BREAKING: Gleick Confesses

Since I have started updates here, I’ll keep this post as a “sticky” – new content will follow below it and linked within updates. – Anthony

UPDATE 71: 3:27PM In his latest post 18 U.S.C. 1343 Steve McIntyre demonstrates how Andrew Lacis of GISS, has no clue about law, and likely no clue about ethical behavior either. As Eli Rabbett would say Andrew, RTFM.

UPDATE70: 2:40PM 2/28 A very detailed Fakegate timeline has been prepared by WUWT reader A. Scott, which I have published complete with an Excel Spreadsheet. Notes made of the new Copner timeline also. Details here.

UPDATE69: 10:03AM 2/28 Mosher and Copner are following another trail over at Lucia’s in comments. It seems even Gleick’s associates were warning him against use of the phrase “anti-climate”. The response about “giving away the game” makes me wonder if there were others in on the phishing, but it could just be coincidental.

UPDATE68: 9:25AM 2/28 Walter Starck has a good comparison of Heartland/Fakegate -vs- Climategate at Quadrant Online

UPDATE67: 8:05AM 2/28 Ben Pile has an excellent summary of Fakegate

UPDATE66: 4:45PM 2/27 Yesterday it was “hordes” today it is “swarms”. The hilarity continues over at DeSmog Blog.

UPDATE65: 3:08PM 2/27 the AGU president issues a statement on Gleick and AGU’s involvement with Gleick’s AGU ethics committee. It is quite strong and condemns Gleick (though could be stronger).

UPDATE64: 1:00 and 1:18PM 2/27 In a press release, the Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo Meanwhile, days later, the Pacific Institute Board of Directors catches up with a new statement citing what we all knew last Friday.

UPDATE63: 10:15AM 2/27 Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian.

UPDATE62: 10:10AM 2/27 Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail – You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.

UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million

UPDATE60: While “Fakegate” rages, which is a huge distraction from the science, this essay by Dr. David Evans The Skeptics Case is useful to consider and to cite in the thousands of online arguments now occurring. A PDF is provided for emailing also.

UPDATE59: I no more than post QOTW (bonus edition), and Steve McIntyre provides yet another quote for serious consideration. Uncharacteristically, he has disabled comments. But when you see his quote, you’ll understand why.

UPDATE58: 5:15AM 2/26 Dr. Judith Curry has a relevant QOTW (bonus edition).  My earlier QOTW choice has apparently terrorized the twits with WUWT “hordes”.

UPDATE57: 8:00PM Christopher Booker in the Telegraph says: The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists’ endless credulity – Dr Peter Gleick provides more evidence that the supporters of the Cause will stop at nothing.

UPDATE56: 3:02PM 2/25 Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”

UPDATE55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up – Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning – Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.

Loved this part:

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

UPDATE54: 12:20PM some interesting essays by Donna Laframboise here entitled: Peter Gleick – Then and Now and another by Hilary Ostrov entitled: From the ashes of Gleickgate: a new mantra is born h/t to Dr. Judith Curry from her Week in Review

UPDATE53: 10:45AM 2/25 Steve McIntyre has a humorous piece entitled Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

UPDATE52: 10:20 AM 2/25 Nicola Scaffeta has contributed a guest essay – What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick to do identity fraud on Jan 27th?

UPDATE51: 7:15PM 2/24 According to the San Jose Mercury News, Dr. Gleick has requested a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute – details here

UPDATE50: 5:00PM 2/24 Quote of the week – from Scientific American, a comment on “The Cause” as we saw in CG2 emails

UPDATE49: 3:23PM 2/24 Dr. Judith Curry posts a “bombshell” on her website saying: With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered.

Oh, the ironing.

UPDATE48: 3:00PM 2/24 Rep Ed Markey, probably still upset that Waxman-Markey cap and trade didn’t go anywhere, is sticking his nose into the Fakgate affair.

UPDATE47: 10:10AM 2/24 Fraudulent emails to Heartland from Gleick have been released. See details here.

UPDATE46: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to “disappear” $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:

EPA, do you know where your grants are?

Additional grants (possibly as much $647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.

The purpose of the grants on the screencap he has is a hoot.

UPDATE45: 8:00 AM 2/24 I’ve known this for several days, but now it is in the press. The gloves are off and The FBI has been called in.

UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.

UPDATE 43: 10:45PM 2/23 Here is a video “self-interview” from Dec 2011 by Peter Gleick from his PI office where he talks about people having a “fundamental trust in scientists”.

UPDATE42: 8:20PM 2/23 It appears that Gleick’s cyber impersonation to Heartland may have run afoul of a new law in California.

UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home

UPDATE40: 10:55AM 2/23 Heartland publishes the email thread with Dr. Gleick where he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration.

UPDATE39: 10:09AM 2/23 Junkscience reports: Breaking: EPA scrubs web site of Gleick grants?

UPDATE38: 9:45AM 2/23 What do you do when you are a climate skeptic and have access to sensitive private documents? The answer is here.

UPDATE37: 7:30AM 2/23 Monckton writes an opinion on why the perpetrators(s) should be prosecuted.

UPDATE36: 12AM 2/23 You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo. Details here.

UPDATE 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s AGU Resignation.

UPDATE34: 10:20PM 2/22 AP/WaPo: Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers

UPDATE 33: 10:00PM 2/22 The Guardian reports: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. It seems the Pacific Institute Board of directors isn’t very happy. Their recent statement contrasts with Update 19 below. And he’s been dropped as a columnist by the SFO Chronicle.

UPDATE32: 9:45PM 2/22 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has her third article in a series on this affair. She writes:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.

UPDATE31 9:15PM 2/22 The Daily Mail gives WUWT props in this affair, here:

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

UPDATE30: 6:30PM 2/22 “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.” says Maggie’s Farm on the fake document. Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. Get this: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Susuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.

UPDATE29: 5:00 PM 2/22 Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in saying:

On September 4 2011 I posted

Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California,  involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue.  Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.

UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in comments reports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only took Richard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy! The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond all hope.

UPDATE27: 11:25 AM 2/22 Marlo Lewis at Globalwarming.org summarizes in From Climategate to Fakegate

UPDATE26: 8:25AM 2/22 Time Magazine has a feature story by Bryan Walsh: The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose

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”

UPDATE23: 7:30PM 2/21 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for the takedown, and some jeers for others.

UPDATE22: 3:30PM 2/21 The AGU weighs in on Gleick with “disappointment”  Gleick resigned on Feb 16th, but apparently didn’t tell them the full story of why.

UPDATE21: 2:55PM 2/21  Fakegate – It’s What They Do by Chris Horner

UPDATE20: 2:30PM 2/21 Warning Signs: “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

UPDATE19: 2:12PM 2/21 For now, Dr. Gleick still has an office, though I’m not sure that will true in the future. The Pacific Institute made an announcement on their web page that Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. 

UPDATE18: 1:55 PM 2/21 Josh designs the new spring line of Climate Churnalism’s New Clothes

UPDATE17: 1:30 PM 2/21 With resignations happening already, and AGU removing him from his webpage, (Update11) The question out there is now about the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick signed an “integrity” document “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” was published in the journal Science on May 7th, 2010 as the “Lead Letter”, plus  a supporting editorial.  Will the co-signers defend the tarnished integrity of climate science now? Will Dr. Gleick continue on the NAS as a member?

UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.

Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign

Lame-o-meter pegged, Kenji is displeased.

UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status (via Tom Nelson):

Daily Kos: Hero Scientist responsible for Heartland Expose

Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis.  He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.

UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here

UPDATE13: 9:30AM 2/21 NCSE posts a story about Gleick on their news page, they mention his resignation from NCSE’s board.

On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

UPDATE12: 8:10AM 2/21 Delingpole on integrity here

UPDATE11: 8AM 2/21 Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

UPDATE10: 7:45AM 2/21 Dr. Judith Curry tries to reconcile Gleick’s essays on “integrity” with his actions. It is a fascinating read.

UPDATE9: 7:20AM 2/21 Josh has a cartoon out on it, I don’t agree with it. Time magazine calls out Gleick.

UPDATE8: 11:20PM Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion. They are labeling him as a whistleblower: Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents

For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

These paid propagandists are shameless, they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause. The Noble Cause Corruption is thick there.

UPDATE7: 9:32 PM Politico writes:

Two sources in California — longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.

Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.

UPDATE6: 9:25 PM Steve McIntyre writes:

No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here.

UPDATE5: 8:40PM commenter “Skiphill” writes:

Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html

Integrity of Science

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

UPDATE4: 8:35PM Dr. Judith Curry notes the irony about Dr. Gleick lecturing her on integrity here

UPDATE3: 8:15PM I have received the Heartland statement, it will be posted under a separate post here. 8:23 PM It is posted here

UPDATE2: 725PM PST This post will likely go through many revisions as we learn more, I’ll timestamp each.- Anthony

UPDATE: 715PM PST Heartland advises me they will issue a statement soon. Stay tuned.

============================================================================

As many of us had surmised, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute is the Heartland document leaker. He has issued this statement:

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

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

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post,

(Added 7:25PM PST) One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

Peter Gleick’s HuffPo blog here.

For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.

From Climategate to Fakegate

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
945 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DirkH
February 21, 2012 2:33 pm

pat says:
February 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
“u think Kos was bad! here’s Laden:
[…]
Peter is like the rest of us: ”
Ok, we should take Laden’s word for it. He’s a warmist; he knows how they tick.

pat
February 21, 2012 2:35 pm

You really have to be in denial to believe that Gleik was not also a forger. It is difficult to imagine any likely scenario where he was not also guilty of forgery. And that is why he was fired. He could not explain how the fake got into the e mail stream.

NK
February 21, 2012 2:35 pm

MarkW at 1:41 PT, I think it will come out that Gleik fabricated the fake memo to justify his felonious ID theft and Fraud to obtain the HI docs, and then claim that the authentic HI docs validated his fabricated memo. Does that make any sense? No, but who says a fraud has to make sense. Anyways, this will all come out in the lawsuit HI brings. If Gleik admits to fabricating the initial memo, then the CAGW will throw him under the bus and call him a ‘bad apple’ but that doesn’t change the scientific consensus, blah, blah ,blah

February 21, 2012 2:36 pm

I like Amino Acids’ quoting what Steve Goddard found, from 2001.

bizarre weather could soon become more common, and the consequences far more dire, according to [IPCC]. The decade of the ’90s was the warmest on record, and most of the rise was likely caused by the burning of … fuels … future changes will be twice as severe as predicted just five years ago, the group says. Over the next 100 years, temperatures are projected to rise by 2.5 to 10.4 degrees worldwide, enough to spark floods, epidemics, and millions of “environmental refugees” … Increased snowmelt in the Himalayas could combine with rising seas to make at least 10 percent of the country uninhabitable. The water level of most of Africa’s largest rivers, including the Nile, could plunge…
No more words. “THE DEBATE IS OVER,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, in Oakland, Calif. “No matter what we do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, we will not be able to avoid some impacts of climate change.”

Steve attributes the origin in Climate Science of this phrase “The Debate Is Over” to Gleick.

Marko in Helsinki
February 21, 2012 2:37 pm

Phil Plait is going on a massive zealous rant about the documents being real. Somebody that defends Gleick’s actions so vigorously and fanatically, without any proof that the documents are in fact real… makes me suspect that he is behind all this somehow and much more. He is definitely not a scientist at this point any more.

February 21, 2012 2:38 pm

Is the Pacific Institute anything more than Gleick and people who work for him? He’s President, so he’s not going to get fired. it was founded in 1987, a year after he got his Ph.D.. While he calls himself a cofounder, I’ve been unable to identify any other founders.
It looks very much to me that he’s from a wealthy family, and in order to pursue his hobby, funded by independent wealth, he set up a 501 c3 to make it all tax-deductible, except for his salary. Until recent years, it wasn’t taking in more than a low six figures in income. Is the Pacific Institute any more than a sort of very large home-office deduction?

Skiphil
February 21, 2012 2:39 pm

re: the website statement of support by Pacific Institute
Wellllll… it was about as tepid a statement of support as they could offer to Peter Gleick while still retaining him. Given that he’s co-Founder and President of PI it may take some doing if they do want to get him out of there…. but so long as he’s there it may be hard to begin to restore their own credibility. Still, with PI’s constituency of loons it may not matter much, except that even the most committed don’t want to give their money to organizations which they believe have lost any effectiveness.
So they are “aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute”….
but does PI’s Board of Directors ***really*** have the true deal on whether or not Peter Gleick FORGED the “strategy” document?? It’s one thing to believe his self-serving statement, but (possibly) quite another to really ***know*** the full story of his actions….
To exercise elementary fiduciary responsibility for the organization in both legal and ethical terms the Board of Directors must have the fullest information. One must wonder whether Gleick is still deceiving them, because they’d better be really sure he’s not the forger……

February 21, 2012 2:43 pm

Gleick rides out to right wrongs, on his high horse…
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/gleickety-gleick/

February 21, 2012 2:48 pm

Attention => Donna Laframboise*** ,
Add Gleick to your list of IPCC centric CAGWists who behave equivalent to delinquent teenagers? Please keep some empty spaces on your list; I expect we will see some of his “consensus” climate science associates added to your list as the Gleick/HI affair plays out.
John
***Author of the acclaimed book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”

DirkH
February 21, 2012 2:49 pm

Does this qualify Peter for a “Climate B.S. Of The Year” award?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-denial-_b_1185309.html
Only time will tell. Given that Peter issues the award himself, I’d say he has good chances.

pat
February 21, 2012 2:49 pm

BBC’s Richard Black has a new story up today:
21 Feb: BBC: Richard Black: Airlines and tar sands proxy for bigger climate battles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17112187
from the first comments i’ve read; there are no doubt many more in the 124 so far saying similar:
“I’m amazed, although perhaps I shouldn’t be. No mention of Peter Gleick?
After your article sneering at the Fakegate farrago and all the glee over the ‘leaked documents’, have you no interest in the fact that Gleick has now confessed?
At the very least some hearty condemnation would be appropriate although an apology on your part wouldn’t go amiss either.”
“Continually censoring comments about Fakegate when it is the lead environmental story does not put the BBC in a good light. If Richard Black saw fit to comment on the original release of these stolen and fake documents then the BBC has a duty to report the latest news about who was the source and to correct its original report. An apology would be wise as well.”

JPeden
February 21, 2012 2:52 pm

Ian of Fremantle says:
February 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Get over it WUWT readers. Remember the cheers for ClimateGate?? Same shoe different foot
= “et tu quoque” problem, Ian: you’ve just asserted that mainstream Climate Science is an [unscientific, etc.] fraud.

Dr Burns
February 21, 2012 3:01 pm

As expected, Fairfax attempts a whitewash:

The strategy documents obtained by Dr Gleick showed millions of dollars being spent on a range of projects designed to create uncertainty about climate science in schools, newspapers, on television and the internet.

”Whether Peter Gleick’s actions were justified … I cannot say,” Professor Karoly told the Herald.

February 21, 2012 3:03 pm

More on the Pacific Institute: if you look at Gleick’s first publication from the ‘Pacific Institute’, in 1989, you’ll find it gives the address 1681 Shattuck Avenue, Suite H, Berkeley, CA. Look it up on google maps. You’ll find it’s a small storefront, housing a small women’s dress shop, with what looks like a stairwell. No evidence of any suites, though there might be some offices on the second floor.
Speculation; you graduate with a Ph.D. and a trust fund. Working sucks. So you set up a research institute, with yourself as the sole employee, with a mailbox, a minimal (or no) office, a grandiose name, two blocks from the Berkeley campus and across the street from a coffee shop.

DirkH
February 21, 2012 3:06 pm

Michael Mann, world renowned tree ring statistics expert about Gleickgate:
“What was shocking to me was a description of an effort to indoctrinate children in K-9 grades in school with climate change disinformation, with anti-science propaganda. It’s outrageous.”
http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/02/21/3
Yes, Mike, it is outrageous to confuse the small ones with CO2AGW propaganda. I agree.

James Ard
February 21, 2012 3:07 pm

How can it be that the Heartland Institute has been outspent by a factor of at least a thousand, perhaps ten thousand, yet they are still coming out on top in the debate? Could it be that the science just isn’t there?

Merovign
February 21, 2012 3:17 pm

NK says:
February 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm
and the warmist Left and media will be detered from publishing future bogus stories. It will be all good.

I think I found the flaw in your plan.
Or is this the step classically labeled “a miracle happens here”?

Sailor
February 21, 2012 3:20 pm

I’m New here. Not sure which side is right about the science of climate but defending Gleik’s actions is not helping warm me over. Russell Seitz tries to defend Gleik at a Hit & Run.blog post by Ron Bailey.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/21/extremism-in-the-defense-of-climate-alar#comment_2855932

gnomish
February 21, 2012 3:24 pm

Anthony – people have been hurt by the crimatology hoax but it has been loads of fun for the crimatology team.
Watching them get away with it over and over hurts my tiny brain.
Watching them discredit science hurts my feelers.
Wanting for them to be punished and hurt like hell is what i hope for.
The main reason i keep coming here is hope to see some justice at long freakin last.
This is wholesome and wholesome is fun.
This is the beginning of the surgery to remove the cancerous legions – that’s not just fun, it’s the only way we survive it. Heck, yeah, it’s fun.
Why in the world are you brining political correctness to this party – that’s what made everybody sick in the first place. Now it’s time to start the remedy, not administer admonishions and another dose.
I enjoy this and i’m more than happy to be seen enjoying it pour encourager. Do skeptics need yet more discouragement and from one of the sources of possible salvation?
Thank you for all you do – you’ve probably saved us from cap & tax by your efforts.
I’m thrilled with it.
sic semper tyrannis and i don’t care who doesn’t like it. i love it.

Lars P.
February 21, 2012 3:28 pm

Chris Alemany says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm
“Oh Poor You Anthony.
Where is the call for retribution and reparations for all the scientists implicated in climategate who had their reputations dragged through the mud, and still do years later, because of allegations that have been refuted and pardoned time and again by authoritative parties.
And yes, that would include suing YOU for your defamatory comments against those scientists and for allowing far worse in your public comment section here at WUWT.
At least Mr. Gleick has enough of a conscience to admit that he made a grave error. ”
Chris, the climategate email allowed us to see what the respective scientists were thinking behind the courtain, and it was not nice what we saw. There was not one email identified as fake in the climategate emails.
The so called “fakegate” published a document that was identified as fake. The damning sentences found there “undermine”, “do not to teach science” and so on have been identified by HI as fake probably done by a villain person with clear intention to smear.
With the fake document there were linked several authentic documents with information that was mostly known and available on the internet You understand there is a difference?
Please try to read through, go read the climategate documents, go read what was identified here as fake and only after it post anything about it.
Try also to read why people supposed it was Mr. Gleick even before he had found enough conscience and admitted to have made the error. This might be a good eye opener for many:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/
Please read most comments through, these are worth the time.

Jeff D
February 21, 2012 3:32 pm

From his mission statement:
The Pacific Institute currently has three main programs of research: Water, Community Strategies for Sustainability and Justice, and Globalization. In addition, the Institute focuses on four initiatives: International Water and Communities, Water Use in Business, Climate Impacts and Adaptation, and ( Integrity of Science. )
I just can’t get over the last 3 words of that paragraph. But further up in the text is “Justice”. Pretty sure that he believed that the pointy end of the Sword of Justice would not be pointing in his direction when he wrote that……

Kaboom
February 21, 2012 3:32 pm

I remember US law allows forfeiture of real estate if it has been used in committing a crime. The DEA frequently applies it to houses, cars or boats of drug dealers. I wonder if the same goes for the Pacific Institute’s facilities if they don’t disavow Gleick and he did his dirty deed from the office and by using their infrastructure.

February 21, 2012 3:34 pm

Anthony & Mods,
Judith Curry reports that Romm has spoken on the Gleick affair.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/21/428884/crossing-the-line-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-and-andrew-revkin/
John

Beesaman
February 21, 2012 3:36 pm

Silence from the BBC’s Black. I bet they bury the story in some out of the way radio blog so that they can say they reported it!

Beesaman
February 21, 2012 3:44 pm

Just a thought, if this was the Warmist’s Watergate, who was Deep Throat?

1 19 20 21 22 23 38