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.
O/T CASS are on the offensive against Heartland esp Tom Harris:
http://www.scientificskepticism.ca/content/climate-change-denial-carleton-university-course-exposed-national-science-team
http://scientificskepticism.ca/sites/default/files/pressreleases/CASSREPORTClimateChangeDenialintheClassroom.pdf
Otto Zilch says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:23 pm
>>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.
*************************************************************
Well, obstruction of justice is a qualified offense, but unless Gleick et al. start doing something else,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#RICO_offenses
I doubt anyone could be tried under RICO.
Wishful, conspiratorial thinking. If he had indeed been colluding on this document heist, possible forgery, and dissemination with malicious, libelous intent, well . . .
I just don’t see any convictable evidence there (yet).
@Bill Parsons says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:50 am
“A suit can and should be brought against Peter Gleick.”
If he was doing it during business hours, or working hours if he’s on call 24/7, doesn’t US have laws that dictate he was doing it as a representative of the organization as a whole, and so a suit could, or should, be brought against the institute too as well?
ChE on February 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm:
WHAT?! But that title, the graphic…!
Ah heck with it, let’s go with an infallible unimpeachable reference, Wikipedia!
Their reference on NPR, click to play the audio broadcast (sorry Anthony):
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147263862/climate-scientist-admits-to-lying-leaking-documents
Aha! We’re both wrong! Or, NPR thus Wikipedia is wrong! Well, someone’s wrong, and I’d rather it not be me!
Boudumoon says:
February 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
Classic!
Well, if anyone were seeking damages, PI would be a much better bet than Gleick.
I predict a rise in the HI annual revenue in a few months…..
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.
Shot across the bow.
first a reply to the pronunciation thing as my surname has a Germanic spelling too and is often mispronounced.With Germanic names the correct pronunciation is to always sound the second vowel hard. so ie is ee and ei is aye. However how you pronounce your own surname and have others do it is a matter of choice.
To the letter. I’m very confused about this. I’m not sure what it serves. I’m concerned that there is not an official police investigation into this.
If this had happened in the UK the moment that Gleick made his public confession I could as a matter of public duty, telephone the police ( local or Metropolitan-London-, the police are national here much in the way you have federal investigators, each county has a force but they are all the same entity overall. We don’t have Sheriffs. ) to say that I have seen a crime both committed and admitted to and the police would be bound by law to start an investigation as long as I made it clear that I wanted charges pressing. They would then investigate and offer evidence and a recommendation for prosecution (or not) to the crown prosecutor ( like the attorney General )
I’m concerned that no official investigation is underway here. I don’t doubt that the lawyers are on the case and that HI will be seeking redress but if I was bringing this case in the UK both my lawyer and investigating police would be advising me to say nothing in public for fear of prejudicing any case.
I asked HI and JL (via Twitter where I’ve had a number of friendly conversations with both accounts ) if they could confirm that Gleick would be pursued to the full extent of the law and that they would be pursuing any civil case on top of any case the state might bring. ( the reason for this being that I’m prepared to make a donation to the legal fund but only if I have assurances that the money is being used for the purposes I intend ) but oddly got no reply. Twice. I’ve talked to Jim a few times. The silence is odd.
It seems clear to me that laws have been broken. It does not seem clear that there is any actual complaint being pursued yet.
It would be nice to have that clarified ( without prejudice of course )
On the pronunciation issue, in England we would say Glyke as in Mike.
On the radio interview Judith Curry gave that included Scott Mandia, both of them, and the radio host, used Glick as in Dick.
It surprised me, but everyone seemed confident about it.
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 ?
_____________________
It’s anyone’s guess how people choose to pronounce their names, but if the owner sticks to the German, it would rhyme with Mike. It’s most likely Yiddish origin would see it pronounced as the much more common Glick meaning “luck,” (yes I know, what irony) a word associated to the German glueck). It’s a rare spelling though, with only seven Gleicks registered in the 1820-1957 New York passenger lists, with most of them from Germany.
Hey, why not write Gleick and ask him? He might appreciate the cheerful diversion into family history.
Gary Meyers says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:32 am
I think it’s pronounced Glick, as in ick, click ,or trick
——————————————————————-
Youre all wrong.
Its pronounced Gleick as in “Tool”.
If the fake memo was written on a PI computer there would be evidence of that. One wonders whether Gleick would have been quite that stupid, but his other actions in this affair give us no reason to underestimate the depth of his stupidity. At the moment Gleick is in the crosshairs as an individual. However if the PI does anything at all to help “clean up” his work computer, delete his no doubt backed up files, or or sanitise their email system, then the PI itself becomes involved in this situation directly as a collaborator. And the courts take a very dim view of anyone who attempts to alter or cover up potential evidence even if this is done before legal action commences, if it appears that this was done in anticipation that legal action might occur.
zootcadillac says:
February 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm
____________________
Yes, odd indeed. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that as with the East Anglia U case, Mann and others, the trend is exhonorations and whitewashes, as if there’s a common decision to avoid criminally prosecuting any promiment CAGW proponents. I’m now beginning to wonder if they can get away with murder in broad daylight in the middle of a football stadium filled with attentive witnesses, all with their cell phone cams on. Naaaah, don’t mind me, I’m just being paranoid.
clipe says:
February 29, 2012 at 1:54 pm
The forged memo Gleick included with the stolen documents and falsely represented, in his message accompanying the documents to 15 allies and journalists…
Shot across the “journalism” bow.
Boudumoon,
http://ww3.tvo.org/video/162826/james-gleick-information says it’s “Glick”
Interestingly, TVO has carried on suppressing information while giving Revkin and Romm air time and special attention as per the inclination of “The Agenda” flagship program Producer Daniel Kitts
It’s as if from Downtown Toronto they have never heard of Steve McIntyre. it’s as if he cannot ever be mentioned on TVO, our overly well paid state TV channel. It’s sucked over a billion $ from Ontario in the past decade.
Producer Daniel Kitts is given props at DeSmog for his statements over at the Globe and Mail newspaper. It seems that the Gleick brothers, Gelbspan, Kitts, and Desmog have a circle.
The many opposing comments made in return to Kitts’ and other Producers’ false assertions on TVO blogs, have all since been cleansed from the TVO blog site. http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blog/climate-change-questionable-coverage. TVO was active in stifling free and open discussion of climate issues.
TVO also asserts that some such stories have only one side, so they will give the other side no opportunity to respond to claims..
We know that it was scanned, so that’s moot.
Shouldn’t these be the questions being asked by the police or other investigating authorities?
Gleick has admitted assuming the identity of another person by which he used deception to steal private documents belonging to HI. HI has demonstrated that the stolen documents were used, by copying and paraphrasing, to create part of a fake document. Once disseminated the genuine documents were intended to give the fake document a spurious credibility and thereby the forger sought to use the fake document to damage or destroy the reputations of HI, its donors and others.
Yet there doesn’t appear to be any official investigation. Or if there is, it seems it has no urgency. Why? No warrant. No request to preserve evidence. Why the delay? Speed in dealing with digital crime, in this case a fake document and emails, is essential, to preserve and analyse evidence.
In German as in “like”.
In American as in “speck” or “dreck”(dirt).
I don’t know the dates of Gleick’s hiring to work at PI. I’ve always assumed he acted on his own. I did notice some commenters at Climate Audit, a few days ago, were suggesting a subpoena of minutes from the PI board meetings.
They need to see if he has changed computers or gotten rid of a scanner.
Asset tags:
Anthony: has Gleick made comments here. Have a look at the user agent if you can.
It’s a very good letter. It means that Gleick’s institute will find it more difficult to have a whitewash enquiry.
No doubt there are attorney’s letters flying here and there behind the scenes and criminal enquiries getting started up.
Note: I just confused the Pacific Institute, which, I’ve read somewhere Gleick himself founded, with National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which he was slated to join a few weeks ago. My bad.
A commenter at CA recently suggested a subpoena of the NCSE records.
Ah, the German pronunciation. As in schadenfreude.
🙂
Nicely said, Willis! Of that lot, I’ve only seen Holdren speak, at the NAE “Grand Challenges” summit in Chicago, April 2010. What a depressing presentation, see:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf
He introduced the concept of “Climate Disruption” as I recall. Enjoy, Charles the DrPH
p.s. CTM, great logo! “LOOOO-SER!!”
If Heartland don’t sue and win they have lost. Legal action is the only way to make the MSM and warmists unable to bury this story.