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.
LOL. That’s gotta be it! 🙂
You are incorrect. Public versus Privately owned. Are you obfuscating the differences intentionally or out of ignorance?
My bad- I meant to write independant employment counsel i.e. an anonymous person- could be my cat.
Andy, I hope you never have to deal with a teenager who presents the kind of rebuttals you have presented here. I have. The standard response is this in case you ever have to face such a teenage argument:
Teen: “Joe got caught with heroin and meth in his pocket! All I had was weed and a bit of cocaine! Geesh!!!”
You: “Then you are saying if your friend decides to rob a bank, it is okey dokey for you to sniff rat poison up your nose, because you think robbing a bank is worse. Good argument. Thanks honey for setting me straight. Here’s your next high. On me.”
Come on Andy. Where the heck is your common sense on this?
Wondering what some of these foundations, government agencies and wacked green ngo’s – all listed as PI funders – would say of the board’s decision to re-instate a confessed liar and alleged criminal to a position of leadership? It would be worth summoning a response from, say, the Canadian Mortgage Corporation …
Alpern Family Foundation
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Bureau of Reclamation
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Endowment
California Energy Commission
California Public Utilities Commission
California Urban Water Conservation Commission
The California Wellness Foundation
Canadian Mortgage Corporation
CISCO Foundation
Community Water Center
The Data Center
Department of Water Resources
Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
East Bay Community Foundation
Environmental Defense Center
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Flora Family Foundation
The Herrington Fitch Family Foundation
Foundation for the Global Compact
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation
The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation
Green For All
Is there any real practical difference between Gleick and the Pacific Institute? Sure there are board members, but don’t they all owe their positions and allegiance to the good Dr?
Thomas says:
“The Wegman report has not been retracted. At the contrary GMU cleared Wegman for any wrongdoing in it… 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.”
You’re seemingly conflating the issue to have it both ways. The journal paper, which was issued in 2008, incorporated a large portion (pertaining to networking within the climate sciences) of the Congressional report, which was issued in 2006. Indeed, Wegman et al 2008 referenced the incorporation of the Congressional report. The initial claims of plagiarism were directed not at the journal paper but the Congressional report. However, the UMass academician alleging wrongdoing correctly pursued the claim through GMU rather than through Congress or the journal – http://tinyurl.com/2g3jcy8 (USA Today link).
To its credit, GMU reviewed both the Congressional report and the journal paper for evidence of plagiarism. Regarding the Congressional report, GMU found no occurrence of scientific misconduct – this being the document that questioned the statistical outcomes of climate science. I understand you desire to view this internal investigation that resulted in this conclusion, but for reasons noted below, pursuing such action is non-productive given the confirmation of plagiarism.
Subsequently, the journal (in consultation with GMU and Wegman) announced the paper’s retraction – this being the supplemental document that asserted certain intent on the part of some in climate science when publishing statistical outcomes. And to the extent that the two complemented one another on the networking in climate assertions but with the paper being retracted, the presumption (certainly by the AGW apologists) was that the Congressional report was questionable (at the very least) and irrelevant (at the most likely) – http://tinyurl.com/3ojodjx (DeSmogBlog.com link).
As reported by Science Insider on June 2, 2011, following an e-mail issued by the journal “Computational Statistics and Data Analysis” or CSDA:
“This article [i.e., Wegman et al 2008 – which contained portions of the 2006 Congressional study] has been retracted at the request of the Editor in Chief and co‑Editors, as it contain portions of other authors’ writings on the same topic in other publications, without sufficient attribution to these earlier works being given… The principal authors of the paper acknowledged that text from background sources was mistakenly used in the Introduction without proper reference to the original source.” – http://tinyurl.com/79oe8zu (Science Insider link).
You can even visit the journal’s online page that references the paper and note the word “RETRACTED” – http://tinyurl.com/d3lqmoy (CSDA link).
Therefore, the Wegman report vis-à-vis its networking in climate science discussion was essentially retracted – sufficient evidence was found to “discredit” the paper rather than “physically-remove” it from existence. The perception of being “a little bit pregnant” in scientific publication – there’s plagiarism here but no worries overall – is a non sequitur, once a paper has been retracted. To assert otherwise is a bit disingenuous and indicative of desire to have your cake (Wegman is irrelevant) and eat it too (Wegman wasn’t retracted).
Regarding your assertion that GMU “cleared” Wegman of any wrongdoing, the GMU Provost issued a public statement on February 12, 2012 which stated:
“Concerning the Computational Statistics article, the relevant committee did find that plagiarism occurred in contextual sections of the article, as a result of poor judgment for which Professor Wegman, as team leader, must bear responsibility… As sanction, Professor Wegman has been asked to apologize to the journal involved, while retracting the article; and I am placing an official letter of reprimand in his file.” – http://tinyurl.com/cq5wreq (Connect2Mason link).
I don’t know your background, Thomas, but in academia an official letter of reprimand being placed in your personnel file certainly can be viewed as punishment or discipline. And the self-admitted close association between the journal paper and Congressional study has implications for both even if only one has censured.
If you want GMU to reprimand Wegman for that portion in the Congressional report found in the journal paper, then I suspect you enjoy beating dead horses.
Yet another example of the alarmists’ definition of an honest debate.
“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, 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.”
Well there are some clear factual errors in your position that need corrected, but hopefully they are accidental not intentional.
Falsehood #1: The Climategate emails have not been selectively edited, they are available in ther entirety.
#2: When those emails are put into context, to other actions that were public knowledge, they are even more damning than just taken on their own.
#3: There is no evidence these emails were hacked. In fact, the evidence points to an insider within UEA releasing the emails because of criminal actions (even if the statute of limitations had expired) that Jones and others had taken to conceal the emails. The first leak, of the temperature record was publicly admitted by McIntyre at Climate Audit. When UEA denied his data request that summer, someone within the university leaked the data to McIntyre. Maybe because they felt morally compromised by denying the request or maybe to give him the data and hope he went away. Then the second leak coincided with a second FOIA denial (which probably assembled the FOIA file) meaning the UEA was going further and further from a factual and ethic application of the law. Whistleblowers in organizations often do so because they have been repeatly ask to commit criminal or ethical violations, like lawyers realizing they have filed false claims to deny valid FOIA requests.
#4: Gleick did not just obtain documents under false pretenses. He committed criminal fraud to do so. He then very likely took the criminally obtained documents and then committed forgery to create the fake strategy memo and used it to launch a political campaign. So the forgery to misrepresent the documents takes it far beyond the pale and even beyond someone stealing documents and releasing factual ones. As you allege happened with Climategate but have no evidence to support.
A quick search with Bing and Cynthia E Maxwell was a contributer to the DNC in 2004. But coorelation is not causation.
Yup, climate “science” at its best.
Climate science was seduced into the environmental movement, with the politically useful role of producing an endless stream of authoritative but increasingly scary predictions. Its most high-profile practitioners gradually became what can only be described as the media stars of the movement, but what actually happened, was the more they sucked greedily on the teat of notoriety, the more they degenerated into nothing more than advocates, masquerading as scientists.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/
Pointman
According to their website the two partners seem to be the sole people at Independent Employment Counsel, LLP
It looks like a pretty small hubby and wife outfit in California. They don’t even give a physical address on their contact page. Just email and tel/fax. Probably work from home.
They are specialised in employment dispute resolution. Seems an odd choice to do and “independent” inquiry into wire fraud.
Let me be really cynical and guess that they are personal freinds of Gleick.
I don’t know who the two people at IEC are, but that in itself doesn’t mean they are not ethical and competent investigators. Still, we should be seeing a report in a matter as important as this (especially with Prof. Mann calling this an exoneration).
I’ve never heard of “Canadian Mortgage Corporation”. The federal agency is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation – perhaps that’s the donor. Hard to figure out why a Canadian federal mortgate and housing agency – if that’s who it is – would donate to Gleick.
Doug in Seattle says:
June 8, 2012 at 8:17 am
I don’t know who the two people at IEC are, but that in itself doesn’t mean they are not ethical and competent investigators.
They specialize in investigating complaints of harassment in the workplace, not violations of federal law — which is a moot point, given Gleick’s public admissions.
Still, we should be seeing a report in a matter as important as this (especially with Prof. Mann calling this an exoneration).
Mann can call a pig’s hind leg a sirloin steak, but that doesn’t make it kosher.
Tale of two institutes:
1. Max Planck Institute –
Scientific research institute which employees REAL researchers, doing REAL experiments and producing REAL papers and results….tangible and reproducible.
2. Pacific Institute –
A group of alledged “scientists”, actually political activists who got “enviromental” or “climate science” (translate, NON-science, or NON-sense) degrees. Who run around making noise about CONTRIVED research and CONTRIVED/non-reproducible, results…bent towards their personal, emotional/political adgendas.
WOW! Lot’s of similarities there. SARCASM OFF for now..
Tom Murphy, you have the chronology backwards. GMU delayed their investigation and didn’t come to any conclusion until after Wegman’s journal paper had already been retracted, leaving GMU little choice but to reprimand Wegman.
You seem to consider the congressional report also retracted, but I’ve argued with AGW skeptics who still cling to it as a relevant document based on that GMU cleared it, so I think that statement and the justification for it is still very much relevant. There are also more serious issues with the Wegman report that would have been interesting to see if the GMU investigation even touched.
Steve Mcintyre says, “Hard to figure out why a Canadian federal mortgate and housing agency – if that’s who it is – would donate to Gleick.”
Unelected government agencies all over the Western world are donating money to CAGW Propagandists (NGO’s and other such stuff like the Pacific Institute), often money goes overseas.
In return, these unelected government agencies get reports and media coverage from these CAGW Propagandists that help promote the need for action, which is what they want. It is rampant. I have seen cases where a UK government agency is sponsoring advertising only in Canada, simply to raise awareness about CAGW in Canada. of course, these agencies can then reference these “media reports” in Canada to add weight to whatever agenda they desire, “In Canada, it is reported that …..” The idea is that local readers in the UK will be impressed by the “weight of evidence” and will likely conclude that if so many countries, including Canada, are reporting instances of CAGW then it must be true.
The UN is one of the worst offenders. I believe Donna Laframboise has uncovered a lot of this cross-pollination where unelected government agencies pay NGO’s to write reports that they want to hear. Peter Gleick has been screaming about the forthcoming calamitous scarcity of H20 for over twenty years. It is, of course, totally untrue – there is and always will be plenty of water – and every junior school kid knows that the hydrological cycle constantly extracts fresh water from our oceans and much of it precipitates on land – providing a constant supply of fresh water…
It’s worth pointing out that Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian is that odious paper’s resident and reliable Court Jew, she was foremost in selling what turned out to be the big lie that was the Mohammed al-Durah affair, back when the Second Intifada broke back in October 2000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/03/israel6
That Goldenberg authored article linked above is entitled ‘Making of a martyr’.
I don’t want to go off-topic here, just thought it worth pointing out (because it’s true!). The al-Durah scandal (see here for a comprehensive overview if you don’t know or remember what that’s about http://www.theaugeanstables.com/al-durah-affair-the-dossier/al-durah-chronology/) remains a blight on the Western Left’s media coverage of the Middle-East. It’s just that where there is one ‘progressive’ lie, other ‘progressive’ lies follow… (even if they don’t appear to have anything to do with one another, and entail different political controversies)
And it’s the same liberal progressives promulgating fakery and fraud, all in the name of truth and enlightenment naturally. Goldenberg has clearly learned nothing, well no surprise there. Mohammed al-Durah was a fabricated ‘martyr’, predicated on fakery and anti-Jewish hate. Now Peter Gleick is the newest ‘martyr’ who ain’t, likewise all predicated on fraud and chicanery.
Steve McIntyre says: June 8, 2012 at 8:20 am
Perhaps in this instance the … uh … Tides went the other way, and the “Housing” got washed out in the process 😉
Thomas says:
“GMU delayed their investigation and didn’t come to any conclusion until after Wegman’s journal paper had already been retracted, leaving GMU little choice but to reprimand Wegman.”
GMU conducted their investigation, though “Nature” accused the school of delaying it and yet the “Nature” admitted in its own reporting that, “The fact that 14 months have passed since Bradley’s complaint without it being resolved is disheartening but not unusual.” – http://tinyurl.com/3kaos8p (Nature link). Naturally, though, the AGW apologists asserted then (and now) that it was delayed with deliberation on GMU’s part.
Where the journal came to its conclusion before GMU (May 2011 and February 2012, respectively) is largely immaterial in that their conclusions do complement each another. Regardless, I think it presumptuous to think that GMU and CSDA operated independently of one another given that the aggrieved party from UMass complained to GMU and not the journal. GMU’s appeal process is thorough and lends itself to an extended time period, although certain facts may have been established along the way (e.g., the journal’s conclusion of plagiarism). Although the UMass complainant was upset about not being notified personally of GMU’s conclusions, GMU noted that the aggrieved had aired his compliant in “public” at the neglect of GMU’s investigative process – http://tinyurl.com/bqv5mno (USA Today link).
Note, though, that GMU did provide copies of its investigative report to the NIH and DoA given that both agencies contributed to the funding of the Wegman et al 2008 journal paper; this limited release is consistent with GMU’s procedure – http://tinyurl.com/7s99hsc (GMU link).
“You seem to consider the congressional report also retracted, but I’ve argued with AGW skeptics who still cling to it as a relevant document based on that GMU cleared it, so I think that statement and the justification for it is still very much relevant.”
The Congressional report, in whole, is tainted by its association with the journal paper. While the specifics of the report and paper may be debated – rightly or wrongly, a researcher today would be hard-pressed to reference either in their work. That’s the reality of scientific publishing, as indicated earlier.
Andy Revkin seems to have picked up on the same question I had posted earlier, whether “interaction with” included Gleick’s account of the disputed memo.
“Most notably, the group and its board declined to elaborate on the finding that the investigation, conducted by Independent Employment Counsel, “supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.”
Does that mean the group expressly confirmed that a particularly provocative, and disputed, document was in fact produced by the Heartland Institute and not by Gleick himself or someone else?
No answer.
It’s fine to have an internal personnel investigation, but if you’re going to then release the finding publicly, but not any other details, it’s hard to see that carrying much weight in discourse outside the organization itself.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/peter-gleicks-pacific-institute-return/
He is the only reporter I have seen that has put this question forward. Everyone else assumes that “interaction with” includes the memo, either implicitly or explicitly. Kudos to him for that.
Is it possible that the ambiguity in the statement might lead to question whether the PI is attempting to cover up Gleick’s actions, say if he did forge the memo, while at the same time creating the appearance that he was “cleared” of the charge? And could that be seen as covering up a crime, or at the least unethical? Gleick “I shot the sheriff but I didn’t shoot no deputy” public statement seems to be taken as true by almost all the MSM, and various warmer blogs. The PI undoubtedly is aware of this, and likely knew this would happen when they crafted the statement.
Refusal to clarify their meaning puts the Pacific Institute in a very bad light.
The press release only has ONE sentence about the findings in relation to Gleick:
>>
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.
>>
Clearly, “interaction with” does NOT include the memo. This statement is carefully crafted with legal advice. His “interaction with” only concerns the deception and impersonation that he has already admitted.
Since the faked doc did not come from H.I. it was not part of his “interaction with” them. He transmitted it (anonymously) deSmegBlog dishonestly claiming that it also came from Heartland but that was his interaction with the blog , not with H.I.
The latest reporting from Goldberg on this is a lot nearer to the truth , so it looks like readers’ complaints and the report to the UK Press Complaints Commission has been effective. It looks like the editor has finally decided to reign in Ms G.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/peter-gleick-reinstated-heartland-expose
This article, however, does contain the erroneous statement: “The Pacific Institute indicated in the statement that it had found no evidence for Heartland’s charges that Gleick had forged one of several documents he released last February.”
I can not find any statement to that effect from P.I.
This mistake seems also to have been copied by Revkin: “It [P.I.] gave no further explanation for its decision to reject Heartland’s charges that Gleick had faked a document.”
It should also be remembered that Gleick has *never* actually stated that he did not forge the document! Again in a carefully crafted statement, surely made after careful legal council, he said that he “got it in the mail”. This of course does not preclude him from later admitting that he sent it to himself if he gets cornered by some forensic or other evidence.
My guess is that the legal council who is advising him and P.I in preparing minimalistic, carefully worked statements is none other than the “independent” council that conducted the alleged enquiry into his conduct.
This ain’t finished yet.
Here’s how the SF Chronicle spun it (sorry if this was posted earlier). Heartland insists that one the papers gleick shared was phony. Sponsored by oil companies. Lost supporters due to the release. Never mentioned he was invited by heartland to speak. Rot reporting.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/07/BAK51OUH3V.DTL
Bernie Madoff To Join Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute: Work-Release Program
Good to see that people are joining in the fun. 😉
Bernd,
Don’t do that to me! You had me going for the first few paragraphs.