Fallout of Peter H. Gleick confession about the Heartland documents?

Peter H. Gleick has confessed to deceiving the Heartland Institute to gain some of their documents:

"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. "

I had just asked a question a few days ago where I mention blogger Steve Mosher had suspected Gleick of being the author of the fake Heartland Document. Gleick doesn't mention this anywhere in his confession but overall to this point, it can't look good.

Is this another "move along, nothing to see here" moment?

(Note: For those who don't know, Gleick is a climate scientist.)

Update:

@antacrtice: As is common for those facing dire times, let's argue semantics. On Wiki, Gleick is described as have a focus on "hydroclimatology". But hey, let's not quibble. Instead we can go right to the fake HI document that Gleick wrote and find him describe himself "...high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick)...". Nice touch that "high-profile" part.

Update 2:

Gleick is heading a new task force on scientific ethics and integrity to aid the AGU "...to review, evaluate, and update the Union's policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members." http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO470009...

Ain't that a peach? I obtained an advanced copy of the task force report and it says on the first line: "Breaking into right wing think tanks doesn't count".

9 Answers

Relevance
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Wow. I would say it is astonishing how utterly hypocritical alarmists are. I think anyone with a brain knew Gleick almost certainly created a fraud yet alarmists couldn't see it ... surprise surprise ...obviously because they are so blinded by their ideology. It is interesting, in a psychological kind of way, just how gullible alarmists are and they wonder why they are compared to a religion.

    They certainly have demonstrated that I have been correct all along. It is all about pushing a far left wing ideology and has nothing to do with science except that which they can subvert for their purpose. I get to pat myself on the back as a "high profile" YA GW skeptic who has been proven correct. Huh yah!!! But that was pretty obvious I guess.

    BooM, why do you feel you need to equate the two or did it just seem that way to me. Having the information from Climategate was useful. It demonstrated how corrupt the Hockey team were. Having fake information from Gleick is hardly informative except again on how corrupt some alarmists are.

  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I think Gleick should definitely pay for what he did. however he did state that he did not rewrite any of the documents.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-...

    Is the Heartland Institute lying? Maybe. Why don't they then release the data to the media to show that what was said wasn't true or release the original documents to show the changes that were made? Gleick did say that he did not alter any documents. Do you think that also includes the document in question? Why or why not? Heartland is well known to be liars as is evident in their backing of the tobacco industry and their claims that cigarette smoking does not contribute to certain health problems.

    I think of Heartland had their way it would be another 'move along nothing to see here moment'. I think more than likely Gleick is trying to keep this in the public eye as it should be. I'm surprised, with the power Heartland seems to have over many of the politics, why those that are against political arguments against the IPCC fully back what Heartland is doing.

    I'm also fairly certain that it will, again, be swept under the rug as it is in Heartlands best interest. I mean they classify themselves, legally, as a charity.

    http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/chicago/the-hea...

    Information on section 501 3(c)

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,...

    I wonder if, given the recent released information, if Heartland meets these requirements.

  • 9 years ago

    (Note: For those who don't know, and are interested in actual checked facts, Gleick is not a climate scientist)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick

    His field is water resources

    While I'm sure all the denier blogs will be firing up and shouting about this and making all the usual conspiracy theory claims, will they be able to shout loud enough to cover the fact that no matter how these documents were obtained it they are genuine they paint a very bad picture of Heartlands motives, some how I think they will bury this as if they take Gleick to court they open themselves to full disclosure, just watch what happens, this will be like the idea of suing Gore, lots of noise but nothing will happen. How long is it now since that claim to sue Gore 3-4 years, you guys have very slow lawyers.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Suppose it depends why he had to deceived the Heartland Institute to receive additional materials.

    I would imagine that the Heartland Institute would not be happy with the deception, and whoever's name he used to acquire the documents may be in trouble with them.

    For me, doesn't really register much interest. Unless further details are made about what information he received, what he did with that information (how did he use it) and why the information was available for him in the first place.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    GCNP (and different alarmists) continuously pretend that technology is on their aspect yet they could't look to make certain out that including little snipets from different sources can make it complicated to make certain authorship. the shortcoming of an trustworthy or logical end is revealing to who they are and why they suspect what they suspect. It has little or no to do with common sense or technology. you may not argue technology and common sense with someone who refuses to envision some thing in an trustworthy and logical way. They concluded that that is likely from PG. that does no longer advise he did it yet in accordance with context, it positive looks likely to me. He admitted to fraudulently acquiring the emails. on account that they did not furnish a smoking gun, he likely presented it. It suits completely contained in the alarmists view of the universe IMO. IMO, that is about politics. truly there is an element of technology, yet some with a particular political bias are exaggerating the technology and ignoring some thing that threatens that exaggeration.

  • booM
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Gleick may be a zealot and if he falsified his identity to get confidential documents he should pay the same price as the Climategate hackers. I suppose there could be some variations legally in the penalty between hacking private emails and using a fake ID to get documents, but you get my drift, I assume. If what the Climategate hackers did deserves punishment, what Gleick did deserves punishment and vice versa. I don't really have a real strong opinion at the moment regarding public vs. private institutions. Although both should have some latitude in terms of private communication, the public has a right to know how and why their opinions are being influenced and in a debate as pitched as climate change it seems as if more transparency rather than less is desirable.

    However, has anyone proven that the documents were actually false? I think that is a factor; if Gleick produced a document of his own that contained fabricated information about what Heartland is doing, that would obviously be fraud that was designed to manipulate public opinion unfairly, and I think that is an additional consideration.

    As far as the fallout over it goes in terms of public opinion toward the science of climate change itself, it does seem like a double-edged sword. On the one hand you have a group of skeptics who claim that science has been compromised by scientists who are funded by people with vested interests in manipulating science for financial and political gain, and on the other a group of proponents who claim that science is being compromised by people with vested interests in manipulating science for financial and political gain. I guess where any individual falls on the scale of belief or disbelief depends on how credible the evidence presented is, and in some ways the more that is exposed about both sides of the debate the better, regardless of the means that is used to acquire and disclose the evidence.

    Me personally-although I might say that Gleick and the climategate hackers are jerks who should be punished-well, I'm glad to have the information. I looked at some of the climategate emails and the reports on it, and now I've been to the Heartland Institute website. I think the climategate researchers lost their focus on pure science, and I think the Heartland Institute has a clear bias that has little to do with the actual science to begin with and a lot more to do with their political agenda.

    So from my point of view, the two brouhahas prove one thing-that no one really knows the unvarnished truth about the potential impacts of man's influence on climate change. I think the absolutists in the public forum who say they do have no credibility and are joke fodder; I think the scientists who become political activists have the same credibility as any other special interest group that tries to influence government policy and public opinion...like the religious right. They can state their beliefs and opinions, but the real value of their activism and the credibility of it should be judged in the context of their actions. If you have a religious group who is organizing protests at funerals, that impacts the moral credibility of the religious group, for example. It goes without saying that the same judgments might hold true for groups like OWS or PETA, but I won't bother adding more examples and trust that the one I offer is representative enough.

    However, there sure seems to be a lot of strong evidence to support the contention that the average global temperature is increasing that can't be explained by natural processes, and so far no one has come forward with a better theory than AGW. So people who dismiss the entire study of AGW because it's 'just weather' or a 'hoax' need to come up with far better arguments about the science rather than just trying to undermine the credibility of the proponents because they're fat hypocrites (reference to Al Gore, who doesn't seem to be anyone's favorite around here.) And the raw data acquired by public funding needs to be made available to anyone who wants to study it.

    JimZ: There are a lot of comparisons being made between climategate and the Gleick 'disclosures' and I was comparing the two events in terms of legal principles and the sway of public opinion. I did specifically ask if there was evidence proving Gleick's disclosure was faked and noted that was an additional consideration, but so far there isn't any evidence that the essential elements of what he released are false-that Heartland is funding denial rather than skepticism, and at this point if that proves anything to me at all Heartland's effort is more geared toward their political and economic agendas, which are in their own self-interests.

    Source(s): There is clearly a similarity between that and the climategate scientists, which is disturbing because it diverts us from the real issue, which is the science itself and what actions it demonstrates we as interwoven societies should take to minimize our impact(s) on the environment that will affect us in the future-if our actions aren't doing so already.But getting that transparency by surreptitious means warrants the punishment of the people who did it regardless, and they know the risks before they attempt it...so make them pay the price. Far too many of us are distracted by our political loyalties and economic interests, and the unwarranted absolutism that is part and parcel of that is diverting us from the pursuit of truth.
  • 9 years ago

    Assuming he didn't fabricate a document, he should just be charged with fraud for using someone else's name.

    It's telling that the person responsible for the Climategate hack hasn't come forward. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

  • 9 years ago

    In the midst of all the extraneous cut-and-paste smoke-and-mirrors in your "question," can't you at least bother to include an honest link to the story about Gleick's confession?

    Edit:

    Having now done your work for you

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/21/...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/earth/ac...

    http://www.desmogblog.com/whistleblower-authentica...

    my comment about "fallout" from the confession is: Science does not depend on who lies about it or who exposes such lies, or the means used in the exposing of the lies.

    Scientist Gleick's deception of those who are in the BUSINESS of anti-science deception has zero impact on (and is zero excuse for) the tricks, dodges and anti-science crap you have deliberately posted in thousands of Qs and As on Yahoo Answers, Mike.

    Edit2: It is also important to note that, contrary to the assertion in the question, Gleick's professional specialty is NOT climate science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Peter H. Gleik is much more honest than the anonymous theif of the East Anglia emails.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.