Statement by The Heartland Institute on Gleick Confession

Another nail in fanatical AGW coffin.

The preacher of ethics …with his pants down.
Why he’s the guy who preaches science ethics
A brief lesson in the integrity of science
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Again
AGU’s new task force on scientific integrity and ethics begins
Threats to the integrity of science: congressional testimony
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/20/breaking-news/

Now where’d I put my popcorn maker?
This isn’t just going to break, I think ‘shatter’ is a more apposite term.

It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.

Oh the humanity!

It looks like Gleick has earned some time on the Group W bench. While the request to remove the alleged stolen documents from the Internet is at first glance heavy handed, if they are used as evidence against this self-confessed boob they will become part of the public record. I’m ok with the request.
I trust he’s written his last missive as a representative of the Brotherhood of Climate Alarmists.

i hope that they rake them over the coals…
very publicly i might add…

@ dalyplanet
> A bit surprising, perhaps, is that Peter Gleick is the just announced American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.
Not just expert, Chair!
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

The well funded CAGW scientist has been driven to confessing about lying, stealing, and forgery because there is a single small non profit funding a private professional weather company to build an independent analysts of public government released weather results.
I hope the letter of the law is thrown at the guilty party.

Hopefully this douchebag will be convicted of criminal fraud and sent to jail. It’s way past time these “people” pay for there criminal actions. I also hope there are civil penalties in the millions of dollars as well. HI, please…please…don’t have any mercy on Gleick. Stick it to the creep.

Seems to me – that should be the end of Peter Gleick, professionally and ethically. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And the best thing is… he did it to himself. GK

Not just retractions: Money. Seriously, every MSM outlet has gleefully lept to stab their little knives into Heartland’s back, and they need to pay for that rash, rushed overtly political decision. NPR, WashPo, NYTimes, etc. Hang em all. Spend every nickel won from Gleek to sue the real bastards.

Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. 🙂

[snip over the top -Anthony]

I’m wondering if I believe him now. Is this a red herring?

Copner says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:37 pm
@ dalyplanet
> A bit surprising, perhaps, is that Peter Gleick is the just announced American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.
Not just expert, Chair!
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

At the bottom of the above linked page one will find:

If you would like to offer comments, suggestions or feedback for the task force, please contact us at Ethics@agu.org.

This would be a good moment to offer comments, suggestions or feedback for the task force! GK

edbarbar says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:59 pm
“In a discerning world, a fraudulent email would put the nail in the coffin. I wonder, though, how much effort is underway to say this is like “Climategate.” They stole our emails, and they warped them to make us look bad. Then it seems like the same thing.”
Does anyone still believe Dan Rather?

Sorry Anthony,too much old west in my background..

Apologies Mr Watts, ‘wheresmyak47’ is an escaped troll from Andrew Bolt’s blog in Oz.
Letting it near a computer unsupervised is like giving machine gun to a monkey.
You are safe. It just spews vile green invective.

to Jeff
Re: “Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breathe”
They aren’t expecting them to disappear. This is a test of integrity for news outlets and blogs. Nothing more.

Peter Gleick chairs a committee at AGU:
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml
Wonder what his recommendation for this committee charge will be?
“Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles, and..”
Might want to make some suggestions to the Executive Director, Christine W. McEntee:
Agu_execdirector@agu.org
How about no longer chairing the committee on scientific ethics?
Fox guarding the hen house…

Joe Bastardi says:
…..
Well said Joe – I also hope this is the tipping point!

If any warmist were in doubt as to the difference between failgate and climategate this should help clear it up.

Lots of silliness in the Guardian account, but one very interesting piece of news. If it is true that Gleick has retained Chris Lehane (a notorious political mudslinger and combatant) then it is indeed going “nuclear” in terms of the ways in which Gleick et al will fight in the PR and media space:
“In a sign of combat to come, Gleick has taken on a top Democratic operative and crisis manager, Chris Lehane. Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House is credited for exposing the rightwing forces arrayed against the Democratic president. He was Al Gore’s press secretary during his 2000 run for the White House.”
“As one environmental campaigner said: “Now it’s gone nuclear.””
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents?INTCMP=SRCH

Methinks that despite much posturing and spinning there will be many sleepless nights for many in the CAGW camp and their MSM acolytes. The odds are that the warmists and their agencies will go into full attack mode with any and all strawmen to try and deflect attention from this confession.
I wonder why Gleick confessed? To try and forestall deeper investigation? Is he the “Captain Oates” of the team? Was he pushed into doing it? Were the authorities asking questions? Did some astute legal mind instruct him to try and limit damages when faced with incriminating evidence?
Whatever the reason I hope the HI prosecute Gleick and those involved to the hilt.
Old Mike

I wish it was a tipping point – but alas – they are still at it
“”The current system is broken,” says Bob Watson, the UK’s chief scientific advisor on environmental issues and a winner of the prestigious Blue Planet prize in 2010. “It is driving humanity to a future that is 3-5°C warmer than our species has ever known, and is eliminating the ecology that we depend on for our health, wealth and senses of self.””
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/20-5

AndyG55 says: February 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Everyone should email AGU and ask if Gleick REALLY is the Chair of their ethics department. 🙂
Who better to exemplify their ethics?

get revkin – he confirmed the authenticity of the forgery, right?
here’s your wedge. pound it hard, plz.

What’s the evidence Glieck wrote the faked document? I’m not saying he didn’t, I just want to know what the evidence is that he did? Personally, I find it credible that a zealot baited with “true believer” material could be lured across the line into such unethical behavior in stealing the additional documents in pursuit of a “higher truth”.
So, tell us. . .what’s the stylistic or other evidence that points at Glieck for the author of the “faked” document? To me, the fact that he’s coming forward now tends toward proof of remorse having belatedly released he was himself scammed. Unless someone can show me that he was about to be authoritatively unmasked anyway.

Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute’s mission is (according to their taxform 990):
Briefly describe the organization’s mission:
“TO BRING SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE TO THE RELATED PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN SECURITY AND TO PROPOSE
PRACTICAL AND INCLUSIVE POLICIES TO PROBLEMS AT THE GLOBAL, NATIONAL
AND COMMUNITY LEVELS, AND PUT RESULTS INTO THE HANDS OF POLICY MAKERS”.
Sounds like a nice green business modell.
But who finances THAT ?
Well, even if you don’t like them and never ever would consider writing a cheque for them, Greenpeace or WWF, YOU are one of their main funders.
According to their “Financial Statement 2010” contributors are:
United Nations Global Compact Foundation
Unoited Nations Water Mandate
United Nations Environment Program
University of California Berkeley
State of California – EPA
Die Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf
Taxpayers money at work – at the EPSON scanner.

“Jeff says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breathe. The internet has them. They aren’t going away.”
===============================
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff…. They are not expecting them to be taken down at all. This is the first formal opening salvo in taking legal action. The very first step is hire a lawyer and then after that your lawyer sends out cease and desist letters.
The response that the people who receive the letters takes then comes into play when the case goes to court. One of the things typically a measure used is malice. Up until the C&D letter malice can’t be firmly established. But once the suspect parties have been put on notice their reactions can then be used to determine malice.
So this was the first step in filing civil lawsuits. There are a number of valid responses that don’t require taking down the material but desmog and the rest are not taking a tact that will stand them in good stead in court. Their choice.

“geo says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm
What’s the evidence Glieck wrote the faked document?”
=========================================
It is textual go over to Lucia Blackboard and look for the first report of the Heartland documents. It is in that responses there that the textual evidence is figured out.
The evidence strongly suggests Dr. Peter Gleick as the author but doesn’t prove it. At this point it is up to him to prove he didn’t write it. Actually two something interesting from his confession.
1. He doesn’t claim not to have written the fake.
2. He doesn’t claim that the fake document he scanned and sent with the packet to everyone else was the anonymous document that got him to steal the Heartland documents in the first place. He merely states that he received such an anonymous document in the snail mail and that he didn’t alter it. Well aside from the obvious scanning it to PDF if the thing he scanned was really what he received.

Great….another Oakland business goes belly-up (I assume). Soon we’re gonna have nothing left but pot dispensaries. Even Glieck is respectable compared to them.

For those wondering why Gleick came forward now: just as with the cease and desist letters, you need to be thinking of the legal aspects of this case, not the PR aspects.
Because this is absolutely going to Court.
When there is a real fraudster using an e-mail to obtain documents under false premises, it actually is fairly easy for someone with serious IT skills to track down the email address used. Unless the perp was very skilled at forwarding things anonymously, they will usually be caught. Obviously Gleick has very poor IT skills, but was arrogant enough not to realize it. When the Demand letters went out today, Gleick went and talked to legal counsel about his exposure. That’s easy to discern, since this “confession” has clearly been heavily edited, and maybe even written by, legal counsel, not Gleick himself. He is trying to get out of civil and criminal liability, now that he realizes Heartland has the goods on him.
Heartland may even have let Gleick know that they had traced the email to him – don’t know that, but it certainly would explain why he caved today. They had the goods on him, and he knew it.

Looking through his list of publications, I don’t see any of what I would consider ‘real science’ in there. Mostly public policy stuff.
Nothing wrong with that, but claiming to be a scientist looks like a way to bolster his advocacy activities.
Also an AGW true believer from way back. Or if you like, one of the first to climb onboard the AGW gravy train.
http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/gleick_publications.htm

Skiphil says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:22 pm
““As one environmental campaigner said: “Now it’s gone nuclear.”””
Nuclear self-immolation.

Theo Goodwin says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:01 pm
“Maybe a NYT science reporter will take this opportunity to begin pursuing his redemption.”
Rather would the pope recite the Lord’s Prayer backwards.

The most entertaining aspect of all this is watching Andy Revkin throw Gleick under the bus. Now it’s “every man for himself!”

Doctor Gleick did rush to leak
Some private papers he stole
“I’ll break any laws
To futher my cause,
I’m a highly ethical soul!”

Joe Bast Says:
Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, …
NO HE DOES NOT.
Look at what the man wrote, not what he wants you to read.
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.
He says he recieved an anonymous document. He doesn’t say the “anonymous document” was the faked document. The 2012 Proposed Budget “describes what appear to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.” The anonymous document could have been that document, or some other document that we haven’t seen.
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..
He committed wire fraud, identity theft and other crimes to get more documents.
I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.
He says he forwarded the documents that he received – by which he maybe taken to mean the documents he recieved from Heartland. He doesn’t say that he forwarded the “anonymous document”, nor does he deny sending documents other than those that he recieved.
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.
He claims he didn’t alter any of the documents sent to him. He doesnt say that the only documents he sent were the ones sent to him. He says he didn’t alter the “anonymous communication”, but he doesn’t identify it, nor does he confirm that he sent it.
Consistent with what Gleick has claimed are several scenarios that leave him the author of the faked memo – a fact he has not denied:
1) Someone sent him the Proposed Budget – that was the “anonymous communication.” He stole more documents, which may or may not have included the Budget that he already had in hand. He forwarded everything that had been sent to him, and he added to that package the “Climate Strategy Memo” that he had made up himself.
2) Someone sent him a “heads up” with a few details about the Budget in it – that was the “anonymous communication.” He stole more documents from Heartland. He kept the “anonymous communication”, forwarded everything that had been sent to him by Heartland, and he added to that package the “Climate Strategy Memo” that he had made up himself.
Even if Gleick is telling the unvarnished truth in his “confession” and half assed apology, either of those two scenarios could still be true. Keep in mind that crimate scientists are already primed to think in the “consistent with” mindset, and the fact that Gleick has lawyered up with the best sleazy democrat representation that you can’t buy, so it has to be provided to you. Every word he says from here on out is carefully chosen to be technically perjury-free, while telling the story he wants you to hear. And his lawyers have very carefully chosen for him to not claim that he didn’t write the Fake…
And of course, all of that only applies if his “confession” is entirely truthful. It remains that he could be telling more lies.

Peter Gleick has just been announced as the American Geophysical Union expert to lead the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity.

The irony. It burns.
One thing I have learned about these people, the ones who complain the most about someone else doing something nefarious seem themselves to be doing what they accuse the other side of doing. If they accuse you of being funded with deep pocket backers, it generally means that they are and are projecting their own situation onto their opposition. They probably can’t really believe that so many people actually do this in their spare time without any “deep pockets” behind them. Their head would explode of they thought people were doing this for no other reason than out of a sense of decency and respect for science. In fact, I would be willing they can’t allow themselves to believe it because it would make them hate themselves more than they already do. The self-loathing has many manifestations, I suppose.

As some here might realize, Dr. Gleick has just become a hero/martyr of the cause. Be not surprised by the mental gymnastics the greenies will be performing in the days ahead. Their base axiom on which all else rests is that the ends justify the means.

richcar 1225 says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:24 pm
“It was not the criminal act of Watergate that will be remembered, it was the cover up.”
Watergate is nothing compared to Solyndra or Fast and Furious.

DeSmogBlog seems to be digging a deeper hole for themselves. They are calling Gleick a “Whistle Blower”, and making him out to be some kind of climate hero. They say “For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.”
Have they all become unhinged?

Martin says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:15 pm
“Gleick’s a bit of a hero actually. He single handedly exposed the going’s on behind the curtains at Heartland. He even got the head honcho at Heartland to email him the info – I love it!”
So, your side operates by forging stuff and trying to delude the media into reporting falsities about their enemies. Now, you say Gleick’s a hero for that so obviously you approve of these tactics.
Martin, the problem with that is not that you endorse lies and deception instead of an honest debate, no, that’s not a problem at all, because it works in our favor.
Your problem with your attitude is simply this. You will lose.

And the dissembling begins. Let it be noted that Aaron Heurtas, PR for the UCS, and author of the Open Letter from The Team has moved all comments from this post: http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/12/motivated-minority-climate-change-debates-lopsided-and-dangerous/
to this post: http://aaronhuertas.com/2011/12/motivated-minority-climate-change-debates-lopsided-and-dangerous/
To his credit, he notes that he moved the comments.
What is truly hilarious is that the comments posted were on his “Motivated Minority Climate Change Debates Lopsided and Dangerous” post. The comments were moved to the “Sandbox.”
If find it striking, considering Gleick is certainly a dangerous, motivated minority, and will now likely spend some time in the sandbox.
I expect we’ll see a good amount of shifting of comments and such around the alarmist blogs over the next few days.

Followed up by………
Woodshedder says:
James, Dr. Gleick is actually at the top of the list for being the person who may have faked the Strategy document to which you refer. Strange that Dr. Gleick, normally so triumphant, has been quiet during the Fake-gate. Only time will tell if he is guilty, but there certainly is a lot of similarity between his writing style and the style used in the fake strategy document.
LOLOL

Can’t wait to see how the BBC spin this one!
Imagine the fuss if a prominent climate sceptic was caught stealing documents.
Over to you Richard Black, we’re waiting.

“Martin says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Gleick’s a bit of a hero actually. He single handedly exposed the going’s on behind the curtains at Heartland. He even got the head honcho at Heartland to email him the info – I love it!”
===============================================
Exposed what exactly? That Heartland gave money to various projects some of them Pro improving climate science? That doesn’t really seem like any kind of gotcha.

It was barely a year ago that Gleick was known primarily for his periodic SFGate screeds deploring the expansion of water infrastructure in California. He was invisible enough in the climate wars that when I posited his name in the comments here as – I think – having been the source of some obnoxious quote, Anthony replied that he thought Gleick too obscure.
Well, he’s not so obscure these days.

Jeff (February 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm) wrote:
Repeatedly asking that the documents be taken down is a waste of breath[]. The internet has them. They aren’t going away.
LamontT (February 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm) chided Jeff and pointed out that it’s about lawyers and strategy, though he mistakenly suggested it’s about the websites Heartland is sending the takedown requests to.
The real intent is to demonstrate the extent of the damage the perpetrator has caused to Heartland’s reputation. If all blogs, warmist and otherwise, were to take down the documents as requested, it would militate against a claim of serious damage to Heartland’s reputation. However, if their requests are rejected or ignored, Heartland will have evidence to substantiate a claim of serious damage to their reputation, since the defamatory material will pop up whenever one searches for “Heartland” or “Heartland Institute”, no matter how much time has passed.
The warmist bloggers are in an interesting pickle. On the one hand, they can assert that they have a right to continue to “report” on the documents, even though they’re fake, and in the process increase the severity of the consequences their hero is likely to face. On the other hand, they can (as I’m sure they’ll see it) “capitulate” to Heartland in hopes of lessening the consequences for Mr. Gleick.
Will the warmists take action to spare Mr. Gleick additional liability? Don’t be silly! They’ll throw him to the wolves.

You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – –
But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either both were crimes or both were shenanigans.
There is so much bullshit on both sides – it’s nose deep.
PS – Speaking of BS – How can you damage Heartland’s reputation?

I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology asking Gleick to make a sizable donation to One Water (for example).
This way justice is done, and Heartland show they have real compassion.
The guys career is over anyway, why kick him when he’s down?
HI should still go for the corporates though

Mr Watts: Many thanks for keeping us (I’m in UK) up to date on this very important matter – it’s really bigger than CG2, IMO. I’ve no doubt that Gleick has an underlying mantra of “The end is more important than the means”, as did so many of the dictators of the last hundred years.
I haven’t checked yet with the BBC/Black. I expect a lot of wriggling, and petty excuses – just as one might expect from a Delinquent Teenager – but the BBC is around 80 now and there should be a little maturity setting in.

I note the CAGW crowd are taking a moral equivalence approach to Cimategate vs Fakegate. I beg to differ. In Climategate (I & II) an as-yet unidentified insider or outsider (but the good money’s on an insider) obtained and published genuine documents that show a number of publicly-funded research organisations covertly and systematically politicising a prominent scientific issue while claiming to be above reproach (which they still do). In Fakegate an identified person with responsibility for ethics in science behaved unethically to obtain and publish a mix of genuine and fake documents that do nothing more than show a privately-funded organisation promoting projects consistent with its stated aims. Indeed, this organisation’s overt support for projects in the climate change field can be seen as a direct response to the covert politicisation exposed by Climategate. If we’re playing “I hold the moral high ground” here, I think I know who’s closer to the top.

MangoChutney says:
February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology
====================================================
That sure didn’t sound like an apology to HI…… a mea culpa, but I didn’t read a “I’m sorry to HI or any specific parties at HI. Further, there are bigger fish to fry. Gleick put himself in the way, but, it’s likely he’s got some correspondence that we’d all like to see.
Yeh, you almost feel sorry for the poor sap, but it isn’t like he wasn’t told. I’m all for understanding that we all fail, because we all do. But, he’s in a spot he put himself in, and, I think he’s got more to say.

“””””
You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – –
But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either both were crimes or both were shenanigans.
There is so much bullshit on both sides – it’s nose deep.
“””””
Those “Climategate” emails were public documents that people had tried to FOIA over and over again. No one ever claimed they were altered. This is a private organization that is being smeared with a fake document.

geo said @ February 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm

What’s the evidence Glieck wrote the faked document? I’m not saying he didn’t, I just want to know what the evidence is that he did? Personally, I find it credible that a zealot baited with “true believer” material could be lured across the line into such unethical behavior in stealing the additional documents in pursuit of a “higher truth”.
So, tell us. . .what’s the stylistic or other evidence that points at Glieck for the author of the “faked” document? To me, the fact that he’s coming forward now tends toward proof of remorse having belatedly released he was himself scammed. Unless someone can show me that he was about to be authoritatively unmasked anyway.

The stylistic evidence is that there is an overabundance of commas, run-on sentences and not particularly commonplace hyphenations. Before Gleik’s confession, I was pretty sceptical that this was sufficient to “hang the man”. It’s commonplace for writers to consciously (and unconsciously) imitate writers they admire. Now I suspect that Peter Gleik’s admirer was himself. Perhaps the writing being below his usual standard was because he didn’t have sufficient time to polish his writing. I spend at least four times as long editing my work than I do getting the words down. I’m a slow typist.

The chair of the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity?
The chair of the AGU task force on scientific ethics and integrity???
The age of satire is officially dead.

So you have a fake document purporting to reveal nasty secrets about Heartland, and treated as genuine by the Guardian tabloid. Then you have a fake open letter purportedly written by famous climate scientists regarding the fake document, and comparing it to their own REAL leaked CRU emails, but actually written by a PR agent and immediately published as real by the Guardian, which also periodically publishes Michael Mann’s paeans to himself. And now you have a weasel pseudo-apology purportedly written by a formerly obscure climate scientist (the same one that supposedly first received, and hurriedly published, the fake document, insisting it and all the others had been authenticated), but actuality written by his legal counsel, an attorney known for representing Bill Clinton and other Democratic bigwigs caught with their pants down. Is the Guardian going to report this as authentic, too?
How do such blatantly far-left political groups manage to get government funding? How does such a vicious political propaganda rag (the Guardian) manage to stay in business? And how is it that every time a crooked climate scientist comes under scrutiny, the massive power and money of the Democratic Party in the US or the Labour Party in the UK show up out of the blue to shield and protect him, and to portray him as a martyr?
Who is really behind all this?

Johnnygun wrote: “You guys are such friggin’ hypocrites.
You danced a jig when the Climategate emails were released – –
But now, all of a sudden, this is a “great crime”.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either both were crimes or both were shenanigans.”
No, the whistleblower is covered by British law, and is not considered a criminal. Gleick has now admitted guilt to fraud and identity theft. He is a confessed criminal. The whistleblower released evidence of crime and can’t be prosecuted. He broke no law.

To see how the media treats the two sides look at these BBC links about Gleik and Bast. One is a visionary, the others is a carnivore, guess who is what according to the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/features/essentialguide/vis_env.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8694544.stm
Balance ??

1. Why in his original ‘fraudulent’ request didn’t Dr Gleick simply ask for the document he already had ? That would be it, done, all proof needed it came from HI.
Or.
2. How did he know exactly what to ask for in advance that so completely verified the document he already had.
Just asking.

A full insider´s tale with all details – in exchange for a milder punishment – would do.

Hmm just out of curiosity what would the reaction be of the true believers if say they brought a Picasso that turned out to be a fake from a dealer who use deception to verify that fake ??

Wikipedia now has:
On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted obtaining documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, by fraudulent means, “in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” [7] Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that “Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins … ” [8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick
note Wikipedia is still giving the impression that ALL the documents came from HI. how long before it is corrected? any bets?

It would also help the argument if everyone stopped referring to the document as a fake – it is a forgery
fake:- One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.
forgery:- The creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one, with the intent to defraud.
The important part here being the intent to defraud

Cross-posted from Climate Audit – Steve Mac noted that
“No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick.”
And I commented:
Regarding H.I., “highly damaging” seems a bit hyperbolic. True, information which should have remained confidential, such as salaries, is now public and will undoubtedly cause some internal tensions; board members’ business contact info was outed (if it wasn’t already common knowledge); and some of H.I.’s strategies for the coming year are now in the hands of their opponents. None of this seems to rise to the level of highly damaging.
OTOH, H.I. gets 100% untainted victim status out of this. The stolen docs are utterly mundane, not a hint of malfeasance or nefariousness except the fake memo, which is just more egg on PG’s face.
But we can’t get no satisfaction? One of the most visible & vocal (and opportunistic, as Steve once pointed out) AGW propagandists has been silenced, hoisted on his own stinky petard. The climate debate signal-to-noise ratio just improved slightly. If that’s not satisfying, what is?
PS: There is one glaring revelation in the purloined docs, but you won’t read of it anywhere in warmsta’-land: H.I. spent only $700,000.00 on climate issues last year. That’s right, H.I. opened a can of whup-ass for about 1/1000 of what the big dogs spent. Ouch, warmers, that’s gotta hurt.

I have to say I am very pleased for the Heartland Institute. Whilst this looked a pretty open and shut case, there was the possibility of warmists attempting to destroy heartland by drawing out litigation.

Suzanne Goldenburg at the Guardian continues to misrepresent the facts. She writes:
“A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week’s sensational expose.”
How the hell can she get away with that.

Climategate 1&2 – running and running, and the might of the alarmists’ activists/scientist/apologists/media/police forces have no clue as to who blew that whistle.
HI alarmist’s wire fraud and faked document: one week of mayhem on the alarmists’ blogs and favourite MSM – and the mighty minds of sceptics, first and foremost a certain Steve Mosher, have the culprit nailed within days, thus forcing said culprit to wring out a ‘confession’ and lawyer up.
Who are the idiots here?
Alarmists, be afraid – be very afraid!

Wikipedia has now added this highly misleading reading of the situation:
Wikipedia: Peter Gleick
On February 20, 2012, Gleick admitted obtaining documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, by fraudulent means, “in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” [7] Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that “Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins … ” [8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick

Perhaps we need a Josh cartoon of Peter Gleick carrying his cross to Golgotha. It would appear that he is to become a martyr for the cause according to many True believer websites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome
Interesting that he has the same lawyer as Bill Clinton, advising him what to say. That worked well didn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

I will be keeping a keen eye on Richard Black’s reporting of this on the BBC. I’m reasonably sure that if the individual involved in the release of emails from the CRU was either uncovered or confessed to the deed there would be much coverage by Mr Black. It will be very telling if this grubby little episode is kept off the BBC website.

MangoChutney says:
February 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I realise this won’t be a popular opinion, but IMHO, I think the humility is punishment enough for Gleick and I would urge HI to be the bigger man and accept the apology asking Gleick to make a sizable donation to One Water (for example).

Humility would be wonderful. But it’s a personal trait, not an event. He’ll never have or show it.
Humiliation, now, if it were thorough and public enough … Nah. Sue him into pauper-tude, say I!!

I bet this guy will win a Nobel Prize for ethics. The reporting on this crime has been criminal. They misrepresent the facts, omit major parts of the story, and fill the voids with gibbering insults and apocalyptic predictions.

Still nothing from the BBC.

Peter Gleick is the same author of the fake Amazon.com book review on The Delinquent Teenager.
I am sure the lawyers will be glad to know he has form.

What disgusting behaviour from a prominent alarmist.
Well on the bright side, it’s not science, is it? Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming.
“He believed”. That’s his problem: science isn’t about belief.

One important part of all of this is the role that the sceptic blogosphere had in pointing the finger at Gleick. Would he have come forward if people hadn’t already outed him as the prime susepct?
http://progcontra.blogspot.com/2012/02/sceptic-blogosphere-devours-gleick.html

I have not folowed this story at all closely so I am not familaiar with the facts.
Am I right in concluding that Gleick received (or alleges that he received) the ‘fraudulent’ memo and then hacked the Heartland server so as to ascertain whether the ‘fraudulent’ memo was genuine. Then having hacked the Heartland server and found no trace whatsoever of the ‘fraudulent’ memo rather than concluding that it was likely that the memo was ‘fraudulent’ instead. he publishes the memo claiming it real.
If those are the basic facts, at the time of publication, he could have had no confidence in the veracity of the memoo and would have had every reason to consider that it was not genuine.
If these are the facts, it appears to me that he has likely commited an offence of hacking the Heartland server AND knowingly publishing a memo which he almost certainly knows to be false.
Some suggest that he himself forged the memo. Obviously, I do not know whether that is the case, however, even if it is not the case, there appears (to me) to be strong reason to suspect that he published a memo which he knew was unlikely to be genuine.

With regard to redress for Heartland, remember, this is about donors and fund-raising. Heartland can actually quantify financial damage as a result of “permanent damage” to its reputation. Many of its donors will be low profile and shun the public eye for good political and business reasons. If as a result, they are exposed, they may curtail otherwise useful and planned donations. For an organization that defends heavily on donation funding in order to operate (whoever they are), the alleged criminal actions which have occurred here carry both a punitive and civilly redress. This is hardball – the only decisions to be made on what course to follow will be on the business case. A strong offensive by Heartland (especially if successful), will demonstrate to its donors that HI will act aggressively to protect its funding sources, which is positve spin for donors.
The very worse thing for HI to do is capitulate on a “feel-good” strategy – they lose everything if they do. Aggressive action may well fund their war-chest and it will raise the public profile of the slime side of the CAGW crowd big time in the public eye. Their goal should be a complete and very public flogging of all of the players in this – they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Most of the miscreants will look to settle privately – none can come out of this looking good.

Assume for a moment that Gleick received the strategy document from an anonymous source, as he claims.
Now that strategy document actually contains text along the lines “here’s some super stuff we’ll keep secret even from our own board”.
If Gleick wanted to verify the strategy doc, the last thing he would want to look at would be he board papers, because the strategy doc supposedly contains info that even the Heartland board don’t know.
So why would he then go do ID theft, or whatever you want to call it, to get the board papers?
It doesn’t make sense… he stole completely the wrong papers to test the authenticity of the strategy document.

Suzanne Goldenburg is a total moron. She calls Gleick “A leading defender of climate change”. What the F**K does that mean?

pat says:
February 21, 2012 at 4:46 am
What!? So the BBC is reacting to HI’s notice with a rhetorical face-spit? Incredible!
What on Earth has gotten into these people?
RTF

Well. I have sent this and Delingpole’s piece to a handful of my fingers-in-the-ears, lalalallallalalalla eco-loon friends (sadly and highly paid scientists!).
The play only gets more absurd. I thought it would all end with Climategate I.
I underestimated.
History books will be filled with humor. …..Lady in Red

I wouldn’t want to be Gleick’s underwear right now.

”Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”

“DesertYote says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm
As some here might realize, Dr. Gleick has just become a hero/martyr of the cause. Be not surprised by the mental gymnastics the greenies will be performing in the days ahead. Their base axiom on which all else rests is that the ends justify the means.”
I’m waiting for the inevitable T-shirt with a high contrast image of Glieck’s face wearing a beanie.

The reason for the “unprofessional” tone of the faked memo is likely because Gleick “knew” that all of the “climate deniers” were uneducated science hating knuckledraggers, and he was imitating what he was sure they all said in private.
of course, in reality he was just echoing the crazed delusions of his own deeply warped mind. So I suppose we can say that this memo is more authentically written in Gleick’s “True” voice than anything else he has ever done. This hateful, nasty, vicious liar is Peter Gleick, shorn of all of his pretensions and carefully learned mannerisms.
Ecce Homo!!!! (Behold the Man!)

Paul Coppin’s post is giving me schadenfreude overload. Heartland sue Gleick, win millions, and spend the money fighting against the alarmist cause. “Big Gleick funds climate deniers”, doesn’t get sweeter than that.
BTW twitter is showing about 3-5 a minute for Gleick the great majority are not favourable.

We have already deduced that Gliek is a tad naive when it comes to IT mechanics. That said, it seems unlikely, to me, that he will be able to produce or have produced for him, satisfactory evidence of the receipt of the original forged document from some anonymous source. He is on his back waiting for the coup de grace, but Heartland will come under intense pressure to withhold the fatal blow. We might yet not see justice done.

This is the very reason why there is such a thing as professional licensure for those of us who practice in the real world, and why persons in academia are NOT automatically granted licensure in many jurisdictions. We are held to an overarching standard that everything we do has the underlying goal of protecting the public health and welfare. The licensure laws mostly contain a code of ethics and we can be reprimanded, fined, sanctioned, our licenses suspended and even revoked for behaviour such as Glieck’s.
For the record, I am the current President of the Pennsylvania Licensing Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors adn Geologists and this kind of thing is not countenanced amongst professional practitioners. They wonder in academia why they cannot simply be licensed like the rest of us – the answer is, being a scholar has NOTHING to do with running a successful practice which is founded on actions on behalf of the public weal – in all senses of teh word. The big word is successful. If one of us pulled a stunt similar to Glieck’s we would lose our ability to practice and would be out of bsuiness. Academics’ words have no such consequence, except with tax-greedy politicians.
Academia – What a ‘profession’!!!! They get tenure to protect their jobs, AND they are immune from state legislatures which empower licensing boards to police the competence, ehtics and probity of licensees.

I shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the Deputy……..

The continuing and overwhelming reaction from the left in support of Gleick, in this matter, goes far beyond an embrace of propaganda and crosses into the realm of mental disorder on a mass scale.

The top scientists on the Fiddlestick Team have posted a major statement on this matter over at UNReal Climate.Con.
The statement reads:-
End of statement.
Ps Apparently The Chairman of the IPPC has been receiving death threats, yawn yawn yawn

Dr. Gleick has lectured in writing, but I don’t see any other credentials. Until other evidence arises, it appears that his main profession is writing (i.e. and English/Linguistic degree).