Claim: Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland  expose  fraud

Guardian writer Suzanne Goldenberg claims Gleick has been cleared of document forgery. Hmm…

A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

Gleick’s sting on Heartland brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organisation’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walk-out of corporate donors that has created uncertainty about its financial future.

Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute and a well-regarded water expert, admitted and apologised for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.

He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents, although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.

Guardian

About these ads

9 responses to “Claim: Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland  expose  fraud

  1. Every religion has its apostles – and its apologists. What they lack is an escape mechanism when their system ultimately fails.
    Nobody worships at Mt. Olympus any more, and the last of the Priests of the Pantheon lie in unmarked graces.

  2. Funny, Petey confessed to forgery, how is he “cleared”?

    • No, he didn’t confess to forgery, only impersonation and identity theft. He denies forging the faked document.

      • He said he created them, printed, scrawled, etched in clay, however he did it. That is confessing to forgery, no matter what type of lawyer speak it is couched in. The fact that his own organization is spewing this lie is simply reinforcing the fact he is guilty.

  3. Eric Baumholer

    Instead of billboarding, Heartland should fraudulently obtain some warmist documents and demand equal treatment.

    • Ben of Houston

      Given the double-standard at work, Heartland executives would be dragged before Congress and given stiff prison sentences if they tried that kind of stunt. You do remember how despite ironclad evidence of Freedom of Information Act violations, including a “delete everything” order, the British were only interested in finding FOIA. Do you really think that Heartland would be treated any better?

  4. So his own institute has cleared him? Imagine that! Nothing to see here. Move along.

  5. John Douglas Swallow

    Greg Laden laden.greg@gmail.com sent me this:
    Breaking story on “heartland gate”
    Anyway, here’s the post:
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/an_important_revelation_regard.php

    Laden & I do not get along so very well; therefore, it is a wonder why he would contact me regarding issue. I did put together a couple of replies that were posted briefly and then, at present, are not on his site.
    #1.
    It is beyond me why Greg feel the necessity to spend so much time and energy on this Gleick/Heartland issue when I know there are more important and pressing issue to delve into. In her article in the guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 May 2012 17.09 BST, Suzanne Goldenberg states this: “The public unravelling of Heartland began last February when the scientist Peter Gleick lied to obtain highly sensitive materials, including a list of donors.” Why can’t that be the end of the story?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash

    It appears that Suzanne Golddenberg knows something about lying herself when she repeated a fabricated a story about the Israelis destroying two Lebanese ambulances on July 23, 2006. If one has an agenda why should the truth matter? She maintains with a condescending tone, that:
    “Meanwhile, a Greenpeace analysis of the other smaller conference sponsors suggests they have collectively received $5m in funds from Exxon and other oil companies.” Boy! isn’t that a big and probably erroneous figure since Greenpeace’s 2010 Annual Report shows $300m of income while the Heartland Institute’s  2010 Annual Report shows $6.4m of income.

    Greg tells us that he had Shawn Otto carry out textual analysis of the memo and they concluded that it was a Heartland generated memo while Anthony Watts had an analysis conducted by Dr. Patrick Juola, director of research, and director of the Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Juola & Associates, headed by President Patrick Brennan, is a separate commercial entity that provides analysis and consultation on stylometry. Juola said: “Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,’ and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.”
    Dr. Juola’s complete analysis can be found on the Watts Up With That Web site.
    http://fakegate.org/study-gleick-forged-fakegate-memo/
    This seems to be very important to Greg while I can’t seem to get too excited about the whole sordid deal.

    Anyway, here’s the post:
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/an_important_revelation_regard.php

    Laden & I do not get along so very well; therefore, it is a wonder why he would contact me regarding issue. I did put together a couple of replies that were posted briefly and then, at present, are not on his site.
    #1.
    It is beyond me why Greg feel the necessity to spend so much time and energy on this Gleick/Heartland issue when I know there are more important and pressing issue to delve into. In her article in the guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 May 2012 17.09 BST, Suzanne Goldenberg states this: “The public unravelling of Heartland began last February when the scientist Peter Gleick lied to obtain highly sensitive materials, including a list of donors.” Why can’t that be the end of the story?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash

    It appears that Suzanne Golddenberg knows something about lying herself when she repeated a fabricated a story about the Israelis destroying two Lebanese ambulances on July 23, 2006. If one has an agenda why should the truth matter? She maintains with a condescending tone, that:
    “Meanwhile, a Greenpeace analysis of the other smaller conference sponsors suggests they have collectively received $5m in funds from Exxon and other oil companies.” Boy! isn’t that a big and probably erroneous figure since Greenpeace’s 2010 Annual Report shows $300m of income while the Heartland Institute’s  2010 Annual Report shows $6.4m of income.

    Greg tells us that he had Shawn Otto carry out textual analysis of the memo and they concluded that it was a Heartland generated memo while Anthony Watts had an analysis conducted by Dr. Patrick Juola, director of research, and director of the Evaluating Variations in Language Laboratory at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Juola & Associates, headed by President Patrick Brennan, is a separate commercial entity that provides analysis and consultation on stylometry. Juola said: “Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,’ and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.”
    Dr. Juola’s complete analysis can be found on the Watts Up With That Web site.
    http://fakegate.org/study-gleick-forged-fakegate-memo/
     

    This seems to be very important to Greg while I can’t seem to get too excited about the whole sordid deal.

  6. John Douglas Swallow

    #2 Because Greg claims that his site is about science,(Or is mostly about Heartland and Gleick?) I entreat him to look at this site and video, especially since the CLOUD experiment that was done in the CERN particle accelerator proves Svenmark’s hypothesis and there has never been a test/experiment that has shown that CO2 contributes one damn thing to what the earth’s climate does, one way or the other. For the alarmist to make the types of claims that they do regarding CO2 with out ANY proof that it does what they claim is indeed fatuitous.

    Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self serving charlatans proclaiming that “the debate is over”.

    “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/svensmark-evidence-continues-to-build.html

    “Sunspots and cosmic rays anticorrelate because sunspots are the result of a lot of magnetic field lines caused by circulating charges in the sun getting their act together and deflecting cosmic rays from the cosmos, not from the sun, from hitting the earth, not all, but quite a few. There is a clear experimental effect – lots of sunspots, less cosmic rays hitting Colorado. At the same time there are less clouds (Svensmark) when there are less cosmic rays. Less clouds means the earth heats up. So its a two step process. More sunspots, less cosmic rays, warmer earth. During the last 50 years or so, there have been record numbers of sunspots, low cosmic ray fluxes and somewhat higher temperatures. Read Nir Shaviv’s analysis of the effect leading to a maximum estimate of 1.3 degrees change for a doubling of CO2, assuming everything besides cosmic rays is due to CO2. That agrees with Roy Spencer’s latest CO2 sensitivity calc. And both of these are very generous to CO2.
    Manmade CO2 is a disappearingly small effect.”
    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

    This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
    “One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
    At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(Acording to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s