Heartland Institute President Debunks Fakegate Memo

This press release, initially published here, is reproduced in full below.

FEBRUARY 27, 2012 – The Heartland Institute today released an analysis of the fake “climate strategy” memo circulated by Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick to fellow environmental activists and journalists on February 14, 2012.

The analysis, written by Heartland President Joseph Bast, refutes the most damaging claims that appear in the forged memo:

  • The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund Heartland’s climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for a health care reform project.
  • “[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been Heartland’s goal. Heartland is working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political.
  • Heartland does not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. It pays them to help write and edit a series of reports titled Climate Change Reconsidered, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.
  • Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

The analysis is accompanied by a copy of the forged memo with the forger’s own words highlighted. (Note: Text that is not highlighted is not necessarily accurate, and often it is not. Such text generally paraphrases text appearing in one of the stolen documents but was deliberately twisted or falsified to create a false impression.)

The analysis and marked up copy of the fake document can be found at Fakegate.org.

Previous press releases from The Heartland Institute plus links to more than 100 news reports and commentaries on the global warming scandal can be reviewed at Fakegate.org. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
LeeHarvey

Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.

Latitude

Surely he shouldn’t be prosecuted for a little lapse of memory….lapse of ethics…brain fart….like this…………
Throw the book at this hypocrite……………..

Concise Report!

This entire flap–like the larger ongoing row about the climate–drives me again and again back to the early 17th century observations of Francis Bacon. Here he provides an apt description of what Peter Gleick (and all of us) are liable to become, absent critical reason:
“an inquisitive man is a prattler; so upon the like reason a credulous man is a deceiver: as we see it in fame, that he that will easily believe rumours will as easily augment rumours and add somewhat to them of his own; which Tacitus wisely noteth, when he saith, Fingunt simul creduntque: so great an affinity hath fiction and belief.”
_The Advancement of Learning_
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5500/pg5500.txt

mike about town

wow…this whole thing is painful for AGW enthusiasts.

Victor Barney

I continue to except the Hebrew inspired Scriptures on this topic and as the “SABBATHS” were given as both an eternal “SIGN” of YHWH’S people, so is his NAME, YAHWEH, as his son YAHSHUA! Watch!

ChE

So, you remove the yellow highlighted parts and what you’re left with is material that was in the other documents, as far as I can tell.

kristy

I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.

Dianna

By the way, the Pacific Institute has put out a new statement.
Back to work!

Victor Barney

p.s. …as long as the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease(Genesis 8:22). WATCH! Just saying…

MarkW

kristy says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.
=========================
The legal wheels grind slowly. If this case does go to trail, I’d be very surprised it it takes less than 3 years for the trail to actually start.

Honest ABE

Sound a bit similar to the analysis I did in the comments at Stoat:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/02/so_is_it_a_fake.php#comment-6233653 (towards the end of the comment)
The document is clearly fake on so many levels:
a) Budget
b) Terminology
c) Origin
d) File info
e) Viewpoint (written from theirs instead of ours)
f) Style (capitalization, lack of signature, etc)

Great free publicity for Heartland. This strikes me as easily the most important bullet:

Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

They clearly do. I’m much more a follower of Heartland as a result.

JJ

■Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.
i·ro·ny    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural -nies.
1. Peter Gleick made up a fake story about someone trying to keep him from blogging for Forbes, and in doing so got himself evicted from Forbes.
James Taylor from Heartland blogs for Forbes, and had great fun dissecting Gleick’s histrionic rants. Of all the entities in the world that might have wanted to keep Gleick out of Forbes, it surely was not Hearltand.

JJ

LeeHarvey says:
Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’?

I would rather that they only used “global warming”. Using the CC term just allows the global warming nuts to define the debate using ever changing and confusing language. Their claim was global warming caused by people, and that is a very specific claim.
“Climate change” is meaningless in the context of this debate, and unintelligible when they use it (as they nearly always do) when they clearly mean to say “anthropogenic global warming” . They end up saying the equivalent of “Scientists concur that this climate change was caused by climate change”.

gringojay

Good that WUWTers aren’t the only ones who “ride tall in the saddle” for “truth, justice & the american way”…. “High ho” science – (&) “away” (we go)!

Peter Miller

It is interesting to note that there are at least a few in the CAGW cult who are capable of recognising the difference between right and wrong – I am referring to ethics, not science here.
Prof Richard Betts of East Anglia is one of them; unfortunately there are too few like him.

RayG

RE the Pacific Institute’s “independent investigation” that is mentioned in Update 64, I assume that it will be chaired by Muir-Russell with Edward Acton as a senior consultant.

More Soylent Green!

JJ says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“Global warming” is just as misleading as “climate change.” We know the climate changes naturally and “global warming” implies it’s not natural. AGW is not misleading, except when somebody implies all global warming is man-made.

ChE

PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned regarding recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and has hired an independent firm to review the allegations. The Board has agreed to Dr. Gleick’s request for a temporary leave of absence. Following a distinguished career in energy and environmental policy, Elena Schmid has been appointed as the Acting Executive Director. The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.

What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?

kristy

@MarkW
I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.

Robert Austin

LeeHarvey says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm
“Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.”
LeeHarvey,
I would propose that it is just you alone and the alarmists that would be “feel better” if they were able to “disappear” the term “global warming”. When the Hockey Stick graph was the ubiquitous symbol of climate science, what did it show? It showed global temperature vs time? it showed global warming, not some vague concept called climate change. While some scientists are undoubtedly evaluating weather events as evidence of climate change, the fundamental marker for CAGW is an increase in global temperatures. The push for the change from global warming to term “climate change” and the subsequent unsuccessful attempt to remake the issue into “climate disruption” was and is simply an attempt to muddy the waters.

Caleb

RE: “LeeHarvey says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Is it just me? – or would anybody else feel better if they didn’t use the term ‘global warming’? It seems like a good portion of what got us into our present mess with climate policy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes and implications of climate change.”
Don’t give me that “Climate Change” bull. First of all, when you change the vocabulary you are in essense changing the ball-field. (For example, change the word “wife” to the word “partner,” and you’ll get a look. Change it to “aquaintance,” and you’ll really be in trouble.) “Global Warming” got the press, so “Global Warming” is what they are stuck with.
Second, you are changing the topic from really vile behavior to merely moderately vile behavior. The topic of this thread is not whether we use the words “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.”
Are you trying to change the subject? If so, nice try.
.

Robert Austin

ChE says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
“What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”
I guess “social Justice” is so “last week”. the flavour of the week is now “social equity”.

Dianna

@ChE “What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”
Boiler plate. It’s one of those meaningless feel-good phrases; do yourself a favor, and don’t think about it too hard. Phrases like that suck you in and, as you thrash about, seeking meaning (the words have meaning, but the phrase…no so much), you encounter only emptiness.
Since “social justice” has been beaten to death then had its skin dried and stretched for a drum-head, a new phrase was needed.

dave38

ChE says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
Nothing at all.
It says more about their politics than their policies!

Veritas Vos Liberabit
I don’t care what side
of politics you’re on, but
they are wrong who’ve lied.
We’ve all heard enough
phony spin. We cannot trust
those who fake their stuff.
It’s simple: when you
have to lie, then your claims must
clearly be untrue.
Honest folk delight
in speaking truth—it’s clear-cut;
facts are ever right.

StuartMcL

What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
————————————————–
Have you missed the fact that at the core of the politics behind the whole “carbon pollution” meme is distribution from the rich to the poor on a global scale.

Coach Springer

ChE says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned regarding recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and has hired an independent firm to review the allegations. The Board has agreed to Dr. Gleick’s request for a temporary leave of absence. Following a distinguished career in energy and environmental policy, Elena Schmid has been appointed as the Acting Executive Director. The Pacific Institute will continue in its vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.
What on God’s green earth does “social equality [equity]” have to do with any of this?
======================================================================
There’s something like this in nearly every organization’s mission statement. There has to be a vague civil righteousness to it. Has to be. Because they all do it, they all have to do it. Otherwise, you’re, well, uncivil. Trouble is, if you could look these non sequitirs of sorts up, they all mean “self righteousness.” But they can always hire an ethicist like Gleick or Garvey to be the great deciders.
Also, it seems the highlighted stuff is the forger verbatim and useful for authorship analysis. Some of the unhighlighted stuff is Heartland based but paraphrased or otherwise compromised by the forger and unsuitable for authorship attribution, while other unhighligthed material is direct cut and paste from Heartland.

Jim

Something that jumped out at me from the highlighted portions of the memo is the comma after the parenthetical “e.g.”…. “in-house experts (e.g., Taylor)…”
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think that’s correct, and it seems to me to be quite unusual to put a comma there. If Gleick has that trait in his formal or informal writings, that would be a strong indicator (unless I’m wrong and it’s correct usage,). 🙂

kristy says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
@MarkW
I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.

Frankly, the FBI has no need to hurry. Gleick does not present an immediate danger or flight risk, so they can and will take their time in the investigation before taking any arrest action.

polski

I assume now that since Gleick has more time on his hands with his leave of absence from PI and might actually read Inhofe’s book before the inevitable review. Then again, why waste time reading it when you already know what you are going to say? He should read at least one chapter so as to take his mind off all the clatter he has started!

old44

The question remains, how many times has Peter Gleick pulled this stunt before.

wwb

I didn’t notice anyone mentioning that this more or less shows that Gleick did make the fake. Though he denies he made the fake memo, heartland analysis of the fake shows that the fake memo was a combination of copy an paste from other stolen docks and out right fabrication. It looks bad for Peter Gleick, as the fake memo needed the fraudulent obtained documents to be made! So, who made the fake?

sailboarder

“Have you missed the fact that at the core of the politics behind the whole “carbon pollution” meme is distribution from the rich to the poor on a global scale.”
While this has been stated many times, I still have yet to see definitive proof that the key scientists are thusly motivated. I suspect it has been a gravy train that was too ego fullfilling to resist. Then it became a “cause” to save the world.

Neo

It will be interesting to see how and if the Pacific Institute tries to put this sordid chapter “under the rug.” Unlike ClimateGate, Dr. Gleick confessed to most of the activities that were “less than legal.”

eyesonu

It appears that the forger of the fake document may have been under a lot of pressure (time constraints) to get it completed as was done with the scanning on Monday afternoon Feb 13 so it could be ready for public distribution on Valentine’s Day on Feb 14.
The forger had his Valentine in hand for the desired outing to come. As it turned out those who received the Valentine ended up with a sticky mess in their hands. Very embarrassing when caught out in public.
Irony in that Heartland was the intended receipient for the messy hands? Their hands appear to be clean.
Better watch where they wipe this mess as it will leave condemning evidence and stains on hard gained reputations.

Richard

Warmists won’t believe this anymore than we believe desmogblogs claim that they have proven the memo is genuine. The memo has to be proven fake by an independent source.

observa

What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
What Coach Springer said but also it’s a particular signature form of recognition that you’re at another great Beauty Pageant in a glorious and illustrious history of such pageantry by the addition of- ‘and World Peace.’ Ditto with deciphering ‘social equity’, the same way as you’d read Amen or Allah Akhbar at the end of a dissertation.

D. J. Hawkins

kristy says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm
@MarkW
I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly, but Gleick made a public admission of wire fraud. I would have at least expected an arrest by now. But nothing is happening.

In addition to Ron Dean’s comment, I would add that this is something that the US District Attorney’s office is very much hoping will disappear quietly on its own. It is loaded with political baggage, some of it likely to rub off on their boss no matter how they try to compartmentalize it. A scandal involving Republicans, or other obvious evil-doers 😉 would have them falling all over themselves to bring the knave to justice. When it might lead to an own-side goal, well, not so much. I’m sure Heartland will stay in the doorway, clearing their metaphorical throat every once in a while to let them know someone is watching.
Likely the DA’s office will try to dissuade Heartland in the persuit of a civil action, lest they “damage” the criminal case. If I were Heartland, I’d forge ahead and let the DA keep up as best he can.

Re the ‘social equality’ statement I think it is apt to paraphrase a statement once made by historian Simon Schama ‘The history of Britain can be seen a a perpetual struggle between on the one hand a people striving for social justice and on the other a people striving for freedom and liberty’. It seems to me that this struggle is what gives our civilisation its vitality and creative power. ‘Social justice’, ‘Social equality’ or what ever you call our need to care for each other seems to be one of our fundamental evolutionary attributes – just as much as our desire for ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’.

MarkW says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm
kristy says:
February 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I just have to ask….is Gleick getting away with what he has done? It seems he is.
=========================
The legal wheels grind slowly. If this case does go to trail, I’d be very surprised it it takes less than 3 years for the trail to actually start.
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
To some degree, I hope that the investigation takes a long time if it means that they are digging very deep and finding how many tentacles this case may have !!!

CrisT

StuartMcL says:
February 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm
What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?
————————————————–
Have you missed the fact that at the core of the politics behind the whole “carbon pollution” meme is distribution from the rich to the poor on a global scale.
Not exactly Stuart. The intention appears to be to impoverish the majority of people in developed nations (ordinary people trying to make a living to pay their mortgages or rent, cover their bills and raise their families) in order to make them equal to those in the undeveloped world.
The actual rich will enrich themselves further, and get to feel good about themselves at the same time about all the social equality they’re creating. To paraphrase the Russ Cargill character in the Simpsons Movie, they want to kick ass for good old Mother Earth and give something back. Not the money, but something.

Henry chance

Social equity.
Take from those that have till they become have nots.

Mark B.

Expect Gleick to spend as much jail time as William J. Clinton and Sandy Berger combined. Some of us them are “more equal” than the rest of us.

Fast Eddie

[SNIP: No, it wouldn’t. It is also against site rules to use more than one screen name. Pick one and stick with it or be snipped. -REP]

Certainly we don’t want Gleick to be indicted before the new administration takes over. Remember all the political-payoff pardons Clinton handed out in his last few days in office? Let’s keep Gleick off the radar until the prospect of receiving a pardon from the current administration has passed. THEN he should be indicted. And promptly.

jtom

Politically, the Justice Dept. is in a no-win position. The Repubs are already screaming about unequal protection under the law under them – the Black Pather voter intimidation, Fast and Furious, suing states that don’t kow-tow to the Administrations lack of immigration enforcement, trying to block voter ID laws, and so on.
Not pursuing this would just give more cannon fodder to the Republicans. “If you don’t believe and do exactly what this Administration wants you to believe and do, they will give you none of the protections guaranteed under the law. It may not affect you now, but it may next week. If you don’t force them to stop now, who will be there to help you when the come for you?” That would be quite a soundbite, and while some subjects may be difficult for the average voter, not prosecuting someone after confessing to something clearly criminal is very easy to grasp.
Of course, if they do pursue Gleick, they will irritate one part of their voter base.
It would be interesting to see what they would do if someone stole the list of contributors of a major Dem PAC.

wermet

ChE says: February 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

“What on God’s green earth does “social equality” have to do with any of this?”

It relates to a concept in socialism. It used to be that most people, at least the tolerate ones, believed in “equality of opportunity” for all people. However, since equality of opportunity still allows a great deal of variation in results due to individual efforts and innate ability, a new concept was needed. This lead to new the terminology, social equality. Social equality essentially means the equality of results, regardless of individual effort or ability.
And so, with this seemingly minor change in language, our society is poised on the brink of major changes in thinking and governance. We take a step away from the belief that people can improve their station in life through hard work and diligent learning. We move a step closer to “[f]rom each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — Karl Marx.

Mr. Gleick MUST end up in jail over this. And he MUST be made to pay restitution. And he MUST be made to describe his illegal actions, in toto, to the media. A video of that description MUST also be uploaded to YouTube and all other major video upload sites for future reference.