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.
@yawn:
There have been no credible studies regarding second hand smoke. None. It is the same problem as with AGW: there are no testable, reproducible experiments, and there is no empirical, testable evidence, showing that human emitted CO2 raises global temperatures [it might, but at this point it is still only a conjecture].
OK that’s the end of fake commenter “yawn” and his trolling on second hand smoke – the topic (as is “yawn”) is irrelevant. – Anthony
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Special Edition
=================
http://heartland.org/press-releases/statement-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-regarding-wall-street-journal-onl
“In a February 21 interview with the Wall Street Journal Online, I mistakenly stated The Heartland Institute has concluded Peter Gleick forged the climate strategy memo he released to DeSmog Blog, Think Progress, and other bloggers and Web sites. That is not the case. The document indeed is fake, as Heartland has previously stated. While many others have suggested Mr. Gleick is the likely author of that memo, Heartland’s investigation into the matter continues. We should have more information shortly. I regret the error.”
=============
Are we learning yet ?
It’s a shame to see someone who expresses these opinions called a “climate expert”. I’ll stick to “water expert” — although not “water vapor expert”.
@Andrew: I wonder if there is an Epson scanner or scanner/printer at the Pacific Institute?
Gleick normally works at the Pacific institute, and the scan was apparently done on Monday Feb 13th, and the “Heartland Insider” email on Tuesday Feb 14th, both during periods when most people are at work (of course I don’t know Gleick was working there at those times).
Richard Black reports on BBC:”what’s wrong with the Heartland Institute preparing curriculum material for use in schools, you’ve asked. “Green groups do it all the time,” is the allegation. I don’t know how things are in the US; but in the UK, I’m told, that certainly isn’t the case.”
So Richard claims to be blissfully unaware of the education program run by green activist group UK-based 1010.org? The 1010.org group put out the now infamous youtube video showing a school teacher exploding skeptical kids.
Note that if you search “people” in the 1010.org website you find a “Richard Black” is listed as a member in the UK. Obviously just a coincidence – think not!
It widens: NCSE Programs and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau caught lying about involvement with Gleick
I found this on Evolution News
I said yesterday that disgraced climate activist Peter Gleick was scheduled to join the board of our Darwin/climate-enforcing friends, the National Center for Science Education, but then tendered his resignation. I wrote that based on the NCSE’s official statement. But an email correspondent points out that the NCSE’s own website, cached here, previously gave it as a fact that he had already joined the board as of January 13.
It’s odd, then, to find NCSE Programs and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau blogging about the story and characterizing Gleick as “someone with no formal ties to NCSE.” Come again? I would think that serving on the group’s board, as per NCSE’s website, counts as a “formal tie.”
I still can’t believe that Gleick could be so dumb. But then ….. look what he “believes in” … no natural climate change.
who are the 15 Gleick emailed? all the main suspects would be writing headlines that continue to give the impression that ALL Gleick’s “documents” came from HI.
Richard Black’s “take” is so blatantly misleading, BBC needs to remove him from CAGW reporting altogether. one commenter claimed to be a bit of a “sceptic” but if Gleick uncovered “iffy” stuff from HI, then well and good. so much for Black’s clarity! is he one of the 15?
new stuff in here, anthony. are Revkin and Goldenberg among the 15?
22 Feb: NYT DotEarth: Andrew C. Revkin: More on Peter Gleick and the Heartland Files
I’ve known Gleick as a source and acquaintance since I first quoted him in 1988, which made it very hard to write the piece on Monday. I will acknowledge that certain phrases, written in haste, were overstated. Gleick’s reputation and credibility are seriously damaged, not necessarily in ruins or destroyed…
The varied ethical stances on the incident were laid out nicely by Suzanne Golenberg in The Guardian yesterday…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/more-on-peter-gleick-and-the-heartland-files/
Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents
Peter Gleick obtained and distributed internal documents belonging to the Heartland Institute.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyComments.php?storyId=147263862&pageNum=1
For those interested on how NPR will report this story
Just curious –
“Chris B says:
February 22, 2012 at 11:11 am
Sent to P. Institute. Awaiting response.”
Didn’t you read their statement?
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.
I’m presently trying not to choke, because I’m fighting an asthma attack. This is too little and too late – they are probably praying he didn’t write a rough draft of the memo, or ask any of the staff to reach out to other nonprofit workers to get the information to impersonate the Heartland Institute board member.
You have no idea how much this is going to hurt a bunch of non-profit types in the Bay Area.
You wrote:
“Scottish Sceptic says:
February 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm
It widens: NCSE Programs and Policy Director Joshua Rosenau caught lying about involvement with Gleick”
Oh, joy.
Where was that “Double Facepalm” poster from? It’s needed for this. How stupid can they get? It’s not that hard to say, “Yes, he resigned.”
Double facepalm
Still pretty sure HI boffed it when they went too litigious (going after posters and not offering incentives for honesty).
The Times piece was OK, ’til the end. That seems to be standard treatment of AGW propaganda lately; it appears near the last paragraph. Generally it is blatant as in the Times.
Generally it is less blatant as in the times.
From the president of the AGU in his comments regarding Fakegate.
“……..Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.
AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
“excellence and Integrity” could mean their members are the best at consistently getting things wrong. I think what they meant is “competence and honesty”. I’m not sure of Gleick’s competence but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t “embrace” or “share” honesty as a core value.
How can my trust in the AGU be restored when the president states that the climate is changing, in spite of the regrettable transgression of the most ethical member of his club. Maybe if the AGU could just pinpoint when the climate has ever stayed the same I’d start feeling better about them.
I fear for us all if this is the state of scientific organizations today.
I have just followed the link to Richard Black’s latest BBC ‘article’. I doubt that his credibility, let alone his career, can survive his own rattle-headed attempt at justifying his speedy attack on the Heartland Institute and Black’s own complete lack of action for days over the release of the Climategate emails. His current offering is so replete with straw-man arguments and falsehoods taken from the forged document that one would not dare to wander into his verbiage with a naked flame; That Black’s article includes a link to a blog written by a retired US military officer who sent a nasty email to HI and didn’t like HI’s response, then boasted about it on the internet is quite bizarre. The level of hatred for the Heartland Institute laid out in the email is both scary and unhinged and Black providing the link, implies to me at least, that Black actually supports such warped and vile thinking. Thank Heavens I no longer live in the UK and have to assist with paying Black’s salary.
On the comments under Andy Revkin’s latest piece is this comment from Tom Fuller (sfgate.com):
[/i] Tom Fuller
San Francisco
What Peter Gleick did was wrong, but it was worse than wrong–it was unnecessary and stupid. The truth about Heartland is that it is a minor league player in the climate wars, poorly funded and not extremely well-led. What a poor staffer sent to Gleick shows that.
All the people yesterday and today who are lionizing Peter Gleick are just telling those on the other side that lying is okay. Making stuff up is okay. It’s for the good of the cause.
Those like Gavin Schmidt who properly criticize Gleick’s behaviour are possessed of deeper vision–and I say that as one who has criticized Schmidt before.
What Gleick undertook was to be a hero in a Greek tragedy. What commenters here are doing is more common–but ultimately far worse. [/i]
Also like how Andy directly takes on Joe Romm.
It strikes me that PG lied to his own side. Regardless of how he came by the Heartland Board package, he presented it to his side and team members under an assumed name, as if he were an insider and whistleblower. (I presume he used the same email ID as he used to “phish” the documents out of Heartland’s secretarial pool. He might even forward the HI secretary’s mail, with the attachments. This would perhaps show that some, [ but not all?] of the documents did in fact come from HI directly, establishing the bona fides. That in turn might explain why DeSmog and others felt so little need to check. And it may be interesting to see if that email had an extra document — the board package from the HI secretary as, say, a zip file, and the scanned fake document as another separate pdf.)
The thing is, if he had approached his allies under his own name and sought their assistance honestly, there might have been one of the 15 or say who had the brains, balls, and morals to say: “hey, this isn’t going to turn out well…” To sufficient numbers of eyeballs, all problems are shallow. If PG had asked for help crafting the strategy document, it might have read more like the sort of thing a committee at a think tank actually might draft. If had not betrayed, or fooled, or tricked, his own side, he might not have had this humiliation. If he had simply subjected himself to a real peer review…
If only.
@ur momisugly Smokey
I see your Double Facepalm…and raise you a…”A Water Quality Researcher”…
http://neaststyle.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/shitcreek.jpg
I would submit to y’all the reason the prolific Twitter’er Peter ‘Twick or Tweat’ Gleick has not been heard from much on the Twit-O-Sphere of late is that he is sampling the water on the Creek he drinks from. Elevated fecal coli-form bacteria have been reported…and he has ventured to the headwaters in search of the source. Rumor has it…the ‘source’ may be MAN BEAR PIG…
Good luck on your search Professor Gleick, I recommend an extra paddle, that stuff can be thick. It would be a shame to find yourself…Up Ur Creek without a paddle…I think.
Not surprised at all about the BBC. It has been a laughingstock for its “science” reporting for quite a while. As far as I can tell, many people at the BBC have been credulous, innumerate, illiterate fools on many occasions. It has no credibility to lose.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004536.html
Triple face palm?
http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
Richard Black’s last comment in his BBC article was that the article Joe Bast posted on his own site was a must read. That is no understatement. I suggest that this should be update 29:
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/02/heartland-institute-rebuts-outlandish-new-york-times-story-on-stolen-and-fake-documents/
Copner says:
February 22, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Triple face palm?
http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
========
Excerpt from link:
“A line-by-line evaluation of the Climate Strategy memo, which the Heartland Institute has repeatedly denounced as a “fake” shows no “obvious and gross misstatements of fact,” as Heartland has alleged.”….
——-
The memo itself was deemed to be fake, which would include any statements contained within, but if you insist on digging………..
Andrew says (February 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm): “They seem to have change their tune…
What is the song played to signal ‘RETREAT’ on the battlefield? It sounds like that!”
I looked up the bugle call for “retreat”, but it turns out that in the military, “retreat” is the evening ceremony for lowering the flag.
http://cecom.army.mil/historian/updates/24.htm
This page lists the bugle calls of a cavalry reenactment organization:
http://www.secondcavalry.org/bugle_calls.htm
It doesn’t list a call for “run away”. The closest would probably be “come about”, i.e. change direction of advance by 180 degrees.
Perhaps in the fairly near future we can play “Taps” over the CAGW hysteria, but unfortunately right now it’s still alive (though perhaps ailing a bit; thanks, Anthony & Heartland).
@ur momisugly Gary Hladik
Umm…lets hold off on Taps…I would hazard to guess it would be premature…let’s avoid any “Mission Accomplished” statements until a few of the big wig blowhards are inhabiting the nearest Club Fed, playing ‘drop the soap’ with the Uni, Shoe and Underwear Bomber’s….
Search French Military songs perhaps…
@Copner. Yup, they’re nuts. They’re just trying to brazen it out in the hopes some of their more delusional followers might fall for it. It’s insane but that’s how they roll.