Image by Josh.
I just woke up and skimmed comments. Gleick has spoken, so I figure there is a possibility an awful lot of stuff is popping up overnight while I slept. Does anyone know:
- The date when Gleick received letter from anonymous person. Envelope, cancelled stamp to indicate originating locations, any cover letter or other material included.
- The date when Gleick contacted Heartland. By email? Phone?
- Who at Heartland responded and sent email with attachments. Exact email address to which document were sent? Time stamp on that email?
- Who the 15 Dear Friends are?
Update 11:26 am
I forgot the most important question:
====
Update 7:54 am: (Consolidated to avoid explosion of threads…)
BTW: Lots of people have commented on coverage. The Wall Street Journal Editorial’s take is “The Not-So-Vast Conspiracy “.
Given the coverage the story has generated, you’d think some vast conspiracy had been uncovered. Heartland is, according to the Associated Press, “one of the loudest voices denying human-caused global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on climate change.” The Vancouver Sun reports that it is “heavily funded by right-wing industrialist Charles Koch,” while the Virginian-Pilot dubs it “the ideological center of the denial movement.”
So how flush is Heartland? The documents show the group is expecting revenues of $7.7 million this year, mostly from private donations and grants. Mr. Koch’s “heavy” funding came to $25,000 in 2011, though the Heartland “Fundraising Plan” has it hoping for an increase in 2012. To put those numbers in not-for-profit perspective, last year the Natural Resources Defense Council reported $95.4 million in operating revenues, while the World Wildlife Fund took in $238.5 million.
(WSJ articles are usuall behind paywalls. I get the dead tree version and know words that help the search which gets me to the article. To avoid the paywall I googled “Heartland wildlife fund site:online.wsj.com” and clicked that link.)
Dr. Gleick is a lot thinner than that.
Since this episode is so bizzare, I wonder if were at the stage where (figuratively) the Climate Science gods are requiring victims from the faithful.
Andrew
Lucia,
All great questions. Some combination of people know the answers to all those questions, but since those are the keys to proving/disproving Dr. Gleick’s (IMO) rather far fetched story of innocence of authorship, I doubt any of that information will come out for a while. We may have to wait for the inevitable law suit and/or out-of-court settlement of that suit. Of course, it is possible that Heartland could produce some of that information to publicly press Dr. Gleick for a full confession and real apology, but that strikes me as unlikely. If Dr. Gleick is in fact the author of the fake document, then he has had plenty of time to concoct a story and get rid of all physical evidence. A perfectly good Epson printer/scanner may be already buried in a landfill. 😉
Yes, SteveF, I didn’t want to draw a Gleick character. He has a apologised, must feel terrible and I am not so interested in who did what.
I did want to highlight the weirdness on both sides of the Atlantic that is painting Fakegate as some kind of heroic activity.
No, it’s not. It’s illegal and this kind of stuff does not help us understand the science any better, not one molecule more, not even one Higgs Boson.
@SteveF:
If Gleick obtained the strategy document the way he said he did at the beginning of 2012, is it credible that he sat on it perhaps 1 month, perhaps 1.5 months, and never said anything to anybody else about it? Never discussed it with anybody? Never showed it to anybody and asked for a second opinion?
If Gleick obtained the strategy document the way he said he did at the beginning of 2012, you would think some of these people might step forward and be prepared to testify in court about it.
Josh,
“He has a apologised, must feel terrible and I am not so interested in who did what.”
You are very generous. I rather suspect he feels terrible that he got caught, not that what he did was morally wrong. I mean, do you think Bill Clinton actually felt remorse about his relationship with Monica Lewinski… outside of the fact that he got caught? I really doubt it…. in both cases. I don’t see a hint of remorse in his statement; he used his statement to continue to attack the HI and claim that they are an evil organization. The lawsuit will lead to a different outcome.
Copner (Comment #91057),
I completely agree. The whole story Dr. Gleick offers makes absolutely no sense. In addition, since he has already confessed to a breech of ethics (if not law) all we Bayesian analysts need to adjust our “expert priors” about Dr. Gleick…. what is the probability that he is now being truthful, taking into consideration what he has already admitted to? IMO, extremely low.
Copner (Comment #91057)
> If Gleick obtained the strategy document the way he said he did at the beginning of 2012, is it credible that he sat on it perhaps 1 month, perhaps 1.5 months…
Gleick hasn’t yet stated how he obtained the strategy document, which is to say the “Fake Memo.” What he wrote was
You are assuming that Gleick’s “an anonymous document” is the same as the Fake Memo.
Maybe that’s what he means, and maybe it isn’t. Gleick has embarked on a Modified Limited Hangout, with pro bono advice from a high-powered PR maven and a high-powered criminal defense attorney. I think it’s a stretch to believe that Gleick’s priority at this time is to make sure that his adversaries don’t misconstrue what he says.
Likewise, I can argue that February 21 falls in “the beginning of 2012.” So not much help with a timeline, there.
I’m sure Gleick feels the same way Dan Rather did: The document(s) may be fake but information they contain is the truth.
SteveF, yes, I think you are spot on and that is the weird bit for me.
So it is morally ok to steal as long as it is in a good cause, or what journalists over here call ‘the public interest’? I suspect journalists never think of asking the public whether they are actually interested but that if they are personally interested then so is everyone else.
Trouble is the only bit that was interesting/public interest to them was the faked memo. So it is now morally right to steal a fake, or maybe it is, fake a steal? Does my head in!
I was just wondering how Gleick would go in a Rorscach test.
We already have proof that Gleick misled his friends as well as his enemies.
Wasn’t his email to the 15 signed “Heartland Insider”
This is a separate misrepresentation over and above anything that may or may not have happened with faking the strategy memo & pretexting Heartland.
With regards to similarities between Gleickgate & Climategate, is this fair
1.Heartland is a private company, Gleick has admitted fraudulently obtaining and facilitating the publishing of confidential data including personal information of HI employees
2.The key document, quoted for headlines, was forged
3. No evidence of unlawful acts were contained in the documents
4. No effort was made to redact personal information
5. Gleick was caught within a week
1. UEA is a public institution which conspired to prevent publication of information subject to legitimate FOI request
2. None of the 60mb+ of emails & attachments so far released in Climategate 1 & 2 have been declared fraudulent by UEA
3. Multiple instances of unlawful actions have been exposed by the Climategate emails, as confirmed by the ICO officer
4. Every effort was made to redact personal information in all 60mb+ of emails and attachments
5. FOIA hasn’t been ‘caught’ after 3 years
So, on the whole I’d suggest they’er not too similar 🙂
Imagine you are the insider.
You write this fake memo. You have other documents because you get most of the facts right. Like how much singer was paid.
So, your writing this fake document from these real documents.
Then you decide to send the fake document to gleick.
right?
Huh?. makes no sense. why send somebody you want to help a FAKE document when you have access to the real shit.
isnt gleick one of them mcarthur geniuses
AMac
Hmm….
But he does write
I guess he doesn’t literally say that the “strategy” document (aka fake memo) in the published batch is the original communication he received by mail nor did he literally say he did not write the “strategy” document/ fake memo nor did he say he didn’t say the batch of published documents consists of every document attached to the email and the original one mailed and only those with no additional documents included.
But I assume Heartland has the outgoing email and will know.
@mosher 91074
I agree. It’s either real or Gleick created it (or someone working with him). Not sure what odds I’d give.
lucia (Comment #91075) —
Mr Gleick is clearly being unforthcoming about the key details that would allow people to understand just what happened, and what Gleick’s own part in this affair has been. In other words, this is a Nixon-style Modified Limited Hangout.
So I think it’s prudent to examine exactly what Gleick is saying, including word and grammar choices that allow for alternative readings.
Yes, Gleick’s HuffPo non-apology apology strongly suggests that he received the Fake Memo in the mail from an anonymous source in the beginning of 2012. Could he later claim on some point or other, “Well, that’s not what I meant!”
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Lucia
Steve McIntyre provides quantitative chronology at Heartland.
Memo confirmed as real – not really obviously – but according to some of Peter Gleick’s supporters.
If he did fake the libellous memo, or if he knew it was faked, I am wondering if his confession which implied it might be real, would be a separate libel, or perhaps a re-iteration of the libel?
e.g.
“http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-the-heartland-revelations-and-situational-journalism/
“One outcome of this revelation is that the outstanding questions about the authenticity of the strategy memo have now vaporized. It still could be a fake, but there is no specific reason to believe it is. The documents Peter obtained seem to authenticate it at several points.”
steven mosher
Maybe HeartlandInsider is Joe “fiendish laugh” Bast ?
Did you help him to write the memo ?
Steve McIntyre was asking why Gleick made his coming out, i don’t know, i think it’s just another sign of miscalculation politic.
Lucia
Steve McIntyre put name on 3 of the 15, see David L. Hagen link.
There were 9 documents, yes? Seven of them were emailed to Gleick, fraudulently pretexting as a member of the board.
One is the forged memo.
One is the two year old tax document. Maybe the two year old tax form is the item that Gleick anonymously received via snail mail.
Or maybe that’s what he wants to allow people to believe, if he’s even that clever.
Personally, I see no reason to believe an admitted liar and thief.
Gleick came out the protect himself.
1. the crime will most likely never make it to trial. If questioned by the FBI, he merely confesses. Prosecutorial discretion then is what it is. If he ever made it to trial, he would get a suspended sentence, or community service. he is Not afraid of the criminal aspects of this. His community of peers could care less. he will argue that he was acting like a journalist.
2. the libel and libel with MALICE is far more dangerous for him.
faced with that civil proceeding i would expect him to fight to the death, lose his computer, get rid of evidence, etc. As long as the crime is solved he cant be hit for obstruction of justice.
steven mosher:
yes he was… sort of takes away some of the prestige of that mysteriously awarded prize doesn’t it?
Also you’re right about him never getting a conviction over this. The only danger of that happening is if it went to federal court (and there he’s in trouble). It involves what appears to be fraudulent use of the post office as well as interstate commerce (via the internet) and probably other crimes that could come to mind if you sat down and stared at the federal criminal code for a few minutes.
Good thing it’s hard for interested parties to find the address of the relevant federal prosecutor office, right?
Mosh,
I wouldn’t say that “his community of peers could care less”. I strongly doubt that we will see Gleick chairing another AGU board on ethics in science any time soon :-p
Steven M,
You may be right, but ditching evidence would seem inevitably to force him into perjury in the libel case – with further criminal exposure – or he admits to ditching evidence, which might be viewed as contempt or worse, and probably loses credibility in the case.
If I were he, I wouldn’t be feeling too certain right now about my future liberty. Is it possible to bring a private criminal prosecution in the US? Anyone?
“Gleick is represented by John Keker, a prominent San Francisco-based white colar criminal defense attorney”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73099_Page2.html#ixzz1mzXRBEbw
Paul_K:
No but you can make a complaint to a prosecutor if you were so minded. As I understand it, for many situations, it requires the filing of a complaint before they can do anything.
Zeke (Comment #91108),
Yes, that is probably right, no more seat on a board of scientific ethics will be on offer…. though he might be called to testify on the subject. 😉
But will his ‘community of peers’ do anything more than that? Will there be censure, public critique, other serious consequences? I very much doubt it. Some will say he is a hero. Others will say that he was misguided, but his motives good and pure. Most will say nothing. None will say publicly that he is immoral, an id*ot, a self-confessed criminal, or that climate science would be best served if he found a different profession. And that pretty well sums up in a few words what is most wrong with climate science.
Mosh/Zeke–
I think the number of climate scientists who will call for Gleick to be prosecuted falls between 0 and very,very few. A few will criticize if pressed. Fewer will take it on themselves to criticize him publicly.
That said: I think Gleick will not be chairing very many prominent panels for several reasons. For one thing: activists want people chairing prominent panels to be quotable by the press. Gleick is tainted as a mouthpiece for at least a little while. Many people are going to giggle if he tries to lecture anyone on the correct way to communicate with the public. Even more will giggle even louder if he discusses ethics in the climate debate.
But aside from that, there will be people who are disturbed by Gleick’s behavior but who don’t particularly want to talk about it publicly. They aren’t going to be nominating him for panels.
More funny in Politico:
“Two sources in California […] confirmed to POLITICO that Gleick authored the Huffington Post blog confessing to be the source of the leak.”
The 15th, they wrote an article from DeSmogBlog assertions without fact checking, now they need two independents sources to state that Gleick is behind his blog.
Lucia,
Gavin’s remark comes pretty close to an outright censure. I’m not sure if any other of his peers have commented on the affair.
Where is Gavin’s remark?
Ok… I found
in comments. I’ll look more.
Lucia,
Gavin says:
[Response: Schadenfreude is a cheap thrill: fun but ephemeral. Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this – both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished. – gavin]
James Annan:
“Peter Gleick, you are a complete and utter twat of the highest order.”
WMC concurs on his blog.
Definitely looking more like the bottom-side of a bus than the interior of a wagon circle at the moment.
Lucia,
WMC and James Annan don’t seem very happy with him either, remarking:
“Peter Gleick, you are a complete and utter twat of the highest order.”
Definitely looking more like the bottom of a bus than the inside of a wagon circle at the moment.
That does read like censure. Not the strongest censure ever, but I think it is censure to say Gleick failed this test of integrity. Good for Gavin.
Josh @8:27am- “He has a apologised, must feel terrible …”
This is criminal behavior, not done in a vacuum, but as a larger body of deceptive and even criminal activities- many of those crimes against the very foundations of science and civilization.
It is time to feel more terrible that people are inclined to excuse this type of behavior that is coming from scientists and journalists. That unwarranted sense of compassion is really hurting us all now.
Hmm, my comments seem to be getting eaten at the moment. Test.
Looks like they were canned as spam because I was quoting James Annan saying “Peter Gleick, you are a complete and utter t-w-a-t of the highest order” and the spam filter does not like that particular piece of British slang.
Lucia, you can delete #91133, as I thought the prior comment hadn’t gone through.
Nicias (Comment #91119)
February 21st, 2012 at 12:27 pm
More funny in Politico:
The 15th, they wrote an article from DeSmogBlog assertions without fact checking, now they need two independents sources to state that Gleick is behind his blog.
Gleick would most likely be treated as a ‘limited purpose’ public figure under Libel Law.
As such…depending on the context the standard of libel could be either anything that is ‘100% factually correct’ or ‘reckless disregard for the truth’.
Virtually all professional news organizations have guidelines as to what needs to be ‘rigorously fact checked’. Anything about a private citizen is an ‘always’. Limited purpose public figures are ‘sometimes’. Public figures…I.E. Politicians is almost never.
Zeke–
That means the VPS squirrels are hungry. I’ve bumped up resources. Dreamhost makes that easy– I’ll reduce when this excitement dies down. (I’ve gotten some donations– so no worries. 🙂 )
Zeke–
Good for James. I’ll go see what he wrote. Also WMC!
Zeke (Comment #91126)
“Gavin’s remark comes pretty close to an outright censure. I’m not sure if any other of his peers have commented on the affair.”
Yes, it does. Perhaps my expectations of climate scientists are too low. Lets see who else says similar (appropriate) things.
A quick research into the MacArthur fellowships does not really surprise: most are artists, musicians, or university professors (or were at the time they received the prize). No criteria beyond “we like them and think they have potential” is stated. Not a surprising list for a liberal leaning foundation. Seems just about nobody who works in industry is likeable or has much potential (at least according to the MacArthur selection committee). I wonder if the $500,000 ($100,000 per year over 5 years) is fully taxable? 😉
In his “confession” Glieck wrote regarding the original anonymous document: “I was named in it”. So it can’t be the budget or any of the authentic HL docs.
The original anonymous document is either the fake memo, or there is another, later, document that mentions Gleick.
Given that later in his “confession” Glieck says: “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication”, it has to be 99% certain that the original anonymous document is the fake strategy memo.
Good point James.
We should also return to the form 990.
If Laden’s current story is true, why was the 2010 990 included with the 2012 board documents? I’m having a hard time accepting that.
Isn’t more likely he obtained the 990 separately as well (it’s not hard, it’s a public document), and added that as well to beef up the package.
Gleick is a Mc Arthur genius, Gore is a Nobel Prize winner… sheesh! All along these guys are saying: “Trust us, we are the experts and this climate stuff is complicated.” Yet they are clearly willing to ignore reams of scientific evidence, lie, cheat, steal, and make stuff up to further their own AGW political agenda. How high can this steer manure pile go?
Gleick at Joe Romm‘s in March 2010 starting the Empire Strikes Back phase of CLimategate:
For what it’s worth. I think Gleick outing himself may be that he had no other choice. Once the documents became public it wouldn’t have taken very long for Heartland legal beagles to follow the trail of bread crumbs (via Gleicks’s email) back to Gleick’s doorstep. A legal notice informing Gleick of the statutes he violated with an order to preserve any evidence would have narrowed Gleick’s options is short order. Once he was caught holding the bag there would be little upside to remaining anonymous. Outing himself would give the appearance of having a conscious to garner some public sympathy.
The fact surrounding the real documents and how he obtained them leave little wiggle room for creative story telling. For the fake document, not so much.
Greg F–
That’s my sense. People had been pinpointing him since at least Feb 16. He was being named, pressed to answer questions and so on. It’s likely Heartland has records of the outgoing email. They quite likely could get the courts to get the records from google. Gleick had to do something.
Copner (Comment #91208)
February 21st, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Good point James.
We should also return to the form 990.
If Laden’s current story is true, why was the 2010 990 included with the 2012 board documents? I’m having a hard time accepting that.
Isn’t more likely he obtained the 990 separately as well (it’s not hard, it’s a public document), and added that as well to beef up the package.
############
see his comments on jan 12. Doesnt write like a guy in possession of a smoking gun memo.
In fact the whole run up to feb 14 Gleick doesnt sound like somebody holding a smoking gun memo. He writes like somebody determined to find one.. or make one as the case may ( cough cough) be.
lucia (Comment #91116)
That said: I think Gleick will not be chairing very many prominent panels for several reasons. For one thing: activists want people chairing prominent panels to be quotable by the press. Gleick is tainted as a mouthpiece for at least a little while.
******************************************************
Indeed. There’s another reason that his side is going to keep him away from any panels, committees or public anything; pretty much *everyone* thinks he wrote the forged memo. Most of his friends won’t admit they think he did it, but they do. The problem is he hasn’t fessed up to that part yet, so there it remains, dangling by a thread over his head. With some folks munching popcorn waiting for the thread to break and his friends pretending it’s not there but still shying away fearing the thread could snap at any moment.
Gleick’s limited hangout strategy may have legal, financial and perceptual benefits but it has one huge downside. The whole thing stays alive until the issue of the other shoe is resolved. Until it is, Gleick will remain a ticking PR timebomb.
If I was advising Gleick on PR strategy, and I’m intensely grateful that I’m not, I’d be telling him to come clean and get it over with. His current position is keeping the meter running on Heartland’s civil damages, due to the media running with “Gleick lied but the strategy memo is still real”. It caused a whole second wave of damage. Also, those inclined to forgive and/or forget can’t get on with that until the fat lady has sung.
Genius ‘eh?
I’m reminded of this famous Bugs Bunny cartoon.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/wileecoyote_genius.jpg
60 years ago, still applicable to Gleick today. Think of the carrots as HI documents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns
Anthony (Comment #91301)
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I wonder if Mosher own a tractor.