# 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:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html

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

Lame-o-meter pegged, Kenji is displeased.

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

See also Andy Revkin’s DotEarth here. Revkin writes:

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.

From Climategate to Fakegate

0 0 votes
Article Rating
945 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 20, 2012 6:27 pm

Wow. Just wow.
(and kudos to Mosh)

Manniac
February 20, 2012 6:28 pm

Popcorn, Popcorn, getcha Popcorn here!

HaroldW
February 20, 2012 6:28 pm

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…”

bubbagyro
February 20, 2012 6:28 pm

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

Ric Werme(@ricwerme)
Editor
February 20, 2012 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.

February 20, 2012 6:30 pm

What led you to suspect Gleick to begin with?

Dianna
February 20, 2012 6:30 pm

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.

Aussie Luke Warm
February 20, 2012 6:31 pm

his mea culpa is not very convincing.

A physicist
February 20, 2012 6:31 pm

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]

DirkH
February 20, 2012 6:32 pm

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.

jonathan frodsham
February 20, 2012 6:32 pm

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

Ben Wilson
February 20, 2012 6:32 pm

“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?

Goldie
February 20, 2012 6:32 pm

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

February 20, 2012 6:33 pm

Fake but accurate…..

Severian
February 20, 2012 6:34 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 6:34 pm

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?

Alvin
February 20, 2012 6:34 pm

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

February 20, 2012 6:34 pm

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.

Dave N
February 20, 2012 6:35 pm

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.

Brett
February 20, 2012 6:35 pm

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?

DirkH
February 20, 2012 6:36 pm

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?

O2BNAZ
February 20, 2012 6:36 pm

“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.

February 20, 2012 6:36 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 6:36 pm

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

Pamela Gray
February 20, 2012 6:36 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 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.
RTF

February 20, 2012 6:37 pm

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

February 20, 2012 6:37 pm

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

Jenn Oates
February 20, 2012 6:37 pm

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?

MattN
February 20, 2012 6:37 pm

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

Brendan
February 20, 2012 6:37 pm

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”?!

Richard Sharpe
February 20, 2012 6:38 pm

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

Mike Mangan
February 20, 2012 6:39 pm

Mosher you are bloody brilliant!!

kelly
February 20, 2012 6:40 pm

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,

February 20, 2012 6:40 pm

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.

John S
February 20, 2012 6:40 pm

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

Wucash
February 20, 2012 6:40 pm

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.

~FR
February 20, 2012 6:40 pm

Is there a single truthful statement in his closing paragraph?

DavidA
February 20, 2012 6:41 pm

“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.

Phil
February 20, 2012 6:41 pm

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.

Third Party
February 20, 2012 6:42 pm

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

Chris D.
February 20, 2012 6:42 pm

Is any of this an arrest-able offense?

Allen
February 20, 2012 6:43 pm

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

Doctor K
February 20, 2012 6:43 pm

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!

MC
February 20, 2012 6:46 pm

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.

Bill Parsons
February 20, 2012 6:46 pm

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?

A. Scott
February 20, 2012 6:47 pm

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 ….

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
Editor
February 20, 2012 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.

Jack
February 20, 2012 6:49 pm

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

TanGeng
February 20, 2012 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.

zootcadillac
February 20, 2012 6:50 pm

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.

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 6:52 pm

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….

February 20, 2012 6:56 pm

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

February 20, 2012 6:56 pm

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/

February 20, 2012 6:56 pm

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.

Severian
February 20, 2012 6:56 pm

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.

DirkH
February 20, 2012 6:57 pm

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.

hyperzombie
February 20, 2012 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.

Dianna
February 20, 2012 6:57 pm

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?

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 6:58 pm

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.

Smokey(@dbstealey)
February 20, 2012 6:59 pm

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.

Joe Ryan
February 20, 2012 6:59 pm

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.

John Greenfraud
February 20, 2012 7:00 pm

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?

Larry Hamlin
February 20, 2012 7:02 pm

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”.

Streetcred
February 20, 2012 7:03 pm

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.

michael eiseman
February 20, 2012 7:03 pm

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
In fact, I’m APOFRAKKENPLECTIC just READING about this horsehockey.

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 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….
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.
Your move, Peter Gleick.
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).

Steven Haskett
February 20, 2012 7:04 pm

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

Streetcred
February 20, 2012 7:05 pm

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.

Philip Bradley
February 20, 2012 7:05 pm

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.

Markus Fitzhenry
February 20, 2012 7:05 pm

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.

Ric Werme(@ricwerme)
Editor
February 20, 2012 7:06 pm

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.

James Sexton
February 20, 2012 7:07 pm

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.

Griffin
February 20, 2012 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.

Robert in Calgary
February 20, 2012 7:09 pm

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

JJ
February 20, 2012 7:10 pm

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

Second that!

Flat Earther(@tornadomark)
February 20, 2012 7:11 pm

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.”

Big Dave
February 20, 2012 7:12 pm

The very definition of a useful idiot.

Steve in SC
February 20, 2012 7:13 pm

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

Lew Skannen
February 20, 2012 7:13 pm

Only slightly less convincing than Anthony Wiener.

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 7:13 pm

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….

Montjoie
February 20, 2012 7:13 pm

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

John Blake
February 20, 2012 7:13 pm

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.

Meyer
February 20, 2012 7:15 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 7:16 pm

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.

Cometseeker
February 20, 2012 7:17 pm

“…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.

February 20, 2012 7:19 pm

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?

Darren Potter
February 20, 2012 7:19 pm

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…
Free advice: Lawyer Up

Harold Ambler
February 20, 2012 7:21 pm

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

February 20, 2012 7:22 pm

Will ‘The Team’ be releasing and open letter about this? Should I hold my breath?

Dianna
February 20, 2012 7:23 pm

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.

rc
February 20, 2012 7:24 pm

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

Bill Jamison
February 20, 2012 7:25 pm

“…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.

Steve Clauter
February 20, 2012 7:25 pm

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

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 7:25 pm

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”…

David Falkner
February 20, 2012 7:26 pm

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.

Barry Brill
February 20, 2012 7:26 pm

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.

Dude
February 20, 2012 7:27 pm

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.

Leon Brozyna
February 20, 2012 7:28 pm

The young man seems to be such a creative writer, making up a story about Heartland after an earlier episode involving a book review for a book he never read …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/donna-laframboises-new-book-causing-reviews-in-absentia-amongst-some-agw-advocates/
Honesty? Integrity? Such old-fashioned concepts.

February 20, 2012 7:29 pm

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.

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 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).
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?

steven mosher(@stevemosher)
February 20, 2012 7:30 pm

Peace be with you Peter.

Alan Wilkinson
February 20, 2012 7:31 pm

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.

Clay Marley
February 20, 2012 7:32 pm

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….

Phil
February 20, 2012 7:32 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 7:32 pm

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)

B-737
February 20, 2012 7:35 pm

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

Smokey(@dbstealey)
February 20, 2012 7:35 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 7:36 pm

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.

Mr Lynn
February 20, 2012 7:37 pm

“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

Beth Cooper
February 20, 2012 7:38 pm

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

IcePilot(@icepilot)
February 20, 2012 7:39 pm

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.

Richard M
February 20, 2012 7:40 pm

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.

kbray in california
February 20, 2012 7:41 pm

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

peter laux
February 20, 2012 7:41 pm

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)

johanna
February 20, 2012 7:41 pm

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

February 20, 2012 7:41 pm

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.
.

Third Party
February 20, 2012 7:42 pm

Ron McDonald
February 20, 2012 7:42 pm

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

February 20, 2012 7:45 pm

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!

Paul in Sweden
February 20, 2012 7:45 pm

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

R. Shearer
February 20, 2012 7:45 pm

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).

Brent Matich
February 20, 2012 7:45 pm

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!

Alan Wilkinson
February 20, 2012 7:46 pm

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

February 20, 2012 7:46 pm

I have a post on this at Climate Etc http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/20/breaking-news/
My post points out Gleick’s numerous writings on the topic of ethics and integrity in science, including his congressional testimony on this topic.

Ryan Maue(@ryanmaue)
Editor
February 20, 2012 7:46 pm

observa
February 20, 2012 7:46 pm

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.

DirkH
February 20, 2012 7:48 pm

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

JimJ
February 20, 2012 7:48 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 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

February 20, 2012 7:49 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 7:49 pm

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!

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 7:50 pm

btw, to be bi-partisan or non-partisan about it, can we agree that Gleick’s statement is both “Nixon-esque” and “Clinton-esque”??
Talk about an artfully crafted statement that leaves vital questions unanswered, evaded, and obfuscated?

dp
February 20, 2012 7:50 pm

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.

AndyG55
February 20, 2012 7:51 pm

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. 😉

DR
February 20, 2012 7:51 pm

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.

Dude
February 20, 2012 7:51 pm

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.

Joseph Murphy
February 20, 2012 7:52 pm

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

R. Shearer
February 20, 2012 7:52 pm

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

rk
February 20, 2012 7:56 pm

“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:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/20/campaign-against-canadian-keystone-xl-pipeline-driven-by-us-foundation-millions/
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

Milo
February 20, 2012 7:57 pm

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.

steven mosher(@stevemosher)
February 20, 2012 7:58 pm

“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

Varco
February 20, 2012 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.

Jeremy
February 20, 2012 7:58 pm

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.

Bernie
February 20, 2012 7:58 pm

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.

dp
February 20, 2012 7:59 pm

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

jorgekafkazar
February 20, 2012 7:59 pm

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.

GregO
February 20, 2012 8:00 pm

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!

k scott denison
February 20, 2012 8:01 pm

McKiitrick’s comment at Climate Audit is worth a read:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-confesses/#comment-324812

JohnD
February 20, 2012 8:01 pm

Gleick, eat you own pie.

Schitzree
February 20, 2012 8:01 pm

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.

jorgekafkazar
February 20, 2012 8:03 pm

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?

grzejnik
February 20, 2012 8:03 pm

What an idiot! lol

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 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
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.

R. Shearer
February 20, 2012 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?

February 20, 2012 8:04 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:05 pm

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/aboutus/mission.aspx
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/forms/mailfraudcomplaint.aspx
Hmmm might not have been a good idea?
Larry

Bill Hunter
February 20, 2012 8:05 pm

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

Pacific Blue
February 20, 2012 8:05 pm

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”!

February 20, 2012 8:05 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:06 pm

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]

February 20, 2012 8:06 pm

“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.

February 20, 2012 8:08 pm

“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!!!

A physicist
February 20, 2012 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.
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.

Ben U.
February 20, 2012 8:10 pm

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.

MOS2171
February 20, 2012 8:10 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:10 pm

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.

kim2ooo
February 20, 2012 8:11 pm

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/

DavidA
February 20, 2012 8:11 pm

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.

DirkH
February 20, 2012 8:11 pm

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.

John Brown
February 20, 2012 8:12 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:13 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:13 pm

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.
.

February 20, 2012 8:15 pm

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.
.

dbstealey(@dbstealey)
February 20, 2012 8:15 pm

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.

Jake
February 20, 2012 8:16 pm

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!!!!

kbray in california
February 20, 2012 8:17 pm

Smart doesn’t prevent Stupid.

Paul Westhaver
February 20, 2012 8:19 pm

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.

John M
February 20, 2012 8:19 pm

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

JimF
February 20, 2012 8:19 pm

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?

James Sexton
February 20, 2012 8:19 pm

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.

rk
February 20, 2012 8:20 pm

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

AnonyMoose
February 20, 2012 8:20 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:20 pm

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

A C of Adelaide
February 20, 2012 8:23 pm

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.

bacullen
February 20, 2012 8:24 pm

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

nc
February 20, 2012 8:26 pm

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.

dalyplanet
February 20, 2012 8:26 pm

A bit surprising, perhaps, is that Peter Gleick is the just announced AGU expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml
NOV 2011

DirkH
February 20, 2012 8:27 pm

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.

TG McCoy (Douglas DC)
February 20, 2012 8:28 pm

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

February 20, 2012 8:29 pm

Hoax-y Stick Gate
thanks, boston12gs.

Russ R.
February 20, 2012 8:30 pm

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.”

JJ
February 20, 2012 8:30 pm

… 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.

Bill H
February 20, 2012 8:30 pm

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

AndyG55
February 20, 2012 8:32 pm

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

John Greenfraud
February 20, 2012 8:33 pm

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!

observa
February 20, 2012 8:34 pm

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-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_global_warming_is_preached_in_year_8/
Pay attention to me children. Now I want you all to click on the nice green froggy link…. Children…CHILDREN!!!

Werner Brozek
February 20, 2012 8:35 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:36 pm

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???

James Sexton
February 20, 2012 8:37 pm

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…..

AnonyMoose
February 20, 2012 8:37 pm

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

James Sexton
February 20, 2012 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]

soren
February 20, 2012 8:38 pm

American Geophysical Union
Task Force on Scientific Ethics
Chair
Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 8:40 pm

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.

Doug
February 20, 2012 8:40 pm

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

DaveG
February 20, 2012 8:43 pm

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
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
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!

wheresmyak47
February 20, 2012 8:43 pm

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.
REPLY: Your handle is “wheresmyak47”
Shall I assume that to be a death threat sir? – Anthony

theduke
February 20, 2012 8:44 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 8:44 pm

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 .

February 20, 2012 8:45 pm

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

Joe Ryan
February 20, 2012 8:48 pm

By the way, Anthony, Scientific American has their original 2/15/2012 expose article on their site without even so much as an update to indicate that their story is based on a fraud. You may want to contact them and let them know that either the article will be coming down or their profits will.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leaked-conservative-group

Lazlo
February 20, 2012 8:50 pm

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.

James Sexton
February 20, 2012 8:52 pm

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……..

TRM
February 20, 2012 9:01 pm

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

peetee
February 20, 2012 9:04 pm

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.]

February 20, 2012 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.
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

Bill Parsons
February 20, 2012 9:07 pm

Since I haven’t been reading about this outside of Anthony’s blog…how have the newspapers been handling the fraudulent memo? If they took it and ran with it without verification, aren’t they liable for certain charges? Can you libel an institution?
Tonight’s N.Y. Times’ Broder:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/earth/activist-says-heartland-climate-papers-obtained-by-deceit.html

dp
February 20, 2012 9:11 pm

I think we now have a new category – Anthropogenic Climate Fraud. It seems to be a plague across the world. Where doesn’t it rear it’s ugly head? Must be something in the air.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/20/the-entrepreneur.html

LamontT
February 20, 2012 9:12 pm

“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.

February 20, 2012 9:15 pm

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.

LamontT
February 20, 2012 9:18 pm

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.

dp
February 20, 2012 9:20 pm

I’m very surprised by Hans von Storch’s comments. I’d always thought him a credible critical thinker. Turns out he’s just another fish on.
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/02/climate-gate-of-skeptical-site.html

Smokey(@dbstealey)
February 20, 2012 9:21 pm

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.

Bill Parsons
February 20, 2012 9:21 pm

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?

February 20, 2012 9:22 pm

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.

LamontT
February 20, 2012 9:23 pm

“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.

ed
February 20, 2012 9:25 pm

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”!

DavidA
February 20, 2012 9:27 pm

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.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73099_Page2.html#ixzz1mzVrmLoT
John Keker represented Lance Armstrong during his recent doping allegation troubles.

February 20, 2012 9:28 pm

[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]

JJ
February 20, 2012 9:31 pm

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

Kozlowski
February 20, 2012 9:32 pm

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!

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 9:37 pm

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.

John Greenfraud
February 20, 2012 9:39 pm

@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

J.H.
February 20, 2012 9:40 pm

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.

wermet
February 20, 2012 9:44 pm

~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.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
February 20, 2012 9:46 pm

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…..

CRS, DrPH
February 20, 2012 9:47 pm

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

February 20, 2012 9:49 pm

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.

Jeff C
February 20, 2012 9:51 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 9:53 pm

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.

Brian R
February 20, 2012 9:56 pm

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.

Brian H
February 20, 2012 9:57 pm

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.

Kozlowski
February 20, 2012 9:58 pm

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!

February 20, 2012 10:09 pm

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.

Streetcred
February 20, 2012 10:10 pm

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.

G. Karst
February 20, 2012 10:11 pm

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

TomRude
February 20, 2012 10:17 pm

They’ll simply say it was a Gleitch…

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 10:19 pm

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/

February 20, 2012 10:19 pm

“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.

DirkH
February 20, 2012 10:20 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 10:23 pm

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?

dp
February 20, 2012 10:26 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 10:42 pm

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

RDCII
February 20, 2012 10:49 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 10:50 pm

Another headline at Steven Goddard’s blog:
“2010: Peter Glieck Spoke Out About Climate Fraud And Hypocrisy”
http://www.real-science.com/2010-peter-glieck-spoke-climate-fraud-hypocrisy
I don’t know if this Peter Glieck entry from the Huffington Post has been brought or not already. Where do you even start with this story!

Alex Heyworth
February 20, 2012 10:51 pm

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.

tallbloke(@tallbloke)
February 20, 2012 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.

eyesonu
February 20, 2012 10:59 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 11:10 pm

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

Skiphil
February 20, 2012 11:16 pm

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:
http://www.350.org/en/about/blogs/top-climate-scientists-warn-congress-over-keystone-xl
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

Steve C
February 20, 2012 11:17 pm

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.

Man Bearpigg
February 20, 2012 11:20 pm

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

Man Bearpigg
February 20, 2012 11:22 pm

”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.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
February 20, 2012 11:22 pm

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?

johanna
February 20, 2012 11:24 pm

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:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents?newsfeed=true
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.

Shevva
February 20, 2012 11:33 pm

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).

Shevva
February 20, 2012 11:36 pm

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

John F. Hultquist
February 20, 2012 11:37 pm

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.”

Eric Anderson
February 20, 2012 11:39 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 11:43 pm

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.

kwik
February 20, 2012 11:45 pm

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.

February 20, 2012 11:56 pm

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.”

Alan T
February 20, 2012 11:57 pm

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

John F. Hultquist
February 21, 2012 12:00 am

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

DirkH
February 21, 2012 12:12 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) 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.

Skiphil
February 21, 2012 12:14 am

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

Baa Humbug
February 21, 2012 12:15 am

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.

Charles.U.Farley
February 21, 2012 12:15 am

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.

Brendan
February 21, 2012 12:18 am

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 !”

Scarface
February 21, 2012 12:19 am

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

Skiphil
February 21, 2012 12:28 am

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.

JJ