# BREAKING: Gleick Confesses

Since I have started updates here, I’ll keep this post as a “sticky” – new content will follow below it and linked within updates. – Anthony

UPDATE 71: 3:27PM In his latest post 18 U.S.C. 1343 Steve McIntyre demonstrates how Andrew Lacis of GISS, has no clue about law, and likely no clue about ethical behavior either. As Eli Rabbett would say Andrew, RTFM.

UPDATE70: 2:40PM 2/28 A very detailed Fakegate timeline has been prepared by WUWT reader A. Scott, which I have published complete with an Excel Spreadsheet. Notes made of the new Copner timeline also. Details here.

UPDATE69: 10:03AM 2/28 Mosher and Copner are following another trail over at Lucia’s in comments. It seems even Gleick’s associates were warning him against use of the phrase “anti-climate”. The response about “giving away the game” makes me wonder if there were others in on the phishing, but it could just be coincidental.

UPDATE68: 9:25AM 2/28 Walter Starck has a good comparison of Heartland/Fakegate -vs- Climategate at Quadrant Online

UPDATE67: 8:05AM 2/28 Ben Pile has an excellent summary of Fakegate

UPDATE66: 4:45PM 2/27 Yesterday it was “hordes” today it is “swarms”. The hilarity continues over at DeSmog Blog.

UPDATE65: 3:08PM 2/27 the AGU president issues a statement on Gleick and AGU’s involvement with Gleick’s AGU ethics committee. It is quite strong and condemns Gleick (though could be stronger).

UPDATE64: 1:00 and 1:18PM 2/27 In a press release, the Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo Meanwhile, days later, the Pacific Institute Board of Directors catches up with a new statement citing what we all knew last Friday.

UPDATE63: 10:15AM 2/27 Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian.

UPDATE62: 10:10AM 2/27 Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail – You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.

UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of \$100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of \$4.4 million

UPDATE60: While “Fakegate” rages, which is a huge distraction from the science, this essay by Dr. David Evans The Skeptics Case is useful to consider and to cite in the thousands of online arguments now occurring. A PDF is provided for emailing also.

UPDATE59: I no more than post QOTW (bonus edition), and Steve McIntyre provides yet another quote for serious consideration. Uncharacteristically, he has disabled comments. But when you see his quote, you’ll understand why.

UPDATE58: 5:15AM 2/26 Dr. Judith Curry has a relevant QOTW (bonus edition).  My earlier QOTW choice has apparently terrorized the twits with WUWT “hordes”.

UPDATE57: 8:00PM Christopher Booker in the Telegraph says: The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists’ endless credulity – Dr Peter Gleick provides more evidence that the supporters of the Cause will stop at nothing.

UPDATE56: 3:02PM 2/25 Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”

UPDATE55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up – Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning – Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.

Loved this part:

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

UPDATE54: 12:20PM some interesting essays by Donna Laframboise here entitled: Peter Gleick – Then and Now and another by Hilary Ostrov entitled: From the ashes of Gleickgate: a new mantra is born h/t to Dr. Judith Curry from her Week in Review

UPDATE53: 10:45AM 2/25 Steve McIntyre has a humorous piece entitled Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

UPDATE52: 10:20 AM 2/25 Nicola Scaffeta has contributed a guest essay – What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick to do identity fraud on Jan 27th?

UPDATE51: 7:15PM 2/24 According to the San Jose Mercury News, Dr. Gleick has requested a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute – details here

UPDATE50: 5:00PM 2/24 Quote of the week – from Scientific American, a comment on “The Cause” as we saw in CG2 emails

UPDATE49: 3:23PM 2/24 Dr. Judith Curry posts a “bombshell” on her website saying: With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered.

Oh, the ironing.

UPDATE48: 3:00PM 2/24 Rep Ed Markey, probably still upset that Waxman-Markey cap and trade didn’t go anywhere, is sticking his nose into the Fakgate affair.

UPDATE47: 10:10AM 2/24 Fraudulent emails to Heartland from Gleick have been released. See details here.

UPDATE46: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to “disappear” \$468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:

EPA, do you know where your grants are?

Additional grants (possibly as much \$647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.

The purpose of the grants on the screencap he has is a hoot.

UPDATE45: 8:00 AM 2/24 I’ve known this for several days, but now it is in the press. The gloves are off and The FBI has been called in.

UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.

UPDATE 43: 10:45PM 2/23 Here is a video “self-interview” from Dec 2011 by Peter Gleick from his PI office where he talks about people having a “fundamental trust in scientists”.

UPDATE42: 8:20PM 2/23 It appears that Gleick’s cyber impersonation to Heartland may have run afoul of a new law in California.

UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home

UPDATE40: 10:55AM 2/23 Heartland publishes the email thread with Dr. Gleick where he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration.

UPDATE39: 10:09AM 2/23 Junkscience reports: Breaking: EPA scrubs web site of Gleick grants?

UPDATE38: 9:45AM 2/23 What do you do when you are a climate skeptic and have access to sensitive private documents? The answer is here.

UPDATE37: 7:30AM 2/23 Monckton writes an opinion on why the perpetrators(s) should be prosecuted.

UPDATE36: 12AM 2/23 You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo. Details here.

UPDATE 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s AGU Resignation.

UPDATE34: 10:20PM 2/22 AP/WaPo: Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers

UPDATE 33: 10:00PM 2/22 The Guardian reports: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. It seems the Pacific Institute Board of directors isn’t very happy. Their recent statement contrasts with Update 19 below. And he’s been dropped as a columnist by the SFO Chronicle.

UPDATE32: 9:45PM 2/22 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has her third article in a series on this affair. She writes:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.

UPDATE31 9:15PM 2/22 The Daily Mail gives WUWT props in this affair, here:

UPDATE30: 6:30PM 2/22 “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.” says Maggie’s Farm on the fake document. Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. Get this: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Susuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.

UPDATE29: 5:00 PM 2/22 Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in saying:

On September 4 2011 I posted

Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California,  involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue.  Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.

UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in comments reports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only took Richard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy! The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond all hope.

UPDATE27: 11:25 AM 2/22 Marlo Lewis at Globalwarming.org summarizes in From Climategate to Fakegate

UPDATE26: 8:25AM 2/22 Time Magazine has a feature story by Bryan Walsh: The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose

UPDATE25: 8:18PM 2/21 Willis Eschenbach writes An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen asking et tu AGU?

UPDATE24: 8:10 PM 2/21 Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute gives a video interview with the Wall Street Journal. He accuses Gleick directly, saying:

Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”

UPDATE23: 7:30PM 2/21 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for the takedown, and some jeers for others.

UPDATE22: 3:30PM 2/21 The AGU weighs in on Gleick with “disappointment”  Gleick resigned on Feb 16th, but apparently didn’t tell them the full story of why.

UPDATE21: 2:55PM 2/21  Fakegate – It’s What They Do by Chris Horner

UPDATE20: 2:30PM 2/21 Warning Signs: “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

UPDATE19: 2:12PM 2/21 For now, Dr. Gleick still has an office, though I’m not sure that will true in the future. The Pacific Institute made an announcement on their web page that Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team.

UPDATE18: 1:55 PM 2/21 Josh designs the new spring line of Climate Churnalism’s New Clothes

UPDATE17: 1:30 PM 2/21 With resignations happening already, and AGU removing him from his webpage, (Update11) The question out there is now about the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick signed an “integrity” document “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” was published in the journal Science on May 7th, 2010 as the “Lead Letter”, plus  a supporting editorial.  Will the co-signers defend the tarnished integrity of climate science now? Will Dr. Gleick continue on the NAS as a member?

UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.

Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign

UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status (via Tom Nelson):

Daily Kos: Hero Scientist responsible for Heartland Expose

Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis.  He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.

UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here

UPDATE13: 9:30AM 2/21 NCSE posts a story about Gleick on their news page, they mention his resignation from NCSE’s board.

On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

UPDATE12: 8:10AM 2/21 Delingpole on integrity here

UPDATE11: 8AM 2/21 Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

UPDATE10: 7:45AM 2/21 Dr. Judith Curry tries to reconcile Gleick’s essays on “integrity” with his actions. It is a fascinating read.

UPDATE9: 7:20AM 2/21 Josh has a cartoon out on it, I don’t agree with it. Time magazine calls out Gleick.

UPDATE8: 11:20PM Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion. They are labeling him as a whistleblower: Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents

For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

These paid propagandists are shameless, they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause. The Noble Cause Corruption is thick there.

UPDATE7: 9:32 PM Politico writes:

Two sources in California — longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.

Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.

UPDATE6: 9:25 PM Steve McIntyre writes:

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

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here.

UPDATE5: 8:40PM commenter “Skiphill” writes:

Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html

Integrity of Science

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

UPDATE4: 8:35PM Dr. Judith Curry notes the irony about Dr. Gleick lecturing her on integrity here

UPDATE3: 8:15PM I have received the Heartland statement, it will be posted under a separate post here. 8:23 PM It is posted here

UPDATE2: 725PM PST This post will likely go through many revisions as we learn more, I’ll timestamp each.- Anthony

UPDATE: 715PM PST Heartland advises me they will issue a statement soon. Stay tuned.

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

As many of us had surmised, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute is the Heartland document leaker. He has issued this statement:

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

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. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

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

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post,

(Added 7:25PM PST) One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

Peter Gleick’s HuffPo blog here.

For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/22/from-climategate-to-fakegate/

## 945 thoughts on “BREAKING: Gleick Confesses”

1. David Jay says:

Wow. Just wow.
(and kudos to Mosh)

2. Manniac says:

Popcorn, Popcorn, getcha Popcorn here!

3. HaroldW says:

Gleick denies being the faker, though he admits pretexting Heartland to get the real documents. Gleick wrote: “I do not know the source of that original document…”

4. Confessions of a Real Weasel. This does not divorce him from the fraudulent ones, only the original stolen ones. SO, we have receipt of stolen goods —Gleick Pleads Guilty!. Second and more serious count of libel and fraud—yet to be decided

5. Wow, just wow. So this makes the “faked” document more interesting – Gleick says he got it first, so whoever wrote it is either at Heartland or had copies of the documents it quoted from.

6. What led you to suspect Gleick to begin with?

7. Dianna says:

So Lucy Ramirez now anonymously forwards incriminating documents to innocent climate bloggers?
I’m supposed to believe this? After he confesses that he impersonated a Heartland Institute board member in order to steal material?
I do not believe this statement. I think he stole the board packet and, since he didn’t find the incriminating material he wanted, he made it up! It’s a lot simpler as an explanation, and it accounts for all the known facts. I love Occam’s razor.

8. Aussie Luke Warm says:

his mea culpa is not very convincing.

9. A physicist says:

Anthony, your post might reasonably have included Andrew Revkin’s harsh-yet-correct judgment:

“Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing … Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. … That is his personal tragedy and shame.

For skeptics and non-skeptics alike there is one clear lesson-learned: “Be First with the Truth” … because the story of Peter Gleick shows the sad fate that awaits all who ignore this bedrock principle of science and of skepticism.
[REPLY: No, he might not have. -REP]

10. DirkH says:

Ric Werme says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“Wow, just wow. So this makes the “faked” document more interesting – Gleick says he got it first, so whoever wrote it is either at Heartland or had copies of the documents it quoted from.”
I bet he wrote it himself and left traces big enough to drive a truck over. Gleick doesn’t know anything about IT.

11. jonathan frodsham says:

Well, well, well. Looks like Mr Gleick wishes to make a name for himself. Hmm I smell a rat in the room!

12. Ben Wilson says:

“Gleick denies being the faker, though he admits pretexting Heartland to get the real documents. Gleick wrote: “I do not know the source of that original document…”. . . . . . which was dated February 13, well after the time that Gleick supposedly got the original documents in January.
How long until he resigns from every last organization he is associated with. . . . .or will he?

13. Goldie says:

Well at least he fessed up. Where do that leave the fake document?

14. Fake but accurate…..

15. Severian says:

What a tool, he basically says wah wah the deniers made me do it! Hopefully Heartland and their legal folks will make his life interesting.

16. Hey, the comments option is not available on Geick’s confession on HuffPo Green.
More transparency from the extremist warmist faction, eh?
Well, we always have this forum, I suppose.
So I say, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, house of cards, lies, lies, lies, “hoax-y stick”, etc.
Good grief, these AGW fraudsters can’t get out of their own way.
How many decades, do you think, before science generally regains its reputation from this worldwide multi-billion dollar perversion?

17. Alvin says:

So he is trying to become a martyr for the cause? The ends justify the means?

18. So Gleick admits to the leak and the deceptive method by which he obtained the material from HI, but does not acknowledge the faking of the document? Reminds me of the Andrew Wiener “modified, limited hangout” strategy.

19. Dave N says:

The honorable thing for Gleick to do would be to disappear entirely. Even in his confession he is misrepresenting HI; you can’t get much lower.

20. Brett says:

So, he got the document in early 2012, but it was copied using an Epson copier on Feb 13. So, he is saying that he scanned the document in and included it in the release?

21. DirkH says:

jthomas2 says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“What led you to suspect Gleick to begin with?”
Ahem… “Efforts…have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter or own.” (from the Gleickenstein / Frankengleick memo)
Why should Heartland think that Gleick, of all people, is important? Warmists had free access to Op-Eds in the NYT and many other papers for ages; why should they care about a Forbes blog?

22. O2BNAZ says:

“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.”
What an utterly mind numbing lack of self awareness these people have.

23. David Jay says:

Remember that Steven Mosher felt that the FORGERY was written in Gleick’s voice, so the “some anonymous somebody sent it to me” is not very credible.

24. As I posted in the other thread, that “admission” reads very much like the sort of carefully crafted admission a lawyer would tell someone to write to limit exposure. It shifts blame to an unnamed anonymous source and admits what was widely suspected and probably easily proven if he was in fact the source, do to electronic tracks his action would have left behind.
On one hand I feel sorry for the man he obviously lost touch with reality and has now destroyed his credibility as a responsible journalist, and will be followed by that shadow for the rest of his professional life.
On the other hand is shows that the crowd source suspicions were dead on the money, and proves that the CAGW groups engage in exactly the sort of “dirty tricks” they often accuse the skeptics of. It also proves that many of the hangers on who have defended this were hung out to dry by those they trusted.
Perhaps they should re-think who is telling them the truth?
Larry

25. Pamela Gray says:

This sounds like a case of “got hand caught in the cookie jar, damn it” confession time. The tone just doesn’t come across as being a “it’s midnight and I can’t sleep so I guess I should confess and get it off my chest” kind of thing. Especially the part about “they made me do it”. Apology, maybe. Sincere, definitely not.

26. Ric Werme,
Or, Peter Gleick is just lying again. At this point, I think that has to be considered as a possibility. I don’t see anywhere in his statement that he says he can prove his assertion about the mailing.
RTF

27. philincalifornia says:

Oh, this is beyond embarrassing. This guy is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.

28. It seems congratulations to Steve Mosher is in order. And The Git was wrong. What a silly faker!

29. Jenn Oates says:

Well, I fail to see why he and his ilk are so convinced that they are right that they feel they must shut down debate with those who disagree. If their data and conclusions are as conclusive as they claim they should welcome the impotent attempts to demonstrate otherwise, but they don’t. If nothing else that would make me question the whole boondoggle.
We’ll see where this goes from here…I can only hope some eyes are opened regarding the kind of science that supports climate doomsday scenarios.
So…Is he in legal hot water?

30. MattN says:

Not buying that he’s not the fabricator. He did everythign else, but that? Yeah, right…

31. Brendan says:

And yet the statement once again lays out more non facts
“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.”
‘prevent debate’?
And once again the ‘sin’ its all couched in the all too familiar, ‘but the Devil made me do it’ excuse.
All the parties involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Any claim they thought they had to the ‘moral high ground’ should be silenced forever after this debacle.
Oh and can Anthony and others now have an apology for their reasoned and logical arguments that the (a) documents were faked and (b) the excellent investigation work that pointed the finger straight at the person who has now confessed.
This is more than an own goal or shooting oneself in the foot.
Perhaps a new phrase for hari-kari. “To Gleick”?!

32. Richard Sharpe says:

And I suppose he deleted the first, fake, document?

33. Mike Mangan says:

Mosher you are bloody brilliant!!

34. kelly says:

Anthony,
Tom Nelson beat you by a few minutes but now everyone knows. BTY, as of now (21:38 EST, 2/20/2012) Huffpo is taking no comments on the post by Gleick.
Cheers,

35. BWAAA!!! Peter Gleick is the same pompous jerk that wrote the fake Amazon.com book review on The Delinquent Teenager.
This twit sure does get around. He personifies what’s wrong with CAGW warmunists: inadequate research, fabricated data, erroneous conclusions, corruption, deceit, collusion and arrogance; all perpetuated on the false pretense of saving humanity from itself.
The irony is so thick, you can choke on it.

36. John S says:

So let me get this in my head…. He says: I lied about this, I lied to get information, but you can believe me now. Is that it?
By the way, if the sums involved from heartlad are considered in the ballpark of ‘well funded’ count me out of the skeptic mercenary guild. I could make more at Mcdonalds

37. Wucash says:

So he says he did not leak? Or he’s sorry for everything but does not admit leaking?
I never gave my view on this Hearltand thing; It’s that both sides should show transparency, and the only agenda on both sides should be the truth instead of working up ways to influence the public’s opinion on this debate through anything else but science.
It doesn’t take a genius that “our” side needs money as much as “theirs”, if we are to counter their arguements scientifically, but keeping the paper trail hidden from the public opens us up to such attacks like “anti-science founding”, etc etc.
I hope both sides learn from this – keep sources of funding open and don’t fake, lie, or sex up the truth.

38. ~FR says:

Is there a single truthful statement in his closing paragraph?

39. DavidA says:

“I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”
Doesn’t answer everything. Who authored the fake Strategy document? Funnily enough Gleick was suspected because it looked like, based on the contents, that HE authored it, but here he claims to be the leaker and phisher though not the author.
And which document was the first to appear to Gleick? The Strategy document is the odd one out so it would seem that one. If it wasn’t that one then Heartland sent that to him (the phish) which doesn’t seem likely.
If the Strategy document was sent to Gleick then it’s possible Gleick was played as a dupe by someone else: the conspiracy theory.
Or Gleick’s confession might just be laced with more porkies.
No doubt he’s engaging in forward thinking damage control after realising the legal implications of his deed.

40. Phil says:

Cornered, with no way out. It looks like he is attempting to cover one lie (the faked document) with another lie: that the faked document was created prior to the receipt of the board documents from Heartland.

41. Third Party says:

Peter could have mailed the fake document to his own self, anonymously.

42. Chris D. says:

Is any of this an arrest-able offense?

43. Allen says:

Sorry I got caught. That’s pretty much the substance of his “apology”.

44. Doctor K says:

Haters gonna Hate, Liars gonna Lie.
I feel sorry for this guy and his family. His belief system sent him down this path and he will likely be held accountable for his actions. He’s also going to be held under deep suspicion for the original faked article. Hopefully he kept the hard copy that he said was sent to him which will help prove his story. But having a rational debate with this type of believer was a no win situation for those with open minds. Perhaps something good will result and we will actually get to have a proper discussion over CAGW. Gleick confessing today and, yesterday, Weaver stating oilsands are not the big bad boys of CO2 emissions after all….its been a wild 24 hours!

45. MC says:

In a contentous issue like AGW and all the “right stuff” people on the science side like the ones here at wuwt, the truth will prevail. If the other side had good science and right minds they would win. But that’s not what’s going to happen. Piece by piece, little by little the facts and the truth will prevail.
I’m reminded of the time our little college in this little town lined up to debate the Harvard debate team. We won the debate. Never should have happened. This was the case largely because we got to choose what side of the debate we argued. Our side of the arguement could not be lost because we had the side with all the supporting truths. Same thing holds true here. The warmers are on the wrong side of the debate and wer’re and the right side. Its only a matter of time until the whole rotten ass bunch of them will fold but not until we give em the medicine they deserve.
Well done Anthony and all those other supporters who carry on the good fight.

46. Bill Parsons says:

Deniers won’t go away, though a measure of their diminished influence can be seen in their increasingly desperate ad hominem attacks on scientists rather than attacks on the science (see, for example, virulent personal attacks on IPCC scientists or individuals such as Drs. Michael Mann and James Hansen). But it is time for policymakers and the media to stop taking deniers seriously until they do what real scientists do: provide testable scientific theories, observations, or evidence that hasn’t already been decisively debunked and that proves to be better than the current theories and hypotheses at explaining what we see happening around us. Not only have deniers failed to do this, the evidence for human-caused climate change has continued to deepen and strengthen for decades. There’s no denying that.
— Peter Gleick, from his blog

A cult of victimhood?

47. A. Scott says:

Now on to illuminating the involvement of DeSmog, ThinkProgess etc.
Plenty of evidence points to a pre-planned, well coordinated scheme, by several long time critic’s and enemies, to attack and disseminate knowingly false information for the sole reason to damage Heartland in the process.
More peer to peer review work on the way I imagine ….

48. Sometime in the not-too-distant future, when someone else attempts something like this, it will be known as pulling a Gleick.

49. Jack says:

Wow! I tried to leave global warming scam debating but couldn’t. So worth my time.

50. TanGeng says:

My guess is that the strategy memo was the document that Gleick received in the mail. It makes sense then that Gleick had to scan it to get it on the internet. He solicited the other documents. The only problem is that the controversial document is still unacknowledged by the Heartland institute despite Gleick’s unlawful solicitation of “confirming” documents.
We’d have to see the mail package to get to the bottom of this. I hope Gleick saved all the evidence.

51. Ric Werme says:
Wow, just wow. So this makes the “faked” document more interesting – Gleick says he got it first, so whoever wrote it is either at Heartland or had copies of the documents it quoted from.
That could possibly be so if we accept Gleick’s word that he received the faked memo originally and then solicited by fraud the other documents.
But given the similarity of the language and writing style in the faked memo to much of that on record by Gleick and given the times in the metadata of the faked memo, when added to the knowledge we have that the man is not above lying ( in order to obtain the other material ) I think any rational man could quite easily draw the conclusions that, as was originally believed, Gleick could easily have prepared the memo in order to make the other documents, which are innocuous in and of themselves, seem something more.

52. Skiphil says:

I think it is NOT NOT NOT in the least credible that Gleick is now claiming first to have received the fake “strategy” doc from some anonymous source and THEN he (Peter Gleick) decides to try to obtain other docs.
The fake doc is so neatly tailored to highlight and capitalize upon the set of docs emailed by HI to the fake “board member” request.
Remember that it was textual and factual details in the fake strategy doc which led Mosher and others to focus upon Gleick in the first place. [KUDOs to Dr. Mosher and all who developed that line of investigation so rapidly and insightfully]
It seems nearly impossible to believe that first someone cooked up that “strategy” doc and then PG just happened to obtain a whole bunch of docs that nicely filled in the details.
One has to “ask” the question whether or not PG is yet coming clean on the whole story. I seriously doubt it….

53. Well-funded? Where’s my check? Must be coming from the Koch (because Halliburton is too hard to spell) Brothers.

54. From:
http://climatephysics.org/2011/06/15/montana-supreme-court-rejects-the-global-warming-petition-by-our-childrens-trust/
CPI used 2 key scientific exhibits in its Motion to Intervene: A 321-page “Climate Depot Special Report” compiled by Marc Morano and The Heartland Institute’s “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” edited by S. Fred Singer.
Maybe that explains the recent “attack” on Heartland.
Cross posted from the comments at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/wind-power-plug-pulled-in-illinois/

55. Gleick failed to read the instructions clearly visible on the explosive device: (http://contrary2belief.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/294/)
He’s confessed to the wire fraud. As well as being gullible and stupid.
But not to the drafting of the fake document.
I suspect that it won’t take long until the originator(s) of the fake document is identified.

56. Severian says:

And “prevent debate?” That must be Newspeak for “repeatedly invite opposing warmistas to the NIPCC conferences and offer them a forum for discussion and debate.” a clearer case of doublethink/blackwhite I’ve never seen.

57. DirkH says:

TanGeng says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm
“We’d have to see the mail package to get to the bottom of this. I hope Gleick saved all the evidence.”
Gleick wouldn’t even know how to delete the evidence.

58. It took him a week to come up this story, and he has been sweating the whole time.. No wonder, not a peep, out of gleick, for a whole week.

59. Dianna says:

A thought – if the “Strategy memo” was physically mailed to him, can we see the envelope and postmark?
If it were emailed, may we see the headers and so on?

60. Skiphil says:

Gleick’s current statement smells badly of the type of Watergate evasions and other “partial admissions” of guilt we have seen through the years…. it’s what lying pols have mastered, admit to what you can’t avoid taking the fall for, but deny deny deny and obfuscate about anything for which you think there will not be decisive evidence in the public or legal realm.
A perp tries to admit only to what he thinks can be proved and tries to find a halfway house to not go all the way to full confession.
My speculation now: Gleick knew HI was in a position to nail him for the impersonation of a board member etc. (maybe he was careless about covering his tracks etc.), so he “confesses” now to what he can’t avoid answering for.
BUT, seriously, he will have to prove the truth of the tale of receiving the fake strategy doc from some unknown source…. I’m definitely not buying that one without conclusive evidence.
So far we have only Peter Gleick’s “word for it” (har har har) that there was any anonymous sender providing him with the fake strategy doc.

61. Smokey says:

Gleick states:
“… 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.”
I do not see how Forbes, with its excellent reputation, can keep Gleick on as one of their bloggers. There are too many others available without Gleick’s ethics problems.
Gleick’s problem is major. It will dominate any future blog threads he is involved with. As a long time Forbes subscriber, I trust them to do the right thing.
As Andy Revkin writes:
“…Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins…”
Finally, I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t Gleick’s action tortious? Reputations have certainly been deliberately harmed.
And kudos to Steven Mosher. Good call. Some others made the same call. Kudos to them all. At the time I was pretty skeptical that Peter Gleick was the perp. I could not believe that someone in Gleick’s position would be so incredibly stupid.

62. Gleick: “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.”
Oh bull hooey. You know full well, Mr. Gleick, that YOUR side does not want debate on this subject at all. If there is ever to be a serious debate on the facts of global climate then all you have done is present in big bold colors a definitive argument why you can’t be a part of that discussion.
Go away.

63. John Greenfraud says:

Peter Gleick is a liar and a thief. Now he will rat out others to save himself. Be afraid AGW crowd, be very afraid. When’s the victory dance?

64. Larry Hamlin says:

It will be interesting to see if the climate fear idiots at L A Times will even address this confession which is yet another huge black eye for climate alarmists and the unlimited deceit and deception they resort to in trying to promote their phony man made global warming “cause”.

65. Streetcred says:

Gleick represents everything that is wrong with the warmistas … fraudulent, lying, and cheating low-lifes. It shines through in almost everything that they say and do in their ‘science’ religion.
AW, I sincerely hope that you clean out this scumbag and his cohorts at Desmog, ThinkProgress, et al.

66. michael eiseman says:

His statement:
“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.”
OMFG and I do mean frakking…this is actually a lie of such proportion it almost cannot be fathomed. Aside from anonymous (because they are unable to remain so upon their SUPERMASSIVE soap box) that statement is a TEXTBOOK definition of projection bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Well funded and coordinated? See Climate Gate and “The Delinquent Teenager…” TO START for proof positive of this and LACK OF TRANSPARENCY? You just have to have STONES the size of STONEHENGE to assert that from THEIR position. YGBKM

67. Skiphil says:

folks, re: the creator of the fake “strategy” doc, don’t accuse yet but don’t assume for a moment that Gleick’s tale is credible….. I for one am highly skeptical about his current story….
We’ll have to see conclusive evidence of a kind that could not be faked to establish that Gleick received the fake strategy doc in early Jan. from another source. I’m not expecting that kind of evidence to exist because I don’t believe this story, but I’m quite willing and eager to be shown the evidence.
oh, and your move, Heartland Institute….. they may have a variety of high cards to play if Gleick felt compelled to issue a public mea culpa (however misleading it might be).

“anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated”
Classic projection.

69. Streetcred says:

hyperzombie says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:57 pm
It took him a week to come up this story, and he has been sweating the whole time.. No wonder, not a peep, out of gleick, for a whole week.
====================================
Not a gleick the whole weik.

The Left’s (and that covers most Warmists) problem is that they believe their own propaganda. They genuinely believe there is a well funded anti-science conspiracy. No matter how laughable that seems to us.
I wonder what prompted him to fess up, as he has admitted to a criminal offence.
I’m not sure which is dumber. Commiting the crime in the first place, or admitting to it.

71. Markus Fitzhenry says:

Hey, poster identifying as “William Connelley”, is this you?
“[Connelley’s] career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.”
I guess William Connelley didn’t update Mr. Gleicks’ Wikipedia today then.

72. Richard T. Fowler says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm

Ric Werme,
Or, Peter Gleick is just lying again. At this point, I think that has to be considered as a possibility. I don’t see anywhere in his statement that he says he can prove his assertion about the mailing.

My first thought was that he couldn’t be stupid enough to admit to half his wrongs. Things certainly make a lot more sense if he got the documents from Heartland and then wrote the fake. So, my second thought is “Yeah, he could be that stupid.”
I don’t have time, but I bet there’s going to be a lot of people looking to match phrases and words in the strategy document with other writings from Gleick, the others who jumped on the bandwagon, and maybe someone who didn’t jump on the bandwagon but you’d expect to be there.
Perhaps Gleick figured he could confess to something mild enough to rebuild his career and people would look elsewhere for the real ethical lapse from which there is no recovery. Whoever wrote the fake strategy report is likely looking over his shoulder a lot this week.

73. LMAO! So, the moron couldn’t confirm the accuracy of the faked document. Ok, I’m not buying it, but let’s say this is true. ……
He couldn’t confirm it. In other words, he had no idea if it was true or not, in what can only be described as warmist logic, he then sent it on as truth, to other like minded individuals, who in turn couldn’t discern fact from fiction either!!!!
And, then he states, “I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing,…….”
Peter, you haven’t learned anything. What you should have learned is that you, nor your colleagues know how to discern fact from fiction. But, I’m not convinced that was your aim to begin with.

74. Griffin says:

Reminds me of myself as a teenager. Several of us got caught drinking beer when we should not have. So we put our story together and confessed to the least severe act that the evidence could support. We admitted to having a six pack rather than a case.
Not that anyone believed us anyway. This looks exactly the same to me.

75. Robert in Calgary says:

They’re bitter and angry, dishonest, delusional and increasingly unhinged.
These people need to be sued into the ground.

76. JJ says:

David Jay says:
Wow. Just wow.
(and kudos to Mosh)

Second that!

77. Flat Earther says:

Revkin appears to have removed his apology from his blog: “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.”

78. Big Dave says:

The very definition of a useful idiot.

79. Steve in SC says:

He is lying like a rug.
He did it and he knows everybody knows it.
Too bad we don’t have duels.

80. Lew Skannen says:

Only slightly less convincing than Anthony Wiener.

81. Skiphil says:

no update or retraction yet on the Smog Blog…..
I wonder how many of the CAGW bloggers and journalists will be running for the hills now….
Even with only Gleick’s current statement (more revelations to come I’m hoping) how many blogs and media outlets will want to continue to incur legal exposure over ignoring the C&D letter etc.?
We’ll probably see some sniveling retreats and retractions soon, although in the spirit of Gleick’s “confession” there will be more statements blaming it all on their evil critics who made them go bad….

82. Montjoie says:

He wanted to prevent the preventing of the debate by preventing debate. Makes perfect sense.

83. John Blake says:

So yet another of the peculating Green Gang’s Luddite sociopaths clings bitterly to every stupid warmist cliche bruited since 1988. Voodoo science, zombie apocalypses indeed go down together.

84. Meyer says:

So, will the police be seizing his computer to trace the source of the fake ‘leak’? I know he said it was sent in the mail, which means there shouldn’t be any trace of auto-saved works-in-progress hidden in his hard drive sectors. Surely nothing to worry about.

85. Glieck writes at his huffpost blog:

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 conspiracy to prevent scientific debate?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.

Gleick pleads for debate now? Against forces that “prevent this debate….” Yet the original climategate emails reveal systematic effort by climate scientists to prevent genuine scientific debate about climate change….
organizations like HI, he implicitly alleges, “prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.” Yet the climategate emails indicate a conspiracy to defeat FOIA laws exercised to expand transparency needed to conduct science, hugely important to taxpayers and the public.
Clearly, Gleick is internally struggling with the enormous hypocrisies involved since climategate – and failing to cope well.

86. Cometseeker says:

“…I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”
This sentence might be interpreted to mean that Gleick could be the “brains” behind the fraudulent memo, just not the one who actually implemented them.

87. Third Party says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Peter could have mailed the fake document to his own self, anonymously.

Since he “reviews” books he hasn’t read,
what you suggest he may have done, he actually may have done.
Fits his MO, does it not?

88. Darren Potter says:

Said by Peter Gleick – “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,”
Peter, I was almost ready to accept your blinded judgement explanation of the events. That was until you went with the above “well-funded” and “prevent this debate”, nonsense. It is the pro-pundits of AGW that has been “well-funded” (at Taxpayer expense), has stymied debate, and used coordinated attacks against those who did not by into the scam.
Because of your mea culpa nonsense, I now believe you (Peter) are far more involved…

89. Harold Ambler says:

With a miniscule budget, Heartland tries to keep the flame of truth burning. With a vast budget, Gore and company keep trying to put it out.
I was at a wedding this weekend, where I saw an old family friend who retired from the oil industry ten years ago after making a fortune. He let me know that he would be using a considerable portion of his open-mindedness to even consider reading my book, which he indicated that he nonetheless planned to do. That’s how far this has gotten: An oil man stands shoulder to shoulder with Gore. That’s where we are, historically.
It’s been nearly a week since I plugged my book, which continues to do well on Kindle: http://amzn.to/w0Lj6H

91. Dianna says:

Skiphil says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:03 pm
folks, re: the creator of the fake “strategy” doc, don’t accuse yet but don’t assume for a moment that Gleick’s tale is credible….. I for one am highly skeptical about his current story….
You have a point, and your skepticism is very well taken – because…well, look: the dates on the misdirected/stolen board packet are January 16; the board met on January 17. So I have to ask a couple questions – if Gleick received the “Strategy Memo” in early 2012, that has to mean between January 2 and 15. I’m not familiar enough with the Heartland Institute’s site to know when they announce their board meetings, but it makes my eyebrows crawl upwards contemplating the short time to discover who to impersonate and determine how.
It’s much easier to have stolen the documents and then created the “Strategy Memo” than to have received an anonymous mailing, attempt to verify it, then frantically determine how to scam the Heartland Institute out of its board packet.
Or, so I think. Others may, of course, think otherwise.

92. rc says:

Wow, cannot believe a word he says.
And thus FakeGate becomes GleickGate.

93. Bill Jamison says:

“…in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics…”
The first step is to admit you have a problem or, as in this case, a lack of ethics.

94. Steve Clauter says:

Where’s some good peer review when you need it?

95. Skiphil says:

Focus for a moment upon this sentence near the beginning of Gleick’s HuffPo statement:
“Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement” [Peter Gleick]
Could there be anything much more nauseating in the current situation than such a smarmy smug self-satisfied pretense that it is a compelling “need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate” which is now prompting this statement from PG at this time???
Such “need for facts” did not prompt him to inform the public anytime in the past week, and one has to wonder how this careful limited statement is really fulfilling the public’s “need for facts”…

96. David Falkner says:

I haven’t been able to keep up around here on account of studying for a licensing exam. I do remember coming here because I saw about the kerfluffle on Google News’ homepage. And MSNBC. And CNN. Strange I had to come here to find out it was a lie.

97. Barry Brill says:

It doesn’t really matter too much who actually penned the original forgery. When Gleick received it (if he did) it was no more than a private communication. Then Gleick, by his own admission, took ownership of this document and published it to the world.
The publisher owns the defamation, and the responsibility for “uttering” a forged document.

98. Dude says:

Gleick is not rational. This is his ” oh Sh**’ moment and hail mary pass. He is trying to get everyone off the most damning document. The document that pointed directly to him in everyones eyes. I no longer think he is coniving or trying to muster the troops. This is self preservation. More like a …well since the real documents won’t really get me in much trouble WTH do I do about that fake one?
He needs to change the timeline. That is the only way he can hope it works. But it will not because the is an established timeline for everything else and this just does not fit.
He’s toast. It is sorta sad seeing him go down like this. We will know he wrote the fake document in 24 hours. This one is too easy now.

99. I only hope Heartland and Mr. Watts shall sue the pants off this criminal — as well as off all the media outlets who used the proceeds of his crime to further their ideological agenda.
There should be serious money in it, which would help to continue the pursuit of truth.

100. Skiphil says:

re: evidence on the fake “strategy” doc
Since he claims to have received it “in the mail” from an anonymous source he is trying to show why there will not be an electronic trail (and presumably he will say he did not keep any envelope it came in).
YET, he will have to provide the forensic proof that he scanned the doc with an Epson scanner at the time shown in the meta data. How else will he explain both that Epson meta data for the scanned strategy doc and also that he claims to have emailed it to the various journalists and bloggers?

101. Alan Wilkinson says:

Add me to the list of those who think this is only the first half of Gleick’s confession – unless he has a very secret admirer whose sincerest form of flattery is also imitation.

102. Clay Marley says:

If the fake document uses information from the real documents, it stands to reason that whoever created the fake document, must have already had the real documents. Seems most improbable that someone who had both the fake and real documents, would send Gleick only the fake document.
Therefore….

103. Phil says:

From a comment at Roger Pielke Jr’s yesterday:

A priori, I’d highly doubt Gleick was involved with a memo forgery. This is career-destroying stuff, and he has to know that. Someone of his prominence doing such a thing would have to be a complete idiot.

104. What made Mosher see Gleick as a possible culprit in Fajergate? Several things, but the latter’s ‘review” of Donna Lafromboise’s book “The Delinquent Teenager…” at amazon.com BEFORE he could have possibly read it, was a big one, and is consistent with other recurrent aspects of Gleick’s behavior and language: narcissistic self delusions of grandeur.
Self importance. A cause worthy of self-sacrifice. Like eco-terrorists. (Here’s a story about the costliest such act in US history http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9244744/detail.html)

105. B-737 says:

As one of my attorney friends likes to say, “Sue the bastard[s].”
Go get ’em, Anthony!

106. Smokey says:

From Orson Olson’s cite, Gleick wrote: “…the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”
WHAT?? Climate alarmist organizations, from governments to universities to individual scientists, OWN ‘lack of transparency’.
A privately funded organization like Heartland has no more duty to be transparent than an individual has to explain how they spend the money Aunt Suzie sends them on their birthday. Heartland operates on voluntary donations. If the alarmist entities were as transparent as taxpayers want them to be, the debate would be finished by now, along with the phony “carbon” scare.
As I’ve often pointed out, if it were not for psychological projection, the alarmist side wouldn’t have much to say. Gleick is just projecting when he claims he perpetrated his foul deed in the interest of “transparency”. Lies come out of his mouth and keyboard like water from a high pressure fire hose.

107. The “Strategy” document forgery, in Gleick’s voice, terminology, and idiosyncratic style remains unaccounted for. I think this confession is proceeding in stages. The healing can only begin once all the pus is drained. I worry for this man, and take no satisfaction from his ruin.
I would also like to go on the record stating that Stephen Mosher is a super-genius. I’m glad he’s one of the good guys.

108. “well-funded, and coordinated. . .”
So who is getting all those funds, and who is doing all that coordinating?
Inquiring minds want to know.
/Mr Lynn

109. Beth Cooper says:

The old plea, the ends justify the means. Congratulations Anthony and investigators, especially Mosh, the Clint Eastwood of ‘The Smoking Gun’ saga.

110. Submitted to the NYT/Revkin/DotEarth comments:
“… the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong (except that the models don’t work), compelling (except that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t increased in 15 years), and increasingly disturbing (to those who see the government-grant-gravy train going off the rails), and a rational public debate is desperately needed (despite my efforts to cheat) . My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science (please ignore the oxymoron) and scientists and prevent this debate (except that all the effort to stifle debate is on the AGW side), and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved (despite the fact that all the FOIA stonewalling is on the part of the AGW side).”
There, FIFY.

111. Richard M says:

Is Gleick taking one for the team? Sounds like he’s trying to assert the fake document is real which would give his teammates the ability to continue to attack HI.
Of course, it won’t work. Just another foolish attempt to fool others.

112. kbray in california says:

Sounds like a Swan Song to me.
This man is at risk of a Swan Dive.
He needs help.
Now.

113. peter laux says:

Drag this out in court and keep it exposed to daylight, otherwise it will be just another AGW embarrassment to be swept under the carpet by our “establishment compliant” media.
The underfunded “bloggers” need to remain literally as “Nemisis” – the spirit that attacks the hubris of the powerful.
Our Media have abandoned that responsibility and their duty to tell the truth by selling their soul to the power of social advocacy, and a dishonest one at that.
The so called “progressive left” media believe in deceit as a legitimate tool to influence opinion.
I think the following best analyses why.
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -John F. Kennedy, 35th US president (1917-1963)

114. johanna says:

It’s a combination of ‘the devil made me do it’ and ‘a big boy did it and ran away’.
Pathetic, and unconvincing.

115. Gleick can’t help but put in his bit about AGW. The AGW conjecture is basd on the concept of “backradiation” from the atmosphere somehow increasing the rate of warming of the surface in the morning and decreasing the rate of cooling in the evening. Each would require the addition of thermal energy which would be the equivalent of a heat transfer from cold to hot.
Does the energy in radiation from a cooler layer of the atmosphere get converted to thermal energy when it strikes a warmer point on the surface which is already being warmed by the Sun at, say, 11am somewhere?
If it does, then this means there is a heat transfer from that cooler layer to that warmer point on the surface at that time, thus violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If it doesn’t (as I say) then the Second Law is not violated and there is absolutely no radiative Greenhouse effect because there is no way in which such radiation can affect the temperature of the surface unless it is converted to thermal energy.
This really is fairly elementary physics well covered in upper levels of undergraduate courses throughout the world.
If you wish to discuss this point please respond to my posts on the Open thread.
.

116. Third Party says:

117. Ron McDonald says:

Gleick has openly admitted to wire fraud and possibly identity theft.

118. He should just claim he didn’t read the docs. After his lame Amazon review of Donna LaFramboise’s book, that would certain have a high credibility quotient!

119. Paul in Sweden says:

Are there any links to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or PBS coverage of this news item?

120. R. Shearer says:

Gleick is damaging “the cause.” He is connected to so many institutions that the fallout will be very significant. The resulting depostions, if any, have the possibility to be even more damaging.
I like rc’s comment about GleickGate. How about “Gleick scheme” to mean fraud committed by climate scientists to discredit their opponents? (In the same manner as a Ponzi scheme).

121. Brent Matich says:

Watching these fools ( warmers ) is like watching The Bad Lieutenant. Down and down they go into that self inflicted spiral of doom , kinda sad in a way. I LIKED the Bad Lieutenant , gone to get more popcorn!

122. Alan Wilkinson says:

The funny side of this partial confession is that he was identified by the only document he (currently) denies sourcing. Priceless, really.

123. observa says:

No Mr Gleick. You were blinded by the meteoric rise of all the political wealth and power that attached to an interesting new scientific theory which had touched a mass hysteria nerve out there among Joe Public. It’s a familiar tale of human hubris and folly. Instead of carefully assessing the observable scientific facts that could begin to firmly establish such a new theory as worthwhile of serious scientific consideration, you were carried along by the tsunami of emotion and the inevitable carpetbaggers and snake oil merchants that attracts.
You don’t have to apologise to the Heartland Institute or any other critics of the catastrophic global warming/climate change/climate disruption craze. You simply have to apologise to that scientist that might be looking at you in the mirror and vow never to let him down like that again.

124. DirkH says:

I notice the complete absence of apologists.
Looks like the PR wave has stopped.

125. JimJ says:

Unfortunately, I don’t think Gleick needs to worry about his reputation amoung the CAGW crowd. All he needed to do was repeat the montra the science is settled and the idiots (special interests) on the other side are hell bent on lining their pockets at the expence of the human race. Simple.

126. Years ago, Gleick made series of outrageous comments on my professional activities. I chose to let it be because I thought, if given his head, he would bring himself and his friends (read: RealClimate) down with him. Appears my strategy worked. Kudos kudos kudos to Ross Kaminsky and Joe Bast. Wait till you see how much money Gleick has made off of his vituperation, which will come out. I’ll bet it’s close to the Heartland budget.
PJM

127. My comment at Dot Earth:
There remains the serious difficulty here with Mr. Gleick’s cause — and Andy’s. While I sincerely respect the depths of their convictions, it is still true that after two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars in research, there is absolutely no genuine scientific evidence that CO2 has contributed even a jot to the mild warming of the two decades from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s — a warming which has, by all accounts, remained dormant for the last 15 years.
Mr. Gleick is to be admired for his honesty and frankness. But not for his scientific sophistication, nor for his knowledge of the actual literature on climate change which, we learn from the most superficial perusal of the subject, has been going on for the last several billion years.

128. No mercy, no sympathy. The warmists have been carrying out a total war against skeptics using every propaganda tool in the arsenal, and now outright theft and deception (‘tho it’s hard to see how this differs from so much that has gone before). The only fair and just resolution must entail legal action against Gleick and his accomplices.
Mosh clearly has a potential career as an ace detective. Thanks Mosh!

129. Skiphil says:

btw, to be bi-partisan or non-partisan about it, can we agree that Gleick’s statement is both “Nixon-esque” and “Clinton-esque”??

130. dp says:

jthomas2 says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm
What led you to suspect Gleick to begin with?

He’s one of a few people who could and is also stupid enough to carry it out.

131. AndyG55 says:

hmmm. so he says he got the first one by email from an anonymouse………. ok, let’s see the details of said email……
does it still exist, or do Jones’s deletion instructions apply here also. 😉

132. DR says:

Sometime in the not-too-distant future, when someone else attempts something like this, it will be known as pulling a Gleick.

Lewinski’d, Borked and now Gleick’d. Somehow it doesn’t have the same ring to it, but it could stick.

133. Dude says:

Is Gleick taking one for the team? Sounds like he’s trying to assert the fake document is real which would give his teammates the ability to continue to attack HI.
Hard to say….I think desmog started the cover for him in this blog
http://www.desmogblog.com/it-s-bird-it-s-hockey-stick-it-s-faked-document
He basically is saying quit looking at the fake and look at the other stuff. That had to be a salvo for PG to start conversation away from the most damning documnet.

134. Joseph Murphy says:

Wow, Mosh called it. I didn’t expect this.

135. R. Shearer says:

Does his action really rise to the level of wire fraud?

136. rk says:

“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.”
Right. Here’s the well-funded coordinated organizations that actually prevent debate:
Big Money…money that Heartland can only dream of. So they won on Keystone in the US…they are now turning their attention to Canada…they want to block Canada from exporting to China

137. Milo says:

Heartland and the board member need to file criminal complaints. He shouldn’t be allowed to ‘apologize’ his way out of Identity Theft, and Identity Fraud.
And Mr. Gleick should REALLY hope I don’t make the jury pool.

138. “What made Mosher see Gleick as a possible culprit in Fajergate? ”
Literally the first thing, the very first thing was the mention of his name in the document.
I Posted that on a site long before any other evidence came to light. The comment
was trash binned, so I went to Lucia’s and starting discussing it there.
Why? his name didnt fit in a strategy document. It already looked fake to me. Too many operational details in a strategy document. The “confidential” as the subject. Too many budget details. So I knew it was fake. Then I saw his name: This doesnt fit! Then it occured to me.
Like an arsonist who returns to watch a fire, He could not stay away from the scene of the crime,
so he put himself in it.
All the other facts just supported that intuitive leap.
I still have the opinion that he wrote it, but that’s really besides the point now, for my view of things

139. Varco says:

Anthony,
while I respect the rights of you and the others directly affected by Gleicks actions to seek redress, the continued public pursuit of someone who may be in a vulnerable state of mind does not appear to be in the spirit of this blog. Could I suggest an appeal to reason for the contributors of this blog to leave further judgement of Mr Gleick to the authorities and history.

140. Jeremy says:

It will be very very interesting to see what Richard Black of the BBC has to say. I anticipate we will seen an apologetic article explaining how the mean highly funded deniers have caused poor dear sweet PG so much stress that he made a completely understandable lapse of judgement. Nothing else to see here, move along.
BTW: IMHO Peter admitted this ONLY because he got wind that someone was on the trail.

141. Bernie says:

If you read Gleick’s statement he does say that the fake strategy document was the one he received anonymously in early 2012. He does not say that he did not write the fake strategy document. He says he did not change the HI documents nor the original anonymous document which may or may not have been released with the genuine documents. Lawyers helped craft this statement so we best read it carefully.

142. dp says:

So is DeSmugBlog an accomplice or a willing dupe who was known to be likely to rush to print an unvetted leak?

143. jorgekafkazar says:

Bob Tisdale says: “Sometime in the not-too-distant future, when someone else attempts something like this, it will be known as pulling a Gleick.”
Yes, and it will be a total trenberthsty.

144. GregO says:

Darn it! I have been watching the blogs all night and I missed this out of the gate!
Steven Mosher – you are so right on! “Climategate the CRU tape Letters” was my intro to this thing. When are you writing another book?
Oh. And one more thing. WOW!

145. JohnD says:

Gleick, eat you own pie.

146. Schitzree says:

This confession reeks of damage control. I would imagine Gleick realized that with so many fingers pointing at him that it was only a matter of time before the law tracked this back to him. The hard part of a criminal investigation isn’t finding the clues, it’s finding were to LOOK for the clues.
Once He realized ‘Heartland Gate’ was falling on it’s face after less then a week, with himself as the prime suspect, He Most have known that the Phishing would eventually lead the cops to himself.
At this point there is no longer any reason for him to plead innocent to the theft. but there is still a chance that the fraud charge can be avoided. by Confessing he has a (slim) chance of creating reasonable doubt. without the confession his chances are far weaker.
Personally I have little doubt that he was the forger, for all the reasons that Mosher and others have posted… but I’m looking forward to a few weeks of Gleick arguing that someone out their just guessed he was so amoral, dishonest and Ideologically blind that they could send him an obvious fake document and he’d run with it.

147. jorgekafkazar says:

Goldie says: “Well at least he fessed up. Where do that leave the fake document?”
Kaboom says: “Fake but accurate…..”
Okay, you’re digging a hole for yourself, Kaboom. Want to sign your real name to that slander? Hmm?

148. grzejnik says:

What an idiot! lol

149. Skiphil says:

Wait, there’s good news, the AGU recently established its ethics task force:
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 47, PAGE 433, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO470009
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml
AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work
Peter Gleick
Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA
Randy Townsend
American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA
In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union’s policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”
Published 22 November 2011.
Citation: Gleick, P. and R. Townsend (2011), AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(47), 433, doi:10.1029/2011EO470009.

150. R. Shearer says:

Now that the illegality of this has come to light, don’t the warmists sites risk libel by not removing their posts?

151. Doug S says:

The end is near for the religion of global warming. A high priest has committed a sinful act and now the parishioners will be confused and question the faith. Perhaps instead of looking at the faux “science” of global warming and countering it with scientific arguments, we should have been looking at religious scriptures instead:
Matthew 7: 16-20 “By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.”
I’m not bible thumping here but I’m convinced that Dr. Gleick and his buddies are caught up in a religious experience and may not even realize it. Poor chaps.

152. Skiphil says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm
re: evidence on the fake “strategy” doc
Since he claims to have received it “in the mail” from an anonymous source he is trying to show why there will not be an electronic trail (and presumably he will say he did not keep any envelope it came in).

and in doing so, he has opened himself up to an investigation by the postal inspectors service who have a reputation of being very very thorough in their investigations. He may have jumped from the pan into the fire, now he has both the Secret Service to worry about (computer crimes are investigated by the Treasury Department Secret Service :
http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml
and the postal inspector service:
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/forms/mailfraudcomplaint.aspx
Hmmm might not have been a good idea?
Larry

153. Bill Hunter says:

Trying to keep up here is this Climategate 3 or 4? Soon its going to have more sequels than Rocky.

154. Pacific Blue says:

Does the U.S have a statute covering the obtaining of private property by deception or does it just come under Fraud?
Given Gleicks ‘mea culpa’, which clearly demonstrates his inability to maintain rational legal and ethical standards in pursuit of his public advocacy position, I presume he’ll be standing down from all publicly held positions?
Ones such as his recently (17th. Jan 2012), announced board appointment to the National Center for Science Education. http://www.pacinst.org/press_center//press_releases/gleick_NCSE_board.html
For he is most certainly *not* “the right man for the job”!

155. His confession that he impersonated a board member in an email he sent to Heartland makes him immediately guilty of forging and uttering, intention to commit fraud, fraudulently gaining goods or services by deception, and receiving stolen goods. Forgery is a Federal offence in the USA isn’t it?, and a felony charge?. Hope he isn’t too pretty, jail will be hard on him if he is.

156. last post snagged by spam filter — I’m getting good at this.
Larry
[REPLY: Larry, your post was released before this arrived. Please give it a few minutes before signalling. When a moderator is on duty, he usually checks pretty often. We’re getting pretty good at this. -REP]

157. “Someone of his prominence doing such a thing would have to be a complete idiot.”
That was me writing, and yes, Gleick has confirmed he is a complete idiot, and other much worse things. I gave him too much credit.
“Often does hatred hurt itself!” — Gandalf.

158. wws says:

“Mr. Gleick is to be admired for his honesty and frankness.”
say WHAT??? Don’t you understand what sparked this confession? Heartland obviously was tracking the email address used to request the private documents, and the trail led straight to Gleick. They are in the process of both filing a civil lawsuit and possibly pursuing criminal charges. Gleick found this out, dropped a load in his pants, and after a brief talk with his legal counsel produced this statement, which I have no doubt was written by said legal counsel.
A perp that confesses AFTER he’s been shown the rock solid evidence against him deserves nothing but contempt and ridicule!!!

159. A physicist says:

More breaking news: the website DeepClimate asserts that the identity of the Hearland’s “Anonymous Donor” — who insisted that their “Name Be Thus Anonymized” — is about to be revealed. And it is a name that has some juicy stories of wealth, power, and covert influence associated to it.
It’s not clear that any of this has anything with the main issue for our children’s generation: the sobering scientific reality (or not) of the chain-of-links GHG $\Leftrightarrow$ GHE $\Leftrightarrow$ AGW $\Leftrightarrow$ CAGW, and its accompanying stern duty (to our children) that we all of us, scientist and skeptic alike, “Be First with the Truth.”
Nonetheless, the human side of this story *does* make for a mighty fascinating spectacle.

160. Ben U. says:

On the first Heartland documents thread, mikemUK said:

I suspect that the only reason that the genuine documents were stolen in the first place was to lend authenticity to the “package” containing the fake – including to ensure that the stationery format matched Heartland’s current usage.

And mikemUK is half-way to being vindicated, though it’s possible that Gleick did receive the faked document in the mail and that it was not still in the process of being polished up.

161. MOS2171 says:

This is an attempt by his seniors to get rid of this issue as quietly as possible WITHOUT going into a drawn out court case. The last thing the green left wants is this going to actual court, dirty laundry might come out and spill into something bigger. The Heartland has to take this to an actual court room.

162. Too funny, all this. Gleick admits (partially and gracelessly) to being a now-certified and card-carrying dirtbag, Connolley is again barred from contributing to Wiki and A Physicist tries to recover faded dignity by lecturing skeptics with his “Be First with the Truth” line he’s been repeating in every post of his lately.
All in all a good couple of days. Congrats to WUWT for staying on top of this farce, and three loud cheers for Mr Mosher. Me, I’m getting up to celebrate with a neat shot of golden Glenfiddich.

163. kim2ooo says:

Why he’s the guy who preaches science ethics
`*A brief lesson in the integrity of science
*Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Again
*AGU’s new task force on scientific integrity and ethics begins
*Threats to the integrity of science: congressional testimony
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/20/breaking-news/

164. DavidA says:

The way he’s travelling forthcoming explanations will need to incorporate a time machine and/or worm hole to adequately account for events. I don’t put it past him.

165. DirkH says:

Skiphil says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm
“Wait, there’s good news, the AGU recently established its ethics task force:
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 47, PAGE 433, 2011
doi:10.1029/2011EO470009
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml
AGU’s new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work
Peter Gleick
Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA
Randy Townsend
American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA”
Great find. I never trusted anyone using the word ethical.
In Germany, the “Ethics committee” is the one that is responsible for e.g. the nuke power plant phase-out. No nuclear experts in it, of course.
Ethical = Khmer rouge lifestyle.

166. John Brown says:

Love the comment at LGF claiming he’s “taking one for the team” ha! I’m sure that’s why he’s coming clean now, yeah right.

167. Gleick writes, “… I do not know the source of that original document …”
I suspect the source was that third glass of chardonnay. If it was, get help.

168. Doug Cotton says on February 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm:
Gleick can’t help but put in his bit about AGW. The AGW conjecture is basd on the concept of “backradiation” …

Here we go again … riding his familiar, but wrong*, hobby horse …
.
* Or he (Doug C.) just plain doesn’t understand/comprehend the many factors involved. Doug, pse get a decent education on this subject.
.

169. A physicist says on February 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm:
More breaking news: the website DeepClimate asserts …

DeepClimate could assert dirt is dirt and it would still have to be verified …
Scratch one unreliable source.
.

170. Smokey says:

A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm
“More breaking news: the website DeepClimate asserts that the identity of the Hearland’s “Anonymous Donor” — who insisted that their “Name Be Thus Anonymized” — is about to be revealed. And it is a name that has some juicy stories of wealth, power, and covert influence associated to it.”
physicist, it’s been said before but bears repeating: you’re a friggin’ idiot.
…we now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

171. Jake says:

Bill Hunter says:
“Trying to keep up here is this Climategate 3 or 4? Soon its going to have more sequels than Rocky.”
I can’t keep track anymore…and now I’m OUT of popcorn!!!!

172. kbray in california says:

Smart doesn’t prevent Stupid.

173. Paul Westhaver says:

He said:
“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.”
This is a case of admitting to a lesser crime to conceal a greater one.
He, or someone he knew, faked the documents, in my opinion.

174. John M says:

Translation of A Physicist’s comment:
“Quick, quick, we need something to divert attention. Let’s throw something…anything…out there!”

175. JimF says:

Pitiful Gleick whines: “…scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed….” This needs to be interpreted:
“…scientific understanding of the reality…” WHERE the heck did that heat go? That’s it man, game over man, game over! What the f**k are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?
“…scientific understanding of the…risks….” Hey, maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events, but we just got our a**es kicked, pal!
“…scientific understanding.. (is) …increasingly disturbing…” Nobody knows the trouble I seen!
“…rational public debate is desperately needed…” Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don’t we try that?

176. Varco says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Anthony,
while I respect the rights of you and the others directly affected by Gleicks actions to seek redress, the continued public pursuit of someone who may be in a vulnerable state of mind does not appear to be in the spirit of this blog. Could I suggest an appeal to reason for the contributors of this blog to leave further judgement of Mr Gleick to the authorities and history.
============================================
Varco, I understand what you are saying. And, you’re probably right. But, you must also understand some of the pain that this man and his ilk have caused. Not just by this momentous lack of judgement, but by his and his ilk’s lack of judgement throughout.
There’s no way this passes without comment. It’s an impossible thing to ask.

177. rk says:

here’s the entire Revkin first graf:
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
That’s brutal…lots of past tense. ‘and other means’….ouch

178. AnonyMoose says:

Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception

That would be relevant if he had really been dealing with climate deception for years.

179. Dr. Gleick, please, please, please do not say you will start an investigation “to look for the real forger.”

180. A C of Adelaide says:

I would just like to point out that there is a dark side to all this.
It would appear that some sort of end game is being reached – but the true- believers are not going to go down without a fight. They have convinced themselves that the planet really is in danger and that desperate action may be required. Its a question of just how far these people will go.

181. bacullen says:

“anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” That’s what king George III was told after the tea party! 🙂

182. nc says:

This is from J Currie from her blog
Comment #2 at dotearth:
“Peter Gleick is standing up for the nobility of science. He deserves support for doing so. It is the abject failure of many too many scientists to stand up for what they believe to be real and true about the global predicament facing humankind that is unacceptable and pernicious. The silence of so many scientists has allowed the ideological idiocy Peter has exposed to triumph over science for way too long. At this moment, I want to salute Peter Gleick. That scientists follow his example is long overdue. Peter, thanks for standing up and speaking out so loudly and clearly.”
Now we know how this will be spun, Gleick will become a hero or a martyr or something.

183. DirkH says:

rk says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:20 pm
“That’s brutal…lots of past tense. ‘and other means’….ouch”
The NYT just says that this source has now been discredited and they will get their material from someone else in the future. Normal people would start to think when their trusted sources turn out to be forgers, but this is the NYT. Expect Revkin and the BBC’s Black to be undeterred.
The NYT lost 40mill USD last year but still has a whopping market cap of 1.5 bn. They surely see no immediate need to change their business model. Bleeding like that they can continue a few more decades.

184. TG McCoy (Douglas DC) says:

That black cloud over the sun is the Lawyers circling over the dead carcass
of the warmist cow…
Heartland has a case…

185. Tom in Texas says:

Hoax-y Stick Gate
thanks, boston12gs.

186. Russ R. says:

Similar writing styles…
Opening by stating the purpose of the letter:
Fake document: “Given the increasingly important role the Heartland Institute is playing in leading the fight to prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global warming, it is useful to set priorities for our efforts in 2012…”
Gleick confession: “Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement….
Overuse of dashes:
Fake document: “Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from \$1,664,150 in 2010 to \$979,000 in 2011 — about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012 — see the 2011 Fourth Quarter Financial Report.” and “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain — two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
Gleick confession: ” 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.
Accidental overuse of the word “and”:
Fake document: “Another \$88,000 is earmarked this year for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.”
Gleick confession: ” 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.”

187. JJ says:

… I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.
Wire fraud. Identity theft. Good luck with that.
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.
No, you can’t confirm anything. You have nothing to offer by way of confirmation except your word. And that is worthless.
I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
You give us your word on that? Oh, wait …
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so.
What gall, to go there in your “apology”. The fact that you just can’t let it go, even when your ass in on the line, bodes well for those that get to interrogate, depose, prosecute and sue you.
… and a rational public debate is desperately needed.
Perhaps if you had decided to read the *genuine* Climategate emails, you would have a clue as to who has been actively stifling the rational public debate.
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 assume that what you are talking about are the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well funded, and coordinated – to attack climate science (that disagrees with yours) and scientists (that disagree with you) and prevent this debate? What, exactly was your frustration with that?
That Mikey and Jimmy and Gavin and Kev weren’t giving you enough of the limelight? Is that why you felt the need to refer to yourself as a “high-profile climate scientist” in the faked memo?
BTW love the double dashes in your “apology”. They are diagnostic. And present in the faked memo.

188. Bill H says:

wow….
Hansen, Briffa, Mann, Jones………..Glik………
partners in lies, deceit and fraud…

189. AndyG55 says:

OO.. I’m so looking forward to seeing what the resident artist does with this one !!! :-))

190. John Greenfraud says:

This confession is a red herring. He was caught. The fake is the only thing his ‘career’ can’t survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
He now tries to distance himself from the memo with the big reveal, with himself as a the dupe and a phantom as the forger. He should have thought it out better, A week wasn’t enough time for him to think it out properly, to many variables. A thoughtful review of facts exposes him as the forger. Good luck WUWT staff and readers. Great job as always Anthony!

191. observa says:

How did we come to create the current Climatology Computer Modelling Club and no doubt the Humanology Heuristics Homogenisers of the future? It wasn’t that hard looking back-http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NA31Dj01.html
And America is certainly not alone-
Pay attention to me children. Now I want you all to click on the nice green froggy link…. Children…CHILDREN!!!

192. Werner Brozek says:

to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate
Perhaps part of the sought for punishment could be that he be forced to debate Monckton. That is unless he can persuade Gore to do it on his behalf.

193. wws says:

I looked up A Phraudicists source about some SuPeR SeKrIT funding source for Heartland about to be revealed. What I found was speculation with no evidence that some private businessman in Chicago that no one ever heard of, who has no business interests affected by this issue, may have donated some money to Heartland because he agrees with them philosophically.
and that’s it.
OH WOW IF THAT IS TRUE WHO COULD IMAGINE SUCH A THING???

194. A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm
More breaking news: the website DeepClimate asserts that the identity of the Hearland’s “Anonymous Donor” — who insisted that their “Name Be Thus Anonymized”
==================================================
I can’t wait. If this is some billionaire, I’m sending him/her hate mail about the paltry amount he’s (or she’s) donating. In fact, the Koch brothers are first on the list. I’ll be firing up my Ubuntu in protest against MS for their misery ways. ……. well, ok, maybe my old Unix server, but still!!! Bastages…..

195. AnonyMoose says:

Interesting that a document which was obtained early in the year is supported by documents from January 17/18. How early is early?

196. I’ve one in the spam bucket……..
[REPLY: James, patience is a virtue. Your comment was back in the pending queu before this arrived. Give us a bit of….? -REP]

197. Skiphil says:

Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html
Integrity of Science
The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.
Read Case Studies in Integrity of Science here.

198. Doug says:

I won’t hold my breath. Obama’s justice dept won’t press charges or criminal charges will be dismissed . The left will support him and they control the senate and the whitehouse and the msm etc. In their circles he will be even more elevated. As known by many on this site, it has never really been about science for the agw crowd, the only way to change this is to vote then out. Gleick will be portrayed as a hero that stops at nothing to save the day. Bottom line we have a long way to go before we can celebrate that science will win the day

199. DaveG says:

Here a is a classic warmist defense and response to Gleickliargate confessions of Gleick the cereal fraudster and defender of the CAGW faith. None so blind as he who will not see, certainly apply’s to Steven Earl Salmony.
In Andrew Revkins New York Times Dot Earth blog
Steven Earl Salmony
Chapel Hill, NC
Trusted
Peter Gleick is standing up for the nobility of science. He deserves support for doing so. It is the abject failure of many too many scientists to stand up for what they believe to be real and true about the global predicament facing humankind that is unacceptable and pernicious. The silence of so many scientists has allowed the ideological idiocy Peter has exposed to triumph over science for way too long. At this moment, I want to salute Peter Gleick.
That scientists follow his example is long overdue. Peter, thanks for standing up and speaking out so loudly and clearly.
Sincerely,
Steve Salmony
LOL- That scientists follow his example is long overdue. Peter, thanks for standing up and speaking out so loudly and clearly.
The Climategate crowd have been doing this for years!

200. wheresmyak47 says:

And where would I find the confession of the Hacker that released those private emails!!
Hey Hey Where!!!
Hypocrasy so thick you could cut it.
The Denialist Watts false smugness should be regulated at this point.
Shall I assume that to be a death threat sir? – Anthony

201. theduke says:

There’s a blatant contradiction in Gleick’s statement. In the confessional paragraph, he tries to excuse his actions and claim a measure of victory by saying the documents he fraudulently obtained backed up much of what was written in the fake document: “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.”
Then, in the final paragraph he says: “I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials . . .” Of course, he did exactly that in the preceding paragraph.

202. JohnM,
And its getting funnier again. The tools are scrambling for damage control. Varco says:
(February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm) says, “Anthony, while I respect the rights of you and the others directly affected by Gleicks actions to seek redress, the continued public pursuit of someone who may be in a vulnerable state of mind does not appear to be in the spirit of this blog. Could I suggest an appeal to reason for the contributors of this blog to leave further judgement of Mr Gleick to the authorities and history.” BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Could I in turn suggest…oh, never mind, the mods will snip that one for sure.
And then, my favourite addled windbag on this blog, A physicist, breathlessly annouces that an anonymous donor to Heartland is not a wino living in a dumpster and/or an OWS activist, but may…get this…actually be rich! Shocking, I say. I now understand that Smokey’s, “physicist, it’s been said before but bears repeating: you’re a friggin’ idiot” is not an insult, but a peer reviewed and verified clinical assessment .

203. Thumbs up to the moderators, I presume they are busy as one armed paper hangers keeping up with breaking developments and all our posts!
Larry

204. Lazlo says:

Anyone from the Gleick Clique who may be deleting relevant emails as we speak needs to be aware that such an act would be much more serious than breaching FOI rules.

205. James Sexton says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:38 pm
I’ve one in the spam bucket……..
[REPLY: James, patience is a virtue. Your comment was back in the pending queu before this arrived. Give us a bit of….? -REP]
=====================================
My bust…. it’s just that usually when I push post and my comment isn’t stating “awaiting moderation”, then it’s lost. Apologies.
Italics are on……..

206. TRM says:

Okay which of you ner’do well skeptics sent poor Dr Peter Gleick those documents along with the fake one. You knew he would fall for it and get toasted, roasted in a hell of his own making. 🙂
“What a gullaBULL” – Bugs Bunny

207. peetee says:

guys, guys! What was faked?
[Reply: If you still don’t know, you need to do a lot of reading to get up to speed. ~dbs, mod.]

208. Oh Poor You Anthony.
Where is the call for retribution and reparations for all the scientists implicated in climategate who had their reputations dragged through the mud, and still do years later, because of allegations that have been refuted and pardoned time and again by authoritative parties.
And yes, that would include suing YOU for your defamatory comments against those scientists and for allowing far worse in your public comment section here at WUWT.
At least Mr. Gleick has enough of a conscience to admit that he made a grave error.
You sir are still paid 10s of thousands of dollars by an Institute that is promoting pseudo-science in classrooms. You sir are still unable to reconcile the fact that the BEST study refuted your claims.
You sir, have far more to be ashamed of than Mr. Gleick and will have far more on your conscience if and when humanity suffers under runaway global warming due to your promotion of doubt and uncertainty when there is none.
REPLY: Sir, nothing has been published to classrooms, and a crime has been committed by Mr. Gleick. Get help for your your delusions – Anthony

209. LamontT says:

“jthomas2 says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm
What led you to suspect Gleick to begin with?”
===================================
The fake document is what led people to suspect him. The one he claims he didn’t write.
Basically when forensically examined the textual evidence left him a very valid and viable suspect. There are a couple of good articles analyzing general things about the writer of the fake over on Forbes and then Steve Mosher on Lucia’s did a good job of matching up textual evidence that strongly suggests Gleick. Per Steve he initially suspected Gleick because he was actually named in the fake which really would be a strange thing to do if the document was real. Further indications where some fairly unique word choices from the fake along with some equally unique punctuation.
Now mind you none of this was proof but it does strongly suggest that Peter Gleick either wrote the fake or contributed to it.
The more telling thing here is that secondary suspicion was that Gleick and the thief where one and the same though smart money was that he was to smart to have done that and arrogant enough to have thought he could get away with sexing up the Heartland documents with the forgery.
So that is why he was suspected in the first place.
OK, so on the side his confession to being the thief while claiming to have received the fake is very interesting. Essentially he appears to be trying to save the fake document so it can continue to be referenced. After all if it was something he anonymously received and passed on then it clearly can still be referenced likely true by desmog and all the rest.
There is a problem with this. First he has already confessed to being a thief and a liar. Given that what proof do we have that anything else he says is true?
Second I just went back and reread his post and found it interesting. There is the whole story about receiving it anonymously in the mail and all and his claim of sending it as part of the packet unaltered from how he received it. Well aside from converting it from paper to PDF. The thing is in that whole story is that he never actually states that he didn’t author or help author the thing. And really without the fake there just isn’t anything worth stealing or talking about in the Heartland documents. They are all rather normal.

210. wws says:

an AGW True Believer wrote, apparently in reference to the original Climategate:
“And where would I find the confession of the Hacker that released those private emails!!”
Have you guys on “The Team” STILL not figured out that there was NO “hacker”??? IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
Actually I’m sure that Jones et al have known this from almost the beginning. But it would be far too embarrassing to admit it, so they pretend to believe in some non-existent “hacker” even though that explanation doesn’t fit any of the electronic evidence. See, when there is a *Real* Fraudster it’s actually pretty easy for people with IT skills to track them down – as Gleick has just found out, to his great sorrow. The fact that all of the Queen’s Horses and all of the Queen’s men have turned up ZERO evidence of a Climategate “hacker” is pretty good evidence that there never was one.
So who really should be making a confession about lying? The Warmists again, huh? Funny how things keep working out that way.

211. LamontT says:

R. Shearer says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Does his action really rise to the level of wire fraud?
———————————————
Yes it does. Pretending you are someone else on the phone to gain something that doesn’t belong to you is wire fraud.

212. Smokey says:

Chris Alemany says:
“Where is the call for retribution and reparations for all the scientists implicated in climategate who had their reputations dragged through the mud, and still do years later, because of allegations that have been refuted and pardoned time and again by authoritative parties.”
You certainly are a know-nothing. The climategate charlatans deserved to have their reputations ruined. Obviously you haven’t read their scandalous emails. And “pardoned”?? Are you nuts? “Whitewashed” is the correct term. Not one hostile witness was ever called in any of the kissy-face whitewashes. Really, you’re totally naive.
And Gleick has no conscience. None. He was caught in his identity fraud game, he is a serial liar, and you are an apologist for his unethical behavior.
The BEST study has been effectively debunked. You probably didn’t know that, being hopelessly naive. And since there is absolutely no evidence of “runaway global warming”, you sound like a credulous fool who has been spoon-fed alarmist propaganda.
Have a nice day.

213. Bill Parsons says:

By Dean Kuipers
January 5, 2012, 12:25 p.m.
The 2011 “Climate B.S. of the Year Award” goes to the entire field of candidates currently stumping in New Hampshire for the Republican Party presidential nomination, the Pacific Institute announced Thursday.
The awards, in their second year, are intended to distinguish the most active among so-called climate change deniers.
In this case, “B.S.” stands for bad science, according to hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Will the LA Times have a new candidate for the 2012 “B.S. Award”, I wonder?

214. Allan MacRae says:

Did Peter Gleick act alone, or was there a Gleick Klub? 🙂
It is difficult for one person, no matter how obtuse, to reach this critical mass of carnal stupidity all by himself.
Truly outstanding acts of wanton vandalism, such as FakeGate, often require the pooled stupidity of several enthusiastic participants. Alcohol helps.
Is Peter “taking one for the Team”?
Perhaps so – It’s all for a bad Cause.

215. LamontT says:

“peetee says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm
guys, guys! What was faked?”
================================
The summary document. It is the one with all the sexy money quotes everyone is using. If you take it away it’s all boring general stuff that you would expect Heartland to be doing and other than how little they are spending on Climate Science isn’t exciting at all. Thus the fake.
If your interested scroll down the front page of Watts up with that and look for the article about it being fake. That article contains links to a very good dissection of the fake as fake on Forbes.

216. ed says:

Varco says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Anthony,
while I respect the rights of you and the others directly affected by Gleicks actions to seek redress, the continued public pursuit of someone who may be in a vulnerable state of mind doenot appear to be in the spirit of this blog. Could I suggest an appeal to reason for the contributors of this blog to leave further judgement of Mr Gleick to the authorities and history.
=========================================================================
Comments here are understandable and I doubt Mr Gleick will read them. If it were me I would be more concerned with the reaction of my AGW buddies who may:
a) circle the wagons and defend him at any cost, or
b) be the first at their labs with tee shirts saying “I’m not a Gleick”!

217. DavidA says:

Breaking News:
“Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white colar criminal defense attorney.
John Keker represented Lance Armstrong during his recent doping allegation troubles.

218. [snip – I don’t have to take your abuse Mr. Alemany – get the hell out of my home on the Internet, and don’t come back. I’ve done nothing wrong. Be mindful of libel. – Anthony Watts]

219. JJ says:

Stephen Schneider must be lying flat and quiet in his grave.

220. Kozlowski says:

Wow, just.. Wow…
I love being right 😉
The one single thing I hope comes out of this is that the “other side” admits that there is a debate to be had between rational people and that all of us here are not “anti-science.”
I still think “Anti-Science-Gate” wins…
Cheers!

221. Skiphil says:

As I just posted with link on the thread of the Heartland announcement, it seems that (according to the UK’s Guardian rag) Gleick has retained the services of Chris Lehane for “crisis management” aka political warfare. I am aware that Lehane has a particularly nasty rep for how he wages political media war (under Clinton and Gore). This suggests not a strategy of contrition (didn’t seem like it from the Gleick statement) but preparation for media war.
I’m know that HI and Anthony and others have seen unending vitriolic onslaughts through the years, but the retention of Chris Lehane by Gleick suggests it will all get uglier fast.

222. John Greenfraud says:

@Smokey
“…. you sound like a credulous fool who has been spoon-fed alarmist propaganda.”
Well done sir, thanks for the laugh, next time let him have both barrels…you’re too shy and polite.
JG

223. J.H. says:

Heartland have to make an example here. If the situation is as Heartland have indicated. Then they must take this to the fullest extent possible…… People like Gleick are utterly shameless, so it is no good just trying to shame them….. The pound of flesh must be removed in this instance. He has to bleed reputationly and financially….. Otherwise he will laughingly apologize and spit the faces of those he has nothing but utter contempt for.

224. wermet says:

~FR says: February 20, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Is there a single truthful statement in his closing paragraph?

Only if you reorder the words.
Peter Gleick’s apology reads like something my teenage son might say after I’ve caught him hiding evidence of his misbehavior. This is not how an responsible elected member of NAS should act. Any organization that has him as a member should request (demand?) his resignation immediately.

225. I come into this very late. What shines through is the classic “end justifies the means” stance from Gleick. He’s admitting stuff, all right, but I doubt he knows fully just how silly and self-imolating his actions are. He basically says: “I was only trying to save the world, and it’s just so frustrating being me”. Awwwww, poo bebby. You took your shovel and bucket home from the beach, and tried to kick sand in everyone’s face…because you have no control over your emotional state. Heckuva way to gain influence over the situation, Pete. I suggest, that you begin with some psychotherapy and a good, long, one-way sabbatical. Any ordinary joe who pulled this stunt would be arrested and locked up. Now that you are an ordinary joe…..

226. CRS, DrPH says:

So, Gleick confessed? Not surprising…..NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

227. It is clear that Mr. Gleick did not consider his actions beyond what his own worldview imposed on him as a crusader for AGW. He did not think about the fact that what is deleted is not erased and that a public mea culpa today may help him avoid a jail sentence tomorrow.
While I agree that piling on to him in his moment of woe is not appropriate, that is if what he said was truly a mea culpa. It was not. It was a self serving scree that in a sense is the same type of answer you would get on a school yard when someone was caught stealing money from a fellow student.
The truly damaging part of all of this is that there are people who have so bought into the political aspects of AGW that they feel that all is fair in pushing forward that agenda. To see this in action in a larger sense all of you have to do is read the climategate emails and to see a similar mindset in the person of Dr. Michael Mann.
What these people need to understand is that the political solutions proposed for fighting the problem that they so passionately believe in are the same solutions as brought forth by groups such as the Club of Rome 40 years ago. They too used computer models, now long since discredited, to prove their points. Mr. Gleick and Mr. Mann have been manipulated by the noble cause syndrome to support a political system that most of us find abhorrent. There are other solutions to the AGW problem, if indeed it is a problem, rather than thinking for an instant that you can run a civilization of what is soon to be 9 billion people with solar panels and wind turbines. It is simply impossible to do so, yet there are solutions, rooted in technology that will solve the problem of AGW if indeed it is a problem. At the same time this will get us beyond the limited resource of hydrocarbons that is increasingly being used as a weapon by nation states addicted to the funds it brings into their coffers that otherwise would never ever happen.
Mr. Gleick you have been fooled. Time to research why that happened and to learn from this as the rest of us should take this as a cautionary tale.

228. Jeff C says:

Have to agree with Skiphil, bringing on Lehane is an ominous sign, certainly not the action of someone who is contrite. That act alone should encourage HI and others harmed to tighten the screws now before the media campaign can take hold. Expect Phil Jones-esque media stories of “a broken man” and such to start hitting the press in an attempt to shame HI to back off. If they do, Lehane and his cronies will go for the jugular.

229. As a lawyer by training and experience in the US, a few thoughts.
Obtaining documents electronically by fraud is, in the US, termed “wire fraud”.
Wire fraud is a Federal crime, and like most Federal crimes carries a sentence of 10 years.
Federal crime, unlike state sentences, allows for very little reduction–Federal time is REAL time. A 10-year sentence almost certainly means 9+ years served (whereas in state sentences, perhaps a third of the formal sentence is actually served), the reduction purely for “good behavior” (which, presumably, would mean no more wire fraud).
Most crimes of this nature carry a statute of limitations of 3 years–so no prosecution need be brought prior to the November 2012 Presidential election. Within less than a year from now there may well be a new Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice, one more interested than the current fellow in following up on wire fraud of this nature.
While Gleick may be well known in extremist climate circles, he lacks a sufficiently high profile to reasonably generate any real likelihood of receiving a prophylactic pardon from Obama.
In these circumstances, most criminal defense attorneys recommend that their clients “cooperate with the prosecution” to minimize their sentence. Read that as “squeal like a stuck pig.” Three years in pen is WAY better than nine years.
That’s not even touching on the identify theft charges–such charges were not common when I was actively practicing law, so I’ll defer to those with greater experience. But I do know the penalties for them are not trivial.
Good luck to Peter. My advice–beg, borrow, and steal whatever you can to pay for the best defense lawyer possible. You WILL need them. (And yet, make sure you hold back enough for the appeal.)
And if you do end up doing the long fall–sucks to be you, you fraud.

230. Brian R says:

I feel sorry for Peter Gleick and the many others just like him. No kidding, I really do.
Their complete belief in AWG closes their minds to other possibilities. Their hatred of skeptics overcomes their common sense. They think they are the right and just. And this allows them believe that any action, no matter how wrong, that gets them to the desired goal is acceptable.
Peter Gleick let his hatred get the best of him. He, his career and his family will all suffer because of his hatred. He did this to himself. Peter Gleick will have to reap what he has sewn. His family unfortunately did not sign up for this. They will be the ones hardest hit by his actions.
As this affair play out in the coming days, weeks and months, both sides of the debate should study diligently and self reflect. For there are people on both sides of the debate that allow their hatred to control their actions.

231. The judgment that this affair has harmed HI seems dubious. I think HI will come out of this smelling like a rose, and with a much broadened and strengthened support cast. Amongst other effects, those Gleick & friends have slandered and attempted to bully are surely going to be determined to show to themselves and the world that they have not been cowed.

232. Kozlowski says:

Heartland could score an epic coup if they did just one thing.
Print an open letter in all the major newspapers, highlighting both the letter from Peter Gleick AND the open letter from the major climate scientists. In both of the letters the other side stated that they want debate, but we all know they do not.
So… Heartland prints an open invitation to the next 10 NIPCC conferences and as a part of the settlement (to drop the charges against Gleick) asks PG, along with the signers of the “other” open letter (Mann etc) to attend debates.
It would be the score of the century, proving once and for all that our side simply wants to reopen the debate. That it really is about the science. It would empower NIPCC as a real player in the game and give them a voice.
Such an act has the power to truly tip the scales.
Go for it Heartland !!
Cheers!

233. Allan MacRae says:

On a more serious note:
Desperate people do desperate things.
I know that climate skeptics have received serious threats in the past, and some have suffered actual acts of violence.
This is not new – about a decade ago, I counselled some of my colleagues to take precautions to protect their safety and that of their families.
But at that time we were losing the public debate, drowned out by false shouts that “the science is settled”. The global warmists were winning then.
The tables have turned now – there has been no global warming for a decade, and the global warmist elite has been exposed in the Climategate emails as liars, bullies, and fraudsters.
So perhaps now it is even more necessary for global warming skeptics to take reasonable precautions to protect their safety and that of their families.
Desperate people do desperate things.

234. Streetcred says:

Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.
=========================
Who is paying Gleick’s defence bills ? Follow the money.

235. G. Karst says:

The FBI should be executing a raid on Gleick’s offices and residence immediately. Any Judge will recognize enough probable cause (confessed fraudulently gaining goods or services by deception) and the need to secure evidence (forensic) speedily. Certainly, more probable cause, than they had for the TallBloke raid. GK

236. TomRude says:

They’ll simply say it was a Gleitch…

237. Skiphil says:

Gleick has made a show of awarding his choices of “Climate B.S. Of the Year” awards the past couple of years, with sneering and inept (dare I say dishonest) personal attacks. May I wonder whether he can be awarded a special 2012 “Climate B.S. Of the Year” Award of his own? Perhaps some blog that likes to mix it up with the CAGWarmists in a personal way should counter this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/05/the-2011-climate-b-s-of-the-year-awards/

238. “There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.”
The above is from the Desmog home page. How exactly do they square that philosophy with their current position of defending Gleick? Simple…”The ends justify the means”…an attitude spoken and upheld by every good fascist organization in history.

239. DirkH says:

Kozlowski says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:58 pm
“Heartland could score an epic coup if they did just one thing.”
Yeah that’s what you’d like, right? You sound like a Moby.

240. I don’t know the type of trial this will be, but if it’s a jury trial where will the it be held and who will pick the jury?

241. dp says:

Kaboom says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Fake but accurate…..

Yo, Kaboom – was the intentional smear of Mr. Watts on the “Fake” side or “accurate” side of your apologist platitude? Just so you know, being incapable of critical thinking is a treatable affliction.

242. Nice find by Steven Goddard:
Gleick Coined The Phrase “The debate is over”
In 2001, he announced that the debate is over.
No more words. “The debate is over,” says Peter Gleick
Tonight he wrote :
a rational public debate is desperately needed

http://www.real-science.com/gleick-coined-phrase-debate

243. RDCII says:

Imagining that Gleick’s story is true, I love this bit…
“Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document.”
So, he nobly, and with journalistic integrity, tries to make sure he doesn’t print something without verifying it first (for the first time in his career? Sorry, digression)…
…by stealing documents from Heartland. (Which, honestly, makes no sense at all, since even if he’d determined the suspect doc was real, he’d have to reveal his thievery in order to prove it wasn’t a fake…but I digress again. Sorry, the whole thing is giving me indigression.)
But the best part is, that having received all the docs, he sees that he still can’t confirm the existence of the suspect doc, soooo…
…he throws away the journalistic integrity and publishes it one step removed anyway.
Which, in the end, will take down those sites that published it along with him.
So, to sum up: in the cause of journalist integrity, he becomes a thief, then throws away his integrity and risks his allies and his whole cause.
Even if his story were true…whatta guy.

244. Alex Heyworth says:

Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.
I assume this means he anticipates being charged with criminal offences, as well as being sued for damages.

245. Presumably the DOJ will have sent Gleick a notice telling him not to alter anything on his PC, and the cops will soon be around to make copies of his hard drives….
Lol.

246. eyesonu says:

Wow!
Will Gleick now play the Phil Jones card?
To paraphrase Jones, “I’m thinking about suicide.” Worked for Jones, will probably work for me. Can’t you see that I’m the victim here.

247. I don’t believe it: I am smiling!
Oh, welches Gleick!

248. Skiphil says:

Gleick had a letter out just 8 days ago which was co-signed by James Hansen and Michael Mann, seeking to have the US govt. block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Nice anti-energy activism in the name of leaving “carbon” in the ground. It would be good to review somewhere Gleick’s interfaces with the more activist and un-scientific members of “The Team” etc., i.e., it seems that Gleick has been a radical political activist with a scientific veneer, despite all his pronouncements on the scientific virtues:
Top climate scientists warn Congress over Keystone XL
Over a dozen of the nation’s top climate scientists just released this letter to Congressional Leadership that we will deliver along with the over 500,000 signatures against Keystone XL that we hope to collect during out “24 Hours to Stop the Pipeline” drive.
Feb 13, 2012
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell, and Representatives Boehner and Pelosi,
We are researchers at work on the science of climate change and allied fields. Last summer, we called on President Obama to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s tar sands. We were gratified to see that he did so, and since some in Congress are seeking to revive this plan, we wanted to restate the case against it.
The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, one that it does not make sense to exploit….
….[body of letter at link] ….
We can say categorically that this pipeline is not in the nation’s, or the planet’s best interest.
Sincerely,
James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
Jason Box, Associate Professor, Department of Geography Atmospheric Sciences Program, Researcher at Byrd Polar Research CenterThe Ohio State University
Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Peter Gleick, President and Co-founder Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
Richard A. Houghton, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center
Ralph Keeling, Director, Scripps CO2 Program Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs Climate Institute
Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology Director, Earth System Science Center, The Pennsylvania State University
James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University
Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences, Princeton University
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Louis Block Professor in the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago
Steve Running, Professor of Ecology, Director of Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana
Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
George M. Woodwell, Founder, Director Emeritus, and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center

249. Steve C says:

The Guardian writes:
“Gleick’s admission was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate between scientists, campaigners, businesses and politicians who want action on climate change and a small but well-funded group of those who deny the existence of man-made climate change.”
I think what they’re trying to say is: “Gleick’s admission was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate between a small but well-funded group of scientists, campaigners, businesses and politicians who are doing very nicely, thank you, out of “climate change” and those who question the existence of “man-made climate change”.”
Fixed it for you, Guardian. Pity someone can’t do the same for the whole situation. What a shockingly shoddy way for someone who believes himself a top scientist to behave. And congratulations to the commenters here and elsewhere who had him identified beforehand.

250. Man Bearpigg says:

Have the police been round to Glieck’s house yet to get his computers a la Tallbloke farce ?

251. Man Bearpigg says:

”Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.”
Then they are complicit in the crimes that have been committed.

Bob Tisdale said on February 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm:

Sometime in the not-too-distant future, when someone else attempts something like this, it will be known as pulling a Gleick.

I hope not. It’d be hard to search for it, Google will insist you meant “pulling a Glock”.
So Gleick conned out the info by pretending to be part of the Heartland team, “produced” the fake document basically showing Heartland to be nefarious boobs, says the faked document came first. And of course, rather than contact Heartland directly for confirmation of said document, it made better sense to him to do the conning. Yup, sure, that’s really believable.
Shall we compare this to the Anthony Watts experience? Where Muller conned the Surface Stations data from Anthony by pretending to be a skeptic seriously interested in real scientific inquiry, who then squashed that data into the (C)AGW-pusher narrative and released still-to-be-officially-published documents which were widely circulated and cited as proof Anthony was an ignorant suspicious boob who made much noise about nothing?
How are we supposed to have open and honest scientific debate, when the “other side” prefers wielding chicanery and “preemptive discrediting” as weapons rather than having real discussions of the real science?

253. johanna says:

RDCII says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Well said.
And the wagons are circling – the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg has already rallied to Gleick’s defence:
Anthony’s old mate Scott Mandia (I can never bleach that image Anthony posted from my brain!) of the Rapid Response team is quoted as follows:
“Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”
Uh, no, although it is certainly typical of several Murdoch journalists and their associates who have been arrested in recent weeks. I guess that fits Scotty’s definition of ‘tricks’ such as anyone might use – a term of which the Team is inordinately fond. However, misrepresenting one’s identity to obtain private documents is beyond the pale for any reputable journalist or journal, apart from being potentially illegal. Doesn’t bother him though, as Gleick is described as a ‘hero’.
This lot are utterly morally bankrupt.

254. Shevva says:

The in-defensable v’s the truth.
Hum!!! I wonder who will win.
PS. Cliamte science may take a back seat this year (and hopefully never be seen again in it’s current form, I’m all for understanding the climate to protect lives not enrich them).

255. Shevva says:

PPS Imagine if the MSM did their job properly and actually reported on this criminal behaviour.

256. John F. Hultquist says:

R. Shearer says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm
“Now that the illegality of this has come to light, don’t the warmists sites risk libel by not removing their posts?

I wonder? But I do not know anything about the legal questions. My interest is in retaining the posts and the comments and the time stamps. This seems like stuff that ought to be saved. Maybe everyone should put a big bold disclaimer on the top of the posts. Something like: “This is part of the GleickGate episode.”

257. Eric Anderson says:

Sounds like the NCSE appointed the right man to their board. Gleick fits right in with the “propaganda-first, advocacy-at-all-costs” modus operandi of the NCSE.
Congratulations, folks.

258. Be sure that his criminal defense lawyer will help him sequester the evidence, such as his computer, his copier, and his printer. Crooked lawyers simply pick up the stuff, and put it where a search warrant is unlikely, often in one of the lawyer’s offices. Hillary didn’t want Nixon to have an attorney when questioned by the House Judiciary committee, but the precedent of Stephen Douglas having an attorney was clear, so she took the entire case files from the House Judiciary committee home with her, removing the precedent from the files. Later she took the Rose Law firm billing records home, and they were moved to the White house with her effects.
All we can hope is that his lawyer is indeed a crook, and stupid, so we can get Gleick and his attorney at the same time. In the greater scheme of things, Gleick is small potatoes.

259. kwik says:

Markus Fitzhenry says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“I guess William Connelley didn’t update Mr. Gleicks’ Wikipedia today then.”
That was spot on to my expectation as well.
The Gleicks of this world obviously sees a totally different reality from what I see.
They live in a hollywood world. In Avatar.
Maybe that is why they travel to Antarctica with Cameron at Antarctic summertime.
They want to “feel” they are right. Planning the next movie.

260. Eric says:

The Guardian story STILL repeats the false accusation of the Fake Memo in its FIRST paragraph!
“A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week’s sensational expose.”

261. Alan T says:

Regarding Mr. Gleick’s confession, it reads like a paraphrase of Flip Wilson- “The Deniers made me do it!”.

262. John F. Hultquist says:

Anthony says: “I don’t have to take your abuse Mr. Alemany . . . and don’t come back.
Thanks, Anthony.

263. DirkH says:

February 20, 2012 at 11:22 pm
“How are we supposed to have open and honest scientific debate, when the “other side” prefers wielding chicanery and “preemptive discrediting” as weapons rather than having real discussions of the real science?”
Scientific debate with charlatans and forgers? Highly unlikely.

264. Skiphil says:

Post of the day over on Bishop Hill:
Beats me how, with all this fakery going on, Gleick managed to find time to read and review Donna Lafromboise’s excellent book, The Delinquent Teenager. ;<)
Feb 21, 2012 at 7:38 AM | Phillip Bratby

265. Some kind hearted gentle commentors here have asked Anthony, who himself is a kind hearted gentle person, to not pursue this any further.
We, and especially people like Anthony, have been through much too much, much much too much.
The sleepless nights, the cold looks from our partners, the many many wasted hours battling these low down unethical people.
This is a rare opportunity to send a message to all of them, to every single one of the ‘anti-science’ evoking, ‘denier’ evoking, ‘our grand children’ evoking unfair playing AGW proponents.
I urge Anthony to please not let this rare opportunity go. I don’t have much, but I’m willing to give as much as I can to fund Anthony to pursue these people and hit them where it hurts.
Maybe then we might get a decent, fair debate about the climate.

266. Charles.U.Farley says:

Hoisted by his own petard.
Question remains- would he have confessed if he hadnt been found out?
I kinda doubt it.
So much for the “ethics” of the agw brigade.
The truth will always out.

267. Brendan says:

And on cue, the “he’s a martyr” defence from DeSmog.
If someone handed this to you as a script of a movie, you’d toss it back and shake your head and say “as if !”

268. Scarface says:

The first AGW-scientist to actually go to State Pen. And may the rest follow quickly.
The debate is over. AGW is a scam.

269. Skiphil says:

One may also wonder whether Peter Gleick was so busy giving loving kisses to fellow CAGW propagandists that he just got carried away with the spirit of the thing. Here is “reviewing” Michael Mann’s book on Feb. 8, just days before he would commit himself to public disgrace and infamy:
187 of 273 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Must read — for the real history of the climate debate and the war by deniers, February 8, 2012
By
Peter Gleick “PGleick”
This review is from: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Hardcover)
Michael Mann — a world class scientist and communicator about the seriousness of climate change — has finally put all of the recent history (sordid, indeed) about climate denial, attacks on climate scientists, and serial and intentional efforts by climate “skeptics” and “deniers” (a word many of them self-apply) into a book. As the title suggests, there IS a war on. That war is not really about the science, as Mann shows, but about efforts to confuse the public and policymakers by pretending the science is wrong (it isn’t) and by attacking the scientists who are willing to speak about it publicly. Much of the contents of the book is old news: we know about the efforts to slander/libel the work of Mann, which led to seven public formal independent reviews, each of which confirmed the accuracy of his work (described well in the book); we know about the efforts of serial deniers to confuse policy makers and the public (in fact, take a look at how the trolls are being marshalled to insult and criticize the book here at Amazon!).
If you are up in the air about the science of climate change; if you are interested in the true history of the battles between scientists on one side and often-paid skeptics on the other hand, get this book. Toward the end, Mann talks about the misinterpreted, out-of-context emails stolen from a university in the UK, with the observation and famous quote “If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.” This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked piece of information to argue against climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science. Mann carefully and clearly describes that episode in a way that — if you had previously been confused by the rhetoric — will convince you that the science is stronger than ever.
Check it out.

270. JJ says:

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

They likely will, and I have a guess as to what it will say. Two actually.
1) They will portray Gleick as a martyr. Look at what you evil sceptics made poor Peter do. It was the extreme pressure of being a high-profile climate scientist, constantly beset by your harassment, that caused him to make the small transgression for the greater good.
2) They will portray Gleick as a hero. They will praise his efforts to expose the evil sceptics and their … gasp… private fundraising activities and … horrors … public education programs. They will justify everything that he did as being moral, ethical, and legal.
I think 2 is more likely, as it will best comport with what is probably Gleick’s first choice for a legal defense – he will claim to be an investigative journalist. He will claim that he can protect his “sources” and that his identity theft and other cirners are common journalistic techniques. Given his rather obvious high opinion of himself, he will claim to be both the Woodward AND Bernstein of the climate world.
A lot will depend on what Gleick thinks he can get away with, legally and in terms of his continued employability. That is why he isn’t admitting to writing the faked document, but not denying it either.

271. Jeef says:

This smells of ulterior motive. I wonder who is calling the shots on the warmest side. I think Gleick will have a safe position lined up in a warmest institute and this is all being done in the name of martyrdom while there’s still goodwill in the press. I think WUWT and other contra blogs are being played. Where is the end game?

272. How typical. The underlying data aren’t alarming enough, so craft a new presentation to “sex up” the data and make matters look worse than they really are. I propose that we dub this “Pete’s Heartland trick.”

273. “I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.”
Watts, you are too awesome. Statues need to be made.

274. Robin Hewitt says:

Inspector Columbo cannot be deceived, he identifies the perp PDQ then sets out to prove it.
The perp may confess to errors of judgement when he/she realises where the evidence points, but never admits the big one until the evidence is overwhelming.
Remember how Columbo does it. The perp always believes they are cleverer than the crumpled cop but the devil is in the detail.

275. Jimmy Haigh says:

What an incredible episode. You would have thought that maybe some of the warmists would by now be realising that there is a whole lot wrong with theirside of the debate. But going by some of the comments on the blogs they are just getting more entrenched.
I think we are at Ghandi’s “…and then they fight you…” stage of the game.
Go get ’em Anthony.

276. John McLachlan says:

“At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing…….”
“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.”
Would email records or computer hard-drives indicate which documents were received or created first?
If the admitted to be stolen documents were indeed stolen in order to confirm the contents of the supposedly previously received, but now admitted to be forged document, then surely he would have received the supposedly anonymously sent forged document, first.
On the other hand, if the stolen documents were obtained prior to the creation or receipt of the forged document, then surely that would be more consistent with the forged document being an embellishment which he produced himself from the stolen documents.
Will police be seizing computers, as they do when investigating sceptics?
In the event of a trial, would prosecuters be entitled to examine evidence of whether there was an actual conspiracy to defame the victim, by colluding with other parties, who knew that the documents were stolen and forged, but proceeded to publish them, anyway?
The ethical basis of the behaviour of CAGW supporters appears to permit promulgating data which they know is fraudulent, but which appears to support their agenda. The end justifies the means. In this instance, it is possible that they would not balk at knowingly participating in a conspiracy to defame, basing their claims upon documents which they admitted in their own private correspondence they knew to be false.
If this is indeed the case, then a substantial blow can be delivered to the credibility of the entire propaganda organization of the CAGC alarmsts.

277. Roger Knights says:

Here are a couple of good comments from the thread at Climate, etc., then three more from Climate Audit:

Judith Curry: “He has made it known to me via email that he has been displeased with my “behavior.” I seem to have gotten his goat to have been mentioned in the fake Heartland strategy doc (hard to believe that he didn’t write this).”
GaryM: “Is Gleick claiming he received the faked document in the mail?
……………
“Was Gleick named in any of the documents other than the strategy memo?
“The fun may just be starting.”
PaddickJ: “There is one glaring revelation in the purloined docs, but you won’t read of it anywhere in warmsta’-land: H.I. spent only \$700,000.00 on climate issues last year. That’s right, H.I. opened a can of whup-ass for about 1/1000 of what the big dogs spent. Ouch, warmers, that’s gotta hurt.”
manacker: “How many days Peter Gleick will still remain the Chair of the AGU ethics committee is anyone’s guess.
“The longer it takes before he steps down or is fired, the less credible the AGU becomes.”
JJ: “… I’m still hard-pressed to think someone as well-educated as Peter Gleick could have written it.”
Keep in mind that if Gleick wrote it, Gleick wouldn’t write it as Gleick. Gleick would write it as Gleick’s internal concept of what a mouth breathing conservative scum sucking sceptic would write. That is clearly how he sees the people he was attempting to screw with. His opinion of them is very low. This is consistent with the tone of the document, which paints its alleged author and Gleick’s professional adversaries with derogatory verbage, but refers to Gleick himself with near honorific terms.
He would also have had problems faking a more professional looking document. Having been provided PDFs, he wouldn’t have Heartland letterhead. Perhaps cognizant of the legal danger inherent in further acts of identity theft, he wouldn’t make it an authored memo. And he would have wanted to do the print and scan routine, to scrub the doc of metadata of which he has perhaps an incomplete understanding.
Taken together, an obvious course of action is to make what appears to be a roughly written draft.
At this point the best confirmation that he wrote it is the fact that he hasn’t denied writing it, despite the fact that his greatest legal exposure lies with that act.

278. Stephen Richards says:

I hope both sides learn from this – keep sources of funding open and don’t fake, lie, or sex up the truth.
We don’t care where funding comes from. It was the warmistas that starting shouting oil shill. We care only that the science and the scientific method be followed. No lies, no corruption of data and no advocacy

279. Stephen Richards says:

TanGeng says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm
My guess is that the strategy memo was the document that Gleick received in the mail. It makes sense then that Gleick had to scan it to get it on the internet. He solicited the other documents. The only problem is that the controversial document is still unacknowledged by the Heartland institute despite Gleick’s unlawful solicitation of “confirming” documents.
We’d have to see the mail package to get to the bottom of this. I hope Gleick saved all the evidence.
Why would he need to solicit the other documents when he had already received the most defamatory one in the post, unfolded. He is lying. Not only that but his mealy mouthed apology is not even an apology. He goes on to “slag off” everyone else for putting him in the position which made him do it.

280. “…I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”
OK… so the fake was an original, made up out of whole cloth. The only question I have is, “Who made it all up?”
The wording on that statement has so many weasel dodges…

281. Stephen Richards says:

Jeef says:
February 21, 2012 at 12:39 am
This smells of ulterior motive. I wonder who is calling the shots on the warmest side. I think Gleick will have a safe position lined up in a warmest institute and this is all being done in the name of martyrdom while there’s still goodwill in the press. I think WUWT and other contra blogs are being played. Where is the end game?
This will likely be a very expensive game, if you are right. Which I doubt.

282. Don says:

Of course the lesson the media and blogosphere should be taking from all this (but won’t) is:
(Works best with a Charlie Chan accent)

283. Frog says:

“My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts”
They do That ALL the time!

284. Jason says:

That people in the AGW camp are defending his actions is, well beyone belief to any open minded, decent individual.
It says an awful lot about them as a group. It is a cult, a religion and it is dangerous. So dangerous that they are prepared to close ranks around and defend someone who has just admitted deception and theft, and probably forgery.
But then you have to look at the cold, hard realitied of humans. They form groups and they try to grab as much as they can once they get into positions of power. The AGW scare has spawned a massive industry both inside and outside science, which makes the Heartland funding look utterly laughable.
They are defending the money and the power.
I personally hope Gleick goes to jail for a very long time after a very long, public trial. The more people who see his lack of integrity and open their minds enough to start looking at the gaps in the science, the better for the world.

285. Stephen Richards says:

Craig Goodrich
Mr. Gleick is to be admired for his honesty and frankness
You must be joking !!! He is a liar, thief, con man and corrupt scientist/advocat.

286. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hmmm – twitter silence for a few days – time for ‘semi plausible explanation’?
I wonder if these 2 documented events pushed him possibly into a rash action.
ie the style and forbes connection and other feature, make him a candidate for the ‘fake now’ I must accept.
Peter had accused me of being ‘incredibly offensiv’e on twitter (ie i thought my followers would mean like the vile abuse Katie Hayhoe had receieved.’
And it TOOK THREE climate scientists, Dr Tamsin Edwards, Prof Richard Betts (met Office, IPCC), AND Prof Katie Hayhoe herself to get him to back down..
in the email exchanges (published with permission) that followed Peter Gleicks thoughts about me, his worldview to ‘sceptics’ and his attitude to Dr Tamsin Edwards is very enlightening. ..
http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
What started this is Peter took issue with Dr Edwards blog name, where he pulled the senior scientist card (rather assertively, because some sceptics liked it (me) and it should be said UK climate scientists liked it as well!
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/
This made me wonder, a bit, just after Heartland..(not
@BarryJWoods @icey_mark @flimsin gee, what have I done now?—
Peter Gleick (@PeterGleick) February 15, 2012

287. 1DandyTroll says:

Why do the spin doctors to these politicized jokers always make the same mistake? It’s like they all took the same course that seem to be labeled: How to only take partial blame, the rest belongs to persons unknown!
It’s been tried so many times, and has failed an equal amount of times. So when did it work, during the 1930’s?
During the last 12 years there has been numerous attempt at pulling this same BS amongst politicians and self proclaimed important lefties and so called higher ups in my country, from party leaders and police chiefs to political grunts, still the results are always the same: Epic Fail! Probably due to this here internet t’ingy.
I’m sorry sir, I got this here password from an unknown person on an unknown street. But even if I got the files on my hard drive, which I incidentally bought from Mr anonymous in the city of Anon it did so include the content, and even if I did download the files, as you so strenuously indicate you have proof of, a very weird thing happen when an unknown anonymous person stole into my living quarters ran through my office and logged on to that account. So as you can see, I was a mere bystander, who actually witnessed a crime and have now reported it, so essentially I’m the hero of this here fabulously fantastical tale of epic proportions! What do you mean arrested, didn’t you hear what I said, I’m innocent even if I confessed! :p

288. oakgeo says:

UPDATE8: 11:20PM ……. Wow, un-flippin’-believable. I had to go to Desmogblog to read it myself, but they actually lionize Gleick for his behaviour. Their attitude is so surreal, barren of logic and reason. Seems like a nice example of cognitive dissonance.

289. DirkH says:

Yes. Gleick didn’t explicitly deny writing the fake memo. This can only mean he wrote it.
” 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.”
Very carefully worded, doubtlessly a lawyer involved. No statement about whether he added a document of his own. No statement about whether “the document I received via snail mail” was identical to the fake memo.

290. Merovign says:

On rare occasions, a situation is both “funny ha-ha” and “funny like a dead fish.”
I suspect there will both be more fallout from this, and the original (false) assertion will be repeated ad nauseum. Save your links…

291. Sjoerd says:

Can someone point me to where Gleick says that the “document he received” is the same as “the fake document that was published”?
Could there be two documents: one received originally (but never published), and the falsified document that was published?
The text is careful to make the impression that they are one and the same, but does it really say so?

292. Otter says:

‘For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated”
Any relation to Gerald Ford?
(he was my first vote for President. Just as you got my first vote for the Bloggies)

293. Robert of Ottawa says:

His denial of being the author of the fake I just do not believe.

294. hawkwood says:

So is shooting ones self in the foot with a repeating howitzer now going to be called getting “Gleicked”

295. Robert of Ottawa says:

Skiphil, good point about him being a cosignator to the XL pipeline letter. Perhaps Senator Inhofe might like a word with him in the Senate 🙂

296. Mardler says:

Be careful what we wish for.
The most likely outcome is that Gleick will not be sentenced: he will, probably, get off Scott free, if indeed there is any court case (HI may settle out of court).
The Team and MSM will not cover the real story. The T & MSM will spin it and claim Gleick their hero and the CAGW alarmists will maintain their current unassailable primacy over real science and us sceptics.
It grieves me to say this but it’s gone on so long and is so entrenched in governments around the world that too many careers will be bust for them to back out now.
In case anyone thinks I’m a troll, see other posts and believe me when I say that I am as anti-CAGW alarmism as anyone else here, perhaps more so, it’s just that I don’t believe my own (or Anthony’s blog’s greater) knowledge and understanding of the scam translates to the wider world: “the great unwashed” who read the Grauniad and believe the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
Sorry to be realistic but something else needs to be done to stop these charlatans and it almost certainly means using BIG MONEY.

297. Eric (skeptic) says:

Stephen Richards said on February 21, 2012 at 2:08 am “Why would he need to solicit the other documents when he had already received the most defamatory one in the post, unfolded. He is lying.”
Good point. His scan shows no evidence of folds. So it was sent to him in a 9×12 envelope unfolded with a cardboard insert to keep it flat? Call me a skeptic. The ends do not justify the means, those idiots obviously learned nothing from Climategate.

298. Disko Troop says:

A few people here have suggested leniency towards Dr Gleick, as to call down the full weight of the law will make him a martyr to the cause when all the facts are lost and only the narrative remains. Whilst this would possibly remove the badge of martyrdom in the short term it would be an open invitation for every scoundrel and scammer on the CAGW payroll to say and print any thing they please. The only way to prevent this is to make it quite clear that criminality will be punished. By weathering the MSM ‘s irrational rationalisation of criminality a firm message will be sent to the other activist scientists that truth is mandatory and not optional. We have long accepted that the media lie through their teeth and most ordinary citizens are well aware of the issues and account for them, What the ordinary citizen has not been used to is the current crop of activists posing as scientists so it is necessary to expose the likes of Dr. Gleick in order to alert the populace to this trend and nullify its effects.
The real St Peter denied Christ three times as predicted. I think we will begin to see the apostles of CAGW denying the new St. Peter Gleick before long!

299. Climategate 2.0: the fallout. Warmists don’t seem to be able to keep cool and follow their ‘nothing to see here’ meme.

300. Jeff in Calgary says:

It is almost to the point of rediculous that he is claiming he did not write the fake document. The same language is used in that letter as in the confession. It is obviously the same author.

301. Allan MacRae says:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/quote-of-the-week-andrew-bolt-nails-fakegate/#comment-896170
Repeat from my earlier posts:
“You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”
Perhaps, with time and continued nonsense from the warmists, this Hypothesis will become a Theory, or even a Law (“The Law of Warmist BS”).
______________
Now, with the Peter Gleick confession, and the chorus of Pavlovian support for his criminal actions by the global warming alarmist community, I submit that:
“The Hypothesis of Warmist BS”
be herewith elevated to:
“The Theory of Warmist BS”.
______________
By the end of the Peter Gleick affair, a further elevation may occur, to:
“The Law of Warmist BS”.
However, it is too early for that now.
In any case, “Peter Gleick” and “The Law” will soon become all too familiar with each other.

302. David says:

Griffin says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Reminds me of myself as a teenager. Several of us got caught drinking beer when we should not have. So we put our story together and confessed to the least severe act that the evidence could support. We admitted to having a six pack rather than a case.
Not that anyone believed us anyway. This looks exactly the same to me.
===================================
Somebody should write a book about the teenage antics of these delinquents, (-;

303. I long for the day when we can get back to debating scientific issues on the basis of observations and experimentation rather document leaks and speculating about the scientists’ motives. What it does show is that scientists are human like the rest of us and we can’t put anyone portray anyone as being purely objective without betraying the science that proves we all have biases to overcome.

304. That’s rich. Now he wants a debate. I thought everything had already been settled.

305. Donald says:

[SNIP: Not a sentiment we encourage. Sorry. -REP]
What a peasant. What a piece of low-life.

I think the present focus diminishes everyone.

307. elftone says:

He admits to deception in obtaining the documents that verifiably came from the Heartland Institute, reducing his credibility in this matter to zero. He then says he received the memo that Heartland says is a fake from a third party (whom he does not name, correct?), and we’re supposed to take this as truth? “I’ve been a naughty boy, but this bit is true, honest!”. Right. Especially considering its style is (as others far better qualified to comment have pointed out) so similar to his.
Right, well, he made his bed, and now has to sleep in it. Wonder if they’ll remove that Amazon book review now? ;).
p.s. Nice to see DeSmog shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot. I suspect some of them used to programme in Visual Basic?

308. Steve from Rockwood says:

Well that left a mark.

309. kramer says:

I have to say, I’m very impressed with the way people figured out that Gleick probably had something to do with this.
Now I see that some are trumpeting his admission. Yeah right… I bet he got a bit scared that people here on WUWT had figured out that he is probably the guy behind them and that somebody would electronically figure out that the docs came from him or his office so better to come forward vs being tracked down.
And why the need to do this kind of thing if the “debate is over?”

310. Billjunga says:

Give them enough rope and they hang themselves.
I have come to the conclusion that with all the attention that the “warmists” have received, most brought on by themselves, over the last few years is that not only is their “science” questionable, but they are a group of miserable human beings also.
I don’t trust any of them further than I could throw them, maybe not even that far.They lost all credibility with me.

311. Todd says:

How does the likes of Seth Borenstein escape this with any more of their reputation intact than Gleick? Borenstein knew he was “reporting” the info off a faked document.
The Seth Borensteins of the world enable frauds like Gieick.

So in the end, we found out that all along, Peter Gleick was full of it.
As opposed to what we who have been paying attention knew all along, that Peter Gleick was full of it.
That’s some great difference there, ain’t it?

313. Mickey Reno says:

An amazing and sad story of corruption. The comparison of this event to Climategate will NOT be rooted in a comparison of the release of two sets of more or less equally embarrassing documents, but in the fact that Alarmists in both cases are willing to unethically manipulate, lie and deceive in order to protect their power and positions of authority.

314. Ed Scott says:

The Global Warming Cult and the Death of Science
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 20, 2012
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/20/the-global-warming-cult-and-the-death-of-science/print/
———————————–
Global Warming is not just a failure of a sizable chunk of the scientific establishment to put theory before ideology, it represents a failure of the entire process by which the West has been governed for a frightening number of years. It is a demonstration of how a handful of people in prominent positions can push through otherwise unacceptable measures by manufacturing a crisis and pipelining it through business and government. It’s a hack of our entire system of government.
If you understand the implications of that, then you begin to understand the consequences of it for the progressive technocracy and its mindless elitism that uses opinion leaders to drive actual leaders and has entire agencies dedicated to influencing opinion leaders. If Warmism fails, then it all fails. There will be no mobs in the street or squares filled with protesters, instead the entire infrastructure whose entire purpose is not to look stupid, will suddenly look very stupid.
Stupid leaders might not be too much of a problem in a democracy where people are entitled to elect any idiot they want, but it’s unacceptable in a technocracy where the leaders may win elections, but mostly they win the consensus of the elites. If the elites and their technocracy no longer amount to anything, then the emperor is naked, and suddenly elections might start mattering again.

315. henrythethird says:

Don’t forget, Gleik included HI as a “runner up” for the 2011 Climate B.S. competition:
“…Other Noteworthy Climate B.S. of 2011
Some voters felt that the following entries submitted for the 2011 Climate B.S. competition deserve recognition though they win no awards from us.
Harrison Schmitt and the Heartland Institute for “Arcticgate”
As the Arctic ice disappears before our eyes, we must call attention to former Senator Harrison Schmitt’s refusal to correct persistent errors and “cherry picking” of data in denying the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and for the Heartland Institute’s promulgation of – and refusal to correct – those errors when they were uncovered…”
And rereading the previous year’s awards (from here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-2010-climate-bs-of-th_b_802906.html), we saw this statement:
“…Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.
Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action — just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks…”
Read that again: “…Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science…”
Whose side is he talking about here?

316. Johnnythelowery says:

Gleick is ………….the ANTI-FOIA !!!!

317. More Soylent Green! says:

A “physicist” says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Have you considered getting your own blog. That way you can keep trying to excuse theft and fraud through your weak moral equivalency arguments. You could even make “Be First with the Truth” your motto.

318. I suspect that any reports of the death of Mr Gleick’s career may be somewhat premature.
After all, we have an uncountable number of inquiries that found no illegal or unethical behaviour in the various climategate emails, in Dr Mann et.al.’s deletion of emails, etc. I expect the same folks will investigate this and exonerate Mr Gleick. The media will largely ignore it all, except to to criticise the “small mindedness” of Heartland and anybody else seeking legal redress.
Probably within three months, certainly within a year, the whole thing will be mostly forgotten.
Don’t you love the modern media?

319. Werner Brozek says:

I think his hoped for “debate” may have already begun.
See the following in the February 21 Edmonton Journal:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Simons+Impact+burning+Alberta+oilsands+negligible+scientists+argue/6180734/story.html
Simons: Impact of burning all Alberta’s oilsands negligible, scientists argue
But prestigious publication questions reliance on oilsands
By Paula Simons, edmontonjournal.com
“In their paper, Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta’s oilsands — all 170 billion barrels — would be negligible. Burning all the proven reserve between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05 C.
“Our responsibility as scientists is to report the facts, so that society and decision-makers can make informed decisions, based on factual data, and not emotional rhetoric,” Swart says. “If it is the case that some of this information is misused, that’s unfortunate, but we can’t help them that. Good facts have been missing from this debate in the past. It’s our job to provide them.”

320. wws says:

The new precautionary principle: ALWAYS distrust any statement by a warmist!!!
And Mardler, don’t worry, I think we all understand your position. But the long grinding war has made you a bit more depressed than you need be. (long wars do that, not your fault)
You are only assessing the criminal case, and yes, that is unlikely to do much to Gleick. (although it is likely to cost him a great deal of time, trouble, and money) But take if from someone who has extensive involvement with the legal system: The CIVIL case is where all the action is! First of all, the standard there is just a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. (criminal standard) That’s why it’s always much easier to win a civil verdict, which I understand Heartland will pursue. And once they get a judgment, Gleick can look forward to a lifetime of playing “hide the assets!!!” while Heartland’s lawyers make his life miserable. Imagine Heartland getting a judgment allowing them to garnish ALL of Gleick’s future earnings, and using that money to fund their operations! Outcomes like that make mean and nasty lawyers like me smile when we go to bed at night. That’s how you make someone wish they had never been born.
Remember, even OJ Simpson ended up in jail (finally!) not because of his original crime but due to the ramifications of the civil case against him.

321. Skiphil says:

some on Twitter are tweeting love for Peter Gleick and what he did (or their mis-conception of what he did since they don’t seem to get the whole story):
Naomi Klein @NaomiAKlein
Send @PeterGleick some Twitter love, he took big risks to bring important truths about the deniers to light.
EcoLabs @EcoLabs
Defend @PeterGleick science and education. Using an alias to discover info. that should be public knowledge is an appropriate response.
Patrick Thibodeau @DCgov
Thank you @PeterGleick for releasing the Heartland documents and authenticating them. goo.gl/6YuGw
Josh Rosenau @JoshRosenau
Saddened by the way @PeterGleick obtained @HeartlandInst documents, but more saddened and outraged by what those documents show.

322. RichieP says:

Varco says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm
“the continued public pursuit of someone who may be in a vulnerable state of mind does not appear to be in the spirit of this blog. Could I suggest an appeal to reason for the contributors of this blog to leave further judgement of Mr Gleick to the authorities and history.”
No. Vae victis (look it up).

323. Gleick should have stuck to reviewing books he’s never read I am sure there are several 6th grade level science books he could work up a review on. What is with these nutbars he is willing to admit he committed ID theft (in emailing under someone elses name) but not the faking of a document? Someone said it earlier martyr for the cause, his ego would have nothing less than that. Apparently the anti-sience community at desmog and others in the echo chamber is doing just that.

324. Mark Bofill says:

Copner & Mosher – you guys are scary sharp.
(at least (now) I can go back to my (sometimes) excessive and random use of parenthesis) without fear (of being implicated in any of this). 🙂
As for the rest, I feel no particular jubilation about it, just relief. I feel more or less the same way about the whole affair as I would about a drunk wandering onto my property, tearing up the yard and vomiting on my windows. I’m glad the authorities know who did it, I’m disgusted by the whole affair, and I’m relieved my neighbors know the obnoxious drunk had nothing to do with me. BTW I don’t think Gleick deserves any particular respite or quarter on the blogs, but for my part, the spectacle he’s made of himself is pathetic from my perspective, and it turns my stomach dwelling on it.

325. There is no way the fake memo was received before the other docs–it lifts text directly from them. Even his confession is fake.

326. Mardler says:
327. Ken Harvey says:

The time line gave the longitude and of all those remotely possible culprits living on that time line, the style alone pointed Steven Mosher to Glieck and once the finger was pointed Glieck had to own up albeit in half-hearted fashion. An “original” document can easily be forged but that style won’t go away.

328. Latitude says:

good Lord…..this is lame
Gleick acted like some little child…when it started closing in on him…then and only then did he realize how stupid he is
Don’t overlook this fact…..if Gleick had been better at it…..there would be no confession

329. This act of desperation by Peter Gleick is an admission that his side was losing the PR war and their sources of funding were in jeopardy. Heartland must be aggressive in their pursuit of these pretenders. Since Al Gore`s blog used this piece of trickery to defame Heartland just days ago he must be included in this defamation suit and they need to act quickly and decisively.

330. Robert said, “I long for the day when we can get back to debating scientific issues on the basis of observations and experimentation rather document leaks and speculating about the scientists’ motives. What it does show is that scientists are human like the rest of us and we can’t put anyone portray anyone as being purely objective without betraying the science that proves we all have biases to overcome.”
Puh-lease, Robert, I don’t know what humans “like the rest of us” you’re musing about, but I certainly wouldn’t wish to associate with a scoundrel like Gleick. This is not about a failure of “objectivity” either; this is about a hypocrite who’s been claiming the high ground, who stole and most likely forged, but continues to attack and lie while he pretends to offer apologies. He needs to be smacked down hard. And so do the various warmist apologists and has-been PR muppets who try to equate this case with Climategate and who are trying to turn Gleick into a “whistle-blower” and a folk hero. If this issue had been about science only, as you pretend it is, this outraheous AGW scam would’ve never even have taken off.
So, sorry, we won’t tie our hands by pretending this is merely a gentlemanly disagreement between folks in lab coats. The corruption, the criminality, the lying, the cronyism and the stupendous funding resources behind the warmist scam must be continually exposed and discussed until it collapses from its own rot.

331. What is curious to me, and very revealing, is that sites like WUWT and a small outfit like Heartland make these guys simply apoplectic to the extent that they really want them shut down. They can not stand to be questioned. If it were in their power (and thank god it is not) they would outlaw debate. They have in fact proposed prison time for coal producers (Hansen) and charges of crimes against humanity (in Europe) and brought Lomborg up on misconduct charges (upheld and then reversed) for merely having an opinion.

332. Ken Hall says:

I was going to leave a comment on Desmog’s blog stating that the difference between a whistle blower and Gleick, is that a whistle blower tells the truth. Gleick’s main document was faked. However to leave a comment on their blog requires a login, which requires me giving them my personal details. It is bad enough that I had to give them an increased visitor stat.
I should not be surprised that they think of Gleick as some sort of heroic martyr, after all, simple, honest truth has never been a requirement of alarmist climate science, has it?
As for that rubbish about wanting a debate??? First they claimed all debate was “pretty much dead”, or “there is no debate” – Al Gore 2001. Then they refused every genuine offer of debate from climate realists so as to protect their fantasy world where “debate is dead”. Now that they are losing massive amounts of believers as their secrets and lies are being uncovered, NOW they claim that they “just wanted the debate!”
No they just wanted to censor real scientific debate and suppress all opposition. Their science failed to achieve that, their billions in government grants failed to achieve that, so they turn to criminal malfeasance, fraud, Libel and outright deception to try to achieve that.
The CAGW fraud is imploding spectacularly before our eyes. Yet the mainstream media and mainstream politicians are being VERY slow to admit reality, because both have billions invested in the lie. Both seek to gain huge amounts of money and control over the global population through this lie. (that is not conspiracy hyperbole either, as this global dictatorship plan is written in black and white and further entrenched into global laws at EVERY global climate summit!)
The CAGW scam is not dead yet. All the real science shows that the ‘pseudo-science’ supporting it has been thoroughly discredited, the actors pretending to be scientists have been publicly exposed as fraudsters and now they, in their desperation, turn to blatant in-your-face crimes to protect their lies. BUT the scam is not yet dead.
I hope that it will be dead soon. We need to have people VOTE for the few brave and honest politicians who do not support the CAGW scam, wherever they stand for office, whichever party they represent in whichever country they are in.

333. TomRude says:

Hoggan’s Desmog= BC Power (un)Smart

334. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

Science is the search for the facts that make up the truth as best can be proven.
As long as we have the msm and the liberal left of Earth First, Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society etal enableing and marketing lies and fraud as science no one with new science work is free from these new age flat earth frauds.
So, sorry to say to keep science safe and truth known we have to win this other non-science war current on real science.
Seems to some we should able to do both at the same time.

335. john says:

Should there be charges, the discovery phase could be most interesting.

336. Worth the price of admission … haven’t had this much fun in a long time.
REPLY: There’s not one thing fun about this. It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Train wrecks might be fun to watch on old film clips, but in real life train wrecks, people get hurt. – Anthony

337. markj says:

Bob Ward waffles on without mentioning the f (fake) word at The Guardian

338. I very much look forward to seeing the results of the discovery process. I would not be surprised if there is evidence that more individuals than Dr. Gleick were involved in this specific activity. I would also not be surprised if there is evidence of other potentially problematic activities by Dr. Gleick and colleagues.
Bruce

339. yawn says:

[snip – you’ve been banned for threadbombing yesterday]

340. Rob MW says:

Anthony,
What a really sad state of affairs has this CO2 AGW orthodoxy become, from manipulated data to climategate 1 & 2 to exaggerated claims of cause and effect to the never ending dog whistle of the impending apocalypse by worshipers of the fourth horseman.
What person, other than someone seriously unhinged, would break into someone’s house just to find out what the homeowner is thinking ?
On the other side of the coin we can see with absolute clarity that the dogmatic mantra of the Mann’s, Jones’s, Hansen’s and Gore’s et al of this world are the cause, and the Gleick’s are the effects.
Given that peer pressure and self-regulation has failed, is it not time for all Government funding for this so called science discipline to cease until and to such a time as clear and unequivocal development of guidelines and standards are established regulating the scientific practise & procedure and to deter any publically funded political advocacy.
In no other field that I can think of would this type of behaviour be tolerated, in fact a reasonable person can assume that some of these so called elites of this particular field would be completely unemployable in any walk of life.

341. JEM says:

Gleick’s supposed ‘prominence’ in the CAGW universe can be summarized thusly:
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”
And, for him, it paid off. As he got more aggressive, more willing to throw aside the bounds of scientific restraint in favor of full-throated bomb-throwing agitation, his standing rose quite visibly.
We will now see some serious high-speed backpedaling among those in the pseudoscientific community happy to follow Gleick over the parapet so long as he was the one in the lead.

342. Jakehig says:

Sorry if this has already been raised…..
Surely anyone, let alone a journo, who received a “hot” document anonymously by post would take immediate steps to start a paper trail: keep the packaging with the postmark; record date and time; etc.?

343. James Ard says:

Considering the harm these people have done to science, our standard of living and even the health and well being of millions of people, it can’t be wrong to take some joy when the bad guy blows his own legs off. Anthony, you take the brunt of it, and thank you so much for that, but we have all been injured by this scam.

344. Les Johnson says:

Gleick demonstrates a common truism.
Sometimes, very smart people make very stupid decisions, because they think everybody else is stupid.

345. Isn’t it ironic?
“And while all scientists (and all people) make mistakes, good ones acknowledge their mistakes, correct them, and refine our knowledge. Bad ones dig in their heels, defending a faulty paradigm to the bitter end.” — Peter Gleick

346. It isn’t often that I disagree with WUWT and most of its readers, but on this I do. I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.
Please note that I do not include the question of the faked document. Meanwhile, I am not impressed by the argument about release of confidential personal information either: it has the whiff of hypocracy.

Boy, the gutter snipe trolls are out in force today–this whole sordid affair must REALLY be getting under their skin!
And as far as this Mr.Gleick becoming a martyr as some have asserted, that’s a highly questionable attribution–the primary definition indicates one must suffer death rather than denounce his or her religion for the word “martyr” to be applied. Now, without a doubt the CAGW meme is a religion, but will Mr. Gleick “suffer death”?
Not physically, but most likely professionally. However, he certainly has contributed to the death of his “religion”, CAGW. He can take great pride in that accomplishment, should he ever wonder what his legacy will be.
So let’s celebrate the title “Gleick the CAGW Martyr”–may he ever be an example to other CAGW acolytes:
“A martyr’s disciples suffer more than the martyr.” –Friedrich Nietzsche.

348. mpaul says:

The defense of Gleick in some quarters is similar to the defense of Roman Polanski by some in Hollywood. Dr. Curry has an interesting point when she states that Gleick is confusing integrity with loyalty to a cause. In Polanski’s case, some people are so wrapped up in defending the right to artistic expression that they perceive the prosecution for rape of Polanski as an existential threat to the entire community of artists. I am not comparing what Polanski did to what Gleick did — Polanski’s acts are in a totally different ball park. But I am noting the similarity of Gleick’s defenders to that of Polanski’s defenders. We saw the same mind-set from this group when they defended Mann and Jones. People are conflating academic freedom with blanket immunity for academics for any and all acts in service to the cause.

349. Archangel says:

When will these devils stop lying? I can only hope that one day, we will see the more serious AGW peddling fraudsters behind bars. Keep up the good work Watts.

350. John Anderson says:

Gleick is lawyered up. He and they will have seen the many accusations that his statement is phony, that it does not explicitly state that he is not the author of (or contributor to) the fake document. Especially the accusation in terms by HI.
The longer Gleick and his advisors ignore these accusations rather than slapping them down, the more the accusations sound valid.
On the other hand – the longer the nonsense carries on, the deeper into the doo-doo people like DeSmog and LGF are digging themselves.
Its win-win ?

351. Skiphil says:

Recent interview with Michael Mann falls between the start of this controversy and Gleick’s fake pseudo confession:
http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/02/21/3
Mann does not yet know in this interview a few days ago that his close ally and “Team” member Peter Gleick would be implicated. Thus, Mann helpfully states that he would “never support” illegal action in the release of docs….
Why is this helpful? Because it puts such a leading light of the CAGWarmists in direct contradiction with the current “heroic whistleblower” meme of the Smog Blog and friends. Mann’s quotation can be thrown in their lying faces.

352. Downdraft says:

I’m sure someone else has mentioned this, but I don’t have time to go through 350 posts.
Is this the only thing that Gleick has lied about, distorted, invented, subverted, . . ? I would be very surprised if it is not just the first time he got caught. His employer(s), in the interests of science and ethics, should hire a disinterested third party to review all of Gleick’s files, writings, research and correspondence. They would have legal authority to do so since technically they own everything he has done while employed there. Any lawyers out their needing work?

353. Johnnythelowery says:

Over at the Slate they are calling Michael Mann ‘the designer of the Hockey-Stick graph’…. Which is absolutely spot on. ‘Fabricator’ or ‘arranger’ would have worked as well. ‘Data Bender’ or ‘manipulator’ maybe less so. Good time for the AGW gravy train, on the defensive since their machinations was given the sun light test by FOIA, to crawl out out from inside their Belin-ish bunker.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2012/02/michael_e_mann_s_the_hockey_stick_and_the_climate_wars_.html

354. I just read James Delingpole’s hilarious take-down of Gleick in “The Telegraph.” Delingpole quotes an extract from an article by Gleick which contains a link to the following page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (Global Warming & Other Change Myths).
I was wondering if anyone has a good link to a critical review of the one-line “refutations” put out by Skeptical Science. How many are correct, how many are flat wrong and how many are dubious or half-true at best?

355. observa says:

Michael J says: I suspect that any reports of the death of Mr Gleick’s career may be somewhat premature.
I seriously doubt that because as Judith Curry so succinctly points out-
‘Apart from the “why” of the climate wars, the “how” needs to be looked at also. It seems that those fighting to defend the IPCC consensus never read the Art of War. Translated to the climate war, Sun Tzu’s principles might look something like this:
■Outsmart your opponent so that battles aren’t necessary
■In the course of your battle, don’t lose the moral high ground.
■Divide and conquer; don’t give your enemy cause to rally together and combine forces
■Overconfidence can be fatal to your strategy
■If the campaign is prolonged, the resources will not be equal to the strain
■If you know your enemy, you can win battles without a single loss’
To which I would say-
Farewell Sir Gleick because you should have known full well your ‘enemy’ was privately financed at a fraction of that of ‘yourselves’ and as such why on earth would you want to pick a battle on that ground? You were after all supposed to be fighting a noble battle on your advantageous scientific turf and perhaps could be forgiven for not accepting a kind invitation by HI to do so under their banner. Perhaps, but then you go and compound your fatal error and lose any high moral ground by fakery and subterfuge. Game set and tournament. RIP dishonourable knight and remember noble knights all, if the campaign is prolonged even the massive resources of the Big Climate round table will not be equal to the strain.

356. John says:

The HI holds the high ground on this one. They invited him to speak shortly before this episode and he declined. Utterly astounding as it undermines anything he now says.

357. Stephen Singer says:

Towards the bottom of the NCSE article they mention he offered to resign his pending board position and they accepted his offer.

358. kbray in california says:

I have been following this revelation about Dr. Gleick here at WUWT.
It seems open,fair, and clear.
Reading now in the MSM it’s a different story…
P. Gleick is represented in the MSM as:
“a man who has just saved climate change and even the whole world with his sacrifice.”
What delusional crock!! I want to throw up….
Clearly this clown has “friends” in high places.
It’s a sad scary spinning mess…
What a barf.

359. May I compare mr. Gleick with a virtual global warming suicide bomber, and in his case the bomb went off inside the Greens zone? Clearly a badly improvised memo by the looks of it.

360. “There’s not one thing fun about this. It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Train wrecks might be fun to watch on old film clips, but in real life train wrecks, people get hurt.” – Anthony
Anthony, regarding your admonition to billcapron, may I respectfully suggest that it’s a little “over the top,” as you like to often say? (Although not yet to me, as I’m a goody-goody who’s enjoyed a perfect “snip-less record”…well, up til now, that is).
Yes, I can barely imagine what it’s like being in the trenches as you are, I understand that you are affected by this scandal personally and yes, there are people hurting, many of whom had nothing to do with this battle, but it’s clear that billcapron, along with many of us, merely delight in the schandenfreude of seeing how the warmistas squirm and scream when their chestnuts are yet again in the fire. That part at least is indeed good, clean fun.

361. DaveF says:

The 09:10 update says the NCSE statement does not mention wrongdoing, possibly leading to suspension from the board. In fact it says Dr Gleik offered to withdraw from the board and that his offer was accepted.

362. Sun Spot says:

Does anyone know if the Bias Broadcasting Cabal is commenting on these latest developments ?

363. It is all about An apocalypse (Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis; “lifting of the veil” or “revelation”) is a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e. the veil to be lifted. The Apocalypse of John (Greek Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου) is the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. By extension, apocalypse can refer to any End Time scenario, or to the end of the world in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

364. pat says:

From Climate Depot:
“Gleick blames skeptics for making him to commit criminal acts!? ‘My judgment was blinded by my frustration with ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, & coordinated — to attack climate science & scientists & prevent this debate, & by lack of transparency of orgs involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected'”
So this liar and cheat, funded anonymously by Soros, was forced to destroy the reputation of a miniscule critic ? These people are nuts. Judith Curry said it just right. Their politics drive their science, science is used to drive their politics.

365. Skiphil says:

The question which needs to be pressed directly upon Peter Gleick in public until he gives a yes or no answer:
Mr. Gleick, did you write the “strategy” doc, yes or no?
His current statement appears to be just ink from a squid.

366. Les Johnson says:

Gleick may very well be looking at a perjury charge. He was “mailed” that document right?
1. There were no fold marks on the “scanned” copy. While it is possible that someone used an 8 1/2 x 11 enevlope, who would do that for a 2 page document?
2. Whoever faked the document, had to have acces to the Board meeting papers, as some of the exact wording was on both.

367. David says:

billcapron says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:24 am
Worth the price of admission … haven’t had this much fun in a long time.
REPLY: There’s not one thing fun about this. It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Train wrecks might be fun to watch on old film clips, but in real life train wrecks, people get hurt. – Anthony
========================
Anthony, I hope that in the end this will be revealed as a microcosm of the entire CAGW movement (Refusing FOIA information on publicly funded studies, hiding data so that no one can prove them wrong, attempts to destroy careers and journals through political attacks, (this was just one more of those) wild advocate speculation on world ending disasters passed as peer reviiewed scientific studies, hiding of private scientific doubts about the science, while publicly persecuting sckeptics for expressing those same doubts, etc)
While none of the above is “fun”, there is a feeling of satisfaction and justice in seeing mendacious and evil actions revealed for what they are, and there is a decent chance this episode will, on balance, bring far more people to a better understanding of the issues involved. Thank you for all your hard work.

368. dp says:

I wish to offer the blogosphere the following portmanteau: gleickswoggle
Gleickswoggle – to leverage the blogosphere and other written media dishonestly to defame or besmirch a person, idea, or organization using stolen or fabricated evidence.
To be gleickswoggled: To have been convinced to run with a fabricated story later shown to be fraudulent.
Gleickswogglespiel: The conversation that follows a gleickswoggling event intended to restore once’s self-respect for having failed to vet a gleickswoggle. See more at “self denial”.

369. yawn says:

Banned?

370. yawn says:

@Skiphil
“Mr. Gleick, did you write the “strategy” doc, yes or no?”
He already answered that. He didn’t. He received it in the mail, which then gave him the idea to try and verify the information by faking his identity.

371. John from CA says:

Why would Dr. Gleick take the poorly written Summary document seriously? Surely, he must have questioned who penned it? This doesn’t make sense.

372. crosspatch says:

“Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion.”
Which holds to character. Unethical behavior seems to be fine when it is done on behalf of “the cause”.
“they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause”

373. jaypan says:

Checking Daily Climate for their Gleick story, I’ve stumpled upon this gem:
“Climate change alters the environment in complex ways. The Andes, warming for decades, has seen three bitter winters that have left more than 400 dead and aid agencies scrambling. Experts see the fingerprints of global warming there, too.”
One really needs to be an expert of some sort to identify ‘global warming’ in three subsequent bitter winters. I am not.

374. JEM says:

My guess – and this is just a guess, personal opinion based on no facts whatsoever – is that upon pulling off his little deception to score the real docs he got a little too happy, and whether his choice of intoxicant was liquid or vaporous the muse took him while he was a bit too roasted.
Talleyrand, after having been fired as Napoleon’s foreign minister, noted that Bonaparte’s fall began when it became possible for him to do today what Talleyrand would have delayed until tomorrow. These days, of course, one has the ‘publish’ button for that.

375. JEM says:

yawn – Gleick’s proven just how trustworthy his public statements are. Let’s have some evidence.
Right now his own statements are best interpreted as “gentlemen, we’ve got to save our phoney-baloney jobs”.

376. Johnnythelowery says:

Gleick is the Anti-FOIA.
1. Stole the documents whereas it looks like FOIA is a in-sider. A leaker. (burgler Vs. Leaker)
2. Possibly faked the original ‘Heartland Game Plan’. None of the emails leaked by FOIA have been claimed to be faked by any of the poetically licensed authors.
3. Alleged to be a whistle-blower whereas, he’s probably blowing his own (and last) whistle. FOIA blew the official whistle on what was already suspected and apparent about AGW
4. Alleged to be an insider of the Heartland whereas, he has nothing to do with them present and past. FOIA’s identity remains a mystery but is likely in the employ of CRU.
5. Feels the matter is so weighty and big, that his own sacrifice is worth it. FOIA has not revealed his identity.
6. Gleick’s call is likely the “charge!” signal to the AGW crowd to take back the offensive in the manner of the ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’. FOIA’s signals was to merely show that AGW is what it was revealing itself to be(see ‘Michael Mann, designer of the Hockey Stick….’ over at the Slate-The word ‘designer’ in the world of unbiased Science is the kiss of death).
7. FOIA showed the Science was standing up wheras Gleick’s mann-oeuver (sp?) is a ‘politics only’ ploy.
H/T to FOIA where ever you are !!!

377. elftone says:

Peter Gleick may be all kinds of things, but he is not “evil”, nor is he stupid. That’s ridiculous, and carries about as much weight as “he’s a martyr to the cause”. Both statements are tripe. He got caught doing something immensely stupid (and, I believe, illegal), and is now desperately trying to limit the damage to himself and those associated with him. He allowed his beliefs to cloud his judgment, and he will pay the price in court and professionally, and rightly so. Let’s leave it at that – crowing over his situation now is juvenile in the extreme.
However, on a juvenile note, it really is a pleasure to see the echo-chamber, DeSmog Blog (AKA a well-funded PR firm) making such delicious fools of themselves. It’s hard to imagine that people could make such a series of mistakes whilst awake and sober, but they keep doing it.

378. patrioticduo says:

I would be willing to bet that the Gleick family home recently had a “crashed” hard drive that needed replacement a few days (or even hours) ago.

379. mfo says:

I look forward to Gleick answering questions about his statement, under oath, in court. He would be well advised to reveal everything he knows about this incident now, including about the alleged fake document. Common sense suggests that he should not use Gore’s 2000 election press secretary for any further communications. As to the publishers using the documents to try to discredit the Heartland Institute and others, they should start setting aside very large sums of money, particularly if they do not promptly act as the Heartland Institute’s lawyer has reasonably requested.

380. terrybixler says:

UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here
He is really not such a bad guy. And really the science is settled.
If so then why commit a criminal act to discredit someone else s viewpoint. Unwilling to debate the facts but so sure that he is right. What is next physical force.

381. Skiphil says:

Ha ha, yaaaawnnn you are not a careful reader are you….. He most carefully did not specify what item he claims to have received in the mail. “It” might have been some other unspecified doc not released….although clearly he hopes that his fictional non-denial pseudo denial will fool enough people now…..
Oh it’s all ok because we have the “word” of a confessed liar, thief, and con artist for it.
Also, it is preposterous to pretend that the fake “strategy” doc was leaked to him without any supporting materials, but that he happened to be able to steal the supporting docs which would dovetail so nicely with the fake “strategy” doc. Gosh, it’s almost as though the “strategy” doc was written to be supported by the docs he managed to steal…..

382. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

Forgive Gleick only if he accepts the challenge to open and public debate. The debate will be enough to decide who has been honest and who has been deceptive.

383. observa says:

crapstat says: ‘It isn’t often that I disagree with WUWT and most of its readers, but on this I do. I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.’
I agree wholeheatedly with those sentiments in the sense private and public institutions that we are talking about here should be accountable and open in their dealings with nothing worth hiding. If Gleick was an internal whistleblower/leaker perhaps like Climategate then so what, but clearly fakery/forgery are deliberate misrepresentation and a very different matter. It’s also difficult to separate the rights of FOI from the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest. As such semantic arguments over which is which are really barking up the wrong tree.
What is most relevant is the sheer stupidity of Gleick in trying to impugn and emphasise his opponents ‘science for pay’ given the massive discrepancy in resourcing and Big Climate’s own varied funding sources. However I think it drives such green/leftists crazy that they have been and still are the establishment wrt CAGW and yet they’re losing the scientific argument(as well as the political one) by what they see as some guerilla group of subversives and revolutionaries. Who the Hell stole our shoes? Listen to Gleick’s apology and you can see how that has unhinged him in that regard. He’s not the only one and expect more of this irrational Climatologist victimhood unhinging as their science and political power are crumbling.

384. Smokey says:

Heartland’s counsel should serve Gleick with a letter instructing him to not destroy or erase anything on his computer, to retain all paper records, and to keep everything in his custody. Of course Gleick will not follow those instructions, and it won’t look good in front of a jury. The guy has so much baggage that deposing him under oath could take weeks. And then there are the other depositions. Will those others fall on their swords to save Gleick? Is the Pope Muslim?

385. BTW: Who was the whistleblower in the “Climategate”affair….still waiting his confession; never is too late to purge own´s sins.

386. Jenn Oates says:

You know they had to go the whistle-blower direction, where else could they go? Admit their intellectual bankruptcy? Re-evaluate their convictions? Second guess their prejudices?
Nah, they’re gonna double down.

387. Frank K. says:

Paul Westhaver says:
February 21, 2012 at 10:27 am
Foxnews has weighed in and they pull no punches…

Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark. It will be interesting to see how the climate establishment reacts now. Expect to see press releases from NASA, IPCC, AAAS, AGU, UCS…

388. Milwaukee Bob says:

real life train wrecks Fun? No.
It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Yes.
But there are people that are innocent of causing the mess and people that are guilty of it. And I’m not talking about purloining or publishing a few emails – documents or even “faking” a few. Guilty of what then, you ask? Fraud! 100’s of billions of dollars have been “funneled” into “research” of the hoax of human cause catastrophic atmospheric warming AND 100’s of millions more into political coffers relating to the hoax AND 100’s of billions more dollars into ill-conceived, impractical, will never be economically feasible schemes (Solyndra, Ethonal, High-speed rail, Etc.) that could have been used to actually save lives. And now the White House wants to spend \$2,600,000,000 for research into “the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.” THERE is your REAL train wreck!
I truly believe a good prosecutor could make a very strong case of manslaughter against those responsible for the “misappropriation” of the monies funneled into this AGW hoax instead of – water purification or simply digging wells in Africa, things that would actually SAVE peoples lives.
Is it personal “train wreck” for Mr. Gleick that he lost his job? (And maybe others depending on the fall-out from all of this) Yes.
And how does that compare to the few 100 that have died for the lack of clean water or a simple mosquito net or ___________ (fill in the blank) in the last few hours of THIS “horrible mess” that a few billion dollars could have bought? But does Mr. Glecick care? Does Al Gore care? Does Dr. Hansen care? Based on what I’ve read and know about the Heartland Institute, they do.
Bob H

389. ramspace says:

Does anyone know whether Gleick rhymes with “sick” or “cheek”? I’m working on a sonnet.

390. michaelspj says: February 20, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Years ago, Gleick made series of outrageous comments on my professional activities. I chose to let it be because I thought, if given his head, he would bring himself and his friends (read: RealClimate) down with him. Appears my strategy worked. Kudos kudos kudos to Ross Kaminsky and Joe Bast. Wait till you see how much money Gleick has made off of his vituperation, which will come out. I’ll bet it’s close to the Heartland budget.
PJM

This post jumped out at me. I’m awed.
Thank you Pat Michaels, I know what flak you’ve taken over the years.

391. observa says:

“Heartland’s counsel should serve Gleick with a letter instructing him to not destroy or erase anything on his computer, to retain all paper records, and to keep everything in his custody”
Jury shmury Smokey. Not a good look pissing on a corpse. HI should simply take the high moral ground and issue a public request, that all those that attempted to impugn their reputation re ‘science for pay’ in support of Gleick’s shoddy dealings apologise publicly and then move on with science. Leave it up to all the red faces to decide whether their integrity warrants a public apology or not. Don’t dignify the weasel worders with any more of HI’s time. ‘HI and our valued sponsors’ are moving right along with the science as usual folks. That will unhinge Big Climate even more and attract more sponsors in the long run.

392. Keith Sketchley says:

Hmm – Mr. Gleick engages in fraudulent mis-representation in order to verify that annonymous document came from the Heartland Institute, then being unable to do so he distributes it anyway. (Along with genuine documents he did obtain from HI.)
Do I understand this correctly?
A double lapse in judgement?

393. JJ says:

crapstats says:
I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.
.
No. The fundamental difference (apart from the fakery of Gleickgate, of course) between the two is the nature of what was exposed. The US and many other countries have “whistleblower” laws. These protect the otherwise illegal aquistion and release of confidential materials by persons inside a company or other organization, but only in the circumstance where the materials are incriminating or otherwise expose fraud, official corruption, etc such that the exposure is in a legitimate and compelling public interest.
The Climategate emails exposed criminal activity – illegal interference with FOIA requests. The Climategate emails exposed grossly unethical and unprofessional conduct from publically funded “scientists”. The Climategate emails exposed unscientific methods employed in the production and communication of publically funded science.
The HI documents exposed nothing illegal. The HI documents exposed no fraud, or official corruption, etc. All it exposed was (thru the budget and fundraising plan documents) details on a private advocacy organizations confidential information – its donors, budget items and priorities, fund raising strategies, planned projects, board hiring decisions, etc. Those are all legitimate activities, and ones that such organizations have a legitimate expectation of keeping confidential.
The second difference is that the Climategate emails were public property to begin with. They were publically funded communications between publically funded workers.
The third difference is that the Climategate emails were clearly released by someone on the inside, with very specific knowledge of the players and the issues. Gleickgate was perpetrated by an outsider. Gleick was not an insider looking to reform the organization he was working for. To the contrary, Gleick held an opposing position at a competing entity. One of the fundamental damages wrought by Gleicks crimes was to impugn and expose confidential information about Heartland’s education initiative. Gleick was on the board of NCSE, leading a similar but opposing education initiaive.
Climategate was whistleblowing. Gleickgate was the non-profit equivalent of industrial espionage.
The only thing the least bit similar about these two incidents is that they both demonstrate that climate scientists are unethical, unscientific, political agents who will do anything and everything to advance their agenda.

394. “Forgive Gleick only if he accepts the challenge to open and public debate. “
Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (February 21, 2012 at 10:13 am)
Forgive if? Come on folks, let’s not go all misty-eyed and wobbly here. Forgiveness is for victims and God to issue at their pleasure. Gleick & Co need to be dragged through the mud and stomped on to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less would be contempt for the present and future victims of such “soft” eco-terrorism. If warmists don’t want a debate, let them continue to shirk and mumble excuses all they want; fewer and fewer are listening to them anyway.

395. elftone says:

O/T a bit, but after reading the Bob Ward piece in the Grauniad, the alleged cognoscenti are coming up with stuff like this (including Trenberth’s “missing” heat, believe it or not, casually tossed into the smear to no doubt lend credence to the quantity of spittle):
“LochnessMunster
21 February 2012 11:43AM
Gotta love this; “…It’s ‘only’ 30 million bucks and climate research gets billions…” ‘Heartland-Approved’ approach being parrotted by the usual witless army of hapless dupes just now.
Sure – “only 30 millionbucks” won’t buy you a whole lot of GRACE sattelites or even radio sondes for the south Atlantic, (which have now found Trenberth’s “missing heat” exactly as predicted by the way} but it will buy you an almost infinite number of cheap lies, inuendo and smears that is the bread and butter of these disgusting, self-centred slimeballs and which, of course, will be endlessly repeated online completely free of charge for years by the terminaly gullible.

396. crosspatch says:

“Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status”
Not unbelievable at all. It is completely in character for the political left. The end always justifies the means with those people. In this particular issue we have a long history of deception, manipulation, opacity of process, etc. That is perfectly fine with them as long as the result is the furthering of their agenda. They *have* no ethics other than to attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with their world view as unethical.

397. George E. Smith; says:

“”””” NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial. LEARN MORE >> “””””
Well this is the first thing you read on the front page of the “NCSE” web site.
Now how noble is that institutional charter ?
Take first the juxtaposition of “evolution” and “climate change”; note it is NOT “climate” but climate change.
Well nobody with so much as a 4-H club education disagrees with the idea that climate changes. We know for sure from just personal anecdotal observation, that “weather” changes; we talk about it all the time. Climate is simply the time integral of all of the weather up till now, so it is axiomatic that climate changes; every day adds another 24 hours of different weather.
So how about “evolution”. Once again, personal anecdotal observation suggest that also is axiomatic. I noticed very early on, that my children are different from me, in every which way imaginable; and they also differ as much from their mother. They also have a lot in common with both of us. And neither my kids, nor my siblings are the same as my parents were. So evolution goes on right under our noses.
Now in the case of climate change, and evolution; most of us have no anecdotal observations, of significant changes. I have no recollection of any sort of weather having been different when I was growing up, than it is now, and the weather in the area I now live is pretty much what I grew up with somewhere else; maybe fewer thunderstorms, but I also got plenty of those when I lived in the midwest. I can’t say, I have observed the emergence of a new species of any kind of natural critter. Maybe genetically modified rats or beans are new species; what do I know !
So I don’t see any problem with evolution and climate change being part of science studies in schools. I see NO reason why either of those or both of them, should be any kind of cornerstone of a science education; to the point where a NCSE is needed. Would NCSE take on as a part of their burden, the teaching of string theory and parallel multiverses. Hardl ythe essentials of a balanced education.
Is it perhaps possible that NCSE is much less about teaching climate change and evolution, than it is about “keeping out” “creationism” and “climate change denial”. Need I say it again; nobody is disputing climate change.
“Creationism” would seem to be more about the specific religious belief systems of some of the world’s populations, than it is about science, which generally relates to observables. How about those large populations who fervently believe in “re-incarnation”, surely an adjunct of “creationism”..
The dearth of peer reviewed experimental observation of such effects; creationism, and re-incarnation, would seem to be sufficient to persuade, on their own, the unlikelihood of such phenmena being real, rather than a product of traditional belief systems. It doesn’t seem necessary to have formal educational courses to “unteach” creationism, or re-incarnation, which by themselves are lacking in observational support.
So now what about the “unteaching” of climate change denialism; evidently a major plank in the charter of Peter Gleick’s NCSE.
Well talk about wheel spinning. You need a formal educational structure to “unteach” some heresy, that nobody subscribes to in the first place ; as in climate change denial ?
But this is different from unteaching creationism or re-incarnation, in that there exists a vast body of peer reviewed scientific literature, and research, by eminent scientists, of at least equal stature to that of those like the Peter Gleicks, who have taken it upon themselves to censor the debate, about what climate observations, it is ok to inform people about, and which ones should be expunged as not consistent with the teaching of climate change that the inquisitions of the Gleick crowd have blessed.
To Gleick and his followers, scientific debate about contrary climate observations, is tantamount to the witchcraft of not so ancient Salem Mass.
The simple fact that NCSE can lump what they call climate change denial; a non existent phenomenon, in with creationism or maybe re-incarnation, is an indictment of what taxpayer reliant funding of purported scientific research; that is self perpetuating, has brought upon us.

398. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

tick, tock,
tick, tock,

399. Observa, climategate included much, if not all, information that should have been available through an FOI request. Can the same be said for the material Gleick disseminated?

400. jlue says:

What, exactly, is a “water scientist”?

401. krazykiwi says:

UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status

The elevation of dogma ahead of truth is sadly all too common. For the Daily Kos et al any end completely justifies the means, however illegal or unethical

402. Larry Geiger says:

That “Daily KOS” place is icky. A bunch of Chicken Littles scrambling around the barnyard running into each other. I get a kind of creepy feeling every time I get a glimpse into one of those places. Yuck.

403. Jim Butler says:

Let’s see if I have this right. Someone “leaks” the Climategate emails, and she/he’s a thief, liar, Cadillac-nosed, bottom-dwelling, mouth-breathing pond scum, and should be hung from the neck until dead…
Someone “leaks” the Heartland memos, and he’s a hero?
What am I missing? Kos doesn’t see the hypocrisy?
JimB

404. Luther Wu says:

R.Gates, a physicist, Stoopid Lazy Teenager- abscence has been conspicuous a LOT lately…
Trolls recalled to Trollhatten?

405. Jeff D. says:

Are all these blogs, papers idiots? To continue to disseminate this “fake” information to the world as if it were real would seem to expose them to the same lawsuit that Gleick is most surely facing. If HI was thinking about dropping the case with a full confession I don’t see that happening now, these morons have just poured gas to the flame by to trying to idolize him.
I think their time and blog space would be better suited now to accepting donations for ” Soap On A Rope ” for Mr. Gleick.

406. MarkW says:

A physicist says on February 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm:
Even if the claim proves to be true? So freakin what?

407. CW says:

“Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status.”
When the pigs at Daily Kos are in your corner, you know you’ve sunk just about as low as humanly possible.

408. krazykiwi, and now we have the word to describe this: “truthiness!”

409. Niels says:

Dear Anthony,
Is this just bluster: “I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.” or, are you serious?
An answer would be greatly appreciated, just being in court as a spectator will not cut any ice. I’ll be happy to top up your legal war-chest if you go for it.
Anybody else?

410. kbray in california says:

“Yellow Journalism”,
is like “Yellow Snow”….
Not good for consumption.
Yuck.

411. Larry in Texas says:

To those who preliminarily identified Gleick as the faker and the thief last week (especially you, Mosh): congratulations! Good catch! You knew the guy quite well.
Otherwise, what an absolute disgrace! Peter Gleick showed (Mr. “a physicist” and the Daily Kos) what he was willing to do in the name of The Cause, in the name of ideology dressed up as science. It is not a good thing. If Gleick did this, what have others such as Mann, Trenberth, et al done? Anthony, I would highly recommend your suing for libel along with the Heartland Institute. Gleick needs to pay with more than just his positions.

412. JamesD says:

JJ gets credit for this find. No where does Gleick indentify the anonymous document. It could easily be the budget. Now read closely this denial: “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.” So if the original anonymous communication is the budget, then this is true. This is not a denial that he authored an additional document, the fake one. He needs to clarify. The fact that he does not name the anonymous document is very suspicious.

413. Keith Battye says:

I suppose it’s asymmetric warfare really.

414. Ed Fry says:

Wow! I just visited the Daily KOS site for the first (and last) time.
The commenters on that site are deranged – some of them actually claim that skeptics are pushing us all toward a nuclear level extinction event, or something of the sort.
They also seem to hold no regard for ethics, integrity or the law. Reading their comments was quite sad, as clearly the American education system has failed them.

415. oglidewell says:

Meanwhile,over at the BBC, Richard Black’s censors are busy deleting posts that so much as mention Gleik.
Integrity…gotta love it!

416. Richard Sharpe says:

CW says on February 21, 2012 at 11:51 am

“Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status.”
When the pigs at Daily Kos are in your corner, you know you’ve sunk just about as low as humanly possible.

Speaking truth to the (not so) powerful (that we find tiresome).

417. Gleick’s rationale reminds me of what Marion Barry said when busted for cocaine in a DC hotel:
“Bitch set me up!”

418. Rogelio says:

Actually after reading all the comments at revkins I take back my soft line and say that the man Gleick should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law these guys are nutty and dangerous to humanity, the environment and animals. LOL

419. Charles.U.Farley says:

CW says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:51 am
“Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status.”
When the pigs at Daily Kos are in your corner, you know you’ve sunk just about as low as humanly possible.
——————————————-
Its bizarre isnt it?
Theyre trying to cast him as a hero when he’s a common criminal.
They obviously share the same “scientific ethics” as he does- located at the closest sewer.
I love the way theyre attempting to turn it around to show (faking it again) that theyre the ones who wanted to debate when the truth is they dont, they want compliant drones to listen to the garbage they spout and do their bidding.
One thing is for sure, the debate just warmed up, which is more than can be said for their agw postulations.
No quarter should be asked and none should be given in the light of what theyve proven theyre capable of.
Mr FOIA- cmon buddy lets have the passphrase to the rest of the truth.

420. Alexander K says:

Anthony your gentlemanly instincts and morality do you great credit, but I am mystified that you do not agree with the ideas expressed in Josh’s cartoon on this topic. Down through the ages, cartoonists have displayed the skill of encapsulating complex moral situations in a single drawing and Josh carries on that tradition.
Steven Mosher, your forensic skills in dissecting and analysing written English are incredibly sharp.

421. Greg Goodknight says:

One item I am curious about that may well get investigated if this is investigated as a criminal matter, Gleick’s motivation. The mention of Gleick in the fake memo has been treated as possible instance of self-aggrandizement, but I wonder… how has Pacific Institute fundraising been going? Money getting tight? Painting their founder and President as a victim of Heartland might have been an almost rational strategy to open some checkbooks to counter HI, and so the memo might even have originated from a subordinate. And, whenever you get more than one person involved in a crime, you then have conspiracy or even racketeering if they are of the same enterprise.
I suspect Heartland’s legal team now think they’ve all died and gone to heaven.

422. Alan Wilkinson says:

Message to alarmist bloggers: Beware of Gleicks bearing gifts.

423. Nerd says:

Daily KOS? Wow. It attracts most screwed up people I have ever seen. They have no moral or ethics at all. I remember those nasty comments about Palin when Gifford got shot in the head. Whooo… talk about nasty messages blaming Palin for that incident…

424. HI should offer (very publicly) to drop the case if Gleick agrees to a televised debate (structure of our chosing) with one Team member of his chosing, against Monckton and Watts.

425. Al Gored says:

I see a new word. “Gleicked” as in faked.

426. stanj says:

The one downside for me personally in this otherwise fascinating saga is that I have been directed to some CAGW sites that I would never have visited otherwise. Scary! These people are seriously deranged; it’s like eavesdropping on the brainwashed members of a cult – the thought that these people are basically running the social, educational and energy policies of the developed world is genuinely alarming. God help us all if they cannot be stopped.

427. crosspatch says:

Well, he’s possibly still keeping one more lie. It seemed obvious to people that he authored (or dictated) the fake memo before he even admitted to having anything to do with it. He might have received it in the mail … if he mailed it to himself or sent it to someone else for mailing to him.
This isn’t over yet. But what is amazing is the level of corruption of the political left combined with the cognitive dissonance of its supporters. Every day it seems yet another corruption scandal involving the US Democratic Party is exposed (today’s is: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/documents-lightsquared-shaping-up-as-the-fccs-solyndra/ ) . This is what happens when a “press” looks the other way and allows politicians, scientists, and business people to get away with corruption as long as they advance the agenda. I honestly can’t understand how any normal, well-adjusted citizen can support these people and look themselves in the mirror every morning and I say that with all sincerity.

428. hunter says:

It is not surprising, but it is still disappointing that Daily Kos would embrace a confessed fraud as a hero.

429. DirkH says:

El Reg disses its own early embracing of the “Heartland leak”.
“Though one Reg hack did initially assess the leak as “at least as good as the ‘Climategate’ e-mails”, this seemed a bit exaggerated. ”
Good. When I read the first piece by them I thought they’d gone ecolunatic.
As for the heroization of Gleick on the Left: Good. It is occurences like this that help the public distinguish good journalism from bad. The papering over of the forgery will drive people AWAY from the propagandists – of course only the ones who were already on the brink of jumping, but anyhow.
Let them go fully lunatic.

430. hunter says:

stanj,
You make a valid observation. reading Dot Earth’s post on this issue is an excursion into a thread filled with deeply disturbed people defending the indefenbsible.

431. DirkH says:

Duncan says:
February 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“HI should offer (very publicly) to drop the case if Gleick agrees to a televised debate (structure of our chosing) with one Team member of his chosing, against Monckton and Watts.”
OH NO. Force THEM (the left, the warmists, anyone who aligns with the forger, whether it’s Gleick or a PR agency, which I doubt) to do the full Clinton defense. Let them wriggle. This is NOT a scientific debate, we are far past this point. This is a fight for the public opinion.
They did this to make points. It blew up in their face. Now DON’T interrupt them in their self-destruction.

432. NK says:

DailyKos? modern liberalism, both American and Euro, is a mental illness. That is really no longer an exageration.

433. Merovign says:

FYI, the same person appears to be posting the tendentious comparison to the CRU e-mails on several blogs (mainly political), with the same misspellings and cant.
Astroturf has become a commodity.

434. mikesigman says:

philincalifornia says:
“Oh, this is beyond embarrassing. This guy is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.”
The NAS is not a sound organization and needs to dissolve and re-start. The “Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment was able to stack the NAS with unvetted activists and they’ve taken over. That’s how people like Gleick get in and undermine the credibility. People need to form another organization… I suspect bona fide scientists would leave the NAS in droves.

435. Richard Sharpe says:

It is intriguing that Gleick admitted it.
What worse thing did “they” fear might happen if he denied it all and we kept digging?

436. Coach Springer says:

As far as I can tell, this whole issue is important only to climate agnostics/skeptics, alarmists, and those wishing to exploit alarmism. Not seeing a lot of notice paid in wider circles, though that may be partly a function of mainstream selectivity. Not entirely though. Not much on conservative and libertarian sites that normally take notice.
I have a feeling that alarmist policy will get implemented by government agency and NGOs without much discussion of science, reasons, ethics, balance with other priorities, or even effectiveness. At least that’s the way I’m reading Obama’s recently pledged renewed effort against global warming (he didn’t even bother to call it clean energy) after his reelection and his approach to government through the EPA, HHS, DOE, DOD, … .
So why did Gleick swallow the anonomous fake document anomalously touting him so readily and entirely? It seems he either wrote the fake memo himself as suspected by Heartland or thought it was a work of genius for someone to provide it for him under agreement of anonymity. I can think of only one other explanation. That Heartland initially provided the fake to Gleick knowing that he would then commit identity theft and distribute the whole mess. And if that’s true, well then Haliburtion really does own a hurricane machine and has turned it off to discredit the warmists. Diabolical, those skeptics.

437. NK says:

DirkH– the usually mild mannered Dirk goes all medieval on Gleik and his ilk. GOOD. Unfortunately the media in the USA and Europe will bury Gleik’s lies and false propoganda. BUT– please be assured Dirk that the HI will sue –civilly– Gleik, his institute and the media mouthpieces. The scared media (already going broke) will print quick retractions and apologies to HI. But the ‘discovery’ phase — US law permits full and free discovery of all relevant facts held by the opponent– will find out who wrote the bogus memo that Gleik published; that will be sweet. Gleik and his institute will be bankrupted by the scandal, HI will win some damages and have its contributions rise, and the warmist Left and media will be detered from publishing future bogus stories. It will be all good.

438. Lars P. says:

crapstats says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:44 am
“It isn’t often that I disagree with WUWT and most of its readers, but on this I do. I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.”
crapstats here the most simple part:
“hide the decline”, “its a travestiy…” etc etc – are all true & real
“undermine…”, “don’t teach science” – are fake
got it?

439. A. Scott says:

Mr. Gleick isn’t the only one keeping secrets in this – or perhaps “being untruthful” is a better phrase … his accomplices, and the evidence is building by the hour that’s what they were, will have a day of reckoning coming soon.
The real irony in this is when places and people like DeSmogBlog – which is a PR group solely and specifically organized to attack others it disagrees with. They are uninterested in reasoned scientific debate or discussion.
Their response to being caught, at minimum working with a an admitted criminal – elevating that criminal activity and individual to revered status, and excusing – even supporting – that behavior – tells what we all need to know about their ethics.
And about their honesty – which I predict will become a very interesting conversation soon.

440. pat says:

good ol taxpayer-funded aussie ABC. possibly the most utterly dishonest post-gleick piece so far:
22 Feb: ABC: Sara Phillips: Why the Heartland scandal doesn’t matter
Which bits are fake and which bits are real will probably never be fully revealed. Certainly Bob Carter, one of Australia’s most prominent climate sceptics has admitted working for the Institute. He is named in the documents as receiving \$1,667 per month for the work…
The documents were obtained by climate scientist and Huffington Post blogger Peter Gleick. He has admitted posing as a Heartland board member and asking for the documents to be resent to him to confirm the veracity of ones that came to him anonymously. As Andy Revkin has pointed out in the New York Times, despite the Heartland Institute representing climate science dishonestly, it does not excuse dishonesty in obtaining the documents.
Gleick has admitted his shame in how he conducted himself.
The exposé has been hailed by some as a kind of anti-climategate…
But these memos and emails will not have the same impact on the world as those climategate emails for a couple reasons. The first is that they don’t purport to show anything that people didn’t expect. People always expected deniers to have funding sources, and guessed that it would likely be petroleum companies and the American right wing. Not many people expected scientists to misrepresent their science – and as it turns out, they didn’t.
But also, we’re over it.
The debate over whether or not the climate is changing is so 2010. In fact, it’s so 1992…
The majority of Australians have absorbed this information and shifted their attention to more immediate concerns, such as how to address it…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/02/22/3436126.htm

441. JEM says:

Daily Kos – what Occupiers read on their iPhones while crapping on police cars.
Gleick’s behavior is reprehensible and indefensible.
I’m personally willing to believe he wrote the summary memo, he probably did it in a period of ‘irrational exuberance’ (whether chemically induced or not) after he realized he’d gotten away with pilfering the other documents.
But watch out…he’s got a crew lined up to flack for him comprised of people who do not take a leak without checking with the poobahs of the Barbara Boxer wing of the Democratic Party.
So one can safely assume that, science and law be damned, the ideological left is behind Gleick hell or high water; he’ll have the resources to make this difficult for Heartland, and assuming he eventually has to fork over you can bet the usual run of CAGW alarmist deep pockets will be covering it.

I searched this thread for the word “worse” and, amazingly, didn’t find the following phrase. But, given the praise Gleick has received from certain alarmist quarters, it’s quite appropriate. So if I may…
Ahem…
OMG, the climate alarmists are worse than we thought!!!

443. DJ says:

UCS says:
” It is waging a cynical campaign, funded by corporate interests and anonymous individuals, to undermine the public’s understanding of climate science and introduce ideology disguised as science into our children’s classrooms. ”
Who funds UCS? Or Gleick, for that matter?
Heartland doesn’t attempt to “undermine the public’s understanding of climate science”, it simply wishes to make sure that the public’s understanding isn’t subject to a singular bias, and that the public is exposed to the WHOLE BODY OF SCIENCE.

444. NK says:

Hey Pat– we’ll see how much Aussies have ‘absorbed’ bogus climate alarmism when they throw your heroine PM out on her arse first chance they get. Cheers.

445. pat says:

the deceit, the deceit of the MSM:
21 Feb: WaPo Blog: Stephen Stromberg: Why Peter Gleick’s sting of the Heartland Institute hurts the climate change cause
Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents.
Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted Monday night that he dishonestly obtained fundraising and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, an obnoxious anti-climate science think tank. In the process, he’s done more to discredit himself and his work than he has to expose cynicism and collusion among global-warming deniers…
Whatever the misdeeds of those who attack climate research, however braindead the opposition to climate scientists appears to be, advocates degrade themselves when they allow their frustrations to get the better of their ethical responsibilities. They lend credence to the (wrong) impression that both sides of the debate are equally worthy of criticism, that global warming is another ideological war that both sides fight deceitfully…
Taking the high road is not easy or fun. But Gleick and the rest of us who favor decarbonizing the world economy have to be, and should want to be, the adults in the debate. Gleick’s confession and apology Monday are more than climate scientists ever got from deniers for the overblown “Climategate” e-mail scandal. But it would have been far better if he hadn’t needed to provide either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-peter-gleicks-sting-of-the-heartland-institute-hurts-the-climate-change-cause/2012/02/21/gIQAqqGkRR_blog.html
WaPo: Stephen Stromberg is a deputy editor on the PostOpinions staff and writes editorials on energy, climate change and other environmental issues. He first joined The Post in 2006, writing about homeland security and public health for the editorial page, before he spent 2007 and 2008 covering the presidential election and the Great Recession for The Economist. Stromberg rejoined The Post opinions section in 2009. He also wrote for Salon.com during the 2004 presidential election, and before that for the Los Angeles Times editorial column.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/stephen-stromberg/2011/02/24/ABUFa8O_page.html

446. A. Scott says:

And the public – including their followers – DOES see the true colors of groups like DeSmog – who feel it is perfectly acceptable to go to whatever lengths – including criminal activity – if it supports their “cause.”
The original DeSmog story to date has generated 993 Facebook likes and 608 tweets. The Littlemore story on same topic posted a few minutes later received 462 likes and 799 tweets.
Mashey’s alleged bombshell expose of Heartland tax fraud – which was anything but – has rightfully garnered a whopping 39 likes and 58 tweets. Simply put even with the “lead in” of the two huge and widely read Heartland stories the same day – even their most ardent supporters simply did not believe Masheys silly “expose.”
All the rest of the stories since have all been similarly ignored by their own followers. No matter how hard they try – they cannot seem to generate more than a handful of likes or tweets to their increasingly silly and belligerent postings.
Even their own supporters began quickly figuring out DeSmog had duped them. Within a few days of the DeSmog attacks – which in hindsight, it’s becoming increasingly clear, appear to have been well orchestrated and highly like in collusion – even their loyal fanbase could smell the stench and have distanced themselves from DeSmog as quickly as they could.

447. pat says:

21 Feb: Mercury News: Dana Hull: Peter Gleick cancels plans to join the board of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education
The National Center for Science Ecucation, a not-for-profit membership organization that defends the teaching of evolution and climate change in public schools, had been looking forward to having Gleick serve on its board of directors; Gleick was scheduled to formally be installed on the board Saturday.
But Gleick offered to withdraw from the board Monday, saying his presence would be a distraction. His offer was accepted.
“I’m very sad, because I was so looking forward to working with Peter,” said NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott in an interview Tuesday. “He will continue to make an important contribution to climate science. This is a temporary setback. His abilities have not been challenged, but he has admitted to an ethical lapse. We will be seeking a board member of comparable status.”…

Dr G claims the twisted rationale that he stole the Heartland documents (in a moment of weakness) in order to confirm the authenticity of the anonymous memo, so he could forward the collection to interested parties with a clear conscience. However, note the sequence; memo first, stolen docs follow.
He had no way to know in advance the contents of his theft; it was a “blind” request. What are the odds that a small document set, from just one board meeting, just happened to contain references to everyone of the “smoking gun” items contained in the memo?
Another reason to suspect the documents were stolen first and then the forgery was written to conform to (or sensationalize) them.

449. Robbins Mitchell says:

“I love the smell of flop sweat in the morning….smells like….victory!”
with apologies to
Lt Col Bill Kilgore
1st Air Cav
USA

450. pat says:

there is so much misrepresentation in here:
21 Feb: UK Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Climate expert admits to tricking institute
A prominent proponent of the need for action on climate change has admitted he tricked a free market think tank into sending him a batch of its confidential fundraising and strategy papers that he leaked anonymously to journalists.
Dr Peter Gleick, a water scientist and winner of a 2003 MacArthur Foundation “genius award”, said a “serious lapse” of his professional judgment and ethics led him to deceive the Chicago-based Heartland Institute into sending him budget and strategy papers earlier this year…
This document, which is written in a different typeface to the other papers, outlines plans to develop a “global warming curriculum” for school classrooms showing “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”…
and this is just a joke, surely…and it gets worse after the excerpts:
21 Feb: WaPo Blog: Stephen Stromberg: Why Peter Gleick’s sting of the Heartland Institute hurts the climate change cause
Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents.
Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted Monday night that he dishonestly obtained fundraising and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, an obnoxious anti-climate science think tank. In the process, he’s done more to discredit himself and his work than he has to expose cynicism and collusion among global-warming deniers…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-peter-gleicks-sting-of-the-heartland-institute-hurts-the-climate-change-cause/2012/02/21/gIQAqqGkRR_blog.html

451. Skiphil says:

topic: stuff those crazy CAGWarmists say….
Maybe this (below) explains why Gleick did it…. I know there are a lot of nutty people out there, but does anyone know where this person thinks she gets her “information” (sic) that between 50% and 97% of the current generation of the world’s children will die within 30-50 years of “climate related causes”??? I’ve heard some wild ‘n’ crazy stuff but this was a new one to me:
======================================================================
“…. Climate deniers are hitting us and hitting us and hitting us. They are condemning our children to a world where between half (good outcome) and 97% (bad outcome) of them will die from climate related causes in the next 30-50 years. I think that’s worth fighting for. I wish President Obama would think about his kids on this issue. If it was me, I’d declare marshal law and arrest the lot of them and disappear them into Gitmo.”

452. MarkW says:

Gleick claims that he received the fake document from someone else. Since the fake document quotes some of the stolen documents directly, this means that for Gleick’s story to be true. Whoever faked the document is either an employee of HI, or also managed to steal the same documents.
Another point, there are only a couple of days between the date of the meeting, and the timestamp on the scan of the fake document. This means who ever faked the document had to have gotten the documents very soon after the meeting, created the fake, then snail mailed the fake to Gleick. Pretty tight timeline there.

Jim Butler says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:40 am

Let’s see if I have this right. Someone “leaks” the Climategate emails, and she/he’s a thief, liar, Cadillac-nosed, bottom-dwelling, mouth-breathing pond scum, and should be hung from the neck until dead…
Someone “leaks” the Heartland memos, and he’s a hero?
What am I missing? Kos doesn’t see the hypocrisy?

The Kos IS hyporcisy–in spades. (Only Soros has enough money to pay people to lie like they do day after day. Still, the job must be horrendously debilitating to one’s personal ethics and morals.)

454. MarkW says:

REPLY: There’s not one thing fun about this. It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Train wrecks might be fun to watch on old film clips, but in real life train wrecks, people get hurt. – Anthony
Maybe I’m just not as good a human as you are, but I enjoy it when people who are trying to hurt me and mine, wind up getting hurt by the very instruments they were trying to us against me and mine.
When I heard about the terrorist who blew off his own legs when the grenade he threw at the cops bounced off a tree and came right back at him, I laughed at his ineptitude and I was glad that he was now out of the action.

455. DJ says

Who funds UCS? Or Gleick, for that matter?

Funding sources for 2009 here. Customers include public sources of money from California, Florida, and US Environmental Agencies, NOAA, United Nations Environment Programme. I think that means that maybe a little FOIA sun light might be available.
The Form 990 for 2010 is online here.
Grants and contracts customers are listed on Page 10 in this document.
I wonder how the Board of Directors and Advisory Board of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security views actions the President of the Institute.
Can The Institute remain a tax-exempt 501( c )(3) organization if its President gets busted?

456. DirkH says:

NK says:
February 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm
“DirkH– the usually mild mannered Dirk goes all medieval on Gleik and his ilk. GOOD. Unfortunately the media in the USA and Europe will bury Gleik’s lies and false propoganda. ”
Hey, we gotta drive this home. Nothing personal, just a war against the biggest scientific h0ax ever.

457. Flat Earther says:

Why are the Warmists bloggers still sighting the “Faked” document as fact in their defense of Gleik?

458. pat says:

Fox News – like all MSM coverage – still gives the impression ALL the documents are from HI:
21 Feb: Fox News: Chair of scientific ethics committee has ethical lapse
Gleick — an internationally recognized hydroclimatologist and author of the respected annual report “The World’s Water” — said he received an anonymous document in the mail that tipped him off to what he described as Heartland’s efforts to muddy public understanding of climate science and policy. He released the documents to expose their efforts “to cast doubt on climate science.”

459. Third try. Maybe I’ve been banned.
DJ says

Who funds UCS? Or Gleick, for that matter?

Funding sources for 2009 here. Customers include public sources of money from California, Florida, and US Environmental Agencies, NOAA, United Nations Environment Programme. I think that means that maybe a little FOIA sun light might be available.

460. pat says:

Gleick’s “terrible twin” Zwick (LOL) is up and running with two pages of unadulterated nonsense:
21 Feb: Forbes: Steve Zwick: Heroes And Zeroes: Why Gleick Was Right To Leak the Docs
Noted hydroclimatologist and author Peter Gleick has spent his adult life measuring the impact of climate change on water resources. Last night, he took one for us all when he put his career in jeopardy by revealing that it was he who acquired and leaked documents to DeSmogBlog and others showing how the Heartland Institute – one of the loudest voices in the climate-change-denial choir – gets and spends its money.
In so doing, he delivered a massive body blow to the denialsphere and moved the world closer to finding a solution to the climate-change challenge. That’s because his find exposes yet another piece of the denial machine that has been assembled over the past two decades to discredit legitimate climate science. It renders their utterances irrelevant, and provides yet more evidence that Heartland’s activities aren’t those of a charity, but of a PR agency acting on behalf of a few deep-pocketed paymasters who stand to lose if the world acts to mitigate climate change…
Heartland only disputes the veracity of one memo – the one that came in the mail, and therefore can’t be traced through e-mail. All the other mails, however, support the most damaging evidence from the memos…
Rather than try and hit these mind-weeds as they materialize, I have created what I’m calling a climate science book club, where we will examine a new wave of works which are designed with the general public in mind. These are books published by respected scientists like Michael Mann and Spencer Weart, or lifelong conservatives like John Reisman. I’ve chosen a few that are not only comprehensive, but well-written and easy to grasp, and will include a few that denialist posters suggested as well. By focusing on books instead of blogs, we will be limiting our discussion to well-structured treatises and, I hope, elevating this “debate” above the level of tit-for-tat sniping that the denialists have created.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/21/heroes-and-zeroes-in-the-heartland-gleick-says-he-leaked-docs/

461. DJ says

Who funds UCS? Or Gleick, for that matter?

I wonder how the Board of Directors and Advisory Board of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security views actions the President of the Institute.
Can The Institute remain a tax-exempt 501( c )(3) organization if its President gets busted?

462. tom s says:

Oh I love it when Anthony has breaking news…where to begin where to begin? I just got here, should I start with the newest info first and work my way back? Well, here it goes.

463. Jay Davis says:

CAGW is the biggest, costliest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. And those who continue to promote this hoax for their own gain ARE evil. No ifs, ands or buts. They have done, and are continuing to do, great physical and economic harm to the people on this earth. Maybe to some of you who frequent this website, the rising costs of energy directly attributable to this hoax are an inconvenience or a nuisance. But to the people I interact with on a daily basis, the urban poor, these rising costs are catastrophic. I see on a daily basis the damage these people are doing. Therefore none of these CAGW advocates should be given any kind of a break. Heartland, and Anthony, should take whoever they can to the cleaners.

464. Jeremy says:

The silence from the BBC is deafening… Meanwhile quietly we see Gleick disappearing from roles within prestigious organizations website! Often disappeared much in the same way that dictators sometimes re-write history…as though some things never even happened!
Wow. Wow. Wow

465. JPeden says:

Flat Earther says:
February 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Why are the Warmists bloggers still sighting the “Faked” document as fact in their defense of Gleik?
To make facts whatever they say they are…so they can “win”…and make facts whatever they say they are.

466. Bill Jamison says:

From Daily Climate:
“Those who applaud his [Gleick’s] actions can only do so if ethics no longer matter.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.

467. pat says:

I love the way Gliek says he wants to encourage public debate…..by attempting to slander, censor, and destroy the opposing debater. He must be a lunatic.

468. pat says:

21 Feb: Science Blog: Greg Laden: The Heartland Science Denial Documents and the Future of the Planet
The best available evidence now suggests that the most damning of the “Heartland Documents” — the strategy memo which explicitly states that Heartland’s strategy is to interfere with good science education in order to advance their political agenda — is legitimate. The legitimacy of the document was being questioned because it was physically and stylistically different from the other documents with which it was released. We now know that the strategy memo was sent to climate scientist Peter Gleick and that Peter then took steps to acquire corraborating documents from Heartland (see “The Origin of the Heartland Documents.”) The “one of these things is not like the others” defense is now obviated….
Had Peter Gleick obtained these documents using certain methods, and had he been a journalist, he would be up for a Pulitzer prize for investigative reporting. Had he obtained the corraborating evidence of Heartland’s unsavory strategies using a slightly different approach, he’d be fired by his editor. The thing is, Peter Gleick is not a journalist and it is absurd to hold him to “Journalistic Standards.” Peter is like the rest of us: He knows enough about the science, the politics, and the economics surrounding the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change to have been very frustrated with the mindless zombie-like hate filled denialist movement, bought and paid for by the corporations and individuals with the most to gain from ignoring the science, to have risked falling on his sword for the benefit of the next generation. Thank you Peter….

469. Alan Watt says:

UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.
Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign

Actually it’s very interesting to read the linked article — as of 17:11 EST 2012-02-21, all of the comments are disapproving of the UCS statement (by Keivn Knobloch).
Even on their own blog, they’re not getting support. Does that make Kenji any happier? Actually, the paucity of comments makes it seem that very few people are reading it in the first place.

470. Alan Watt says:

Addendum to previous. I tried to copy the formatting from the original, including the link, but I obviously goofed. To read the referenced UCS blog, scroll to the top of this thread and link of the original Update16.

471. Update 19
Freudian perhaps?

472. DirkH says:

pat says:
February 21, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“Gleick’s “terrible twin” Zwick (LOL) is up and running with two pages of unadulterated nonsense:
[…]
In so doing, he delivered a massive body blow to the denialsphere and moved the world closer to finding a solution to the climate-change challenge. ”
He’s right – Gleick moved the world closer to doing nothing, which would be the prudent response.

473. Ian of Fremantle says:

Get over it WUWT readers. Remember the cheers for ClimateGate?? Same shoe different foot

474. DirkH says:

pat says:
February 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
[…]
Peter is like the rest of us: ”
Ok, we should take Laden’s word for it. He’s a warmist; he knows how they tick.

475. pat says:

You really have to be in denial to believe that Gleik was not also a forger. It is difficult to imagine any likely scenario where he was not also guilty of forgery. And that is why he was fired. He could not explain how the fake got into the e mail stream.

476. NK says:

MarkW at 1:41 PT, I think it will come out that Gleik fabricated the fake memo to justify his felonious ID theft and Fraud to obtain the HI docs, and then claim that the authentic HI docs validated his fabricated memo. Does that make any sense? No, but who says a fraud has to make sense. Anyways, this will all come out in the lawsuit HI brings. If Gleik admits to fabricating the initial memo, then the CAGW will throw him under the bus and call him a ‘bad apple’ but that doesn’t change the scientific consensus, blah, blah ,blah

477. I like Amino Acids’ quoting what Steve Goddard found, from 2001.

bizarre weather could soon become more common, and the consequences far more dire, according to [IPCC]. The decade of the ’90s was the warmest on record, and most of the rise was likely caused by the burning of … fuels … future changes will be twice as severe as predicted just five years ago, the group says. Over the next 100 years, temperatures are projected to rise by 2.5 to 10.4 degrees worldwide, enough to spark floods, epidemics, and millions of “environmental refugees” … Increased snowmelt in the Himalayas could combine with rising seas to make at least 10 percent of the country uninhabitable. The water level of most of Africa’s largest rivers, including the Nile, could plunge…
No more words. “THE DEBATE IS OVER,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, in Oakland, Calif. “No matter what we do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, we will not be able to avoid some impacts of climate change.”

Steve attributes the origin in Climate Science of this phrase “The Debate Is Over” to Gleick.

478. Marko in Helsinki says:

Phil Plait is going on a massive zealous rant about the documents being real. Somebody that defends Gleick’s actions so vigorously and fanatically, without any proof that the documents are in fact real… makes me suspect that he is behind all this somehow and much more. He is definitely not a scientist at this point any more.

479. Is the Pacific Institute anything more than Gleick and people who work for him? He’s President, so he’s not going to get fired. it was founded in 1987, a year after he got his Ph.D.. While he calls himself a cofounder, I’ve been unable to identify any other founders.
It looks very much to me that he’s from a wealthy family, and in order to pursue his hobby, funded by independent wealth, he set up a 501 c3 to make it all tax-deductible, except for his salary. Until recent years, it wasn’t taking in more than a low six figures in income. Is the Pacific Institute any more than a sort of very large home-office deduction?

480. Skiphil says:

re: the website statement of support by Pacific Institute
Wellllll… it was about as tepid a statement of support as they could offer to Peter Gleick while still retaining him. Given that he’s co-Founder and President of PI it may take some doing if they do want to get him out of there…. but so long as he’s there it may be hard to begin to restore their own credibility. Still, with PI’s constituency of loons it may not matter much, except that even the most committed don’t want to give their money to organizations which they believe have lost any effectiveness.
So they are “aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute”….
but does PI’s Board of Directors ***really*** have the true deal on whether or not Peter Gleick FORGED the “strategy” document?? It’s one thing to believe his self-serving statement, but (possibly) quite another to really ***know*** the full story of his actions….
To exercise elementary fiduciary responsibility for the organization in both legal and ethical terms the Board of Directors must have the fullest information. One must wonder whether Gleick is still deceiving them, because they’d better be really sure he’s not the forger……

481. John Whitman says:

Attention => Donna Laframboise*** ,
Add Gleick to your list of IPCC centric CAGWists who behave equivalent to delinquent teenagers? Please keep some empty spaces on your list; I expect we will see some of his “consensus” climate science associates added to your list as the Gleick/HI affair plays out.
John
***Author of the acclaimed book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”

482. pat says:

BBC’s Richard Black has a new story up today:
21 Feb: BBC: Richard Black: Airlines and tar sands proxy for bigger climate battles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17112187
from the first comments i’ve read; there are no doubt many more in the 124 so far saying similar:
“I’m amazed, although perhaps I shouldn’t be. No mention of Peter Gleick?
After your article sneering at the Fakegate farrago and all the glee over the ‘leaked documents’, have you no interest in the fact that Gleick has now confessed?
At the very least some hearty condemnation would be appropriate although an apology on your part wouldn’t go amiss either.”
“Continually censoring comments about Fakegate when it is the lead environmental story does not put the BBC in a good light. If Richard Black saw fit to comment on the original release of these stolen and fake documents then the BBC has a duty to report the latest news about who was the source and to correct its original report. An apology would be wise as well.”

483. JPeden says:

Ian of Fremantle says:
February 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Get over it WUWT readers. Remember the cheers for ClimateGate?? Same shoe different foot
= “et tu quoque” problem, Ian: you’ve just asserted that mainstream Climate Science is an [unscientific, etc.] fraud.

484. Dr Burns says:

As expected, Fairfax attempts a whitewash:

The strategy documents obtained by Dr Gleick showed millions of dollars being spent on a range of projects designed to create uncertainty about climate science in schools, newspapers, on television and the internet.

”Whether Peter Gleick’s actions were justified … I cannot say,” Professor Karoly told the Herald.

485. More on the Pacific Institute: if you look at Gleick’s first publication from the ‘Pacific Institute’, in 1989, you’ll find it gives the address 1681 Shattuck Avenue, Suite H, Berkeley, CA. Look it up on google maps. You’ll find it’s a small storefront, housing a small women’s dress shop, with what looks like a stairwell. No evidence of any suites, though there might be some offices on the second floor.
Speculation; you graduate with a Ph.D. and a trust fund. Working sucks. So you set up a research institute, with yourself as the sole employee, with a mailbox, a minimal (or no) office, a grandiose name, two blocks from the Berkeley campus and across the street from a coffee shop.

486. DirkH says:

Michael Mann, world renowned tree ring statistics expert about Gleickgate:
“What was shocking to me was a description of an effort to indoctrinate children in K-9 grades in school with climate change disinformation, with anti-science propaganda. It’s outrageous.”
http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/02/21/3
Yes, Mike, it is outrageous to confuse the small ones with CO2AGW propaganda. I agree.

487. James Ard says:

How can it be that the Heartland Institute has been outspent by a factor of at least a thousand, perhaps ten thousand, yet they are still coming out on top in the debate? Could it be that the science just isn’t there?

488. Merovign says:

NK says:
February 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm
and the warmist Left and media will be detered from publishing future bogus stories. It will be all good.

I think I found the flaw in your plan.
Or is this the step classically labeled “a miracle happens here”?

489. gnomish says:

Anthony – people have been hurt by the crimatology hoax but it has been loads of fun for the crimatology team.
Watching them get away with it over and over hurts my tiny brain.
Watching them discredit science hurts my feelers.
Wanting for them to be punished and hurt like hell is what i hope for.
The main reason i keep coming here is hope to see some justice at long freakin last.
This is wholesome and wholesome is fun.
This is the beginning of the surgery to remove the cancerous legions – that’s not just fun, it’s the only way we survive it. Heck, yeah, it’s fun.
Why in the world are you brining political correctness to this party – that’s what made everybody sick in the first place. Now it’s time to start the remedy, not administer admonishions and another dose.
I enjoy this and i’m more than happy to be seen enjoying it pour encourager. Do skeptics need yet more discouragement and from one of the sources of possible salvation?
Thank you for all you do – you’ve probably saved us from cap & tax by your efforts.
I’m thrilled with it.
sic semper tyrannis and i don’t care who doesn’t like it. i love it.

490. Lars P. says:

Chris Alemany says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm
“Oh Poor You Anthony.
Where is the call for retribution and reparations for all the scientists implicated in climategate who had their reputations dragged through the mud, and still do years later, because of allegations that have been refuted and pardoned time and again by authoritative parties.
And yes, that would include suing YOU for your defamatory comments against those scientists and for allowing far worse in your public comment section here at WUWT.
At least Mr. Gleick has enough of a conscience to admit that he made a grave error. ”
Chris, the climategate email allowed us to see what the respective scientists were thinking behind the courtain, and it was not nice what we saw. There was not one email identified as fake in the climategate emails.
The so called “fakegate” published a document that was identified as fake. The damning sentences found there “undermine”, “do not to teach science” and so on have been identified by HI as fake probably done by a villain person with clear intention to smear.
With the fake document there were linked several authentic documents with information that was mostly known and available on the internet You understand there is a difference?
Try also to read why people supposed it was Mr. Gleick even before he had found enough conscience and admitted to have made the error. This might be a good eye opener for many:

491. Jeff D says:

From his mission statement:
The Pacific Institute currently has three main programs of research: Water, Community Strategies for Sustainability and Justice, and Globalization. In addition, the Institute focuses on four initiatives: International Water and Communities, Water Use in Business, Climate Impacts and Adaptation, and ( Integrity of Science. )
I just can’t get over the last 3 words of that paragraph. But further up in the text is “Justice”. Pretty sure that he believed that the pointy end of the Sword of Justice would not be pointing in his direction when he wrote that……

492. Kaboom says:

I remember US law allows forfeiture of real estate if it has been used in committing a crime. The DEA frequently applies it to houses, cars or boats of drug dealers. I wonder if the same goes for the Pacific Institute’s facilities if they don’t disavow Gleick and he did his dirty deed from the office and by using their infrastructure.

493. Beesaman says:

Silence from the BBC’s Black. I bet they bury the story in some out of the way radio blog so that they can say they reported it!

494. Beesaman says:

Just a thought, if this was the Warmist’s Watergate, who was Deep Throat?

495. 4 eyes says:

I hope this grubby act gets to court because the subsequent outcome may well be that the proponents of AGW are made an offer they will not be able to refuse given the circumstances – that is, to publicly review the climate facts and publicly debate AGW. The ruination of Gleick will remind the alarmist climate scientists that the truth and nothing but the truth shall prevail, ultimately.

496. John Whitman says:

AGU President Michael McPhaden issued the following statement:
“[ . . . ]
Following Dr. Gleick’s resignation, a search began immediately for a replacement. Effective today, 21 February, the new chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity is Linda Gundersen, Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity, USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).
[ . . . ]”
– – – – – – –
Dear Michael McPhaden (President of the AGW),
In your search for a replacement board member due to Gleick’s dismissal on ethical grounds, the AGU should rule out climate scientists who have been publically shown wanting in ethical judgment. How about ruling out James Hansen with his protest related activities causing his arrest and Phil Jones with the Information Commissioner’s finding that UEA-CRU did violate FOIA laws but could not be prosecuted due to statute of limitations? Or how ruling out Michael Mann who is prominent in several UVa centered legal actions involving FOIA and activities related to grant fund use? Or how about ruling out scientists who were shown in CG1 & CG2 docs to subvert with premeditation the intent of the IPCC WG1 processes?
Respectfully,
John Whitman

497. Something else to overload your irony meters: The Pacific Institute, which more and more is looking like it’s just Peter Gleick’s own private think-tank, has a scienceblog called ‘integrity of science’ for a while back in 2007
http://scienceblogs.com/integrityofscience/
The blogger, Ian Hart, is still PI’s communications director.

498. NK says:

Merovign– I don’t think it will take a miracle. The HI will collect real damages at the end of the day, and sooner than later the media who got played by Gleick will publish retractions and apologies. In future, editors at the legacy media will not publish pro – alarmist stuff just because it’s from ‘friends’ they’ll vet the claims more closely because money and jobs will be on the line.

499. Joely says:

Time for some memoirs ?
‘ The Hydrologist That Leaked ‘, pethaps.

500. John Whitman says:

CORRECTION for John Whitman comment @ February 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Dear Michael McPhaden (President of the AGW),
Should be => ‘Dear Michael McPhaden (President of the AGU),’
But, on second thought, calling McPhaden ‘President of the AGW’ might have some nuance too. : )
John

501. NK says:

DirkH says at 3:06PT: “Yes, Mike, it is outrageous to confuse the small ones with CO2AGW propaganda. I agree.”
Mann’s condemnation of what he spends every working day actually DOING is just more evidence that modern liberalism is a mental illness.

502. Jake says:

Dan Hughes says:
February 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm
The Form 990 for 2010 is online here.
WAAAAAAIIIIITTTTTT A MINUTE HERE!
Looking at Schedule B of the 990 which lists “private” donations, I come up with only a few hundred thousands of US\$. Yet Pac Inst claims \$2.2M for the year (Ok, so HI is out spending them 3 to 1). Am I to “assume” that much of the rest of the \$\$\$\$ come from “public grants” (aka MY FREAKING TAX DOLLAR\$)?????
Funny to also note that they have only ONE person whose compensation is reported.

503. MarkW says:

“remove the cancerous legions ”
I think you meant lessions. Legions are large groups of people.
On second thought, legions does work.

504. Merovign says:

NK says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm
In future, editors at the legacy media will not publish pro – alarmist stuff just because it’s from ‘friends’ they’ll vet the claims more closely because money and jobs will be on the line.

I’m not trying to criticize you, except to say that is possibly the most blindly optimistic thing I’ve seen all day.
It’s actually kind of nice of you, but you’re expecting behavior that hasn’t been evident from that group in its entire history. I don’t expect them to change, I expect them to be what they are.
We are talking about people who report almost daily that 75 of 10,000 is “97%.”

505. DirkH says:

Beesaman says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Just a thought, if this was the Warmist’s Watergate, who was Deep Throat?”
Steven Mosher was the first one to suspect Gleick, based on linguistic idiosyncracies in the forged memo, which Gleick still denies he has written. Pressure mounted until Gleick fessed up to e-mailing stuff from HI to DeSmogBlog.
Now if he hasn’t forged the memo, why was Mosh successful in guessing his identity? Rethorical question.
But, imagine that somebody else snail-mailed the memo to Gleick. The text of the memo mentions Gleick by name: “climate scientists (such as Peter Gleick”)” it goes… WHY would you forward that ANONYMOUSLY when you’re Gleick? Gleick posts on a gazillion media all the time, HuffPo, Forbes, youtube, Twitter.
Wouldn’t you hold that paper you received into the camera in your next Youtube video and say “Look what I got! Confirmation from a whistleblower send to me, affirmative of all my suspicions! I was right!”
Gleick’s current story is implausible.

506. Babsy says:

Luther Wu says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:43 am
The next time they post something, and they will because they are drawn here as is a moth to a flame, would be a simple three word response to whatever they might post; “Gleick, set, match”.”

507. Jake says:

DirkH:
Wouldn’t you hold that paper you received into the camera in your next Youtube video and say “Look what I got! Confirmation from a whistleblower send to me, affirmative of all my suspicions! I was right!”
Dirk, what’s baffling to me right now is the unabashed cheerleading for Gleick from some of the leftist blogosphere. Surprising to me DeepClimate and Gavin have been VERY moderate in their comments since Gleick’s mea culpa. Even TCO seems to be skeptical of Gleick’s protestations that he didn’t “alter” any of the documents.
On the other hand there is the cheerleading crowd (DeSmog, Laden, Mandia, and even Phil Plait) that are STILL pushing the “fake but accurate” meme. Frankly if I were these guys I would be burning up the phone lines, internet, email, twitter, whatever, trying to get in touch PERSONALLY with one Dr Peter Gleick. And I’d have two questions for him, 1) “Did you WRITE the fake memo yourself?” and 2) “You aren’t hanging me out to dry alongside you, are YOU?”

508. Alex Heyworth says:

Somebody has commented that this is a Gleick Tragedy. How apt – “In the Greek tragedies Nemesis appears chiefly as the avenger of crime and the punisher of hubris”. [From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(mythology)%5D. Maybe Gleick should have studied Classics at university, he might have been forewarned.

Note how at Daily Kos and other media, Gleick is no longer a climate scientist, now merely a water analyst.

510. wws says:

Except I think it’s a Gleick Comedy! Will, I guess the Greek Tragedies and Comedies always spilled over into each other.
And they had a weird sense of humor. Punchline is always “and the maddened females tore him limb from limb and into bits”. ba dump tcha

511. Smokey says:

I sent this email to Forbes, where Gleick blogs:
Dear Forbes,
I have been a Forbes subscriber for most of the past 40 years. I started reading when Malcolm Forbes ran things. I regard your magazine as being the pinnacle of ethical behavior in a business magazine.
Therefore, I trust that you will promptly replace the dishonest Mr. Gleick. There are honest bloggers available. Mr Gleick is not one of them, and he cannot be connected with Forbes without affecting your credibility. Please do the right thing.
Sincerely yours,
Xxxxxx Xxxx
[PS: see here for some of the current fallout: http://wattsupwiththat.com ]

For anyone similarly inclined, here is Forbes editor’s email address:

512. Richard says:

desmogblog, of course, is hailing him as a hero.

Here’s the question I would like to have answered asap: Did Gleik inform those he sent the documents to of the doubtful provenance of the anonymous memo?

514. Dave Worley says:

“Gleick’s current story is implausible.”
Unsustainable.

515. > Here’s the question I would like to have answered asap: Did Gleik inform those he sent the documents to of the doubtful provenance of the anonymous memo?
Apparently not. There is a copy of the email that he sent our published at various places. He emailed them from an email account, identifying himself as “Heartland Insider” – which IMHO is itself misleading.
Here is the text of that email:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/15/
Dear Friends (15 of you):
In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.

516. JamesD says:

Interesting discussion on another forum about the criminal charges Gleick faces. I’m not a criminal defense attorney, but it appears that Gleick has to have stolen a thing of value. No stipulation on the value of it. Well, in the documents Gleick stole is donor information. Donor lists are bought and sold. They are indeed a thing of value. Gleick also deprived Heartland of the ability to sell the donor list as it is now public.

517. JamesD says:

Katabasis,
No. The email he sent to Desmog was published, and he does not mention this at all.

518. Skiphil says:

Anthony — first, a huge thank you for all you do and I’m sorry you have to put up with such vile defamation and abuse from trolls and people like Gleick, et al.
2nd, thanks for all the great coverage of Fakegate.
Finally, a slightly mischievous suggestion in case you can consider it (it might have beneficial effects on the public discourse)….. what if, after the title of this thread “Gleick Confesses” you could add some kind of parenthetical “(Sort Of…)” or “(Partial Confession)”
You will know best whether you want to be a bit provocative or not, but it certainly might re-focus attention upon the uncertainties about the veracity and (in)completeness of the Gleick “confession”……

519. Man Bearpigg says:
February 20, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Have the police been round to Glieck’s house yet to get his computers a la Tallbloke farce ?
Isn’t that a very good question!!

520. tallbloke says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Presumably the DOJ will have sent Gleick a notice telling him not to alter anything on his PC, and the cops will soon be around to make copies of his hard drives….
Lol.

In a fair world, considering what happened to you, that would happen. But then in a fair world what happened to you wouldn’t have happened.

521. Geoff says:

Hi Bluecloud,
My opinion of Mann’s work is shared by many serious scientists globally. Just to give one review, I suggest you read the paper last year by McShane and Wyner in The Annals of Applied Statistics (Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 5-44). You can see in their study they found that random noise was as effective as the proxies processed by the Mann algorithm in predicting temperatures. As they put it “random series that are independent of global temperature are as effective or more effective than the proxies at predicting global annual temperatures in the instrumental period. Again, the proxies are not statistically significant when compared to sophisticated null models”. Do you know what that means?
This is not even taking into account Mann leaving out 40 years worth of data when he purports to show that his proxies correlate to temperatures in the thermometer era. If you are truly interested in understanding Mann’s work, you should read and digest the The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford (which has already been recommended by the book club).
In his more recent papers, Mann has used a proxy upside down from the orientation proposed by the author of the original study developing the proxy.
Of course, showing that Mann’s science is unsupportable in now way “disproves” global warming. It simply means that anyone wanting to show temperature reconstructions of the past 1000 years cannot validly rely on his methods.
Regarding the scientists who edited the NIPCC report, what makes you think of them as “discredited”. I can guaranty you that many knowledgeable scientists do not you share your view. Are you aware of Dr. Singer’s recent scientific papers showing that tropical hotspots predicted by climate models are not being seen in the actual measurement data? This has now been accepted (after years of disagreement) by such mainstream scientists as Dr. Ben Santer. I was fortunate to hear a talk last year organized by the Royal Institute of Meteorology in The Netherlands where Dr. Singer was able to present his findings. He was treated with respect, even by those who did not agree with his views. This is the way science should progress. (I’d be happy to reference the scientific papers if you have not read them).
It’s pretty clear you don’t like what the Heartland Institute stands for, but how does that impact real science? Would it matter if the report had been written by the president of Exxon Mobil ( or Koch Industries if you prefer) or Greenpeace? The reports cites thousands of scientific papers in mainstream climate journals. I would say that anyone who reads the actual scientific literature (and not summaries) would realize that the IPCC conclusions are largely a house of cards. Are you familiar with Dr. Trenberth’s paper in the journal Science on Tracking Earth’s Energy (16 APRIL 2010 VOL 328)? You may know that Dr. Trenberth is an IPCC lead author. In that paper, he shows that measured heat in the oceans is far lower than predicted by climate models. More recently he has hypothesized that the “missing heat” is in the deep ocean (where it cannot be measured). This strikes many scientists as implausible.
Where do you think the “missing heat” is lurking? Many scientists have come to the conclusion that there is no “missing heat” but that the models have overstated warming. What do you think?
I would leave you with one last reference. You may have seen the paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Dr. Judith Curry (head of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and Dr. Peter Webster of the same university, who is the incoming president of the atmospheric science committee of the American Geophysical Union) where they concluded “…The large uncertainties in both the observations and model simulations of the spectral amplitude of natural variability precludes a confident detection of anthropogenically forced climate change against the background of natural internal climate variability”. (BAMS, Dec, 2011, p. 1686-7).

522. Geoff says:

Hi Steve,
See my comments to Bluecloud. Do you have a scientific reason for ignoring the conclusion of Prof. Wegman who concluded in a report to Congress that the Mann conclusions were not statistically valid? (You may recall that Dr. Gerry North, who was head of an NAS panel reviewing climate reconstructions testified under oath that he agreed with the conclusion of the Wegman report).
You don’t seem to want to look at the NIPCC report, which is a selection and review of scientific papers (in the same way that the IPCC reports are reviews). Perhaps you would just prefer the citations of the scientific papers directly. I’d be happy to supply hundreds of scientific references which gravely call into question the IPCC conclusions. Thousands of independent scientists have reached the conclusion indicated above by Dr. Curry and Dr. Webster.
Perhaps you saw the letter in the Wall St. Journal yesterday by some of the most renowned scientists in the world, who have concluded by their independent investigation that CO2 is not having the effect predicted by the IPCC. They rightly say don’t take their word for it, read the literature yourself. I recommend this approach.
Coming back to Gleick, if you think his actions were ethical and laudable, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I think most people will disagree. (At any rate they were illegal). I guess that’s why he is no longer the head of the AGU ethics committee and is not being given a “hero” award by the AGU.
I am 100% supportive of the scientific method, but if you ignore some views you are very likely to have a distorted perspective. I wish you success in your further efforts to learn.

523. Skiphil says:

BREAKING NEWS: I haven’t seen a reference to this yet…. today in an interview with Wall St. Journal Online, Joe Bast has explicitly accused Peter Gleick… asserting that Gleick “forged” the memo (I think this is a more explicit accusation than the HI statement last night which referred to Gleick’s pretense that he received the “strategy” memo from an anonymous source as “unbelievable”):
Interview with Joe Bast, President of Heartland Institute:
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html
[my partial transcription of Bast’s comments]:
“Peter Gleick… impersonated a board member at the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two page memo in order to make it look like we were conspiring to discourage teachers from teaching science in classrooms and in other ways doing this nefarious stuff, and then leaked all those documents…..”
re: misrepresentations in the forged memo re school curriculum:
[Bast]: “the memo just flat out lies about what we’re trying to accomplish there”

524. Thanks JamesD – that means of course that he has willingly caught everyone he sent this to in the same bear-trap.

525. John Whitman says:

Gleick said in his confession-cum-apology,

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

Apparently referring to this email body,

“Dear Friends (15 of you):
In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.”

The complete email with addresses and time and transmittal info/metadata would help verify the level of Gleick’s honesty in the whole matter. Has anyone seen the complete email with all that info included?
John

526. pat says:

re the article by Megan McArdle, senior editor for The Atlantic:
Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses
after reading the piece, in one sense, you could say at least McArdle includes more detail than the rest of the MSM.
she includes the email sent out by Gleick initially, which she says was sent to a “bunch of climate bloggers”.
it begins:
“Dear Friends (15 of you):”
McArdle: “Some of the climate bloggers are praising Gleick for coming forward, and complaining that this is distracting from the real story. And I agree that it’s a pity that this is distracting from the important question about how fast the climate is warming, and what we should do about it.”
in the end, McArdle’s piece is so garbled, u cannot blame the first person to comment who states:
comment by nellcote: “So at the end of the day the original Heartland docs are genuine, confirmed by their own mailing. I don’t understand why Gleick even apologized.”
this is precisely what is wrong with all the coverage.
for starters, who are the 15 who initially received Gleick’s poisoned email? methinks they were not ALL bloggers. who are they?
given it was the style of the forged document that caused Mosh, with assistance from others, to finger Gleick, why does McArdle go to great lengths to analyse it as something Gleick received anonymously?
why the headline, McArdle, which says the documents are from Heartland, when your own piece will contradict this? this has been a uniform tactic of ALL MSM coverage.
as for the WSJ interview with Joseph Bast of Heartland, why isn’t this in the printed version of WSJ? not too many people bother to check out WSJ videos online. another day of shame for the MSM.

527. Carl Brannen says:

Something I’ve noticed in popular TV shows is a tendency to portray identity theft as a legitimate method that good guys use to obtain information from crooks. I’m not so surprised that someone would do it in real life and then be shocked to discover that it’s highly illegal.
It all goes back to the basic fact: If you’re a CAGW believer (and think that 97% of the human race may die due to CO2), then logically, you would be remiss if you did anything other than lie cheat and steal for your side.

528. DavidA says:

The Heartland accusation that Gleick created the fake is a smart move: it puts pressure on Gleick to prove that his snail mail story is legit, and they know like the rest of us what the truth almost certainly is.
In addition at Heartland they know who had access to the original documents from which the fake drew material, so they can be quite sure as to the likelihood that Gleick’s insider dependant story is correct.
More popcorn!

529. Steve C says:

Another fine, unbiased article by Suzanne Goldenberg in the Guardian this morning:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/gleick-apology-heartland-leak-ethics-debate
– “For many veteran (sic) of the climate wars, there was an uncanny parallels to the breach of Heartland materials and the hack of scientists’ emails from East Anglia’s climate research unit in 2009. However, scientists almost invariably noted that Gleick had come clean, unlike those who carried out the East Anglia hack.”

530. CraigM says:

This is how the left cleaning Crikey website’s reporter in Australia saw it ::
4. Climate scientists debate: is Heartland leaker a hero or villain?
Crikey journalist Amber Jamieson writes:
HEARTLAND, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE DOCUMENT LEAK, PETER GLEICK
Is a scientist who adopts a fake identity in order to get information from a group that actively works to discredit the science a hero or a villain? That’s the question facing the scientific community, after the Heartland Institute leaked documents scandal took a surprising turn when well-known climate scientist Peter H Gleick admitted he passed the documents to journalists.
While Australian scientists want him seen as acting alone, one told Crikey today his actions demonstrate the frustration around the mainstream media’s failure to prosecute the case on climate science.
Gleick revealed his surprising story yesterday. He was anonymously sent a Heartland climate strategy memo a few weeks ago. In order to authenticate the document, he set up a fake email address pretending to be someone who works at Heartland and convinced the institute to send him a number of confidential documents outlining major donors and scientists on the payroll. Gleick then anonymously forwarded those documents and the climate strategy memo to journalists.
The scientist called his actions “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics”: “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.”
Heartland President Joseph Blast responded in a statement: “A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.”
In his confession, Gleick also confirmed that apart from the climate strategy memo — which Heartland declared a fake from the start, and questions remain over who wrote the document and sent it to Gleick — the rest of the documents republished by DeSmogBlog and others were in exactly the form that he received them from Heartland.
Heartland began pursuing legal action against bloggers and journalists who had reported on the documents earlier this week, claiming it had been unable to verify the authenticity of all the documents.
Repercussions for Gleick’s actions came swiftly from the scientific and environment journalist community. Andrew Revkin, the Dot Earth blogger for The New York Times, wrote a scathing article on Gleick’s announcement, saying: “One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.
At The Guardian, Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences and the founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, hailed Gleick’s actions: “Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years. Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”
A Grist article captured the question: “Peter Gleick: hero or moral moron?”
Reactions were mixed in Australia. Ken Baldwin, deputy director of the Climate Change Institute, was quick to differentiate Gleick’s actions from the science.
“Certainly he needs to be seen as having acted as an individual rather than as a scientist,” Baldwin told Crikey. “The rest of the scientific community would view his actions in that way and not in any sense as representing the broader scientific community.”
But the University of Western Australia’s Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist that studies how people process climate-related information, views Gleick’s actions as “something akin to a whistleblower”. Lewandowsky says many scientists have taken on a more journalistic role in recent years as the mainstream media’s investigative journalism departments have shrunk.
“By and large owing to cutbacks and the funding crisis there just isn’t investigative journalism and in many ways scientists are now doing that,” he said. “Some people will agree that Peter went too far, others will say ‘who cares?’ I don’t have a firm opinion either way. Certainly when it comes to the Pentagon papers, most people will view Ellsberg as a hero rather than a villain.”
Lewandowsky says the impact on the broader climate science community remains unclear. But he expects it will intensify the “war” between climate scientists and various ideologues and think tanks.
Rumours abounded before his confession that Gleick may have been the Heartland leaker. He’d been notably absent from his Twitter account and his Huffington Post blog. Jim Lakely, the communications director at Heartland, tweeted accusations about Gleick on Sunday:
“I emailed invite to @PeterGleick to Heartland climate debate. He indignantly refused. Why? Disclose ur donors, he said. Hmm. #fakegate”
“1st debate invite to @petergleick from me 1/13. Last “no,” disclose donors email 1/28. Email fraud to Heartland began 2/3. Hmm. #fakegate”
Crikey asked Lakely if he knew before Gleick’s confession whether he had been the leaker and whether Heartland had put any pressure on him to come forward. He replied: “Interesting questions … But you’ve seen our statement. Go with that. And may I suggest it’s time for Peter Gleick to answer some questions. Have you reached out to him? Can I expect some exclusive interview at your site in the near future? I’m sure he agrees with the ideological bent of your site, so he can trust you to be fair, right?”
Gleick has been contacted by Crikey but is yet to respond.
Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.
Flickr to unveil spiffy makeover | Epic hopes for a devalued euro | Rudd rumblings: no Left turn yet, with Vic MPs still wavering

The Climategate documents showed us the level of professional misconduct and abuse the (C)AGW-pushing “scientists” were willing to resort to in the “noble cause” of getting the message out (and unscientifically defending their work and careers).
Hansen has shown his willingness to arrange to be arrested to protest fossil fuels, mainly coal.
Gleick has now shown the willingness to compromise professed ethics to the level of obvious criminal acts. And been declared a martyr to the cause for it.
And of course there’s the shenanigans of the assorted Green groups, drunk on funding and willing to do just about anything to keep the party going, whipping up the warming hysteria whenever possible. Who have their assorted splinter groups which are willingly doing illegal acts, who are disavowed for legal reasons while the Green groups publicly celebrate their mission and devotion while mouthing criticism of their methods.
So how much longer until the most fervent of the deluded brainwashed devotees notice the loss of public and government support, that it’s not coming back, and decide they’re just taking a cue from the Climate Elders by engaging in aggressive pro-Gaia anti-fossil fuel eco-terrorism? And let’s be honest, adding the “eco-” won’t mitigate the truth of what gets done.
In other words, how soon until the bodies start piling up, and Gleick and associates arguably have that blood on their hands?

532. Rogelio says:

heres another guy who should go
“I have enormous respect for Peter. He’s been a very thoughtful and cautious and considered guy,” said Donald Kennedy, the former president of Stanford University and editor of the journal Science from 2000 to 2008″. Quoted from Mercury news. So now we know what junk many of these “Scientific” journals have become. The whole scientific community in this area needs a massive overhaul

533. observa says:

Wiglaf says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:21 am
Observa, climategate included much, if not all, information that should have been available through an FOI request. Can the same be said for the material Gleick disseminated?
Gleick is finished as a spruiker for Big Climate and to the extent that his palreviewers defend him and his actions they’ll end up stinking too. While I generally accept the view that private individuals and enterprise should have privacy protection under Law, I’m with crapstats, that institutes and think tanks, etc like HI have to be more open to public scrutiny in the same way that we expect the taxeaters in the Met or CRUs to be. In that arena we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and just like political donations, the notion of money talking is a valid concern for all. HI can easily handle that given the obvious disparity in resourcing and to the extent Big Climate want to highlight that, good on them.(that was Gleick’s stupidity in the first place) Hence my reluctance to play semantics with whistleblowing, honourable leaking or the dissemination of info that comes someone’s way by shady means. Certainly checking its veracity before dissemination is a no brainer and deliberately forging or faking same should have strong repercussions. For Gleick that has and I’d leave him to his mirror.
In the final analysis bodies like the HI are interested in the scientific facts of CAGW and nothing else. Leave the skullduggery and the defense of it to Big Climate. Now HI could get distracted from that with endless lawyering and lawsuits but the hand of mercy to a disgraced Gleick and taking the high moral ground will expose Big Climate much sooner and far more effectively IMO. Publish and be damned, because the truth will always out in the end.

534. Frank K. says:

Joe Bast:

Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”

OMG! If this is even remotely true, it’s much worse than I thought! Crikey! “Impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute”? WOW!

535. old44 says:

Curious about DESMOGBLOG I wandered through its website and until now I had not realised what a truly evil bunch we are in the in the global warming denial industry. The page that took my fancy however is the list of individuals at http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database who are committed to destroying the planet. Is there a similar list of Warmists available?

536. Ironargonaut says:

“For 25 years, the Pacific Institute has been committed to conducting research that advances environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities.”
Ummm, and if the “research” doesn’t advance your goals? You don’t publish, correct? Because, in your own words your are committed not to science but to political goals.

537. pat says:

Ironargonaut says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Exactly.

538. observa says:

The other poignant point I’d make is every knight’s honour and integrity is now watched over by a global internet from which none can hide from his words and actions being continually tested and matched both now and into the future. You ever talk of your integrity and honour and fail to live up to them and the fall is Global Hell. Welcome to your worst nightmare now Sir Gleick.

539. MangoChutney says:

I’m actually wondering if RC knew these documents were fake, because when the story broke RC had a single line in their post “Free speech and academic freedom”

Update: Some related concerns from deepclimate.org, if these claims can be verified.

Perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree, but it seems RC knew they were fake from the start, but wanted to highlight the story anyway.

540. MangoChutney says:

old44 says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Nice to see we are in good company

541. Martin says:

Rogelio says:
“Deniers time proud to be one AMSU temps falling off a cliff!”
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
Yup, from looking at that graph temps go down, then up, then down…WUWT??

542. RDCII says:

JamesD:
I hope the lawyers make the point that if something is worth stealing, it has value.
Or another approach: they ask Gleick, or any defender put on the stand, how much they would have paid an informant to get their hands on the docs. Could backfire if everyone was prepared to say “no, never, not I”, though.
Lastly, the docs obviously have value if multiple sites rush to publish them, or even just if Gleick publishes them…once removed. Why bother, if they don’t have some value?
But I’m not a lawyer.

543. Bart says:

pat says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:32 pm
“…why does McArdle go to great lengths to analyse it as something Gleick received anonymously?”
I thought it was a very clever way of hanging him by his own rope. She lays it out in a manner such that anyone with half a brain can see that Gliek’s story is pure tosh, but manages to avoid crossing the line which might expose her and her employer to threats of legal harassment.

544. Bart says:

Geoff says:
February 21, 2012 at 7:21 pm
“Do you have a scientific reason for ignoring the conclusion of Prof. Wegman who concluded in a report to Congress that the Mann conclusions were not statistically valid?”
I think you may have mistakenly posted this on the wrong thread, as I cannot find the antecedent.
Anyway, the Climategate e-mails showed that even the UEA crew didn’t believe the hockey stick, and did not want to be associated with it.

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

545. DirkH says:

Martin says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:58 pm
“Yup, from looking at that graph temps go down, then up, then down…WUWT??”
Click on those little checkbox thingies for the last 10 years and you can see that current temps are record low. Use Channel 5, closest to the surface. Ch 04 is broken. HTH.

546. Jason Joice M.D. says:

In the WSJ video interview with Bast, he refers to Gleick as a “rooster”. Someone who goes around crowing about climate doom. When referring to Gleick, I prefer the word “cock”.

547. SteveE says:

JJ says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:07 am
“The second difference is that the Climategate emails were public property to begin with. They were publically funded communications between publically funded workers.”
I find this argument funny, it reminds me of the scene in Father Ted where Tom robs a post office saying “Tis my money father, I just can’t be bothered to fill out the forms”

548. Richard says:

For all those who use a ‘forged but true’ defence.
Take the forged memo. Remove from it all text that can be found elsewhere in the Heartland documents as supplied.
That is what you are defending.

549. John Brookes says:

Can we have another post about Heartland and its activities?

550. Antonia says:

I still feel sorry for him, poor sap.

551. From a legal point of view shouldn’t HI or the investigators get immediate control of his computers and email? I mean surely he ran this crazy shit past one of the team or something? Also when he sent it to the blogs, did he really do it anonymously? Or with a wink and a nod?
I assume this will be a criminal prosecution in which case plod should be looking for accomplices and I would think would be remiss in their duties if they don’t secure this key evidence (which HI’s legal team should get to look at too).

552. Peter Gleick’s official rehabilitation begins…?
http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/heartland.html
February 21, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE STATEMENT
We at the Pacific Institute are aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute. For 25 years, the Pacific Institute has been committed to conducting research that advances environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities.

553. 1DandyTroll says:

old44 says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm
“Is there a similar list of Warmists available?”
Yes, here you go:
[A…D]
[E]
Environmentalists, Extremist.
[F…G]
[H]
Hippies, Crazed.
[I…T]
[S]
Socialists, Extremist.
[T…Z]
There’s probably others too, but I did so compile this list on the fly and since I’m not a lefty I lack the expert experience at compiling lists over people.

554. J.H. says:

DirkH says:
February 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Beesaman says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Just a thought, if this was the Warmist’s Watergate, who was Deep Throat?”
Steven Mosher was the first one to suspect Gleick, based on linguistic idiosyncracies in the forged memo, which Gleick still denies he has written. Pressure mounted until Gleick fessed up to e-mailing stuff from HI to DeSmogBlog.
Now if he hasn’t forged the memo, why was Mosh successful in guessing his identity? Rethorical question.
But, imagine that somebody else snail-mailed the memo to Gleick. The text of the memo mentions Gleick by name: “climate scientists (such as Peter Gleick”)” it goes… WHY would you forward that ANONYMOUSLY when you’re Gleick? Gleick posts on a gazillion media all the time, HuffPo, Forbes, youtube, Twitter.
Wouldn’t you hold that paper you received into the camera in your next Youtube video and say “Look what I got! Confirmation from a whistleblower send to me, affirmative of all my suspicions! I was right!”
Gleick’s current story is implausible.
——————————————————————————————————
Exactly right. He would simply have held up the original “leaked” document and rejoiced…. Gleick has a lot of explaining to do. Especially now that Heartland’s Joe Bast has openly accused him of forging that memo.

555. observa says:

“Right now, Heartland has the higher ground,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell & Giuliani, a Houston law firm that lobbies on behalf of oil refineries, electric utilities and other industries. “If they choose to be overly aggressive and make this guy a martyr, it could come back to haunt them in court, or in the court of public opinion.”
Yup!

556. wws says:

For “Frank”, who seems to think that impersonating a board member in order to gain access to private papers, e-mail addresses, and donor lists:
1) those items clearly fall under the legal definition of “property”. They were reserved for private use, and not available to the public.
2) Gleick has already made a written confession that he used deception, over an electronic communication system, to gain control of this property. (for the discussion of whether a copy is as protected as the original, refer to the subset of law covering IP. Short version: it is.)
3) the action took place across state lines, meaning that Federal Law applies.
Here is the applicable law: you tell me if it’s a “big deal”. Note the phrase “money OR property”. There does not need to be any explicit financial gain in order for this law to apply.
Personally, I think felonies carrying up to a 20 year prison term are kind of a big deal, yes I do.
Wire Fraud:
18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides
:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than \$1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both

557. observa says:
“If they choose to be overly aggressive and make this guy a martyr, it could come back to haunt them in court, or in the court of public opinion.”
Yup!
Or to put it another way. If they chose to please the warmists by just forgiving and forgetting they could miss a great opportunity to show this common criminal and his kind up in court for what they are.
Warmists should stop calling for a draw or appealing to the Christian forgiveness of others which they so patently lack themselves. Understand, its not your choice anymore.

558. observa says:

As we bid a fond farewell to another carbon black knight-

We can say honourably of Sir Gleick that he loved not wisely or scientifically but too swell.

559. Richard says:

“Right now, Heartland has the higher ground,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell & Giuliani
Rarely do those who provide falsehood have a higher standing than those who provide the truth.
Remove from the memo only the true parts, leaving the falsehood and misunderstandings, then discuss what you are left with.

560. Former Forecaster says:

Today is February 22, and Al Gore what does Al Gore have on his blog? He’s still running the story of leaked documents proving a conspiracy by Heartland Institute. Somehow, the confession of fraud has missed his attention.

561. NK says:

Update #24. The HI Board accuses– in a public video with the nation’s highest circulation weekday newspaper– of ID theft AND WIRE FRAUD. Accusing Gleick of fabricating the 3rd document AFTER stealing the 2 HI Board documents and then deliverng the forgery to the media for publication is WIRE FRAUD — IF TRUE. Wow. HI accuses Gleick of something worse than I even imagined. He fabricated the “hot document”. Of course the leftwing prosecutors in California and the US Justice Department under Eric Holder will never prosecute, but IF true, the lawsuit HI brings will cause the the Pacific Institute will cease to exist and the sap journalists and media outlets who published Gleick’s fraud will probably have to stipulate to carefully vet all future CAGW stories. Wow.

562. elftone says:

Former Forecaster says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:35 am
Today is February 22, and Al Gore what does Al Gore have on his blog? He’s still running the story of leaked documents proving a conspiracy by Heartland Institute. Somehow, the confession of fraud has missed his attention.

It’s merely inconvenient…

563. NK says:

WWS/Duncan– Bast flat out accuses Gleik of ID theft and Wire Fraud. Both are state and federal crimes. IF TRUE– forget about any criminal investigation, the left-wing prosecutors in California and Eric Holder’s Justice dept. will never look at this. In a civil suit? BUT if TRUE, Pacific Institute will cease to exist, and the reporters an media outlets who published Gleick’s fraud will pay heavy damages and agree to vet future warming stories carefully.

564. Robin Hewitt says:

Black has responded at the BBC. Basically, Gleik went wrong, so what, look at the horror within Heartland.

565. LamontT says:

“observa says:
February 22, 2012 at 5:54 am
“Right now, Heartland has the higher ground,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell & Giuliani, a Houston law firm that lobbies on behalf of oil refineries, electric utilities and other industries. “If they choose to be overly aggressive and make this guy a martyr, it could come back to haunt them in court, or in the court of public opinion.”
Yup!”
===============================================
Keep in mind that big oil long ago threw it’s support to CAGW. They determined that they could mine the global warming movement for more money from the government. Despite the claims by the activists it is the activists that get support from big oil. So I would take any advice from them with a barrel of salt.

566. Jimbo says:

Could this have been the trigger for the release?

James Taylor – Heartland Institute
Please, Global Warming Alarmists, Stop Denying Climate Change – And Science
“Reading Peter Gleick’s January 5 blog post here at Forbes.com, I experienced that empathy in full force. Gleick’s global warming beliefs are misguided and unsupported by sound science, but I nevertheless empathize with his pain and frustration that few people seem to agree with him. A person of thinner skin than me might be offended by Gleick’s frustration-induced rant, but I believe the best remedy is truth and understanding. Accordingly, I understand Gleick’s pain and I will present some truths that might ease Gleick’s anguish if he listens to them with an open heart and mind.”

567. Nothing happened folks!, we´ll meet at Rio de Janeiro´s EARTH SUMMIT, next June. Just don´t repeat that thing of “global warming”, say it´s SUSTAINABILITY what we are after.
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/
(BTW, there will be also many friendly “Garotas” there,to make your stay there happier. Again: Just don´t worry, everything is fine: Business as usual.)

568. mpaul says:

Setting the civil case aside for the moment, there is still the matter of the criminal case. I can’t imagine that a DA would fail to peruse something like this. Gleick has made a public confession to a high profile federal crime. Even if HI doesn’t file a complaint, the DA has a duty to act. At some point, one would expect that Gleick will be arrested, booked and arraigned. When this happens, it will trigger a whole new media storm. Clearly, if Gleick were a business executive (like Martha Stuart) they would be perp-walking him back and forth in front of cameras by now. But lets see if politics plays a part here — in the US, the United States Attorney (the DA) is an appointed position — and we’re talking about Berkley here.

569. NK – I agree with your assessment. Since Gleick has already made a written confession, it looks like an open and shut case.
The forgery of the subsequent document is significant because it will go to prove intent and actual malice. But the Crime is the using of a false ID to obtain the documents from Heartland.

570. Neo says:

Consider the idea that Gleick was setup by “HeartLand Insider.”
Somebody modified one HeartLand document with obvious BS, generated it with a time stamp in the future to show it was fake, and sent this one document to him. After reading it, Gleick was too pumped up on his own adrenaline to see the tree for the forest. He then proceeds to assifiy himself by asking for a retransmission, only to receive different valid HeartLand documents. This takes enough time that the time stamp on the first document catches up, so it looks like he modified the first document.
This doesn’t absolve Gleick of his acquisition through deception, but it explains why he says he didn’t modify any documents. It does show that Gleick is an idiot.

571. NK says:

mpaul– repeating myself here, but forget about any criminal case. The State of California and the Federal Gov’t (under the current Administration) are massive subsidizers of “alternative energy” BS; the last thing they’ll do is a criiminal investigation of Global warming BS. They will never even open a file.

572. The national Post has a couple of stories.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-heartland-institute/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/22/lorne-gunter-the-climate-scandal-that-wasnt/
The biggest trouble for DeSmog and the other outlets that instantly ran with this stunning revelation is that the confidential memo is almost certainly a forgery. Another problem is that the remaining Heartland documents (which are likely real, but largely unremarkable) were obtained fraudulently and did not come from a Heartland “insider,” as DeSmog claimed, but rather from a prominent global-warming alarmist and activist, Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, and a long-time foe of Heartland.

…and that sums it up…

573. mpaul says:

NK says:
February 22, 2012 at 8:28 am
… The State of California and the Federal Gov’t (under the current Administration) are massive subsidizers of “alternative energy” BS; the last thing they’ll do is a criiminal investigation of Global warming BS. They will never even open a file.

NK, I worry that you are right. We live in a world where simply being a climate scientists affords one blanket immunity because of political cronyism.

574. NK says:

mpaul– that’s a little too pessimistic.Many state’s Atty gens would investigate Gleick’s crimes (Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Louisiana) if they occured in those states, and next year a new US Atty Gen may investigate. But for now– Climate Crimes in California are a free pass.

575. NK says:

Neo– that scenario of Gleick being an idiot but not forging the 3rd memo is far fetched and is completely contrary to Bast’s allegations to the WSJ. Discovery process in the lawsuit will tell the tale.

576. AGU knew exactly who Peter Gleik was when they appointed him to the ethics post. He also is the poster boy for radical global warmism.
1. He refuses to debate the science behind AGW
2. He vilifies anyone who disagrees with the AGW dogma
3. When the theory cannot be supported by empirical data he makes it up

577. wws says:

neo – that scenario breaks down under any close scrutiny. If the original document was from someone inside Heartland, why it would make some very basic mistakes about Heartland’s functioning, mistakes that have nothing to do with the message being conveyed?
But what’s worse, what kind of evil super-villain would you need to think “aha! I will send this man a forgery, and he won’t share it with his colleagues and use it to embarrass me! No, he will keep it completely secret and instead throw away a lifetime’s reputation by committing wire fraud, which I can then expose!”
Because that’s what the plan would have had to been. Are you seriously saying that any sane person would even consider that as a viable plan of action?
btw, Joe Bast is going way out on a limb, legally, by publicly accusing Gleick of forgery, but I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Since this part has not been proved and Gleick hasn’t confessed to this, what Bast is doing is a cause of action for a libel suit by Gleick.
BUT…. If Gleick sued Bast for libel, Bast would be entitled to discovery of any documents Gleick holds pertaining to this matter, through subpoena if necessary. Gleick doesn’t dare take that risk, so Bast can say any nasty thing he wants now and Gleick, on advice of counsel of course, just has to shut up and take it.
And Bast knows this, which is why he’s doing it.

578. Jeremy says:

There is another very important story here which everyone has missed.
Peter claims to have sent the documents to “15 friends” anonymously.
Who are these “15 friends” and why have none of them come forward and also apologized?
Basically we have 15 pro-CAGW accomplices out there who are remaining silent. Surely some of them ignored the message and will be proud to announce that they did NOT play a part in disseminating false information (a forgery). Surely some of these “15 friends”, who played a role in disseminating the false information (a forgery), will be ethical enough to apologize??
The is NOT about the ethics of ONE LOAN CAGW ACTIVIST. In the absence of any other apologies, the bigger story is that there is an entire CABAL of “15 friends” who are all unethical activists!
IMHO, these “15 friends” are pretty nervous right now and if they have any integrity or intelligence then they should make their apologies PDQ – before the info leaks out or Gleick decides to rat on them to show that he was aided and abetted and to shoulder the blame!

579. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

The AGW crowd nears a Jonestown moment.
If offered a bit more kool-aid, I say many will not drink much now with any of the cult leaders at the top.
Gleick took the cup and bottoms up.
Should be lesson learned.

580. Steve from Rockwood says:

Neo says:
February 22, 2012 at 8:28 am

Consider the idea that Gleick was setup by “HeartLand Insider.”
Somebody modified one HeartLand document with obvious BS, generated it with a time stamp in the future to show it was fake, and sent this one document to him. After reading it, Gleick was too pumped up on his own adrenaline to see the tree for the forest. He then proceeds to assifiy himself by asking for a retransmission, only to receive different valid HeartLand documents. This takes enough time that the time stamp on the first document catches up, so it looks like he modified the first document.
This doesn’t absolve Gleick of his acquisition through deception, but it explains why he says he didn’t modify any documents. It does show that Gleick is an idiot.

Another equally plausible scenario is that Gleick knew who forged the one document and that he felt he needed it to make Heartland look worse (i.e. a conspiracy) than just the stolen documents would (i.e. the money behind anti global warming science). After all just sending out confidential information on who is funding and how much doesn’t amount to the same conspiracy that trying to force teachers to lie does. When just one document does not smell like the others and the originator of the stolen documents does not know who created the fake document, thereby creating a dead end to the trail – well, it’s all a little too convenient to me.

581. NK says:

WWS– either Bast has sorted out the document trail and knows that Gleick created the document, or as you suggest, he feels free to say whatever he likes because if Gleick sues for libel– HI can demand answers from Gleick on just about anything. So as far as HI is concerned, Gleick is a human pinata– and rightly so.

582. Chris B says:

Email sent. Awaiting response.
Dear Ms. Nancy Moss,
In light of recent events involving Dr. Peter Gleick, the President of the Pacific Institute, I think it would be appropriate for you to direct me to where I can find out information regarding the details of funding and expenditures for you organization. I assume that all this information is fully available to the public.
I have to admit I don’t know much about your organization but given the sort of accusations made by associates of Dr. Gleick’s towards Dr Gleick’s target, The Heartland Institue I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose the requested information, including anonymous donors, if any. This would go a long way to showing how very much different your organization is from the likes of the Heartland Institute.
Thank you.
Chris B

583. Neo, would be far more likely that Gleick invented a time machine, went forward in time to meet the future Gleick etc….

584. DirkH says:

The fun thing is: Black, Romm, Grauniad etc. etc. deliberately stay silent about the high likelihood that Gleick was the forger. Everyone of them brings Gleick fairytale. Megan McArdle has already mentioned Mosher’s analysis… it will build up from there. Need I say Fox and WSJ? The liberal media will once again look biased and dimwitted.

585. Joe says:

This is getting ridiculous. That Time article doesn’t even have it’s facts straight.
The article says that the 6 documents from Heartland were sent from an anonymous source to 15 people. BZZZZZT! Wrong. Gleick purloined those 6 documents and sent them to 15 people. The fact that Time knows Gleick is at the heart of this shows that those documents didn’t comes from anyone anonymous (unless you count the unnamed Heartland secretary) and they didn’t go to 15 people.
The “anonymous” email was the fake Heartland document that everyone knows Gleick wrote himself.
The journalistic world needs a really good scrubbing.

586. ZT says:

John Hinderaker: ‘So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.’
People are calling Gleick a liar to his face.
(Just reporting what is happening!)

587. Aelric says:

“You don’t need to see his identification.
These aren’t the papers you’re looking for.
{paraphrase}

588. JJ says:

SteveE says:
I find this argument funny, it reminds me of the scene in Father Ted where Tom robs a post office saying “Tis my money father, I just can’t be bothered to fill out the forms”

Your analogy, while certainly amusing, is inapplicable. There is a difference between taking money and copying information. The difference is recognized in law with the distinction between theft of real property vs violation of intellectual property (i.e. copyrights). In this case, the property rights to the Heartland documents are held by Heartland. The property rights to emails of public servants working on public computers on the public dime are held by the public.
Also, it is a bit odd to speak of “can’t be bothered to fill out the forms” wrt the Climategate emails, when one of the the fundamental transgressions the Climategate emails exposed was the illegal evasion of formal requests for information – requests from people who had, in fact, filled out the forms.

589. Chris B says:

Sent to P. Institute. Awaiting response.
Dear Ms. Nancy Moss,
In light of recent events involving Dr. Peter Gleick, the President of the Pacific Institute, I think it would be appropriate for you to direct me to where I can find out information regarding the details of funding and expenditures for you organization. I assume that all this information is fully available to the public.
I have to admit I don’t know much about your organization but given the sort of accusations made by associates of Dr. Gleick’s towards Dr Gleick’s target, The Heartland Institue I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose the requested information, including anonymous donors, if any. This would go a long way to showing how very much different your organization is from the likes of the Heartland Institute.
Thank you.
Chris B

590. John West says:

The Time article states:
“his actions have hurt not just his own professional reputation but the cause of climate science as well.”
This reveals the root of the problem. What is the cause of climate science? Is it to observe, experiment, develop hypotheses and theories that explain the phenomena; or is it to convince the world to stop burning fossil fuels?

591. Chris B says:

Sent to the P. Inst. Awaiting response.
Dear Ms. Nancy Moss,
In light of recent events involving Dr. Peter Gleick, the President of the Pacific Institute, I think it would be appropriate for you to direct me to where I can find out information regarding the details of funding and expenditures for you organization. I assume that all this information is fully available to the public.
I have to admit I don’t know much about your organization but given the sort of accusations made by associates of Dr. Gleick’s towards Dr Gleick’s target, The Heartland Institue I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose the requested information, including anonymous donors, if any. This would go a long way to showing how very much different your organization is from the likes of the Heartland Institute.
Thank you.
Chris B

592. Alan Watt says:

I can’t get the Heartland Institute video to play, but based on the accompanying text it appears they are directly naming Gleick as the author of the faked memo. If they have made that charge against him by name, things have gotten much more serious. Public accusation of specific criminal acts by named individual(s) is grounds for a libel/slander suit if you can’t back it up.
Such an accusation moves this issue past any possible “I was blinded by excessive zeal in a noble cause” kind of defense. If true, it establishes actual and deliberate malice. The legal peril for acts with deliberate malice is substantially greater than for those merely reckless.
I hope if they are making this charge that Heartland is acting based on good legal advice and more importantly, solid forensic evidence.

593. John Whitman says:

Anthony,
As shown by Gleick’s action and the supporting of it by his fellow activists, there is an insignificant threshold between their cause’s righteousness and its willingness to condone illegal/unethical behavior in support of it. We saw this with UEA/CRU (Jones and all) wrt FOIA. We see this with Mann/UVa wrt FOIA and the investigation into misuse of grant funds. We saw this from CG1 & CG2 docs showing prominent climate scientists purposely subverting the IPCC process for their activist purposes. We see Hansen’s leading by example in protest illegalities. Etc.
In that context, the immediate and eager use of a ‘scorched earth’ approach by IPCC-centric-CAGWists in their confrontation with independent thinkers (aka skeptics) is important to understand.
It is not war. It is misleading to cast the climate science dispute in terms of military analogy/terminology. Instead, I suggest it is more productive to say there is a conflict of the most fundamental premises and consequent intellectual approaches which gives many climate scientists deeply conflicting concepts of the scientific process, professional integrity and objectivity.
As the climate science dispute evolves, if (as is currently happening) there is a progressive significant erosion of the CAGWist credibility in our culture, then our culture must be prepared to handle a ‘scorched earth’ response from them.
Preparation by discussion is sufficient. Open venues like this are necessary vehicles.
John

594. I bet you a pound to a penny that my beloved Mr Richard Black was one of the 15.

595. Martin says:

DirkH says:
“Click on those little checkbox thingies for the last 10 years and you can see that current temps are record low. Use Channel 5, closest to the surface. Ch 04 is broken. HTH.”
Yeah, and last week temps were up and smack bang in the middle of the range – and next week they will be up again. Up, down, up ,down…

596. However Europeans still insisting on making airlines to comply with their silly green measures to limit “carbon emissions”. They are increasingly becoming not more “green” but “gray”, the color of death, the color of a dying economy.
I would suggest Russia to cut its “fossil gas” supply to Europe so as to make them realize what would they feel being totally GREEN 🙂

597. wte9 says:

I am tired of reading that Gleick “failed to live up to” his own high standards, something asserted in the Time article. Failing to live up to a standard is when you don’t do due diligence before publishing a claim (ahem, DeSmog), or maybe when you look the other way when you could have prevented some sort of wrongdoing. What Gleick did was to shatter these ethics in the most blatant and forward way possible.
Further, failing to live up to a standard requires that the person at issue adhered to that standard in the first place. That raises an issue far more important than the inept fakery exposed in the last few days: What if Peter Gleick, and other alarmists, are just as dishonest as this current scandal makes them look? What if the devotion to ethics is just a convenient cover? That’s not to suggest there is a coordinated conspiracy afoot; the alarmists probably believe they are largely ethical creatures, and also that they are defending true science from braying Neanderthals—but their willingness to fudge data, manipulate statistics, leave mistakes uncorrected, and apparently commit fraud to advance their point of view is awfully suggestive of a worldview where ethics are a convenience, not a core conviction.
I am now even more interested in what those unreleased ClimateGate files have to say. Whoever has them, if there is something indicating outright fraud, releasing them as GleickGate unfolds could be a devastating one-two punch..

598. Rick Hunter says:

[snip. Non-stop insults. ~dbs, mod.]

599. Alan Watt says:

Chris B says:
February 22, 2012 at 11:13 am

Sent to the P. Inst. Awaiting response.

600. LamontT says:

Yes TRRB I do expect he was one of the 15 and boy is he getting ripped in comments on his Guardian post this morning.

601. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

The BBC Pension Fund is tied to future Carbon Trading. They have an investment i promoting global warming and carbon credit/emission trading.

602. yawn says:

@JEM
“yawn – Gleick’s proven just how trustworthy his public statements are. Let’s have some evidence.”
Gleick came out as the guy who got his hands on the documents.
[SNIP: Quit trying to divert the thread. -REP]

603. Roy says:

Richard Black may have written a tepid article that dodges the real issues while managing to rehearse his criticisms of the GWPF and Heartland, but the commenters aren’t having any of it. He’s being mauled. I wonder how many emails/tweets he got inviting him to comment versus the number of angry responses he’s now received? If his motion were put to a vote I reckon he’d lose by a margin so huge you’d be able to see it from space.

604. Dr. Gleick, almost everything you need to know about life can be learned from Star Trek:
It’s not called the First Duty for nothing.

605. At 21:00 on 22 February comments on Black’s blog were suspended. I wonder why?

606. Andrew says:

Peter Gleick
Why would the Wall Street Journal turn down a piece on climate science from 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, and then accept a scientifically flawed piece from 16 climate skeptics/contrarians?
🙂
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal – Forbes
http://www.forbes.com
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading argument…
I pity the person who checked the box…”Notify me of follow-up comments via email” at the start of this thread…ROFL

607. Chu says:

I feel very sorry for Peter Gleick, I think he’d only have risked this if he was an honest believer. William Connolley did say he’s a water guy not a climate scientist, I don’t believe any of the major players in all this would be so foolish as to believe their own press releases.
As such he’s just another victim, even if he seems to have done rather well out of global warming scare business up to now. Maybe the HI could ask for the law to go easy on him, providing he agrees to a few tv debates on the subject or something. The important thing is that more and more of the public is catching on that something just isn’t right with climate coverage in the mainstream press.
I won’t enjoy watching him be turned into a martyr they will only use for their own ends, it’s not making what happened any better.

608. One commentator on Black’s blog asked him outright if he was one of those original 15 who received Gleick’s ‘breaking’ e-mail.
There was no response up until comments were cut off.
Methinks that Auntie Beeb was reacting to legal advice, the Beeb was starting to enter deep and murky waters wherein nasty, biting things lay in wait!

609. Something I have said many times on the subject of fossil fuels and human progress (to go along with that thread of discussion) is that our society is going to have to take a few more steps backwards before we can go forward.
We as a species have done that a lot in the past. Look at the “dark ages” as they are called and other times in history where progress either stalls or goes backwards due to civilizations dying out or becoming stagnant. It happens a lot more then you think through either idealogy, or through plagues or whatever. Our society obviously under the guise of AGW is embracing old technology and worse technology to meet our needs under ideological reasons such as solar, wind and other so-called sustainable power sources. Those terms like any others are just used to mis-lead like the terms environmentalism, global warming and others to gather the fools, do-gooders and other people who can be spared from their money to gather power for the activists.
In other words, we are stuck with inferior and antique forms of power that had their hayday in the past or are inferior for modern society. So in order to progress as a society, we will be forced to take another step backwards and go back to fossil fuels. Kind of sad to shut down all of these coal power plants like the US is planning on doing for NG over the next 30 years, and then of course probably attempt to shut those down only to re-open them again in the future, kind of a tug-of-war where reality in 50 years will see all of these re-open eventually when coal turns out to be much cheaper and society finally advances to thorium nuclear and beyond in another 50 years and then we progress.
As I said, we will have to take those steps backwards just to go forward. And its the fault of these eco-nuts and zealots such as Peter Gleick et al. They do as much dis-service to this planet as anyone else because history shows that the one thing that forces humanity to advance is not Government or forcing people to do something but human ingenuity and advancement through necessity.
We will out-grow fossil fuels and oil. And also fission power. This is inevitable and all the scary stories and doomsday scenarios especially in relation to global warming just prolong our societies usage in the end of said commodities because economic power is what advances society throughout history and nothing else. These scary stories and doomsday things just advance the carears of activists and rent seekers who just hang on and leech off of society along with those super-rich who make a lot of money as well off of the gullible on easy and sure things as tax-payer subsidies. Who can blame them when they are guarenteed money?
As the grinding of AGW marches on, Big money is at stake and people will not give it up easilly when hundreds of billions are at stake in the energy industry and in big green and scientific carears are vested into it. Nothing will stop it short of society actually forcefully stopping it ourselves at this stage.
It might change its title to “man caused global cooling” or something depending on what happens in the next 10 years, but that much money is too much gravy to simply walk away from. Would you walk away from a slice of 100’s of billions?
Then you have the zealots and true believers….as this entire Peter Gleick episode shows, very few warmists will condemn him and read what happened without making him out to be better then what he was. Some have condemned him, but they are the few and the minority in this entire thing…and I do give them props for sticking up and doing the right thing.
But the vast majority either defend him somewhat and condemn his action slightly (slap on the wrist) while at the same time insulting sceptics and talking about him as if he was a hero. This is the problem with zealots of any stripe. This entire episode shows how much work we all have to do to expose the movement.
With such large sums of money in comparison to say the HI, the big green machines are walking nightmares. They won’t give up without a fight and they can hire huge PR firms to put out nice soft messages to the press. They can also hire the best lawyers as is the case with people such as Peter Gleick or others who just want to sue sceptics for the sheer joy of doing so.
So yes, we might know their true colors, but we have a long way to go before we can take the needed step backwards as a society and can go forwards.

610. clipe says:

If only Charles Dickens were alive today.
“He had a certain air of being a handsome man–which he was not; and a certain air of being a well-bred man–which he was not. It was mere swagger and challenge; but in this particular, as in many others, blustering assertion goes for proof, half over the world.”
From Little Dorrit

611. Joe Morris says:

Some of the media coverage of this entire affair has been rather biased and often inaccurate. Bryan Walsh at Time seems to be providing one example here:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm
Walsh writes that “Rich Santorum earlier this month called climate science ‘an absolute travesty of scientific research.'”
As far as I have been able to determine, that isn’t true. What Santorum actually said at the Colorado Energy Summit on Feb 7 was this:
“The most important thing we need to do, which is what this administration has not done, which is to use sound science, not politicized science. We have seen the politicization of science like we have never seen before, in the recent years. We saw it with global warming, an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by politics, motivated by those, in my opinion, who saw this as an opportunity to, uh, to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and, even greatly and more, control your life.
I can tell you I for one never bought the hoax. I for one understood, just from science, that there are a hundred factors that influence the climate. And to suggest one minor factor, of which man’s contribution is a minor factor in the minor factor, is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affect the entire global warming and cooling, is just absurd on its face. And yet, we had politicians running to the ramparts.”
If you Google “an absolute travesty of scientific research” you get a lot of hits, many claiming (incorrectly) that Santorum said this about ‘climate change’. But as far as I can tell, the suggestion that Santorum was speaking about ‘climate science’ is Bryan Walsh’s own contribution to our understanding of this issue.

612. oglidewell says:

Does this mean we can refer to Richard Black’s bias (contravening the BBC’s charter on impartiality) as “Lame-gate”?

613. 1DandyTroll says:

Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“The BBC Pension Fund is tied to future Carbon Trading. They have an investment i promoting global warming and carbon credit/emission trading.”
Not only the BBS pension fund, but if you look at the ever so “green” fraudster, err organization, that is in charge you’ll note that a scary amount of EU countries’s government controlled pension funds fund them. For instance Swedish AP1, 2, 3 and 4 are heavily invested as well as the partially government bank Nordea. The Swedish governemt owns the largest, 100% state owned, energy monopoly in EU called Vattenfall who incidentaly has invested big time in green energy called wind power in UK for British tax payers subsidies. And would you be surprised to know that all those pension funds are funding the very fund who invest unseemingly in wind power in UK. So if it all falls…all the other pension funds from all the other countries, except Sweden and possibly Germany and France, will fall more so because they’re not tied into the “infinite” brittish tax payer loop of green subsidies, not even BBC has those ties. So people borne in the 40’s and earlier ought to know why their pensions are suffering during every weather and economical cold streak these days.

614. Jake says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm
——————–
I don’t know if Megan McArdle got the following questions from someone here or not, but they are good ones. She really does not believe Gleick’s story at all:
“How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?
How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted? Did he just get lucky?
If Gleick obtained the other documents for the purposes of corroborating the memo, why didn’t he notice that there were substantial errors, such as saying the Kochs had donated \$200,000 in 2011, when in fact that was Heartland’s target for their donation for 2012? This seems like a very strange error for a senior Heartland staffer to make. Didn’t it strike Gleick as suspicious? Didn’t any of the other math errors?”

615. What’s with the large type, bold, not necessary, and I’m a fan as you can see by my comments on the Time article and elsewhere on Disqus.

616. yawn says:

[snip. D-word insult again. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

617. I too am sure that Richard Black was one of the fifteen.
I made a complaint to the BBC about his original blog on this subject, with one of my complaints that he published the article without checking the authenticity of the material. I was surprised to receive a quick personal email from Black to the effect that he had been able to satisfy himself about the provenance of the documents before publishing his blog.

618. EO Peter says:

Just finished reading black’s article at BBC. Was thinking the guy was one of the best exemple of a usefull idiot that ever existed, however I begin to think there is a serious psychological condition behind this! Truly how can the guy be so “creative” at presenting facts in a way to tell the exact oposite of their evident true face meaning? I know this is marketing “science” but to push it to such extent. Is he aware of the immense ridicule he put on himself & BBC corp. Maybe he is the designated “emergency” straw man/fall guy?
Is it my fertile imagination or it is true to say that Harabine is on the contrary very quiet & trying to be forgotten since some time now?
Also, Antony I wish you make a good exemple of gleck… Sue the cr*p of of this clown! It is a rare event one of these ethic’s “guiding light” get caught the hand in the cookie jar like this!
On the financing “things”, my personnal opinion is that I’m no longer naive enough to think everything is done w/o vested financial interest, don’t get me wrong, not that I say it is impossible your doing all this collosal work just to do thing right out of your personal pocket money, after all I do not know you personally. What I mean is there is no problem if ever there would be “interested backer” as long you do what you believe truly to be the just thing & I believe this is what you do!

619. Jere Krischel says:

Got my email from AGU:

Dear Jere:
AGU issued a statement on 21 February (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-11.shtml) regarding this matter. Thank you for your message and for your interest in AGU.
Regards,
Ann Cairns
————————————
From: Jere Krischel
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:27 AM
To: Task Force On Scientific Ethics
Subject: Peter Gleick’s fraud and forgery against the Heartland Institute
Will Mr. Gleick be ejected from his position as ethics chair, given his obvious problems behaving in an ethical manner? Or will you decid to define forgery and fraud as ethical behavior?

Anyone else get the form letter?

620. Kaboom says:

The only interesting thing I took away from Black’s delayed reaction is the fact that Lord Lawson won’t have to disclose his seed donor for the GWPF which is obviously good news as it protects whoever it was from harassment.

621. Kaboom says:

Quite interesting, I just searched for a previous comment I made and it came up with one that is under my moniker but wasn’t posted by me. Maybe one of the mods could verify the associated email address?
[Reply: I’ve emailed the other Kaboom to try and fix the problem. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, just a coincidental use of an interesting screen name. ~dbs, mod.]

622. clipe says:

“All other swindlers upon earth are nothing to the self-swindlers, and with such pretences did I cheat myself. Surely a curious thing. That I should innocently take a bad half-crown of somebody else’s manufacture is reasonable enough; but that I should knowingly reckon the spurious coin of my own make as good money! An obliging stranger, under pretence of compactly folding up my bank-notes for security’s sake, abstracts the notes and gives me nutshells; but what is his sleight of hand to mine, when I fold up my own nutshells and pass them on myself as notes!”
Charles Dickens, Great Expectations, Chapter 28
http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/self-deception-and-other-deception/

623. > If Gleick obtained the other documents for the purposes of corroborating the memo, why didn’t he notice that there were substantial errors,
Well he wouldn’t spot any errors if it was him who made the errors in the first place.
Any other explanation?

624. yawn says:

Why is one not allowed to mention the Heartland Institute’s position on second hand smoking (claiming it isn’t dangerous)?

625. Andrew says:

fyi http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/heartland.html
“February 22, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and documents pertaining to the Heartland Institute. Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events. As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings. In the meantime we maintain our commitment to the smooth operations, governance, and mission of the Pacific Institute.
February 21, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE STATEMENT
We at the Pacific Institute are aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute. For 25 years, the Pacific Institute has been committed to conducting research that advances environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities.”
They seem to have change their tune…
What is the song played to signal ‘RETREAT’ on the battlefield? It sounds like that!

626. Richard Sharpe says:

yawn says on February 22, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Why is one not allowed to mention the Heartland Institute’s position on second hand smoking (claiming it isn’t dangerous)?
Well, it seems that you are allowed to.
However, as a life-long non-smoker, I must say that I too do not think that second-hand smoke is dangerous.

627. Smokey says:

@yawn:
There have been no credible studies regarding second hand smoke. None. It is the same problem as with AGW: there are no testable, reproducible experiments, and there is no empirical, testable evidence, showing that human emitted CO2 raises global temperatures [it might, but at this point it is still only a conjecture].

• Anthony Watts says:

OK that’s the end of fake commenter “yawn” and his trolling on second hand smoke – the topic (as is “yawn”) is irrelevant. – Anthony

628. u.k.(us) says:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Special Edition
=================
http://heartland.org/press-releases/statement-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-regarding-wall-street-journal-onl
“In a February 21 interview with the Wall Street Journal Online, I mistakenly stated The Heartland Institute has concluded Peter Gleick forged the climate strategy memo he released to DeSmog Blog, Think Progress, and other bloggers and Web sites. That is not the case. The document indeed is fake, as Heartland has previously stated. While many others have suggested Mr. Gleick is the likely author of that memo, Heartland’s investigation into the matter continues. We should have more information shortly. I regret the error.”
=============
Are we learning yet ?

629. AnonyMoose says:

It’s a shame to see someone who expresses these opinions called a “climate expert”. I’ll stick to “water expert” — although not “water vapor expert”.

630. @Andrew: I wonder if there is an Epson scanner or scanner/printer at the Pacific Institute?
Gleick normally works at the Pacific institute, and the scan was apparently done on Monday Feb 13th, and the “Heartland Insider” email on Tuesday Feb 14th, both during periods when most people are at work (of course I don’t know Gleick was working there at those times).

631. Affronted says:

Richard Black reports on BBC:”what’s wrong with the Heartland Institute preparing curriculum material for use in schools, you’ve asked. “Green groups do it all the time,” is the allegation. I don’t know how things are in the US; but in the UK, I’m told, that certainly isn’t the case.”
So Richard claims to be blissfully unaware of the education program run by green activist group UK-based 1010.org? The 1010.org group put out the now infamous youtube video showing a school teacher exploding skeptical kids.
Note that if you search “people” in the 1010.org website you find a “Richard Black” is listed as a member in the UK. Obviously just a coincidence – think not!

632. Scottish Sceptic says:

It widens: NCSE Programs and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau caught lying about involvement with Gleick
I found this on Evolution News
I said yesterday that disgraced climate activist Peter Gleick was scheduled to join the board of our Darwin/climate-enforcing friends, the National Center for Science Education, but then tendered his resignation. I wrote that based on the NCSE’s official statement. But an email correspondent points out that the NCSE’s own website, cached here, previously gave it as a fact that he had already joined the board as of January 13.
It’s odd, then, to find NCSE Programs and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau blogging about the story and characterizing Gleick as “someone with no formal ties to NCSE.” Come again? I would think that serving on the group’s board, as per NCSE’s website, counts as a “formal tie.”

633. Robert of Ottawa says:

I still can’t believe that Gleick could be so dumb. But then ….. look what he “believes in” … no natural climate change.

634. pat says:

who are the 15 Gleick emailed? all the main suspects would be writing headlines that continue to give the impression that ALL Gleick’s “documents” came from HI.
Richard Black’s “take” is so blatantly misleading, BBC needs to remove him from CAGW reporting altogether. one commenter claimed to be a bit of a “sceptic” but if Gleick uncovered “iffy” stuff from HI, then well and good. so much for Black’s clarity! is he one of the 15?
new stuff in here, anthony. are Revkin and Goldenberg among the 15?
22 Feb: NYT DotEarth: Andrew C. Revkin: More on Peter Gleick and the Heartland Files
I’ve known Gleick as a source and acquaintance since I first quoted him in 1988, which made it very hard to write the piece on Monday. I will acknowledge that certain phrases, written in haste, were overstated. Gleick’s reputation and credibility are seriously damaged, not necessarily in ruins or destroyed…
The varied ethical stances on the incident were laid out nicely by Suzanne Golenberg in The Guardian yesterday…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/more-on-peter-gleick-and-the-heartland-files/

635. Dianna says:

Just curious –
“Chris B says:
February 22, 2012 at 11:11 am
Sent to P. Institute. Awaiting response.”
February 22, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and documents pertaining to the Heartland Institute. Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events. As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings. In the meantime we maintain our commitment to the smooth operations, governance, and mission of the Pacific Institute.
I’m presently trying not to choke, because I’m fighting an asthma attack. This is too little and too late – they are probably praying he didn’t write a rough draft of the memo, or ask any of the staff to reach out to other nonprofit workers to get the information to impersonate the Heartland Institute board member.
You have no idea how much this is going to hurt a bunch of non-profit types in the Bay Area.

636. Dianna says:

You wrote:
“Scottish Sceptic says:
February 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm
It widens: NCSE Programs and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau caught lying about involvement with Gleick”
Oh, joy.
Where was that “Double Facepalm” poster from? It’s needed for this. How stupid can they get? It’s not that hard to say, “Yes, he resigned.”

637. Smokey says:
638. Still pretty sure HI boffed it when they went too litigious (going after posters and not offering incentives for honesty).
The Times piece was OK, ’til the end. That seems to be standard treatment of AGW propaganda lately; it appears near the last paragraph. Generally it is blatant as in the Times.

639. Generally it is less blatant as in the times.

640. Chris B says:

From the president of the AGU in his comments regarding Fakegate.
“……..Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.
AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
“excellence and Integrity” could mean their members are the best at consistently getting things wrong. I think what they meant is “competence and honesty”. I’m not sure of Gleick’s competence but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t “embrace” or “share” honesty as a core value.
How can my trust in the AGU be restored when the president states that the climate is changing, in spite of the regrettable transgression of the most ethical member of his club. Maybe if the AGU could just pinpoint when the climate has ever stayed the same I’d start feeling better about them.
I fear for us all if this is the state of scientific organizations today.

641. Alexander K says:

I have just followed the link to Richard Black’s latest BBC ‘article’. I doubt that his credibility, let alone his career, can survive his own rattle-headed attempt at justifying his speedy attack on the Heartland Institute and Black’s own complete lack of action for days over the release of the Climategate emails. His current offering is so replete with straw-man arguments and falsehoods taken from the forged document that one would not dare to wander into his verbiage with a naked flame; That Black’s article includes a link to a blog written by a retired US military officer who sent a nasty email to HI and didn’t like HI’s response, then boasted about it on the internet is quite bizarre. The level of hatred for the Heartland Institute laid out in the email is both scary and unhinged and Black providing the link, implies to me at least, that Black actually supports such warped and vile thinking. Thank Heavens I no longer live in the UK and have to assist with paying Black’s salary.

642. Jake says:

On the comments under Andy Revkin’s latest piece is this comment from Tom Fuller (sfgate.com):
[/i] Tom Fuller
San Francisco
What Peter Gleick did was wrong, but it was worse than wrong–it was unnecessary and stupid. The truth about Heartland is that it is a minor league player in the climate wars, poorly funded and not extremely well-led. What a poor staffer sent to Gleick shows that.
All the people yesterday and today who are lionizing Peter Gleick are just telling those on the other side that lying is okay. Making stuff up is okay. It’s for the good of the cause.
Those like Gavin Schmidt who properly criticize Gleick’s behaviour are possessed of deeper vision–and I say that as one who has criticized Schmidt before.
What Gleick undertook was to be a hero in a Greek tragedy. What commenters here are doing is more common–but ultimately far worse. [/i]
Also like how Andy directly takes on Joe Romm.

643. pouncer says:

It strikes me that PG lied to his own side. Regardless of how he came by the Heartland Board package, he presented it to his side and team members under an assumed name, as if he were an insider and whistleblower. (I presume he used the same email ID as he used to “phish” the documents out of Heartland’s secretarial pool. He might even forward the HI secretary’s mail, with the attachments. This would perhaps show that some, [ but not all?] of the documents did in fact come from HI directly, establishing the bona fides. That in turn might explain why DeSmog and others felt so little need to check. And it may be interesting to see if that email had an extra document — the board package from the HI secretary as, say, a zip file, and the scanned fake document as another separate pdf.)
The thing is, if he had approached his allies under his own name and sought their assistance honestly, there might have been one of the 15 or say who had the brains, balls, and morals to say: “hey, this isn’t going to turn out well…” To sufficient numbers of eyeballs, all problems are shallow. If PG had asked for help crafting the strategy document, it might have read more like the sort of thing a committee at a think tank actually might draft. If had not betrayed, or fooled, or tricked, his own side, he might not have had this humiliation. If he had simply subjected himself to a real peer review…
If only.

644. Andrew says:

@ Smokey
I see your Double Facepalm…and raise you a…”A Water Quality Researcher”…
http://neaststyle.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/shitcreek.jpg
I would submit to y’all the reason the prolific Twitter’er Peter ‘Twick or Tweat’ Gleick has not been heard from much on the Twit-O-Sphere of late is that he is sampling the water on the Creek he drinks from. Elevated fecal coli-form bacteria have been reported…and he has ventured to the headwaters in search of the source. Rumor has it…the ‘source’ may be MAN BEAR PIG…
Good luck on your search Professor Gleick, I recommend an extra paddle, that stuff can be thick. It would be a shame to find yourself…Up Ur Creek without a paddle…I think.

645. Philemon says:

Not surprised at all about the BBC. It has been a laughingstock for its “science” reporting for quite a while. As far as I can tell, many people at the BBC have been credulous, innumerate, illiterate fools on many occasions. It has no credibility to lose.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004536.html

646. u.k.(us) says:

Copner says:
February 22, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Triple face palm?
http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
========
“A line-by-line evaluation of the Climate Strategy memo, which the Heartland Institute has repeatedly denounced as a “fake” shows no “obvious and gross misstatements of fact,” as Heartland has alleged.”….
——-
The memo itself was deemed to be fake, which would include any statements contained within, but if you insist on digging………..

Andrew says (February 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm): “They seem to have change their tune…
What is the song played to signal ‘RETREAT’ on the battlefield? It sounds like that!”
I looked up the bugle call for “retreat”, but it turns out that in the military, “retreat” is the evening ceremony for lowering the flag.
http://www.secondcavalry.org/bugle_calls.htm
It doesn’t list a call for “run away”. The closest would probably be “come about”, i.e. change direction of advance by 180 degrees.
Perhaps in the fairly near future we can play “Taps” over the CAGW hysteria, but unfortunately right now it’s still alive (though perhaps ailing a bit; thanks, Anthony & Heartland).

• Andrew says:

Umm…lets hold off on Taps…I would hazard to guess it would be premature…let’s avoid any “Mission Accomplished” statements until a few of the big wig blowhards are inhabiting the nearest Club Fed, playing ‘drop the soap’ with the Uni, Shoe and Underwear Bomber’s….
Search French Military songs perhaps…

648. Philemon says:

@Copner. Yup, they’re nuts. They’re just trying to brazen it out in the hopes some of their more delusional followers might fall for it. It’s insane but that’s how they roll.

649. Pat Frank says:

Note Pielke Sr.’s choice of phrase: “… unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue. (my bold)”
AGW-promoting scientists including Peter Gleick are suppressing scientifically appropriate alternatives to their own view. They’re not about science, and never have been. Suppressing appropriate scientific debate is anti-science. It’s functional Lysenkoist behavior. Those people, each and all, are a disgrace.

650. MattN says:

So, how long before Peter admits to forging the 2 page memo? What’s the over/under?

651. Markus Fitzhenry says:

Pat Frank says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:13 pm
AGW-promoting scientists including Peter Gleick are suppressing scientifically appropriate alternatives to their own view. They’re not about science, and never have been. Suppressing appropriate scientific debate is anti-science. It’s functional Lysenkoist behavior. Those people, each and all, are a disgrace.”
I don’t recall that Gleick ever published many a scientific views about atmosphere. His climate change body of work consists mainly of propitiation of a ideology.

652. DirkH says:

Copner says:
February 22, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“Triple face palm?”
We will burn them in their tanks! We have them surrounded!

653. DirkH says:

EO Peter says:
February 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“Is it my fertile imagination or it is true to say that Harabine is on the contrary very quiet & trying to be forgotten since some time now?”
Harabin is currently in some kind of sabbatical or paid leave (dunno which) on some journalist school or seminar in the Chicago area. In some high-falutin American philantropists indoctrination camp or so.

654. If someone in or around Gleick’s office was to ‘admit’ that they sent the memo to Gleick as a joke and never thought it would be taken seriously, would that get him off and allow him to sue everyone who has accused him of forgery? People should still be careful of what they accuse him of.

655. u.k.(us) says:

DirkH says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Copner says:
February 22, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“Triple face palm?”
We will burn them in their tanks! We have them surrounded!
================================
Sun Tzu says:
“To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.”
Lest they fight like cornered animals ?

656. Merovign says:

I don’t think “evaluation” means what the fine folk at Desmogblog think it means.

657. Maybe people should read the budget documents…
The budget was closer to \$5M last year — there was a shortfall as I recall. They would like to raise more this year — as would we all.
Second, as pointed out, the Climate Science work was a small part of the budget.
Third so called mainstream climate science in the USA has a budget in the hundreds of millions and worldwide is in the (many) Billions.
So, how exactly could a few hundred thousand dollars distributed by Heartland change the world? — Unless the science was already so shaky and ill-conceived that a figurative grain of sand thrown at the mountain of climate science could destroy the mountain — I don’t see it.

658. wws says:

“would that get him off and allow him to sue everyone who has accused him of forgery?”
There would have to be some time stamped evidence, plus an original document (a hard copy, since we know it was scanned at least once) if a claim like this is to be believed. It would be extremely difficult to get the stories straight if trying to backdate evidence; and remember, since this is going to court anyone claiming this faces potential perjury charges if they repeat this claim in court.
I think Gleick is about to find out he doesn’t have any friends that like him THAT much.
But also: although we are talking about the forgery claims, that isn’t the crime. The offense of Wire Fraud occurred when he used a fake name to con HI out of their property, the documents in question. The forgery speaks to the intent behind the crime, but it is not the crime itself.

659. Russ R. says:

I just read Desmog’s most recent argument claiming that the confidential strategy document is “authentic”. I can’t resist reposting this prediction from 2 days ago:
Russ R. says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Predictions:
1. Desmog and other alarmist outfits will rush to support Gleick, accepting his story uncritically, and offering up plausible defenses, contorting the evidence and timeline to explain how things could have transpired. They will also continue to act as if the strategy document were authentic. They will portray him simultaneously as a hero (David standing up to Goliath), and a victim (an innocent whistleblower being harassed by evil deniers and their lawyers).
2. It will become apparent that Gleick was in contact with Desmog prior to sending them the document cache. They knew he was the source, and they probably knew that he falsified the strategy document. They also likely received the documents ahead of the other 14 recipients, which is the only way they could have had a blog post up with all the documents AND a summary hyping up their talking points within hours of receiving them.
3. This will take months, or possibly years to fully resolve.

Sgt. Jerry Michael Shriver, MACV-S.O.G. Vietnam.
Small team RECON into Laos to track and observe the NVA, Russian advisors, ect operating in Laos to bring arms and men down the trails. Cut off and surrounded by a vastly larger VC/NVA , “Mad Dog Shriver” when asked what help he needed to get his team out….
“Its ok we have them surrounded from the inside.”

• Andrew says:

@ Apache…
Reminds me of Col Harper during the Siege of Bastogne.
“Harper then put the German officers in a jeep and took them back to where the German enlisted men were detained. He then said to the German captain, “If you don’t know what ‘Nuts’ means, in plain English it is the same as ‘Go to Hell’. And I’ll tell you something else, if you continue to attack we will kill every goddam German that tries to break into this city.”
@ Dirk H
Sun Tzu huh…well “keep your friends close but your enemies closer”…often attributed to Tzu, but was actually Michael Corleone…either way, its pretty easy with the blogosphere and FOIA’s to keep ’em close. Thanks to Climate Audit, et al…
Since The Gleickster is a Berkeley grad I am sure he knows the Dead…

661. Dianna says:

“MattN says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:20 pm
So, how long before Peter admits to forging the 2 page memo? What’s the over/under?”
I think it depends on the Pacific Institute board. Presently, I imagine a lot of, “Peter, what were you thinking?!” is going on. They have got to be worried to death, and I find it curious he hasn’t resigned (so far as I can tell, at this hour). The staff must be going mad, trying to discover if there’s anything linking the Institute to the memo or the phishing.
If he so much as asked a staffer to find contact information, the Institute is in a lot of trouble. I really hope Gleick kept this insanity to himself, and confined to his personal machines.
If there’s anything linking the PI to this, he’ll ‘fess up tomorrow. Otherwise, I have no guess at all.

662. Dianna says:

dogparliament, I’m afraid that a staffer who created and sent such a document as a “joke” would have placed the Pacific Institute in a really terrible situation. A confession by the staffer to the board would have been necessary before Dr. Peter Gleick’s confession to save the Institute.
I simply cannot understand why PI has not at least suspended Dr. Gleick.

663. DirkH says:

u.k.(us) says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:11 pm
“DirkH says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm
We will burn them in their tanks! We have them surrounded!
================================
Sun Tzu says:
“To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.”
Lest they fight like cornered animals ?”
Just to be clear: I was trying to imitate a certain information minister. Maybe he works at DeSmogBlog as S. Hussein doesn’t need him anymore.

664. DirkH says:

Dianna says:
February 22, 2012 at 8:03 pm
“I simply cannot understand why PI has not at least suspended Dr. Gleick.”
Has SPECTRE ever suspended Dr. No?

665. O2BNAZ says:

DeSmog blog says the “faked” document is not a fake and they have now authenticated it…please, please Anthony give them more rope…the average nose bleed seat viiewer is starting to understand cAGW has nothing to do with science…it is a cult and the worship circle is getting smaller by the hour.

666. If Peter Gleick still cares about his climate alarmist cause, he needs to take responsibility for the obvious fact that he forged the “Strategy” memo. If a medical condition contributed to his lapse, he should get help. He must demand that Romm, Littlemore, and everyone else stop defending and making excuses for his actions. He should remind them that every time they defend or excuse his actions, they take credibility away from their cause, and injure him personally. He should express true remorse, and ask that nobody who cares about the climate cause follow his example, which came from a moment of tragic weakness, not moral strength.