Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

[TimG]

It appears that Gleick has realize that the police would have eventually track him down so he is trying to do damage control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

The blogosphere has already established that he is the most likely author of the fake memo base on writing style but since he is still denying it will likely take some court action on the part of Heartland to catch him in that particular obfuscation.

What is interesting is the spin:

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/peter-gleick-admits-leaked-heartland-institute-documents?newsfeed=true

Time magazine quite emphatetically disagrees with that claim:

(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.)

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

The ultimate irony is Gleick has styled himself as an 'expert' on ethics.

If the climate science establishment consisted of honest individuals dedicated to finding the truth then we would expect Gleick to lose his job and/or appointments (the standard that time magazine says would be applied to journalists that tried the same stunt).

However, that is not likely to happen since the climate science establishment is dominated with AGW zealots like Gleick and they will rationalize and justify and obfuscate in an attempt to sweep it under the rug. By doing so they will prove, one again, that climate science is a field of endeavor which is incapable of policing itself and that the general public cannot trust any claims that cannot be backed up with real experimental data.

Edited February 21, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

of course this would be a TimG thread, of course! TimG, who is FOIA? How is it the denialsphere places FOIA Hackergate's actions/extensions on the mantle of "free speech"... claims FOIA has done nothing wrong, nothing criminal, has/is simply bringing forward the "truth", no matter how that "truth" is stretched, taken out of context, manipulated or outright lied upon? Why, the denialsphere has pretty much beatified FOIA! No contradictions, no hypocrisy here, hey TimG?

as for your rush to judgement on the "fake" document, what was it you were saying earlier... about reserved, cautionary judgement... based on facts?

in any case, let's recap and emphasize the supposed, claimed Heartland deception... where it is said, Heartland claimed multiple documents were faked, manipulated, altered... of course, after Heartland refused to authenticate the documents in the first place. So, again, the claims of "fake" that you personally applied to multiple documents was an extension on that supposed/claimed deception. So, we're back to a single document, the strategy document as being claimed a fake. According to Gleick, that single strategy document was mailed to him... his own action extends from that, where he seeks confirmation from Heartland, culminating in Heartland delivering him all the (other) documents in question. Of course, as stated many times over, it is being said that key aspects of the so-called "fake" strategy document were born out through the contents of the other (now confirmed as legitimate) Heartland documents and/or via 3rd party personnel in carrying out aspects of said "fake" strategy. TimG, I expect you'll shortly quote the "forensic audit" of that champion denialist auditor, your hero, McIntyre... again, no hypocrisy there, hey?

of course, one of the best angles being pushed out there, surprisingly from within the denialsphere itself, is that Gleick was set-up and manipulated with that original "fake" strategy document. The ongoing and lengthy contentious relationship between Gleick and Heartland is a statement of fact. Clearly, the "fake" document would have been 'red meat' to Gleick... and according to Gleick his subsequent action was an attempt to corroborate the content of that claimed "fake" strategy document.

so where's the Heartland beef? Oh right, apparently all is not well in funding land... apparently, shyte has hit fan! It is one thing for individuals to anonymously fund the Heartland position/strategy; it is certainly another thing to have that funding become a known quantity. The most significant shoe-dropping result is said to be coming forward today, where the New York Times, supposedly, will be running a story that identifies the mystery "Mr. Anonymous" - the single funder who is said to have contributed $14 million dollars to Heartland's pursuit against science/climate science/climate scientists.

[waldo]

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.

In the Huffington Post tonight, Gleick reported that he had received the controversial Climate Strategy document from an anonymous source earlier this year and said that he attempted to confirm whether the contents were true. Gleick went on:

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.

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.

[emphasis added]

So, while admitting that he impersonated a third party in order to induce Heartland to confirm its own ongoing questionable conduct, Gleick has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights, proving that the Institute has dissembled and lied.

Whistleblowers - and that's the role Gleick has played in this instance - deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it's fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk - and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

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.

[TimG]

I noticed that you made no comment on the time magazine writer who said that such deceptions would be a firing offence if committed by a journalist in pursuit of a story.

You also try to spin it as a "leak" when we know it was an illegal spear phishing attack.

Thanks you proving, once again, that you have absolutely no ethics when it comes to pushing your AGW religion.

Edited February 21, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

You also try to spin it as a "leak" when we know it was an illegal spear phishing attack.

Thanks you proving, once again, that you have absolutely no ethics when it comes to pushing your AGW religion.

so, apparently... you have concerns over obtaining information under false pretense. Oh wait; I believe we have a disconnect here! I must have missed your strong ethical position/statements over Hackergate... you know, where you reveled in the denialist campaign, where you made it your personal mission to flog the most dishonest, anal-line-by-line hacked email parsing of out of context, misinterpreted, falsely interpreted and outright lies. Ethics? You're pronouncing on ethics! Certainly, your pronouncement is a most self-serving, selectively applied one, hey?

Gleick came forward... and will take his lumps. Who is Hackergate's FOIA? Where do we see/find FOIA taking a like responsibility - showing accountability for 'his' actions? Hypocrisy, thy name is TimG!

[sharkman]

I noticed that you made no comment on the time magazine writer who said that such deceptions would be a firing offence if committed by a journalist in pursuit of a story.

You also try to spin it as a "leak" when we know it was an illegal spear phishing attack.

Thanks you proving, once again, that you have absolutely no ethics when it comes to pushing your AGW religion.

Good find, Tim. So this is what the bitter tree clinging enviro activists have resorted to. The truth doesn't matter to them all they want is to bring down their opponents by any means possible. A disgusting display that proves once and for all that enviromentalism has become a religious cult.

[GostHacked]

Good find, Tim. So this is what the bitter tree clinging enviro activists have resorted to. The truth doesn't matter to them all they want is to bring down their opponents by any means possible. A disgusting display that proves once and for all that enviromentalism has become a religious cult.

I have a co-worker who believes the AGW bit. SO I asked him if he knew how long weather modification/manipulation programs have been in place... I got a stunned look.

[TimG]

Good find, Tim. So this is what the bitter tree clinging enviro activists have resorted to. The truth doesn't matter to them all they want is to bring down their opponents by any means possible. A disgusting display that proves once and for all that enviromentalism has become a religious cult.

Megan McArdle claims to support CO2 mitigation policies but has no kind words for Gleicks defenders:

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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

Waldo and his ilk just don't get it. They don't understand that credibility is more important than facts and once you lose credibility then people will stop listening. The trouble for alarmists is if the actually tell the truth about the unknowns they cannot justify the crazy economic policies they demand.

On a good front Gleick has lost his appointments to a couple scientific boards (including the AGU ethnics committee). So the scientific community is showing some signs of growing a spine.

At the same time there is appears Gleick is getting high priced lawyers donated to him and they are going to use the coming lawsuits as an excuse to phish for more documents in a dishonest effort to pretend the fake document written by Gleick was actually real.

Edited February 22, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

So this is what the bitter tree clinging enviro activists have resorted to.

watch it... your agenda is showing!

The truth doesn't matter to them all they want is to bring down their opponents by any means possible. A disgusting display that proves once and for all that enviromentalism has become a religious cult.

truth? What truth are you speaking of/to? The truth born out by the hundreds of pages of Heartland documents Gleick exposed? That truth? Such an inconvenient truth for your agenda, hey? Or are you speaking of the so-called "fake" 2 page strategy document... where all the key, principal aspects have been confirmed by the other Heartland documents or via 3rd party corroboration of those persons engaged in actually deploying the Heartland strategy? That truth?

[waldo]

I have a co-worker who believes the AGW bit. SO I asked him if he knew how long weather modification/manipulation programs have been in place... I got a stunned look.

I expect he was initially stunned by your conflation of weather and climate; if you actually attempted to explain your conflation to him/her, I expect your co-worker went from stunned to dumbfounded.

[waldo]

Waldo and his ilk just don't get it. They don't understand that credibility is more important than facts and once you lose credibility then people will stop listening.

no thinking, knowledgeable persons care that, as you say, you and your ilk, are passing judgement on credibility... as you say, you and your ilk, have no credibility to allow you to legitimately pronounce judgement on anyone/anything. I note you continue to bypass/ignore any and all comparisons to Hackergate - you know, that denialist party-hearty event where, as you say, you and your ilk, doubled-down on, as you say, you and your ilk's lack of credibility, where you ratcheted up, as you say, you and your ilk's hypocrisy meter!

The trouble for alarmists is if the actually tell the truth about the unknowns they cannot justify the crazy economic policies they demand.

more of your hand-waving rhetoric, hey? Truth? You mean fake skeptics truth or real truth?

At the same time there is appears Gleick is getting high priced lawyers donated to him and they are going to use the coming lawsuits as an excuse to phish for more documents in a dishonest effort to pretend the fake document written by Gleick was actually real.

yes, no rush to judgement here, hey? In any case, not only are you pumping the fake outrage, apparently, as you say, you and your ilk, would deny due process of law.

[sharkman]

I have a co-worker who believes the AGW bit. SO I asked him if he knew how long weather modification/manipulation programs have been in place... I got a stunned look.

And that is I think the issue with most followers of GW. It's a shallow belief that is mostly formed by way of following the MSM propaganda. They know they believe in GW, but they have no idea why.

[waldo]

I have a co-worker who believes the AGW bit. SO I asked him if he knew how long weather modification/manipulation programs have been in place... I got a stunned look.

And that is I think the issue with most followers of GW. It's a shallow belief that is mostly formed by way of following the MSM propaganda. They know they believe in GW, but they have no idea why.

is there... more? Do you have... more? Would you care to not only make sense of GostHacked original statements, vis-a-vis weather-climate conflation, but also your follow-up presuming to reinforce same? Notwithstanding, of course, GostHacked's most broad-based, generalized and unsubstantiated reference to said weather mod/man programs...

[GostHacked]

I expect he was initially stunned by your conflation of weather and climate; if you actually attempted to explain your conflation to him/her, I expect your co-worker went from stunned to dumbfounded.

You don't think all these weather modification programs are eventually going to have an impact on climate? I mean if I can make it rain here, I am taking it away from somewhere else. If I continue to do that, I can alter climates. There is a nice little document from the US military called Owning the Weather in 2025.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

Paper was released in 1996. Weather modification programs have existed since the 1940's. The USA has always been heavily invested in it, as was the former Soviet Union. I've been having problems locating good informaiton on Russia or China's programs. But the one large book from the US Congressional Research Comitte was put out in 1979 (reprinted in 2005 I think). Detailing the extensive programs and how far back it's been attempted.

Back in the 1850's in the US, they tried setting large tracts of forest on fire. Hoping to heat up the air around it, to condense and produce rain down wind. They were not successful, but it shows how long it has actually been taking place. Once one reads into all this, they will quickly come to the conclusion that the AGW crowd are nothing but kooks and fearmongers (not to mention pure scam and con artists to scam and con you out of your money)

In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies and

focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war

fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact

operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this

paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military

objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.

A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the

atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as

weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our

own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of

natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control,

weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an

adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting

commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1.

Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification

capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information

gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some

intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... I've been having problems locating good informaiton on Russia or China's programs.

Really? I wonder why.

[waldo]

You don't think all these weather modification programs are eventually going to have an impact on climate?

hence, your described co-workers stunned expression! You don't accept climate impact/change/effect today... what are waiting for? Oh, right... a pronouncement that short-term, localized, regional weather will... eventually... have a global climate impact reach! Given your penchant for conspiracy themes (see contrails), I expect you will extend upon this weather man/mod theme towards suggesting covert geo-enginering pursuits - yes?

[waldo]

per Heartland's historical display of fake outrage in regards Gleick's whistle-blowing, Heartland council wigged out and sent letter's to media/blog outlets demanding removal of Heartland documents and/or references to same. Following is one of the formal reply's to the Heartland counsel... beauty!

Ms. Maureen Martin

General Counsel

The Heartland Institute

Dear Ms. Martin:

I am General Counsel of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (“CAP Action”). This letter responds to your February 19 message regarding our reporters’ coverage of documents related to the Heartland Institute. Please be assured that CAP Action takes the accuracy of its reporting seriously.

Your letter asserts that the document entitled “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” is “fabricated and false.” CAP Action has no interest in attributing a fabricated document to Heartland. Given the seriousness of this charge, and the fact that this document’s “tone and content closely matched that of other documents that [Heartland] did not dispute,”1 we ask your assistance in verifying that the document is in fact “fabricated” rather than, for example, a draft of which you were not immediately aware. Please let me know the efforts that Heartland undertook to ensure that the document “was not written by anyone associated with Heartland,” as well as the “obvious and gross misstatements of fact” it contains. We have removed this document from the website while awaiting your response.

Your letter also notes that “Heartland has not authenticated” the remaining documents in the week since they were made public. To my knowledge, Heartland has never claimed that these documents were fabricated, and your February 15 admission that they were sent by a Heartland staff person to “an unknown person” posing as a Heartland board member suggests they are genuine. So does Heartland’s February 15 apology to the donors identified in the documents. Subsequently, the newly-admitted source has indicated that he received these documents directly from Heartland and has not altered them. Nevertheless, we await the outcome of your continued efforts to “authenticate” these documents.

Finally, your letter suggests that publication or even discussion of the Heartland documents “is improper and unlawful” because Heartland deems them “confidential.” The Supreme Court has flatly rejected this notion, repeatedly declaring that the First Amendment protects the right to publish information obtained lawfully – even if underlying sources act improperly, erroneously, or in violation of the law. See, e.g., Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 535 (2001). As CAP Action has reported, our bloggers received the documents via an anonymous email. Our reporters did nothing to purloin any documents, they did not encourage anyone else to do so, and they did not know the sender’s identity until many days later, on February 20, when the Huffington Post article titled: “The Origin of the Heartland Documents” was published. Faced with a substantially similar set of relevant facts in Bartnicki, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited recovery of damages for dissemination of an illegally-made recording that was left in a defendant’s mailbox because “a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.” Id.; see also Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (applying Bartnicki). The same is true here, although we note that CAP Action takes no position as to whether the documents were lawfully obtained by the source.

CAP Action has taken extraordinary steps to ensure that Heartland’s perspective on these documents is included in our coverage. As your letter notes, CAP Action immediately and conspicuously linked to Heartland’s February 15 press release regarding the documents and has subsequently noted Heartland’s assertions in other blog posts in order to ensure that your position on these documents was reported fully and fairly. If you would like to provide us with additional information, including answers to the questions above, we will certainly consider it.

This is not a full recitation of the relevant facts and CAP Action reserves all its rights, remedies and defenses concerning these issues.

Sincerely,

Debbie Fine

General Counsel

1 Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman, Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science, N.Y. Times, February 16, 2012, at A23.

[GostHacked]

Really? I wonder why.

Language barrier possibly? I don't read Russian or Manderin or Cantonese.

[GostHacked]

hence, your described co-workers stunned expression!

No, his stunned look indicated he had no idea what weather modification is. The same look I get from many who have been brainwashed into this AGW crap with CO2.

You don't accept climate impact/change/effect today... what are waiting for?

I do believe we have a deliberate impact on weather, because of extensive manipulation that has taken place. I just don't buy the CO2 boogieman scenario being the sole or main cause of it all. So you are right, man is having an effect on climate change through weather modification because THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT. CO2 is a distraction.

That one company weathermodification.com has been cloud seeding commercially for over 50 years now.

Oh, right... a pronouncement that short-term, localized, regional weather will... eventually... have a global climate impact reach! Given your penchant for conspiracy themes (see contrails), I expect you will extend upon this weather man/mod theme towards suggesting covert geo-enginering pursuits - yes?

Be careful here waldo, because you are mocking me, but at the same time you should realize that is exactly how the AGW crowd is mocked. Some CO2 here and there eventually having this huge impact you are trying to put forth.

IN the last year I have a pretty good understanding of how long and extensively this has been going on. It's been going on much longer than Al Gore even thought or heard of global warming.

Project Stormfury is a good one to look up.

Edited February 22, 2012 by GostHacked

[waldo]

No, his stunned look indicated he had no idea what weather modification is. The same look I get from many who have been brainwashed into this AGW crap with CO2.

you prefaced your statement on a reference you provided... your described co-workers acceptance of the theory of AGW... which obviously doesn't presuppose on your pet short-term, local/regional weather mod/man conflations with extended timeline global climate.

I have no interest in you continuing to derail this thread with another of your distractions. Why don't you actually start up a thread and attempt to substantiate your claims of weather mod/man as the alternate causal link to GW/CC... the causal link other than anthropogenic sourced CO2. Why don't you actually step-up and showcase the "real skepticism" you recently so adamantly stated you have. Easy to say - much, much more difficult for you to carry through on, hey?

[lukin]

The alarmists are desperate and greasy.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/environment-researcher-admits-leaking-climate-docs-claims-theyre-genuine.ars?clicked=related_right

[sharkman]

Yes they are, and it's sad that it boils down to a media relations war.

[waldo]

Yes they are, and it's sad that it boils down to a media relations war.

buddies, save your fake outrage... oh, by the way, any like comments on the Hackergate denier-fest - any outrage there guys? Heartland Institute is nothing more than a denier front, one fully ensconced in media relations... that is it's lifeblood!

A peek into the climate denier industry:

The curtain has been drawn back on the professional denier industry, and its media enablers are frantically crying “there is nothing to see here.” Leaked documents from the Chicago-based Heartland Institute expose the efforts of the conservative “research organization” to sow doubt about climate change. The documents also reveal information about donors — including a mysterious unnamed individual who provided more than $14-million dollars to Heartland. The information was obtained by an environmentalist posing as someone else online, which has prompted laughable squawks about ethics from the very denier crowd that fed like zombies on the hacked “Climategate” emails of 2009.

In fact, the advancement of junk science is at the very core of the Heartland Institute’s mission. The centerpiece of this craven effort is an annual denier-palooza event that gathers together some of the world’s greatest cranks to chortle over non-peer reviewed papers, false premises and debunked theories. Heartland is a slightly more sophisticated iteration of Canada’s Friends of Science, a pro-oil shill group that pays the hapless pretend climatologist Tim Ball to peddle a travelling anti-climate-change road show to naive right-wing radio shows and senior citizens’ homes.

But there’s nothing new in the denier industry. Its methods were laid bare in the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. The authors meticulously exposed the web of partisan think tanks and their various guns for hire who have worked for years to muddy the waters on important scientific debates.

[lukin]

buddies, save your fake outrage... oh, by the way, any like comments on the Hackergate denier-fest - any outrage there guys? Heartland Institute is nothing more than a denier front, one fully ensconced in media relations... that is it's lifeblood!

A peek into the climate denier industry:

I read your link, waldo. I thought you didn't give any credibility to anything mentioned within the pages of The National Post. What gives??

John Moore? Come now.....quoting John Moore's alarmist propaganda is laughable. His ship, much like your own, is sinking. The gig is up, waldo.

Edited February 23, 2012 by lukin

[waldo]

interesting lil' tidbit as the analysis on Heartland funding begins...

an 'Indur Golanky' has been a favoured fake skeptic's reference of both MLW members Riverwind & TimG in the past. Of course, Golanky is in thick with right-wing climate change denying stink-tanks/organizations, the likes of the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc., ... and the Heartland Institute. Of course, as a U.S. Federal employee, Golanky is, "

prohibited from accepting payments from outside groups for teaching, speaking and writing that relates to official duties

". And, as the Heartland documents are stated to show intended monthly payments to Golanky, in that apparent breech of said prohibition, U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, has called for Congress to investigate the apparent payments to Goklany in a letter to Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and Democrat Rep. Ed Markey, the ranking member of the committee.

MLW member lukin note: don't hesitate to comment on this post, hey?