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
observa
February 21, 2012 10:05 pm

The other poignant point I’d make is every knight’s honour and integrity is now watched over by a global internet from which none can hide from his words and actions being continually tested and matched both now and into the future. You ever talk of your integrity and honour and fail to live up to them and the fall is Global Hell. Welcome to your worst nightmare now Sir Gleick.

MangoChutney
February 21, 2012 11:25 pm

I’m actually wondering if RC knew these documents were fake, because when the story broke RC had a single line in their post “Free speech and academic freedom”

Update: Some related concerns from deepclimate.org, if these claims can be verified.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/
Perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree, but it seems RC knew they were fake from the start, but wanted to highlight the story anyway.

MangoChutney
February 21, 2012 11:28 pm

old44 says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Nice to see we are in good company

February 21, 2012 11:56 pm

This is REALLY funny. He was the ‘chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Team on Scientific Ethics’
http://www.contracostatimes.com/bay-area-news/ci_20011750/peter-gleick-cancels-plans-join-board-oakland-based

Martin
February 21, 2012 11:58 pm

Rogelio says:
“Deniers time proud to be one AMSU temps falling off a cliff!”
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps
Yup, from looking at that graph temps go down, then up, then down…WUWT??

RDCII
February 22, 2012 12:27 am

JamesD:
I hope the lawyers make the point that if something is worth stealing, it has value.
Or another approach: they ask Gleick, or any defender put on the stand, how much they would have paid an informant to get their hands on the docs. Could backfire if everyone was prepared to say “no, never, not I”, though.
Lastly, the docs obviously have value if multiple sites rush to publish them, or even just if Gleick publishes them…once removed. Why bother, if they don’t have some value?
But I’m not a lawyer.

Bart
February 22, 2012 1:02 am

pat says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:32 pm
“…why does McArdle go to great lengths to analyse it as something Gleick received anonymously?”
I thought it was a very clever way of hanging him by his own rope. She lays it out in a manner such that anyone with half a brain can see that Gliek’s story is pure tosh, but manages to avoid crossing the line which might expose her and her employer to threats of legal harassment.

Bart
February 22, 2012 1:19 am

Geoff says:
February 21, 2012 at 7:21 pm
“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?”
I think you may have mistakenly posted this on the wrong thread, as I cannot find the antecedent.
Anyway, the Climategate e-mails showed that even the UEA crew didn’t believe the hockey stick, and did not want to be associated with it.

Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

Bart
February 22, 2012 1:22 am
DirkH
February 22, 2012 1:38 am

Martin says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:58 pm
“Yup, from looking at that graph temps go down, then up, then down…WUWT??”
Click on those little checkbox thingies for the last 10 years and you can see that current temps are record low. Use Channel 5, closest to the surface. Ch 04 is broken. HTH.

Jason Joice M.D.
February 22, 2012 1:52 am

In the WSJ video interview with Bast, he refers to Gleick as a “rooster”. Someone who goes around crowing about climate doom. When referring to Gleick, I prefer the word “cock”.

SteveE
February 22, 2012 2:18 am

JJ says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:07 am
“The second difference is that the Climategate emails were public property to begin with. They were publically funded communications between publically funded workers.”
I find this argument funny, it reminds me of the scene in Father Ted where Tom robs a post office saying “Tis my money father, I just can’t be bothered to fill out the forms”

Richard
February 22, 2012 2:26 am

For all those who use a ‘forged but true’ defence.
Take the forged memo. Remove from it all text that can be found elsewhere in the Heartland documents as supplied.
Read what is left.
That is what you are defending.

John Brookes
February 22, 2012 3:36 am

Can we have another post about Heartland and its activities?

Antonia
February 22, 2012 3:46 am

I still feel sorry for him, poor sap.

February 22, 2012 4:25 am

From a legal point of view shouldn’t HI or the investigators get immediate control of his computers and email? I mean surely he ran this crazy shit past one of the team or something? Also when he sent it to the blogs, did he really do it anonymously? Or with a wink and a nod?
I assume this will be a criminal prosecution in which case plod should be looking for accomplices and I would think would be remiss in their duties if they don’t secure this key evidence (which HI’s legal team should get to look at too).

February 22, 2012 4:55 am

Peter Gleick’s official rehabilitation begins…?
http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/heartland.html
February 21, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE STATEMENT
We at the Pacific Institute are aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute. 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.

1DandyTroll
February 22, 2012 5:14 am

old44 says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm
“Is there a similar list of Warmists available?”
Yes, here you go:
[A…D]
[E]
Environmentalists, Extremist.
[F…G]
[H]
Hippies, Crazed.
[I…T]
[S]
Socialists, Extremist.
[T…Z]
There’s probably others too, but I did so compile this list on the fly and since I’m not a lefty I lack the expert experience at compiling lists over people.

J.H.
February 22, 2012 5:42 am

DirkH says:
February 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Beesaman says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Just a thought, if this was the Warmist’s Watergate, who was Deep Throat?”
Steven Mosher was the first one to suspect Gleick, based on linguistic idiosyncracies in the forged memo, which Gleick still denies he has written. Pressure mounted until Gleick fessed up to e-mailing stuff from HI to DeSmogBlog.
Now if he hasn’t forged the memo, why was Mosh successful in guessing his identity? Rethorical question.
But, imagine that somebody else snail-mailed the memo to Gleick. The text of the memo mentions Gleick by name: “climate scientists (such as Peter Gleick”)” it goes… WHY would you forward that ANONYMOUSLY when you’re Gleick? Gleick posts on a gazillion media all the time, HuffPo, Forbes, youtube, Twitter.
Wouldn’t you hold that paper you received into the camera in your next Youtube video and say “Look what I got! Confirmation from a whistleblower send to me, affirmative of all my suspicions! I was right!”
Gleick’s current story is implausible.
——————————————————————————————————
Exactly right. He would simply have held up the original “leaked” document and rejoiced…. Gleick has a lot of explaining to do. Especially now that Heartland’s Joe Bast has openly accused him of forging that memo.

observa
February 22, 2012 5:54 am

“Right now, Heartland has the higher ground,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell & Giuliani, a Houston law firm that lobbies on behalf of oil refineries, electric utilities and other industries. “If they choose to be overly aggressive and make this guy a martyr, it could come back to haunt them in court, or in the court of public opinion.”
Yup!

wws
February 22, 2012 6:12 am

For “Frank”, who seems to think that impersonating a board member in order to gain access to private papers, e-mail addresses, and donor lists:
1) those items clearly fall under the legal definition of “property”. They were reserved for private use, and not available to the public.
2) Gleick has already made a written confession that he used deception, over an electronic communication system, to gain control of this property. (for the discussion of whether a copy is as protected as the original, refer to the subset of law covering IP. Short version: it is.)
3) the action took place across state lines, meaning that Federal Law applies.
Here is the applicable law: you tell me if it’s a “big deal”. Note the phrase “money OR property”. There does not need to be any explicit financial gain in order for this law to apply.
Personally, I think felonies carrying up to a 20 year prison term are kind of a big deal, yes I do.
Wire Fraud:
18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides
:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both

February 22, 2012 6:16 am

observa says:
“If they choose to be overly aggressive and make this guy a martyr, it could come back to haunt them in court, or in the court of public opinion.”
Yup!
Or to put it another way. If they chose to please the warmists by just forgiving and forgetting they could miss a great opportunity to show this common criminal and his kind up in court for what they are.
Warmists should stop calling for a draw or appealing to the Christian forgiveness of others which they so patently lack themselves. Understand, its not your choice anymore.

observa
February 22, 2012 6:23 am

As we bid a fond farewell to another carbon black knight-

We can say honourably of Sir Gleick that he loved not wisely or scientifically but too swell.

Richard
February 22, 2012 6:29 am

“Right now, Heartland has the higher ground,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell & Giuliani
Rarely do those who provide falsehood have a higher standing than those who provide the truth.
Remove from the memo only the true parts, leaving the falsehood and misunderstandings, then discuss what you are left with.

Former Forecaster
February 22, 2012 6:35 am

Today is February 22, and Al Gore what does Al Gore have on his blog? He’s still running the story of leaked documents proving a conspiracy by Heartland Institute. Somehow, the confession of fraud has missed his attention.

1 22 23 24 25 26 38