Heartland Institute Responds to Pacific Institute’s Reinstatement of Gleick – cites Federal criminal prosecution

JUNE 7, 2012 – The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute announced yesterday it was “pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president” of the organization. The announcement comes three months after Gleick, a prominent climate scientist, confessed to stealing confidential board documents from The Heartland Institute.

Gleick also circulated a memo, purportedly describing Heartland’s “climate strategy,” that he originally claimed to have received from Heartland, and later claimed to have received “in the mail” from an anonymous source. Heartland and others identified the memo as a fake and continue to believe it was most likely written by Gleick himself to damage Heartland’s reputation.

Since the “Fakegate” scandal broke in February, environmental groups including Greenpeace and 350.org have used the fake memo to launch disinformation campaigns against Heartland’s donors and the scientists who participate in its climate change research programs.

The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.


“Fakegate – which began when a fake memo was circulated to defame the world’s most prominent source of skepticism on man-made global warming – has now generated a fake investigation claiming to exonerate the person at the center of the scandal.

“Whereas The Heartland Institute has been open and honest with the public and the press, sharing emails and the results of its own internal investigations, the Pacific Institute has refused to identify who conducted its investigation, to release its report, or even to respond to our inquiries about what questions were asked of Gleick.

“As near as we can tell, this was not an investigation. It was a whitewash.

“The Pacific Institute’s board of directors has failed to perform its duty and should be deeply ashamed. We have asked the federal government to prosecute Gleick for what we believe were serious crimes he committed, and we await its decision.”

# # #

Note: shortly before I received this statement from Heartland, I got an email identifying the investigating organization. I’ve made Heartland aware of this.  This is the update I posted on the main story at 11AM today. I received the email from Ross at 9:20 AM but was awaiting verification before releasing this news.

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/  – Anthony

About these ads

71 thoughts on “Heartland Institute Responds to Pacific Institute’s Reinstatement of Gleick – cites Federal criminal prosecution

  1. Whatever investigation they performed is really immaterial … Gleick CONFESSED to illegal and HIGHLY unethical activity. Pacific Institute admits that Gleick’s actions violated their ethics rules.

    You can not unring that bell – Gleick ADMITS his guilt. No investigation can change that.

    The Board has grossly failed in their obligations. Their actions, or lack thereof are a complete joke.

  2. I can’t belive that the information about the Investigator can be true. This must be some kind of a bad joke. Have they used lawyers instead of technicians to clear Gleick…?? Is there something I do not understand (english is not my first language)?

  3. Thank you for the update – please keep us advised as the left always says they investigated and all is clean and nice. Try the RUN AND GUN games in Congress and the AG office as an example.

  4. Strange coincidence …. just bought the domain “climatejustice.co.uk” on the off chance we might need it in the near future … will it be sooner than we think?

  5. “The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.”
    Since “independent” is in their name I guess it really was an “independent” investigation. I feel much better.
    But “Employment Counsel”? Aren’t we looking at criminal activity rather employment potential? Maybe I don’t feel better afterall.

  6. Who was the client/customer here? Whose interests did this firm protect?

    I smell a rat…

  7. There can be no doubt about the veracity of the findings of this investigation. It is blindingly simple, but let’s recap.

    Gleick publicly admits to, what may be called industrial espionage. The PI then contract a third party to ask Gleick whether what he admitted in public is indeed the truth. Gleick confirms that it is the truth. Then the PI can accurately report that an enquiry has found that Gleick had told the truth in public. Having an enquiry confirming that one has told the truth, is of couse, an “exoneration”. Therefore, Gleick is exonerated. The story can be released to the tame media, and that’s the message the public see: Gleick is exonerated.

    But it is circular reasoning, like a jewel thief being exonerated because the jury finds that the defendent told the truth about stealing the diamond. Only, we can hope, there may be a few individuals still left scratching their heads, thinking “wait a mintue, he admitted theft – that’s exoneration?” Maybe some people will get it. Maybe, some people aren’t as dumb as the PI thinks. Maybe this will backfire on them horribly. Maybe. Fingers crossed.

  8. “The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.”

    IEC specializes in EEO complaints, so I imagine their investigation cleared Gleick of forcing his secretarial pool to become accomplices in his criminal activities. Aside from that, Gleick is toast.

  9. I had the impression that Heartland was also suing Pacific for civil damages. Is that not so?

  10. This is from their website:
    Independent Employment Counsel, LLP (IEC) performs
    independent, neutral services (arbitrations, mediations and
    investigations) in labor and employment matters. Our
    experience includes cases of all kinds—harassment,
    discrimination, retaliation, fraud and other workplace
    misconduct claims. The firm conducts unique seminars
    including leadership seminars, training related to employment
    law obligations and unlawful harassment training but using a
    broader thoughtful platform. The firm provides advice and
    expert testimony concerning workplace investigations.
    IEC’s services are provided by Cynthia E Maxwell and Gary Scholick, who between them possess more than fifty years of experience as employment and labor law attorneys. They are intimately familiar with the daily challenges of managing, supervising and working in the twenty-first century workplace.

    Among other things – seminars, and arbitration – they do:
    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.

    It does not appear that forensic investigations are in their tool bag.

  11. He bought carbon offsets which are the modern equivalent of medieval indulgences so he was absolved of all his sins. ;)

  12. A very dark and grim part of [Peter] Gleick is rejoicing over the news that he has been restored to his position at the Pacific Institute. The most important part of him, the part that makes him and the rest of us human, has to be, by definition, in despair. I told him as much in an e-mail. And I would tell him the same thing if I met him in the street.

    It is never too late to come clean.

  13. A New Zealand friend told me he was beginning to come around to my skeptical viewpoint prior to reading Gleick’s revelations. I hope Heartland, Anthony and any others damaged by his chicanery sue the pants off him, The Pacific Institute, and all of the other “news media” which participated in his deceptions. Bad behavior whether by children or by people with PhDs should not go unpunished.

  14. Scottish Sceptic said on June 7, 2012 at 11:37 am:

    Strange coincidence …. just bought the domain “climatejustice.co.uk” on the off chance we might need it in the near future … will it be sooner than we think?

    Wow, what an excellent opportunity!

    Set up the Climate Justice! website, that will accept donations to help the poor of the world adversely impacted by “improper” government policies concerning “climate change” and “carbon” emissions.

    Then give to those working directly to defeat “carbon” taxes and renewable energy mandates that lead to energy poverty and restrict development in third-world countries, and also to climate skeptics who are doing that less directly.

    You have the proof on your side, it’ll all be legal and defensible. Go for it!

  15. Independent Employment Counsel, LLP have an entry in Google.

    Cynthia E. Maxwell and Gary Schlick are “employment and labor law attorneys.” and “They are intimately familiar with the daily challenges of managing, supervising and working in the twenty-first century workplace.”
    I see no claim about what at the very least amounts to ‘industrial espionage’ in Gleick’s case – unless this is considered a normal working practice nowadays.

  16. I am not an attorney. However, while I believe Heartland is correct in attempting to get US DOJ to prosecute Gleick under federal criminal statutes, I believe it is the Heartland directors and donors who have been harassed and threatened as the result of the illegal releases of internal Heartland documents who have the standing to file civil suits against Gleick and perhaps against those who published the illicitly acquired information.

  17. A couple months back, I thought I read that independent writing experts pegged Gleick as the likely forger of the fake memo.

  18. “We have asked the federal government to prosecute Gleick for what we believe were serious crimes he committed, and we await its decision.”
    this is enormously cheering.
    please follow through and make the paper.
    if there is a prosecution, that will be the first.
    one victory will change the game because that would falsify their perennially confirmed notion of impunity.
    without the first victory, the record is loss on every engagement.
    it’s in your hands, heartland. do what needs to be done.
    also, please post the request you made to the federal government.
    nothing can boost the morale and rally the troops like a victory.
    this would more significant and effective development than anything else i can think of.
    a bit of justice has been long overdue. take the initiative and you have a chance to conquer.
    seize the opportunity lest it evaporate. don’t let it go cold.

  19. gator69 says:
    June 7, 2012 at 11:48 am

    “Who was the client/customer here? Whose interests did this firm protect?”

    Independent Employment Counsel, LLP did exactly what they were paid to do. And they were only hired after a clear understanding of what was expected of them was agreed to.

    As I have commented ever since the UoP and Muir Russell serial whitewashes, the truth will never emerge except in an adversarial setting, whether criminal or civil. The relevant questions will never even be asked. As we see, the only answers were in response to irrelevant questions. Classic misdirection, and a deceptive re-framing of the issues away from Gleick’s admitted wrongdoing.

    Only by allowing an adversary to question Gleick [or Jones, or Mann] under oath will the truth come out. Everything else is just whitewash.

    • Liberal elites will not even fire a University Professor when they are admitted Communists. They do not remove them for having sexual relations with students. So, a little cheating on the numbers and published papers is just proving their strong belief that the end justifies the means.

  20. The funny thing to me are the people thinking the Pacific Institute worries over ethical considerations. If that were true PI wouldn’t exist in the first place. They’re a Democrat PR/lobbying firm. Nothing else.
    As corrupt or more so as Media Matters, Think Progress, Talking Points Memo, the Tides Foundation.

  21. There doesn’t seem to be any indication that this “independent” investigator ever contacted anyone from Heartland. If they had Heartland likely wouldn’t be so completely in the dark about who was conducting the investigation or what questions were being raised, although the alarmist crowd could still suggest that they are being disingenuous about that. Given the fundamental role Heartland played in this affair, that neglect would seem to disqualify the results of the “investigation”, although that hasn’t seemed to work for all the previous climate science investigations which followed a similar approach. An approach which is analogous to police investigating a bank robbery by limiting their interviews to the guy who was caught leaving the bank with a satchel full of money, taking him at his word that the cash really was his, and never bothering to even talk to anyone from the bank. Dillinger would have loved these guys.

  22. Back when I worked for an evil multi-national corporation (ITT in the 1980’s), there was an incident at a weekend meeting at the Sheraton Hotel in Bridgeport, CT. Some groups from the Programming Technology Center in Stratford had just returned from a European trip to examine programming practices at various sites helping develop what was supposed to be the next-generation digital phone switch. Present were managers, technical staff, and some secretaries (I was not part of the meeting — different group).

    Anyway, after a day of various presentations there was a break for dinner and the announcement the meeting would resume after dinner so one of the returned travelers could show some slides from the trip.

    When people returned after dinner the slideshow got started. It turned out not to be about ITT sites visited but some nude and semi-nude pictures accompanied by what was supposed to be witty commentary. That was I believe on a Friday evening.

    By noon Monday, the person who showed the slides had been fired together with his manager. The manger was fired because he was the senior person present and did not immediatly stop the presentation once it was clearly not work related and offensive (he did not know and had not approved what his subordinate was going to present). Apparently complaints from some of the secretaries made it to senior executives in New York over the remainder of the weekend and they made their termination decisions by first thing Monday morning.

    Several weeks later there were a series of sessions for everyone at our facility conducted by corporate legal staff from New York on exactly what was and was not permissible when undertaken in ITT’s name. With the summary firings fresh in our minds, we all paid closer attention than we probably would have otherwise.

    ITT had some years earlier been dragged through the mud as part of the Nixon Watergate and related scandals and they apparently were determined to avoid another trip.

    It’s clear the people from Independent Employment Counsel, LLP are from a kinder, gentler school of corporate governance.

  23. Scottish Sceptic said:
    June 7, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Strange coincidence …. just bought the domain “climatejustice.co.uk” on the off chance we might need it in the near future … will it be sooner than we think?
    ———————————————
    In the States the anarchists agitators like to yell “NO JUSTICE – NO PEACE!”

    Maybe your website motto could be “NO JUSTICE – NO CLIMATE!”

    :)

  24. Gleick admitted to breaking 3, possibly 4, laws….
    …what is the problem with prosecuting him

  25. Another classic example of:

    Not all the crooks are in the climate change industry, but all those in the climate change industry are crooks.

  26. I would suspect that the “EEO counseling” specialties of IEC were the most relevant part of the “investigation.” To wit: Don’t spill the beans on the boss, or we will quietly find ways to terminate you, making sure you have no recourse against any of us! Believe us, we know how!”

    I went through just that scenario when part of an organization where megalomania was epidemic (among the elitists) and one of them was caught with multiple Social Security Cards in his possession while crossing the Mexico/American border. In fact, IEC, LLP seems to ring a bell with my memory banks…

  27. Dave Wendt says: June 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    There doesn’t seem to be any indication that this “independent” investigator ever contacted anyone from Heartland… Given the fundamental role Heartland played in this affair, that neglect would seem to disqualify the results of the “investigation”.

    Yes. This is the hallmark of every single investigation so far. Plus whatshis name who used Anthony’s hard-won unpublished work for his own contrary ends, without asking permission.

    Deafening nonmention of all of us non-people, except as “deniers”.

    It is for very good reason that the classic court of law follows the fourfold sequence of Prosecution, Defence, Prosecution Answers Defence, and Defence Answers Prosecution.

    IMHO WE NEED A LAW SUIT that might finally give our side a global voice – assuming that Western democracy has not degenerated that far into communism/fascism – and make people generally aware of this perversion of justice, this gagging and silencing and denial of our rights to be heard, which has happened.

  28. This is a complete waste of time. The main point is that Gleick committed a crime and that he needs to be prosecuted. The fact that the “pacific Institute” has exonerated him is as the |Australians would say is rat###t. On the other hand if it found that this whole exonberation thing has been made up AGAIN this is a real story HA. Inthis case \gleick needs to be committed to an insane institution and not prosecuted LOL

  29. I would be curious as to how many of these “independent” review organizations Pacific Institute had to approach before finding one that would touch this with a ten foot pole to give the paid for response. It must have cost a bundle. Independent Employment Counsel, LLP will now need to morph into something of a different name. The internet will keep up with the principles.

  30. If this happens to be another false alarm by Gleick a lot will sink with him LOL

  31. Ms. Cynthia E. Maxwell
    Partner
    Independent Employment Counsel, LLP
    5561 Rathbun Rd.
    Cazenovia, NY 13035
    Work: 3158154126
    Email: iecounselcem@msn.com
    Web Address: http://www.iecounsel.com

    Fee Policy

    Basic Fees:
    Employment Arbitrations: $275.00 per hour
    Neutral Investigations: $275.00 per hour
    Labor Arbitrations: $1,275 per day

    http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/conflictres/rosterofneutrals/allneutrals.html?action=detail&id=3208

    30 pieces of silver amounts to about 15 oz. of silver. Thirty pieces of silver, based on the current value of silver at $29.7/oz,.would be worth around $ 445.00.

  32. My reading of the situation is that the independent investigation of employees is a growing industry amongst lawyers enabling employers to demonstrate to courts that they undertook a thorough investigation into an employee suspected of misconduct, using independent counsel. Employers have been advised not to use their existing attorneys or staff for such investigations, in order to avoid a conflict of interest.

    Lawyers acting as independent investigators in respect of the alleged misconduct of employees emanated from several court cases, in particular Cotran vs. Rollings Huding Hall. In this case it was found that if the employer made the wrong decision with regard to an employee’s misconduct, the employer could use the results of an independent, reasonable and good-faith investigation in defence of their actions in dealing with the employee.

    Gleick is clearly liable for the actions he has admitted to and could be found liable in some respect for the forged document. The liability may be both criminal and civil. The Pacific Institute appears to have had an independent counsel conduct an investigation and provide a report, primarily to allow them to lift Gleick’s suspension.

    The report can now be used in any litigation to try to show that PI acted in good faith. However the report would come under intense scrutiny so it is essential that it represents a thorough, wide-ranging and detailed investigation of all aspects of Gleick’s actions and the allegations against him.

    I would guess that an important consideration of the investigation into Gleick would be to try to determine whether the Pacific institute has any vicarious liability for Gleick’s actions against Heartland and others.

  33. It should be said that most MSM media have allowed Heartland to make the same statement posted here so its probably looking like a real baddie for Mr Gleick.

  34. HenrikM says:
    June 7, 2012 at 11:30 am

    I can’t belive that the information about the Investigator can be true. This must be some kind of a bad joke. Have they used lawyers instead of technicians to clear Gleick…?? Is there something I do not understand (english is not my first language)?
    _____________________________________
    They used lawyers who specialize in employment law obligations …” harassment, discrimination, retaliation, fraud and other workplace misconduct claims….”
    The determination seems to be centered around whether anyone else beside Glieck was in on the fraud.

  35. It seems to me that the Board at PI did not care if Peter Gleick committed crimes in an attempt to damage the Heartland Institute. Heck, might even give him a raise for that, or at least nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize! The investigation was to determine if Gleick might have violated some internal company policy or labor relationship practice that would draw the Pacific Institute directly into the fray. To the board…that would be a punishable offence!

    At the Pacific Institute, Gleick will probably return to a hero’s welcome!

  36. Latitude says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    Gleick admitted to breaking 3, possibly 4, laws….
    …what is the problem with prosecuting him

    The DOJ is run by people who habitually overlook crimes by political allies, and Gleick is a political ally. Heartland are political foes and the victim of those crimes.

    That’s the problem. I’d bet no action will take place by the DOJ until at least 2013.

  37. Lucyskywalker, yes we need a massive lawsuit. I would imagine the Heartland Institute is going this route if they are as white and clean as what we are led to believe. I surely hope so!

  38. Latitude says:
    June 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Gleick admitted to breaking 3, possibly 4, laws….
    …what is the problem with prosecuting him
    __________________________________________
    It is not up to Heartland. It is up to the government paid Attorney to do the prosecution.

    For example in the case of Mary Jo Kopechne’s drowning death, Ed Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended two-month sentence. He was never brought up on charges of homicide despite leaving her (ALIVE) in the car over night to drown before contacting the police.

    In the case of the Dollarhites, they face a $90,643 fine that will become 3.9 million if they try to fight it. Their crime? A spec of rust and an inspector who eyeballed their rabbit cages and said they were 1/4 inch too small.

    There are plenty of other examples but it is not the crime it is WHO you are that matters and Gleick is closer in power to Ed Kennedy than he is to the Dollarhite family.

  39. eyesonu says:
    June 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    I would be curious as to how many of these “independent” review organizations Pacific Institute had to approach before finding one that would touch this with a ten foot pole to give the paid for response. …
    ___________________________
    It is a little two person outfit from what I could tell from Anthony’s link and this: http://www.iecounsel.com/about.html

  40. Great inquiry. Looks like they found a useful patsy to arrive at their foregone conclusion.

  41. HI needs to get a writ of mandamus to compel the Chicago office of the FBI and the state prosecutor to do their job and file charges in this case.

  42. Mark and two Cats says:
    June 7, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    “We have asked the federal government to prosecute Gleick…”

    Oh yeah that’ll happen.
    ————————
    They have to wait until after the decision is made to not prosecute (which I’m pretty sure will happen) and until the criminal trial is over (not too likely to happen) to file suit in civil court for damages. Can’t cause harm to the criminal trial.

  43. Regime change begins in November. If I were PG, I wouldn’t be too sanguine just now . . .

  44. Smokey says:
    June 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    “Only by allowing an adversary to question Gleick [or Jones, or Mann] under oath will the truth come out. Everything else is just whitewash.”

    Smokey,
    I most always appreciate your comments. You cut through the bull$hit and strike to the heart of the issue. A man that shares my own penchant for direct communications, there!
    MtK

  45. DocMartyn says:
    June 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    Employment Arbitrations: $275.00 per hour
    Neutral Investigations: $275.00 per hour
    Labor Arbitrations: $1,275 per day

    Having your investigation of your client’s HR practices hyped as an exoneration of its president’s felonious actions: Priceless…

  46. erik – heartland can’t manage to do anything about gleick.
    what do you imagine they’re going to be able to do about the U.N.?
    what can one expect to get for his money, srsly?

  47. As others in the main site have alluded to, this investigation and clearance is not about Gleick per se, its about liability of the Pacific Institute for Gleick’s actions and for what action PI might take in regard to Dr. Gleick’s employment, and whether or not, his actions have compromised any of the employees (not the least of which would be the board of directors and the executive office). The conclusion is that PI will not be liable for Gleick’s actions, and as such, they don’t have a basis for terminating him, nor an apparent liability for associating with him. This isn’t about Gleick’s culpability in the matter.

  48. The “investigation” was done by two HR lawyers? Wow, that’s compelling stuff there.

  49. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    Scottish Sceptic said: “Strange coincidence …. just bought the domain “climatejustice.co.uk” on the off chance we might need it in the near future”

    Wow, what an excellent opportunity!

    Set up the Climate Justice! website, … you have the proof on your side, it’ll all be legal and defensible. Go for it!

    Thanks for the encouragement.

  50. Was there ever any question or concern that other Pacific Institute staff were involved?
    Have not the Investigators actually answered a totally irrelevant question?

  51. Vince Causey says:
    June 7, 2012 at 11:56 am

    So they exonerated Gleick on telling the truth about stealing, lying, and forging? Makes sense.

  52. This isn’t exoneration, just that Dr. Gleick has done anything that would warrant disciplinary action.

    In employment law the question is, did the employee, by his or her actions violate the conditions of employment or binding agreements with the employer (such as confidentiality)? Apparently admitting committing what could be argued is a federal crime does not violate the terms of employment. The fact that they cite Dr. Gleick as not utilizing other staff members would mean that they looked at this from a misappropriation of Institute resources point of view, and considered that any alleged or admitted misconduct was either 1) in the best interests of the Institute based on Dr. Gleick judgement or 2) was committed *not* as part of Dr. Gleick’s responsibilities at the institute.

    Had Dr. Gleick used Institute resources (beyond what “personal use” clause is in the employment contract), released the document as an official act of the Institute, or released the Institute’s own confidential documents — there likely would have been grounds for “employee disciplinary action” — which can include termination.

    Remember, this is California and it is hard to fire someone.

  53. such a lot of wishful thinking here!

    if it turns out that the memo really is a fake, i’ll be happy to admit that i was wrong in my opinion of it.

    if it turns out that global warming is bullshit, i’ll be considerably more happy to admit that i was wrong.

    BUT

    if/when the memo turns out to be legit.

    if/when global warning becomes so blindingly obvious that it’s impossible to deny.

    THEN what are you guys going to do?

    oh, & don’t hold your breath waiting for any of this to show up in court; the heartland institute doesn’t want a subpoena of their records (laundered or not), any more than they want another winter as warm, screwed-up & snow-less as the latest one was…

    :p

  54. Waiting for the DOJ may not be too useful. Heartland in line behind Black Panther Voter Intimidation, Fast & Furious, ACORN, and other conclusive criminal acts like Gleick’s all awaiting Holder’s “Justice.” Don’t “Hold” your breath.

    Better to have Heartland commence civil process, and add The Pacific Institute and IEC LLP as co-defendents, aiding and abetting Gleick’s ADMITTED crimes.

  55. Cthulhu & proud! (@Lx121) says:
    June 8, 2012 at 11:26 am

    It’s quite clear you are the one with the wishful thinking (?) perhaps hoping that someone somewhere will give you some glimmer of justification for your beliefs!
    the memo is highly unlikely to be legit- it makes no sense in the context/way it was ‘written’
    it is highly unlikely that AGW is a real threat (I don’t believe it is ANY threat!) and all you ‘believers’ will have to find some other bleeding heart cause to rob the majority of society, impose fuel poverty and economic misery, etc, on millions of people.
    I’d applaud your stance if it was based on any real demonstrable and replicable science – but of course it isn’t ! otherwise you’d be able to conclusively show it, and more importantly, the readers here would be able to agree with you!
    Perhaps you’d best stay in twitter land, rather than visit here where we look at science and evidence, rather than speculative bulldust or ideological beliefs?…

  56. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is going to have to change its name or be stuck with a designation that no longer involves investigation but rather whitewash.

  57. Cthulhu & proud! (@Lx121) says:
    June 8, 2012 at 11:26 am
    such a lot of wishful thinking here!
    if/when the memo turns out to be legit.

    It’s already been identified as a forgery by forensic computer analysts — not HR lawyers.

    if/when global warning becomes so blindingly obvious that it’s impossible to deny.

    Nobody’s denying that global warming and global cooling are entirely natural events, and have been following each other in sequence for umpty-million years. What’s blindingly obvious is that AGW is a failed hypothesis.

    THEN what are you guys going to do?

    Continue to sit here and watch trolls continue to make fools of themselves…

  58. “Paul Coppin says:

    June 8, 2012 at 4:30 am
    As others in the main site have alluded to, this investigation and clearance is not about Gleick per se, its about liability of the Pacific Institute for Gleick’s actions and for what action PI might take in regard to Dr. Gleick’s employment, and whether or not, his actions have compromised any of the employees (not the least of which would be the board of directors and the executive office). The conclusion is that PI will not be liable for Gleick’s actions, and as such, they don’t have a basis for terminating him, nor an apparent liability for associating with him. This isn’t about Gleick’s culpability in the matter.”
    Sounds good to me for just about any other employee than their PRESIDENT. Their President for goodnes sake. How can you continue to have such a person as your PRESIDENT?????

  59. Three questions –
    1. Just to be clear – Based on some of the comments I’m reading, ethical misconduct is not considered a valid reason for termination from a ‘scientific’ organization even if the ethical misconduct was by the same person that chaired the AGU Committee on Scientific Ethics?
    2, If so, then why not overturn Sandy Berger’s conviction and reinstate him as National Security Adviser?
    3. When did common sense become so uncommon?

  60. Hugh K says:
    June 9, 2012 at 9:36 am
    2, If so, then why not overturn Sandy Berger’s conviction and reinstate him as National Security Adviser?

    Because he still wears those loose socks…

Comments are closed.