Bishop Hill Gleick confesses
Feb 21, 2012 Climate: fakegate Extraordinarily, Peter Gleick has confessed to being the person who blagged emails from the Heartland Institute.
In the latest revelation, Peter Gleick, a water scientist and president of the Pacific Institute who has been active in the climate wars, apologised on Monday for using a false name to obtain materials from Heartland, a Chicago-based think tank with a core mission of dismissing climate change.
Crucially, he seems to be denying the faking, although he doesn't appear to be letting on who did.
In the piece, Gleick made the odd claim that he carried out the hoax on Heartland as a means of verifying the authenticity of a document that appeared to set out the think tank's climate strategy. Heartland declared the two-page memo a fake.
"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 programme strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it," Gleick wrote
I have to say I don't know whether to be more stunned by Gleick's foolishness or the blogosphere's ability to deduce that it was him what dunnit.
Reader Comments (251)
Peter Gleick chairs AGU task force "...to review, evaluate, and update the Union's policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members."
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009.shtml
Popcorn machines running hot...
There was an alarmist called Gleick
who pretended to be someone else for a sec,
his illegal deception
showed little conception
of how his reputation would end up a wreck.
That's a million points to Mosher. Gleick, go straight to jail, do not pass go.
Hilarious that it was the content of the fake memo that led Mosher to suspect Gleick. And he's saying that's the one thing he didn't do. He's come up with a nice cover story, but who on earth will buy it?
Interesting also to reflect that no-one has yet alleged that there is so much as a missing dot or redacted comma anywhere in Climategate I or II.
But then, us evil 'deniers' aren't in the same league as the 'Team' when it comes to making stuff up.
Or in bare-faced effrontery.
Suzanne Goldenberg's report in the Guardian, from which the Bish quotes, thinks it's right to include this early on:
That's way before quoting Andy Revkin, who's the one commentator at a big liberal-left paper so far who tells it almost like it is:
Echoes of 'poor Phil' at the end there but the point about "Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight" is spot on.
I came to Goldenberg after Revkin and was disgusted that she couldn't, like Revkin, stomach telling her adoring eco-friendly readers that Gleick had completely fouled up and there was no defence.
"The devil made me do it" where the devil is the HI and JoBast isn't I think going to cut it in the US courts.
Even if you take his statement (extraordinarily charitably) as true, what kind of nincompoop would accept an anonymous document dropping through his letter box as worthy of dissemination, without any checking?
James Evans - He's come up with a nice cover story, but who on earth will buy it?
Probably Revkin, Hickman, Conner and the rest of the gullible fools.
Nails scraping down the cliff face like Wile. E. Coyote. Jaw hits flaw. Popcorn shares skyrocket.
Suzanne Goldenberg's article is so bad that one overlooks some of the worst parts first time around. Here's how she frames it:
A network of whom? What about mentioning Steven Mosher at this point? What part of "fossil fuel interests, rightwing think tanks and politicians" does he play? Yet none of them were smart enough to work out who the culprit was - and he was.
No, it's a network of citizen scientists and economists, from all points on the political spectrum, that is doing the damage. If you don't understand the enemy, Ms Goldenberg, they are going to get you, again and again. Brilliant work, Steve and all.
Noble cause corruption. A big one here - Gleick is a Fellow of the US Academy; joined with Trenberth and the Hockey Team in responding to the recent sceptical WSJ op-ed; has published with John Holdren; is a long-standing Ehrlich acolyte (Anne Ehrlich is on his board).
A definite jumping of the shark.
BH, Goldenberg uses "leaked" in the headline. These were stolen.
I wonder why Leo Hickman's article still refers to the HL docs as leaked.
MarkJ - I wonder why Leo Hickman's article still refers to the HL docs as leaked.
Because none of these people are journalists. They are environmental activists who write for newspapers.
Incidentally, Desomg has finally decided on its meme to spin this:
'Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents'
'Climate scientist Peter Gleick has acknowledged that he was the person who convinced the Heartland Institute to hand over the contents of its January Board package, authenticating the documents beyond a doubt and further exposing the disinformation campaign Heartland has pursued in the last week, trying to discredit the information.'
'Convinced' in exactly the same way that Nigerian e-mail scammers 'convince' old ladies to part with their life savings. Pure comedy gold!
Re use of "leaked" and PG suddenly now being a journalist.
I guess they are going to try to do a "Hansen" when the activists trespassed on the Power Station site.
The cause is so great, and the forces so great against us, we are justified.
As you go higher in the American justice system, it does become more political, but you need serious cash to get that far.
That Goldenberg article is nothing short of disgraceful. Talk about misrepresentation. I'm going to fire off an email to the IPCC (the toothless press one), not that it will do any good whatsoever. At least the rest of the MSM might now take an interest.
Beats me how, with all this fakery going on, Gleick managed to find time to read and review Donna Lafromboise's excellent book, The Delinquent Teenager. ;<)
A correspondence
(By way of background, Stephen Hume is a very well respected British Columbia environmental writer usually of the old Rodrick Haig-Brown school who seems to have been traduced by the CAGW narrative.)
On Saturday, February 18, in the Vancouver Sun Hume wrote a rather nasty little piece on the Heartland leak in which, inter alia he stated "Meanwhile, the blogosphere crackles with irreverent observations that these documents appear to be evidence of the think-tank's own cynical attempts to manufacture doubt about global warming. In fact, some claim the documents point to a nefarious scheme to subvert the teaching of class-room science."
His email was posted at the bottom of the article and I wrote him:
How embarassing
Jay Currie
Feb 18 (2 days ago)
to shume
Hi Stephen,
It must be embarrassing to have the key Heartland document turn out to be a warmist fake.
But carry on...the dwindling band of CAGW believers need to keep hope alive. Sloppy journalism like yours helps "the cause".
Cheers,
Jay
-----
Stephen
Feb 19 (2 days ago)
to me
The Associated Press reports it has independently verified authenticity.
-----
Stephen Hume
Feb 19 (1 day ago)
to me
I think I neglected to forward the link top the AP report.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1OHQWK4TJALYxaP8WjUijdBq0rg?docId=b8b17e53a4e041a9b742a79a3f2be5f1
Stephen Hume
----
Jay Currie
Feb 19 (1 day ago)
to Stephen
AP did not do much in the way of examination of the document Heartland stated flat out was fake. Megan McCardle over at the Atlantic has been a bit more through.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/
Given that the impugned document is the only one which has any "red meat" in it it might have been wise - after Heartland stated at least one document was fake - to wait until it was positively confirmed. Reading the AP story I saw nothing which confirmed the authenticity of the document; rather there was some attempt to confirm some of its contents.
AP relied on the ambiguity in the Heartland Press release to avoid making authenticity of the Strategy document central to its enquiries.
But do read Megan. Once again the CAGW zealots have scored an unforced own goal.
Cheers,
Jay
-----
In light of today's revelations I wrote Hume again:
Gleick confesses to the fake
Jay Currie
7:40 PM (3 hours ago)
to Stephen
Really, really embarassing, not to mention completely underhanded and dishonest. And if you had an ounce of journalistic integrity you would publish a retraction of your article based on the fake document.
Details here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#more-57113
Cheers,
Jay
-----
Stephen 7:48 PM (3 hours ago)
No.
Jay Currie
----
7:54 PM (3 hours ago)
to Stephen
Yikes...denial.
You relied on a fake document and you are simply going to leave the record standing.
Don't you think that is just the tiniest bit dishonest?
Cheers,
Jay
----
Stephen shume@islandnet.com
8:02 PM (3 hours ago)
to me
No. I didn't rely on a fake document. I wrote about the reaction to the documents -- of which all but one were verified as accurate by the AP. So, no, not embarrassed.
-----
Jay Currie
8:14 PM (3 hours ago)
to Stephen
Would that be, strictly speaking, honest? Frankly, I would think that a) you would note publically that the reaction you wrote about was to a fake document, b) that the document was released by a noted warmist whose career is now, according to Andy Revkin at the NYT, over, c) this is a huge embarrassment for the CAGW crowd and the journalists who have so uncritically covered them.
My 11 year old can see the ethical implications of spread[ing] false news, I am surprised you can't.
And I am surprised that you are not moved by simple honesty to correct the record.
But, there it is.
Cheers,
Jay
-----
Jay Currie
8:19 PM (3 hours ago)
to Stephen
Here is the link to Revkin:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/
The reaction you wrote about was to a calculated deception which, by remaining silent, you are helping to maintain.
Cheers,
Jay
----
I give Hume full credit for sticking to his increasingly untenable position. But I post the correspondence as an indication of what we are likely to see in the next few days as the warmists try desperately to justify rushing to rely upon an admitted fraud without the slightest journalistic due diligence.
And, like Mr. Hume, they will simply dig themselves very much deeper in the hole Peter has so stupidly dug for them.
I'm trying to think if Goldenberg's description of Heartland in this column as a "think tank with a core mission of dismissing climate change" is an improvement over her previous “a thinktank that has a core mission of discrediting climate science.”
Marginally so, if by "dismissing" she intends only dismissing as critical, as a catastrophe about to happen. But given all of her other epithets, no. She seems more overtly biased in her language than, say, Black.
Aynsley --
It was a trick, which as we all know, is "a clever thing to do."
A whistleblower inside heartland would presumably know Wojick well enough NOT to resort to plagairism in writing the description of Wojick.
That ONE sentence jumped out at me immediately as one not written by the person who wrote the rest of the paragraph
"Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the
U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science"
Let me tell you exactly how this happened.
Steve mcintyre called me. I was busy working on BEST. I had already posted my theory on Lucias.
He asked me if I had done what I normally do, which is look for high entropy words/phrases.
I said no. Honestly I had only skimmed the document and thought it was fake. I had already posted my theory. Steve sent along one of Gliecks tweets. And he asked me to read the document a second time.
On the phone I read it to him giving my thoughts as I read. I noted the odd use of parenthesis and the lousy use of commas. Then I read the sentence above and told steve " this sentence was not written by the person who wrote the rest". With steve listening, I tried to explain and then I just googled the shit.
DeSmog's response to this is hilarious. Their position is that Gleick is a brave and selfless hero:
And the real villain, of course, is the evil Heartland Institute - now "caught squarely in the headlights" and
You see, in a noble cause anything is permitted - so long as it roots out and exposes the evil doers.
Jame Evans posts
"That's a million points to Mosher. Gleick, go straight to jail, do not pass go.
Hilarious that it was the content of the fake memo that led Mosher to suspect Gleick. And he's saying that's the one thing he didn't do. He's come up with a nice cover story, but who on earth will buy it?
Feb 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans"
My thoughts exactly!
So not only a million points to Mosher - but the Million Dollar Question is now "who on earth will buy it?"
Reading about this in the blogs this morning is simply incredible. I find it hard to believe the moronic behaviour of Gleick and his apologists. I am just going to ask my wife if I am actually awake and not having some cosy wish fulfillment dream.
Hilarious that the green activist has been nailed for his hatchet job on the HI. Good work by all concerned parties, who despite the predictable cries of the guardian and other fellow green travellers forced Gleick into confessing his crime, what was instructive for me was the many middle brow pseudo intellectual liberals who rushed to attack the HI and claimed that any defence of this institution were motivated to nail Gleick as part of a right wing smear campaign.
Let's hope it puts a stop to the sanctimonious preaching and holier than thousim that is so beloved of green activists.
The tragedy is that the damage caused by this disgraceful smear will cause lasting issues for the HI, whilst the pro-AGW activists will do their normal spinning of events to bury the real story.
Over at WUWT is this post from JJ Which I thought so interesting it was worth posting here
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
I can't wait for Richard Black to apologise for, and retract, the awesomely dreadful piece he wrote about the faked document and emails stolen from the Heartland Institute. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991
He called it "Deniergate" whilst more savvy people called it "Fakegate"
If I may adapt my own post from when this news was just breaking.... I think it is NOT in the least credible that Gleick is now claiming first to have received the fake "strategy" doc from some anonymous source and THEN he (Peter Gleick) decides to try to obtain other docs.
The fake doc is so neatly tailored to highlight and capitalize upon the set of docs emailed by HI to the fake "board member" request. The fake doc does not seem like it could have been concocted without first having the set of real docs.
No, Peter Gleick, it seems nearly impossible to believe that first someone cooked up that "strategy" doc and then you just happened to obtain a whole bunch of docs that dovetailed so nicely with the details.
One has to "ask" the question whether or not PG is yet coming clean on the whole story. I seriously doubt it....
"I can't wait for Richard Black to apologise for, and retract, the awesomely dreadful piece he wrote about the faked document and emails stolen from the Heartland Institute. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991
He called it "Deniergate" whilst more savvy people called it "Fakegate"
Feb 21, 2012 at 8:01 AM | Phillip Bratby"
Don't hold your breath, Phillip.
Brendan
Tongue firmly in cheek and breathing normally.
Jeff Condon on Air-Vents site has this rather interesting observation to make:
Actually, Peter’s memo has a serious logic flaw.
“I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy”
“an” — A single document released.
“I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.”
Multiple documents released.
Yet what are the dates?
Feb 13 for the single fake document originally hypothesized to be Gleickian.
Jan 16 for the rest
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used ……
Innocent until proven guilty, but I sure would like to see this guy’s hard-drive.
"apologised on Monday for using a false name"
I'm not sure that's what he really needs to apologise for!
Still, if we knew what it was, perhaps HL could corroborate - or not.
Small time academic hires "a top Democratic operative and crisis manager, Chris Lehane". Who presumely charges a robust per diem, which Bill Clinton's electoral machine could afford OK but....... Where's the money coming from? Who's funding Gliecke? I think we should be told.
Arthur Dent:
Thanks for drawing our attention to that Joe Bast letter. He's correctly pointing out that everything Gleick wrote on his "confession" should be read very carefully: he's getting senior legal advice and everything he says will be crafted with a possible perjury action in mind. The key point - as explained by Bast - is that the statement only implies (or rather manipulates the reader into inferring) that he did not write the fake memo. In fact, this careful phrasing strongly suggests that he did write it: if he did not, why not say so boldly?
It's may also be relevant that the fake memo was dated 13 February and the others 16 January. Yet, at the beginning of his statement, Gleick says "At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document ..." From the perspective of 20 February, is 13 February the beginning? I don't think so.
Mosher gets to keep the skin of that zebra.
Tis sport to see those who have been so salaciously reading purloined IPCC letters into the pyublic record plead their own right to private correspondence.
Still, the public is ahead on points - before Gleick owned up to his imposture, they had only the documents leaked to him to go on. Now they have Heartland's sending as well. Put the two together and the picture that emerges is not a pretty one.
Neither side seems to qualify for Secretary Stimson's dictum about reading each other's mail
My impression is that there was a coordinated media campaign around this episode. That blew up in their faces big time.
PG was not working alone. He is taking the fall with the promise of big hitting support.
I would love to see some of the emails of the CAGW parties leading up to the disclosure.
@Russell whatever it is is you are on, I think you should reduce the quantities, or perhaps send me some...
extraordinary. gleick was my guess after california was said to be where the documents were sent from, but that was just a hunch on my part, knowing gleick's form. the CAGW "MSM" team is as untrustworthy as the CAGW "science" team.
gleick's "confession" is as mad as his CAGW "reporting". gotcha.
One document that we can be certain was not written by Gleick is his "confession". Not a bracket in sight.
I've emailed the BBC over their lack of coverage on this, I'm sure it'll fall on ho-ho ears. But the principle is there.
DeSmogBlog's response:
" For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause."
As for HI:
"Heartland, in the meantime, deserves to be stripped of its charitable status and laughed out of the professional "think tank" fraternity for its amateurishness and the far-less-than-credible position that it has taken in the last week, denying its own responsibility in this "leak," dissembling about the origin of the material and going out of its way to "fail" to authenticate documents that it knew all along were legitimate."
Amazing how different it seems from the alarmist side of the fence.
"Tis sport to see those who have been so salaciously reading purloined IPCC letters into the pyublic record plead their own right to private correspondence. "
There is no such thing as 'private IPCC correspondence', as the IPCC (as indicated by the "I" in the acronym) is very much a public concern.
The real kicker, of course, is the faking, not the theft.
Guardian headline:
How can they maintain the leak meme especially in that context!
Hypothetically, I suppose, the Guardian must also approve of headlines like - Murderer admits euthanasia on victim.
As I said before - special needs reporting - we should feel sorry for them.
Well that can only be a lie.
As I keep on saying Fakegate has the potential to be far more damaging than a PR disaster.
Gleick part confession is only part of the problem now facing cAGWists. They have been embarrassed by one of their own. He will probably serve time as a consequence, as he has committed a federal crime.
The meaning of "mail" in the above is ambiguous. It could mean either email or postal mail.
If it is email then the time stamps on the faked memo indicate that Gleick printed it out and then scanned in on the 13th. There is no reason whatsoever for Gleick to do this so that would strongly indicate that the document he is referring to is not the faked memo.
If it is postal mail then the documents went through the US postal system, sat on Gleick's desk for a couple of weeks or more, were handled by Gleick (multiple times) as he compared the contents with that of the other documents before finally being scanned on the 13th Feb. The scanned document is in pristine condition. No folds, no bends, no smudges. This indicates that the faked memo was not the one he received via the US Postal Service
With regard to the question raised about what kind of "journalists" are they?
"This new approach is endemic to online journalism because so many of its practitioners are nothing more than cottage-industry propagandists masquerading as serious journalists. They’re amateurs, so clueless they simply don’t know the rules and what’s more, they don’t give a damn about the rules either. They’re driven by their own sense of self-importance and soap-box arrogance."
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/fakegate-and-post-modern-journalism/
Gleick's admission will put him behind bars. However, that will change nothing for the rest who are still on the libel hook and they're still in the hole digging furiously.
Happy days.
Pointman
Silence at RealClimate. The joint conference at EMS and Fenton Communications must be dragging on. How will they spin this one? The DeSmog meme? Perhaps Nigerian e-mail scammers are just selfless activists trying to decrease global inequality.
Gleick: A Brief Lesson in the Integrity of Science: Climate Scientists Challenge Bad Science, No Matter the Source (January 19, 2011):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html
Climate deniers, who promulgate error after error (from misreporting satellite data, to misrepresenting historical temperature records, to misinterpreting paleoclimatic data, to much more) do not do the same - they simply deny the evidence (hence the term).
Having just been comparing the significant changes to the GCHN and GISS temperature datasets for a few stations in Iceland, Ireland, Scotland and Norway, it would appear that the only people misrepresenting historic temperature datasets are working for NOAA and GISS. Gleick is either delusional or does not have an honest bone in his body.
What is it about this crowd that makes them unable to understand that it is the cover-up that kills you, not the conspiracy?
They're still doing it. They'd been roundly exposed, yet still their PR people are making the same classic tired mistakes. Instead of cutting Peter Gleick loose and letting him drown, they are all proclaiming his innocence. It's insanity!
Even Peter Gleick himself is digging a deeper and deeper hole as he attempts to obfuscate about which documents he had. The chronologies don't seem to add up and his ever so carefully worded confessions only lead to more and more questions.
Considering these people are (by their own stylings) extraordinarily bright – they are saving the world after all — their behaviour is consistently stupid. Maybe the very expensive PR and legal advice being provided is being ignored.