Admitted fraudster Peter Gleick rewrites history. Rewriting appears to be in his blood.

The link in the twitter conversation doesn’t work, I believe this is the correct one.

And more background:

Gleick eventually confessed to being the ‘insider’ and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person – a member of Heartland’s board of directors, it soon became known – in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no ‘leak.’ Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.

There are dozens of stories on “Fakegate”  on WUWT, most tagged fakegate but here are some good overviews.

See also Andy Revkin’s DotEarth here. Revkin writes:

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post,

(Added 7:25PM PST) One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

And many here may not know, it was our very own Steven Mosher who deduced the fraudster was Gleick, based on an analyses of  the forged strategy document.

If you want to look for the author of the fake memo, then look for somebody who tweets the word “anti-climate”. you’ll find it. Look for somebody on the west coast ( the time zone the document was scanned in)

You’ll find somebody who doesn’t know how to use parenthesis or commas, both in this memo and in other things he has written.

you’ll find he mentions himself in the memo

that’s all the clues for now. of course its all just speculation. Note, he’s not tweeted for a couple days. very rare for him.

In closing, here is a picture of a sign posted in all Heartland offices.  Feel free to ask Peter Gleick if there is any equivalent posted at the Pacific Institute.


87 thoughts on “Gleickero

  1. The internet has transformed the art of sleuthing hoaxes. Both the quality and the speed of uncovering things has vastly increased. Gleick isn’t the only one who’s been zapped by this.

    • You’re not just whistling Dixie.

      Example: Methinks there’s no way that student wrote that paragraph. Quick google. Bam!

      There’s a service for detecting plagiarized student papers. I never bothered with it … didn’t have to.

      The internet makes some kinds of crap easy. On the other hand, it makes some kinds of mischief very dangerous. “Always tell the truth. Never, ever, lie”, is very good advice.

  2. So, it’s not a lie if it’s about climate change. Repeating a falsehood (especially through the media) makes it extra not lying RIGHHHT?

    • Just ask Steve Schneider or Sad Beard Yglesias. Lying isn’t just OK for a good cause, it’s imperative.

      • What’s even more appropriate, is that Glieck was the ethics chairman for his organization at the time he stole and fabricated his so called evidence.

    • Noble cause corruption. Convince yourself you are right and virtuous and everything is permissable.

  3. Like a Dandelion, he’s back.

    Peter has proven he doesn’t know the truth, thus he is always making stuff up.

    • Just because he makes stuff up , does not mean he does not know it is a lie.

      It is astounding that he never got so much as a police interview about the wire fraud issue. That is a serious felony. And had they bothered to look they would almost certainly have found that his printer was the device which printed the fake “Heartland” documents sent to DeSmeg Blog.

      How he was not questioned about this is amazing until you note that the offense occurred in Illinois, the state where constitutional lawyer and then president O’bummer practiced and taught law. One may imagine that he had plenty of contacts in the state legal apparatus and , as POTUS, plenty of weight to bring to bear.

      In fact, Gleick admitted in 2012 his hatred for those who disagree with him on climate science led to a “serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics.”

      So the complete antithesis of objective science gets him an award on science and “outreach”.

      • They would have been only prosecute-able under federal laws.
        Gleick’s actions were also during the time of IRS-Lois Lerner shenanigans against conservatives.

        It all happened during the Obama Maladministration with Eric Holdem-up as US AG.
        Eric Holder, Most politicized AG ever. Utterly a despicable AG hack.
        Thus anything Libs did against Conservatives was a look-the-other-way by the Feds.

  4. ‘And many here may not know, it was our very own Steven Mosher who deduced the fraudster was Gleick’

    Credit where credit is due: props to Mosher.

  5. Silicon Valley’s Ministry of Truth functionaries will no doubt come to his aide to put all his reputation problems down the memory hole on a Google search results and on Wikipedia.

    Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.

  6. As a result of this, I will never believe anything that comes out of Wonderfest. They have lost all credibility.

  7. I’m more concerned about the people who still treat liar Gleick as a scientific hero.

    But catastrophism is a moral slippery slope. If you truly believe the entire world is on the brink of destruction, it’s not difficult to justify any crime, deceit or act of immorality, if you can convince yourself that gross violation was committed in the name of saving the planet.

    The only question – does climate catastrophism corrupt good people? Or does it attract bad people who seek moral cover for their natural evil tendencies? Perhaps a little of both? It certainly puts them all in the same tent.

    • Please, visit Bastasch’s twitter thread to support Mike’s tweets!

      Right now, that twitter thread has more delusional activist claims supporting gleickero as hero, than factual supporters for Bastasch.

    • Our brains seem to organize into one one of two patterns.

      1. Those who accept lies to avoid unpleasant truths. A compassion not to hurt others in the present, even if it means lying to them (or diminishing respect they have for you) with little regard for future consequences. Jack Nicholson’s “You can’t handle the truth!” line from a Few Good Men comes to mind of people trying to protect other’s world view.

      2. Those who get mad or feel let down when they realize they’ve been lied to regardless of the others intent, as it is perceived as an insult to the respect they want. Even if painful, being told a painful truth is seen as respect to this person.

      #1. above allows then for all sorts of patholigcal justifications, the Nobel Cause Corruption.
      #2. above is embodied in the HeartLand Rule #1 paper posting in the photo above.

      • Never, ever, lie ?? What a bunch of pussies. How do they ever expect to win by playing like that?

        • You might be surprised.
          Many Americans are tired of the Millennials and the adults who raised them unable to confront the reality of our world. Life is hard. Hard work pays off.
          Anyone who gets offended easily will be hugely disappointed when Trump gets re-elected becasue they can’t deal with reality.
          The Left still thinks lying is the way to win elections. Times are changing. From Eu elections, to Brexit, to Canada-first Albertans, to Aussie conservatives, to Trump’s MAGA, the internet is destroying the Left’s propaganda-gaslighting plans.
          They haven’t figured that out yet. Neither has their media lapdogs.

          • Joel O’Bryan

            Todays parents only weapon to raise their children is love and understanding. With those methods only, it´s very likely to grow hypersensible snowflakes. They don´t understand rules, it´s just their way or very loud outburst of pure rage. Parents must understand their children, and that´s one way ticket. There´s no daddys leatherbelt anymore to help their understanding of rules and reality. New homo species have seen the light.

        • spoiler alert
          they will confront you with an impenetrable wall of stupid which defeats reason
          and then you give up because the only alternative is force.
          then they use force and you lose.
          that’s as good as winning.

    • ‘It certainly puts them all in the same tent.’

      Exactly – and after a certain point it doesn’t matter where you started – only where you end up.

    • Eric Worrall

      “”The only question – does climate catastrophism corrupt good people?””

      Did he benefit something (anything?) because of his lies? And if so, the answer is yes.

      Follow the money.

    • Eric Worrall – May 30, 2019 at 12:56 pm

      But catastrophism is a moral slippery slope. If you truly believe the entire world is on the brink of destruction, it’s not difficult to justify any crime, deceit or act of immorality, if you can convince yourself that gross violation was committed in the name of saving the planet.

      Me thinks the overwhelming majority of “moral slippery slope sliders” are not really concerned about the world being “on the brink of destruction”, ……. but on the contrary, ……. they truly believe or know for a fact that it is their own “little world” that is on the brink of destruction, …… which is reason enough to justify any crime, deceit or act of immorality in order to save or improve their reputation, job status and/or career.

      The challenge of “climbing the corporate ladder” often brings out the “worst” in people.

    • consider it a Badge of Honor

      Realized 3 years ago after being on Twitter for about 6 months that Twitter was very corrosive to our society. Far away too much anonymity, and too much easy trolling. And Twitter as a company dominated by Liberal moderators who feel an SJW calling are apparently too inclined to use tools like shadow-banning tweets and other insidious ways to blocking tweets and limiting exposure of ones they don’t like.

      I suspect once Trump is no longer President, Twitter as company will begin to fail as a business model on social media. TWTR will make for a great short just before Trump leaves office, whenever that is.

    • I have always loved it when the trolls ban ME on Twitter!
      That is when I know I am doing something right.

  8. I updated my file of tag lines, quotes, smart remarks and lies to include “Dr. Peter Gleick”

  9. Correcting Mike Bastasch’s truncated link:

    No matter how Gleick tries to rationalize his illegal behavior, it is still “wire fraud” and “mail fraud”; along with impersonating people for fraudulent purposes.

    Amazing how he demeans and insults Heartland staff at the time with claims of a whistleblower.

    Whistleblowers report their information to legal authorities, not fringe deluded activists who prove to be known frauds with absurdly low ethics values.

    • Of course you know Gleick was made ethics commissioner(?) for AGU, short weeks after having been outed as the fraudulent smear master of Heartland. I guess I’m showing my age admitting that this appointment with full knowledge of the facts troubled me greatly. I guess its commonplace these days for ‘prestigious scientific institutions’ to be possessed of such twisted cynicism or whatever such in-your-face gestures are trying to convey.

      • “Of course you know Gleick was made ethics commissioner(?) for AGU, short weeks after having been outed as the fraudulent smear master of Heartland.”

        IIRC, he was in that post before the scandal, and left it afterwards. But I may be wrong.

  10. Three times he lied.

    1) He lied when conned an admin assistant into betraying her employers. He claimed to be something he wasn’t.
    That would be justifiable if her employers were committing a greater crime in secret.

    2) He lied when he said he had a whistleblower. He didn’t. He had committed a crime (wire fraud) and was trying to avoid prosecution.
    That is not justifiable. He could have said thee crime was for the greater good. It looks like a jury of his peers would have excused him. But most people are better than his peers.

    3) He lied when he submitted the faked evidence to make Heartland look bad. The stolen facts weren’t damning enough. So he “found” worse data. More damning data that happened to be written in his own distinctive style. Nefarious plans that were so clearly written by him that Steve Mosher identified him by his writing style.
    That is completely unforgivable. He even tried to fool his own side because he had broken the law for no payoff.

    Those are the three times he lied that are indisputable. But he has also published “scientific” papers. Has he fabricated the data in those too?
    We cannot tell.
    But we can tell that he is willing to fake his results. And we can tell that his papers are significant enough that his fans think him a hero.
    So probably, Yes. He has lied in his research too. Him and all his collaborators.

  11. Peter G. needs to be reminded of his own daily fossil fuel usage. I just broke up with a woman, liberal, talks about climate change and flies all over in jets.

      • How can you tell when a liberal (like Petey G) is lying? their lips are moving.

      • I would suggest that maybe it’s “Every Leftist is a hypocrite” – with their “Rules for thee, but not for me” view on the world.

        Liberals are more centrists these days (although anything right of Stalin is called Alt-right by the CTRL-Left).

  12. Definition of hypocrisy:
    Stealing emails from CRU = good
    Stealing documents from Heartland = bad

    • Nobody stole the documents from CRU, they were leaked.

      Regardless, most of the outrage is over the faked documents.

        • The CRU emails were subject to FOI requests anyhow which has been to best most know happened anyhow. Yes it was a crime for them to be leaked but they were being sought anyhow. There were no fakes that anybody knows of and given the court ordered release now you can see them in there full.

          That is more than a little different to making up a fake document to deliberately misleading.

          The CRU case is one of trying to get to the truth, the Gleick situation is trying to pervert the truth.

          Perhaps you have been around climate change too long that you don’t get that the truth is a good thing and lies aren’t.

          • No, he just a troll. Probably paid to spew misinformation, like my dear friend Griff. It probably is Griff.

        • Which of the people caught behaving badly in the climategate emailshave claimed any of their emails were tampered with or faked? Take your tinfoil hat stuff elsewhere.

        • How many of the CRU emails were “faked?”

          None. Many of the originators of the emails have verified the veracity of the emails were real and while some have claimed “taken out of context”, not a single one of them ever claimed any to be false/fake.

      • The official investigation found that secret Russian agents infiltrated the CRU, gathered all the data into one file called “Harry_Read_Me” (cunningly using English phrases to throw us off the track) and then snuck out of the CRU again to hack the file from the outside.

        Now, some people think that – as this theory requires an inside man in the first place – they could have walked off with the file and not bothered with the untraceable, mysterious hack.

        But that’s just silly, isn’t it MarkW?
        That would mean the inside man may not be a Russian spy at all!

        • prove it wasn’t leaked/ prove it was a hacker (or whomever else you think it was).

          The fact is it remains unknown, as the person who got a hold of them and released them into the wild was never caught. It’s more likely to be an insider who leaked them than a hacker who stole them, IMO. At the very least, if it was an outside actor (aka a hacker) they were only able to do it because an insider or insiders gathered the emails into a nice convenient package that they then took advantage of.

    • CRU = publicly funded art of a public university refusing to comply with legal FOI requests.

      Heartland = private.

      See the difference?

  13. How to Spot a Sociopath
    Co-authored by Paul Chernyak, LPC

    Updated: April 20, 2019

    A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one’s goals. Sociopaths can be dangerous at worst or simply very difficult to deal with, and it’s important to know if you have found yourself with a sociopath, whether it’s someone you’re dating or an impossible coworker. If you want to know how to spot a sociopath, then you have to pay careful attention to what the person says or does.[1]

  14. Do we know anyone who writes Plays? Just thinking this whole drama would make a perfect Play. If it was offered to High schools theater classes for free, some might give it a go. There is only a limited number of plays that are not copywritted so the schools can use them.
    And no the right to use it would prohibit changes.
    It would be a good one ethics, morality, dishonesty and obsession.
    anyway just a though. and yes I saw the article on the news about the FBI E-mail play.


  15. A bit OT but when visiting this page on my iPhone, then clicking in the browser to navigate away, a tab popped up at the bottom saying ‘climate change denial.’

    Click on that and you’re sent to a wiki page that says: “It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change.”

    So Apple is disputing information with disinformation under the pretext of disputing disinformation.

    What a world we live in.

    • Just what the heck constitutes “unwarranted doubt” about an “opinion” on anything? Do these people even think about what they write?

      • It’s amazing that “unwarranted doubt” is decided EXACTLY by the people who do not want to be doubted! Do these Progressives not see the basic flaw in the logic? Do they not understand hat science must always be questioned about everything all the time, or it simply stops being science? They have defined religion and faith, whose dogmad are set out byy those who control that religion and faith.

    • No problem here using Safari on my iPhone and I don’t think it’s Apple.

      I think you are experiencing something similar to a pop-up scam, which in itself is interesting. Anthony must be really getting to some of the idiots if they are spending time writing pop-ups “warning” you about this website.

      To fix Click here and follow the instructions.

      (Hope the HTML works!)

      • Nope, it’s part of Safari. They’re suggested websites prompted by your search and they appear just above the keyboard for some sites.

        For WUWT you’re referred to places that correct your thinking.

  16. I recall that at the time even Kevin Trenberth, in response to an interview question along the lines of “So is Gleick now totally finished as a credible scientist?”, said something like “Well, he still might be able to function in an advocacy role.”

    It continually appalls me that people who clearly are, and always have been, primarily advocates, are still accorded any scientific credibility. When a professional accountant is found with both his hands in the shop till, his professional career is over. So called climate “scientists” apparently don’t ever have to concern themselves with such trifling ethical issues.

  17. I wonder which parenthesis he doesn’t know how to use. We know who doesn’t know how to use parentheses.

  18. You mean when I worked with a whistle-blower to reveal the dark money funding being used by climate deniers to produce pseudoscience for young school children and policymakers?

    For moment I thought this was an expose on ‘extinction rebellion’

  19. To promote the Cause of Global Warming, the end justifies the means.

    Lying and altering data are required so they can promote their “truth”.

  20. Gleick’s tweets are among the most foolish and worse.
    Peter Gleick‏Verified account @PeterGleick May 14
    Climate deniers typically cherry-pick data to try to argue that #climatechange is not happening or not because of humans.
    That’s like showing this picture and saying it proves the Moon is bigger than the Earth.
    [photo from the Chinese DSLWP-B/Longjiang-2 satellite]
    Peter Gleick‏Verified account @PeterGleick May 16
    If it was aliens pouring CO2 into our atmosphere, we’d have invented starships and phasers and declared war by now.

    • “…
      Peter Gleick‏Verified account @PeterGleick May 16
      If it was aliens pouring CO2 into our atmosphere, we’d have invented starships and phasers and declared war by now…”

      If it were aliens supplying us with fossil fuels that happen to pour CO2 into our atmosphere, they’d be heroes for allowing humanity to thrive.

      We can make up plenty of other dumb “if it was [sic] aliens…” scenarios. What if they were the ones putting urine, crap, and other things into our sewers? Wouldn’t that amount to war? Does that mean we can’t generate bodily waste or use toilet paper?

  21. To plagiarize:

    “[This] memo, by contrast, uses more negative language about the efforts it’s describing, while trying to sound like they think it’s positive. … Basically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”

    ” Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science?”

    “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.”

  22. Megan McArdle wrote some good stuff about the Gleick Heartland document and identity thefts. From her Atlantic article on Feb 21, 2012, came this:

    When a respected public figure says that a couple of intriguing pieces of paper [i.e. the forged strategy memo which Gleick alleges was] mailed to him by a stranger somehow induced him to assume someone else’s identity and flirt with wire fraud . . . well, that’s a little distracting.

    Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?

    When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

    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.

    You’re getting so close, Megan, so close. Now consider what you’ve been told about climate models, water vapor feedback, solar insolation variability and clouds by some of this same crowd and you’ll be right about where I’ve landed.

    Peter Gleick was only trying to make the spirit of Stephen Schneider proud. Sometimes you have to jazz up “the truth” to make it more impactful on your audience, don’tcha know?

    Oh, and BTW, Gleick didn’t FLIRT with mail fraud and identity theft, he committed mail fraud and identity theft. He PROBABLY also committed forgery and fraud in creating the strategy memo, itself. Although he has not confessed to this, the PDF document scan of the forged strategy memo occurred in his Oakland time zone, and he was seriously forgetful about the envelope in which it allegedly arrived and which he says he discarded. I’m sure McArdle realizes this, but is bound by her journalistic caution not to write that Peter Gleick is the author of that forged document. That’s the only sensible and logical conclusion. That the memo’s two pages ever traveled in an envelope through the US mail to be delivered to Gleick’s home or office is highly doubtful.

    McArdle’s full Atlantic article is here:

Comments are closed.