(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!
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.
Climate Science Cluedo:
Was it the chair of the ethics committee in his office with a scanner?
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?
I keep reading posts by people complaining about Heartlands call to take down posts. I’ll repeat what I wrote before. What they are doing is call a “demand letter”. It is the first step in a lawsuit. It is part of the legal process. They are obviously following advise from legal counsel, that is all. It means they have definite plans to sue. This has nothing to do with PR or anything else. It is the first step in a lawsuit. Come to think of it, if Anthony wants to sue, he needs to send out his own “demand letter” AFTER talking to a lawyer. Actually, Anthony should not make any personal comments on this until he gets a lawyers advise.
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.
Glieck has been sucking at the AGW teat for a long time, well over 20 years judging by his papers.
I’m fond of pointing out that if the AGW catastrophe scare goes away, 90% of climate scientists will be driving taxis. I’d include Glieck in that number,
Gleick has grown affluent and well known off the back of the AGW scare. I have no sympathy for his lame and fraudulent in several ways attempt to perpetuate the scare and his lifestyle.
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 ??
”Johnnygunn says:
February 20, 2012 at 11:02 pm
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 are such a hippocrite. You danced a jig when Heartland Documents were released, but Climategate was a ‘great crime’
Answer, they are both crimes. But this one was not done by a lone hacker/whistleblower. This was done by someone who claims he is ethical possibly in cahoots with others – he stole documents by deception and it is alleged that he forged one. None of the Climategate emails are alleged to be forged. He will get the punsihment he deserves as he has got caught – he will probably get a lesser sentance if he pleads guilty.
If they catch the Climategate hacker he/she too will get their punishment.
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.
” 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”
—————————————
It should not be down to HI. If a crime has been committed then it should be investigated by the police. If there is a case to answer then that is for the legal system to decide.
If you shot someone and apologised, do you seriously think you would get away with the crime ?
Oh, THAT Peter Gleick!
I just popped over to desmogblog and there was his photo, up front and proud!
What I said above I still stand by “…in the end it is always a good thing to be kind and merciful….”, but watch him very closely for a while first….. never underestimate the ability of a trapped fanatic!
Heartland should request a DCMCA takedown as they own the copyrights on the documents in question, but only for the stolen documents.
desmog then leaves themselves open to DCMCA issues unless they comply.
A full insider´s tale with all details – in exchange for a milder punishment – would do.
I have had some good laughs here this morning. We can all enjoy the moment but let’s also remember this good perspective:
Goldie says:
February 20, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Don’t think for one second this is over – back to the barricades!
Just a little perspective here – gloating is ugly no matter who does it. …
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 ??
I thought this year was going to be a quiet one in Climate Science…what do I know?
The water is getting hot in the
Global WarmingGlobal Climate ChangeGlobal Climate Disruption crowd.. Their problem is that they are the ones adding the fuel to the fire themselves.“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).
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”
It’s war mate. Would THEY would not even think about NOT kicking when you’re down.
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?
So according to Desmog, Gleick is a whistleblower. A neat redefinition of whistleblowing as this is usually done by an employee of the organisation and I presume that none of HI’s funds have found their way into Gleick’s pocket.
What is interesting, though, is that they applaud whistleblowing – it is brave and honourable, apparently. So if it turns out that the Climategate release prove to be from an insider (the most likely source in my opinion) then they will also applaud his/her brave actions. Of course they won’t – balance, consistency and logic have never ever been part of their stance.
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
On the reasonable assumption Heartland eventually receives cash damages, would it not be honourable of them to set up a trust with which sceptics can be funded in their defence against unfounded warmist lawsuits – such as those of Michael Mann.
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.
From The HuffPo, Peter Gleick’s statement, the last paragraph:
So, tho break this down:
Translation, Heartland made me do it.. It’s all their fault…
Unlike all of that juicy government funding all of your universities and institutes…
Ok, insert UEA emails, Penn State, UVA…
Attack? Do you want to talk about pulling the licenses of TV weathermen who do not adhere to the AGW doctrine? Prevent debate? How about H.I. inviting all of the scientists for debates, only to be mostly rejected..
Weak apology.. Heartland was not directly mentioned. Oh gosh golly gee, I’m sorry… 🙁
How about man-ing up? The apology should have read:
I offer my personal apologies to The Heartland Institute members, Board of Directors and Private Citizens that I affected. (IMHO)
So lame….
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.