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.
Kaboom says:
February 23, 2012 at 3:44 am
“Spiegel Online has an almost balanced report on the FakeGate story.”
Well, about as balanced as the Pravda was in Soviet times.
Starts with the headline, “Climate Scientist takes secret documents from lobbyist group” – how balanced.
– – – – – – –
Copner,
First I would like to recognize your considerable energy and focus along with Mosher/Lucia & her commenters on the discussion/investigation of the Hoax by Geick. You guys/gals did it well.
As you suggest, I think it seems reasonable to infer that something did happen that caused Gleick to resign from AGU and then eventually do his initial partial confession and non-apology.
Your hypothesis is interesting. I would speculate that the tight communications groups that act in vigilante mode to defend the cause everywhere, against independent (aka skeptic) climate science, would appear to be unusually non-vigilant if they did not have a nexus to Gleick’s evolving hoax activities from early stages. Speculation on my part to be sure, but, to me it seems unusual that those groups (a prime example of the groups being the CSRRT) would not have at least awareness of the ongoing perpetration of the Gleick Hoax from its inception. An anomaly.
John
Is this really one of Desmoblog’s benefactors?
http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/neteller_founder_lefebvre_pleads_guilty_in_internet_gambling_case_46785.html
Looks like the Pacific Institute has figured out that Gleick is almost certainly the person responsible for forging the fake Heartland “Strategy” memo. Look at their first press release from Feb 21, 2012 (which was up through yesterday Feb 22) and their new statement from Feb 22. The first statement is haughty, arrogant, and offers no apologies for the apparently criminal identity theft conduct of their own president. The second is very different.
It is also interesting to note that the first release is the only press release which the Pacific Institute has scrubbed/deleted from their announcements page — instead of merely updating by adding a new as is customary.
_____________________________________
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.
While at first, adding updates and keeping comments under one entry seemed fine… its getting kinda unwieldy and hard to specifically discuss individual updates.
just 2 cents
Uh duh. The people that emailed the genuine Heartland documents to him still have their emails. So they have the emailed solicitations from Gleick’s fraudulent phishing email address as well as their outgoing emails to that address. Someone must have explained this to Gleick as well as the only way he could reliably remove any trace of these communications from his computer was to remove the hard drive and incinerate it. That must have caused his “Oh Crap!” moment.
I finally figured out why Gleick confessed to committing a crime. Wire fraud is serious enough that the police, FBI, etc, might raid his company and home to seize evidence if he were merely a suspect. Now that he’s confessed, they are unlikely to do so — they have his confession, after all — leaving it up to HI to request evidence as a part of discovery rather than having it seized. (I’m not a lawyer.) Perhaps he’s trying to protect the forgery and make it difficult to prove, or perhaps he’s trying to hide previous wire frauds, but he may well have inoculated himself against police raid.
Commenter123:
Pacific Institute is really Gleick’s private think tank. If you look at his first paper from PI, it had no co-authors, listed no support, and had an address that appears to be a small second floor office above a dress shop near the Berkeley campus. In order to win respectability, he had to eventually enlist a board of directors, who are ‘names’ and therefore have reputations to maintain. But PI’s still Gleick’s sandbox, and the people there who support him are his employees.
From Judith Curry’s blog (“Teaching the controversy” thread)
***BREAKING NEWS ****
Gleick, Mandia, Curry to be interviewed on NPR 2 pm EST
TomB says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:23 am
re: your “Uh Duh”
…. lol, well I have never contemplated doing anything like what Gleick has confessed to, but my initial assumption was that no one would even think about it without using equipment, location, etc. that could not be traced back to them. I’m no techie but I thought most people nowadays had some awareness of IP addresses etc. So my comment was based upon an assumption that Gleick had taken some elementary precautions (doing it from an Internet cafe or library with a 3rd party computer and disposable email address etc.).
Thus I was suprised that it could seem so quickly that he was being unmasked in some forensic way that could not be seriously contested in a court of law. What, did he actually do this from his own equipment?? Besides shock that he did it at all I was simply dumbfounded that he could do it in a way that would lead so easily back to him. What is he, a total idiot?
“What is he, a total idiot?”
remember how the ancient greeks went on and on about hubris? Watch people long enough, especially arrogant people who think they’ve got it made in life, and you’ll see it pop up over and over again. It’s one of those constants of human nature.
People most at risk from this are those who’ve gotten away with everything for so long that they no longer can even conceive of the possibility that they won’t get away with it this time.
Reports in The Guardian still do not admit to the idea of ‘fakes’ only deception.
Wayne2 says:
February 23, 2012 at 11:29 am
Gleick’s confession, while admissible as evidence, is not enough by itself to guarantee a conviction. Especially if he retracts it. A good DA knows that he still needs to build an iron-clad case.
Thank god for heartland hahahah
Copner says:
February 23, 2012 at 4:16 am
“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″
It seem like a likely reason and it usualy are the most simple of reason: a real or imaginary slight that makes the less stable go balistic and way out of proportion. Another common reason is to set people (or organizations or companies) up, especially amongst political parties and they seem to be in the fore front for trying to set up each other.
There has never been any complex case for why, how, or who when it comes to media profiled cases, the reasons are always simple by simple means by too big an ego.
Another leaker revealed. Fear the metadata!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/leaker-of-stimulus-memo-uncovered/
I wonder did Jake Tapper get the idea for this from the Morano/McArdle dissection of the Heartland forgery?
Megan McArdle meet Donna Laframboise
http://helplessbyblatchford.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/donna-laframboise-former-vp-of-ccla-offers-unique-perspective-on-blatchford-uow-incident/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/22/opinion-disguised-as-science/
I emailed the EPA IT people today. We will see where this goes:
Hello Dennis Kuzara,
Thank you for contacting the EPA Call Center. Incident# 345951 has been created for your service request. A technician will contact you with further troubleshooting and resolution of the issue you have reported. Please refer to this case number in any correspondence regarding this issue, and when contacting the EPA Call Center for case update and status information.
Please email us if you have any further questions or requests.
Sincerely,
Sam Cornwell
EPA Call Center
epacallcenter@epamail.epa.gov
—–Dennis Kuzara wrote: —–
To: Internet.Support@mintra.epa.gov
From: Dennis Kuzara
Date: 02/23/2012 04:41PM
Subject: Grant award information
To whomever:
Today, shortly after a call was made to investigate the EPA grants to Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, someone at the EPA deleted the following grant awards information from the EPA website. In addition, whoever did this apparently screwed up the grants portion on the website because it is behaving strangely and is largely inaccessible. Because the information appears to be archived elsewhere in various blogs, etc, this is a classic case of closing the barn door after the horse has left. Below are the awards, totaling $468,000, with links to the EPA website. (Note that the links no longer work.):
$25,000 to evaluate indoor air interventions to reduce diesel particulate matter in West Oakland, Ca.
$100,000 for “The identified issue for this project is exposure to diesel emissions and other environmental hazards associated with inappropriate land use within West Oakland.”
$223,675 to “make use of a broad-based multistakeholder group (i.e. the West Oakland Toxic Reduction Collaborative) to assess conditions, develop solutions and support and leverage their implementation as related to environmental and public health burdens from air and other toxics.
$120,000 for “This amendment extends the project and budget ending dates from August 31, 2003 to December 31, 2003. There is no change in the approved EPA funding amount of $50,000 for your diesel truck emission reduction initiative. The conditions numbered 1 through 7 in the award remain in full force and effect.”
This action appears to be purely political in nature.
Could you tell me who removed this information and why it was done?
Dennis Kuzara
Should have posted this here first:
Gleick broke a newly minted law in California, the impersonations law:
http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/12/online-impersonation-law-goes-into-effect-jan-1.php
UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home“
Geez, not even one word into the headline and the guy is wrong.
“Leaked”? Huh? How about “illegally obtained” or even “stolen”?
Well, I guess we shouldn’t expect anything less from a person who appears to support Desmogblog.
REPLY: The guy that wrote that is the former editor who got let go for pushing a story (complete with graphics) on dildoes. I kid you not. Readers (and advertisers) were not amused. Then he ran another failed weekly called the Chico Beat which died a death of no advertisers would touch it with a ten foot pole. Now he’s back to the CNR as a feature reporter. -Anthony
The reaction of the Pacific Institute’s Board is the only reaction a board can have. I serve on the board of two non-profit organizations. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to the institution they serve. In the case of the Pacific Institute, with Peter Gleick as the President, they are faced with the prospect of never getting another grant application funded. That is simply not acceptable, regardless of whether or not their personal sympathies lie with Dr. Gleick. The Board will have to ask for the President’s resignation, in the interest of the institution.
Not long ago, prior to a meeting of a board on which I serve, I had a problem with the e-mail address I was using. I used an alternate account to e-mail the administrator to ask if the board meeting materials could be sent to the alternate address, and they were. Now I see that this is a potential problem (although the materials are not particularly sensitive and mostly public). Nevertheless, I will ask that the potential problem be addressed at the next meeting.
I just sent the following letter to Senator Joe Simitian (D- Palo Alto) regarding Dr. Gleick’s apparent violation of SB 1411:
The most impressive update yet is the note about making the big time in Velveeta-land – Chicoville Newsreview! Yeah! 🙂
only locals would get that joke about velveeta
re update 41: always nice when you make the local news…..people have had a habit of crucifying their native rabbis ya know……..why do think that you started this whole blog after making a bet with your neighbor that you would make the local paper in a hawian shirt.
Meanwhile in moonbat land,
GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@petergleick: you did a brave & necessary thing, a service to democracy. I’ll be saying so in my Guardian blog tmrw.