From the San Jose Mercury News, Dana Hull reports:
Peter Gleick, a nationally known expert on water and climate issues, on Friday asked for a short-term leave of absence from the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, where he is co-founder and president.
…
The Heartland Institute released a string of emails Friday that Gleick sent to Heartland earlier this year that show how Gleick pretended to be a Heartland board member to get copies of documents sent to a gmail email address. Heartland has set up a website detailing the e-mails at Fakegate.org.
…
“Given the events of the past week, I would like, with the permission of the Board, to take a temporary, short-term leave of absence from the Institute,” said Gleick in a letter released Friday. “I believe such a leave would allow the Institute staff to continue to refocus on its work, while permitting the Board to conduct a full and fair review and determine an appropriate course of action.”
===============================
Meanwhile, the story I referenced earlier this week, about the press release on the Pacific Institute website that said:
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.
That statement is now gone. This remains in Google cache, but only as a thumbnail:
Now it says this:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Gleick’s computer or (Epson) printer are “property” of PI, their best course of action would be to immediately suspend/fire Gleick for using PI property to conduct personal business. They need to distance themselves, and their assets, from the liability that Gleick has become.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we present to you Dr. Peter (the “Backfire Bomber”) Glock. I mean Gleick…….
If push comes to shove, I wonder how much legal liability the Pacific Institute, as an entity in its own right, will share with Gleick if only because it gave him shelter and, perhaps, material aid in conducting his fraudulent activities? Could potential shared legal liability be one reason why the EPA is burying as much public evidence of its contributions to the Pacific Institute?
L. says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm
That’s the usual euthanism isn’t it??
I believe you meant ‘euphemism’ which is considered a less offensive means of expressing yourself. ‘Euthanasia’ is to cause a painless death to end suffering.
jtom says:
February 24, 2012 at 9:10 pm
If Gleick’s computer or (Epson) printer are “property” of PI, ….. etc etc.
——————————————-
I’m guessing that Gleick’s highly publicized Epson printer is now in printer heaven (or hell in this case) which, is probably very problematic. There was just too much time, before a real lawyer got involved.
The judicial system, whatever you may think of it, does not take kindly to destroyed evidence.
Allegedly, of course ……
I wonder if he applied for leave via email. If so how the hell can anyone tell if it was really him.
With uncanny prescience, Pink gave us Gleick’s theme song years ago:
Kaboom says:
February 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Climate Cluedo:
I accuse Dr Gleick, in the Study, with the Epson.
————————————————————————
Funny bastage!
Hmmmm. Why doesn’t Gleik merely accept the punishment that he wished for the Climategate whistle blower. that was death, BTW.
I don’t know why you’re all piling on poor Dr. Gleick like this.
I mean, the worst he’s facing is 20 years Federal time for the wire fraud, perhaps more than one count, which would mean 20 years for EACH count. Probably more criminal time (state AND federal) for the identity theft. So, what, worst case he’s facing the rest of his useful life in prison. That’s not such a high price to pay in service to “the cause”, is it?
Then whatever civil charges are brought by the Heartland Institute and the real individual who’s identity he stole. That should suck whatever personal profit he’s twisted from the corrupt global warming scheme. I hope his family wasn’t depending on those ill-gotten funds.
Actually, spelling it out like that — anybody out there who is still a friend of his may wish to gather up his belts and shoe laces. He’s misbehaved badly, but nobody is beyond redemption. Perhaps he’ll realize his wrongs and feel obliged to point fingers at co-conspirators? One can hope.
Well, at least we can all be thankful that “disastrous anthropomorphic global warming” (DAGW) is such an open and shut case that none of its leading proponents would seek to resort to illegal measures to “make their case”. The science, of course, is beyond dispute, right? 99999.99999% of scientists say so, yes?
Right? Right?
Yeah, that’s what we figured.
Speaking of questionably ethical conduct, how’s the cab driver doing these days? You out there Willie? Just a joke, of course you’re still “out there” 😉 Sleep tight, I’m sure the next decade will serve up another human-societal threat for you to lord over the rest of us country bumpkins. There’s rarely been a decade where you lot haven’t had a “cause”. Many decades ago it was pseudo-religious, a handful of decades ago it as the next “ice age” (remember that one from the 1970s?), today it’s more pseudo-science, but in the end it’s always the same–people of limited morals and democratic authority attempting to leverage their short set of skills to wield authority over the rest of us.
Sometimes it works for short spells. Usually to ends up in humiliation for the provocateur. At least in America. Can’t speak for the rest of the world. They seem oddly amenable to such folks. Perhaps you’ll have better luck there?
I’d say “good luck,” except that your “winning” mean energy poverty for generations to come. So, sorry, I hope you lose, quickly enough to save society catastrophic costs and with enough misery to deter the next group of fakers for at least a generation or so.
And still the Climate Response Team does nothing! (apologies to Dave Barry). Who are the members of that organisation that valiantly explain science to dumb reporters? Anyone care to guess?
I don’t think I want to waste any money on him, but it could be really funny to get 1,000 or more people to send a printed copy of a special book to the Pacific Institute, for his leisure time reading:
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert [Paperback]
Donna Laframboise (Author)
It would be nice if he could finally read the book since it is around 4 months since he published his Amazon review which showed zero familiarity with the actual book he was supposedly “reviewing”….
Anthony, thank you for your diligence in this matter.
I’m continually impressed with the strength of IT knowledge & skills for us heretics (errr…skeptics) vs. these ham-handed climate scientists! Your previous post went into great detail regarding the intricacies of the computer email server network for the UEA CRU’s email system:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/06/who-gets-the-most-access-to-network-data-like-emails-at-uea/
Gleick set up a simple fraudulent gmail account & went fishing, got lucky, did his leak, and left such a broad trail of electronic clues that he had no choice but to confess. And these boobs swear by their computer skills & climate models??
I hope some prosecutor throws the book at him (whichever book applies).
neill says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:42 pm
or rather, why aren’t you dead yet?
============================
The TRUTH never dies.
@ur momisugly Kaboom says:
>Climate Cluedo:
>
>I accuse Dr Gleick, in the Study, with the Epson.
Have to disagree, Dr Gleick, in the library, with a Lexmark. That is why it looks a cheap fake….
As a corporate officer of The Pacific Institute, Gleick may well have created liability for the institute itself. They may not be able to distance themselves from this.
Re: zootcadillac’s comment on salary:
Gleick’s 2010 salary (according to the PI’s 990) is just over $152,000 – or about $5K more than Bast’s salary at Heartland. So much for big money from big oil: EPA grants pay better.
@Rob Z,
Oh thank you for pointing to the USASpending.gov web site where we find Federal Award ID# AID497A1100004 for $1.3 MILLION for:
“IMPROVING WATER SERVICES IN INDONESIA THROUGH CORWD [sic] SOURCED MAP DATA”
I’m sorry Anthony, but apparently you are in the wrong business of corwd (sic) sourcing.
@L. says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Euthanism… Euthanasia, what the hell, all the same difference for the good doKtor Gleick.
Read PI’s roster, their BoD & Advisory Board… it reads like the starting line-up for tie-die contest, followed by a hootenanny… But, they left off Arlo & ol’ gleaming white’s Pete!
‘Who’s land is this anyway…’
Well, let’s not jump to any conclusions yet. Wasn’t it Jones who temporarily stepped down after Climategate 1 (most people thought that, just perhaps, it might be he would have to resign permanently)? Yet he returned some weeks later, fully whitewashed and exonerated of any wrongdoing by his buddies.
I get cold chills whenever I think of what the probable outcome would have been without the internet.
So pathetic how the Guardian framed this:
‘Peter Gleick, the scientist behind the sting on the Heartland Institute…
‘ “To all those sending kind words and thoughts, I deeply appreciate them,” he tweeted.
‘Gleick makes his exit after days of ferocious debate about his tactics in exposing Heartland, a rightwing think tank with a core mission of spreading disinformation about climate change.
There is parallel pressure being put on Heartland to come clean about its mission and its funding…
‘Some embraced Gleick as a democratic hero, others worried that he had lost the moral high ground …
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/25/peter-gleick-leave-pacific-institute-heartland-leak?newsfeed=true
You want to have a laugh? Skeptical Science (apologies for swearing) have made 3 updates to their original “Denialgate” post. They haven’t even mentioned that the leaker, Gleick, has confessed.
This still remains:
“-Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:” [quote follows]
If you don’t talk about it, it didn’t happen.
Wasn’t Phil Jones put on a short leave of absence from the CRU, a while ago?