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.
Ian H says:
June 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
The nature of the law firm hired suggests that serious consideration was given at PI to firing Gleick…..
__________________________________________
In many cases upper management has a signed but undated letter of resignation on file that the company can use in cases like this. However since Glieck started PI, that may not be the case in his situation.
… and a small stipend, which will apply toward his wife Edith’s retirement accounts in Cozumel.
If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses, but it is completely ethical to hack into a computer and steal private emails to be selectively edited and then presented out of context on the internet. I’m sure someone will set me straight if my summary is incorrect.
Andy says: June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Well, gee, Andy, if someone hacked into a computer, stole private e-mails, edited them and presented them out of context, that would be unethical. But nothing like that happened. If you don’t know that, you should, since that would make you willfully ignorant. If you do know that, then you are simply dishonest. Neither case befits an Associate Professor at a prestigious school. Now toddle off and pontificate for someone who will be impressed.
just more circular peer review from supposed climate scientists…
i wonder if they get dizzy going round and round?
they got what they wanted… a criminal who will do and say anything to complete their agenda..
Pacific Institute is truly an ongoing criminal enterprise..
Well Robert, perhaps you could explain the origins of the emails from “climategate”. They didn’t come from a hacked computer? If that’s the case, every major news organization in the world got it wrong.
Malcolm says:
June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm
BORING! This has gone on long enough. Either Heartland press charges or they shut the @&£* up and accept that Gleick has screwed them over.
I’m a confirmed denier, but I’m very disappointed with the way that Heartland has handled this.
Scroll upthread and click on the link at Update 5 — and rejoice!
Sic, ’em, HI!
Andy, of course! Except you misspelled consensus. You got us dead to rights. Excellent report you wrote there. Thinking about writing for the Guardian? Nothing but love. Good luck. One question, please. What specific “planning document” are you referring to?
Andy, the only private stuff I know of that was hacked was on a sceptic’s computers, by the police. Would it be unethical to claim that the police edited emails they found and presented them out of context?
Andy says: June 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm
If that’s the case, every major news organization in the world got it wrong.
Typical for a climate scientist: an appeal from authority and an appeal from ignorance in the same sentence. It *might* have been an inside job. I could very well be wrong, but forty years of computer work suggests to me that this was a leak rather than a hack… not that a hack would require the ultra-sophisticated national level skills. Unless FOIA comes forward or makes a mistake and gets caught, we won’t know for sure. Every major news organization in the world has no more information or insight than any of us. Not impressed.
What you have not bothered to address, so far, is the rest: Steve McIntyre and others have provided a great deal of context for the e-mails. In context, they are even worse. Private? The e-mails held by your school are NOT yours. They can be FOIAed and subpoenaed. No talk of kids, or dates or “honey, pick up some bread on your way home.” in the climate-gate e-mails, but a great deal about corruption.
Andy says:
June 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm
If that’s the case, every major news organization in the world got it wrong.
It’s not the first time that’s happened. Two major FUBARs they famously made (with major political ramifications) were declaring Tet ’68 a Communist victory and declaring Al Gore the winner of the 2000 presidential election — before the polls closed.
If newsies got every story *right*, there’d be no reason for them to issue corrections or retractions.
Not that they’re particularly consistent at doing that…
Andy says:
June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses…
You’re either willfully ignoring the fact that the “planning document” in question is a forgery or you have early-onset short-term memory loss.
…but it is completely ethical to hack into a computer and steal private emails to be selectively edited and then presented out of context on the internet.
The e-mails were leaked, they were not selectively edited (UEA admits they’re the genuine article), and none of them were presented out of context — you can read the original streams in context at several of the links archived here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
I’m sure someone will set me straight if my summary is incorrect.
You’re welcome.
Gail Combs says:
June 7, 2012 at 7:11 pm
matthu says:
June 7, 2012 at 6:18 am
…..The trouble (as I see it) is that it is difficult to pinpoint any property or honest services that Heartland have been intentionally deprioved of.
Information, yes – Property, no. (I think Heartland even admitted that their donations had increased subsequent to Fakegate.)
_________________________________________
Actually I think you are incorrect. If ONE donor quit donating because of harrassment from their name being made public that is all it will take and if I recall that has already happened. Private donors who donated AFTER fakegate don’t really count.
Gail is correct. However, information (such as the HI donor list) is *proprietary* information, and Gleick obtained that illegally. If he did it using PI equipment, he also made PI liable to prosecution.
Andy says:
June 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm
If I’m reading the articles and posts correctly on WUWT, the general concensus is that it is unethical to obtain a planning document under false pretenses…
It’s not only unethical, it’s a felony.
If you actually *are* an “Associate Professor at a prestigious school,” you might want to keep a lower profile so your boss doesn’t twig to your lack of reading comprehension and information retention…
“By saying that its investigation confirmed Dr. Gleick’s account, the institute implicitly backed his assertion that he was not responsible for creating a document labeled a fake by Heartland that was disseminated along with other genuine ones.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/science/earth/scientist-peter-gleick-is-reinstated-after-deceit.html
The relevant part of the PI’s statement:
“…outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.”
As far as I know, the only interaction Gleick and the Heartland Institute has had is when he pretended to be someone else in an email to them and they sent him certain documents.
Does distributing a memo allegedly acquired from an anonymous source to others constitute “interaction” with HI?
In any event, it seems clear that the carefully worded press release is not explicit in this regard. I suspect this was intentional.
Tom Murphy “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”
1. The Wegman report has not been retracted. At the contrary GMU cleared Wegman for any wrongdoing in it.
2. Another article containing parts of the text of the Wegman report had already been retracted for plagiarism by the journal that had originally published it, and oddly enough GMU found that text to be plagiarism and reprimanded Wegman for it.
So there would be some interest in finding out how GMU thought when they cleared the Wegman report. I guess this is the wrong blog to ask for impartial treatment of people on both sides of the fence, though.
It seems to me that the only way to get details of the report from the Pacific Institute is for someone to send an email to the PI posing as one of their directors and requesting the information. After all this is what Gleick did with Heartland, and he has been exonerated for his actions!
The news that the Pacific Institute has reinstated Peter Gleick is just shockingly! They now have a liar and a thief in one hand! His suspension was only a formality and they don’t care about what he did!
sceptical says:
June 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm
“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.”
Interesting, why do warmists try to hide behind “sceptics” appearance? “sceptical” of what? And then run in doing logical falacies – trying to think as a skeptic would do but missing – similar to what the forger of that forged document did.
I as skeptic do not want to stop teachers from teaching science. Quite the contrary – and I understand I speak of the skeptic community – we want teachers to teach science and skeptical thinking. Not bias and falacies but hard science and logic. Physics, chemistry, astronomy.
Try again sceptical try hard to check each of your sentences, are they right or is it only a feeling that you got from certain sites and you did not check the facts?
Where is that “stop the teaching of science” from? It is from a forged document – check it, be sceptical and check the information.
But why do I lose my time here and waste blog space? Very probably “sceptical” is just another warmist that post his non-sense and does not follow-up in a logical conversation. I’ve seen this too often.
Painfully predictable: the Pacific Institute was probably tired of quietly continuing to pay Gleick full salary & benefits while getting no official “productive” work out of him during his “leave of absence” – so they needed to devise a way to rehabilitate this “hero of water resources and discoverer of evil strategies”… Besides, he has been elevated to folk hero by many (for his “selfless” efforts to expose the evil Heartland plans and embarrass its “Big Oil” donors). Can’t wait to read the official AGU scientific ethics task force position on the matter. The poor man was blinded by the incessant, focused obfuscation of evil-doers; and after all, he did apologize! Perhaps someone should “plead” with the AGU to have this beacon of truth return! Ethics@agu.org From the AGU Ethics Task Force Charge:
http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/pdf/TaskForceCharge_2011-11-21.pdf
“• Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles.”
Aside: there must be several mineral water “brands in waiting” which could have a lot of fun with this episode (and make a buck in the process)!
Kurt in Switzerland
No whitewash here. The very opposite. Pacific has simply tarred itself with the same brush.
Ian H says:
June 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
The nature of the law firm hired suggests that serious consideration was given at PI to firing Gleick. Their remit would be to consider the question of whether his activities constituted sufficient grounds to fire him. Gleick will no doubt have claimed that his Heartland related activities were not conducted in the workplace and were political activities conducted in his own time. Employment law makes it difficult to fire someone for activities they undertake outside the workplace. Doing so risks a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal….
+1…
Expect Richard Black at the BBC to write a triumphant statement…. I would cancel my BBC license and get rid of the TV, but my kids don’t let me…..
Thomas says:
June 8, 2012 at 1:57 am
I guess this is the wrong blog to ask for impartial treatment of people on both sides of the fence, though.
If you’re looking for kindred souls who are willing to equate an academic investigation into a complaint of plagiarism that was either
a) retracted or
b) not retracted, and either
c) never released or
d) released, but only in sections
in which the subject was either
a) not punished or
b) punished, consisting of a
c) reprimanded but then
d) relieved of the reprimand
with an HR report which is being rather feebly portrayed as an investigation into several violations of federal laws, then, yeah, you’ve probably come to the wrong place.
Nice try, though.
If Gleick is president of said organisation, would he not have the final say in anything. Like ‘hey I’m a good guy, I am now officially exonerated from all crimes past and present .. oh yeah, and future crimes I have yet to commit’.