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
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm
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”
h/t to THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another Climate Scandal
See also this additional update: http://heartland.org/press-releases/statement-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-regarding-wall-street-journal-onl
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.
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
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.
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.
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 !”
The first AGW-scientist to actually go to State Pen. And may the rest follow quickly.
The debate is over. AGW is a scam.
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.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Will ‘The Team’ be releasing and open letter about this? Should I hold my breath?
They likely will, and I have a guess as to what it will say. Two actually.
1) They will portray Gleick as a martyr. Look at what you evil sceptics made poor Peter do. It was the extreme pressure of being a high-profile climate scientist, constantly beset by your harassment, that caused him to make the small transgression for the greater good.
2) They will portray Gleick as a hero. They will praise his efforts to expose the evil sceptics and their … gasp… private fundraising activities and … horrors … public education programs. They will justify everything that he did as being moral, ethical, and legal.
I think 2 is more likely, as it will best comport with what is probably Gleick’s first choice for a legal defense – he will claim to be an investigative journalist. He will claim that he can protect his “sources” and that his identity theft and other cirners are common journalistic techniques. Given his rather obvious high opinion of himself, he will claim to be both the Woodward AND Bernstein of the climate world.
A lot will depend on what Gleick thinks he can get away with, legally and in terms of his continued employability. That is why he isn’t admitting to writing the faked document, but not denying it either.
This smells of ulterior motive. I wonder who is calling the shots on the warmest side. I think Gleick will have a safe position lined up in a warmest institute and this is all being done in the name of martyrdom while there’s still goodwill in the press. I think WUWT and other contra blogs are being played. Where is the end game?
How typical. The underlying data aren’t alarming enough, so craft a new presentation to “sex up” the data and make matters look worse than they really are. I propose that we dub this “Pete’s Heartland trick.”
“I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.”
Watts, you are too awesome. Statues need to be made.
Inspector Columbo cannot be deceived, he identifies the perp PDQ then sets out to prove it.
The perp may confess to errors of judgement when he/she realises where the evidence points, but never admits the big one until the evidence is overwhelming.
Remember how Columbo does it. The perp always believes they are cleverer than the crumpled cop but the devil is in the detail.
What an incredible episode. You would have thought that maybe some of the warmists would by now be realising that there is a whole lot wrong with theirside of the debate. But going by some of the comments on the blogs they are just getting more entrenched.
I think we are at Ghandi’s “…and then they fight you…” stage of the game.
Go get ’em Anthony.
This calls for a celebratory song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av3e
“At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing…….”
“Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.”
Would email records or computer hard-drives indicate which documents were received or created first?
If the admitted to be stolen documents were indeed stolen in order to confirm the contents of the supposedly previously received, but now admitted to be forged document, then surely he would have received the supposedly anonymously sent forged document, first.
On the other hand, if the stolen documents were obtained prior to the creation or receipt of the forged document, then surely that would be more consistent with the forged document being an embellishment which he produced himself from the stolen documents.
Will police be seizing computers, as they do when investigating sceptics?
In the event of a trial, would prosecuters be entitled to examine evidence of whether there was an actual conspiracy to defame the victim, by colluding with other parties, who knew that the documents were stolen and forged, but proceeded to publish them, anyway?
The ethical basis of the behaviour of CAGW supporters appears to permit promulgating data which they know is fraudulent, but which appears to support their agenda. The end justifies the means. In this instance, it is possible that they would not balk at knowingly participating in a conspiracy to defame, basing their claims upon documents which they admitted in their own private correspondence they knew to be false.
If this is indeed the case, then a substantial blow can be delivered to the credibility of the entire propaganda organization of the CAGC alarmsts.
Here are a couple of good comments from the thread at Climate, etc., then three more from Climate Audit:
I hope both sides learn from this – keep sources of funding open and don’t fake, lie, or sex up the truth.
We don’t care where funding comes from. It was the warmistas that starting shouting oil shill. We care only that the science and the scientific method be followed. No lies, no corruption of data and no advocacy
TanGeng says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm
My guess is that the strategy memo was the document that Gleick received in the mail. It makes sense then that Gleick had to scan it to get it on the internet. He solicited the other documents. The only problem is that the controversial document is still unacknowledged by the Heartland institute despite Gleick’s unlawful solicitation of “confirming” documents.
We’d have to see the mail package to get to the bottom of this. I hope Gleick saved all the evidence.
Why would he need to solicit the other documents when he had already received the most defamatory one in the post, unfolded. He is lying. Not only that but his mealy mouthed apology is not even an apology. He goes on to “slag off” everyone else for putting him in the position which made him do it.
“…I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”
OK… so the fake was an original, made up out of whole cloth. The only question I have is, “Who made it all up?”
The wording on that statement has so many weasel dodges…
Jeef says:
February 21, 2012 at 12:39 am
This smells of ulterior motive. I wonder who is calling the shots on the warmest side. I think Gleick will have a safe position lined up in a warmest institute and this is all being done in the name of martyrdom while there’s still goodwill in the press. I think WUWT and other contra blogs are being played. Where is the end game?
This will likely be a very expensive game, if you are right. Which I doubt.
Of course the lesson the media and blogosphere should be taking from all this (but won’t) is:
“Beware of Gleicks bearing gifts.”
(Works best with a Charlie Chan accent)
“My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts”
They do That ALL the time!
That people in the AGW camp are defending his actions is, well beyone belief to any open minded, decent individual.
It says an awful lot about them as a group. It is a cult, a religion and it is dangerous. So dangerous that they are prepared to close ranks around and defend someone who has just admitted deception and theft, and probably forgery.
But then you have to look at the cold, hard realitied of humans. They form groups and they try to grab as much as they can once they get into positions of power. The AGW scare has spawned a massive industry both inside and outside science, which makes the Heartland funding look utterly laughable.
They are defending the money and the power.
I personally hope Gleick goes to jail for a very long time after a very long, public trial. The more people who see his lack of integrity and open their minds enough to start looking at the gaps in the science, the better for the world.
Craig Goodrich
Mr. Gleick is to be admired for his honesty and frankness
You must be joking !!! He is a liar, thief, con man and corrupt scientist/advocat.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hmmm – twitter silence for a few days – time for ‘semi plausible explanation’?
I wonder if these 2 documented events pushed him possibly into a rash action.
ie the style and forbes connection and other feature, make him a candidate for the ‘fake now’ I must accept.
Peter had accused me of being ‘incredibly offensiv’e on twitter (ie i thought my followers would mean like the vile abuse Katie Hayhoe had receieved.’
And it TOOK THREE climate scientists, Dr Tamsin Edwards, Prof Richard Betts (met Office, IPCC), AND Prof Katie Hayhoe herself to get him to back down..
in the email exchanges (published with permission) that followed Peter Gleicks thoughts about me, his worldview to ‘sceptics’ and his attitude to Dr Tamsin Edwards is very enlightening. ..
http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
What started this is Peter took issue with Dr Edwards blog name, where he pulled the senior scientist card (rather assertively, because some sceptics liked it (me) and it should be said UK climate scientists liked it as well!
http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/
This made me wonder, a bit, just after Heartland..(not
@BarryJWoods @icey_mark @flimsin gee, what have I done now?—
Peter Gleick (@PeterGleick) February 15, 2012
Why do the spin doctors to these politicized jokers always make the same mistake? It’s like they all took the same course that seem to be labeled: How to only take partial blame, the rest belongs to persons unknown!
It’s been tried so many times, and has failed an equal amount of times. So when did it work, during the 1930’s?
During the last 12 years there has been numerous attempt at pulling this same BS amongst politicians and self proclaimed important lefties and so called higher ups in my country, from party leaders and police chiefs to political grunts, still the results are always the same: Epic Fail! Probably due to this here internet t’ingy.
I’m sorry sir, I got this here password from an unknown person on an unknown street. But even if I got the files on my hard drive, which I incidentally bought from Mr anonymous in the city of Anon it did so include the content, and even if I did download the files, as you so strenuously indicate you have proof of, a very weird thing happen when an unknown anonymous person stole into my living quarters ran through my office and logged on to that account. So as you can see, I was a mere bystander, who actually witnessed a crime and have now reported it, so essentially I’m the hero of this here fabulously fantastical tale of epic proportions! What do you mean arrested, didn’t you hear what I said, I’m innocent even if I confessed! :p