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.
Gail Combs says:
June 7, 2012 at 4:30 am
The sad part is how many people will see nothing wrong with the whole mess.
____________________
There will be far more people who know the action for what it is, but will loudly defend it as gospel.
I’m not sure if I could call it sad, it’s just the way it is.
It’s all about politics and not about science, it has never been about science, I really do believe everyone needs to start understanding this, different rules apply.
techgm says:
June 7, 2012 at 5:01 am
BTW, given the response, “It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter,” does the Pacific Institute receive any public funds?
Oh, yes, indeedy. About $1,584,350 from the EPA, for one — which info has been scrubbed from the EPA’s grants database, but drop in at JunkScience-dot-com for a screenshot chuckle. For starters, PI got $200K for its “Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program,” which is greenie gobbledy-gook for “a couple of people sitting around a table throwing ideas at the wall to see which one sticks”…
http://junkscience.com/2012/02/24/more-grants-to-gleick-scrubbed-from-epa-grants-database/
“These are not the droids you’re looking for. Move along, move along.”
There have been other religions who have “independently” investigated a member clergyman, even a top clergyman, forgiven him, and moved forward…to the next time, and the next time, and the next time. Even conservative institutions have played that forgiveness game. I remember several quite funny public pulpit confessions replete with sobbing theatrics from the one caught with his hand in the cookie. And sure enough, they got to continue with their religious flock because they forgave him. Gleick and the flock that forgave him, have now joined the ranks for many such buffoons.
OT but this is in my view as a scientist far far more important than this silly Gleick affair
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/7/another-hockey-stick-broken.html
In the end, it will be this story about selective picking of trees and total statistical non-significance ie Yamal and now Gerbis SH Hockey Stick scandal, that can be used to destroy the AGW team. Also of course the reduction of old temperatures by NCDC to show recent warming will also be brought into the court case as De Facto evidence of fraud. Nothing will change (even without all these sensational postings) until some person/politician with clout is prepared to pay big bucks to initiate legal proceedings. I think AGW will collapse very quickly once claims for compensation start.
“In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.”
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.)
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?
I’m going with 17 days. 17 days later Peter Gleick is back in the saddle, Donna Laframboise reported on March 9, 2012.
This is like watching Charlie Sheen.
Somebody slipped a copy of a document under my door. I can not verify it, especially since it is not on headed paper, and is unsigned and undated, but I propose to scan it, create a GMail account called pacificinstinsider@gmail.com, and then send it out with various genuine Pacific Institute PDFs (I’ve downloaded their form 990 from their site for this) to various media outlets.
The text begins…
June 2012
Confidential Memo: 2012 Pacific Institute Investigation
Given the increasingly controversial issues relating to the interactions between Dr. Gleick (a high-profile climate scientist), and anti-climate organzations such as the Heartland Institute, it is useful to evaluate the set of interactions.I propose that at this point it be kept confidential and only be distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff.
—————————————————————————————————-
Seriously, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
Heartland are obviously in the right on the Gleick issue. And Gleick is a self admitted liar and fraudster, and that’s even before we get to the obviously forged document.
But unless Heartland sue, the story that will be recorded forever more, is that Gleick exposed Heartland, and the forged memo will be used as a stick to beat Heartland forever more.
Yes, their donations may have gone up in the short-term, but their reputation has been sullied, and their confidential information stolen and used against them.
@matthu
I believe information is covered.
But even if it’s not, they has been an attempt to deprive Heartland of services, for example, by exposing people they work with (such as consultants, and attendees of their conferences) and then targeting them via their employers.
“After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” – Megan McArdle, re Peter Gleick confession, Feb 21, 2012. . http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/
Any doubt that this applies more broadly to the PI and any gleick appologists should now be errased.
On a positive note … the obumber administration can/will now claim that their policies (i.e. lack of investigation and prosecution of a crime) have saved or created another “green job”.
Heartland should sue or everyone should drop this. It is going nowhere and only a civil court case could resolve the issues. This is getting boring.
Gleick is back on the job?! Thank God! For a while there I feared mankind was certainly doomed.
I’m going to play my Starland Vocal Band records ALL DAY LONG!
What they meant: “After an independent investigation, it has been revealed that no one else wanted the position so we’re stuck with Gleick. We are confident that it won’t make that big a difference to those who support us. What it will mean to governments and others who we intend to influence will have to be determined later. The may already know we are committed ideologues devoted to Malthusian actiivism in which case it won’t matter and we won’t even have to pretend to factual science.”
A. Scott says:
June 6, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Here is their Board of Directors:
………Dr. Peter H. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security…..
————
I thought Gleick had the word ‘ethics’ in his title or something.
Was I wrong?
I read through the BOD list and I don’t see where anyone is checking PI’s ethics.
copner says:
June 7, 2012 at 6:29 am
@matthu
I believe information is covered.
Correct. Priorietary information is sole property of an organization; the organization may choose to give that information to an outsider, but the outsider must sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Gleick used identity theft to secure proprietary information. As president of PI, his actions also made PI liable to fines and penalties — regardless of the results of an independent investigation — unless he can prove he did not use any PI equipment during his “interaction” with Heartland.
So now that Gleick is back we can get on with the mission that started this whole mess
…”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. ”
When’s the debate?
“We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.”
Is this a line from a fictional science foundation in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ or ‘1984’? No. This is reality, but Ayn Rand and George Orwell could not have written it any better.
Nothing expresses the moral bankruptcy of the big green NGO industry better than this decision.
“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.”
They are of course lying, there was no independent investigation undertaken. How can you tell? The PI would have named the firm doing the investigation, there is no need to keep it a secret if they had included a simple confidentiality clause in the contract and everyone would be able to see which firm was contracted and know how reliable and professional they are. Do they really think we are that stupid? Do they have such a low opinion of the heartland institute? They are in for a shock if they make that mistake.
Alexander Feht says:
”They’ve got all the power and all the money, all your institutions, schools, and media outlets are under their control, and they couldn’t care less if you prove them wrong.”
And still can’t manage to enact significant legislation or convince the average person.
Gores, Gleicks, Krugmans and Hansens drink champagne and laugh in your face. Today. Now.
Yep, there have been a lot of ill-gotten gains. I’m sure their grandchildren will appreciate that even as they curse the stigma they’ve inherited from the charlatans while they squander every last penny.
I expect now that the information age is coming into its own, that it will be difficult indeed to keep this episode out of the history books. This time will be studied intently and even their own “side” will abandon them. The media has CYA in place and the politicians do too. The scientists who “should’ve known better” will be the ones history blames, and rightfully so. It’s one thing for someone without a scientific background to fall for something akin to “Ban DHMO”, but for someone with a science background to not just fall for it but promote it for profit/acclaim/ideology is inexcusable.
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.
Now for the reality. (I’ll use the word nobody. By this I mean most of the 99%.)
1 Nobody knows who Dr Peter Gleick is.
2. Nobody knows what the Pacific Institute is.
3. Nobody knows what Heartland Institute is.
Worst yet. Nobody cares.
Randomly ask people what they think. They don’t know.
If it’s not on The View, a new movie, some actor’s latest rant or NASCAR they don’t care.
The ‘investigation’ from PI was just for the MSM.
PI told the MSM it’s over … do not to touch it again. If some outsider sticks his nose in it they have a response. “The investigation proved no wrongdoing.”
Because, just like ‘nobody cares’. IPCC and proponents of CAGW don’t care about ethics.
Cream them in court!