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.
An amazing and sad story of corruption. The comparison of this event to Climategate will NOT be rooted in a comparison of the release of two sets of more or less equally embarrassing documents, but in the fact that Alarmists in both cases are willing to unethically manipulate, lie and deceive in order to protect their power and positions of authority.
The Global Warming Cult and the Death of Science
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 20, 2012
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/20/the-global-warming-cult-and-the-death-of-science/print/
———————————–
Global Warming is not just a failure of a sizable chunk of the scientific establishment to put theory before ideology, it represents a failure of the entire process by which the West has been governed for a frightening number of years. It is a demonstration of how a handful of people in prominent positions can push through otherwise unacceptable measures by manufacturing a crisis and pipelining it through business and government. It’s a hack of our entire system of government.
If you understand the implications of that, then you begin to understand the consequences of it for the progressive technocracy and its mindless elitism that uses opinion leaders to drive actual leaders and has entire agencies dedicated to influencing opinion leaders. If Warmism fails, then it all fails. There will be no mobs in the street or squares filled with protesters, instead the entire infrastructure whose entire purpose is not to look stupid, will suddenly look very stupid.
Stupid leaders might not be too much of a problem in a democracy where people are entitled to elect any idiot they want, but it’s unacceptable in a technocracy where the leaders may win elections, but mostly they win the consensus of the elites. If the elites and their technocracy no longer amount to anything, then the emperor is naked, and suddenly elections might start mattering again.
Don’t forget, Gleik included HI as a “runner up” for the 2011 Climate B.S. competition:
“…Other Noteworthy Climate B.S. of 2011
Some voters felt that the following entries submitted for the 2011 Climate B.S. competition deserve recognition though they win no awards from us.
Harrison Schmitt and the Heartland Institute for “Arcticgate”
As the Arctic ice disappears before our eyes, we must call attention to former Senator Harrison Schmitt’s refusal to correct persistent errors and “cherry picking” of data in denying the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and for the Heartland Institute’s promulgation of – and refusal to correct – those errors when they were uncovered…”
And rereading the previous year’s awards (from here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-2010-climate-bs-of-th_b_802906.html), we saw this statement:
“…Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.
Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action — just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks…”
Read that again: “…Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science…”
Whose side is he talking about here?
Here’s Josh!!
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/21/shrove-tuesday-josh-150.html
Gleick is ………….the ANTI-FOIA !!!!
A “physicist” says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Have you considered getting your own blog. That way you can keep trying to excuse theft and fraud through your weak moral equivalency arguments. You could even make “Be First with the Truth” your motto.
I suspect that any reports of the death of Mr Gleick’s career may be somewhat premature.
After all, we have an uncountable number of inquiries that found no illegal or unethical behaviour in the various climategate emails, in Dr Mann et.al.’s deletion of emails, etc. I expect the same folks will investigate this and exonerate Mr Gleick. The media will largely ignore it all, except to to criticise the “small mindedness” of Heartland and anybody else seeking legal redress.
Probably within three months, certainly within a year, the whole thing will be mostly forgotten.
Don’t you love the modern media?
I think his hoped for “debate” may have already begun.
See the following in the February 21 Edmonton Journal:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Simons+Impact+burning+Alberta+oilsands+negligible+scientists+argue/6180734/story.html
Simons: Impact of burning all Alberta’s oilsands negligible, scientists argue
But prestigious publication questions reliance on oilsands
By Paula Simons, edmontonjournal.com
“In their paper, Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta’s oilsands — all 170 billion barrels — would be negligible. Burning all the proven reserve between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05 C.
“Our responsibility as scientists is to report the facts, so that society and decision-makers can make informed decisions, based on factual data, and not emotional rhetoric,” Swart says. “If it is the case that some of this information is misused, that’s unfortunate, but we can’t help them that. Good facts have been missing from this debate in the past. It’s our job to provide them.”
The new precautionary principle: ALWAYS distrust any statement by a warmist!!!
And Mardler, don’t worry, I think we all understand your position. But the long grinding war has made you a bit more depressed than you need be. (long wars do that, not your fault)
You are only assessing the criminal case, and yes, that is unlikely to do much to Gleick. (although it is likely to cost him a great deal of time, trouble, and money) But take if from someone who has extensive involvement with the legal system: The CIVIL case is where all the action is! First of all, the standard there is just a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. (criminal standard) That’s why it’s always much easier to win a civil verdict, which I understand Heartland will pursue. And once they get a judgment, Gleick can look forward to a lifetime of playing “hide the assets!!!” while Heartland’s lawyers make his life miserable. Imagine Heartland getting a judgment allowing them to garnish ALL of Gleick’s future earnings, and using that money to fund their operations! Outcomes like that make mean and nasty lawyers like me smile when we go to bed at night. That’s how you make someone wish they had never been born.
Remember, even OJ Simpson ended up in jail (finally!) not because of his original crime but due to the ramifications of the civil case against him.
some on Twitter are tweeting love for Peter Gleick and what he did (or their mis-conception of what he did since they don’t seem to get the whole story):
Naomi Klein @NaomiAKlein
Send @PeterGleick some Twitter love, he took big risks to bring important truths about the deniers to light.
EcoLabs @EcoLabs
Defend @PeterGleick science and education. Using an alias to discover info. that should be public knowledge is an appropriate response.
Patrick Thibodeau @DCgov
Thank you @PeterGleick for releasing the Heartland documents and authenticating them. goo.gl/6YuGw
Josh Rosenau @JoshRosenau
Saddened by the way @PeterGleick obtained @HeartlandInst documents, but more saddened and outraged by what those documents show.
Varco says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm
“the continued public pursuit of someone who may be in a vulnerable state of mind does not appear to be in the spirit of this blog. Could I suggest an appeal to reason for the contributors of this blog to leave further judgement of Mr Gleick to the authorities and history.”
No. Vae victis (look it up).
Gleick should have stuck to reviewing books he’s never read I am sure there are several 6th grade level science books he could work up a review on. What is with these nutbars he is willing to admit he committed ID theft (in emailing under someone elses name) but not the faking of a document? Someone said it earlier martyr for the cause, his ego would have nothing less than that. Apparently the anti-sience community at desmog and others in the echo chamber is doing just that.
Copner & Mosher – you guys are scary sharp.
(at least (now) I can go back to my (sometimes) excessive and random use of parenthesis) without fear (of being implicated in any of this). 🙂
As for the rest, I feel no particular jubilation about it, just relief. I feel more or less the same way about the whole affair as I would about a drunk wandering onto my property, tearing up the yard and vomiting on my windows. I’m glad the authorities know who did it, I’m disgusted by the whole affair, and I’m relieved my neighbors know the obnoxious drunk had nothing to do with me. BTW I don’t think Gleick deserves any particular respite or quarter on the blogs, but for my part, the spectacle he’s made of himself is pathetic from my perspective, and it turns my stomach dwelling on it.
There is no way the fake memo was received before the other docs–it lifts text directly from them. Even his confession is fake.
Delingpole is onto it:- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/
Much as I remain sceptical about any real change coming out of this all appendages are crossed that it may really be a game changer.
Better:- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-science/
The time line gave the longitude and of all those remotely possible culprits living on that time line, the style alone pointed Steven Mosher to Glieck and once the finger was pointed Glieck had to own up albeit in half-hearted fashion. An “original” document can easily be forged but that style won’t go away.
good Lord…..this is lame
Gleick acted like some little child…when it started closing in on him…then and only then did he realize how stupid he is
Don’t overlook this fact…..if Gleick had been better at it…..there would be no confession
This act of desperation by Peter Gleick is an admission that his side was losing the PR war and their sources of funding were in jeopardy. Heartland must be aggressive in their pursuit of these pretenders. Since Al Gore`s blog used this piece of trickery to defame Heartland just days ago he must be included in this defamation suit and they need to act quickly and decisively.
Robert said, “I long for the day when we can get back to debating scientific issues on the basis of observations and experimentation rather document leaks and speculating about the scientists’ motives. What it does show is that scientists are human like the rest of us and we can’t put anyone portray anyone as being purely objective without betraying the science that proves we all have biases to overcome.”
Puh-lease, Robert, I don’t know what humans “like the rest of us” you’re musing about, but I certainly wouldn’t wish to associate with a scoundrel like Gleick. This is not about a failure of “objectivity” either; this is about a hypocrite who’s been claiming the high ground, who stole and most likely forged, but continues to attack and lie while he pretends to offer apologies. He needs to be smacked down hard. And so do the various warmist apologists and has-been PR muppets who try to equate this case with Climategate and who are trying to turn Gleick into a “whistle-blower” and a folk hero. If this issue had been about science only, as you pretend it is, this outraheous AGW scam would’ve never even have taken off.
So, sorry, we won’t tie our hands by pretending this is merely a gentlemanly disagreement between folks in lab coats. The corruption, the criminality, the lying, the cronyism and the stupendous funding resources behind the warmist scam must be continually exposed and discussed until it collapses from its own rot.
What is curious to me, and very revealing, is that sites like WUWT and a small outfit like Heartland make these guys simply apoplectic to the extent that they really want them shut down. They can not stand to be questioned. If it were in their power (and thank god it is not) they would outlaw debate. They have in fact proposed prison time for coal producers (Hansen) and charges of crimes against humanity (in Europe) and brought Lomborg up on misconduct charges (upheld and then reversed) for merely having an opinion.
I was going to leave a comment on Desmog’s blog stating that the difference between a whistle blower and Gleick, is that a whistle blower tells the truth. Gleick’s main document was faked. However to leave a comment on their blog requires a login, which requires me giving them my personal details. It is bad enough that I had to give them an increased visitor stat.
I should not be surprised that they think of Gleick as some sort of heroic martyr, after all, simple, honest truth has never been a requirement of alarmist climate science, has it?
As for that rubbish about wanting a debate??? First they claimed all debate was “pretty much dead”, or “there is no debate” – Al Gore 2001. Then they refused every genuine offer of debate from climate realists so as to protect their fantasy world where “debate is dead”. Now that they are losing massive amounts of believers as their secrets and lies are being uncovered, NOW they claim that they “just wanted the debate!”
No they just wanted to censor real scientific debate and suppress all opposition. Their science failed to achieve that, their billions in government grants failed to achieve that, so they turn to criminal malfeasance, fraud, Libel and outright deception to try to achieve that.
The CAGW fraud is imploding spectacularly before our eyes. Yet the mainstream media and mainstream politicians are being VERY slow to admit reality, because both have billions invested in the lie. Both seek to gain huge amounts of money and control over the global population through this lie. (that is not conspiracy hyperbole either, as this global dictatorship plan is written in black and white and further entrenched into global laws at EVERY global climate summit!)
The CAGW scam is not dead yet. All the real science shows that the ‘pseudo-science’ supporting it has been thoroughly discredited, the actors pretending to be scientists have been publicly exposed as fraudsters and now they, in their desperation, turn to blatant in-your-face crimes to protect their lies. BUT the scam is not yet dead.
I hope that it will be dead soon. We need to have people VOTE for the few brave and honest politicians who do not support the CAGW scam, wherever they stand for office, whichever party they represent in whichever country they are in.
Hoggan’s Desmog= BC Power (un)Smart
Science is the search for the facts that make up the truth as best can be proven.
As long as we have the msm and the liberal left of Earth First, Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society etal enableing and marketing lies and fraud as science no one with new science work is free from these new age flat earth frauds.
So, sorry to say to keep science safe and truth known we have to win this other non-science war current on real science.
Seems to some we should able to do both at the same time.
Should there be charges, the discovery phase could be most interesting.