foremost in selling what turned out to be the big lie that was the Mohammed al-Durah affair, back when the Second Intifada broke back in October 2000.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/03/israel6

    That Goldenberg authored article linked above is entitled ‘Making of a martyr’.

    I don’t want to go off-topic here, just thought it worth pointing out (because it’s true!). The al-Durah scandal (see here for a comprehensive overview if you don’t know or remember what that’s about http://www.theaugeanstables.com/al-durah-affair-the-dossier/al-durah-chronology/) remains a blight on the Western Left’s media coverage of the Middle-East. It’s just that where there is one ‘progressive’ lie, other ‘progressive’ lies follow… (even if they don’t appear to have anything to do with one another, and entail different political controversies)

    And it’s the same liberal progressives promulgating fakery and fraud, all in the name of truth and enlightenment naturally. Goldenberg has clearly learned nothing, well no surprise there. Mohammed al-Durah was a fabricated ‘martyr’, predicated on fakery and anti-Jewish hate. Now Peter Gleick is the newest ‘martyr’ who ain’t, likewise all predicated on fraud and chicanery.

  318. hro001 says:

    Steve McIntyre says: June 8, 2012 at 8:20 am

    I’ve never heard of “Canadian Mortgage Corporation”. The federal agency is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation – perhaps that’s the donor. Hard to figure out why a Canadian federal mortgate and housing agency – if that’s who it is – would donate to Gleick.

    Perhaps in this instance the … uh … Tides went the other way, and the “Housing” got washed out in the process ;-)

  319. Tom Murphy says:

    Thomas says:

    “GMU delayed their investigation and didn’t come to any conclusion until after Wegman’s journal paper had already been retracted, leaving GMU little choice but to reprimand Wegman.”

    GMU conducted their investigation, though “Nature” accused the school of delaying it and yet the “Nature” admitted in its own reporting that, “The fact that 14 months have passed since Bradley’s complaint without it being resolved is disheartening but not unusual.” – http://tinyurl.com/3kaos8p (Nature link). Naturally, though, the AGW apologists asserted then (and now) that it was delayed with deliberation on GMU’s part.

    Where the journal came to its conclusion before GMU (May 2011 and February 2012, respectively) is largely immaterial in that their conclusions do complement each another. Regardless, I think it presumptuous to think that GMU and CSDA operated independently of one another given that the aggrieved party from UMass complained to GMU and not the journal. GMU’s appeal process is thorough and lends itself to an extended time period, although certain facts may have been established along the way (e.g., the journal’s conclusion of plagiarism). Although the UMass complainant was upset about not being notified personally of GMU’s conclusions, GMU noted that the aggrieved had aired his compliant in “public” at the neglect of GMU’s investigative process – http://tinyurl.com/bqv5mno (USA Today link).

    Note, though, that GMU did provide copies of its investigative report to the NIH and DoA given that both agencies contributed to the funding of the Wegman et al 2008 journal paper; this limited release is consistent with GMU’s procedure – http://tinyurl.com/7s99hsc (GMU link).

    “You seem to consider the congressional report also retracted, but I’ve argued with AGW skeptics who still cling to it as a relevant document based on that GMU cleared it, so I think that statement and the justification for it is still very much relevant.”

    The Congressional report, in whole, is tainted by its association with the journal paper. While the specifics of the report and paper may be debated – rightly or wrongly, a researcher today would be hard-pressed to reference either in their work. That’s the reality of scientific publishing, as indicated earlier.

  320. Glenn says:

    Andy Revkin seems to have picked up on the same question I had posted earlier, whether “interaction with” included Gleick’s account of the disputed memo.

    “Most notably, the group and its board declined to elaborate on the finding that the investigation, conducted by Independent Employment Counsel, “supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.”
    Does that mean the group expressly confirmed that a particularly provocative, and disputed, document was in fact produced by the Heartland Institute and not by Gleick himself or someone else?
    No answer.
    It’s fine to have an internal personnel investigation, but if you’re going to then release the finding publicly, but not any other details, it’s hard to see that carrying much weight in discourse outside the organization itself.”

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/peter-gleicks-pacific-institute-return/

    He is the only reporter I have seen that has put this question forward. Everyone else assumes that “interaction with” includes the memo, either implicitly or explicitly. Kudos to him for that.

    Is it possible that the ambiguity in the statement might lead to question whether the PI is attempting to cover up Gleick’s actions, say if he did forge the memo, while at the same time creating the appearance that he was “cleared” of the charge? And could that be seen as covering up a crime, or at the least unethical? Gleick “I shot the sheriff but I didn’t shoot no deputy” public statement seems to be taken as true by almost all the MSM, and various warmer blogs. The PI undoubtedly is aware of this, and likely knew this would happen when they crafted the statement.
    Refusal to clarify their meaning puts the Pacific Institute in a very bad light.

  321. P. Solar says:

    The press release only has ONE sentence about the findings in relation to Gleick:
    >>
    An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.
    >>

    Clearly, “interaction with” does NOT include the memo. This statement is carefully crafted with legal advice. His “interaction with” only concerns the deception and impersonation that he has already admitted.

    Since the faked doc did not come from H.I. it was not part of his “interaction with” them. He transmitted it (anonymously) deSmegBlog dishonestly claiming that it also came from Heartland but that was his interaction with the blog , not with H.I.

    The latest reporting from Goldberg on this is a lot nearer to the truth , so it looks like readers’ complaints and the report to the UK Press Complaints Commission has been effective. It looks like the editor has finally decided to reign in Ms G.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/peter-gleick-reinstated-heartland-expose

    This article, however, does contain the erroneous statement: “The Pacific Institute indicated in the statement that it had found no evidence for Heartland’s charges that Gleick had forged one of several documents he released last February.”

    I can not find any statement to that effect from P.I.

    This mistake seems also to have been copied by Revkin: “It [P.I.] gave no further explanation for its decision to reject Heartland’s charges that Gleick had faked a document.”

    It should also be remembered that Gleick has *never* actually stated that he did not forge the document! Again in a carefully crafted statement, surely made after careful legal council, he said that he “got it in the mail”. This of course does not preclude him from later admitting that he sent it to himself if he gets cornered by some forensic or other evidence.

    My guess is that the legal council who is advising him and P.I in preparing minimalistic, carefully worked statements is none other than the “independent” council that conducted the alleged enquiry into his conduct.

    This ain’t finished yet.

  322. John says:

    Here’s how the SF Chronicle spun it (sorry if this was posted earlier). Heartland insists that one the papers gleick shared was phony. Sponsored by oil companies. Lost supporters due to the release. Never mentioned he was invited by heartland to speak. Rot reporting.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/07/BAK51OUH3V.DTL

  323. Smokey says:

    Bernd,

    Don’t do that to me! You had me going for the first few paragraphs.

  324. P. Solar says:

    Just noted another ‘watch the pea’ phrase in the P.I. press release:

    “This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”

    Note that this carefully twisted phrase only “confirms” that P.I. is “satisfied” NOT that the investigation found that none of the staff knew nor even that they even tried to find out.

    EIR: are you satisfied that none of your staff knew about this ?
    P.I. “yes”.
    EIR: OK, then we will add this “finding” to our report.

    The deceitfulness was not a momentary lapse of judgement by Gleick , it is institutional at the Pacific Institute.

Comments are closed.