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.
crapstat says: ‘It isn’t often that I disagree with WUWT and most of its readers, but on this I do. I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.’
I agree wholeheatedly with those sentiments in the sense private and public institutions that we are talking about here should be accountable and open in their dealings with nothing worth hiding. If Gleick was an internal whistleblower/leaker perhaps like Climategate then so what, but clearly fakery/forgery are deliberate misrepresentation and a very different matter. It’s also difficult to separate the rights of FOI from the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest. As such semantic arguments over which is which are really barking up the wrong tree.
What is most relevant is the sheer stupidity of Gleick in trying to impugn and emphasise his opponents ‘science for pay’ given the massive discrepancy in resourcing and Big Climate’s own varied funding sources. However I think it drives such green/leftists crazy that they have been and still are the establishment wrt CAGW and yet they’re losing the scientific argument(as well as the political one) by what they see as some guerilla group of subversives and revolutionaries. Who the Hell stole our shoes? Listen to Gleick’s apology and you can see how that has unhinged him in that regard. He’s not the only one and expect more of this irrational Climatologist victimhood unhinging as their science and political power are crumbling.
Heartland’s counsel should serve Gleick with a letter instructing him to not destroy or erase anything on his computer, to retain all paper records, and to keep everything in his custody. Of course Gleick will not follow those instructions, and it won’t look good in front of a jury. The guy has so much baggage that deposing him under oath could take weeks. And then there are the other depositions. Will those others fall on their swords to save Gleick? Is the Pope Muslim?
BTW: Who was the whistleblower in the “Climategate”affair….still waiting his confession; never is too late to purge own´s sins.
Foxnews has weighed in and they pull no punches…
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/
You know they had to go the whistle-blower direction, where else could they go? Admit their intellectual bankruptcy? Re-evaluate their convictions? Second guess their prejudices?
Nah, they’re gonna double down.
Paul Westhaver says:
February 21, 2012 at 10:27 am
Foxnews has weighed in and they pull no punches…
—
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark. It will be interesting to see how the climate establishment reacts now. Expect to see press releases from NASA, IPCC, AAAS, AGU, UCS…
Bob Ward of Grantham Research Institute fame writes in the Grauniad:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/heartland-institute-leak-climate-attack?intcmp=239
real life train wrecks Fun? No.
It’s a horrible mess on both sides. Yes.
But there are people that are innocent of causing the mess and people that are guilty of it. And I’m not talking about purloining or publishing a few emails – documents or even “faking” a few. Guilty of what then, you ask? Fraud! 100’s of billions of dollars have been “funneled” into “research” of the hoax of human cause catastrophic atmospheric warming AND 100’s of millions more into political coffers relating to the hoax AND 100’s of billions more dollars into ill-conceived, impractical, will never be economically feasible schemes (Solyndra, Ethonal, High-speed rail, Etc.) that could have been used to actually save lives. And now the White House wants to spend $2,600,000,000 for research into “the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.” THERE is your REAL train wreck!
I truly believe a good prosecutor could make a very strong case of manslaughter against those responsible for the “misappropriation” of the monies funneled into this AGW hoax instead of – water purification or simply digging wells in Africa, things that would actually SAVE peoples lives.
Is it personal “train wreck” for Mr. Gleick that he lost his job? (And maybe others depending on the fall-out from all of this) Yes.
And how does that compare to the few 100 that have died for the lack of clean water or a simple mosquito net or ___________ (fill in the blank) in the last few hours of THIS “horrible mess” that a few billion dollars could have bought? But does Mr. Glecick care? Does Al Gore care? Does Dr. Hansen care? Based on what I’ve read and know about the Heartland Institute, they do.
Bob H
Does anyone know whether Gleick rhymes with “sick” or “cheek”? I’m working on a sonnet.
michaelspj says: February 20, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Years ago, Gleick made series of outrageous comments on my professional activities. I chose to let it be because I thought, if given his head, he would bring himself and his friends (read: RealClimate) down with him. Appears my strategy worked. Kudos kudos kudos to Ross Kaminsky and Joe Bast. Wait till you see how much money Gleick has made off of his vituperation, which will come out. I’ll bet it’s close to the Heartland budget.
PJM
This post jumped out at me. I’m awed.
Thank you Pat Michaels, I know what flak you’ve taken over the years.
“Heartland’s counsel should serve Gleick with a letter instructing him to not destroy or erase anything on his computer, to retain all paper records, and to keep everything in his custody”
Jury shmury Smokey. Not a good look pissing on a corpse. HI should simply take the high moral ground and issue a public request, that all those that attempted to impugn their reputation re ‘science for pay’ in support of Gleick’s shoddy dealings apologise publicly and then move on with science. Leave it up to all the red faces to decide whether their integrity warrants a public apology or not. Don’t dignify the weasel worders with any more of HI’s time. ‘HI and our valued sponsors’ are moving right along with the science as usual folks. That will unhinge Big Climate even more and attract more sponsors in the long run.
Hmm – Mr. Gleick engages in fraudulent mis-representation in order to verify that annonymous document came from the Heartland Institute, then being unable to do so he distributes it anyway. (Along with genuine documents he did obtain from HI.)
Do I understand this correctly?
A double lapse in judgement?
crapstats says:
I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both..
No. The fundamental difference (apart from the fakery of Gleickgate, of course) between the two is the nature of what was exposed. The US and many other countries have “whistleblower” laws. These protect the otherwise illegal aquistion and release of confidential materials by persons inside a company or other organization, but only in the circumstance where the materials are incriminating or otherwise expose fraud, official corruption, etc such that the exposure is in a legitimate and compelling public interest.
The Climategate emails exposed criminal activity – illegal interference with FOIA requests. The Climategate emails exposed grossly unethical and unprofessional conduct from publically funded “scientists”. The Climategate emails exposed unscientific methods employed in the production and communication of publically funded science.
The HI documents exposed nothing illegal. The HI documents exposed no fraud, or official corruption, etc. All it exposed was (thru the budget and fundraising plan documents) details on a private advocacy organizations confidential information – its donors, budget items and priorities, fund raising strategies, planned projects, board hiring decisions, etc. Those are all legitimate activities, and ones that such organizations have a legitimate expectation of keeping confidential.
The second difference is that the Climategate emails were public property to begin with. They were publically funded communications between publically funded workers.
The third difference is that the Climategate emails were clearly released by someone on the inside, with very specific knowledge of the players and the issues. Gleickgate was perpetrated by an outsider. Gleick was not an insider looking to reform the organization he was working for. To the contrary, Gleick held an opposing position at a competing entity. One of the fundamental damages wrought by Gleicks crimes was to impugn and expose confidential information about Heartland’s education initiative. Gleick was on the board of NCSE, leading a similar but opposing education initiaive.
Climategate was whistleblowing. Gleickgate was the non-profit equivalent of industrial espionage.
The only thing the least bit similar about these two incidents is that they both demonstrate that climate scientists are unethical, unscientific, political agents who will do anything and everything to advance their agenda.
“Forgive Gleick only if he accepts the challenge to open and public debate. “
—Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (February 21, 2012 at 10:13 am)
Forgive if? Come on folks, let’s not go all misty-eyed and wobbly here. Forgiveness is for victims and God to issue at their pleasure. Gleick & Co need to be dragged through the mud and stomped on to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less would be contempt for the present and future victims of such “soft” eco-terrorism. If warmists don’t want a debate, let them continue to shirk and mumble excuses all they want; fewer and fewer are listening to them anyway.
Regarding my question about the anonymous document, JJ in the thread http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-confesses/ says that Gleick did not state it was the fake document.
O/T a bit, but after reading the Bob Ward piece in the Grauniad, the alleged cognoscenti are coming up with stuff like this (including Trenberth’s “missing” heat, believe it or not, casually tossed into the smear to no doubt lend credence to the quantity of spittle):
“LochnessMunster
21 February 2012 11:43AM
Gotta love this; “…It’s ‘only’ 30 million bucks and climate research gets billions…” ‘Heartland-Approved’ approach being parrotted by the usual witless army of hapless dupes just now.
Sure – “only 30 millionbucks” won’t buy you a whole lot of GRACE sattelites or even radio sondes for the south Atlantic, (which have now found Trenberth’s “missing heat” exactly as predicted by the way} but it will buy you an almost infinite number of cheap lies, inuendo and smears that is the bread and butter of these disgusting, self-centred slimeballs and which, of course, will be endlessly repeated online completely free of charge for years by the terminaly gullible.
“
“Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status”
Not unbelievable at all. It is completely in character for the political left. The end always justifies the means with those people. In this particular issue we have a long history of deception, manipulation, opacity of process, etc. That is perfectly fine with them as long as the result is the furthering of their agenda. They *have* no ethics other than to attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with their world view as unethical.
“”””” NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial. LEARN MORE >> “””””
Well this is the first thing you read on the front page of the “NCSE” web site.
Now how noble is that institutional charter ?
Take first the juxtaposition of “evolution” and “climate change”; note it is NOT “climate” but climate change.
Well nobody with so much as a 4-H club education disagrees with the idea that climate changes. We know for sure from just personal anecdotal observation, that “weather” changes; we talk about it all the time. Climate is simply the time integral of all of the weather up till now, so it is axiomatic that climate changes; every day adds another 24 hours of different weather.
So how about “evolution”. Once again, personal anecdotal observation suggest that also is axiomatic. I noticed very early on, that my children are different from me, in every which way imaginable; and they also differ as much from their mother. They also have a lot in common with both of us. And neither my kids, nor my siblings are the same as my parents were. So evolution goes on right under our noses.
Now in the case of climate change, and evolution; most of us have no anecdotal observations, of significant changes. I have no recollection of any sort of weather having been different when I was growing up, than it is now, and the weather in the area I now live is pretty much what I grew up with somewhere else; maybe fewer thunderstorms, but I also got plenty of those when I lived in the midwest. I can’t say, I have observed the emergence of a new species of any kind of natural critter. Maybe genetically modified rats or beans are new species; what do I know !
So I don’t see any problem with evolution and climate change being part of science studies in schools. I see NO reason why either of those or both of them, should be any kind of cornerstone of a science education; to the point where a NCSE is needed. Would NCSE take on as a part of their burden, the teaching of string theory and parallel multiverses. Hardl ythe essentials of a balanced education.
Is it perhaps possible that NCSE is much less about teaching climate change and evolution, than it is about “keeping out” “creationism” and “climate change denial”. Need I say it again; nobody is disputing climate change.
“Creationism” would seem to be more about the specific religious belief systems of some of the world’s populations, than it is about science, which generally relates to observables. How about those large populations who fervently believe in “re-incarnation”, surely an adjunct of “creationism”..
The dearth of peer reviewed experimental observation of such effects; creationism, and re-incarnation, would seem to be sufficient to persuade, on their own, the unlikelihood of such phenmena being real, rather than a product of traditional belief systems. It doesn’t seem necessary to have formal educational courses to “unteach” creationism, or re-incarnation, which by themselves are lacking in observational support.
So now what about the “unteaching” of climate change denialism; evidently a major plank in the charter of Peter Gleick’s NCSE.
Well talk about wheel spinning. You need a formal educational structure to “unteach” some heresy, that nobody subscribes to in the first place ; as in climate change denial ?
But this is different from unteaching creationism or re-incarnation, in that there exists a vast body of peer reviewed scientific literature, and research, by eminent scientists, of at least equal stature to that of those like the Peter Gleicks, who have taken it upon themselves to censor the debate, about what climate observations, it is ok to inform people about, and which ones should be expunged as not consistent with the teaching of climate change that the inquisitions of the Gleick crowd have blessed.
To Gleick and his followers, scientific debate about contrary climate observations, is tantamount to the witchcraft of not so ancient Salem Mass.
The simple fact that NCSE can lump what they call climate change denial; a non existent phenomenon, in with creationism or maybe re-incarnation, is an indictment of what taxpayer reliant funding of purported scientific research; that is self perpetuating, has brought upon us.
So, how soon will anyone from the msm ask Al Gore about this?
tick, tock,
tick, tock,
Observa, climategate included much, if not all, information that should have been available through an FOI request. Can the same be said for the material Gleick disseminated?
What, exactly, is a “water scientist”?
The elevation of dogma ahead of truth is sadly all too common. For the Daily Kos et al any end completely justifies the means, however illegal or unethical
That “Daily KOS” place is icky. A bunch of Chicken Littles scrambling around the barnyard running into each other. I get a kind of creepy feeling every time I get a glimpse into one of those places. Yuck.
Let’s see if I have this right. Someone “leaks” the Climategate emails, and she/he’s a thief, liar, Cadillac-nosed, bottom-dwelling, mouth-breathing pond scum, and should be hung from the neck until dead…
Someone “leaks” the Heartland memos, and he’s a hero?
What am I missing? Kos doesn’t see the hypocrisy?
JimB
In my opinion this act is a sign that the scientific debate is over, alarmists lost, and have decided to run to the sewer to instead of stand by the scientific process.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18116
The end of this mess is very near now.