My Fellow Forbes Contributor Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents

I have an updated article at Forbes.  A small excerpt

In a written statementPeter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, and vocal advocate of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, has admitted to obtaining certain Heartland Institute internal documents under false premises, and then forwarding these documents to bloggers who were eager to publish them.

Gleick (also a writer on these pages at Forbes) frequently styles himself a defender of scientific integrity (for example), generally equating any criticism of his work or scientific positions with lack of integrity (the logic being that since certain scientists like himself have declared the science to be settled beyond question, laymen or even other scientists who dispute them must be ethically-challenged).

In equating disagreement with lack of integrity, he offers a prime example of what is broken in the climate debate, with folks on both sides working from an assumption that their opponents have deeply flawed, even evil motives.  Gleick frequently led the charge to shift the debate away from science, which he claimed was settled and unassailable, to the funding and motives of his critics.  Note that with this action, Gleick has essentially said that the way to get a more rational debate on climate, which he often says is his number one goal, was not to simplify or better present the scientific arguments but to steal and publish details on a think tank’s donors....

Hit the link to read it all.

  • Anonzmous

    Didn't Megan McCardle post that the faked memo was created on 2/13 on computer running on west coast time?

    Doesn't that case doubt on Gliek's story re: the memo?

  • MNHawk

    It's pretty much been surmised that Gleik himself wrote the fake document, and that's why he's come clean on the rest...in an effort to deflect from the fake.

  • marco73

    The Dan Rather school of "fake but accurate" at it's finest.

  • rg

    Sorry. I'm calling a scam a scam. CAGW SCAM! there I said it again.

    The scammers need to be defeated. Not reasoned with.

  • Matt

    I read the full article. I have one minor complaint. Which is about your use of the phrase "ends justify the means" in a negative context.

    This phrase is not untrue in broad context. The means used to accomplish any end goal are justifed (or not ) by that end goal. The problem with this phrase is that what those who invoke it as justifcation really mean is "my end justifies any means necessary".

  • stan

    Ummm. Who filed criminal charges against Mann? Did I miss that?

  • http://www.FauxScienceSlayer.com Faux Science Slayer

    This is beyond errant scientists run amuck and beyond a SCAM. This is prima facia FRAUD that only the trusting, casual observer can dismiss as a scientific debate. There is NO back radiation, NO feedback and NO frocing by Carbon Dioxide. There are so many defects one could write a book about this crime, and many have. I recommend Warrens fellow Forbes contributer, Larry Bell's "Climate of Corruption" on the political scandal. A W Montford did an excellent job of documenting the statistical fraud of the "Team" in his "The Hockey Stick of Illusion". Retired mining engineer, Steve McIntyre was on the IPCC review committee and PROVED that Mann et al used the wrong statistical methods. The IPCC responded, "Yes, they used the wrong method, but they got the right answer".

    All of this Faux Science was funded with public money and was subject to FOIA requests. Fifty such requests were submitted to the Hadley CRU and all were ILLEGALLY ignored. The odd UK law has a one year statute of limitation or Phil Jones would have serious criminal issues. And every person who submitted a FOIA request got a surprise home visit by the UK Terror Police. (It's not nice to question government orthodoxy)

    ClimateGate 1.0 showed collusion, warmists screamed..."stolen documents...out of context".
    ClimateGate 2.0 provided a bit more context....then leading warmist admitted STEALING DOCUMENTS....
    and waiting on the web, just a password away are 220,000 more emails that will finally put these crimes into context....

    This is a three sided debate, and those who insist that the question is positive or negative feedback are BOTH WRONG.