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.
Anthony — first, a huge thank you for all you do and I’m sorry you have to put up with such vile defamation and abuse from trolls and people like Gleick, et al.
2nd, thanks for all the great coverage of Fakegate.
Finally, a slightly mischievous suggestion in case you can consider it (it might have beneficial effects on the public discourse)….. what if, after the title of this thread “Gleick Confesses” you could add some kind of parenthetical “(Sort Of…)” or “(Partial Confession)”
You will know best whether you want to be a bit provocative or not, but it certainly might re-focus attention upon the uncertainties about the veracity and (in)completeness of the Gleick “confession”……
Man Bearpigg says:
February 20, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Have the police been round to Glieck’s house yet to get his computers a la Tallbloke farce ?
Isn’t that a very good question!!
tallbloke says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Presumably the DOJ will have sent Gleick a notice telling him not to alter anything on his PC, and the cops will soon be around to make copies of his hard drives….
Lol.
In a fair world, considering what happened to you, that would happen. But then in a fair world what happened to you wouldn’t have happened.
Lucy Skywalker
Yes, Lucy, wouldn’t that top it all if it really was Gleick that coined the phrase “THE DEBATE IS OVER”!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#comment-899657
Not to clutter up the thread, but the next two posts are cross-posts of my comments (in response to this post post by Steve Zwick on Forbes) which have not appeared, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/21/heroes-and-zeroes-in-the-heartland-gleick-says-he-leaked-docs/
Hi Bluecloud,
My opinion of Mann’s work is shared by many serious scientists globally. Just to give one review, I suggest you read the paper last year by McShane and Wyner in The Annals of Applied Statistics (Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 5-44). You can see in their study they found that random noise was as effective as the proxies processed by the Mann algorithm in predicting temperatures. As they put it “random series that are independent of global temperature are as effective or more effective than the proxies at predicting global annual temperatures in the instrumental period. Again, the proxies are not statistically significant when compared to sophisticated null models”. Do you know what that means?
This is not even taking into account Mann leaving out 40 years worth of data when he purports to show that his proxies correlate to temperatures in the thermometer era. If you are truly interested in understanding Mann’s work, you should read and digest the The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford (which has already been recommended by the book club).
In his more recent papers, Mann has used a proxy upside down from the orientation proposed by the author of the original study developing the proxy.
Of course, showing that Mann’s science is unsupportable in now way “disproves” global warming. It simply means that anyone wanting to show temperature reconstructions of the past 1000 years cannot validly rely on his methods.
Regarding the scientists who edited the NIPCC report, what makes you think of them as “discredited”. I can guaranty you that many knowledgeable scientists do not you share your view. Are you aware of Dr. Singer’s recent scientific papers showing that tropical hotspots predicted by climate models are not being seen in the actual measurement data? This has now been accepted (after years of disagreement) by such mainstream scientists as Dr. Ben Santer. I was fortunate to hear a talk last year organized by the Royal Institute of Meteorology in The Netherlands where Dr. Singer was able to present his findings. He was treated with respect, even by those who did not agree with his views. This is the way science should progress. (I’d be happy to reference the scientific papers if you have not read them).
It’s pretty clear you don’t like what the Heartland Institute stands for, but how does that impact real science? Would it matter if the report had been written by the president of Exxon Mobil ( or Koch Industries if you prefer) or Greenpeace? The reports cites thousands of scientific papers in mainstream climate journals. I would say that anyone who reads the actual scientific literature (and not summaries) would realize that the IPCC conclusions are largely a house of cards. Are you familiar with Dr. Trenberth’s paper in the journal Science on Tracking Earth’s Energy (16 APRIL 2010 VOL 328)? You may know that Dr. Trenberth is an IPCC lead author. In that paper, he shows that measured heat in the oceans is far lower than predicted by climate models. More recently he has hypothesized that the “missing heat” is in the deep ocean (where it cannot be measured). This strikes many scientists as implausible.
Where do you think the “missing heat” is lurking? Many scientists have come to the conclusion that there is no “missing heat” but that the models have overstated warming. What do you think?
I would leave you with one last reference. You may have seen the paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Dr. Judith Curry (head of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, and Dr. Peter Webster of the same university, who is the incoming president of the atmospheric science committee of the American Geophysical Union) where they concluded “…The large uncertainties in both the observations and model simulations of the spectral amplitude of natural variability precludes a confident detection of anthropogenically forced climate change against the background of natural internal climate variability”. (BAMS, Dec, 2011, p. 1686-7).
Hi Steve,
See my comments to Bluecloud. Do you have a scientific reason for ignoring the conclusion of Prof. Wegman who concluded in a report to Congress that the Mann conclusions were not statistically valid? (You may recall that Dr. Gerry North, who was head of an NAS panel reviewing climate reconstructions testified under oath that he agreed with the conclusion of the Wegman report).
You don’t seem to want to look at the NIPCC report, which is a selection and review of scientific papers (in the same way that the IPCC reports are reviews). Perhaps you would just prefer the citations of the scientific papers directly. I’d be happy to supply hundreds of scientific references which gravely call into question the IPCC conclusions. Thousands of independent scientists have reached the conclusion indicated above by Dr. Curry and Dr. Webster.
Perhaps you saw the letter in the Wall St. Journal yesterday by some of the most renowned scientists in the world, who have concluded by their independent investigation that CO2 is not having the effect predicted by the IPCC. They rightly say don’t take their word for it, read the literature yourself. I recommend this approach.
Coming back to Gleick, if you think his actions were ethical and laudable, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I think most people will disagree. (At any rate they were illegal). I guess that’s why he is no longer the head of the AGU ethics committee and is not being given a “hero” award by the AGU.
I am 100% supportive of the scientific method, but if you ignore some views you are very likely to have a distorted perspective. I wish you success in your further efforts to learn.
BREAKING NEWS: I haven’t seen a reference to this yet…. today in an interview with Wall St. Journal Online, Joe Bast has explicitly accused Peter Gleick… asserting that Gleick “forged” the memo (I think this is a more explicit accusation than the HI statement last night which referred to Gleick’s pretense that he received the “strategy” memo from an anonymous source as “unbelievable”):
Interview with Joe Bast, President of Heartland Institute:
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html
[my partial transcription of Bast’s comments]:
“Peter Gleick… impersonated a board member at 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 in order to make it look like we were conspiring to discourage teachers from teaching science in classrooms and in other ways doing this nefarious stuff, and then leaked all those documents…..”
re: misrepresentations in the forged memo re school curriculum:
[Bast]: “the memo just flat out lies about what we’re trying to accomplish there”
Thanks JamesD – that means of course that he has willingly caught everyone he sent this to in the same bear-trap.
Belief in CAGW is mass delusion.
Gleick said in his confession-cum-apology,
Apparently referring to this email body,
The complete email with addresses and time and transmittal info/metadata would help verify the level of Gleick’s honesty in the whole matter. Has anyone seen the complete email with all that info included?
John
It was the toxoplasmosis parasites in his brain that made him do it http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/8873/
re the article by Megan McArdle, senior editor for The Atlantic:
Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/
after reading the piece, in one sense, you could say at least McArdle includes more detail than the rest of the MSM.
she includes the email sent out by Gleick initially, which she says was sent to a “bunch of climate bloggers”.
it begins:
“Dear Friends (15 of you):”
McArdle: “Some of the climate bloggers are praising Gleick for coming forward, and complaining that this is distracting from the real story. And I agree that it’s a pity that this is distracting from the important question about how fast the climate is warming, and what we should do about it.”
in the end, McArdle’s piece is so garbled, u cannot blame the first person to comment who states:
comment by nellcote: “So at the end of the day the original Heartland docs are genuine, confirmed by their own mailing. I don’t understand why Gleick even apologized.”
this is precisely what is wrong with all the coverage.
for starters, who are the 15 who initially received Gleick’s poisoned email? methinks they were not ALL bloggers. who are they?
given it was the style of the forged document that caused Mosh, with assistance from others, to finger Gleick, why does McArdle go to great lengths to analyse it as something Gleick received anonymously?
why the headline, McArdle, which says the documents are from Heartland, when your own piece will contradict this? this has been a uniform tactic of ALL MSM coverage.
as for the WSJ interview with Joseph Bast of Heartland, why isn’t this in the printed version of WSJ? not too many people bother to check out WSJ videos online. another day of shame for the MSM.
Something I’ve noticed in popular TV shows is a tendency to portray identity theft as a legitimate method that good guys use to obtain information from crooks. I’m not so surprised that someone would do it in real life and then be shocked to discover that it’s highly illegal.
It all goes back to the basic fact: If you’re a CAGW believer (and think that 97% of the human race may die due to CO2), then logically, you would be remiss if you did anything other than lie cheat and steal for your side.
The Heartland accusation that Gleick created the fake is a smart move: it puts pressure on Gleick to prove that his snail mail story is legit, and they know like the rest of us what the truth almost certainly is.
In addition at Heartland they know who had access to the original documents from which the fake drew material, so they can be quite sure as to the likelihood that Gleick’s insider dependant story is correct.
More popcorn!
Another fine,
unbiased article by Suzanne Goldenberg in the Guardian this morning:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/gleick-apology-heartland-leak-ethics-debate
– “For many veteran (sic) of the climate wars, there was an uncanny parallels to the breach of Heartland materials and the hack of scientists’ emails from East Anglia’s climate research unit in 2009. However, scientists almost invariably noted that Gleick had come clean, unlike those who carried out the East Anglia hack.”
This is how the left cleaning Crikey website’s reporter in Australia saw it ::
4. Climate scientists debate: is Heartland leaker a hero or villain?
Crikey journalist Amber Jamieson writes:
HEARTLAND, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE DOCUMENT LEAK, PETER GLEICK
Is a scientist who adopts a fake identity in order to get information from a group that actively works to discredit the science a hero or a villain? That’s the question facing the scientific community, after the Heartland Institute leaked documents scandal took a surprising turn when well-known climate scientist Peter H Gleick admitted he passed the documents to journalists.
While Australian scientists want him seen as acting alone, one told Crikey today his actions demonstrate the frustration around the mainstream media’s failure to prosecute the case on climate science.
Gleick revealed his surprising story yesterday. He was anonymously sent a Heartland climate strategy memo a few weeks ago. In order to authenticate the document, he set up a fake email address pretending to be someone who works at Heartland and convinced the institute to send him a number of confidential documents outlining major donors and scientists on the payroll. Gleick then anonymously forwarded those documents and the climate strategy memo to journalists.
The scientist called his actions “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics”: “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.”
Heartland President Joseph Blast responded in a statement: “A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.”
In his confession, Gleick also confirmed that apart from the climate strategy memo — which Heartland declared a fake from the start, and questions remain over who wrote the document and sent it to Gleick — the rest of the documents republished by DeSmogBlog and others were in exactly the form that he received them from Heartland.
Heartland began pursuing legal action against bloggers and journalists who had reported on the documents earlier this week, claiming it had been unable to verify the authenticity of all the documents.
Repercussions for Gleick’s actions came swiftly from the scientific and environment journalist community. Andrew Revkin, the Dot Earth blogger for The New York Times, wrote a scathing article on Gleick’s announcement, saying: “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.
At The Guardian, Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences and the founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, hailed Gleick’s actions: “Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years. Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”
A Grist article captured the question: “Peter Gleick: hero or moral moron?”
Reactions were mixed in Australia. Ken Baldwin, deputy director of the Climate Change Institute, was quick to differentiate Gleick’s actions from the science.
“Certainly he needs to be seen as having acted as an individual rather than as a scientist,” Baldwin told Crikey. “The rest of the scientific community would view his actions in that way and not in any sense as representing the broader scientific community.”
But the University of Western Australia’s Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist that studies how people process climate-related information, views Gleick’s actions as “something akin to a whistleblower”. Lewandowsky says many scientists have taken on a more journalistic role in recent years as the mainstream media’s investigative journalism departments have shrunk.
“By and large owing to cutbacks and the funding crisis there just isn’t investigative journalism and in many ways scientists are now doing that,” he said. “Some people will agree that Peter went too far, others will say ‘who cares?’ I don’t have a firm opinion either way. Certainly when it comes to the Pentagon papers, most people will view Ellsberg as a hero rather than a villain.”
Lewandowsky says the impact on the broader climate science community remains unclear. But he expects it will intensify the “war” between climate scientists and various ideologues and think tanks.
Rumours abounded before his confession that Gleick may have been the Heartland leaker. He’d been notably absent from his Twitter account and his Huffington Post blog. Jim Lakely, the communications director at Heartland, tweeted accusations about Gleick on Sunday:
“I emailed invite to @PeterGleick to Heartland climate debate. He indignantly refused. Why? Disclose ur donors, he said. Hmm. #fakegate”
“1st debate invite to @petergleick from me 1/13. Last “no,” disclose donors email 1/28. Email fraud to Heartland began 2/3. Hmm. #fakegate”
Crikey asked Lakely if he knew before Gleick’s confession whether he had been the leaker and whether Heartland had put any pressure on him to come forward. He replied: “Interesting questions … But you’ve seen our statement. Go with that. And may I suggest it’s time for Peter Gleick to answer some questions. Have you reached out to him? Can I expect some exclusive interview at your site in the near future? I’m sure he agrees with the ideological bent of your site, so he can trust you to be fair, right?”
Gleick has been contacted by Crikey but is yet to respond.
Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.
RELATED LINKS
Flickr to unveil spiffy makeover | Epic hopes for a devalued euro | Rudd rumblings: no Left turn yet, with Vic MPs still wavering
Back to the top | Forward this article to a friend | Comment on this article
The Climategate documents showed us the level of professional misconduct and abuse the (C)AGW-pushing “scientists” were willing to resort to in the “noble cause” of getting the message out (and unscientifically defending their work and careers).
Hansen has shown his willingness to arrange to be arrested to protest fossil fuels, mainly coal.
Gleick has now shown the willingness to compromise professed ethics to the level of obvious criminal acts. And been declared a martyr to the cause for it.
And of course there’s the shenanigans of the assorted Green groups, drunk on funding and willing to do just about anything to keep the party going, whipping up the warming hysteria whenever possible. Who have their assorted splinter groups which are willingly doing illegal acts, who are disavowed for legal reasons while the Green groups publicly celebrate their mission and devotion while mouthing criticism of their methods.
So how much longer until the most fervent of the deluded brainwashed devotees notice the loss of public and government support, that it’s not coming back, and decide they’re just taking a cue from the Climate Elders by engaging in aggressive pro-Gaia anti-fossil fuel eco-terrorism? And let’s be honest, adding the “eco-” won’t mitigate the truth of what gets done.
In other words, how soon until the bodies start piling up, and Gleick and associates arguably have that blood on their hands?
heres another guy who should go
“I have enormous respect for Peter. He’s been a very thoughtful and cautious and considered guy,” said Donald Kennedy, the former president of Stanford University and editor of the journal Science from 2000 to 2008″. Quoted from Mercury news. So now we know what junk many of these “Scientific” journals have become. The whole scientific community in this area needs a massive overhaul
Wiglaf says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:21 am
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?
Gleick is finished as a spruiker for Big Climate and to the extent that his palreviewers defend him and his actions they’ll end up stinking too. While I generally accept the view that private individuals and enterprise should have privacy protection under Law, I’m with crapstats, that institutes and think tanks, etc like HI have to be more open to public scrutiny in the same way that we expect the taxeaters in the Met or CRUs to be. In that arena we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and just like political donations, the notion of money talking is a valid concern for all. HI can easily handle that given the obvious disparity in resourcing and to the extent Big Climate want to highlight that, good on them.(that was Gleick’s stupidity in the first place) Hence my reluctance to play semantics with whistleblowing, honourable leaking or the dissemination of info that comes someone’s way by shady means. Certainly checking its veracity before dissemination is a no brainer and deliberately forging or faking same should have strong repercussions. For Gleick that has and I’d leave him to his mirror.
In the final analysis bodies like the HI are interested in the scientific facts of CAGW and nothing else. Leave the skullduggery and the defense of it to Big Climate. Now HI could get distracted from that with endless lawyering and lawsuits but the hand of mercy to a disgraced Gleick and taking the high moral ground will expose Big Climate much sooner and far more effectively IMO. Publish and be damned, because the truth will always out in the end.
Joe Bast:
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”
OMG! If this is even remotely true, it’s much worse than I thought! Crikey! “Impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute”? WOW!
Curious about DESMOGBLOG I wandered through its website and until now I had not realised what a truly evil bunch we are in the in the global warming denial industry. The page that took my fancy however is the list of individuals at http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database who are committed to destroying the planet. Is there a similar list of Warmists available?
“For 25 years, the Pacific Institute has been committed to conducting research that advances environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities.”
Ummm, and if the “research” doesn’t advance your goals? You don’t publish, correct? Because, in your own words your are committed not to science but to political goals.
Deniers time proud to be one AMSU temps falling off a cliff!
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
Ironargonaut says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Exactly.