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.
a ‘lapse in judgment’ and ‘apologized’ Well, that’s all OK then.
The man committed fraud!! So is fraud now seen as a good thing or a misdemeanour? Anyone ever had their ID stolen like someone from Heartland did!!! When on earth is Heartland going to do something about this ? They are starting to look rather weak now Gleick has his job back as if nothing had happened.
This is California. Remember, Nancy Peloci, Barbara Boxer, Ninth District Court of Appeals…..
to paraphrase … Ethics, we dohn need no steenking ethics.
Never forget Nancy said we need to pass the bill to see what’s in it.
Then got reelected.
go figure.
“‘Integrity’ all around with these clowns it seems.”
Integrity? You want climate holiness and integrity, too? Geesh.
/sarc
once again, they’ve slick willied, as expected.
heartland gave up all the talking points.
but that’s wonderful because it’s all about donations, right? those dinners have to be catered.
this slapstick is pathetic and it is a negative sum game.
Pacific Institute investigated itself, and found that it was AOK? Who’da thunk it?
Maybe UEA and Penn State should try that “lets investigate ourself” tactic when they run into trouble. Oh, wait …
Did Hartland suffer damages as a result of Gleick’s criminal activity?
Yes, it is a matter of public record that some sponsors pulled out.
Have they made up for the loss? Perhaps. But that’s not necessarily relevant to the issue of the specific donations lost as a direct result of Gleick’s crime.
I love the smell of whitewash in the morning. This must be the “investigation” the Guardian refered to weeks ago. Clearly inside info being fed to them.
Hmmm…lemme think…if I screwed up that badly–or my organization had a highly-ranked member who did–and I knew I had no moral or legal leg to stand on regarding the actions of said scofflaw, I think my MO would be to make a token suspension of duties, wait for a few months, claim to be investigating the matter, wait for a few months, hope it all dies down, and voila! Reinstate the scofflaw, saying that everything is cool now because an “independent” “investigation” cleared him of all scofflawishness! Of course, we can’t actually give details of anything due to “personnel” issues, but trust me, we paid a lot of money for an impartial investigation and we’re completely cleared of any wrongdoing. Moral high ground once again attained!
Now, I’m not even close to being a lawyer, but wouldn’t Discovery require that even those supposedly confidential personnel issues be revealed should a court case ensue?
The institute says “Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way” EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT Gleick of course.
There is no good reason to believe that anyone but Gleick forged the memo.
If the Pacific Institute has an “investigation” (sic) that produced evidence that the forger could be anyone other than Gleick they should produce the evidence (e.g., what is and is not shown by rigorous forensic examination of Gleick’s computer and email records etc.).
Otherwise, the only reasonable position is to SUSPECT with some confidence that Peter Gleick forged the memo. While it is often impossible to “prove a negative” it is not difficult to produce a comprehensive investigative report (supposedly already conducted on behalf of the PI board) which would throw much doubt on the supposition that Peter Gleick is the forger. Unless or until PI produces some convincing material, Gleick is the most likely candidate for forger…..
Suzanne wassername at the Gruan 17.03 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/peter-gleick-reinstated-heartland-expose
The usual do no wrong idolatry and coffee-mugs waste of column inches.
From the Guardian article: “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.
But the Institute offered no further information on the findings of the investigation, or any evidence to support the claim of having conducted a fully independent investigation. It gave no further explanation for its decision to reject Heartland’s charges that Gleick had faked a document.
Nancy Ross, a spokesperson for the Pacific Institute, said the review would not be released because it was a confidential personnel matter.”
How convenient!
@Chuck “Now for the reality…”
Completely agree. Much of this is ivory towers lobbing water balloons at each other. If we are to establish a beachhead and realize any serious momentum in this war, we must reach into the upcoming generations and communicate to them where they are at and in a manner they understand.
AJB typical Suzanne wassername article in fact Pacific Institute have not claimed that Gleick has not ‘forged one of several documents ‘ to date they make no statement on this issue.
Or is it that once again she is using her PI crystal ball ?
Scenes We’d Like to See.
Exactly. They seem to be saying that the “investigation” cleared the Pacific Institute and any of it other members or employees. That doesn’t address Gleick’s actions, so is a non-absolution absolution.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/06/heres-who-did-peter-gleick.html
REPLY: Yes I got the same email today at 920AM, I’ve been attempting to confirm with the firm that they actually did it. See my update above. – Anthony
Thomas says:
June 7, 2012 at 8:35 am
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.
Ah — a graduate of Doc Gleick’s “Situational Ethics 101” class checking in with an “apples to grapefruit” smokescreen.
The investigator is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP.
Okay, so Pacific has just violated their previously stated employee confidentiality policies.
Will the contradictions never cease?
Does anyone have the means of finding out who the sponsors are of the Pacific Institute. They should at least be told that their continued sponsorship is now tainted by the organisation that has a self confessed criminal at the top. We should keep an eye on the documents that are put into the public domain by the PI, and see whether any funding body is mentioned, at which time we should all bombard the funding body about the criminal activity of the head of the Pacific Institute.
Oddly, the Independent Employment Counsel website (www.iecounsel.com) gives no address or any indication as to where they are based. A bit of Googling finds they are in San Rafael, California.
We now know the identity of the investigators. But be very careful about what you say. Here are their terms, directly from their site:
“Indemnity:
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless IEC, and each of its respective partners, employees, representatives and agents, from and against all claims, losses, costs, damages, liabilities, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys fees) arising out of: (a) your activities in connection with the Site; (b) any violation of these Terms by you; (c) any improper or unauthorized use of the Materials by you; and (d) any allegation that anything you transmit through or in connection with the Site infringes or otherwise violates the copyright, trademark, trade secret, privacy, or other rights of any third party.”
I am speechless …
Michael Mann displays his lack of honesty – “Climate scientists jumped on the news. ‘I’m very pleased to learn that Peter has been exonerated,’ Michael Mann of Penn State told ME.”
Peter Gleick was not exonerated by the independent review. The review only agreed with “what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute”. Gleick himself has admitted wrong doing: “Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute …” “… Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment.”
Gleick – “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.”
Michael Mann’s current employer should give him a chance to retract his dishonest and misleading statement, and if Mann refuses, P.S.U. should terminate him.
If P.S.U. fails to act, then they are sending the message to their students that dishonesty is acceptable behavior.
George Lawson says:
June 7, 2012 at 11:54 am
“Does anyone have the means of finding out who the sponsors are of the Pacific Institute. They should at least be told that their continued sponsorship is now tainted by the organisation that has a self confessed criminal at the top.”
One of PI’s main sponsors is George Soros, who is himself a convicted felon on the lam. Being birds of a feather, I doubt that Soros is bothered by propping up a self-confessed criminal. Soros probably views supporting Gleick as a net benefit.
IEC = a pair of lawyers specializing in employment law
There has not been the slightest indication that they possess any experience or expertise in the kind(s) of investigation required for this case, nor has there been any indication that a real investigation (computer forensics etc.) was ever conducted.
All we have here is a whitewash to say “we didn’t find any evidence of further wrongdoing because we were careful not to look for any!”
So they re-affirm Gleick’s own statement and that’s it?????
This is what these charlatans of climatology consider rigorous! From the activists to the scientists it is all one huge farce…… these people can’t even pretend to be credible.
The fakers of Fakegate are not even faking it anymore……