JUNE 7, 2012 – The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute announced yesterday it was “pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president” of the organization. The announcement comes three months after Gleick, a prominent climate scientist, confessed to stealing confidential board documents from The Heartland Institute.
Gleick also circulated a memo, purportedly describing Heartland’s “climate strategy,” that he originally claimed to have received from Heartland, and later claimed to have received “in the mail” from an anonymous source. Heartland and others identified the memo as a fake and continue to believe it was most likely written by Gleick himself to damage Heartland’s reputation.
Since the “Fakegate” scandal broke in February, environmental groups including Greenpeace and 350.org have used the fake memo to launch disinformation campaigns against Heartland’s donors and the scientists who participate in its climate change research programs.
The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
“Fakegate – which began when a fake memo was circulated to defame the world’s most prominent source of skepticism on man-made global warming – has now generated a fake investigation claiming to exonerate the person at the center of the scandal.
“Whereas The Heartland Institute has been open and honest with the public and the press, sharing emails and the results of its own internal investigations, the Pacific Institute has refused to identify who conducted its investigation, to release its report, or even to respond to our inquiries about what questions were asked of Gleick.
“As near as we can tell, this was not an investigation. It was a whitewash.
“The Pacific Institute’s board of directors has failed to perform its duty and should be deeply ashamed. We have asked the federal government to prosecute Gleick for what we believe were serious crimes he committed, and we await its decision.”
# # #
Note: shortly before I received this statement from Heartland, I got an email identifying the investigating organization. I’ve made Heartland aware of this. This is the update I posted on the main story at 11AM today. I received the email from Ross at 9:20 AM but was awaiting verification before releasing this news.
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/ – Anthony
Mark and two Cats says:
June 7, 2012 at 12:10 pm
“We have asked the federal government to prosecute Gleick…”
Oh yeah that’ll happen.
————————
They have to wait until after the decision is made to not prosecute (which I’m pretty sure will happen) and until the criminal trial is over (not too likely to happen) to file suit in civil court for damages. Can’t cause harm to the criminal trial.
Regime change begins in November. If I were PG, I wouldn’t be too sanguine just now . . .
Smokey says:
June 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“Only by allowing an adversary to question Gleick [or Jones, or Mann] under oath will the truth come out. Everything else is just whitewash.”
Smokey,
I most always appreciate your comments. You cut through the bull$hit and strike to the heart of the issue. A man that shares my own penchant for direct communications, there!
MtK
DocMartyn says:
June 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Employment Arbitrations: $275.00 per hour
Neutral Investigations: $275.00 per hour
Labor Arbitrations: $1,275 per day
Having your investigation of your client’s HR practices hyped as an exoneration of its president’s felonious actions: Priceless…
Fore those who do not want any part of UN’s master plan aka the new world order, please support Heartland, please consider a donation
https://giving.heartland.org/
erik – heartland can’t manage to do anything about gleick.
what do you imagine they’re going to be able to do about the U.N.?
what can one expect to get for his money, srsly?
As others in the main site have alluded to, this investigation and clearance is not about Gleick per se, its about liability of the Pacific Institute for Gleick’s actions and for what action PI might take in regard to Dr. Gleick’s employment, and whether or not, his actions have compromised any of the employees (not the least of which would be the board of directors and the executive office). The conclusion is that PI will not be liable for Gleick’s actions, and as such, they don’t have a basis for terminating him, nor an apparent liability for associating with him. This isn’t about Gleick’s culpability in the matter.
The “investigation” was done by two HR lawyers? Wow, that’s compelling stuff there.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
Scottish Sceptic said: “Strange coincidence …. just bought the domain “climatejustice.co.uk” on the off chance we might need it in the near future”
Wow, what an excellent opportunity!
Set up the Climate Justice! website, … you have the proof on your side, it’ll all be legal and defensible. Go for it!
Thanks for the encouragement.
Was there ever any question or concern that other Pacific Institute staff were involved?
Have not the Investigators actually answered a totally irrelevant question?
Vince Causey says:
June 7, 2012 at 11:56 am
So they exonerated Gleick on telling the truth about stealing, lying, and forging? Makes sense.
This isn’t exoneration, just that Dr. Gleick has done anything that would warrant disciplinary action.
In employment law the question is, did the employee, by his or her actions violate the conditions of employment or binding agreements with the employer (such as confidentiality)? Apparently admitting committing what could be argued is a federal crime does not violate the terms of employment. The fact that they cite Dr. Gleick as not utilizing other staff members would mean that they looked at this from a misappropriation of Institute resources point of view, and considered that any alleged or admitted misconduct was either 1) in the best interests of the Institute based on Dr. Gleick judgement or 2) was committed *not* as part of Dr. Gleick’s responsibilities at the institute.
Had Dr. Gleick used Institute resources (beyond what “personal use” clause is in the employment contract), released the document as an official act of the Institute, or released the Institute’s own confidential documents — there likely would have been grounds for “employee disciplinary action” — which can include termination.
Remember, this is California and it is hard to fire someone.
such a lot of wishful thinking here!
if it turns out that the memo really is a fake, i’ll be happy to admit that i was wrong in my opinion of it.
if it turns out that global warming is bullshit, i’ll be considerably more happy to admit that i was wrong.
BUT
if/when the memo turns out to be legit.
if/when global warning becomes so blindingly obvious that it’s impossible to deny.
THEN what are you guys going to do?
oh, & don’t hold your breath waiting for any of this to show up in court; the heartland institute doesn’t want a subpoena of their records (laundered or not), any more than they want another winter as warm, screwed-up & snow-less as the latest one was…
:p
Waiting for the DOJ may not be too useful. Heartland in line behind Black Panther Voter Intimidation, Fast & Furious, ACORN, and other conclusive criminal acts like Gleick’s all awaiting Holder’s “Justice.” Don’t “Hold” your breath.
Better to have Heartland commence civil process, and add The Pacific Institute and IEC LLP as co-defendents, aiding and abetting Gleick’s ADMITTED crimes.
Cthulhu & proud! (@Lx121) says:
June 8, 2012 at 11:26 am
It’s quite clear you are the one with the wishful thinking (?) perhaps hoping that someone somewhere will give you some glimmer of justification for your beliefs!
the memo is highly unlikely to be legit- it makes no sense in the context/way it was ‘written’
it is highly unlikely that AGW is a real threat (I don’t believe it is ANY threat!) and all you ‘believers’ will have to find some other bleeding heart cause to rob the majority of society, impose fuel poverty and economic misery, etc, on millions of people.
I’d applaud your stance if it was based on any real demonstrable and replicable science – but of course it isn’t ! otherwise you’d be able to conclusively show it, and more importantly, the readers here would be able to agree with you!
Perhaps you’d best stay in twitter land, rather than visit here where we look at science and evidence, rather than speculative bulldust or ideological beliefs?…
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is going to have to change its name or be stuck with a designation that no longer involves investigation but rather whitewash.
Cthulhu & proud! (@Lx121) says:
June 8, 2012 at 11:26 am
such a lot of wishful thinking here!
if/when the memo turns out to be legit.
It’s already been identified as a forgery by forensic computer analysts — not HR lawyers.
if/when global warning becomes so blindingly obvious that it’s impossible to deny.
Nobody’s denying that global warming and global cooling are entirely natural events, and have been following each other in sequence for umpty-million years. What’s blindingly obvious is that AGW is a failed hypothesis.
THEN what are you guys going to do?
Continue to sit here and watch trolls continue to make fools of themselves…
“Paul Coppin says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:30 am
As others in the main site have alluded to, this investigation and clearance is not about Gleick per se, its about liability of the Pacific Institute for Gleick’s actions and for what action PI might take in regard to Dr. Gleick’s employment, and whether or not, his actions have compromised any of the employees (not the least of which would be the board of directors and the executive office). The conclusion is that PI will not be liable for Gleick’s actions, and as such, they don’t have a basis for terminating him, nor an apparent liability for associating with him. This isn’t about Gleick’s culpability in the matter.”
Sounds good to me for just about any other employee than their PRESIDENT. Their President for goodnes sake. How can you continue to have such a person as your PRESIDENT?????
Three questions –
1. Just to be clear – Based on some of the comments I’m reading, ethical misconduct is not considered a valid reason for termination from a ‘scientific’ organization even if the ethical misconduct was by the same person that chaired the AGU Committee on Scientific Ethics?
2, If so, then why not overturn Sandy Berger’s conviction and reinstate him as National Security Adviser?
3. When did common sense become so uncommon?
Hugh K says:
June 9, 2012 at 9:36 am
2, If so, then why not overturn Sandy Berger’s conviction and reinstate him as National Security Adviser?
Because he still wears those loose socks…