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.
I think I understand. Itz all about the staff, not the president.
See, Nixon said he knew nothing and did nothing, but his staff knew something, so he was guilty.
Now Gleick is totaly different. Gleick said he did something, but his staff knew nothing, so he is innocent.
From now on, the police will not need to bother questioning suspects, only their staff. Makes a ton of sense when you think it through.
Three to one says that a marijuana possession conviction means you are ineligible to sweep their floors, but confess to multiple federal felonies that exactly undermine your credibility and get your job back.
Gleick’s reinstatement is bad enough, but the arrogance of the Pacific Institute is simply breathtaking. They are a total laughing stock, completely devoid of any moral authority and without doubt have scored another (yes, yet another) own-goal with their patronising prevarication and deliberate obfuscation. Taking the public for fools is probably not a wise policy direction, going forwards.
The thought of having to endure the sneering, hectoring tones of an allegedly ‘exonerated’ (hah!) Gleick as we go into another dismal round of Rio+20 propagandising is truly depressing. I hope all climate realists will use every opportunity available to remind Gleick and his craven paymasters (and shameless supporters in the media) that just saying something is so, doesn’t make it so.
2 + 2 does not make 5. It never will, not matter how urgently they insist otherwise.
Its unlikely the PI could lower the bar any further without touching the ground.
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.
So he’s an ethical retard.
(The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for) his lapse in judgment…..
Excuse me while I puke.
James Allison,
PI is doing the ultimate 2-dimensional Flatlander Limbo!
There is exactly zero clearance between the bar and the ground.
Excuse me, was there any doubt? A very logical move of PI.
PG is a hero and PI desperately needs him as a director.
Anybody who would expect anything different has his head in the clouds.
Perhaps it is a publicity stunt connected to “Last Call at the Oasis” ……..”the film is a shallow left-wing screed with commentary from a coterie of disreputable activists. That’s hardly surprising, given that it comes from Participant Media, the same folks who produced Al Gore’s propagandistic “An Inconvenient Truth. Commentator Peter Gleick is exhibit number one.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/06/06/oasis-film-is-an-intellectual-desert/
Gleick appears at 1.50
James Allison says:
June 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Its unlikely the PI could lower the bar any further without touching the ground.
Even as we speak, there’s a flatbed trailer hauling a Ditch Witch approaching the front gate…
“Independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way (in what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute).”
What on earth does that mean? That Dr. Gleick was not a Pacific Institute staff member? If staff knew of then they were not involved, and if staff were involved they did not know of? That the independent review conducted by the non-independent outside counsel supported something that Dr. Gleick said publicly about his dealings with the Heartland Institute?
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.
Clearly “The Institute” and Gleick are irrefutably ethically challenged. Furthermore each and every individual board member of PI is likewise ethically challenged, otherwise they would not be prepared to be associated with something as shonky as this. In addition each other organisation with which the board members is publicly associated is likewise drawn into this mess as it is seen to have a member of its board (or “advisor” or other euphemism) who is publicly ethically challenged. They need to be called on this matter, every one of them.
Gunga Din says:
June 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Merovign says:
June 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm
We have to settle on a new name for them, like the Pacific Institute of Fraud, or the Pacific Criminal Institute, or whatever.
=============================================================
I still like “The Pathetic Institute”.
==============================================================
The Pass-if-Gleick Institute
A. Scott says:
June 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm
And here is their “Funders List” …
http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/funders_2011.pdf
I DO NOT ADVOCATE nasty responses to either Board of Directors or their funders. That said well expressed, honest, civil comments would be well appropriate in my opinion.
Two names on there of immediate interest:
The US EPA and the Gulbenkian Foundation, which the warmies accused of being big oil deniers when they funded the Lisbon Workshop I attended.
And from the directors list:
Richard Morrison, former Senior Vice President and Director of Environmental Policies & Programs, Bank of America.
Follow the money.
I have posted a comment at “Climate Science Watch” which is a shorter version of my comment regarding all associated with this being ethically challenged. I very much doubt that any moderator will allow it through!
NZ Willy says: June 6, 2012 at 10:18 pm
And in the rather conspicuous absence of any evidence to the contrary, I found The Goldenberg Factor to be highly suspect, as well.
Readers might be interested in my dot-connecting exercise in which I conclude that it may be time to call in the used car salesmen – in order to inject a note (however feint) of integrity into the fields of “climate science”, environmental advocacy and “reporting”:
Prophets of doom forecasting gloom … while Gleick re-enters his room
Why would any organization want a leader who will hereafter be known as the ethically-challenged Peter 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…”
So they say that they support THIS public statement:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
“…Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected…”
Peter Gleick
So that statement from PI can be truthfully edited to say “…An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick (the President of the Pacific Institute) has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute, that is, he “…solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…”
And they’re OK with that?
Truly insane…
They are morally bankrupt and obsessed with grants and position.
Not that any of it matters, the public don’t give a monkeys about global warming.
Is Being “Morally Challenged” a Disability?
If yes, we may be in serious trouble with Gleick.
So, as I see it, Gleick has NOT been “cleared” as Ms. Goldberg claims. They have simply accepted his version of events – “Yes, I was a naughty boy and acted unethically and possibly illegally in obtaining the confidential property of a third party, but (cue smoke and mirrors) I definitely did not fake that faked document over there, honest, scout’s honour”.
The narrow definition of their release seems to be that “no-one found any evidence that Gleick forged the fake document”, which is almost certainly because 1) nobody looked for any and 2) the only possible evidence would come from Gleick himself and he’s hardly likely to fess up.
So, we’re left in to position where PI accept and apparently condone the fact that one of their staff “fraudulently” obtained third party documentation. They noticeably don’t feel the need to apoloigise ON BEHALF OF PI to Heartland for their staff’s “lapse of judgement” and for his actions which “run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics”, but are satisfied that his personal apology to their own board is sufficient. In no area of business would this be acceptable. Not one.
I’d also be interested to know whether this investigation considered whether Gleick used any PI facilities, equipment or technology in the course of obtaining the Heartland documents. If he did, he could be said to be acting on behalf of PI, which brings them uncomfortably close to a seat next to him in the dock.
“I am glad to be back and thank everyone for continuing their important work at the Pacific Institute during my absence,”
OMG this man has a HUGE ego.
Don’t worry though. He will make a similar ‘mistake’ since he learned nothing of it.
In fact, he only got rewarded for his crime. That will stimulate him to continue his misbehaving.
This is great news. The PI is now just another CAGW shrill organisation that nobody will take seriously.
The report found that the emperor is wearing clothes!
Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:
Saw the name …. that is not a bad idea! We sceptics could do with encouraging more professional standards.
Not sure of the name but off the top of my head the course would include:
1. The philosophical basis of science
2. The history & development of climate science from the 18th to 21st century
3. The history and development of climate models (stasis, milankovitch cycles, Camp century cycles, CO2, solar, etc.)
4. A closer look at CO2 + feedbacks (the current theory)
– sources of CO2 & attribution to mankind
– CO2 warming radiative warming
– Calculating direct warming response
– sources of feedbacks and evidence
– predicted effects and evidence
5. Solar models, changing sulphate levels and other overlooked drivers.
6. Noise, natural variation and statistics of climatic signals
7. The development of Environmentalism & the global perspective
8. A study of the marketing methods of environmentalists.
9. The political and legislative framework of carbon markets
10. Marketing, PR, & engaging with political process