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
Eric (skeptic)
February 24, 2012 7:45 am

Can anyone point to a law that says “forging” a document like the Heartland memo is a crime? It is not “forgery” in the sense of creating a false legal document or something at that level. The legal example is if I forge a title to my neighbor’s car and then sell it, then the person goes to my neighbor’s house to collect his car and the next thing you know I am charged with forgery. Versus I forge a document supposedly written by my congressman that made him look bad, then send that around to people. I doubt there would be a forgery charge for that (some other charge maybe).
Seems to me that the real reason the Gleick would not admit to creating the document is that it opens him up to a larger civil liability than if someone sent him the document.

theduke
February 24, 2012 7:48 am

Good ol John Coleman . . .

AJB
February 24, 2012 8:05 am

Frank K. says February 24, 2012 at 5:06 am
Here you go Frank, some more on our hypocritical Guardinista’s income stream. Some interesting links therein.

GeoLurking
February 24, 2012 8:07 am

Copner says:
February 24, 2012 at 7:09 am
“… but he does seem to have been upset that the WSJ chose not to publish his letter, and to publish the opposite view instead.”
And now, for hit anger, he could potentialy wind up in confinement.
Well, it’s a threat only if they run out of whitewash.

theduke
February 24, 2012 8:16 am

Copner 7:09: Good find. I suggested yesterday morning at Climateaudit that he might have been upset by Lindzen et al’s piece in the WSJ when I wrote this: “. . . remember that the WSJ op ed by Lindzen et al appeared on Jan. 27 and the response to it by Trenberth et al came out on February 1. The Trenberth letter was seething, insulting and patronizing and Gleick was one of the signers.”
You’ve added another layer to it with the WSJ’s rejection of the letter from 255 “scientists” (I’m imitating Gleick’s use of disparaging quotation marks here) back in 2010. Gleick was getting into “vast right-wing conspiracy” territory, to be sure.

Political Junkie
February 24, 2012 8:19 am

You can’t make this stuff up!
One of DeSmogBlog key funders is John Lefebvre, who has pleaded guilty to charges related to money laundering for gambling operations. Look it up!
Talk about an “own goal” on the “show me the list of your funders.”
Lefebvre, the DeSmogBlog benefactor, (and confessed felon), also has served on the Suzuki foundation board, as has John Ehrlich (the man who holds the world record for being wrong on catastrophic predictions).
I tried to (above), imitate Gleick’s writing style, (but couldn’t, quite,) pull it off!!!

Paul McCauley
February 24, 2012 8:22 am

Having just followed Copner’s link to Gleick’s Forbes Energy WSJ response piece and Gleick’s own comment below I have to ask: Where will the irony stop?
Copner says:
February 24, 2012 at 7:09 am
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
One of Gleick’s comments:
“Peter Gleick, Subscriber 2 weeks ago
First, the stakes are too high for any geophysicist or climate scientists to even consider doing bad science for money — the stakes to their reputations and to the planet. Alas, this isn’t true for the organizations paid to deny the science.
Second, none of my funding or my Institute’s funding is used to support our conclusions. In fact our guidelines prohibit it.
Finally, all of our funding information is completely transparent and publicly available, which you would know if you had bothered spending 2 minutes on the web before making unfounded insinuations. But try asking the Heartland Institute for a list of THEIR funders. They refuse to provide it.
Called-out comment
Reply”

Political Junkie
February 24, 2012 9:06 am

I posted this about LeSmogBlog funder John Lefebvre at Bishop Hill:
I’m surprised Wikipedia’s super bunny sanitizer didn’t get to the “John Lefebvre” entry:
“Lefevre first garnered public attention in 1999, when he co-founded NETeller (now known as Neovia), an online money transfer facility. Though a publicly traded UK company, the firm’s involvement in transactions serving the then-fledgling online gambling sector led to U.S. charges of possible money laundering against the company and his arrest in January 2007.[4] Lefebvre plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to conduct illegal Internet gambling transactions and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and testify if necessary.[5]”

Steve from Rockwood
February 24, 2012 9:07 am

Stephen Rasey says:
February 24, 2012 at 7:12 am
Re: UpDate 44, KUSI-TV. Comprehensive! Much longer than I expected for a local TV news special report.
———————————————————
Did you notice they showed snow and a snow plow during the lead in to “global warming”? Loved that!
Re: FBI called in. Gleick is reported to be “looking forward” to defending himself in court. Sure he is, like the mouse is looking forward to the cat.

juanslayton
February 24, 2012 9:08 am

Eric (skeptic):
Versus I forge a document supposedly written by my congressman that made him look bad, then send that around to people. I doubt there would be a forgery charge for that (some other charge maybe).
Sadly, it’s been done. Probably a lot of times. Here’s one that got caught: City Councilwoman Sharon Martinez forged and circulated a letter purportedly by another council candidate. She was prosecuted for committing a felony. Got a thousand dollar fine and three years probation.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_18886165

kwik
February 24, 2012 9:11 am

If anyone from the Heartland Institute reads this;
Thank you for existing! All the way from Norway.

February 24, 2012 9:13 am

Washington Examiner appears to be staffed by nincompoops.
A “mole” is a spy infiltrated into a target organization either to gather intelligence over a long period or to lay low in readiness to act against that organization.
Do the journalists and editors not know that? Do they not even bother to use a dictionary to look up the meaning of words before they abuse them?
Are they perhaps trying to “romanticise” Gleick’s actions? To attempt to diminish the crimes in the public eye as is the modus operandi of extremists; to change the language to alter perception.
The article headline is FACTUALLY wrong unless they’re suggesting that Gleick is a mole “planted” by Heartland.

juanslayton
February 24, 2012 9:23 am

Eric (skeptic):
Versus I forge a document supposedly written by my congressman that made him look bad, then send that around to people. I doubt there would be a forgery charge for that (some other charge maybe).
Sadly, it’s been done. Probably a lot of times. Here’s one that got caught. Sharon Martinez, a member of the Monterey Park city council, forged and circulated a letter from another council candidate. The case was prosecuted as a felony; she got a thousand dollar fine and three years probation.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_18602900
Yup, it was some other charge–circulating campaign material with an unauthorized signature.
MODS: My first attempt to send this apparently went off to Mars. My apologies if it turns out to be a duplicate.

MattN
February 24, 2012 9:26 am

So the Feds are involved now. When the Feds got involved with McCarthy, the end came swiftly…

kbray in california
February 24, 2012 9:35 am

“…Finally, all of our funding information is completely transparent and publicly available,… But try asking the Heartland Institute for a list of THEIR funders. They refuse to provide it.”
Gleick also focused on this topic in the email invitation to Heartland’s Conference, that he refused to attend. He often harps on this “funding issue”.
I suggest that Gleick is/was possessed by an Obsessive Compulsion to “discover their funders”.
If he has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder locked in on discovering Heartland funding, then his self-destructive behavior is comprehensible. An OCD “lock” is overpowering. OCD can push an individual to behave very oddly and bypass rational judgment and common sense.
An OCD mental argument by his attorneys would not surprise me.
It might keep him out of prison. In any case, the career is still toast.

Rogelio
February 24, 2012 10:41 am

Re the Erasure of EPA grants to Gleick could someone confirm is this a felony re Federal law?

Resourceguy
February 24, 2012 11:02 am

The Pacific Institute sounds a lot like the ACORN of science matters and the AGU had better run fast in the opposite direction. And as in the ACORN case, the Feds are last to investigate and clean up the mess after someone else points out the criminal behavior.

R. Gates
February 24, 2012 11:14 am

Related to the FBI being “called in” on this case. Of course, Heartland has no authority to “call in” the FBI, in the sense of making the FBI investigate this. They can call or contact the FBI and request an investigation, and the FBI may or may not decide that it merits such.
REPLY: Sheesh, is THAT the best you have? Semantic arguments? They CALLED the FBI, and the FBI responded to the complaint. Clear enough for you now?
Sometimes I think that government job has atrophied your critical thinking skills Mr. “Gates”. My best advice to you sir is to walk away. – Anthony

R. Gates
February 24, 2012 11:42 am

Anthony,
Related to “semantic” arguments, sometimes a single word can change the entire context and meaning of something, much like a missing minus sign.
Related to who I may or may not work for– our private conversations were just that, and in this age of questioning people’s ethics (and even bragging about one’s own ethics) I would trust that you’d be ethicial enough to keep all private matters just that.
REPLY: Again Mr. Gates, rather than lecture me on semantics and ethics, I suggest you just walk away – Anthony

1DandyTroll
February 24, 2012 12:08 pm

R. Gates says:
February 24, 2012 at 11:42 am
Anthony,
[…] I would trust that you’d be ethicial enough to keep all private matters just that.
That you have to ask Mr Watts to, put it bluntly, keep people’s privates private just goes to show that you’re not but a simple bully trying to get an imaginary uperhand in an imaginary struggle.
And why, dear, are you so fanatically interested to out “sceptical” people’s private matters if you’re all for private being private?
People who cry because their own rules do not apply to the fights they start in reality are rather weird.

Babsy
February 24, 2012 12:11 pm

R! How are you?! So nice of you to drop by. Maybe I misunderstood the radiative balance so essential to finding the missing heat in the deep ocean and keeping our world from being contaminated by all the CO2 dumped into our precious and fragile atmosphere by Big Oil and the wingnuts but I just wanted to point out that Dr. Gleick didn’t miss a plus or minus sign. He confessed. Anyway, have an AWESOME weekend!
Babs

Eric (skeptic)
February 24, 2012 12:30 pm

While it is important to keep track of this issue, it is useless for people to speculate, like whether or not Gleick should do time or whether or not Heartland should “call in” the FBI. Why does it even matter, R. Gates, what words Heartland used? This is like all the sheeple watching some sensational murder trial on TV and second guessing the lawyers, witnesses and jury using 1/10 of the facts available. Who cares? Just wait for Gleick and Heartland to make their moves and see what happens.

Toto
February 24, 2012 12:31 pm

May Gleick have a long stay at Heartbreak Hotel.

u.k.(us)
February 24, 2012 12:59 pm

UPDATE41: 4:32 PM 2/23 The story on yours truly in the local alternate weekly “Leaked Documents Hit Home“
============
IMO, it is this type of reporting (by the Chico News & Reveiw) that necessitated coining the phrase:
“a fountain of misinformation”

1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 38