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.
El Reg disses its own early embracing of the “Heartland leak”.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/gleick_admits_to_heartland_hack/
“Though one Reg hack did initially assess the leak as “at least as good as the ‘Climategate’ e-mails”, this seemed a bit exaggerated. ”
Good. When I read the first piece by them I thought they’d gone ecolunatic.
As for the heroization of Gleick on the Left: Good. It is occurences like this that help the public distinguish good journalism from bad. The papering over of the forgery will drive people AWAY from the propagandists – of course only the ones who were already on the brink of jumping, but anyhow.
Let them go fully lunatic.
stanj,
You make a valid observation. reading Dot Earth’s post on this issue is an excursion into a thread filled with deeply disturbed people defending the indefenbsible.
Duncan says:
February 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“HI should offer (very publicly) to drop the case if Gleick agrees to a televised debate (structure of our chosing) with one Team member of his chosing, against Monckton and Watts.”
OH NO. Force THEM (the left, the warmists, anyone who aligns with the forger, whether it’s Gleick or a PR agency, which I doubt) to do the full Clinton defense. Let them wriggle. This is NOT a scientific debate, we are far past this point. This is a fight for the public opinion.
They did this to make points. It blew up in their face. Now DON’T interrupt them in their self-destruction.
DailyKos? modern liberalism, both American and Euro, is a mental illness. That is really no longer an exageration.
FYI, the same person appears to be posting the tendentious comparison to the CRU e-mails on several blogs (mainly political), with the same misspellings and cant.
Astroturf has become a commodity.
philincalifornia says:
“Oh, this is beyond embarrassing. This guy is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.”
The NAS is not a sound organization and needs to dissolve and re-start. The “Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment was able to stack the NAS with unvetted activists and they’ve taken over. That’s how people like Gleick get in and undermine the credibility. People need to form another organization… I suspect bona fide scientists would leave the NAS in droves.
It is intriguing that Gleick admitted it.
What worse thing did “they” fear might happen if he denied it all and we kept digging?
As far as I can tell, this whole issue is important only to climate agnostics/skeptics, alarmists, and those wishing to exploit alarmism. Not seeing a lot of notice paid in wider circles, though that may be partly a function of mainstream selectivity. Not entirely though. Not much on conservative and libertarian sites that normally take notice.
I have a feeling that alarmist policy will get implemented by government agency and NGOs without much discussion of science, reasons, ethics, balance with other priorities, or even effectiveness. At least that’s the way I’m reading Obama’s recently pledged renewed effort against global warming (he didn’t even bother to call it clean energy) after his reelection and his approach to government through the EPA, HHS, DOE, DOD, … .
So why did Gleick swallow the anonomous fake document anomalously touting him so readily and entirely? It seems he either wrote the fake memo himself as suspected by Heartland or thought it was a work of genius for someone to provide it for him under agreement of anonymity. I can think of only one other explanation. That Heartland initially provided the fake to Gleick knowing that he would then commit identity theft and distribute the whole mess. And if that’s true, well then Haliburtion really does own a hurricane machine and has turned it off to discredit the warmists. Diabolical, those skeptics.
DirkH– the usually mild mannered Dirk goes all medieval on Gleik and his ilk. GOOD. Unfortunately the media in the USA and Europe will bury Gleik’s lies and false propoganda. BUT– please be assured Dirk that the HI will sue –civilly– Gleik, his institute and the media mouthpieces. The scared media (already going broke) will print quick retractions and apologies to HI. But the ‘discovery’ phase — US law permits full and free discovery of all relevant facts held by the opponent– will find out who wrote the bogus memo that Gleik published; that will be sweet. Gleik and his institute will be bankrupted by the scandal, HI will win some damages and have its contributions rise, and the warmist Left and media will be detered from publishing future bogus stories. It will be all good.
crapstats says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:44 am
“It isn’t often that I disagree with WUWT and most of its readers, but on this I do. I don’t really see the difference between this and the leaking of the Climategate e-mails – I’m sure that if we knew how did that and how it would be equally illegal. I think we should be equally in favour of both.”
crapstats here the most simple part:
“hide the decline”, “its a travestiy…” etc etc – are all true & real
“undermine…”, “don’t teach science” – are fake
got it?
Mr. Gleick isn’t the only one keeping secrets in this – or perhaps “being untruthful” is a better phrase … his accomplices, and the evidence is building by the hour that’s what they were, will have a day of reckoning coming soon.
The real irony in this is when places and people like DeSmogBlog – which is a PR group solely and specifically organized to attack others it disagrees with. They are uninterested in reasoned scientific debate or discussion.
Their response to being caught, at minimum working with a an admitted criminal – elevating that criminal activity and individual to revered status, and excusing – even supporting – that behavior – tells what we all need to know about their ethics.
And about their honesty – which I predict will become a very interesting conversation soon.
good ol taxpayer-funded aussie ABC. possibly the most utterly dishonest post-gleick piece so far:
22 Feb: ABC: Sara Phillips: Why the Heartland scandal doesn’t matter
Which bits are fake and which bits are real will probably never be fully revealed. Certainly Bob Carter, one of Australia’s most prominent climate sceptics has admitted working for the Institute. He is named in the documents as receiving $1,667 per month for the work…
The documents were obtained by climate scientist and Huffington Post blogger Peter Gleick. He has admitted posing as a Heartland board member and asking for the documents to be resent to him to confirm the veracity of ones that came to him anonymously. As Andy Revkin has pointed out in the New York Times, despite the Heartland Institute representing climate science dishonestly, it does not excuse dishonesty in obtaining the documents.
Gleick has admitted his shame in how he conducted himself.
The exposé has been hailed by some as a kind of anti-climategate…
But these memos and emails will not have the same impact on the world as those climategate emails for a couple reasons. The first is that they don’t purport to show anything that people didn’t expect. People always expected deniers to have funding sources, and guessed that it would likely be petroleum companies and the American right wing. Not many people expected scientists to misrepresent their science – and as it turns out, they didn’t.
But also, we’re over it.
The debate over whether or not the climate is changing is so 2010. In fact, it’s so 1992…
The majority of Australians have absorbed this information and shifted their attention to more immediate concerns, such as how to address it…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/02/22/3436126.htm
Daily Kos – what Occupiers read on their iPhones while crapping on police cars.
Gleick’s behavior is reprehensible and indefensible.
I’m personally willing to believe he wrote the summary memo, he probably did it in a period of ‘irrational exuberance’ (whether chemically induced or not) after he realized he’d gotten away with pilfering the other documents.
But watch out…he’s got a crew lined up to flack for him comprised of people who do not take a leak without checking with the poobahs of the Barbara Boxer wing of the Democratic Party.
So one can safely assume that, science and law be damned, the ideological left is behind Gleick hell or high water; he’ll have the resources to make this difficult for Heartland, and assuming he eventually has to fork over you can bet the usual run of CAGW alarmist deep pockets will be covering it.
I searched this thread for the word “worse” and, amazingly, didn’t find the following phrase. But, given the praise Gleick has received from certain alarmist quarters, it’s quite appropriate. So if I may…
Ahem…
OMG, the climate alarmists are worse than we thought!!!
21 Feb: UK Register: Lewis Page: Climate scientist admits lying to obtain ‘Denialgate’ docs
Gleick cops to social-engineering of rightwing thinktank
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/gleick_admits_to_heartland_hack/
UCS says:
” It is waging a cynical campaign, funded by corporate interests and anonymous individuals, to undermine the public’s understanding of climate science and introduce ideology disguised as science into our children’s classrooms. ”
Who funds UCS? Or Gleick, for that matter?
Heartland doesn’t attempt to “undermine the public’s understanding of climate science”, it simply wishes to make sure that the public’s understanding isn’t subject to a singular bias, and that the public is exposed to the WHOLE BODY OF SCIENCE.
Hey Pat– we’ll see how much Aussies have ‘absorbed’ bogus climate alarmism when they throw your heroine PM out on her arse first chance they get. Cheers.
the deceit, the deceit of the MSM:
21 Feb: WaPo Blog: Stephen Stromberg: Why Peter Gleick’s sting of the Heartland Institute hurts the climate change cause
Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents.
Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted Monday night that he dishonestly obtained fundraising and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, an obnoxious anti-climate science think tank. In the process, he’s done more to discredit himself and his work than he has to expose cynicism and collusion among global-warming deniers…
Whatever the misdeeds of those who attack climate research, however braindead the opposition to climate scientists appears to be, advocates degrade themselves when they allow their frustrations to get the better of their ethical responsibilities. They lend credence to the (wrong) impression that both sides of the debate are equally worthy of criticism, that global warming is another ideological war that both sides fight deceitfully…
Taking the high road is not easy or fun. But Gleick and the rest of us who favor decarbonizing the world economy have to be, and should want to be, the adults in the debate. Gleick’s confession and apology Monday are more than climate scientists ever got from deniers for the overblown “Climategate” e-mail scandal. But it would have been far better if he hadn’t needed to provide either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-peter-gleicks-sting-of-the-heartland-institute-hurts-the-climate-change-cause/2012/02/21/gIQAqqGkRR_blog.html
WaPo: Stephen Stromberg is a deputy editor on the PostOpinions staff and writes editorials on energy, climate change and other environmental issues. He first joined The Post in 2006, writing about homeland security and public health for the editorial page, before he spent 2007 and 2008 covering the presidential election and the Great Recession for The Economist. Stromberg rejoined The Post opinions section in 2009. He also wrote for Salon.com during the 2004 presidential election, and before that for the Los Angeles Times editorial column.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/stephen-stromberg/2011/02/24/ABUFa8O_page.html
And the public – including their followers – DOES see the true colors of groups like DeSmog – who feel it is perfectly acceptable to go to whatever lengths – including criminal activity – if it supports their “cause.”
The original DeSmog story to date has generated 993 Facebook likes and 608 tweets. The Littlemore story on same topic posted a few minutes later received 462 likes and 799 tweets.
Mashey’s alleged bombshell expose of Heartland tax fraud – which was anything but – has rightfully garnered a whopping 39 likes and 58 tweets. Simply put even with the “lead in” of the two huge and widely read Heartland stories the same day – even their most ardent supporters simply did not believe Masheys silly “expose.”
All the rest of the stories since have all been similarly ignored by their own followers. No matter how hard they try – they cannot seem to generate more than a handful of likes or tweets to their increasingly silly and belligerent postings.
Even their own supporters began quickly figuring out DeSmog had duped them. Within a few days of the DeSmog attacks – which in hindsight, it’s becoming increasingly clear, appear to have been well orchestrated and highly like in collusion – even their loyal fanbase could smell the stench and have distanced themselves from DeSmog as quickly as they could.
21 Feb: Mercury News: Dana Hull: Peter Gleick cancels plans to join the board of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education
The National Center for Science Ecucation, a not-for-profit membership organization that defends the teaching of evolution and climate change in public schools, had been looking forward to having Gleick serve on its board of directors; Gleick was scheduled to formally be installed on the board Saturday.
But Gleick offered to withdraw from the board Monday, saying his presence would be a distraction. His offer was accepted.
“I’m very sad, because I was so looking forward to working with Peter,” said NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott in an interview Tuesday. “He will continue to make an important contribution to climate science. This is a temporary setback. His abilities have not been challenged, but he has admitted to an ethical lapse. We will be seeking a board member of comparable status.”…
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20011749
Dr G claims the twisted rationale that he stole the Heartland documents (in a moment of weakness) in order to confirm the authenticity of the anonymous memo, so he could forward the collection to interested parties with a clear conscience. However, note the sequence; memo first, stolen docs follow.
He had no way to know in advance the contents of his theft; it was a “blind” request. What are the odds that a small document set, from just one board meeting, just happened to contain references to everyone of the “smoking gun” items contained in the memo?
Another reason to suspect the documents were stolen first and then the forgery was written to conform to (or sensationalize) them.
“I love the smell of flop sweat in the morning….smells like….victory!”
with apologies to
Lt Col Bill Kilgore
1st Air Cav
USA
there is so much misrepresentation in here:
21 Feb: UK Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Climate expert admits to tricking institute
A prominent proponent of the need for action on climate change has admitted he tricked a free market think tank into sending him a batch of its confidential fundraising and strategy papers that he leaked anonymously to journalists.
Dr Peter Gleick, a water scientist and winner of a 2003 MacArthur Foundation “genius award”, said a “serious lapse” of his professional judgment and ethics led him to deceive the Chicago-based Heartland Institute into sending him budget and strategy papers earlier this year…
This document, which is written in a different typeface to the other papers, outlines plans to develop a “global warming curriculum” for school classrooms showing “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bbada27c-5cb5-11e1-ac80-00144feabdc0.html
and this is just a joke, surely…and it gets worse after the excerpts:
21 Feb: WaPo Blog: Stephen Stromberg: Why Peter Gleick’s sting of the Heartland Institute hurts the climate change cause
Peter Gleick violated a principle rule of the global-warming debate: Climate scientists must be better than their opponents.
Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, admitted Monday night that he dishonestly obtained fundraising and strategy documents from the Heartland Institute, an obnoxious anti-climate science think tank. In the process, he’s done more to discredit himself and his work than he has to expose cynicism and collusion among global-warming deniers…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-peter-gleicks-sting-of-the-heartland-institute-hurts-the-climate-change-cause/2012/02/21/gIQAqqGkRR_blog.html
Meanwhile, the Daily AMSU temps are impressively low……
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
topic: stuff those crazy CAGWarmists say….
Maybe this (below) explains why Gleick did it…. I know there are a lot of nutty people out there, but does anyone know where this person thinks she gets her “information” (sic) that between 50% and 97% of the current generation of the world’s children will die within 30-50 years of “climate related causes”??? I’ve heard some wild ‘n’ crazy stuff but this was a new one to me:
======================================================================
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1066899/45049931#c25
“…. Climate deniers are hitting us and hitting us and hitting us. They are condemning our children to a world where between half (good outcome) and 97% (bad outcome) of them will die from climate related causes in the next 30-50 years. I think that’s worth fighting for. I wish President Obama would think about his kids on this issue. If it was me, I’d declare marshal law and arrest the lot of them and disappear them into Gitmo.”