UPDATE4: 6/7/12 11AM PST The independent investigator is named, see update #4 below.
UPDATE5: 6/7/12 11:15AM PST Heartland has just released a statement, read it here.
UPDATE6: 6/7/12 1:15PM PST Josh weighs in with some biting satire in a cartoon here
Breaking news from the Pacific Institute website: http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/statement6612.html
PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute. An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute. This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.
Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment. We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.
“I am glad to be back and thank everyone for continuing their important work at the Pacific Institute during my absence,” said Dr. Gleick in a statement. “I am returning with a renewed focus and dedication to the science and research that remain at the core of the Pacific Institute’s mission.”
==============================================================
Of course there’s no mention of who conducted this “independent investigation” nor are we given the opportunity to read it.
There’s no mention of it it prior releases:
News Updates and Press Releases
[6/06/12] Dr. Peter Gleick Returns to the Pacific Institute
[5/31/12] Survey of Water Suppliers Launched to Better Understand How Water is Priced in California
[5/24/12] Training Now Available Online for Cost Effectiveness of Water Conservation and Efficiency Model
But hey, this is climate science politics, so anything goes.
Since we heard about this some time ago (May 21st 2012) from Guardian reporter Suzanne Goldenberg, it seems the fix was in. Oddly, there’s no mention of this new official announcement at the Guardian today per the search I made. The last mention of Gleick was May 24th. (Update: they finally got around to posting their article at 12:03PM EDT today)
Maybe they were distracted by Wisconsin.
UPDATE: I’m waiting on an email reply from their press contact to these two questions:
1. What organization, law firm, or group conducted the investigation?
2. Why has that investigation not been made public?
I would call them, but with my hearing issues telephone interviews could be misunderstood. Anyone want to make the call for me? Tel: 510-251-1600
UPDATE2: They aren’t talking with openness or providing any details.
I received a response from Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross at 3:59PM today.
She says:
It was conducted by an independent professional investigation firm. The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way. It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.
So, there is no way to confirm the investigation even took place. Since they even refuse to name the firm, it could be entirely made up for all we know.
UPDATE3: 6PM PST Two queries to Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross sent after her 3:59PM PST response regarding the disposition of the issue of the fake document have gone unanswered. The second query advised her that I had an approaching deadline, and that was related to the radio interview I gave from 5:20 to 5:30PM on the nationally syndicated Lars Larson show regarding the Pacific Institute. The nation knows the story now. Since then, according to comments left here, others have spoken with her, so I know she wasn’t out of the office.
Meanwhile I seem to have scooped everyone with this story, including the Guardian which still has nothing up on it as of this writing. I also scooped Climate Progress’ Joe Romm, who posted a “breaking news” item almost two hours after mine, but of course can’t bring himself to point to my website as the source for breaking the story. “Integrity” all around with these clowns it seems.
Romm, like the Pacific Institute, doesn’t want to talk about the fake document, which was demonstrated by an independent investigation that WAS revealed with full disclosure to have likely been authored by Peter Gleick.
Some advice to the board of the Pacific Institute: This question is not going away, and will be asked at any meeting where Dr. Gleick appears or submits an opinion. You really need to deal with the issue, because all you’ve done so far is draw suspicion on yourselves.
BTW it bears repeating that Heartland has scored a prize plum in all of this, not only are their donations up, but the have secured Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as the featured keynote speaker for their annual dinner in August.
Readers may recall that Dr. Peter Gleick turned down this same invitation as keynote speaker on the same day he declined the offer then posed as a Heartland board member to obtain board documents under false pretenses.
I hope somebody hands Governor Walker some bottled water to hold during that address, it would be great symbolism since Gleick had not the courage to fill that spot.
UPDATE4: Apparently feeling the blowback from the lack of transparency, Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross sent me an email this morning stating:
The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.
I am waiting for confirmation that they performed the review from one of the two partners at the firm. http://www.iecounsel.com/ If I get credible confirmation, I’ll edit the headline to fit the facts as they are known.
As I just posted at BH:
Goldenberg appears to be the first to break MSM silence on PI’s “Statement” – and uses it (predictably) for another hit piece on Heartland in which she recycles the myths and memes of the fake memo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/peter-gleick-reinstated-heartland-expose
Interesting fact-free headline though:
No comments allowed on the Guardian’s 7th June article.
I would have asked:
“what evidence do you have to back up the statement that there was evidence of “a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools.?” A document from Heartland, or one from another source? P Gleick, perhaps?”
The Guardian is losing circulation and money. The Manchester Guardian would have torn the PI to shreds.
Not checked all the comments but I think you’re all missing one important point.
The policy document was an obvious forgery! It’s a distraction from the real point of the exercise, that was to get the donor list.
Get the donor list and harass major donors, that was the point.
Anyone think Gleick is a prominent climate scientist?
Is PI really that big?
Sacrifice them both for the cause!
DaveE.
“This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.” So, Gleick wasn’t a member of the Pacific Institute when he was its head? Isn’t that some kind of fraud also?
Geeze …. this is even worse than I thought! The “expertise” of this two-person shop known as “Independent Employment Counsel” clearly does not in any way resemble that required to investigate Gleick’s behaviours and actions.
It’s almost as if they were hired to paper over any concern that PI’s staff might have expressed following disclosure of Gleick’s disgrace.
Then again, I suppose IEC could have sub-contracted with … oh, I dunno … an “investigative journalist” of Goldenberg’s calibre to do this part of the work for them. This would certainly go some way towards explaining how the Guardian might have “learned” of this alleged “clearance” on May 21, would it not?!
Does this mean anything (from the IEcouncil.com website):
Although not intended to be advertising, the site might be considered advertising. The attorneys responsible for the site are Cynthia E. Maxwell and Gary P. Scholick. Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Scholick are licensed to practice law in California. IEC’s attorneys do not seek to practice law in states, territories or foreign countries where they are not permitted or properly authorized to do so. IEC’s attorneys do not seek to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing the Site in a state, territory or foreign country where the Site fails to comply with applicable laws and ethical rules. In addition, this site is void, is intended to have no effect, has no effect, and should not be reviewed in any jurisdiction where this site is prohibited by law.
They are licensed to practice law in California. I guess “investigation” is probably not practicing law – still seems a little weird to do an investigation via remote control. Wouldn’t you want a local firm?
I wonder what the terms of reference were.
apachesknow
The only good lie is a dead lie, the truth knows this well together with “how”.
Someone above asked about Gleick’s customers. I don’t know the answer, but the National Intelligence Council gathers a lot of information on water security. They issued a recent document about water and national security. Gleick also does research on water and terrorism.
Investigator: Dr. Gleick, did you forge the document in question?
Dr. Gleick: Why no, some woman I’d never seen before handed it to me while I was at a horse show in Houston.
Investigator: Thank you, Dr. Gleick. I knew it had to be something like that.
Case Closed.
A further independent investigation has revealed that Independent Employment Counsel conducted its “investigation” by simply asking Gleick if he had forged the document in question, and him saying “no”, to which they replied “good enough for us!”
Steve C says:
June 7, 2012 at 3:20 am
“The Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity”?? Bwahahahaaa! Perm any one from three. No, not that one …
——————
They got their ‘protection & economic’ part of their mission ok. They protected their economics.
I am not throwing stones at the firm that conducted the investigation, but I would like to note the following: First, by having the matter investigated by counsel (i.e. attorneys) it is pretty certain we willnever really know what the findings are, other than what is offered up by the Pacific Institute. The Institute can say there were no findings, but it doesn’t really mean anything. Second, this group is more HR / Labor oriented than scientific, so how did they conduct their review?
My gut is that this investigation probably is independent, but I very much doubt The Institute will ever really release it.
From The Guardian’s article today:
“The documents released by Gleick exposed Heartland’s donors’ list – which it had kept private – as well as a plan to spread misinformation about climate change in schools. ”
It seems to me they are copying and pasting drivel from the forged memo into a “news” article. Isn’t that illegal?
Thomas says:
“As I recall the investigation of Wegman by George Mason University was never made public either, yet I found no sign of outrage at this blog at that time. Funny that.”
Perhaps no sign of outrage was noted by you because (1) the Wegman report was retracted (pro-AGW web sites are still referencing the fake memo as “real”), (2) Wegman actually received punishment for his act in the form of a letter of reprimand by GMU (Gleick has not receive any discipline from the Pass-if-Gleick Institute), and (3) DeSmogBlog.com published their own investigative report (“Strange Inquires at GMU… and Even Stranger Comments”), which was readily-accepted by AGW apologists as the “real-deal” well before GMU announced their conclusions – http://tinyurl.com/7az9goq (DeSmogBlog.com link).
Too bad your man Gleick is unable to reference any form of public atonement assigned to his self-admitted crimes.
What do Employment Counsel, LLP actually do?
“Outside investigators are typically hired to look into employee complaints that could lead to major lawsuits or that are too politically sensitive for an internal person to handle.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/04/02/BU70127.DTL
http://www.iecounsel.com/callawyer.html
http://www.iecounsel.com/sacbee.html
The sad part is it’s not about science. Our science is as good as theirs and nobody ‘knows’ what the climate will do. What’s stopping them is political.
I’m thankful enough people in power are able to keep the UN at bay.
This would not be a good time to give greater control over to the UN. The US Congress is already doing above and beyond the call of duty.
Since the US is held in such low regard throughout much the world we might not get a ‘fair shake’ if some dispute should arise.
Somehow I don’t see BO or Hillary as being fantastic negotiators on our behalf.
It’s just a matter of time before Independent Employment Counsel find Bernie Madoff innocent and discover Michael Jackson is alive. This is a profitable sideline for any science fiction business out there.
The Pacific Institute accepts Gleick’s apology and reinstates him on that basis. As far as I can see, the investigation simply confirmed that the facts are no different from those that are already known and that no other Institute staff were involved.
So the investigation is not relevant if you are looking for justification for reinstatement. It seems that Gleick’s apology was good enough for the Institute.
It may not be good enough for the rest of us, but the real test is whether it is good enough for the clients of the Pacific Institute. I am not in a postion to judge that or to influence their judgement.
Whether or not Gleick is tainted goods with respect to the Institute’s missions and claims about themselves is a matter for that market and those who can influence opinion therein.
Peter Gleick has been cleared of any wrong doing. The focus is now on what Fakegate taught us about how some people want to “stop the teaching of science” in schools.
REPLY: “Cleared” ??? prove it or kindly shut up Mr. Flesch. Start with showing us the report, oh, wait…
But you know, I still have the option of filing charges against Gleick here in California, since he violated a new state law and named me in the fake document…and with idiotic statements like yours, it gives a strong impetus for me to do so. – Anthony
So I was wondering what this institute looked like, so I googled it’s address and found that it was a rather small building of office suites. For some reason, when I think institute I think ivied manor, but most are probably just what Pacific is, an office suite. Anyway I googled the address, 654 13th street, Oakland, CA, to see who else used the building, expecting some dentist offices and such. What I found was:
California Pan Ethic Health Network http://www.cpehn.org/ part of Take Action California http://www.takeactionca.org
The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water http://www.ejcw.org
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project http://www.woeip.org
And a reference to the Environmental Defense Fund w/ Telephone number.
I guess it is just a coincidence that the prestigious Pacific Institute would share offices with a bunch of activists.
Their markets are our governments.
’nuff said
I think the Pacific Institute did not think this whitewash through very well. They are thinking of this as a political issue that they can brush away by giving their supporters a ruling that Gleick was cleared without realising the legal ramifications. By not firing Gleick for actions he took on their premises as their President using their equipment they are opening themselves up to criminal charges. If they had let Gleick fall on his sword, PI could have avoided legal blame for his conduct. In endorsing it, they have very likely made it possible to prosecute the organization and leadership under RICO laws. The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act allows prosecution of the organization and leaders of it (the board) if there is a pattern of criminal activity such as wire and mail fraud (which Gleick has confessed to) that further the interests of the organization.
It also allows Heartland to pursue not only Gleick but the Pacific Institute under RICO civil suits that allow triple damages. Gleik committed criminal offenses to further the interests of the Pacific Institute using resources provided by the Pacific Institute, and they have now determined that his behavior is acceptable to the organization. They may have kept Gleick in the political science fight by giving him a veneer of whitewash. But they might end up having their organization convicted under organized crime statutes for furthering their interests by racketeering and corruption.