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.
I know everyone is caught up in the Fakegate press fallout….but remember the goal of the Alarmists…destroy the enemy (that would be ‘skeptics’)
That is what this is about…and it will probably have significant repercussions. There will be local discussions all over the US and Canada about the people who were on the ‘payroll’….and should they be fired from their full-time jobs. A lot of people will have to stop working with HI, and try to fit back into their organizations (many of whom are left wing)
So the long term effect is to suppress the opposition…people will be very afraid of dealing with HI in any way….which is just what Gleick wants.
I’m sure he would be more than happy to lose a few part time positions in order to take down HI.
In the long run, I’m afraid he’ll win.
Indur, I hope you draw a defense with the profits Hansen et al have made. And, I pray you’ll come out unscathed.
My very best,
James
Appell at Quark Soup as a 20 minute interview with the AGU president regarding Gleick.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/02/interview-with-agu-president-michael.html
“”””” The geophysical union, a scientific society, said in a statement that Gleick’s actions are “inconsistent with our organization’s values.” “””””
Does this carry the same weight (of believability) as something along the line of : ‘ The such and such observations are consistent with the results of the latest terra-computer models of MMGWCCC…’ ??
The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds.
Peter Gleick’s actions are shocking and atrocious, a sad event for standards in science where we see otherwise dedicated scientists violate their own integrity in furtherance of their belief stricken cause to save the Earth at all costs. It’s an unfortunate pattern of behavior that the end justifies the means.
By using fraud and deception Peter Gleick compromised himself. This is all too familiar in climate scientists dedicated to their cause above their commitment to the scientific method. Peter Gleick likely fancied himself, absurdly, as a whistle-blower of sorts, as DeSmog climate doomsday rapture cultists have characterized him justifying his criminal actions, but the facts now show that there was nothing of substance to the climate issues to be “blown”, just private information stolen in a crime against a think tank who disagrees with Gleick’s world view of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. Nothing to blow the whistle on thus Gleick’s acts are wholly criminal acts not qualifying for whistle-blower status.
The two Climate Gate incidents also fit this pattern but on a much larger scale where an entire clutch of climate scientists, Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, Dr, Jones, Dr. Briffa, Dr. Threnbreth, et al., as is evident by the two sets of Climate Gate Emails, had a similar ongoing conspiracy to fudge their numbers, defraud the public, violate the scientific method using secret political actions to block publication of papers, coordinating their actions to the benefit of their pet hypothesis, CAGW, to the benefit of their careers, to the benefit of their funding, to the benefit of their “cause” rather than to the benefit of science or to the benefit of the public paying their bills.
It is obvious that an insider having observed these suspect activities of scientific fraud and cronyism and the resulting gaming of the data to bias towards CAGW plus the fact that funding monies where clearly involved as motivation to career and person adds in the suspect activities of potential criminal fraud not only across state lines but across international borders as well.
The role of the whistle-blower is typically reserved for insiders who observe highly unethical and or criminal behavior going on in an organization who then reports such events and crimes to the public for action by those with the legal obligation to act accordingly and responsibly. Some countries even provide legal protections for such “honest” whistle-blowers who side on the side of doing the right thing rather than letting the crimes continue.
The direct comparison of these two events, ClimateGate and Gleick Fake Gate, leaves one with the bitter taste that, unfortunately, there are many climate scientists willing to engage in unethical actions even crossing the line into scientific fraud (fabrication of data is a no no Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann) and advancing their own careers using deception (hiding the decline is a big no no Dr. Mann) and, now evidently clearly criminal acts of identity theft, social hacking misrepresentation deception passing oneself as a board member of an organization one is not a member of nor a board member of, receiving stolen documents across state lines for wire fraud, and likely many more charges will be identified as this story develops and unfolds, not to mention the loss of scientific integrity and violating ones commitment to the scientific method and nuking one’s own career with a Tsar Bomba in the process.
So two major cases, Climate Gate I & II (with III in the wind) and Gleick Fake Gate have shown the criminal aniled minds of climate science are active and willing to break the laws that help to keep civilization civil and worse they routinely break the rules of the scientific method claiming they are under attack. Well dah! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the lab!
Science is about testing all claims of hypotheses put forward, it’s the science that is being “attacked” since it’s not hard science of the order of f=ma or e=mc^2. If these two equations had the lack of “predictive value” of the climate science statistical virtual models we’d not be able to build sky scrapers safely let alone have humans visit the moon and robotic probes explore the solar system and beyond!
There is a serious quantitative failure of the field of climate science to keep it self rooted in hard science, sure they put up space satellites and take observations, but it’s the climate scientists methods of analysis that are the key problems (when the frauds and blatant politics are removed that is) they have an over reliance on statistical games and statistical models that disconnect many if not most of their results from the Actual Real Atmosphere and Climate of this Small Blue Marble known as Earth.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
Rutherford’s Rule of Experiments is a very concise and elegant filter that separates true hard science from pseudo sciences such as Climate Science.
Judith Curry hits the head on the nail with Gleick’s [lack of] Integrity: when one “perceives with passion” that the Earth is at risk one’s emotions lead one to compromise ones values and self; and in the case of scientists it seems that shows up as a Passion Bias or a Dedication Bias or as commonly known, Confirmation Bias, but to that we can now add Compromise Bias: these are all the blatant ignoring of the counter evidence that has a damn good habit of falsifying the many claims of CAGW.
What makes a Bad Scientist? What makes a Good Scientist? What makes a Great Scientist? How well they adhere to the scientific method and how well they can shift their point of view to consider what others are telling them. Also being honest and not using deception or fraud is a baseline essential commitment.
…
…
…
Read more here: The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds.
Another fair account of what happened and the climate change wars:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,816964,00.html
Isn’t this just industrial espionage? Gleick “had” joined a group that was going to provide school curricula information promoting CAGW and they had got wind of Dr. Wojick’s project. Gleick wanted to make sure that his output was not in competition and also was not superceded by the Heartland’s project output. If Gleick could discredit Heartland, particularly their school project then he surmised that they would scamper back into the darkness and drop the project like a stone.
Personally this passes my “what is more likely” test rather than frustrated genius has a sudden brainfart and is prostratingly apologetic while his heart is in the right place.
Spiegel Online has an almost balanced report on the FakeGate story. The author does imply that vast sums of money are spent to sway the public mind but doesn’t address the vast imbalance between the skeptic and CAGW sides of the discussion. He also doesn’t identify Mann or the UCS spokesman as strong partisans while quoting them and gives Mann’s new book a plug.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,816964,00.html
My fellow Canadians may or may not know DeSmogblog is based in Vancouver and is lead and backed by James Hoggan CEO of Hoggan & Associates. They list two provincial governments as clients (Ontario and BC), City of Vancouver and a slew of Crown corporations. Mr. Hoggan does not in anyway separate his business from his blog, Mr. Hoggan’s blog accepted information obtained illegally, then by publishing it, brings the gentleman’s ethics as a public relations professional into question, see the Canadian Public Relations Society for its mission and value statement http://www.cprs.ca/aboutus/mission.aspx
As a Canadian and Ontario taxpayer, I would like to know what sort of services my tax dollars paid from a firm that has egregiously blurred the ethical lines. Granted his mouthpiece ex-journalist, the odious Richard Littlemore characterizes the HI documents as whistle blowing rather than what they in fact were illegally obtained documents.
I will be making inquiries into the business this firm did for my province of Ontario and raise the question with the office of the leader of the loyal opposition.
Just one more thing as Columbo might say…
Some other things have been bothering me:
1. According to Heartland, Gleick did the pretexting in early February. This would mean he sat on the genuine documents for a couple of weeks before releasing them. But the faked document was knocked up at the last minute on February 13th.
2, If you read the faked document, except for some word-choice tells, it does not read like Gleick’s professional documents, nor like his Forbes column, or his documents at the Pacific Institute. It actually reads like Gleick’s blog comments, especially the rushed and highly emotionally charged ones (like where he’s angry about the book review).
3. Why would he copy and paste an information-free line about Dr Wojik’s from a real Heartland document. It stands out line a sore-thumb. He didn’t even bother to re-phrase it? He didn’t add any information. Again, it suggests rush.
4. Why would he not add any real information (except for some errors) about Heartland to the fake document, when there is plenty of information out there that he could have used? Again it suggests rush.
5. Why did he make schoolboy errors in copying information from the budgets into the fake documents? It’s not like he has no experience reading 503(c)’s budgets – he has ran one for 20 years. Again, it suggests rush.
6. It is nice to believe that Gleick thought the game was up because of the speculation at Lucia’s, Mosher fingering him as a suspect, or Roger’s tweet, but he seems to have resigned from AGU before he knew about this.
7. If you read the first Kaminsky article at American Spectator where he fingers Gleick as a suspect, he seems to be doing so using an entirely separate basis from the blog speculation. Go down to the comments section, Kaminsky is asked why he didn’t credit Mosher, but Kaminsky replies he doesn’t know who Mosher is – so it seems unlikely that he got his suspicions from the blogosphere.
.
8. Gleick runs a 503(c) himself. When pretexting he would surely not have expected to find anything much in budgets and fund raising plans that get discussed at board meetings. Furthermore he had been examining Heartland’s form 990 since at least early January 2012, so he knew approximately their total funds, etc., just not the names of specific donors. He also surely knew the sort of activities Heartland does – because it’s nearly all listed on their website – it’s no secret for example that they organize skeptical conferences on climate change or write the NIPCC report. The worst that he could expect to find in these types of documents is that Heartland is funded by Koch and big oil – but he has (or greens generally have) been claiming that for years anyway, and nobody except them really cares – at best the documents would serve as proof of this allegation.
9. If he’s prepared to invent an anonymous whistleblower for the fake document, why didn’t he invent an anonymous whistleblower for sending him the real documents?
10. Why would he mention himself and his Forbes column in the fake?
So here is a hypothesis: The fake document was created to cover-up the pretexting
Note: I am not saying this is what happened. I do not know what happened. I am saying this is merely one possibility for what could have happened.
The hypothesis goes:-
1. In August 2011, Gleick becomes a Forbes contributor.
2. In January (specifically January 12) he gets into a fight in the Forbes comments column with a fellow Forbes blogger – James Taylor (of Heartland). Gleick demands to see who is funding Heartland – see http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja…..3-294-2369
3. By early February, Gleick decides to do the pretexting. Maybe it is because he now considers himself a journalist, and considers this to be investigative journalism.
4. It works, he’s got the documents, and he plans to write about it, perhaps even as a scoop in his Forbes column. He can explain the documents as having come from an anonymous source.
5. At some point he discovers pretexting is illegal and/or Forbes would not publish a column based on stolen material. Gleick begins to fear Heartland is on to him.
6. Somehow, perhaps via the grapevine at Forbes, some kind of hint of what has happened, and that it involves Gleick, gets to Kaminsky.
7. Gleick however doesn’t know for sure whether Heartland are on to him. He still wants to use the material he pretexted – but he has a dilemma – if he simply forwards the stolen documents to Desmogblog, etc., he has removed himself from the story, despite doing all the work and taking all the risks!
8. Some Gleick comes up with a cunning plan, he just needs to create one new document, but he needs to do it quickly…
Climate Audit’s take on the Gleick scandal:
http://climateaudit.org
@Jeremy:
“Who are these “15 friends” and why have none of them come forward and also apologized?”
I’m also wondering why at least one of them hasn’t come forward in anger at being included: After all Gleick has potentially caught them all in the same bear trap by failing to inform them that the most important document (the memo) has a different – and risky – provenance to the others.
Maybe Desmogblog is angry, and not just at “deniers”.
Maybe their latest bit of stupidity about the fake document is setting up a defense:
“We, and lots of other reasonable people believed Gleick about the provenance of the documents”.
This strategy, might even allow them to escape defamation damages – but it hangs Gleick out to dry, as his confession created a whole second wave of damages over and above the original transmission of the documents (including the fake) & the pretexting.
By continuing to tout this document as real, after being presented with evidence that it is a forgery, all of these blogs are opening themselves up to massive libel suits. How much is Al Gore worth again?
“The author of the AP/WaPo piece is none other than Seth Borenstein.”
And he still reports off the fake document. Then adds later that “was able to verify the accuracy of several of the most sensational parts with the individuals named,” leaving the reader to think that the whole school bit was part of what was “several of the most sensational parts,” without directly saying so.
This guy has elevated journalistic fraud to an art form. Someone please tell me why Seth Borenstein isn’t on that same chopping block as Peter Gleick, again?
How did all this madness started? “Limits to Growth”:
In 1972, three scientists from MIT created a computer model that analyzed global resource consumption and production. Their results shocked the world and created stirring conversation about global ‘overshoot,’ or resource use beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Now, preeminent environmental scientists Donnella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows have teamed up again to update and expand their original findings in The Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update.
Meadows, Randers, and Meadows are international environmental leaders recognized for their groundbreaking research into early signs of wear on the planet. Citing climate change as the most tangible example of our current overshoot, the scientists now provide us with an updated scenario and a plan to reduce our needs to meet the carrying capacity of the planet.
Over the past three decades, population growth and global warming have forged on with a striking semblance to the scenarios laid out by the World3 computer model in the original Limits to Growth.
http://www.clubofrome.org/
yawn says:
February 22, 2012 at 2:51 pm
There isn’t a shred of scientifically valid information that indicates that second hand smoke is dangerous.
wws says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm
While the forgery won’t directly impact the wire fraud case case regarded the purloined documents, if he sent the forgery to others, telling them it was also original, that could constitute a seperate wire fraud charge.
Beyond that, creating and disseminating the forgery is almost surely libel.
“Limits to Growth” was nothing but slighly updated Malthusianism. Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) has had fanatical followers at all times throughout the last 2 centuries, and Malthusians have distinguished themselves by having an unbroken 200 year record of having gotten EVERY major prediction about EVERTYHING wrong!
For a group preoccupied with predicting the future, this is a truly incredible record. Throwing darts at predictions pinned on the wall would have a far better track record of success than the Malthusians have ever had.
And the sum total of the clmate wars? The Malthusians have lost again, what a surprise.
Go on Vacation and all hell breaks loose! But reliably, all roads lead back to WUWT, and the latest news. Thanks Anthony for keeping me up to date!
Well, it just seemed wrong to cheat on an ethics test.
-Calvin & Hobbes.
> telling them it was also original
He told them the file was from the Heartland Institute — “these files from the Heartland Institute”
And he sent the email from an email account that identified him as a Heartland Insider.
——————————–
Dear Friends (15 of you):
In the interest of transparency, I think you should see these files from the Heartland Institute. Look especially at the 2012 fundraising and budget documents, the information about donors, and compare to the 2010 990 tax form. But other things might also interest or intrigue you. This is all I have. And this email account will be removed after I send.
Tips and Notes not working.
Forgive me for asking a new question. Is it not true that it was rumoured that Glieck sent his document to 15 outlets?
One of which was DeSmogBlog but no-one else has claimed to have received it. Not like alarmist blogs. And why would he share with many when he has history with DeSmogBlog?
So who were the other 14?
Perhaps people he worked with on the 13th February 2012 when the strategy document was PDF’d?
This is curious, count them.
http://www.350.org/en/about/blogs/top-climate-scientists-warn-congress-over-keystone-xl
@Courtney:
He scanned the strategy memo at 12:41 on February 13th
He clicked the tweet button that web page at 21:13 on February 13th
Could they be connected? Maybe. But there is no obvious link apart from Gleick himself and the date.
Thank you for the expertise. They are not close in time. Lucky for the co-signees.
But I wouldn’t want to have been his working partner on that day.
At best it shows what his mindset was and who he was working with when he was driven insane or whatever his motivation was.
At worst it puts you near the scene of the crime.