Peter Gleick: The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Gleick admits he’s the source of the leaked Heartland documents
Environment • Views: 30,136

Environmentalist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, has an article at the Huffington Post in which he admits he is the source of the leaked Heartland Institute documents — but Gleick denies making changes to any documents: The Origin of the Heartland Documents.

This explains why the timestamp on the document Heartland claims was “faked” is in the Pacific time zone, and also why that particular document was a scanned image; Gleick says he received the original in the mail, anonymously.

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.

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. 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. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

I’m struck by the great difference between this case and “Climategate,” in which nobody has ever come forth and admitted being the thief, and in which the “revelations” were utter nonsense, plucked out of context to create a deliberately misleading impression.

We now know beyond any doubt that the revelations about Heartland’s efforts to subvert climate science and mislead the public, and about their support and funding from energy industries and lobbyists, were completely accurate.

Related

Jump to bottom

65 comments
1 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:50:04pm
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.

Doesn't this mean that a forensic investigation can prove that the materials he distributed did indeed come from Heartland?

2 Interesting Times  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:50:52pm
I’m struck by the great difference between this case and “Climategate,” in which nobody has ever come forth and admitted being the thief, and in which the “revelations” were utter nonsense, plucked out of context to create a deliberately misleading impression.

Excellent point; I was thinking the same thing. And to recycle what I said downstairs:

Sergey's "Rathergate" theory, i.e. that the "strategy" doc was a denier trick, makes sense if you suppose the anonymous snail-mailer of said doc hoped it would be released by Gleick immediately, all by its lonesome, so it could then be righteously refuted. If that was indeed the strategy of the strategy memo-mailer, however, he/she didn't count on Gleick obtaining additional authentic Heartland documents.

3 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:54:00pm

Brave move, Mr. Gleick. I applaud it, and do not envy you the hellish, wingnut shit storm that is sure to follow.

4 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:54:54pm

Prediction time: Heatland and/or it's supporters will leap at the admission of guilt and declare that, since he's admitted to having lied to get these materials, it's just as likely he's lying about not altering them.

5 Interesting Times  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:58:28pm

re: #4 Targetpractice

...since he's admitted to having lied to get these materials, it's just as likely he's lying about not altering them.

All he'd have to do to refute that is release the original email he received from Heartland.

6 freetoken  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:59:02pm

We really didn't need these documents to know all about "Heartland’s efforts to subvert climate science and mislead the public" given the actual propaganda we've gotten from Heartland all these years.

The documents did however raise the issue of Heartland's duplicity in American policy discussions with a larger public and in more media.

7 Interesting Times  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:01:07pm

re: #6 freetoken

The documents did however raise the issue of Heartland's duplicity in American policy discussions with a larger public and in more media.

And their epically stupid, childish, petty reaction to the document release may turn out to be the lasting story.

8 Decatur Deb  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:01:55pm

So the initial snailmail, the document most informative and most disputed is:
1. An accident, or
2. A deliberate internal friendly leak, or
3. Some kind of trap?

9 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:06:01pm

re: #4 Targetpractice

Prediction time: Heatland and/or it's supporters will leap at the admission of guilt and declare that, since he's admitted to having lied to get these materials, it's just as likely he's lying about not altering them.

That looks like the line they're taking:

Jim Lakely @jlakely
MT @CBrainard: NYT's @revkin says @PeterGleick "destroyed his credibility" by stealing Heartland docs: nyti.ms/A4pfuV #fakegate

Jim Lakely @jlakely
Of his making RT @holy_kau: What a mess. RT @davidappell: BREAKING: Gleick admits to it: is.gd/eEMNx6 #fakegate #climategate #nokxl

Although the hashtag #fakegate was the weekend excuse.

10 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:07:55pm

re: #8 Decatur Deb

So the initial snailmail, the document most informative and most disputed is:
1. An accident, or
2. A deliberate internal friendly leak, or
3. Some kind of trap?

I'm leaning toward option #2, because the information in that document has been corroborated in the documents that aren't in question.

And after Jim Lakely's amazingly unprofessional tweet to me, I have no problem believing that the general tone at the Heartland Institute is one of wingnut craziness.

11 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:10:40pm

re: #9 jaunte

That looks like the line they're taking:

Although the hashtag #fakegate was the weekend excuse.

Yep, Gleick is about to experience the dreaded Wingnut Shitstorm. A shitstorm I am very familiar with.

12 Kragar  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:10:56pm

Santorum: Democrats are "anti-science," not me

In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on "phony studies," and that climate change science is little more than "political science."

His views are not "anti-science" as Democrats claim, Santorum said. "When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment," he said to applause, and cited local ordinances to reduce coal dust pollution in Pittsburgh during the heyday of coal mining.

13 Decatur Deb  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:11:43pm

re: #10 Charles Johnson

I'm leaning toward option #2, because the information in that document has been corroborated in the documents that aren't in question.

And after Jim Lakely's amazingly unprofessional tweet to me, I have no problem believing that the general tone at the Heartland Institute is one of wingnut craziness.

#2 would really set of some internal hysteria. All to the good--the more sunlight brought into a sausage factory the better.

14 mikec6666  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:12:18pm

Charles, thanks for a great follow up. Gleick is a stand up guy who's about to take one for the team. Hopefully he showed the originals to a lawyer or someone that can corroborate the authenticity of the docs, as far as what he received.

15 Obdicut  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:12:28pm

It was definitely unethical of him to trick them into sending him the documents. I believe him when he says he released everything and didn't alter anything, which means this is not really comparable to the 'climategate' memos either.

However, it is also very telling that these are secret, private documents. Why? They're a non-profit. Why not publish these documents openly anyway? Most nonprofits aim at transparency; Heartland aims at obfuscation. That, too, is telling.

The initial leak of the strategy document is now even more interesting. I don't know what to make of it.

16 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:13:00pm
17 Interesting Times  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:14:11pm
18 Four More Tears  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:16:41pm

What a shame. The discourse surrounding AGW was so honest and civil, and now someone has to go and do something like this...

19 Obdicut  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:16:49pm

Furhtermore, Heartland is organized as a 503(c)(3) organization, and as such, may not engage in any lobbying or legislative agenda. I think the documents released give a pretty good basis for saying that they're violating that status-- especially if the anonymous donor who's given them millions in some way benefits from their propaganda.

Heartland may now sue Gleick. I will be heavily that they will not, since pre-trial discovery would open them up to a hell of a lot of exposure.

20 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:17:42pm

The Stoat:

Heartland still says its fake, DeSmog says "The DeSmogBlog has no evidence supporting Heartland's claim that the Strategic document is fake" - which isn't exactly strong evidence for its genuineness. It looks like their stern resolve to expose The Truth is going to be tested: Heartland are sending out legal-looking emails (and possibly letters too; there is some suggestion that their legalese isn't very good, but their intent is clear). Would Heartland really want to fight this through the courts? Imagine the dialogue:

H: this memo is a fake! You can tell it is, it says things we'd never do, like we're anti-climate.
D: of course you're anti-climate. Everyone knows that. Look at this, and this, and...

And so on. Would that play well? Dunno. But, probably H have no choice: having called it a fake, they have to act like it is.
[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

21 Interesting Times  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:20:13pm

re: #19 Obdicut

I think the documents released give a pretty good basis for saying that they're violating that status-- especially if the anonymous donor who's given them millions in some way benefits from their propaganda.

Speaking of which, a dKos user makes a pretty thorough and convincing case for who that may be:

Barre Seid is a wealthy Chicago industrialist with a talent for staying just out of sight...Seid has been funding the fringe right wing since at least 1990, when his role as a conservative "angel" first attracted media attention, when he was found to be a principal donor behind the scandal-ridden campaign of Steve Baer. (As far as I can determine, he hasn't spoken to a reporter since -- even calls about his philanthropic work have gone unanswered.) He has continued to make some campaign contributions, mostly at the state or Congressional level, but for the most part it appears that he has chosen to pursue his political ends by other means -- means usually somewhere on the continuum between education and propaganda. Seid's probable role in the Islamophobic Obsession video fits this pattern, as do his other investments in right-wing propaganda TV.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow...

22 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:21:46pm

This may wind up being a bigger problem for Heartland and friends:

The dead are allowed to vote - on the Board of Directors of a denialist, tax-supported charity
John Mashey has his latest opus up, on the malfeasance of various denialist organizations that should be investigated for violations of their IRS 501 c/3 tax-deductible charity status.
....
Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project, the Heartland Institute, and possibly others have given more than sufficient grounds for IRS agents and/or state Attorney General offices charged with supervising charities to start using some subpoena power. They're supposed to be educational, but are the opposite. In SEPP's case, they appear to have a non-functioning board, including a chairman who continued to supervise Singer two years after the chairman had died. They sign affidavits saying they're not lobbying when they sure appear to be doing so. And money flows are incredibly weird, with assets disappearing and sometimes reappearing in strange ways..

23 Gus  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:23:18pm

I love it. It's like a whole internet army has these Heartland pukes surrounded. Here's hoping for an FEC and possibly and IRS investigation.

24 Cap'n Magic  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:23:30pm

Would heartland be willing to publish the documents hash signature to repudiate that the documents out and about are fake?

25 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:24:24pm

re: #20 jaunte

The Stoat:

Which is why the next step will be interesting to watch. Will they go through with their threats, now that Gleick has stepped forward with his admission? Or will they focus on him, hoping that a quick trial and guilty verdict will draw attention away from the documents?

26 jamesfirecat  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:27:32pm

re: #22 jaunte

This may wind up being a bigger problem for Heartland and friends:

////Well I never knew you were such a Vitalist! Lots of us keep doing our jobs after we die!

27 Talking Point Detective  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:28:00pm

re: #4 Targetpractice

Prediction time: Heatland and/or it's supporters will leap at the admission of guilt and declare that, since he's admitted to having lied to get these materials, it's just as likely he's lying about not altering them.

Hundreds of blog comments have already been posted that are consistent with that prediction. And thousands more will follow.

28 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:29:25pm

re: #25 Targetpractice

Which is why the next step will be interesting to watch. Will they go through with their threats, now that Gleick has stepped forward with his admission? Or will they focus on him, hoping that a quick trial and guilty verdict will draw attention away from the documents?

It'll be a smear campaign where all they will say is that the documents are stolen and will avoid/refuse any discussion of the contents. And they'll find mass media willing to discuss it on those terms - repeatedly.

Followed by a "look, squirrel!" moment in a few weeks that they hope will distract anyone from caring after that point in a meaningful manner.

29 Gus  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:31:32pm

I see the tools are out in force however on Twitter repeating the "fraud" and "deception" aspect. Interesting that the New York Times would even use the word deception in consideration of the Pentagon Papers.

30 Interesting Times  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:33:49pm
31 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:34:42pm

One of the projects that Heartland Institute is funding (according to their budget document, not one they claim is faked) is the "Free to Choose Medicine project"

2012 Fundraising Plan, p. 13. Free to Choose Medicine argues against the Food & Drug Administration's regulatory processes for new drugs to reach the market, and for the right of patients to choose experimental treatments.

Because it's been a while, and everyone has forgotten about Thalidomide babies.

32 Talking Point Detective  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:35:06pm

The meme will be that Gleick's actions were consistent with the deception that is rampant in the "warmist" camp.

Anything less than literally hanging Gleick in the public square, will be blamed on the corrupt Department of Justice and the leftwing mainstream media.

The rightwing "victim" mentality drives all of this and many other, related areas of politics.

33 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:35:27pm

re: #28 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

It'll be a smear campaign where all they will say is that the documents are stolen and will avoid/refuse any discussion of the contents. And they'll find mass media willing to discuss it on those terms - repeatedly.

Followed by a "look, squirrel!" moment in a few weeks that they hope will distract anyone from caring after that point in a meaningful manner.

Yep, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument, declaring that since they were obtained illegally, nothing in them can be taken as valid and anyone who says otherwise guilty of lying. And since the only source of the "leak" is an admitted identity thief, the only authoritative source on them is Heartland, who will maintain that they're fakes.

34 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:35:29pm
$ 644,000 Free To Choose Medicine project, a new project
520,000 Direct Mail campaign for consultant, printing, mailing, and caging
318,000 Two projects on climate change partially funded by the Anonymous Donor
--------------
$1,482,000 Total

Deregulation ho!

35 Obdicut  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:36:10pm

re: #31 jaunte

That is also obviously lobbying to affect legislation, which they are legally not allowed to do.

36 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:36:45pm

re: #35 Obdicut

I think their lawyer is claiming it falls under 'public policy.'

37 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:36:46pm

re: #32 Talking Point Detective

The meme will be that Gleick's actions were consistent with the deception that is rampant in the "warmist" camp.

Anything less than literally hanging Gleick in the public square, will be blamed on the corrupt Department of Justice and the leftwing mainstream media.

The rightwing "victim" mentality drives all of this and many other, related areas of politics.

They'll demand that his trial be closed to the press, so that by the time he's been tried and sentenced, most folks will have moved on and anything gleaned from the trial will be met with yawns and shrugs.

38 Kragar  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:36:55pm

re: #33 Targetpractice

Yep, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument, declaring that since they were obtained illegally, nothing in them can be taken as valid and anyone who says otherwise guilty of lying. And since the only source of the "leak" is an admitted identity thief, the only authoritative source on them is Heartland, who will maintain that they're fakes.

Because everyone shut up about the climategate emails when it was confirmed they were stolen...

39 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:37:34pm

re: #38 Kragar

Because everyone shut up about the climategate emails when it was confirmed they were stolen...

Now we don't know they were stolen! For all you know, they fell off the back of a truck!

///

40 What, me worry?  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:37:37pm

re: #31 jaunte

One of the projects that Heartland Institute is funding (according to their budget document, not one they claim is faked) is the "Free to Choose Medicine project"

2012 Fundraising Plan, p. 13. Free to Choose Medicine argues against the Food & Drug Administration's regulatory processes for new drugs to reach the market, and for the right of patients to choose experimental treatments.

Because it's been a while, and everyone has forgotten about Thalidomide babies.

My g/f is one. She doesn't have any fingers on her right hand.

41 What, me worry?  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:44:44pm

re: #31 jaunte

One of the projects that Heartland Institute is funding (according to their budget document, not one they claim is faked) is the "Free to Choose Medicine project"

2012 Fundraising Plan, p. 13. Free to Choose Medicine argues against the Food & Drug Administration's regulatory processes for new drugs to reach the market, and for the right of patients to choose experimental treatments.

Because it's been a while, and everyone has forgotten about Thalidomide babies.

I know how to kill a thread!

The bit you were discussing:

In the United States, pharmacologist and M.D. Frances Oldham Kelsey refused Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an application from the Richardson-Merrell company to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed, which reduced the impact of thalidomide in United States patients. Although thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States, millions of tablets had been distributed to physicians during a clinical testing program. It was impossible to know how many pregnant women had been given the drug to help alleviate morning sickness or as a sedative.[2]

42 What, me worry?  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:45:33pm

Groovy update to the Show Users button!

43 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:46:04pm

re: #41 marjoriemoon

Here's part of the Heartland pitch:

For too long, prudent reformers have hoped that the FDA would mend its hidebound ways. After 40 or more years of frustration, it is now time to strip the FDA of most of its powers. The agency that prides itself on offering the highest level of “protection” to U.S. citizens probably kills more people through delay than it could ever save. Its relentless quest to determine the safety and effectiveness of new products makes it incapable of thinking about whether the marginal costs of any new test or restriction exceed its marginal benefits.

To cure that ailment, Congress should put the FDA on a budget to conduct its own clinical trials. Let the FDA undertake the tests that it requires private companies to conduct at their own expense, and watch how the regulator starts to whistle a different tune.
[Link: freetochoosemedicine.org...]

44 Kragar  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:46:33pm

For Rick Santorum voters, it's character that counts

In Michigan, even some Republicans who don't agree with his positions say he's their choice because he seems the most authentic.

You can serve me up a pile of horseshit and it can be authentic, it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it to be POTUS.

And take a look at the crowd.

45 Kragar  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:47:50pm

re: #43 jaunte

Here's part of the Heartland pitch:

Probably.

Probably?

46 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:48:08pm

re: #45 Kragar

Yeah, it's very sciency.

47 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:48:10pm

re: #44 Kragar

For Rick Santorum voters, it's character that counts

You can serve me up a pile of horseshit and it can be authentic, it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it to be POTUS.

And take a look at the crowd.

It's like I've said before, a lot of folks vote for the guy they think they could have a beer with. And, weirdly enough, a lot of people are willing to go "Yeah, Santorum's a nut, but he's such a friendly nut."

48 Feline Fearless Leader  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:48:44pm

re: #43 jaunte

Here's part of the Heartland pitch:

If they want the FDA to do the approval testing work, let's let the FDA take 90% of the drug profits for the first ten years to cover the expense so that we don't saddle the innocent American tax payer with it.
:p
//

49 jaunte  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:49:33pm

re: #48 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

I don't think he understands that his argument could turn that way.

50 Decatur Deb  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:50:27pm

re: #47 Targetpractice

It's like I've said before, a lot of folks vote for the guy they think they could have a beer with. And, weirdly enough, a lot of people are willing to go "Yeah, Santorum's a nut, but he's such a friendly nut."

The only GOP contender I would have a beer with is Huntsman, and he doesn't drink. "No sense letting that go to waste."

51 palomino  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:53:22pm

re: #44 Kragar

For Rick Santorum voters, it's character that counts

You can serve me up a pile of horseshit and it can be authentic, it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it to be POTUS.

And take a look at the crowd.

Santorum is only "authentic" when compared to a cyborg like Romney. But if they were my only two choices, I might tend to go with the guy who at least has some human, if mostly execrable, qualities. Fortunately they're not my only choices...the GOP left me about 20 years ago. Too much bible thumpery going on.

52 What, me worry?  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:56:16pm

re: #47 Targetpractice

It's like I've said before, a lot of folks vote for the guy they think they could have a beer with. And, weirdly enough, a lot of people are willing to go "Yeah, Santorum's a nut, but he's such a friendly nut."

I get the beer thing. It's a certain likeability. Newt is probably the perfect example of NOT having it. They put him under the spotlight for a week or so, but then he fell flat on his feet.

But at some level, doesn't brains mean anything? I'm not being snarky. Don't you want someone smarter than you are? Who has a grasp of law and history, with a sharp intellect? There's a reason the Presidency attracts lawyers. They're not all evil bastards.

53 Targetpractice  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:01:09pm

re: #52 marjoriemoon

I get the beer thing. It's a certain likeability. Newt is probably the perfect example of NOT having it. They put him under the spotlight for a week or so, but then he fell flat on his feet.

But at some level, doesn't brains mean anything? I'm not being snarky. Don't you want someone smarter than you are? Who has a grasp of law and history, with a sharp intellect? There's a reason the Presidency attracts lawyers. They're not all evil bastards.

One thing I've heard over and over again from Bush supporters, even years later, was his "conviction" and how he was willing to stick to any course, no matter how stupid it was. That you may not agree with him or his decisions, but you could respect that he believed in them so surely.

Personally, I consider it one of the signs of a fool to continue on a course, knowing that the endpoint is a brick wall, but some folks think that a positive quality.

54 dell*nix  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:01:29pm

re: #41 marjoriemoon

Saw a man just two days ago at the corner store that could have been one as he had deformed forearms and hands. Other wise looked healthy.

55 prairiefire  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:15:18pm

re: #50 Decatur Deb

The only GOP contender I would have a beer with is Huntsman, and he doesn't drink. "No sense letting that go to waste."

I bet he knows where to get a decent meal in Beijing.

56 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:28:55pm

re: #47 Targetpractice

It's like I've said before, a lot of folks vote for the guy they think they could have a beer with. And, weirdly enough, a lot of people are willing to go "Yeah, Santorum's a nut, but he's such a friendly nut."

Santorum strikes me as a whiner. Now Huckabee, I'm sure I'd love to have dinner with him.

57 dell*nix  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:51:58pm

I keep getting christian adverts on You-tube. And I seldom listen to gospel or other christian music there. Weird.

58 Decatur Deb  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:53:26pm

re: #57 dell*nix

I keep getting christian adverts on You-tube. And I seldom listen to gospel or other christian music there. Weird.

Probably picked it up here. I'm certain very specific ads follow me from site-to-site.

59 Cap'n Magic  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 8:54:24pm

re: #48 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

The profits? Take the ad budgets and the salaries of the detailers.

60 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 10:09:52pm

Fascinating. So the strategy doc was indeed "odd one out" all along. And Gleick apparently presented it as having come from the email batch, which is odd, to say the least. At the very least, he did not identify it as NOT coming from the email batch, which has the same effect. Something just rubs me the wrong way here.

In any case, this new information only adds to the evidence that the memo is probably fake - now it has no formal connection to the leak at all, it supposedly comes from a truly anonymous source (if Gleick tells the truth now), and while the tech arguments became irrelevant, the unexpected language and the grave mistakes arguments stay in full force. If the document is a fake, the only question is who is the author - a not-very-bright HI insider fed up with their shenanigans? Or maybe Gleick is not telling the full story?

I would still leave 10% probability that this is a real memo written by a particularly unhinged member of HI team, a member who is ignorant of some basic facts, like that Koch did not fund HI's anti-AGW agitprop and that they did not give 200,000$ in 2011 but only 25,000$ (to the healthcare project), and who writes in the "evil conspirator" style. But not more than 10%.

61 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Feb 20, 2012 11:01:49pm

re: #60 Representative of Bank of Nikolai

a not-very-bright HI insider fed up with their shenanigans

Or, as has been suggested, a HI trickster trying for a Rathergate angle. And aimed specifically at Gleick, given his mention.

62 Tigger2005  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 3:24:55am

re: #44 Kragar

For Rick Santorum voters, it's character that counts

You can serve me up a pile of horseshit and it can be authentic, it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it to be POTUS.

And take a look at the crowd.

Don't mean to go all Godwiny but that's the same reason many Germans voted for Hitler...he was nothing if not authentic!

63 neilk  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 7:25:25am

Geez, what a terrible idea. Gleick's scholarship and everyone associated with him are now tainted for no good reason. Climate change deniers have a silver bullet to change the subject in any dispute involving him, their favored technique in any case.

Let the Congressional hearings begin.

64 Joe in Australia  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 2:13:00am

Gleich claims that the strategy document was supplied by an anonymous stranger. He says he got the corroborative documents directly from the Heartland Institute, but for some reason they didn't supply the strategy document, the one the anonymous stranger had obtained in the first place. So even though the strategy document is very similar to and apparently based on the corroborative documents, they were apparently handled separately and the anonymous stranger didn't have access to them.

Apparently Gleich was the only person contacted by the anonymous stranger - at least nobody else has come forward and said "Hey, someone sent me the same document but I dropped it because I couldn't verify it". So it seems very fortuitous that this stranger found one of the few climate change scientists willing and able to extract secret documents from the Heartland Institute by deceit.

Gleich's story has nothing to do with the evidence for AGW; and it's worth noting that nobody has cast aspersions on the other documents he supplied. But even if he didn't forge the strategy document I think his personal credibility is shot. If he did forge the document then it's an almost incomprehensible act. The only motive that I can imagine is a very shabby one - to give himself a little shout-out in the forged memo. If so, it's one of the most costly bits of vanity I can imagine.

65 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 9:51:15am

re: #64 Joe in Australia

Basically there are 3 options.

1. If the document is authentic, somebody singled out Gleick - maybe because he is featured prominently in the document.

2. If the document is fake:

2a. this might have been a provocation by a HI insider (since the document is obviously based on HI documents);

2b. or Gleick made it himself for whatever reason after he got the real documents.

I believe this exhausts the possibilities as of now.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh