(Received via email direct from Heartland president Bast in advance of their website posting, see Gleick’s statement/confession here – Anthony)
FEBRUARY 20, 2012: Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.
Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.
An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.
A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.
In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.
Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.
We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.
We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.
# # #
For more information, contact Jim Lakely, communications director of The Heartland Institute, at 312/377-4000 or jlakely@heartland.org.
Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast “at”heartland.org
Web site http://www.heartland.org
Support The Heartland Institute today!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your point about tactics is valid, but the “scrubbers” are irrelevant; they’re for sulphur and particulates. CO2 removal and sequestration (CCS) is a whole ‘nother thing. A flagrant economic, technical, and ecological failure wherever attempted.
Somewhere Peter Gleick’s name is going onto the door to an office with the words, “Climate TV Pundit” below it. CNN or MSNBC? Once he is out of prison he will be TV’s newest “expert”.
“Brian H says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Can anyone confirm that Gleick’s only science education was a humanities undergrad survey course? The depth of his ignorance demands an explanation.
[REPLY: Brian, that is Dr. Gleick, and I doubt anyone can answer your question without resortng to a court order…. which they will not get. Give that one a rest. -REP] ”
REP, what do you mean by “that is Dr. Gleick,”? I do not use the term “Doctor” except for medical doctors, because it is widely used as an argument from authority and so many holders are not competent. I’m even looking for a different term for a medical expert, as many are not competent.
from:(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group-admits-lying-acquire-heartland-climate-documents) ref’d above:
“They (NYT) noted that Climate Progress is affiliated with the Center for American Progress (CAP), but did not point out that CAP received $7.3 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations.”
Nope, just pure (as the melting driven snow) Science there. The funding is settled.
I knew I’d get called for my view, but:
The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187
Gleick has only himself to blame for his predicament, but I really don’t think we should allow him to become a martyr for The Cause
Richard Black (BBC), where are you? Not so quick off the mark this time I see. Heh, heh. ;>)
I am not defending the Pacific Institute or CAP, but from the referenced article:
.
Now maybe that covered Gleick’s expenses for that time, I don’t know. But $275,000 over 6 years, I’m not seeing any covert conspiracy. But, you know the character of the person by the company he keeps…
@Flat Earther February 20 “What is the temperature in Hell right now?”
If it’s underground, as it is according to common belief, then it is several million degrees according to Al Gore.
Apologies if someone else has made the same observation; I have skipped most comments.
IanM
The warmists are in a panic because they see the rise and rise of public disbelief in their religion. In desperation, they will lash out at any entity they perceive as ‘the enemy’. The desmoggers represent the Inquisition of this religion, and the confession their first martyr. If they think he has been thrown to the lions he will simply be their hero, and also a victim of an evil power.
Has the world gone mad this week.
First I see the LA Times quoting mein kampf in a debate on climate change and to defend an article on stolen and fraudulent documents suggesting an institute was anti science and wanted to ban teaching of climate science in schools. (maybe the author wants to replace the science books with mein kampf for bedtime reading).
Then, only after being named and “dobbed in” by others, the person who admits to fraudulently obtaining the documents by impersonating a director of the institute and falsifying an email address turns out to be the chair of the American Geophysical Union “Task Force on Scientific Ethics” and was to be a member of the board of directors of part of the NCSE expansion to “defend the teaching of climate science”. He then does not admit he is the author of the forged document (about as believable as “the dog ate my thesis”) and in consequence leaves his colleagues under suspicion.
Now all we require is for Jones et al to “fess up” to redefining the meaning of the peer review process to stop scientists publishing if it questioned their work. …..sorry …what email?…..it said what?…
Ok, so the dog ate the thesis data but by a consensus of 98% of peer review redefiners they say it proved that man made CO2 is the dominant force in climate change causing global warming …..since the last ice age. Oh and the dogs paw deleted the backup server data as well.
What the “Paragon of the scientific community club” need to understand is that by undermining the peer review process then scientists and the public alike are entitled to be skeptical about any work they publish or peer review. I thought scientists were supposed to enjoy debate and proving and disproving hypothesis was science. “The debate is over” and “the science is settled by consensus” is not science it is just a meaningless statement and has bored people away from their argument. Ultimately to author a fraudulent document in support of their argument means the science is certainly not settled.
I’ve encountered enough Professors and professional researchers to know who this guy really is…there is a lot of dishonesty, greed and mistrust n minds in fields like these, the political fields…as well as a healthy dollop of fantasy, egomania, self-inflation, self-exaggeration, self-aggrandization.
Like Occupy, it is a fantastic social experiment…just how low would one stoop? Simple scenarios we ask children sometimes to gauge their morality and selfishness.
Well, these are adults, but the fields they are in lack morals…
Take neuroscience…as political a field as there is…calling conservatives insane.
One person I know who has a PhD in that field obsessed over eugenics, was a fascist for all intents and purposes, hated conservatives and was altogether a total asshole.
He’s not the only one.
At the risk of sounding egotistical please feel free to use “consensus of peer review process redefiners”, or variations thereof,without accreditation. I’m rather proud of that one I think that sums it up well. Just remember you read it here first folks!
Gleick is going to need more than Chris Lehane.
He has made Time and they are none too complimentary.
http://news.yahoo.com/heartland-scandal-why-cheating-hurts-climate-science-100500010.html
He has basically concentrated on Heartland and generally ignores Gleick, does not condemn his illegal actions etc. Richard Black is not a journalist but a global warming advocate who writes for the BBC.
Charles.U.Farley says: February 21, 2012 at 2:01 am From desmogblog….
“Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
That’s standard neo-Marxist lines. They claim to be democratic, yet maneuver to violate what the majority decides. What they mean is better called “tyranny of the majority”, which is an organized mob (bigger and more “respectable” than the Occupy mob, which initiated force against individuals who wanted to enjoy public parks and deal with people they choose, and against businesses by invading them.
They bash “industry” as always bad, consistent with the New Left version of Marxist exploitation theory. (Noting Ayn Rand’s book “The New Left – the Anti-Industrial Revolution”, or its new edition retitled “Return of the Primitive”. “Industry” can be taken two ways, as business or technology.)
They claim to be “progressive” yet are actually trying to turn back to feudal times if not cave dwelling times – a world lit only by fire, a dismal world for human life.
“Responsibility” is always doing what they advocate – controlling humans.
Of course they know best – many self-annointed priests like Peter Gleick – and they’ll force you to comply.
[snip – if you care to make personal accusations against me, have the courage to put your name to it, otherwise don’t comment – Anthony]
“Another nail in fanatical AGW coffin.”
That coffin must have ten times more iron than wood by now, and still no corpse inside.
Au contraire. It holds the scientific credibility and integrity of every researcher who contributed to the hokum that is (C)AGW theory. .
The climate change denial crowd has no problem believing they have found faults in the science (which doesn’t claim 100% certainty, only scientifically valid results) and these faults never rise to the level of undermining data. But, got forbid someone point out the many monied interest on the denial side, the many outright lies and distortions disguised as science, which unsurprisingly exclusively benefit the funders of the denial industry.
The lack of a serious discussion, with scientific facts understood by most parties, is a stark reminder of the utter nonsense peddled here.
good luck finding Truth, through the cesspools of the internet pseudo-science denial machine.
Bought and Paid for denial machine? check.
ah, but read-on, you never know what Al Gore will (be reported to) do next!
it would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad. Non-scientists, without any pretense of grasping the data, making grand statements about the fraud of AGW. And missing the irony all the time…
If you care to think, ask yourself, “Where’s the data to support the denial?”
yes, DATA.
Chuck says:
February 28, 2012 at 9:17 am
You talk about “monied interest on the denial side” … dude, you’ve slipped your moorings. There are billions and billions of dollars going to AGW believers to support their claims. Al Gore alone put up $300 million, which is about the Greenpeace budget. WWF, NRDC, and
And on the other side we have … Heartland Institute, which from their report spent $388,000 on climate …
Chuck, you say “god forbid someone point out …”, but god doesn’t forbid you from pointing out and detailing for us “the many monied interest [sic] on the denial side”.
Step up to the plate here, son, and start listing the “many monied interest”, no one’s stopping you. Because to date all you have backing up your claims is your big mouth, and around here, that won’t get you any traction at all. Who are the “monied interest” that you are referring to?
JoNova lays it out well:
As they say, time to put your money where your mouth is … where is this mythical “monied interest” you claim is supporting the skeptics?
w.
PS—A protip if you want to get some traction: if you call people “deniers”, you look like an idiot, and you get your vote cancelled automatically by many people. I can see that it might give you a warm fuzzy feeling to insult people like that, but it is poor tactics, and even worse strategy.
[snip. You may not label skeptics “denialists”. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Is Chuck for real? I thought it was the grandest of sarcasms, especially ending with “where is the DATA?”
Skeptic: A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
you feel like that’s accurate here? QUESTION ALL OPINIONS?
shielding the predisposed from any chance to considering another POV (which just happens to be supported by the vast majority of credible scientists). GREAT. you’ve done your work.
lower than low.
this site is a facade.
REPLY: Dear “Chuck”, Speaking of facades, I find it really interesting that in your email address you represent yourself as being in Spain, but your IP address says you are in a suburb of Los Angeles. What I’ve always wondered is why do people like yourselves lecture others on facades, when you are living one yourself? If you have something to say to me directly, have the courage to put your name to it. I doubt that you do. – Anthony Watts
Chuck,
You have no concept of what a scientific skeptic is. A skeptic says: prove it. Or at least, provide solid supporting evidence.
The claim is made by the alarmist crowd that runaway global warming will result from “carbon” emissions. I am skeptical, so without any appeals to authorities [other than emperical evidence from planet earth], explain why I should believe your catastrophic AGW nonsense.
First, Smokey, you don’t know me, and i’ve only stated truths so far. Unless, you see an un-truth? Please let me know. As you’re a skeptic, you’ve obviously checked the studies and their results. Which part of the scientific community’s data is flawed, based on your understanding? could you provide supporting evidence to show the data is flawed?
now, mind you, what you cite, should be significant enough to actually call into question the scientific community’s conclusions. For example, minor transposition of #’s, done by error and corrected once identified is not usually sufficient to call the conclusions into question, unless of course they were a fundamental part of the original study. The studies that attempt to discredit the scientific conclusions typically are afflicted with obvious erros, but let’s see what you’ve got and maybe it won’t be so fatally flawed. happy to take a look.
Fred, real as can be. Please, engage. happy to show you the light.
but, you should know something about data first — do you?
i hope so, but truly doubt it considering your pointless comment advances no claim other than, “can you believe someone doesn’t think like us?” yeah, that’s a good sign that you’re more empty than substantive. i hope for your sake, it’s the latter. let’s see.
Chuck,
I’ve been analyzing the real data (not what if models) for the last five years. Read http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf. and http://www.retiredresearcher.wordpress.com. That’s what the data tells me. It may shatter your trust in the subjective research of the IPPC bible.
Mr Watts,
hahaha. i used to live there. Changing it, to “formerlyin” is not worth my time and would result in losing contacts.
Would you like my email address to include my personal address too, so you can personally attack me for asking, GASP, to show what part of the DATA is flawed? I love that you’re tracking my IP. But to use that flawed logic you’ve used, to assert that i am a facade, is completely absurd.
ooh, but please do check my website, it’s top-notch!
I’m still waiting for the first substantive DATA-based opposition to the global scientific consensus.
would you like to start?
thanks.
Charlie.
REPLY: Ah the typical projection, making up an issue on something not said. I get a 404 on your website from here BTW. Sure we’ll (and readers are already responding) be happy to debate you. But I don’t personally waste time with people anymore that don’t have the integrity to use theirs when calling out mine with denigration.
Be mindful of the site policy and you’ll do just fine. – Anthony