(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.
Chuck, just a reminder that I’m still waiting for you to put your mouth where your money is …
w.
Chuck says:
February 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I get:
Typical, Chuckie is “all hat and no cattle” as we used to say on the ranch where I grew up … his website perfectly exemplifies the schizophrenic AGW reaction to the word “debate”, first they say the skeptics don’t want to debate and then, they themselves refuse to debate.
Your website neatly automates that process, Chuckie, it is indeed top-notch, you get the whole accept/refuse debate thing with no human interaction needed!
w.
Anthony,
this site distorts the meaning of skeptic, and hid under that distortion to delete my earlier comment. that you have tracked my location and announced it to everyone is not projecting, it’s real. and yet, you call me a facade for using an email address, with my name in it, of a place i used to live. your ethics is the facade. i’m not censoring anyone, why are you?
Fred,
these are not science websites. the evaluations of the data are not peer reviewed, which actually does have a real impact on accuracy, which i happen to care about. If you know science you’ll know that peer-review is a major step towards credibility. but, looking for peer-review, i only found the home page, which sells used computers.
/climate.pdf, posits as true, without first evaluating, “For decades scientists and politicians have debated the issue of climate change. Unfortunately, international politics and energy policies have been the main driving force.” this is the kind of statement that requires support to be taken seriously. none given.
/co2olr.pdf – nonsensical commentary layered over real graphs.
Are you a peer-reviewed climate scientist?
Willis,
where to start? your $$$ infatuation is causing blindness, to scientific fact. that’s the point, the data. you refuse to get serious, instead, pointing out that the government funds scientists. That’s been true for 100’s of years. must be that all our science is bogus, eh?
Claims i refuse to debate… well, there’s no point in debating $, since it’s all around us. there’s no point in debating, my website, which is clearly an appeal for “substantivedebate/anytime” Yet, you attack me on these frivolous points.
DATA, gentlemen, it’s in the public domain, go ahead and let’s get into it, show me where it’s wrong, through evaluation of the data itself.
The rest, is just “noise,” thou y’all are mighty good at it!
REPLY: “Chuck” can’t use the scroll bar apparently, his comment is right here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/statement-by-the-heartland-institute-on-gleick-confession/#comment-907660
You don’t like any of us here, and your website is broken. See: http://www.whois.net/whois/howaboutsomesusbtantivedebate.com
Isn’t even registered. Pants on fire and all that.
You are technically challenged and angry. We get it. I recommend that readers don’t waste any more time on this troll as he offers nothing of substance. I sure won’t. – Anthony
Chuck,
It is obvious that you are not my peer in that you are not able to understand the data analysis that I have done. I stopped publishing years ago when I retired from doing research at EPAs Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory. If you google “Fred H. Haynie” you can find several of my peer reviewed pubs. I’ve shown you the data. You show me where my analysis is wrong if you are able to understand it. One reason I retired early from EPA was because politics was becoming more controlling over research and research reports. The IPPC is a political organization. What are your scientific qualifications? Show me the data.
First, Chuck said:
February 28, 2012 at 9:17 am
I asked Chuck a reasonable question, viz, what “monied interest[s]” are you talking about?
In response, Chuck now says:
February 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Where to start, you ask? Start by answering the question. What monied interests?
You are the one who brought up the “monied interests”, not me. You’re the one saying god forbid someone point out the monied interests. Here’s your chance. Point them out.
So … what monied interests are you infatuated with? You brought them up, you explain them, or go away. You can’t just make unsubstantiated claims here, this is a science site.
I’m still waiting for you to explain your infatuation with the monied interests, and let us in on the secret of who they are … put up or shut up, my friend.
w.
Chuck says:
…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?
Glad you asked. I have a tiny bit of sympathy since you’ve obviously gotten your misinformation from thinly trafficked alarmist echo chambers, and you’re up against commenters above who are light years ahead of your understanding of the subject. I’ll show you why the “consensus” [which does not, in fact, exist] is wrong:
There is no difference in the rising trend line since the LIA, from both before and after the rise in CO2. The long term trend line is exactly the same, whether CO2 was 280 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. That conclusively deconstructs the endlessly repeated claims of CO2=CAGW. There is no accelerated warming, as has been endlessly predicted. Whatever effect CO2 may have, it is negligible regarding temperature. On the other hand, the biosphere is benefitting greatly from the added CO2, and will contiue to do so as CO2 levels rise.
Until/unless rising CO2 pushes temperatures beyond the parameters of the Holocene, the null hypothesis remains unfalsified, and the alternate hypotheses: CO2=catastrophic AGW and CO2=AGW, both fail. The spurious and occasional correlation between a long term warming trend like the Modern Warm Period, and the short term rise in harmless CO2 is merely coincidental, and mostly the result of the MWP which ended ≈800 ±200 years ago.
Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct explanation. The simplest explanation is that CO2 is such an insignificant bit player that it can be disregarded. Its effect is too small to measure. Natural climate variability is sufficient to explain all global warming and cooling without invoking an extraneous variable like CO2 – which has never caused temperature changes in the geologic past. Why would it now?
The planet is falsifying your belief system. There is no accelerated warming, and despite the fact that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise, for fifteen years temperatures have stagnated. And there are other proxies more accurate than the rise in “carbon” to explain natural global warming.
[snip – there will be no debating here from a guy who lies about his own website – bug off – Anthony]
At last! Chuck-ed. Thang kew.
🙂