More grants to Gleick scrubbed from EPA Grants Database

EPA, do you know where your grants are?

Additional grants (possibly as much $647,000) to Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute seem to have disappeared from the EPA Grants Database.

A source tells us:

I do government work as you probably know. That means I know how to search the system.

I followed your link to his article on the EPA scrubbing its website of his grants. Since he got a screenshot I was able to look at it and then do some sleuthing. Here is what I found.

I did a search on their Dun and Bradstreet Number (DUNS), which is a requirement for them to have in order to get federal dollars…

I did a search of federal contracts and grants. Here is what I found.

They got $647,000 dollars in two grants from the EPA. The details are in this screen shot.

The screen shot is below.

We broke the news of $468,675 worth of EPA grants to Gleick on Wednesday.

By Thursday, the EPA had deleted those grants from its Grants Database.

The screen shot provides evidence of a $647,000 grant in 2007 to the Pacific Institute that wasn’t there when we first checked on Wednesday.

Now it could be that the $468,675 in grants we reported on Wednesday are the same as the $447,350 shown in the screen shot. But this wouldn’t seem to be the case as the $468,675 worth of grants were from years other than 2007 (as we recall).

So it seems that EPA has scrubbed a total of $1,584,350 worth of grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute from its Grants Database.

If we are wrong EPA, please show us ASAP. We filed a FOIA request with the EPA yesterday.

24 thoughts on “More grants to Gleick scrubbed from EPA Grants Database”

  1. Just for the record George Orwell wrote “1984” about England; an insignificant correction. The US was in there as the Western Power.

  2. President’s address on the occasion of PIs 20th anniversary(from the PI website)-

    The Pacific Institute was founded a generation ago. My children, not even born at the time, have grown up, along with 1,500 million other children.

    In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.

    This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing.

    For two decades the Institute has been providing unbiased, thoughtful, and innovative analysis and solutions.
    Through our efforts and commitment, the Pacific Institute has become a place where we work effectively with the
    residents of West Oakland one day and the Secretary General of the United Nations the next.

    What will the next 20 years bring? New threats to our limited and vital freshwater resources, growing pressures
    on the environmental health of our most vulnerable communities, accelerating influence of multinational
    corporations for both good and ill, combating and adapting to climate change, and other threats to sustainability
    that we have not yet conceived.

    A constant in all of these transitions will be the continued dedication of the Pacific Institute to address these
    problems and provide a sustainable world for all generations to come.

    Peter Gleick, Oaland 2007

    The shorter Gleick: When the commie dream was falling down all around our ears aka the Wall, the comrades naturally had to cook up another way to break eggs to make the usual omelette.
    Outcome: Lots of egg on face

  3. The scrubbing might be going on at EPA but the government site still has the information.
    the DUNS number to search on based on the screen capture. 860029271 at this site
    13 contracts and 7 grants 7 grants at $1.95 million. with one grant at $1.3 million

    Note that the EPA may be double accounting. It doesn’t make sense to me that changes/ clarifications should be double counted in the total on the web site.

  4. What the … is going on!!??
    Is EPA totally in the pockets of the CAGW propaganda movement or the other way around?
    It looks as if there is an international secret structure established in every western country rigged the same way, were the national EPAs finance the gouventments propaganda thru fake “non profit climate science communication”
    whos is in reality a tax founded propaganda organisations för gouvernments who by this structure hands ower their propaganda “off shore” to organisations who dont have to oblige to impartiality truth or responsability for thier claims! Extremely smart but extremely dangerous!! I dont even want to think about that possibility but it sure smells fish here!!
    Why are our gpuvernments EU and the US financing Greenpeace WWF and 429? other climate propaganda organisations. Whyyyyyy???? Are our gouvernments and UN just …. with us?

  5. The titles of those programs are utterly hilarious… They are no better than what a random phrase generator could conjure up if given a buzz word database.

    Now that I think about it I am happy to deliver a “Collaborative Program Title Generator Program” for the bargain price of $100,000 which will save all these tossers a huge amount of time and effort.

  6. Absolutely illegal! Who ever authorized and/or did the deletion of the information from the Federal Database committed a Federal crime. No matter even if they put it back at some point. But you know “they” will claim it was a mistake by some underling that’ll get fired and then re-hired in Chicago. No points for correctly guessing where.

  7. If one looks at the names of the programs funded through this grant, you’ve got some serious, uh, “community organizing” going on there.

  8. All that remains is a lone shoe, the man who had been standing in it razored out of the group photo…

  9. Next the federal government will try to pass a law to let them shut down the internet when it is letting too much of the “wrong truth’ out for the public to see.
    New ways of rewriting history are cropping up all the time. This is just another facet of the plan to tell a lie often enough so it becomes the new truth.

  10. Given Dr. Gleick’s interest in the necessary transparency of NGO funding sources, I’m sure that he has set PI up as an ethical example and that this info is readily available at their web site.

  11. is not a Federal government database, but the data they are using must have come from a Federal (EPA) database.
    Federal Law *does* include electronic records in the legal definition of “documents” for the purposes of protecting sensitive information.
    Any information made publicly available (i.e. accessible to NGOs like FedSpending.Org) the Federal Agency is responsible for, and must be provided if requested by an FOIA request..

  12. Why are all the contracts related to air issues? Isn’t the Pacific Institute’s specialty water issues?
    Just ask’n…

  13. I believe the former USSR used to delete information and data and people that did not meet the party line. Is this where we are going?

  14. The question is whether web pages are Federal ‘documents’. If they are, we’re looking at felony alteration of Federal documents. If the Obama Justice Department will pursue criminal charges, which is doubtful. If we get a different president, and the statute of limitations has not run, we might see some legal action on this.

  15. FOIA!

    Anyone verify if this is the database that it is a federal violation of law to alter? Not Fast and Furious, but maybe Fast and Futile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.