Search Results

SCOTT JOHNSON: The Case Against Peter Gleick. “Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.”

As with the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, the non-prosecution of Gleick is all about the government’s priorities.

NOW THAT THE CONTROVERSY’S BLOWN OVER: Peter Gleick Reinstated at Pacific Institute. “The water and climate expert Peter Gleick, a scientist who masqueraded as a board member of a conservative organization to gain access to its confidential financial information, has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute, the environmentally minded think tank that he founded. . . . The statement said the Pacific Institute’s board of directors had accepted Dr. Gleick’s apology for misrepresenting himself. It added that no other staff member was involved in his subterfuge. . . . By saying that its investigation, carried out by unknown parties, confirmed Dr. Gleick’s account, the institute was implicitly backing the scientist’s claim that he was not responsible for cobbling together a document labeled a fake by Heartland, which he disseminated along with other genuine ones.”

Upholding the high ethical standards for which the climate science field is known.

AS JUDGE SPOTSWOOD ROBINSON USED TO SAY, WHAT’S YOUR NEXT ARGUMENT, COUNSELOR? Bill Maher: There’s No Double Standard, Because I’m Funny, and Rush Isn’t.

UPDATE: Reader Michael Smith writes:

Just cancelled this morning, if you’re counting the decrements to the HBO user-base.

I think they’re going to need more than a few global climate change scientists to hide this decline. Gleick might be available.

I’d like to see the numbers.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader James Smith — no relation to Michael as far as I know — writes: “Seriously, does anyone remember when he was last funny? Not in my life time and i’m older than he is.”

STEVE HAYWARD: The Unbearable Gleickness of Being: An Omnibus Climate Update. “Evelyn Waugh couldn’t make this stuff up.”

FAKEGATE UPDATE: Peter Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals.

MORE BACKGROUND ON Peter Gleick’s Climate Fakery.

HE’S A SCIENTIST — you can’t expect him to be good at math: “If Gleick obtained the other documents for the purposes of corroborating the memo, why didn’t he notice that there were substantial errors, such as saying the Kochs had donated $200,000 in 2011, when in fact that was Heartland’s target for their donation for 2012? This seems like a very strange error for a senior Heartland staffer to make. Didn’t it strike Gleick as suspicious? Didn’t any of the other math errors?”

UPDATE: Judith Curry on Gleick’s “Integrity.” “The end result of Gleick’s actions are to cede the high ground to Heartland, especially in light of the fact that Heartland had invited Gleick to a debate shortly before the theft of the documents occurred.”

MEGAN MCARDLE ON PETER GLEICK’S GLOBAL-WARMING FAKERY: “I hardly know what to say about the latest developments in the Heartland document dump. Profanity seems too weak, and incredulity too tame. . . . Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions? When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.”

Plus this: “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” Indeed.

Also, from John Hinderaker: “So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me. If I am right, apologize for fabricating a document and attempting to perpetrate a hoax, and retire from public life.”

And Jonathan Adler observes: “This is just incredible (and not only because Gleick was chairing a working group on scientific integrity at the time of his actions). . . . Much of the clmate science community seems unable to condemn Gleick’s conduct (see, e.g. here), just as some environmentalist groups and climate activists have a hard time acknowledging the frequent exaggeration or ‘sexing up’ of climate studies to accentuate the threat posed by climate change. (And I say this as someone who believes climate change is a problem and supports appropriate policies to address the threat.)”

RAND SIMBERG: FakeGate: Can’t Hide This Decline. “Peter Gleick adds yet more fraud to the warmists’ resume.” It seems to me that people who were confident in the science would behave differently.

ANN ALTHOUSE ON PETER GLEICK’S HEARTLAND FAKERY: “Mmmm. Taste it: the Real-and-Fake cocktail. Much better than straight real, which is quite bland. No kick! And ‘climate change’ is so very, very important.”

UPDATE: In Apologizing for Global Warming Hoax, Peter Gleick Blames His Victims.

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.”

Schadenfreudily yours.