Guilty: Gleick admits to Heartland deception

He did it for the planet. The Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick has admitted to using deception to obtain the Heartland Institute documents involved in “Deniergate.”

Below is Gleick’s confession, as posted on Huffington Post.

###

The Origin of the Heartland Documents
By Peter Gleick,
February 20, 2012, Huffington Post

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

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.

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. 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.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. 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. 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. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

15 thoughts on “Guilty: Gleick admits to Heartland deception”

  1. He couldn’t possibly have had a lapse in ethics, since as an AGW “True believer” he can’t possibly have any ethics.

  2. Now he can either rat out his AGW cohorts or go to jail. Settle that science you thieving scumbags.

  3. The only folks attempting to squelch debate are those who are making their living off the teats of the taxpayers. The attacks against those scientists not part of the phony “consensus” are legion. If Mr. Gleick is sincere in his apology, let him resign his position in the disgrace he has brought upon himself. Really Peter, what would your mother think?

  4. Has anyone gotten Gore to debate his position? No. He has declared, in his infinite wisdom and scientific prowess, that there is no debate. I guess debate is really not the alarmist’s approach to anything.

  5. It is very apparent that the only “real” science being done as pertains to climate change is the science that seems to prove the change is man caused and will be destructive. Any other “science” is simple voodoo perpetrated by flat earthers and oil whores. Sorry folks, the consensus is dwindling and the whiners are becoming more desperate and raucous. This dude calls for “rational public debate” when it is so obvious this is the last thing he wants. “Rational” in his eyes being agreement with his position. Reminiscent of the liberal attitude toward bipartisanship: you agree with me and we’ll call it bipartisan.

  6. Hopefully the Heartland Institute will not let him off the hook. He has damaged their reputation beyond belief and destroyed the career of the employee who sent off the information. Gleick is reckless, an admitted deceiver, and a person who has demonstrated he has little, if any integrity.

  7. Jerry nailed it: Agree with me or you’re an anti-science nutter/whore/racist.

    I’m so tired of reading that Heartland was “anti-science” and trying to “undermine science.” Science is very much in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

  8. Receiving stolen property.

    Possession of stolen property.

    Theft of proprietary and intellectual property through subterfuge, fraud, and deception.

    Conspiracy to commit fraud and theft.

    Fraud.

    Fraud through the use of United States mail.

    Impersonation of another to perpetrate fraud.

    Among other felonies I can’t think of right now.

  9. Having a viewpoint different than what everybody “knows” is not anti-science, it is the very basis of science. When Einstein came out with his special and general theories of relativity, the scientific community laughed at him. He himself was uncomfortable with quantum theory. The “scientists” of Copernicus’ time was outraged at his work showing the earth revolved around the sun instead of the consensus view that the sun revolved around the earth.
    Besides, it is not a fact that there is a consensus that climate change, either towards cooling or warming, is anthropogenic in nature. It is not a fact that the debate is over. It is a fact that there are climatologists, physicists, geologists, statisticians, etc that argue against anthropogenic global warming (or cooling). Gleick, Gore (who just barely passed his Earth Sciences courses), Mann, et al, are anti-science because they absolutely do not want fair and open debate on this matter.

  10. hmm….peter may be a fanatic, but I doubt he is a complete idiot.
    I’m sure he consulted with a lawyer before (partially) coming clean.
    He addmits to using deception to obtain the docs, but denies altering/fabricating them.
    Since Heartland was able to turn this around on the warmist, and boost thier own fund raising.
    Peter may be able to weasle out of “slander” while tieing up HL in a trial which the warmist use as a platform to “rally the troops.”
    In much the same way, Al Qaeda terrorist relish civillian trials

  11. “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents”
    No mention of the additional faked document, even when confessing they lie by omission.

  12. I agree with the consensus here that “rational debate” means “agree with me or else”, but I would like to correct the opinion that “the “scientists” of Copernicus’ time was outraged at his work showing the earth revolved around the sun instead of the consensus view that the sun revolved around the earth.” There is a lot of mythology surrounding the intellectual climate of the time, which was searching for a new model. Even the church was prepared to accept that the earth “moved.” Ironically, the pope objected to Galileo’s insistence that the SUN did not move, since the bible referred to the movement of the sun. Ironic, because now we know that in fact the sun does move, just not around the earth!

  13. Actually, Gleick stated, “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”

    He did NOT state that he didn’t make up the fake document out of whole cloth… he just denies altering it.

    Weasel words. Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

  14. “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.”

    Well, well, well, so it’s not yet settled after all. Now the scientific method is rational publice debate and consensus.

    I am sure EPA will now allow debate on the Endangerment Finding.

    That’s a relief.

  15. “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,….”

    Yes, and this accurately describes the effort of the “deniers.”? The AGW crowd was international in scope. Al Gore won an academy award for his now refuted and discredited “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth.” The Hollywood guilty, filthy rich in their quest to achieve relevance by denigrating the goose that lays their golden eggs, bought right in and jumped on the CO2, “greenhouse gas” bandwagon along with their clueless admirers in the “free” press. But this guy, who his fellow travelers labeled the “Flat Earth” crowd, the “Deniers”, whines about the anonymous, well-funded” opposition?

    Theirs is not scientific inquiry, it is fear mongering for fame and profit. The predictors of global disaster based on “science” have in the past and will continue in the future, attempt to create a climate of fear as a means for a small minority of intellectual zealots to exercise control over the majority. What a kick to that mindset to have demonstrated the ability to bring the most powerful, successful nation in the world to its knees.

    The global warming alarm continues to ring on ever more deaf ears and the entire environmental movement has shouted wolf more than once too often. Give them credit for raising awareness and concern for the environment but their continued exclamations of gloom and doom have perverted and weakened their originally important and worthwhile purpose and is weakening America.

Comments are closed.