Pacific Institute reinstates Peter Gleick – but won't provide confirmation of the "independent investigation"

What was the alternative for them? To sack him? To discipline him? To admit he is a criminal? To admit he has gone so far beyond the realms of acceptable behaviour and the scientific method that he is irredeemable? Or that his actions were utterly unacceptable in any context?
They simply couldn’t do it. They are so far into denial, and have painted themselves into such a tiny corner there was simply nothing for it but to exonerate him. They just couldn’t do anything else.
This is a sad, but inevitable outcome. Fortunately, it will serve to work against the very goal they seek to achieve. That is what we can take from this development.

Imagine if Dr. Roy Spencer had carried out the actions of the wire fraudster and self confessed liar Peter Gleick. What about Anthony Watts?

just some guy says:
June 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I would not place the bar as high as that.
In my opinion, the issue is: did he put forward as true and without caveats a document that he had reasonable grounds for considering the authenticity of which to be suspect? Of course, if he faked the document, he would have breached that test. Likewise, if he had either reasonable grounds for suspecting his source to be unreliable or ‘dodgy’ or even if he considered the contents of the document itself to be suspicious and therefore unlikely to be accurate.

“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 …

Dr. Gleick is not cleared. The investigation finding only verifies Dr. Gleicks public confession statement as correct. In teh rpess release cited above and the follow up email from the Pacific Institute does not state clearly that Gleick did not worte the forged memo or that he was not involved in its making in any way. Why not? That is whatt everyone want an answer to. Strangely weak statement, heh?
It is then interesting to go back and analyse Dr. Gleicks public confession which is now supposedly verified by the review. The thing is that the public confession by Gleick was worded very careful and ambigious way so that it creates the appearance for the casual reader that Dr. Gleick denies having written the forged memo, while in fact he does no such thing. I am a lawyer and I know weasel words when I see them… For sure, he did not formulate that “confession” all by himself.
The ambiguioty of his confession was commented on a number of times when the public statement was made. I repost with some edits from the confession thread:
********************
“JJ says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Joe Bast Says:
Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, …
NO HE DOES NOT.
Look at what the man wrote, not what he wants you to read:
“At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.”
Analysis: He says he recieved an anonymous document. He doesn’t say the “anonymous document” was the faked document. The 2012 Proposed Budget “describes what appear to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.” The anonymous document could have been that document, or some other document that we haven’t seen.
“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..”
Analysis: He committed wire fraud, identity theft and other crimes to get more documents.
“I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.”
Analysis: He says he forwarded the documents that he received – by which he maybe taken to mean the documents he recieved from Heartland. He doesn’t say that he forwarded the “anonymous document”, nor does he deny sending documents other than those that he recieved.
“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.”
Analysis: He claims he didn’t alter any of the documents sent to him. He doesnt say that the only documents he sent were the ones sent to him. He says he didn’t alter the “anonymous communication”, but he doesn’t identify it, nor does he confirm that he sent it.
Consistent with what Gleick has claimed are several scenarios that leave him the author of the faked memo – a fact he has not denied:
1) Someone sent him the Proposed Budget – that was the “anonymous communication.” He stole more documents, which may or may not have included the Budget that he already had in hand. He forwarded everything that had been sent to him, and he added to that package the “Climate Strategy Memo” that he had made up himself.
2) Someone sent him a “heads up” with a few details about the Budget in it – that was the “anonymous communication.” He stole more documents from Heartland. He kept the “anonymous communication”, forwarded everything that had been sent to him by Heartland, and he added to that package the “Climate Strategy Memo” that he had made up himself.
Even if Gleick is telling the unvarnished truth in his “confession” and half assed apology, either of those two scenarios could still be true. Keep in mind that crimate scientists are already primed to think in the “consistent with” mindset, and the fact that Gleick has lawyered up with the best sleazy democrat representation that you can’t buy, so it has to be provided to you. Every word he says from here on out is carefully chosen to be technically perjury-free, while telling the story he wants you to hear. And his lawyers have very carefully chosen for him to not claim that he didn’t write the Fake…
And of course, all of that only applies if his “confession” is entirely truthful. It remains that he could be telling more lies.”
******************************
So when the Pacific Institute and the report now use equally careful wording as the orginal confession statement, what do they really say? Notice also how the subsequent email carefully parrots the lines on the “findings” from the press release:
“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.”
In fact, none of the statements say much at all and Pacific Institute certainly do not in any way deny that Gleick wrote the memo. Why not!? In stead the press release and email only say that the investigation “SUPPORTED WHAT DR: GLEICK PUBLICLY STATED”. This is circular reasoning.
I believe a direct question to the Pacific Institue is in order:
1. Did the investigation conclude that Gleick did not write the forged memo?” and;
2. Did the investigation confirm that Gleick was not in any way involved with the production of the forged memo, directly or indirectly?”; and
3. Did the investigation confirm that Gleick had no reason to believe that the memo did not originate from Heartland?”
Ask those questions and see what the answer is. My guess is that the will weasel away from them. If so – we know the answer. If they answer properly and confirm that Gleick had nothing to do with the creation of the forged memo”

“…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…”
His interaction, in this instance, consisted of admissions of identity theft, theft by deception, and wire fraud, all of which are felonies. Any bets as to when “a decent interval” will elapse and he’ll be hitting the lecture trail again to pontificate on about scientific ethics and integrity?

A dishonest scientist accepted back into the fold by a discredited organisation. That’s climate science for you.

Does this mean that Peter Gleick and the Pacific Institute now qualify for the their own 2012 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award?
If it does there can be no finer recipient than Peter Gleick.

I suspect that Gleick founded the Pacific Institute in order to launder grant money and to give himself a cloak of expertise. I believe it to be a sham organization.

Obviously a climate scientist being cleared by an independent panel is not the same as normal justice being done and being seen to be done.
Post-Normal Justice has now entered the climate science lexicon.

Sorry for the spelling errors and half baked content of my 3:22 post. It was accidentally submitted before proof reading. Still, the content is more or less what I wanted to say.
Gleick is by no means “cleared” of writing the forged memo. At least, judging by the press release, the investigation made no such finding.
In fact, all circumstantial evidence so far points clearly at Dr. Gleick, in my opinion. This evidence now includes the fact that neither Dr. Gleick in his confession nor the investigation and subsequent press release make it clear that Dr. Gleick did not write the forged memo, despite that this is the obvious million dollar question that everyone wanted an answer to.
A clear finding of no such involvement on Gleick’s behalf would of course be of great importance and would be shouted loud and clear from the rooftops by teh Pacific Institute and Dr. Gleick. Instead all we get is more ambiguity with circular reasoning – weasel words! Why I wonder… Well not really. I think that speaks for itself.
It all reminds me of Bill Clinton’s statement “I did not have sex with that woman” (depending of the definition of “sex” of course…).
Looking at the carefully worded statements, even if Dr. Gleick did forge the memo, the statements do not constitute a lie. Of course, they are misleading but not an outright lie. No doubt the usual suspects at the Guardian, the New York Times etc. will do their job, parroting on and portraying the statement as proof of Dr. Gleick not forging the memo, forgetting to mention the other, confessed illegalities (not newsworthy anymore). Objective achieved! Gleick is cleared in the eyes of the public. This is how things work all to often in those circles.

techgm says:
June 7, 2012 at 5:01 am
The true shame is that no one will be surprised by this.
_________________________
That was exactly my thought: “I’m not surprised”… and few will be surprised.