Just in, see Andy Revkin’s blog:
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs,congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself.
Gleick, in a blog post at Huffington Port, says:
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.
There may be more to this story, however. I’ve been aware that there was an very active investigation already in progress, and I can now reveal that it had been narrowing down on Gleick from early on. I just talked with Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That, who passed this along:
Steven Mosher first noticed language similarities, and language analysis is what led many of us studying the event to conclude Dr. Gleick was the main person of interest. Comparisons of his writing style from language specialists as well as software show strong similarities to the faked document and strongly suggest that he authored it.
On his own blog, Anthony adds:
For the record Dr. Gleick, I am not “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated” as you suggest. And you have damaged me and my business. I suspect I’ll be seeing you in court to protect my rights, along with many others, sir.
A statement from Heartland Institute is expected momentarily. I’ve asked DeSmogBlog for comment, but haven’t received a response yet.
Update (21:52 Mountain Time Monday)
While we wait for the Heartland institute statement, Judith Curry makes an interesting point:
Gleick on integrity:
- A brief lesson in the integrity of science
- Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Again
- AGU’s new task force on scientific integrity and ethics begins
- Threats to the integrity of science: congressional testimony
I even referenced his testimony in my uncertainty monster paper.
My first interaction with Gleick was he invited me to speak in an AGU session that he was organizing on the integrity of science, my presentation can be found here.
He has made it known to me via email that he has been displeased with my “behavior.” I seem to have gotten his goat to have been mentioned in the fake Heartland strategy doc (hard to believe that he didn’t write this).
The irony of it all, this coming from a scientist that has made a particular point about integrity and written many essays and even testified to congress on the subject.
It will be interesting to see how his position on scientific integrity is evaluated in the future.
This was such a clever ruse that it took over a week to get to the bottom of it.
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” — Winston Churchill.
Remember the Dan Rather ”Throbbing Memo?”
It only took 3 days to get to the bottom of that one.
So, Gleick tried to throw off the dogs by using trickery to steal real emails and then just add in one phony one.
This is more like the Danish Cartoon trick.
Remember?
There was only 12 original cartoons drawn by Danish artists, none of them were pornographic or nasty.
These 12 were published in Egyptian and some other ME newspapers three months before the riots but NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!
Riots didn’t start until an imam (Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban) added in these three false cartoons that:
1. depicted Mo as a pig,
2. depicted Mo as a dog screwing a man in prayer on his rug in a Mosque,
and
3. depicted a sexually inflamed Mo grabbing his young wife Aisha while the child is clutching her dolly.
To this day most of the Muslim world thinks those three cartoons were part of the original Danish ones!
Ah, the history and current events of propaganda and incitement!
It hurts my heart that the NYTimes and NatGeo both swallowed Gleick’s lies.
When will they retract their stories and apologize?
Nan G
well that is despicable,from GLEICK, what a crime that is, to add up to the innocent DANISH CARTOON,
endangering the life of the ARTIST,
GLEICK is a dangerous snake to be crush with a heel on his head by the same MUSLIMS HE HAS INCITED AGAINST THE DANISH ARTIST,
Why should anyone conclude that the Heartland document in question is a fake? The others apparently weren’t.
@Greg:
I know how you hate to read anything, Greg, but …..
On the same day as Peter Gleick posted his statement he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.
Peter Gleick stated:
The supposedly anonymous document is a fake.
We know it is fake because it is full of faulty ”information.”
Any memo from the real Heartland Institute would have its basic facts correct.
Give him a day or two and Gleick will probably come clean and also quit every organization he is presently still associated with.
I guess I have so far missed the part where the information was demonstrated to be faulty.
An alternative view of Peter Gleick might be that he so strongly believed it was important to expose the Heartland Institute for the sham that it is, that he destroyed his own career to do so.
I don’t think either view has yet been proven correct.
@Greg:
I guess you have, Greg.
Heartland AND the Koch brothers have put out statements about Koch donations over the last ten years to Heartland.
Nothing like what the fake memo says.
Koch donated a grand total of $25,000 over the last ten years.
All of that cash was earmarked for health care.
The fake memo lyingly claims Koch donated over $200,000 to climate skepticism in 2011 alone AND had given more to do the same work in years past!
AND was planning on doing the same in 2012!
Just not true!
Do you get it yet?
Dan Rather went down for his sticking with his fake memo.
Remember his “fake but accurate” meme?
@Greg:
Greg, in the arena of ideas, of which the subject of “climate change”(or is it AGW?) is, an honest debate has never been done under public scrutiny. Instead, the lead group in the debate, those who believe in Gore’s terror, published study after study showing how “true” their position was. Not once, that I know of, did they publish a paper, or study, after peer review. The most famous of the studies, involving Mann and the “hockey stick”, was eventually proven to be, at best, bad science, and, at worst, a despicable case of fudging numbers and overlooking data in order to “prove” the theory of AGW.
The accusations were already flying from the skeptics about the “research” of these climate “scientists” and who was funding it and why. The AGW crowd got into the act and accused the skeptics of being in bed with oil and coal companies. The “debate” has gotten downright nasty at times, especially with the egg on the face of the AGW crowd after Climategate(East Anglia U. emails), to the point that it isn’t all that hard to imagine that the AGW crowd sees an “ends justify the means” situation here. That is obviously what this guy is about.
From what I’ve seen, the money the Kock brothers gave to Heartland was, as Nan pointed out, in the mere tens of thousands, not $200,000. And, on top of that, the money was intended for healthcare related issues, not climate science. Those two facts alone are enough to cast doubt on the entire document in question, especially if one of the interested parties is miffed enough to sue over it.
Why are you defending this Gleick character? Why are you flailing about on this trying to attach a label of “truth” to the document? It makes me think that even with you, that it isn’t really about getting to the truth of the matter, but rather, that you and this Gleick guy have a lot in common and you both believe that the “ends justify the means”.
Greg will never get it. He has drunk the Kool-Aid, put on his rose colored glasses and divested his mind of contradictory thoughts. This is Greg:
“Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” (1742): “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” This means a small amount of knowledge can cause people to think they are more expert than they really are. This describes Greg and many of those on the left. That is why there are so many unintended consequences to their actions. Their progressive agendas are based on ideology which is not based on fact, but wishes. Their ignorance actual allows them to remain in a state of bliss as the World passes them by. That is why the climate change people of the 70s who predicted global cooling are the same people who are now predicting global warming. As long as we ignore real facts, we can live in that blissful state.
Randy
you say the wise words, thank you for that.
bye