Fakegate: Open Letter to Directors of the Pacific Institute
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 – Today, The Heartland Institute sent the letter below to the following members of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute:
Peter Boyer, Trustee, The Ayrshire Foundation
Gigi Coe, Trust for Conservative Innovation
Joan Diamond, Chairperson, The Nautilus Institute
Anne Ehrlich, Senior Research Associate, Stanford University
Eric Gimon, Department of Physics, University of California – Berkeley
Corey Goodman, Managing Director, venBio LLC
Margaret Gordon, Second Vice-President, Port of Oakland
Malo Andre Hutson, Affiliated Faculty, University of California
Olivier Marie, Business Strategist, Haas School of Business
Richard Morrison, California Advisory Board, The Trust for Public Land
Robert Stephens, President, MSWG, Inc.
Michael Watts, Geography Department, University of California, Berkeley
We will post at www.fakegate.org any replies we receive. Previous press releases from The Heartland Institute plus links to dozens of news reports and commentary on Gleick’s transgressions can be reviewed at Fakegate.org. The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
February 29, 2012
Dear _________:
On February 27, the Pacific Institute made the following announcement:
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 …
The Heartland Institute’s staff, directors, donors, and other victims of Mr. Gleick’s crime look forward to reviewing the outcome of your investigation. Please confirm that you intend to make public the results of your investigation.
I hope that you and the firm you have hired will pay special attention to the documents I have enclosed:
- The emails Gleick exchanged with Heartland prior to committing his crime, in which he was respectfully invited to debate Heartland Senior Fellow James M. Taylor on the issue of climate change at Heartland’s anniversary benefit event in August. In these emails, Gleick is informed of Heartland’s policies regarding the confidentiality of its donors and why we adopted that policy. Gleick declined the invitation to debate.
- The emails Gleick used to steal documents intended to be read only by members of Heartland’s board of directors. Gleick falsely assumed the identity of a member of Heartland’s board on the same day (January 27) that he declined the invitation to debate climate change with Taylor.
- The forged memo Gleick included with the stolen documents and falsely represented, in his message accompanying the documents to 15 allies and journalists, to have come from The Heartland Institute. I have highlighted the forger’s own words, as opposed to text that was copied and pasted from the stolen documents, and included my own analysis of this fraudulent document.
- Gleick’s partial confession, in which he admits to having stolen the documents but claims that the memo, which he previously said came from The Heartland Institute, came “in the mail” from an anonymous source. He claims he stole documents because “a rational public debate is desperately needed,” a debate he had just declined to participate in. He offers his “personal apologies to all those affected,” presumably including people he knew his actions had put in harm’s way. He does not say or offer to do anything that would limit or undo the harm he caused.
I hope you will tell me, as you review these documents, if you recognize the author of the highlighted text of the forged memo, and if you believe Gleick received it from an anonymous source, and if you believe Gleick has shown any personal remorse for what he has done.
Finally, please pass along the following questions to the “independent” firm you hired to investigate Gleick:
- Did Gleick use Pacific Institute computers to establish the Gmail email account under the name of a Heartland board member?
- Did Gleick use Pacific Institute computers to establish the Gmail email account under the name of “heartlandinsider@gmail.com,” which he used to send the fake memo and the stolen documents to 15 media outlets?
- Does the investigative firm intend to examine whether Gleick is the author of the fake memo?
- Does the outside firm have access to all of the personal computers Gleick may have used to write and send the emails or to write the forged memo?
- Is the fake memo or any trace of it on Gleick’s personal computer(s)?
- Is the fake memo or any trace of it on the Pacific Institute’s computer system?
- Is there evidence (as a blogger says) that the fake memo was scanned into a PDF document on a scanner at the Pacific Institute?
- Does the Pacific Institute have possession of the hard copy of the fake memo or the envelope in which it was supposedly sent?
- What steps does the Pacific Institute plan to take to preserve these and other documents relevant to the investigation?
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
=============================================================
NOTE: Michael Watts, Geography Department, University of California, Berkeley is no relation to Anthony Watts, proprietor of this blog – Anthony
Related articles
- Heartland Institute Releases Peter Gleick Emails Detailing Fraud, Identity Theft (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Megan McArdle gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for pointing to Gleick (wattsupwiththat.com)
- NCSE accepts Gleick’s resignation (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Tricks at the Pacific Institute (climateaudit.org)
- BREAKING: Gleick Confesses (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Heartland’s Invitation to Gleick – Details (climateaudit.org)
- 18 U.s.c. 1343 (climateaudit.org)
- Gleick and the NCSE (climateaudit.org)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was just wondering if he had used a VPN if he would have been able to hide?
I heard that San Diego newsman calling him Gleick, as in wreck.
Joseph Bast,
My evaluation of HI has so far grown significantly more positive with the unfolding of the Gleick affair. But, my evaluation of PI has exactly the opposite trend.
Thank you Mr. Bast and also your associates for offering an independent view that does not derive from the alarm oriented activists that have successfully manipulated IPCC centric climate science. That kind of independent source of ideas and information is required for a constitutional republic to retain the values of independent thought, speech and actions.
I assess that your organization’s public credibility stock is appreciating nicely. Congratulations.
John
I’m surprised at how many of the mainstream papers have published comments in support of Gleick. Bast’s letter appears to be laying the groundwork for (whatever) actions to follow in the full knowledge that there will be a firestorm of criticism. Since it appears that the lawyers are circling, it might be a good idea if this blog set parameters. Meanwhile (snip if necessary):
Lucia stated a day or two ago on her blog:
My 2 cents on the growing pile.
In days gone by, a power-hungry prince might lace a piece of vellum with virulent poison and send it to his / her victim. Murdering one’s way to the top seems to have been almost commonplace among royal families in the Middle Ages. The Heartland “Strategy Memo” looks like such an attempt. Though it appears to have been dashed off hurriedly, in an almost satirical manner, the “appeals to the emotions” and deceitful rhetorical tactics, which Peter Gleick had attributed to the motives of skeptics in his 2007 address to Congress, salt this document subtly.
Like many, I am curious about the writer’s many implications, innuendos, and contrary meanings, but I don’t think additional interpretations are necessary, other than to support a few general conclusions about the letter’s origins, it’s tone and it’s purpose.
The memo is a fraud, and an act of impersonation. The copies of the memo distributed to the public blacked out the signee, apparently Heartland’s attempt to preserve the the actual board member’s name.
The intended readers of the letter were: the warmist community, the taxpayers, legislators, the general,uncommitted public, and (possibly) classroom children studying global warming. We know that it was distributed by Peter Gleick, so that part of the letter-writer’s intent was carried out. Finally, regardless of whether PG knew that the letter was phony, its intent, contrary to his publicly expressed sentiment, was clearly to head off any open debate with skeptics – he had just refused this offer.
It was intended to: embarrass fund recipients and Heartland, discourage donors, embolden and hearten the warmist community, horrify legislators and members of the public and persuade them to vote against skeptical points of view, and validate the “victimhood / underdog” status of warmists. Heartland is presented as an evil bureaucracy, impassively plotting to undermine the IPCC and warmists who get in their way.
I agree with others who said any correspondence should come from an attorney. Lawyers will pick on any little thing, twist the meaning, and then try to use it against you. On the other hand, getting teams of attorneys involved doesn’t help anyone except the attorneys. (Yes, I’ve watched this sort of stuff in action and the companies involved were damaged beyond repair. Both went belly-up while the attorneys laughed all the way to the bank.)
I think it’s pronounced Glick, as in ick, click ,or trick
I reckon all the fat’s been chewed out of this issue now.
Time to move on
I suspect that the Director’s Liability carrier (insurance is my specialty) has already informed the Board of the Pacific Institute the precarious position they find themselves in, and that in cases of wilful misconduct, they may be on their own. I imagine the legal bill at the PI wil consume much of their funds for the next while.
My “conclusion” to the above comment.
A suit can and should be brought against Peter Gleick. His crimes include: wire fraud, libel, character defamation of the signed board member, defamation of Heartland (laws on institutional defamation differ by state) damages for lost income (for Heartland).
Newspapers which spread the story without verifying its authentic sources can be accused of libel as well.
Bob says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:24 am
Boudumoon says:
February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
“Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?”
Wikipedia says:
“Peter H. Gleick (glick[1]; born 1956) is an American scientist working on issues related to the environment,”
[SNIP: Really uncalled for. -REP]
dfbaskwill
February 29, 2012 at 11:06 am
Gleik. It’s pronounce similar to “Wile E” as in Coyote.
###
HEY! Be nice! No insults.
I assume this is a preemptory statement to make the ensuing PI whitewash more obvious to the public. HI’s legal staff will or already have send a more pointed and concise communication that will hold up in court when the information is or might be witheld. This will establish whether or not PI is voluntarily witholding information before legal discovery begins and would give HI reason to ask the judge to compell PI to disclose the facts completely. That’s just my take.
I think that’s a great letter.
I hope Heartland goes all the way with this, it is so important.
Boudumoon says:
February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
Still unsure about pronunciation. Is it Gleick as in weak / leak, or is it Gleick as in fake / rake, or yet Gleick as in thick / dick ?
–
I’ve heard one of his friends pronounce it “Glyke” (rhymes with “Mike”).
By Gleick’s own assertions, this is ‘war’. Now we hear the baying of the Heartland legal hounds, as they catch the ‘scent’ and chorus bark ‘trail’!
“…..Cry ‘Havoc’, and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial!” Indeed, Mr. Shakespear! Indeed!!!
Does Heartland have a civil case against the Pacific Institute?
Should Heartland ask the Pacific Institute to have their independent investigators to investigate if there were others involved in the crime?
>>It was intended to: embarrass fund recipients and Heartland, discourage donors, embolden and hearten the warmist community, horrify legislators and members of the public and persuade them to vote against skeptical points of view, and validate the “victimhood / underdog” status of warmists.
If that doesn’t say RICO, I don’t know what does.
Anthony, you may have to open a new section in your menu called “Whitewashes in Climate Science”
I think Anthony’s right. The version on the law firm’s letterhead has already been served. It’s longer, more technical, and puts them on notice in no uncertain terms that any document destruction will come back and bite like a cobra. This one is for PR effect.
No hackeysack tonight.
Heartland should have already sworn out a criminal complaint against Gleick.
I’m not a lawyer.
In my experience it is normal to request a response with clear and civil letter. This gives the other party a chance to respond. When there is no suitable response you resort to lawyers and courts. I think this is what Mr. Blast is doing. I trust that he has good advice.
Such a NICE TOP LEFT SIDE LOGO PI has 🙂
Gleick finally let leak
his phishing skills were weak
when bloggers punched his beak
and lawyers did he seek.
He still has lots of cheek
the facts he tries to tweak
yet it looks very bleak
since truth will Heartland seek.
Hopefully this will help the pronunciation problem, for those who didn’t pick up enough clues from this post’s title and accompanying excellent graphic.
FWIW, that would be correct German.
REPLY: That is the correct pronunciation AFAIK – Anthony