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.
At 21:00 on 22 February comments on Black’s blog were suspended. I wonder why?
From Gleick’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=747914697&sk=wall
Peter Gleick
Why would the Wall Street Journal turn down a piece on climate science from 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, and then accept a scientifically flawed piece from 16 climate skeptics/contrarians?
Read and then Discuss.
🙂
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal – Forbes
http://www.forbes.com
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading argument…
I pity the person who checked the box…”Notify me of follow-up comments via email” at the start of this thread…ROFL
I feel very sorry for Peter Gleick, I think he’d only have risked this if he was an honest believer. William Connolley did say he’s a water guy not a climate scientist, I don’t believe any of the major players in all this would be so foolish as to believe their own press releases.
As such he’s just another victim, even if he seems to have done rather well out of global warming scare business up to now. Maybe the HI could ask for the law to go easy on him, providing he agrees to a few tv debates on the subject or something. The important thing is that more and more of the public is catching on that something just isn’t right with climate coverage in the mainstream press.
I won’t enjoy watching him be turned into a martyr they will only use for their own ends, it’s not making what happened any better.
One commentator on Black’s blog asked him outright if he was one of those original 15 who received Gleick’s ‘breaking’ e-mail.
There was no response up until comments were cut off.
Methinks that Auntie Beeb was reacting to legal advice, the Beeb was starting to enter deep and murky waters wherein nasty, biting things lay in wait!
Something I have said many times on the subject of fossil fuels and human progress (to go along with that thread of discussion) is that our society is going to have to take a few more steps backwards before we can go forward.
We as a species have done that a lot in the past. Look at the “dark ages” as they are called and other times in history where progress either stalls or goes backwards due to civilizations dying out or becoming stagnant. It happens a lot more then you think through either idealogy, or through plagues or whatever. Our society obviously under the guise of AGW is embracing old technology and worse technology to meet our needs under ideological reasons such as solar, wind and other so-called sustainable power sources. Those terms like any others are just used to mis-lead like the terms environmentalism, global warming and others to gather the fools, do-gooders and other people who can be spared from their money to gather power for the activists.
In other words, we are stuck with inferior and antique forms of power that had their hayday in the past or are inferior for modern society. So in order to progress as a society, we will be forced to take another step backwards and go back to fossil fuels. Kind of sad to shut down all of these coal power plants like the US is planning on doing for NG over the next 30 years, and then of course probably attempt to shut those down only to re-open them again in the future, kind of a tug-of-war where reality in 50 years will see all of these re-open eventually when coal turns out to be much cheaper and society finally advances to thorium nuclear and beyond in another 50 years and then we progress.
As I said, we will have to take those steps backwards just to go forward. And its the fault of these eco-nuts and zealots such as Peter Gleick et al. They do as much dis-service to this planet as anyone else because history shows that the one thing that forces humanity to advance is not Government or forcing people to do something but human ingenuity and advancement through necessity.
We will out-grow fossil fuels and oil. And also fission power. This is inevitable and all the scary stories and doomsday scenarios especially in relation to global warming just prolong our societies usage in the end of said commodities because economic power is what advances society throughout history and nothing else. These scary stories and doomsday things just advance the carears of activists and rent seekers who just hang on and leech off of society along with those super-rich who make a lot of money as well off of the gullible on easy and sure things as tax-payer subsidies. Who can blame them when they are guarenteed money?
As the grinding of AGW marches on, Big money is at stake and people will not give it up easilly when hundreds of billions are at stake in the energy industry and in big green and scientific carears are vested into it. Nothing will stop it short of society actually forcefully stopping it ourselves at this stage.
It might change its title to “man caused global cooling” or something depending on what happens in the next 10 years, but that much money is too much gravy to simply walk away from. Would you walk away from a slice of 100’s of billions?
Then you have the zealots and true believers….as this entire Peter Gleick episode shows, very few warmists will condemn him and read what happened without making him out to be better then what he was. Some have condemned him, but they are the few and the minority in this entire thing…and I do give them props for sticking up and doing the right thing.
But the vast majority either defend him somewhat and condemn his action slightly (slap on the wrist) while at the same time insulting sceptics and talking about him as if he was a hero. This is the problem with zealots of any stripe. This entire episode shows how much work we all have to do to expose the movement.
With such large sums of money in comparison to say the HI, the big green machines are walking nightmares. They won’t give up without a fight and they can hire huge PR firms to put out nice soft messages to the press. They can also hire the best lawyers as is the case with people such as Peter Gleick or others who just want to sue sceptics for the sheer joy of doing so.
So yes, we might know their true colors, but we have a long way to go before we can take the needed step backwards as a society and can go forwards.
If only Charles Dickens were alive today.
“He had a certain air of being a handsome man–which he was not; and a certain air of being a well-bred man–which he was not. It was mere swagger and challenge; but in this particular, as in many others, blustering assertion goes for proof, half over the world.”
From Little Dorrit
Some of the media coverage of this entire affair has been rather biased and often inaccurate. Bryan Walsh at Time seems to be providing one example here:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm
Walsh writes that “Rich Santorum earlier this month called climate science ‘an absolute travesty of scientific research.'”
As far as I have been able to determine, that isn’t true. What Santorum actually said at the Colorado Energy Summit on Feb 7 was this:
“The most important thing we need to do, which is what this administration has not done, which is to use sound science, not politicized science. We have seen the politicization of science like we have never seen before, in the recent years. We saw it with global warming, an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by politics, motivated by those, in my opinion, who saw this as an opportunity to, uh, to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and, even greatly and more, control your life.
I can tell you I for one never bought the hoax. I for one understood, just from science, that there are a hundred factors that influence the climate. And to suggest one minor factor, of which man’s contribution is a minor factor in the minor factor, is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affect the entire global warming and cooling, is just absurd on its face. And yet, we had politicians running to the ramparts.”
See the video on YouTube at 4:24, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AwmAnNPHok
If you Google “an absolute travesty of scientific research” you get a lot of hits, many claiming (incorrectly) that Santorum said this about ‘climate change’. But as far as I can tell, the suggestion that Santorum was speaking about ‘climate science’ is Bryan Walsh’s own contribution to our understanding of this issue.
The UK’s Daily Mail picks up the story (the paper is very widely read here) but gives quite a gentle handling of the matter, but better than the Grauniad did.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104786/Climate-change-scientist-duped-sceptic-thinktank-handing-confidential-files-showing-subverted-issue.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Does this mean we can refer to Richard Black’s bias (contravening the BBC’s charter on impartiality) as “Lame-gate”?
Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“The BBC Pension Fund is tied to future Carbon Trading. They have an investment i promoting global warming and carbon credit/emission trading.”
Not only the BBS pension fund, but if you look at the ever so “green” fraudster, err organization, that is in charge you’ll note that a scary amount of EU countries’s government controlled pension funds fund them. For instance Swedish AP1, 2, 3 and 4 are heavily invested as well as the partially government bank Nordea. The Swedish governemt owns the largest, 100% state owned, energy monopoly in EU called Vattenfall who incidentaly has invested big time in green energy called wind power in UK for British tax payers subsidies. And would you be surprised to know that all those pension funds are funding the very fund who invest unseemingly in wind power in UK. So if it all falls…all the other pension funds from all the other countries, except Sweden and possibly Germany and France, will fall more so because they’re not tied into the “infinite” brittish tax payer loop of green subsidies, not even BBC has those ties. So people borne in the 40’s and earlier ought to know why their pensions are suffering during every weather and economical cold streak these days.
Jake says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Megan McArdle has a THIRD article up about this incident:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-most-surprising-heartland-fact-not-the-leaks-but-the-leaker/253449/
——————–
I don’t know if Megan McArdle got the following questions from someone here or not, but they are good ones. She really does not believe Gleick’s story at all:
“How did his correspondent manage to send him a memo which was so neatly corroborated by the documents he managed to phish from Heartland?
How did he know that the board package he phished would contain the documents he wanted? Did he just get lucky?
If Gleick obtained the other documents for the purposes of corroborating the memo, why didn’t he notice that there were substantial errors, such as saying the Kochs had donated $200,000 in 2011, when in fact that was Heartland’s target for their donation for 2012? This seems like a very strange error for a senior Heartland staffer to make. Didn’t it strike Gleick as suspicious? Didn’t any of the other math errors?”
What’s with the large type, bold, not necessary, and I’m a fan as you can see by my comments on the Time article and elsewhere on Disqus.
[snip. D-word insult again. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
I too am sure that Richard Black was one of the fifteen.
I made a complaint to the BBC about his original blog on this subject, with one of my complaints that he published the article without checking the authenticity of the material. I was surprised to receive a quick personal email from Black to the effect that he had been able to satisfy himself about the provenance of the documents before publishing his blog.
Just finished reading black’s article at BBC. Was thinking the guy was one of the best exemple of a usefull idiot that ever existed, however I begin to think there is a serious psychological condition behind this! Truly how can the guy be so “creative” at presenting facts in a way to tell the exact oposite of their evident true face meaning? I know this is marketing “science” but to push it to such extent. Is he aware of the immense ridicule he put on himself & BBC corp. Maybe he is the designated “emergency” straw man/fall guy?
Is it my fertile imagination or it is true to say that Harabine is on the contrary very quiet & trying to be forgotten since some time now?
Also, Antony I wish you make a good exemple of gleck… Sue the cr*p of of this clown! It is a rare event one of these ethic’s “guiding light” get caught the hand in the cookie jar like this!
On the financing “things”, my personnal opinion is that I’m no longer naive enough to think everything is done w/o vested financial interest, don’t get me wrong, not that I say it is impossible your doing all this collosal work just to do thing right out of your personal pocket money, after all I do not know you personally. What I mean is there is no problem if ever there would be “interested backer” as long you do what you believe truly to be the just thing & I believe this is what you do!
Got my email from AGU:
Dear Jere:
AGU issued a statement on 21 February (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-11.shtml) regarding this matter. Thank you for your message and for your interest in AGU.
Regards,
Ann Cairns
————————————
From: Jere Krischel
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:27 AM
To: Task Force On Scientific Ethics
Subject: Peter Gleick’s fraud and forgery against the Heartland Institute
Will Mr. Gleick be ejected from his position as ethics chair, given his obvious problems behaving in an ethical manner? Or will you decid to define forgery and fraud as ethical behavior?
Anyone else get the form letter?
The only interesting thing I took away from Black’s delayed reaction is the fact that Lord Lawson won’t have to disclose his seed donor for the GWPF which is obviously good news as it protects whoever it was from harassment.
Quite interesting, I just searched for a previous comment I made and it came up with one that is under my moniker but wasn’t posted by me. Maybe one of the mods could verify the associated email address?
[Reply: I’ve emailed the other Kaboom to try and fix the problem. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, just a coincidental use of an interesting screen name. ~dbs, mod.]
“All other swindlers upon earth are nothing to the self-swindlers, and with such pretences did I cheat myself. Surely a curious thing. That I should innocently take a bad half-crown of somebody else’s manufacture is reasonable enough; but that I should knowingly reckon the spurious coin of my own make as good money! An obliging stranger, under pretence of compactly folding up my bank-notes for security’s sake, abstracts the notes and gives me nutshells; but what is his sleight of hand to mine, when I fold up my own nutshells and pass them on myself as notes!”
Charles Dickens, Great Expectations, Chapter 28
http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/self-deception-and-other-deception/
> If Gleick obtained the other documents for the purposes of corroborating the memo, why didn’t he notice that there were substantial errors,
Well he wouldn’t spot any errors if it was him who made the errors in the first place.
Any other explanation?
This is more FakeGate by the head of NOAA
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/science-by-lubchencos-noaa-fake-global-warming-by-changing-historical-temperature-data.html
“Science” By Lubchenco’s NOAA: Fake Global Warming By Changing Historical Temperature Data
To promote the global warming scare, Jane Lubchenco’s NOAA continuously changes past temperature records to create fake warming – on a monthly basis”
Why is one not allowed to mention the Heartland Institute’s position on second hand smoking (claiming it isn’t dangerous)?
I’m rather surprised to note the local Oroville paper has an ok article on this. http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_20011749
fyi http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/heartland.html
“February 22, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and documents pertaining to the Heartland Institute. Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events. As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings. In the meantime we maintain our commitment to the smooth operations, governance, and mission of the Pacific Institute.
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.”
They seem to have change their tune…
What is the song played to signal ‘RETREAT’ on the battlefield? It sounds like that!
yawn says on February 22, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Why is one not allowed to mention the Heartland Institute’s position on second hand smoking (claiming it isn’t dangerous)?
Well, it seems that you are allowed to.
However, as a life-long non-smoker, I must say that I too do not think that second-hand smoke is dangerous.