Think progress reports Representative Raul Grijalva has written an letter to Rep. Martin and Hastings requesting an investigation of Indur Goklany letter who is listed as having been paid by Heartland.
Update
These seem to be relevant documents:
- DOI ethics form
- Doc on outside work.
- Long document on conduct. “Teaching, Speaking, and Writing 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807” is discussed on page 39.
I’m going to Pilates soon. Any useful info you can get would be welcome. Don’t say anything defamatory!
The commas and parentheses appear to be in the right place, no mention of Curry and Revkin, so probably genuine;)
So is this Dr Golany the same one
Dr Indur Goklany
Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author and is co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.
Taken from the gwpf page? Is he in the senate as well, or are they different individuals(the world, is a big place)
Can somebody explain how is this different from Hansen? (Except obviously in scale, and being funded by the wrong groups).
I don’t see how this helps Greenpeaces cause. They cannot possibly look into Golkany without opening the door to investigations into Hansen, Karl, Peterson, etc.
Have they forgotten which party controls the House?
Do they really think politicizing the issue further will help them in November?
John
just think about the Mashey “enquiry” into the tax status of Heartland and how that might rebound on the warmistas.
Copner,
I don’t have all the facts yet. Ways in which things are different include
1) DOI ≠NASA. Some rules may be different.
2) Don’t know.
I’m pretty sure there was a snit over Hansen in the past. Complaints get filed. People look into it. We’ll learn more. Right now I have no idea if there is any problem with Goklany. To know, one had to understand the rules and may need to know precisely what he did for Heartland and know precisely what he does for DOI. Picky details may matter– or not. I have no idea.
But a letter has been written so it’s going to be discussed.
KingOchaos
The one discussed in the letter by a Congressman works for the US Department of the Interior, a federal agency. They may be the same person– I don’t know.
In this election year this will become a political football.
John
http://chronicle.com/article/Researchers-Payments-From/130899/
“Greenpeace sent letters to six university presidents whose faculty members were named in the Heartland documents as receiving payments from the organization, a Chicago-based nonprofit group supported by skeptics of climate science. The Greenpeace letters suggest that the payments violated disclosure policies of both the universities and the National Science Foundation, which financed some of the scientists’ work.”
Are they just going after everybody named as having received payments in the documents?
Because I found this bit amusing:
“Mitchell K. Taylor, a contract lecturer in the geography department at Lakehead, said he received the $750 payments “for a few months,” then stopped because he couldn’t meet the associated time commitment. He said he had never had an NSF grant”
King0chaos
Yes, same one.
He’s not in the Senate, he’s a scientist in the U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
if he was smart, he would have filed the correct paperwork.
If he was not, he would not have.
Not much else worth while to discuss.
Even if he didn’t file, unless his job is directly related to climate science, I don’t see anything here that is prohibited. This looks like GP is just engaged in harassment and intimidation. Not that skeptics haven’t done the same things.
Grijalva’s letter cites Greenpeace’s letter which cites… the fake-memo!
Last week, internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a purported independent nonprofit, became public showing that the Institute has been receiving large donations from corporations to
create misinformation about climate change. According to The New York Times, these documents show that Heartland “is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools.â€1
If Heartland employees and staff have to spend time on this, I think that might go in the “damages” tally should Heartland win a defamation suit related to the fake-memo.
Copner (Comment #91312)
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Can somebody explain how is this different from Hansen?
In theory a Federal employee should not accept payment for doing something that is part of his/her ‘official duties’ or payment that may present a conflict of interest.
The idea that there would be ‘actual’ congressional hearings about what to due about a single Federal employee is ludicrous.
At worst the letter will be forwarded to the relevant Inspector General of the Relevant Agency where there will be an investigation as to whether or not the ‘outside’ work conformed to department policy.
Congressman write these sorts of letters all the time to satisfy various constituents. Each federal agency has an entire department dedicated to answering such letters.
Interesting. It seems that the proposed budget for 2012 is the only authentic document that mentions Golklany. But that would only be a evidence of a budget, not actual payments. Looks like GP may have libeled Dr G.
Agree with harrywr2 – hearings are ridiculous, but the letter spreads the smear a little wider. I’ll bet Greenpeace wrote a letter to the Dept. of the Interior as well. (Which is more logical place to file a real complaint than a Congressman.)
This is throwing stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks. If something sticks, good (GP figures); but even if not, there’s the harassment of the nefarious. And no downside. From the Congressman’s letter, there’s no libel, just questions being raised.
edit — never mind, the letter outlines the section which Greenpeace is alleging is problematic for Goklany.
[Thanks Lucia for the edit button!]
This is all based on the questionable memo with the supposed proposed budget?
These guys are getting so proficient at shooting themselves in the foot, one has to wonder if they just have a preference for swiss cheese socks.
Steven Mosher
“if he was smart, he would have filed the correct paperwork. If he was not, he would not have.”
While I can’t dispute the above extremely sensible advice, he may not have been required to file paperwork. From Lucia’s link,
Only #1 would seem to apply, so the requirement to file this form would seem to depend on Goklany’s duties at DoI. The trail ends there for me, because I don’t know what he does at DoI.
John Vetterling (Comment #91314)
“They cannot possibly look into Golkany without opening the door to investigations into Hansen, Karl, Peterson, etc.”
That door is open. It’s not clear that it goes anywhere though. I think Mosh is right.
The letter also has Indur Goklany’s position somewhat overstated –
http://www.doi.gov/ppa/Office-of-Policy-Analysis-Staff-Directory.cfm
The page that explains what the Goklany’s department actually does –
http://www.doi.gov/ppa/Office-of-Policy-Analysis-Program-Coordination.cfm
Among Goklany’s department’s duties
We also provide guidance to the Interior bureaus regarding the information collection requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
Indur Golkany has written many books and authored many papers (including while he was at the Department of the Interior). He is just a prolific producer of reports and information going back many years.
Someone I know was walking around his book “The Improving State of the World” to people and I had to say I know this guy. He just posted this article yesterday.
He is more like many of us in that he just follows what the data says rather than having an emotional feeling about it. This puts him on the right of the spectrum where basic economic, climate, societal data always leads to.
The scan was apparently done in the 12:41pm Monday Feb 13th, and the “Heartland Insider†email sent on 9:13 a.m Tuesday Feb 14th.
You’d have thought Gleick would be at the Pacific Institute during work hours, no?
Which got me wondering, if the Pacific Institute had an Epson scanner?
And whether Gleick sent email perhaps from a work computer?
And what else Gleick might have done, or printed using his work computer.
And then today, Pacific Institute posted this update
February 22, 2012
PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT
The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and documents pertaining to the Heartland Institute. Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events. As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings. In the meantime we maintain our commitment to the smooth operations, governance, and mission of the Pacific Institute.
The chairman will chuckle as this letter goes to the waste basket. They are dreaming if they imagine there will be an investigation.
Talk about doubling down:
For clarity for any new readers – the quotes below are from Desmogblog – I personally strongly believe the document is a crass forgery.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/faked_heartland_institute_is_a.php
http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic:
It also uses phrases, language and, in many cases, whole sentences that were taken directly from Heartland’s own material. Only someone who had previous access to all of that material could have prepared the Climate Strategy in its current form.
In all the circumstances – taking into account Peter Gleick’s explanation of the origin of the Heartland documents, and in direct contradiction of Heartland’s stated position – DeSmogBlog has concluded that the Climate Strategy memo is authentic.
@Copner
“In all the circumstances – taking into account Peter Gleick’s explanation of the origin of the Heartland documents, and in direct contradiction of Heartland’s stated position – DeSmogBlog has concluded that the Climate Strategy memo is authentic.”
OMG,….lol,…I hope they don’t think that they are HELPING Gleick with that analysis. It just reinforces the meme that Gleick may have FORGED the memo by PLAGIARIZING select sections of the “real” documents.
Copner (Comment #91337)
One can only conclude that they are delusional and willing to accept even the most crass fake as real, so long as it matches their expectations (remember the ready acceptance as real of my obviously fake ‘Gleick-over’ of the Pacific institute statement this AM). There is no possible way the ‘strategy’ document is real… and it has Dr. Gleick’s fingerprints all over it. He will soon learn about the costs of being duplicitous.
Maybe they’re hanging Gleick out to dry.
Maybe they’ve finally realized the document is fake and defamatory, and they’re going with the defense: “we believed Gleick”
This thought occurred to me when I read Greg Laden’s blog – in his Heartland story, the previous one with 40+ comments, where various posters tell him exactly what to look for to show the document is fake, and he ignores those concentrating instead on trivialities.
Or maybe they just are foolish enough to believe what they’re writing.
The Heartland Institute also don’t seem to be hiding the fact that Goklany works for the DOI.
http://heartland.org/indur-goklany
but I guess if you’re Greenpeace you get the ear of Rep’s.
> The Heartland Institute also don’t seem to be hiding the fact that Goklany works for the DOI.
Yes but they never previously admitted one shocking, horrible, and disturbing fact – that he had been paid for his work!
@HR
Generally unless your Dept Head makes an issue of the matter, you just calmly file your disclosure statements annually and that’s the end of the matter.
Copner (Comment #91337)
Very interesting post at DeSmogBlog that you link.
The behavior of many committed CAGW advocates means that “When you find yourself in a hole, keep digging” is a plausible explanation for the conduct of DeSmog authors Brendan Demille and Richard Littlemore. As SteveF and others have noted, people believe what they want to believe.
To informed, reasonable people without a heavy prior bet on a horse in this rate, it’s obvious by this point that the Strategy Memo is fake. (The, circumstantial, evidence of peculiar grammar, anti-climate turns-of-phrase, and highlighting of a B-Team nemesis, makes the author’s identity, rather easily guessable.)
To these same informed bystanders, it also seems obvious that the Heartland Institute has suffered, and continues to suffer, meaningful damages due to the false assertions being made by DeSmog and others on the basis of Gleick’s fake Strategy Memo. One doesn’t have to like, respect, or agree with the HI to reach this position.
Many skeptics thus foresee the HI winning a libel lawsuit and collecting damages from DeSmog et al.
But I wonder.
In the US, there’s a high standard for proving libel, if one is a “public figure”, which the HI presumably is. Wikipedia’s synopsis:
Could DeSmog’s and Laden’s Double-Down posts be part of a sensible, cynical approach to the matter? This could come about either as a co-ordinated JournoList-type strategy, or as the result of independent legal advice.
The point of their current actions would be to lay the grounds for an “absence of malice” defense in a future defamation lawsuit brought by the HI.
“Look,” DeSmog plan to argue. “Some people considered the newly-available evidence and decided that the Strategy Memo had been faked, by Gleick or, arguably, by his anonymous source. However, other reasonable people reviewed this same evidence, and concluded that it suggested that the Strategy Memo was genuine! Now, it might be that we, Laden, and many other folks will turn out to be mistaken in this belief. However, the very fact of the vehemence of our posts — and those of many other climate-savvy bloggers — proves the reasonableness of this belief. This is powerful evidence of Absence of Malice on our part. Therefore, you must acquit!”
IANAL, obviously. Anybody knowledgeable who can weigh in on the merits of this plan to escape judgement?
Copner (Comment #91340)
> Maybe they’re hanging Gleick out to dry… This thought occurred to me when I read Greg Laden’s blog – in his Heartland story, the previous one with 40+ comments, where various posters tell him exactly what to look for to show the document is fake, and he ignores those concentrating instead on trivialities.
Yesterday morning, I submitted the following comment to that post of Greg Laden’s. It failed moderation.
Oh and for the record, Congressional Inquiries are VERY common (more than you’d actually believe). During my military service in the 90’s I had to respond to 3 of them over the course of about 5 years. Generally though an organization only has 72 hours to forward the response. But for the most part, you just have to cite that the subject of the inquiry is well within the statutory limitations as outlined in Section/Page/Paragraph and the the requisite Standard Form Xxxdddd-1090298 is on file with the Office of Useless Forms
Nick Stokes
Having Fox/ATI after them is not quite the same thing as a House hearing.
If the Dems were to open hearings (and that’s a long shot) the GOP could easily take them in a different direction, looking at more than just DOI staff. Since there are probably more government scientists that support the IPCC view than disagree GP’s efforts could backfire.
HR–
There are lots of Congressional reps. One wrote a letter making a request. I’m posting because it’s mentioned elsewhere and people are bound to mention it. By posting, I know people here are aware, can read the various documents and can get links to at least some relevant documents. If someone knows other relevant documents, I can post those too.
John Vetterling (Comment #91348)
“Having Fox/ATI after them is not quite the same thing as a House hearing.”
The ATI is (or was) actually in court. There is no likelihood of a House hearing.
AMac (Comment #91346)
“These two phrases might or might not refer to the same entity.”
No, there’s no wiggle room there. He said he forwarded the documents, including the original anonymous doc in which he was named, unaltered. The strategy doc is the only one in which he is named. If the doc he first received wasn’t the strategy doc posted, then he didn’t forward it, contrary to his statement.
An (anonymous) Wiki editor in Katonah NY has added the following to Dr. Goklany’s bio:
In February 2010 [8], the Heartland institute documents obtained by climate scientist Peter Gleick included a budget that indicates that Goklany was supposed to receive payments of $1,000 per month from the Institute. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) called for Congress to investigate the apparent payments to Goklany in a letter to Republican Rep. Doc Hastings (R-VA), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and Democrat Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the ranking member of the committee because federal employees aren’t supposed to accept payments from outside groups for “teaching, speaking and writing that relates to official duties†[9]
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indur_M._Goklany
Wow. I actually agree 100% with both of Nick’s last 2 comments.
Nick Stokes (Comment #91354)
Nick, thanks for this interpretation. I stand corrected.
So among the doubling-downs, Gleick is clearly stating that he is not the author of the Strategy Memo. As to how that statement holds up, time will tell.
As a retired Federal employee it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that he did not already have approval in his file for outside work with caveats that it conformed with ethics and other regs. With the volumes he has created it is also likely his approval is a blanket approval.
The review will almost surely go no where.
I tend to agree with CoRev. Again this presupposes he was smart. Whether required to or not I would always disclose to my employer when I was being paid for any outside work or when I recieved ANYTHING of value from people I came into contact with as a result of work. watching others get roasted for conflict of interest and the appearence of it was an early lesson. never try to weasel around the guideliness.. my opinion of course.
Re: Copner (Feb 22 19:16),
That “authenticating” by the originator of the story isn’t very impressive to me for many reasons, mostly because it shows they didn’t authenticate in the first place. However I was curious to see how they dealt with the most damaging (for me) allegation:
This is now a good reference from the horses mouth to show how the most damaging claim from the memo can’t be shown to be anywhere as damaging when trying to back it up from the real documents. I think HI maybe should thank DeSmogBlog for providing this clear detailed point by point statement of their opinion over the whole questionable document.
Presumably this means greenpeace have also brought the issue of a forged document and Peter Gleick to congress, might be counter productive for them.
Nick Stokes (Comment #91354)
“No, there’s no wiggle room there.”
There certainly is a lot of wriggle room. Here is his exact quote.
“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.”
He says the document was anonymous, not that the source sending it to him was anonymous.
I don’t know about you, but if I wished to give myself some wiggle room in the future to claim that a document I created was not created by me, I would mail it to myself with no identifying details. The envelope with time stamp being used as the only evidence of my veracity.
We would have to know if the time of his phishing expedition and use thereof leaves a long enough period for him to have created, mailed and received the document back before sending it on to his gang of 15. Do we know that?
Bob,
I don’t think your alternative reading of “anonymous” is that likely.
Oliver,
I wouldn’t discount any possible reading that can be derived from his defense. The whole thing is filled with ambiguity such as using the phrase “At the beginning of 2012”. That could be as much as the first 3-4 months. Of course we’re only in February so in this case it logically applies to the entirety of 2012.
Gleick said “I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. ” That would seem to be the HI documents and the original document. However (aiui) the forwarded documents also included the HI 990 form. This would not have been the original document nor would it have been received from HI as it was already publicly available and related to 2010. So Gleick’s statement is not the total truth. I think the 990 that was included in the bundle was also a scanned copy and I suspected that it was intended to add some cover to the scanned strategy note, which otherwise would have been the only scanned item.
Bob Koss (Comment #91394)
“The envelope with time stamp being used as the only evidence of my veracity.”
It would be no evidence at all. There is nothing to associate the envelope with the doc.
I don’t think you can construct any plausible scenario consistent with his account in which he could have written the doc. As I said to Amac, the doc referred to is pinned as the one he sent. And if, as he says, he only got the HI docs after he received the strategy doc, he wouldn’t have the material to create it with.
Of course he could have created a doc in ways that are not consistent with his account.
Nick Stokes, you may be right, but I think there’s more wiggle room than you do. You need to parse his confession very carefully (it was doubtless written in consultation with his lawyer):
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.
He does not explicitly say he forwarded the anonymous document. He says he forwarded “the documents he received,” which may refer to the documents he received from Heartland.
Also, he has never explicitly said the “anonymous document” was the 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy memo, and he has never explicitly denied authoring the Strategy memo. It is conceivable that he received a different document which named him, “did not make any changes or alterations” to that document, but created a new document of his own which he included in the package.
And if he chose to be really mendacious, he could say “he was named in it” because he was the addressee. I may be overly suspicious here, but I find his confession to be too evasive.
“And if he chose to be really mendacious, he could say “he was named in it†because he was the addressee.”
No he can’t say that, because he raises the fact that he is “mentioned in it” as a possible reason that the anonymous document was forwarded to him.
Eddy makes a good point about the 990 form, though. Why include it?
The 2010 990 that Desmog has is not identical to the 2010 990 on Heartland’s website. I haven’t compared the images, but the file sizes are different, albeit by only 1 byte.
1) It is not surprising that a Democratic Rep who is the senior member of national parks oversight with lots of enviro contacts delivered the letter they wrote for him on his letterhead. It’s business as usual. Move along.
2) This goes nowhere because Indur Goklany doesn’t hide his affiliations, the alleged amount is less than eye-popping and it is too easy for the GOP majority on the committee to make this more about the links between Big Green and government-funded activities.
3) Given the likely composition of Congress in 2013, Big Green Inc. should not want any attention draw to issues involving of activism, disclosures, federal funding, 501(c)(3) abuse etc. They may be pulling a Gleick on themselves if they go there.
4) Nick Stokes points out that (a more focused and better grounded) attempted inquiry into Jim Hansen’s personal inurement (a far richer target environment than Goklany) has so far gone nowhere. Unless the agency that employs the individual, the DOJ or (least likely) Congress is moved to act, it is probably moot.
Nick, BradR —
The precision of Gleick’s words was discussed at CA a couple of days ago. I wrote there:
Don –
After thinking about it for a while, I’m inclined to agree with your theory that this may be careful speaking. Gleick mentions that he received a document an “describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.†He doesn’t identify it with the “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy†document. He later says “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.†He doesn’t say that the original anonymous document was included in his email along with the Heartland docs.
The impression given is that the document we’ve all seen with the title “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy†is that anonymous document, unchanged. And Gleick was not its author. But there’s some wiggle room in his words. That is, Gleick’s words would be true if he received a hitherto unrevealed document which mentions him (but was insufficiently damning), forged the climate strategy document, and sent it (with the authentic Heartland docs) to the 15 friends.
George Tobin is right. The potential for this to backfire on Greenpeace’s own allies seems enormous. The short-sightedness is worrying.
@Copner – http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/letter-about-heartland-payments-to-goklany/#comment-91337
——————————-
Hah, DeSmogBlog is helping dig Gleick’s professional grave.
By pointing out that the Memo is real because passages in the memo come straight from the documents that Heartland admits are real they have narrowed down the possible authors to someone who was in possession of these memos….
Hmmmmm…..
So, since it’s clear that no skeptic wrote a memo that is so cartoonishly villainous, that leaves us with the author being a warmist with access to those private documents prior to the documents going public. So that leaves Gleick as the author.
D’OH!!
… or the author could possibly be:
http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j60/bluinkalchemist/the_brain.jpg
Does anybody know if Gleick’s email to 15 friends has been made public?
One of the biggest worries for me is the potential lack of clarity he has shown with his 15 friend. It’s allowed them to be exposed to criticisms around journalistic professionalism. It’s potentially still allowing desmog to dig themselves into a bigger hole.
Joe–
I thnk DeSmogBlog’s argument decreeing the fake-memo real assumes
* Gleick’s confession is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
* HI is lying and
* No one else teased info out of Heartland before Gleick.
HaroldW, thanks. I’m sure that your post was one of the several I read at CA and WUWT that influenced my perception. I cited both WUWT and CA when I blogged about this on Tuesday, but neglected to here. Sorry.
I am still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Gleick, by assuming that all of his confession is literally true…though perhaps “economical with the truth.” Still, I occasionally remind myself that it wasn’t delivered under oath.
sarc
I made a brand new, double layer aluminum foil helmet and put it on. My mind cleared and I saw the truth. Mosher wrote the strategy memo and mailed it to Gleick. Mosher clearly has the background to mimic Gleick’s writing style. The question then is, how and when did Mosher get the Heartland documents needed to construct the memo?
/sarc
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Lucia-
Yeah, I forgot Gleick’s timeline. The mysterious letter arrived at his office and that prompted him to go Nancy Drew on the Heartland Institute.
Greenpeace support theft, fakery, defamation and fraud!
Isn’t that something we already know?
I spent twelve years living off DoD and DoE grants. During that time I was careful to get the nod from my department head before accepting consulting contracts. Only once was permission denied and that was because the contract would have required a lengthy leave of absense.
Goklany probably followed a similar CYA protocol.
BTW guys:
Three days ago, the rabett alerted us that anonymous donor was about to be unveiled.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/02/anonymous-donor-may-stand-up.html
Today, I see
Aslak Grinsted said…
What’s up with that donor story. I’ve between waiting for days… Did I miss it?
22/2/12 11:55 PM
Maybe it will eventually break. (Then we’ll all know in whose direction to shake our tip jars!!!!)
why assume there were (15) with climategate we all came forward. who are the 15?.
gleick wrote 15 to give himself cover so he could write to one of the four or 5 that actually got it. he could pretend that he was ine of the
15. such a mail sent by gleick would be a bombshell. if what he did was so heoric on its face..why hide the fact.
that he was willing to trick his allies is largely missed in this discussion
Speaking of (now former) Gleick allies, it is reported that someone in EPA is trying to deep-six all records of EPA grants to Gleick’s Pacific Institute.
Sometimes it is less surprising that the ship is sinking but that it held so many rats in the first place…
George Tobin –
I don’t know about why those links went away, but it seems to me that those grants weren’t to Gleick’s Pacific Institute, whose expertise appears to be solely in the area of water. The grants reported are concerned with air quality. The Pacific Institute’s 2011 highlights mention very little which isn’t water-related, and nothing which looks related to air quality.
> gleick wrote 15 to give himself cover so he could write to one of the four or 5 that actually got it. he could pretend that he was ine of the 15.
1. Why did he say there were 15 friends in the body of the email? Surely the recipients would be able to look at the “To” field and count to 15 themselves?
2. Well they wouldn’t be able to do if he used BCC or emailed them one by one – but why do it that way unless he wanted to hide the names of recipients from each other?
3. Why would he want to hide the names of recipients from each other? That doesn’t help cover his personal tracks at all. So the motive must have been something else
@AMac: I believe there’s a high probability of HI winning a libel suit against Gleick, but only by showing that he is, in fact, the forger. The chance of winning a libel suit against DeSmog is very low, I believe. All they need to do is insist that they believe the document is not forged, until Gleick loses his lawsuit. Even then, they need only retreat to the position that says “a court ruled it was a fake, but we still have our doubts–readers should decide for themselves.”
“Even then, they need only retreat to the position that says “a court ruled it was a fake, but we still have our doubts–readers should decide for themselves.â€
Seeing how badly they and others are currently stapling their balls to the titanic, I wouldn’t be surprised.
3. Why would he want to hide the names of recipients from each other? That doesn’t help cover his personal tracks at all. So the motive must have been something else
At the time he sent it, he was still anonymous. He may have thought at the time that letting everyone see the full distribution would be a clue to the identity of the sender. Also the Kloor’s of the world who were forwarded the note would have had 14 more (or whatever the dist size really was) people to send questions to.
Another reason to use BCC – which I wish more people would practice – is that when sending to a large distribution you run the risk of idiots who feel the need to reply all, clogging up everyone’s inbox with needless crap. Anyone who has been through an UNSUBSCRIBE storm, or works with people who need to reply all to org announcements knows what I mean.
Thank you for your comment! It has been added to the moderation queue and will be published here if approved by the webmaster.
When did that start?
At this point in my judgment the only logical alternatives are the either Gleick is lying or HI is lying and the circumstantial evidence goes to Gleick is lying.
The question becomes why would Gleick confess to only one of his crimes if he had committed another. Was it more likely that he was going to be found out about the identity falsification in obtaining legitimate HI documents than he was about the forgery (or a real inside HI document)? As an extreme advocate he well knows the benefits to the cause of the supposedly forged document and that without it his mission was rather useless. It is logical, given his views, that the ends justify the means, for him to forge the all important (to the cause) document after receiving the HI documents. In his “confession” he very much keeps open the idea that the supposedly forged document was real and sourced from HI. His confession in general would be considered favorable to the cause.
On the other hand, if the supposedly forged document were sent to Gleick by an HI insider and HI was aware of the document before it being sent to Gleick would not HI be taking an awful chance that Gleick could use that document and forensically show that they came from HI. After HI’s statement that that document is forgery and finding it to be real would in effect completely neutralized HI’s efforts on AGW and they would completely lose their credibility. That development could become an impetus for fund raising by Gleick’s organizations. Either way either Gleick or HI should be pushing for revealing the original document/envelop in question and presenting it for forensic review. I have heard Gleick’s confession but in it he did not say anything about turning the document and envelop over for review.
Does anyone have conjectures on why Gleick might have thought he was under imminent threat of being found out on item 1 and not item 2?
1. Why did he say there were 15 friends in the body of the email? Surely the recipients would be able to look at the “To†field and count to 15 themselves?
############
the to field is hidden.
My conjecture is that he wasn’t as clever as he thought he was being when he started email phishing Heartland, and he later realized he could be tracked down by that.
Proving the paper document was originated by him, in his opinion at least, is harder. For example, his finger prints would be on the paper – but he has is handled even according to his own story.
> the to field is hidden.
But for some reason he wanted to know/believe there were 15 recipients.
Does anyone have conjectures on why Gleick might have thought he was under imminent threat of being found out on item 1 and not item 2?
Google mail records a trail.
I surmise he said 15 for a couple reasons
it pressures people to post
provides cover so he can call one of them and pretend he got it too.
then he can vouch for it. ya that 990 looks right.. ya I been fighting with them looks like they take me seriously