SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9873)2/20/2012 2:15:12 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 85487
 
We'll see.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9873)2/21/2012 8:15:17 AM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487
 
Fingers have been pointed at Peter Gleick as the Fakegate forger, now he admits he's the source, but he claims he merely leaked a stolen document:

Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst, says he was blinded by his frustrations with ongoing attacks on climate science

guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 February 2012 23.06 EST

A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week's sensational expose.

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.

"My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and co-ordinated – to attack climate science," Gleick wrote in a piece for Huffington Post.

The admission – nearly a week after Heartland's financial plans and donors' list was put online – looked set to further inflame the climate wars, in which a network of fossil fuel interests, rightwing think tanks and politicians have been working to block action on climate change.

In a sign of combat to come, Gleick has taken on a top Democratic operative and crisis manager, Chris Lehane. Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House is credited for exposing the rightwing forces arrayed against the Democratic president. He was Al Gore's press secretary during his 2000 run for the White House.

[ LOL, he's brought in Clinton's bimbo eruption handler:

Christopher Stephen Lehane
(born June 2, 1967) is an American political consultant and crisis communications expert who has served as a lawyer, spokesperson and expert in opposition research for the Clinton White House, Democratic candidates for public office and various business, Labor, entertainment and professional sports organizations. [1] A graduate of Amherst College and Harvard Law School, he was a lawyer and spokesperson in the Clinton White House where he and his current business partner Mark Fabiani were called the "Masters of Disaster" by Newsweek magazine for their part in a "rapid-response" team employed by to respond to the increasing number of investigations of the Clinton Administration. ]

As one environmental campaigner said: "Now it's gone nuclear."

Heartland's president Joseph Bast said the unauthorised release of confidential documents – and a two-page memo it has condemned as a fake – had caused permanent damage to its reputation.

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage," he said in a statement.

Bast also disputed Gleick's account that he had received the first document – the faked two-page memo – from an anonymous source.

He said Heartland was consulting legal experts.

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.

[ Note that Gleick isn't claiming he got the fake document from Heartland or that it's genuine. This is gonna be another fake but accurate claim like in Rathergate. ]

"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.

"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. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues."

Gleick's admission was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate between scientists, campaigners, businesses and politicians who want action on climate change and a small but well-funded group of those who deny the existence of man-made climate change.

Some were dismayed the revelations. Others suggested that Heartland had got what it deserved – given its support for efforts to discredit science.

"Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years," wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. "They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to ;'teach the controversy' where none exists."

He went on: "Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him."

Gleick, a well regarded water scientist, has been an important figure in the increasingly heated climate wars, and has sparred often in print against Heartland and others who deny the existence of climate change, such as the Republican Senator Jim Inhofe.

Last month, Gleick signed on with a new initiative to defend the teaching of climate change.

He offered that bruising experience on Monday as an explanation for his actions.

But Gleick does not appear to have experienced immediate remorse. He did not move to claim the ruse until there was already feverish online speculation about his involvement. He responded to a request by The Guardian for comment last Wednesday by saying he did not wish to comment.

Those actions may have undercut an entire career, the journalist Andrew Revkin wrote.

"Gleick's use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others," he wrote.

[ Uh oh, the NYT climate journalist isn't going to defend him. ]

"The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the "rational public debate" that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed."

Kert Davies, the research director of Greenpeace USA, said it would be unfortunate if the row over Gleick and his methods to obtain the documents distracted from Heartland's work to block climate action.

"There are a lot of people involved with Heartland's multimillion dollar climate denial machine who want to change the subject to anything else."

guardian.co.uk



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9873)2/21/2012 12:06:47 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
Fakegate's Gleick crashing and burning fast:


Steve McIntyre


Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Reply
Hmmm, Gleick now says that he got an “anonymous document in the mail” (i.e. the fake memo) “at the beginning of 2012? and afterwards dishonestly obtained documents from heartland:

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. 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.

Still doesn’t make sense, though the admissions to date are devastating to him.

.....
.

Sonicfrog


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:53 AM | Permalink | Reply
This is really damning for Gleick.

The fake doc has the date written as January 2012, but the scan of the document is February 13. The documents were leaked barely a full day later, on the 15th. Yet Gleick says:

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….

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.


the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy“That is the fake memo, yes? If so, is Gleick saying he scanned the doc or is he claiming he got the scanned doc from the source? If it’s the former, why did he scan it? If it’s the latter, that isn’t very much time to verify anything. If the scanned memo is what he claims to be his original anonymous document, me thinks he’s gotten himself into deep deep manure.

..... Simon Hopkinson


Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Reply
It seems obvious that the faked document was authored using elements of the other documents to feign authenticity – specifically these documents, I’d suggest, and not including other unseen documents. I find it hard to believe that the author of the faked document did not have access to the very same, and only the same, cache of documents which Gleick obtained. On balance, when also considering the stylistic elements of the faked document, I find it impossible to reconcile Gleick’s account with the evidence at hand. I rather feel that Gleick has inadvertently confirmed that he authored the fake document.

.....
theduke


Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Reply
A lot of lawyering went into Gleick’s statement.

I’m guessing the original document he received in the mail has already been destroyed.


Copner
Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Permalink | Reply
That would be really dumb.

If the document exists, he is under obligation to keep it, because it would be discoverable in a lawsuit, and he should have been under reasonable apprehension of a suit for some days.

If he had the document & destroyed it, the court might interpret that as destruction of evidence, and for the purpose of the lawsuit refuse to allow him to make claims that the document existed.

(IANAL but I read John Grisham)


Steve McIntyre
Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Reply
It would be a very big mistake for Gleick to have destroyed the original document. The Sarah Palin hacker was convicted of an obstruction of justice felony for destroying computer files that would be evidence in the hacking case (where the hack itself was only a misdemeanor.)

..... [ Boy, I'm hoping the Gleick investigation goes criminal. ]
.....
Pat Frank


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Reply
I can’t say you’re wrong, td. My judgment was based on the awkward and non-professional phraseology of the “Confidential Memo.” I still think it’s awkward and non-professional, and I’m still hard-pressed to think someone as well-educated as Peter Gleick could have written it.

But I note that PG phrased his revelation this way, “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. (my bold)”

That’s an ambiguous description. He didn’t name the CM by its official title, Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy. That leaves open the possibility that he received a different anonymous document, with the “Confidential Memo” opportunistically created later. Clearly, this will have to be clarified.

And as to me being hard-pressed into belief, I’ve been nothing but totally blindsided by the AGW circus clowns who used to be sober-sided scientists. I’d never have thought that could have happened, without having seen it myself. A total surprise; now matured to mere amazement, more’s the pity.

.....
JJ


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 2:56 AM | Permalink | Reply
Pat,

“… I’m still hard-pressed to think someone as well-educated as Peter Gleick could have written it.”

Keep in mind that if Gleick wrote it, Gleick wouldn’t write it as Gleick. Gleick would write it as Gleick’s internal concept of what a mouth breathing conservative scum sucking sceptic would write. That is clearly how he sees the people he was attempting to screw with. His opinion of them is very low. This is consistent with the tone of the document, which paints its alleged author and Gleick’s professional adversaries with derogatory verbage, but refers to Gleick himself with near honorific terms.

He would also have had problems faking a more professional looking document. Having been provided PDFs, he wouldn’t have Heartland letterhead. Perhaps cognizant of the legal danger inherent in further acts of identity theft, he wouldn’t make it an authored memo. And he would have wanted to do the print and scan routine, to scrub the doc of metadata of which he has perhaps an incomplete understanding.

Taken together, an obvious course of action is to make what appears to be a roughly written draft.

At this point the best confirmation that he wrote it is the fact that he hasn’t denied writing it, despite the fact that his greatest legal exposure lies with that act.

.....
Dave L.


Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 9:52 PM | Permalink | Reply
The red flags remain — the fake document was written in the first person, was unsigned, was not day-dated, and was not written on paper with a HI heading — there is nothing on the fake memo to indicate origin or a specific date.

There are three aspects of deception involved: 1) The deception to cast Heartland in an unfavorable light (the contents of the memo); 2) The deception to hide the authenticity of the fake memo; and 3) The deception to obtain authentic Heartland documents.

Now we are to believe that the confession is free of deception? Once a person has been found to be untrustworthy, can he/she ever be trusted again? (Please do not confuse this with forgiveness.)


Don B
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Reply
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Once a witness has shown to be untruthful about one thing, none of his testimony should be believed.

....
the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate before Watergate.


Ross McKitrick
Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Reply
Mr Gleick:

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so.

Nice cop-out. Having spread false and inflammatory material, it is the coward’s way out now to retreat into silence. You should be out there trying to repair the damage you have done by pointing out that the documents you obtained offer no support for the claims that Heartland is being paid by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the IPCC or dissuade teachers from teaching science, and that the only disinformation campaign going on here is the one you launched.

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.

To which end you distributed fraudulent and stolen material in order to provoke derision and hostility against people you disagree with. Spare us the high-minded lectures about the need for rational debate.

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

Stop trying to mitigate your own guilt by making scattergun accusations of actions you imagine, without evidence, others to be engaged in, when the reality is, you are the one doing these things. You were the one who engaged in an anonymous and coordinated campaign to attack other scientists and destroy the atmosphere of debate, and yours were the actions lacking transparency. You only deepen your disgrace by trying to hide behind even more innuendo and slander.

Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

At last, the beginnings of an apology. It might be more persuasive were it not preceded by so many self-serving excuses, and if it were accompanied by efforts to rectify the distortions you have spread. But, no doubt, in due course you will have the opportunity to make more tangible amends.

.... wws


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Reply
Steve McIntyre asked: “why did Gleick confess? and why now?”

John Silver’s “limited hangout” is a very good general answer. More specifically, I think it is quite easy to analyze what happened. First, Gleick’s confession has clearly been heavily influenced and edited by legal counsel. When someone uses an email address to obtain documents, it’s actually fairly easy for someone with serious IT skills to track it down, especially when there are serious legal implications. Gleick apparently knows nothing about IT, and it seems a fair guess to say his electronic fingerprints were all over this, Heartland had already found out, and along with their legal demand notice to those who printed the faked documents today they must have let Gleick know that they were beginning legal action specifically aimed at him.

Gleick was worried enough to confer with legal counsel, and said counsel said “Boy, you inna heap’ a trouble!” So this is an attempt to defer civil and/or criminal liability for his actions, AFTER he realized that they had the goods on him.

Of course there’s a problem with his claim that he was sent the fake memo BEFORE he lied to get the other documents, and this mistake may leave him in even bigger legal trouble than before.

IF he got the fake memo BEFORE he got any of the other documents, how come all the internal metadata shows that the fake memo is dated well AFTER all of the other documents, and in fact appears to have been created on the same day that it was released? I think a court (whether it’s civil or criminal) is going to want to see the provenance of the document that Gleick claims he got before all the rest.

Because a cynical man might just suspect that Gleick is still lying, even in his “confession”, and that he wrote that fake document himself AFTER he got all of the other documents and found they wouldn’t suit his purpose. You, know that would explain how some of those other documents are quoted word for word in the fake document that Gleick now claims was written BEFORE any of the others were written.

I suspect that the hole Gleick is in is going to continue to get deeper and deeper.


ZT
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Reply
Perhaps the HI tracked Peter down via email addresses and ISPs and somehow alerted him to their suspicion. Then perhaps a quick confession was thought to be a way of obscuring at least the source of the faked document, which now appears to be another shoe waiting to drop.

On a related topic – I wonder if Gavin and co (x7) will issue another letter of empathetic understanding (or will fewer people be willing to write an ‘open’ letter this time?)


LC
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 4:49 AM | Permalink | Reply
It seems Gleick, or someone on his behalf, has already retained the services of criminal attorney John Keker. Could it be that he has already been contacted by one or more of the law enforcement agencies? And it was that contact that stimulated the act of confession?


John Silver
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 5:49 AM | Permalink | Reply
Yes, or Heartland contacted him directly and made it clear that the game was up.


jim
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Reply
Maybe to limit the wrap, going for something smaller than he actually did. The real trouble for Gleick is the forgery. Yes he obtained the documents but feels vindicated saying to his fans, those documents are genuine. But the crime that comes with he most time and loss of face is the forgery. If he wrote the fake memo no lawyer would ever allow him to confess to that. A first move defensive strategy IMO, but one ill judged by his counsel, as the combined effort of great minds on the internet are much smarter at getting to the truth than any legal mind.

....
BarryW


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Reply
He suffers from a new mental illness: Climate Activist Derangement Syndrome (CADS).


Fred
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Reply
Agreed . . . lots of weasel words and side-speak.

Obviously he has lawyered up and is having his new truth produced by specialists.

Such an ethical man. Maybe they can create a special award for ethical behavior and give it to him at the next AGU meeting.


....
Willis Eschenbach


Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Reply
Dude
Posted Feb 20, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Jeff Norman

My thoughts exactly. We should hope for his saftey and well being. I disagree with the man but that does not mean we don’t wish him well.

Man, is everyone Canadian here?

I hope for his safety and well-being, but I certainly don’t wish him well. He is a sneak, a phisher, and a liar. Why should I wish him well? I wish for him what I wish for everyone, which is that he get exactly what he deserves. In this case, that means that he pay the full and complete price for his underhanded actions.

w.
......
Steve McIntyre


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Reply
As a rebuttal to Scott Mandia of the Climate Rapid Response team, Time magazine commented:

And just so we’re clear, this is deception—no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/20/climate-expert-peter-gleick-admits-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-institute-papers/#ixzz1mzRvpJvE


.....
Phil


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 1:39 AM | Permalink | Reply
Roger Pielke Jr. commented on Friday that he had specifically asked Gleick whether he was “responsible.” Gleick responded today. It is not too far-fetched to assume that Gleick must have spent the weekend trying to figure out how to respond to the direct question. Silence would be damning.


hunter
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 12:54 AM | Permalink | Reply
Until now, I had not considered ever joining in with any of the think tanks as a subscriber.
After this assault by Gleick and who knows who else on Heartland Institute, I am going to join as a matter of principal.
What Gleick did, who was apparently at the least encouraged in this by others if not actively helped, was an assault on freedom of speech. he sought to lie, cheat and forge a way to damage Heartland because they disagree with him on climate science.
All of us who are skeptics are potential targets of this sort of anti-freedom action. Our jobs, our privacy, and possibly other areas of our lives could be assaulted by some unethical fanatic
if we do not stand up against this sort of assault.
Even if we disagree with Heartland’s political ideas (which I largely do), we should find ways to stand with Heartland’s rights to be in the public square and to disseminate their ideas freely.
Gleick and his sort must be stood up to now, or we will find no one to stand with us when they get around to us later.

..... George H


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Reply
If he didn’t author the fake document, why wouldn’t he have highlighted this in his “admission”?

If it were me, I’d distance myself from that fake document as clearly and loudly as I could. Admitting to phishing while not denying the bigger issue (faking a document to taint the reputation of individuals and an organization)? Seems like a lost opportunity. The words seem carefully parsed for a reason. The statement appears to be wreitten to avoid any (provable) lies – hence a denial of writing the fake document would be out, if that’s indeed what he did.

Why no clear denial of the fake?

.....

Speed
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

1. Why was the fake memo sent to Gleick?
2. Why was the fake memo sent only to Gleick?
3. Was the fake memo sent only to Gleick?
4. If the fake memo was sent to people other than Gleick, why haven’t they published it?
5. After receiving the fake memo and before publishing it, did Gleick discuss it with anyone else?
6. If Gleick discussed the fake memo with anyone else before publishing it, what was their response?
7. Is it logical that upon receiving the fake memo, Gleick didn’t discuss it with anyone else?
Keith DeHavelle
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s intriguing, what Gleick’s note would show:
    That he got this, and opted to go
    For identity fraud
    That seems rather odd
    To “confirm” what the doc seemed to show


    Now this “they made me do it” distress
    Which has led Gleick to partly confess
    (Though it may be a punt)
    Is because of the stunt
    He then pulled having been a success

    And presumably, only PG
    Had received it anonymously
    Whereas he thought it keen
    To send to sixteen
    With perhaps some self-satisfied glee

    So what are the chances that one
    Sent to Gleick this so-called “smoking gun”
    And then waited for weeks
    For results that he seeks
    Sending just one piece out, and was done?


    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

.....
Kozlowski


Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Reply
Gleick says he got the document in the mail. He supposes that someone anonymously mailed it to him because he was named in the document.

Unless there is yet *another* document out there, which Gleick chose to keep back from his document release, then he can only be talking about one and the same document, the faked 2012 Confidential Strategy document.

But if he had this document first, as he claims, it is damning enough as written. As anyone can see by reading the alarmist blogs the phraseology was seized upon immediately as “confirming our worst suspicions.”

So why would he not just release the document to his buddies or write about it himself? No crime had been committed at that point.

None of what he says makes sense. The reasons that Mosher and others picked up on Peter Gleick as the author were the style it was written in, the fact that it mentioned Gleick by name, Forbes and how it plays up Heartland, Forbes, Gleick, his competing blogger at Forbes – who are all bit players.


I suspect we will soon have solid evidence that Gleick did indeed write the memo. The man is a fool when it comes to his global warming science and he is a fool when it comes to IT. Printed documents can be traced forensically to individual printers in half a dozen ways. He might have gotten some legal advice to plot a strategy but no one around him is very technical.
.....
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Reply
  1. I’m still struggling to see how he thought this was going to play out:
    - Go on a phishing expedition to illegally obtain internal HI documents
    - Send the documents (including a faked one) to various blogs
    - Sit back and enjoy the spectacle as the internet and MSM publish the documents and crucify HI
    - Assume the role of anonymous climate ‘deepthroat’, sitting in the shadows never to be identified (but maybe become an unsung hero)
  2. The naivete here is astounding.
    At no point does he appear to have sought advice on the technical or legal implications
    , or even brainstormed with some of his colleagues on how to proceed, as surely someone would have quickly pointed out the massive issues with the approach he took.

Hu McCulloch


  1. Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Reply
  2. At this writing, the AGU’s webpage on their Task Force on Scientific Ethics does not list a chair, and does not even list Gleick as a member.
  3. http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml
  4. Has he already been removed? Or was the report that he was its chair in error?



  1. Paul Matthews

Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Reply
Hu, check the google cached version. The AGU moved fast.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jSz6nZR3QVwJ:www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml


Hu McCulloch
Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Reply
Thanks, Paul! So Gleick is now the Newly Defrocked Chair of the AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics.

Does the NAS still count him as one of their distinguished members?
.....

climateaudit.org