BREAKING: Gleick Confesses

Since I have started updates here, I’ll keep this post as a “sticky” – new content will follow below it and linked within updates. – Anthony

UPDATE 71: 3:27PM In his latest post 18 U.S.C. 1343 Steve McIntyre demonstrates how Andrew Lacis of GISS, has no clue about law, and likely no clue about ethical behavior either. As Eli Rabbett would say Andrew, RTFM.

UPDATE70: 2:40PM 2/28 A very detailed Fakegate timeline has been prepared by WUWT reader A. Scott, which I have published complete with an Excel Spreadsheet. Notes made of the new Copner timeline also. Details here.

UPDATE69: 10:03AM 2/28 Mosher and Copner are following another trail over at Lucia’s in comments. It seems even Gleick’s associates were warning him against use of the phrase “anti-climate”. The response about “giving away the game” makes me wonder if there were others in on the phishing, but it could just be coincidental.

UPDATE68: 9:25AM 2/28 Walter Starck has a good comparison of Heartland/Fakegate -vs- Climategate at Quadrant Online

UPDATE67: 8:05AM 2/28 Ben Pile has an excellent summary of Fakegate

UPDATE66: 4:45PM 2/27 Yesterday it was “hordes” today it is “swarms”. The hilarity continues over at DeSmog Blog.

UPDATE65: 3:08PM 2/27 the AGU president issues a statement on Gleick and AGU’s involvement with Gleick’s AGU ethics committee. It is quite strong and condemns Gleick (though could be stronger).

UPDATE64: 1:00 and 1:18PM 2/27 In a press release, the Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo Meanwhile, days later, the Pacific Institute Board of Directors catches up with a new statement citing what we all knew last Friday.

UPDATE63: 10:15AM 2/27 Lying and deception can be justified, says climate change ethics expert James Garvey, a philosopher and the author of The Ethics of Climate Change has written a defence of Peter Gleick at the Guardian.

UPDATE62: 10:10AM 2/27 Fakegate: DeSmogBlog’s epic fail – You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog.

UPDATE61: 2/26 Mr. Worthing on “Funding Imbalance” says: Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million

UPDATE60: While “Fakegate” rages, which is a huge distraction from the science, this essay by Dr. David Evans The Skeptics Case is useful to consider and to cite in the thousands of online arguments now occurring. A PDF is provided for emailing also.

UPDATE59: I no more than post QOTW (bonus edition), and Steve McIntyre provides yet another quote for serious consideration. Uncharacteristically, he has disabled comments. But when you see his quote, you’ll understand why.

UPDATE58: 5:15AM 2/26 Dr. Judith Curry has a relevant QOTW (bonus edition).  My earlier QOTW choice has apparently terrorized the twits with WUWT “hordes”.

UPDATE57: 8:00PM Christopher Booker in the Telegraph says: The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists’ endless credulity – Dr Peter Gleick provides more evidence that the supporters of the Cause will stop at nothing.

UPDATE56: 3:02PM 2/25 Peter Gleick lecturing the U.S. Senate on “deceitful tactics”

UPDATE55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up – Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning – Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs.

Loved this part:

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

UPDATE54: 12:20PM some interesting essays by Donna Laframboise here entitled: Peter Gleick – Then and Now and another by Hilary Ostrov entitled: From the ashes of Gleickgate: a new mantra is born h/t to Dr. Judith Curry from her Week in Review

UPDATE53: 10:45AM 2/25 Steve McIntyre has a humorous piece entitled Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

UPDATE52: 10:20 AM 2/25 Nicola Scaffeta has contributed a guest essay – What triggered Dr. Peter Gleick to do identity fraud on Jan 27th?

UPDATE51: 7:15PM 2/24 According to the San Jose Mercury News, Dr. Gleick has requested a leave of absence from the Pacific Institute – details here

UPDATE50: 5:00PM 2/24 Quote of the week – from Scientific American, a comment on “The Cause” as we saw in CG2 emails

UPDATE49: 3:23PM 2/24 Dr. Judith Curry posts a “bombshell” on her website saying: With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered.

Oh, the ironing.

UPDATE48: 3:00PM 2/24 Rep Ed Markey, probably still upset that Waxman-Markey cap and trade didn’t go anywhere, is sticking his nose into the Fakgate affair.

UPDATE47: 10:10AM 2/24 Fraudulent emails to Heartland from Gleick have been released. See details here.

UPDATE46: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to “disappear” $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:

EPA, do you know where your grants are?

Additional grants (possibly as much $647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.

The purpose of the grants on the screencap he has is a hoot.

UPDATE45: 8:00 AM 2/24 I’ve known this for several days, but now it is in the press. The gloves are off and The FBI has been called in.

UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.

UPDATE 43: 10:45PM 2/23 Here is a video “self-interview” from Dec 2011 by Peter Gleick from his PI office where he talks about people having a “fundamental trust in scientists”.

UPDATE42: 8:20PM 2/23 It appears that Gleick’s cyber impersonation to Heartland may have run afoul of a new law in California.

UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home

UPDATE40: 10:55AM 2/23 Heartland publishes the email thread with Dr. Gleick where he was invited to Heartland’s annual dinner as a speaker (with a speaking fee), and then declined after consideration.

UPDATE39: 10:09AM 2/23 Junkscience reports: Breaking: EPA scrubs web site of Gleick grants?

UPDATE38: 9:45AM 2/23 What do you do when you are a climate skeptic and have access to sensitive private documents? The answer is here.

UPDATE37: 7:30AM 2/23 Monckton writes an opinion on why the perpetrators(s) should be prosecuted.

UPDATE36: 12AM 2/23 You can participate in a crowdsourcing experiment using free open source stylometry/textometry software to determine the true authorship of the “faked” Heartland Climate Strategy memo. Details here.

UPDATE 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s AGU Resignation.

UPDATE34: 10:20PM 2/22 AP/WaPo: Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers

UPDATE 33: 10:00PM 2/22 The Guardian reports: Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job. It seems the Pacific Institute Board of directors isn’t very happy. Their recent statement contrasts with Update 19 below. And he’s been dropped as a columnist by the SFO Chronicle.

UPDATE32: 9:45PM 2/22 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has her third article in a series on this affair. She writes:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment.  The reason he did it was even crazier.

UPDATE31 9:15PM 2/22 The Daily Mail gives WUWT props in this affair, here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html

UPDATE30: 6:30PM 2/22 “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me.” says Maggie’s Farm on the fake document. Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt at self vindication, the paid propagandists at DeSmog blog have become their own “verification bureau” for a document they have no way to properly verify. The source says it isn’t verified but that’s not good enough for them so they spin it. They didn’t even bother to get an independent opinion. Get this: Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic. It seems to be just climate news porn for the weak minded Susuki followers upon which their blog is founded. As one WUWT commenter (Copner) put it – “triple face palm”.

UPDATE29: 5:00 PM 2/22 Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in saying:

On September 4 2011 I posted

Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

I have reposted below since the recent behavior (e.g. see) of Peter Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California,  involving the Heartland Institute is just another example of the often vitriolic and unseemly behavior by some to discredit what are appropriate alternative viewpoints on the climate issue.  Unfortunately, the action towards the Heartland Institute displayed by Peter Gleick is just another example of an attitude of a significant number of individuals in the leadership of the climate science community.

UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in comments reports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only took Richard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy! The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond all hope.

UPDATE27: 11:25 AM 2/22 Marlo Lewis at Globalwarming.org summarizes in From Climategate to Fakegate

UPDATE26: 8:25AM 2/22 Time Magazine has a feature story by Bryan Walsh: The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n825Q9Gm

UPDATE25: 8:18PM 2/21 Willis Eschenbach writes An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen asking et tu AGU?

UPDATE24: 8:10 PM 2/21 Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute gives a video interview with the Wall Street Journal. He accuses Gleick directly, saying:

Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo”

UPDATE23: 7:30PM 2/21 Megan McArdle of The Atlantic gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for the takedown, and some jeers for others.

UPDATE22: 3:30PM 2/21 The AGU weighs in on Gleick with “disappointment”  Gleick resigned on Feb 16th, but apparently didn’t tell them the full story of why.

UPDATE21: 2:55PM 2/21  Fakegate – It’s What They Do by Chris Horner

UPDATE20: 2:30PM 2/21 Warning Signs: “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

UPDATE19: 2:12PM 2/21 For now, Dr. Gleick still has an office, though I’m not sure that will true in the future. The Pacific Institute made an announcement on their web page that Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. 

UPDATE18: 1:55 PM 2/21 Josh designs the new spring line of Climate Churnalism’s New Clothes

UPDATE17: 1:30 PM 2/21 With resignations happening already, and AGU removing him from his webpage, (Update11) The question out there is now about the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gleick signed an “integrity” document “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” was published in the journal Science on May 7th, 2010 as the “Lead Letter”, plus  a supporting editorial.  Will the co-signers defend the tarnished integrity of climate science now? Will Dr. Gleick continue on the NAS as a member?

UPDATE16: 1:05PM 2/21 The Union of Credit Card Holding Concerned Scientists weighs in with a “devil made me do it” excuse.

Gleick’s Actions Don’t Excuse Heartland’s Anti-Science Campaign

Lame-o-meter pegged, Kenji is displeased.

UPDATE15: 11:08AM 2/21 Unbelievable. Daily Kos elevates Gleick to hero status (via Tom Nelson):

Daily Kos: Hero Scientist responsible for Heartland Expose

Hero scientist, Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst is the one responsible for exposing the Heartland agenda to spread misinformation and lies and subvert any real action for the climate change crisis.  He did so at considerable risk to his career and personal reputation.

UPDATE14: 9:40AM Daily Climate article cites “criminal act” and “steel cage death match” here

UPDATE13: 9:30AM 2/21 NCSE posts a story about Gleick on their news page, they mention his resignation from NCSE’s board.

On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

UPDATE12: 8:10AM 2/21 Delingpole on integrity here

UPDATE11: 8AM 2/21 Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

UPDATE10: 7:45AM 2/21 Dr. Judith Curry tries to reconcile Gleick’s essays on “integrity” with his actions. It is a fascinating read.

UPDATE9: 7:20AM 2/21 Josh has a cartoon out on it, I don’t agree with it. Time magazine calls out Gleick.

UPDATE8: 11:20PM Over at DeSmog Blog they are praising Gleick and spinning his confession so fast that it has created its own localized climate distortion. They are labeling him as a whistleblower: Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents

For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

These paid propagandists are shameless, they are labeling him as a martyr for the cause. The Noble Cause Corruption is thick there.

UPDATE7: 9:32 PM Politico writes:

Two sources in California — longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane and Corey Goodman, a member of the Pacific Institute board of directors — confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.

Lehane, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign press secretary, is helping Gleick pro bono with communications issues. Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white collar criminal defense attorney.

UPDATE6: 9:25 PM Steve McIntyre writes:

No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the damage will continue until such time legal redress is made, which appears to be the next step. Steve also has a good timeline analysis here.

UPDATE5: 8:40PM commenter “Skiphill” writes:

Many will also be heartened to know that Gleick’s Pacific Institute has a special initiative in “Integrity in Science” (I know that his apologists will claim that this episode is not about integrity “in” scientific research etc. but still…..):

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/index.html

Integrity of Science

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

UPDATE4: 8:35PM Dr. Judith Curry notes the irony about Dr. Gleick lecturing her on integrity here

UPDATE3: 8:15PM I have received the Heartland statement, it will be posted under a separate post here. 8:23 PM It is posted here

UPDATE2: 725PM PST This post will likely go through many revisions as we learn more, I’ll timestamp each.- Anthony

UPDATE: 715PM PST Heartland advises me they will issue a statement soon. Stay tuned.

============================================================================

As many of us had surmised, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute is the Heartland document leaker. He has issued this statement:

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

See also Andy Revkin’s DotEarth here. Revkin writes:

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post,

(Added 7:25PM PST) One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

Peter Gleick’s HuffPo blog here.

For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.

From Climategate to Fakegate

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
945 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 23, 2012 6:19 pm

Anthony,
You, as a local of Chico, carried it very well.
John
John

February 23, 2012 6:26 pm

Did anybody notice that the initial Pacific institute statement, the one that has now been removed from their site, and said Gleick remains President, had an odd comma.

Dianna
February 23, 2012 7:43 pm

I see via Instapundit that the Heartland Institute has called in the FBI?

Dianna
February 23, 2012 7:47 pm

“Copner says:
February 23, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Did anybody notice that the initial Pacific institute statement, the one that has now been removed from their site, and said Gleick remains President, had an odd comma.”
I noted it, too. May I ask, do you have a feeling that tomorrow there will be a new announcement? I’ve been hovering over the site all day.

TRE
February 23, 2012 8:01 pm

From the Guardian:
Raúl Grijalva, a Democratic member of Congress, called for a congressional investigation into whether Goklany, described as a senior policy analyst at the Department of the Interior, had broken rules by accepting a monthly stipend of $1,000 from Heartland.
I wonder if Hansen is wetting his pants….

pat
February 23, 2012 8:45 pm

“renowned” in the headline, and so many reporters, tells u everything about this spinner. it’s been picked up only by Chicago Tribune so far, it would seem:
23 Feb: Reuters: Renowned climate scientist comes under fire
By Laird Harrison
(Additional reporting by Deborah Zabarenko; Editing by Steve Gorman, Tim Gaynor and Sandra Maler)
. Alana Nguyen, executive producer of the San Francisco Chronicle’s website, said the newspaper had discontinued Gleick’s unpaid blog because it was part of a feature reserved for local “luminaries.”
“We decide who is a luminary,” she said. “That kind of admission is something that affects your reputation in the community, and we strive to have people with a good reputation in the community.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-usa-climate-gleick-idUSTRE81N06520120224

pat
February 23, 2012 8:55 pm

don’t look for accurate reporting in here:
23 Feb: Bloomberg: Nathaniel Bullard and Su Gao: Water Leadership Up for Grabs as Deception Fells Gleick
If it seems like the chattering classes are talking about carbon dioxide less than they were a couple of years ago, that’s because they are. Even drivers of the public climate conversation, such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, have begun to ask if “water is the new carbon.” As the group’s chairman Paul Dickinson has said, “If climate is the shark, then water is the teeth.”.
When somebody leaked Gleick confidential Heartland documents, he couldn’t restrain himself from probing further, even if it meant deceit. “Blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists,” Gleick says, he “solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.”.
With decades of scientific expertise, Gleick has been a driver of discussion for pressing water issues that might otherwise be invisible.
The blogs have been writing Gleick’s professional obituaries all week. Water’s timeline is long, public memory is short and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s quip, “There are no second acts in American lives,” has never felt quite right. Regardless, an important voice for water-use issues and water conservation, in California and beyond, goes silent for now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/water-leadership-up-for-grabs-as-deception-fells-gleick.html

pat
February 23, 2012 9:02 pm

AGAIN, READERS MUST WONDER WHY IS GLEICK IN TROUBLE!
22 Feb: Rolling Stone:Tim Dickinson: Heartland Institute’s Corporate Shilling Is Nothing New
(Short version: Peter Gleick, a prominent climate scientist once awarded a MacArthur “genius” grant, used false pretenses to obtain internal Heartland Institute documents that he secretly distributed to journalists. These documents showed Heartland’s efforts to fund junk denialist science and spread that disinformation into public schools. But at least one of those documents may have been a fake, and questions about its authenticity led back to Gleick, who outted himself – and fessed up to a “serious lapse” of ethics in obtaining the documents – in this mea culpa.)
My intention here is not to wade into this current scandal. Everyone looks terrible.
My purpose here is to take a step back and look at the Heartland Institute and show that the documents Gleick obtained were hardly worth destroying his credibility to obtain…
(EXHIBITS A, B, C, D AND E FOLLOW, THEN)
This list is hardly meant to be exhaustive. Indeed, it’s just the tip of the iceberg of public documents demonstrating Heartland’s intellectual bankruptcy – right there for the purusing in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.
Gleick’s career suicide was not only counterproductive — Heartland is ably playing the victim in this case, garnering sympathy while impugning the integrity of climate scientists and their work — it was completely unnecessary.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/heartland-institutes-corporate-shilling-is-nothing-new-20120222

DirkH
February 23, 2012 9:10 pm

stephan says:
February 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm
“Thank god for heartland hahahah”
Aye!

pat
February 23, 2012 9:21 pm

23 Feb: TheEnergyCollective: Robert Rapier: How the Gleick Crisis Is Killing The Global Warming Cause
First There Was Climategate, Now There’s Gleickgate
But here is where McArdle really nails it:
“Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right…
After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”
That is the issue in a nutshell, and something Gleick’s defenders don’t seem to get. They have grossly underestimated the damage this does, but they are compounding it by making excuses for him.
Conclusion: Scientists Should Know Better
Here is how I think the rest of this plays out. Gleick’s defenders will continue to defend him, albeit in diminishing numbers. Those who defend him to the end simply reinforce the views of climate skeptics that — as McArdle stated — the cause is more important than the truth…
Further, if Gleick confesses to the forgery as I believe he ultimately will, the defenders are going to have even more egg on their faces. And yet some will continue to defend, suggesting that HI’s tactics are so horrible that the end justifies the means. Except in this case, your chances of achieving “the end” have been made much more difficult by Gleick’s actions….
Both sides view the other side with contempt, and throw derogatory labels around. But what always bothered me the most about the whole debate was that as someone who was trained as a scientist, you never say that the science is settled. The science may be compelling, but contrary views should not be shouted down…
So the moral of this story is that the science is never settled, and agendas should not be allowed to get in the way of science. Scientists, of all people, should know this
http://theenergycollective.com/robertrapier/77433/how-kill-global-warming-cause

pat
February 23, 2012 9:39 pm

another paid “writer” with no integrity whatsoever:
22 Feb: San Francisco Bay Guardian Blog: Tim Redmond: The ‘ruination’ of Peter Gleick
Oooh, sfgate has dropped climate scientist Peter Gleick’s column on the City Brights section of the site. Harsh, man; I guess that’s enough to “damage, if not ruin” the reputation of one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change. Fired by City Brights; I bet he feels as if he’s been unfriended by Garrison Keillor…
And I’m amazed at all the handwringing over this incident. I means, what, exactly did Gleick do that is going to destory his scientific reputation after years of unimpeachable work? Here’s what he did: He contacted the nuts at the Heartland Institute and asked them to send him some material. Oh, and he didn’t give his real name.
It doesn’t appear that he broke into the Heartland office, or hacked into the Heartland server, or went in under false pretenses and made a bogus video. In fact, I’d argue that, whatever the Chron’s legal sources say, it’s pretty hard to call this “stealing.”…
But compared to shit the right wing pulls routinely, as a matter of practice, this is hardly a major crime. And you have to put some of the blame on whatever fool at the Heartland Institute mailed the company secrets off without checking where they were going.
And isn’t it good that we now know how the oil industry is trying to create a K-12 curriculum that denies climate change?
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/02/22/ruination-peter-gleick

pat
February 23, 2012 9:49 pm

23 Feb: Charleston Daily Mail Blog: Don Surber: AP calls out global warming scientist
For too long, proponents of the unproven and untested theory that man is causing global warming have received a free ride from the press, particularly Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. But global warmist Peter Gleick has not only turned Andrew Revkin against him, but Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press — another reporter who suspends disbelief whenever the topic of climate change pops up…
The major problem with peter Gleick — and the Associated Press glossed over it — is that he committed fraud by forging documents. He made up documents and attributed them to the Heartland Institute — much as Dan Rather did against President Bush in 2004. Both cases were felonies to me, but don’t look for Peter Gleick to be tossed behind bars.
Still some reportorial skepticism finally is arriving at the scene of the global warming crime…
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51986

Kaboom
February 24, 2012 1:02 am

@DirkH the “entwendet” in the headline translates to pilfer, purloin, steal, not just to take

Tim
February 24, 2012 2:52 am

UpDate 44, KUSI-TV link gives an empty page!

AJB
February 24, 2012 3:39 am

Monbiot …

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society. I believe we have a right to know who is paying for public advocacy.

Indeed. Who pays for the endless bilge put out by one George Monbiot?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/24/christopher-booker-heartland-climate

Scottish Sceptic
February 24, 2012 4:11 am

FBI called in over climate change mole
The Chicago-based free market Heartland Institute has called in the FBI and threatened other legal action against a global warming proponent who has admitted stealing emails from the institute in a bid to embarrass and discredit the group’s questioning of climate change.
Heartland officials tell Washington Secrets that they have been in talks with the FBI over the case against prominent global warming proponent Peter Gleick, co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute. Heartland is getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the FBI will act on.

Examiner

Frank K.
February 24, 2012 5:06 am

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.

Ahhh….Fakegate. The gift that keeps on giving!
AJB says:
February 24, 2012 at 3:39 am
“Indeed. Who pays for the endless bilge put out by one George Monbiot?”
Let him speak! I believe that more speech is a good thing (unlike those in the climate industry like Peter Gleick who wish to shut down speech they don’t like…).

Scottish Sceptic
February 24, 2012 5:35 am

Anthony, in the UK, when the police charge someone, the courts ask comment in the press to be curtailed so as not to influence the case.
Now that Gleick is being investigated by the FBI, can you tell us oversees who are not familiar with the law in the US, how that affects us and whether this means we should reframe from commenting on the case, particularly as you are a potential witness.

Tim Minchin
February 24, 2012 6:04 am
wws
February 24, 2012 6:33 am

For Scottish Skeptic: an interesting divergence in US and British law: although it was common practice in earlier times, it is now generally accepted that under the First Amendment, no level of US Government has the right to ask the press to curtail coverage of any case. (even if they wish that they would) Of course, departments can require their own employees not to comment, which is why those of us here in the States are used to seeing a local official (police spokesman or DA’s office) give just the bare facts of the case and refuse any other comment. And most policeman are now forbidden by department policy from giving any statements to the press unless it is cleared through the department’s press office first.
As far as your question to Anthony, the worry of publicity is that one could influence the jury pool and make it hard to find an impartial jury – but even now, the general public is still completely unaware of this, so there’s not much danger of this. Also, we don’t even have a clue yet as to where any legal action would be filed, there are many possibilities. Now the danger of a potential witness making statements is that, in court, anything you say publicly can be used to impeach your testimony. But, if you are careful and don’t say anything publicly that you wouldn’t worry about repeating on the witness stand, then there’s no danger.
Also, there’s not much need for the traditional “eyewitness” testimony here; everything in question is already in writing. The documents and Gleick’s confession are going to be the most important evidence. As to who forged the document in question, as far as I can tell there will be no “witnesses” to that so the question is going to come down to electronic forensics. It’ll be technical and have little to do with testimony (ie, he said, she said) Because of that, commentary like this is going to be mostly irrelevant.

February 24, 2012 7:09 am

Was it the dust up over the Wall Street Journal publishing the 16 contrarian’s letter, but not publishing the letter by 255 warmist climate scientists that pushed Gleick over the edge into pretexting?
He appears to have had a strong personal stake in this (as I will show), and perhaps took the non-publication of the 255’s letter as a personal attack?
1. From
http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/23/heartlands-invitation-to-gleick-details/#more-15663
“On January 27, Gleick declined Heartland’s invitation.”…”Shortly after Gleick refused Heartland’s invitation, he sent an email to an administrator at Heartland, in which Gleick impersonated a Heartland board member”
2. So what else happened on January 27?
Answer: Gleick seems to have got really upset about the WSJ publishing the 16 contrarian’s letter, but not publishing the 255 warmist climate scientists letter.
He wrote an article on Forbes complaining about it – published at 6.54pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
He also made 4 consecutive tweets complaining about it:
Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal – Forbes onforb.es/wYcJbK
11:59 PM – 27 Jan 12 via Tweet Button · Details
Deep Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal. http://onforb.es/wYcJbK. Ignore 255 National Academy Scientists; favor 16 contrarians?
1:29 AM – 28 Jan 12 via Tweet Button · Details
#WSJ rejects climate essay from 255 National Academy of Science scientists; accepts anti-climate essay from 16 others. onforb.es/wv5rHU
5:45 AM – 28 Jan 12 via web · Details
#WSJ rejects climate essay from 255 National Academy of Science scientists; then accepts anti-climate essay from 16. onforb.es/wv5rHU
6:24 PM – 28 Jan 12 via web · Details
3. Now why would he take the non-publication by WSJ as a personal affront?
Read the letter for yourself, and you might find a clue:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf
Go to page 2
There is a list of 255 signatories. In alphabetic order by surname – except for one who is out of order, first, with an asterix by his name. Can you guess the name? It’s:
P. H. GLEICK,*
And what does the asterix mean? At the very end of the letter it says:
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
peter gleick pac inst . org
(spaces added to email address by me to avoid spambots)
Which suggests that he wrote the letter, or at least organized it.
4. I don’t know why Gleick would turn on Heartland if annoyed about the non-publication of his letter, but he does seem to have been upset that the WSJ chose not to publish his letter, and to publish the opposite view instead.

February 24, 2012 7:12 am

Re: UpDate 44, KUSI-TV. Comprehensive! Much longer than I expected for a local TV news special report.

AJB
February 24, 2012 7:14 am

Frank K. says February 24, 2012 at 5:06 am – Let him speak!
I’m not suggesting otherwise, Frank. However, the money trail that leads to payment of the transparent salary he gets paid for his advocacy bilge should equally be exposed. Take a look at the Guardian’s networks, job adverts and circulation stats sometime. The man is a hypocrite.

Paul McCauley
February 24, 2012 7:43 am

What a template for easy, general international consumption!:
UPDATE44: 11:00PM 2/23 Here is a special news report from KUSI-TV in San Diego on Fakegate – John Coleman reports.
Great job, John – devastatingly succinct!

1 31 32 33 34 35 38