February 20, 2012
REVERSE-CLIMATEGATE FAIL: Peter Gleick Admits To Dishonesty In Obtaining Heartland Climate Files. Which only raises the credibility of those who claim that the major document is actually a fake: “Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake. One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.”
When the New York Times climate blog is saying this, you’re in real trouble. Meanwhile, check this out: Heartland Memo Looking Faker By The Minute.
UPDATE: Reader Kevin Coenen writes:
The most laughable line in Gleick’s confession is that he did it as a result of his “frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, . . .” Revkin’s commentary follows on with his lament that this will “greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.” Debate? Huh? They now are talking about a needed debate on climate change. Al Gore, the UN climate panel and all “rational” scientists have been telling us for what now seems like a decade that the science is settled, there is a scientific consensus, that there can be no debate. Now they write as if all they ever wanted was a debate on the merits.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.” They cannot stop themselves. Good grief.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Much more, from Charlie Martin.
MORE: Reader Paul Strasser writes:
I note that Gleick denies he wrote the fake part of the Heartland docs and that someone anonymously mailed them to him.
This is remarkably similar to the supposed source fo the Rathergate memos in which Rather’s source apparently got them from a mysterious stranger at a state fair or some such.
I suppose the “A stranger gave them to me so I can’t be sure if they’re really accurate but the information jibes with my beliefs” is the left’s version of “my dog ate my homework.”