HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » [Climate scientist] Peter...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:40 PM

[Climate scientist] Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files

Damn. If a journalist had pulled the same trick, I'd admire her to a degree (the use of deception in journalism is a hotly debated issue). However, a scientist with a personal grudge (albeit deserved) against the org he was trying to get info on -- that's a different story. The right is going to just go to town with the fallout from this incident.

Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me...

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.


Full post: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files

48 replies, 6411 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply [Climate scientist] Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files (Original post)
salvorhardin Feb 2012 OP
villager Feb 2012 #1
DCKit Feb 2012 #2
OneAngryDemocrat Feb 2012 #3
tclambert Feb 2012 #17
Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #4
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #5
caseymoz Feb 2012 #10
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #40
caseymoz Feb 2012 #42
reorg Feb 2012 #46
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #48
padruig Feb 2012 #6
wtmusic Feb 2012 #7
stockholmer Feb 2012 #8
caseymoz Feb 2012 #11
stockholmer Feb 2012 #21
caseymoz Feb 2012 #27
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #29
stockholmer Feb 2012 #30
caseymoz Feb 2012 #33
caseymoz Feb 2012 #32
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #43
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Feb 2012 #13
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #20
stockholmer Feb 2012 #24
LanternWaste Feb 2012 #25
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #44
stockholmer Feb 2012 #23
LanternWaste Feb 2012 #26
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #28
joshcryer Feb 2012 #35
Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #37
Ian David Feb 2012 #18
kenfrequed Feb 2012 #19
truebrit71 Feb 2012 #22
joshcryer Feb 2012 #34
Hugabear Feb 2012 #45
CreekDog Feb 2012 #9
caseymoz Feb 2012 #12
saras Feb 2012 #14
PuffedMica Feb 2012 #15
Kolesar Feb 2012 #16
BadgerKid Feb 2012 #31
joshcryer Feb 2012 #36
w4rma Feb 2012 #38
salvorhardin Feb 2012 #39
reorg Feb 2012 #47
tiny elvis Feb 2012 #41

Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:46 PM

1. so the right can steal and misinterpret climate scientist emails, but when we leak

..a true document about the degree they want to undermine science, it's somehow a reason for criticism?

The documents about what Heartland is up to are still true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:50 PM

2. Has Heartland admitted any such theft in stealing the emails of hundreds of climate scientists?

 

Hey Heartland, as you did, it's out there now, it's up to you to refute it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:56 PM

3. There's no story here - not really.

Am I missing something, here?

So the man asked for right-wing documents under an assumed name... but so the fuck what?

Two wrongs don't make a right, so the argument that Heartland has done the same is irrelevent.

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.


What's the radical right actually going to say? The guy gave a bogus name? That's so petty I don't think the story is going to last more than one flash scroll at the bottom of Fox's fake News channel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneAngryDemocrat (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:51 AM

17. They may ignore the insignificance of his deception, and just call him dishonest.

Then fake outrage at the chicanery of climate scientists in general. They love to distract from the real issues by picking at a nit and screaming furiously about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:58 PM

4. O Horrors!

Gleick had the courage to stand up and say "I am Spartacus". We need more heroes like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 10:07 PM

5. The article doesn't give enough information to determine whether

any illegal activity took place, at least as I read it.

Did he assume the name of a specific person?

Did he just make up a name?

Did he promise something in exchange for the documents?

Did he request a government benefit or some financial assistance or something of value beyond this information?

And as for the allegedly fake document, it will be interesting to see what claims were made about it and just how fake it is.

This is a very strange story.

But the good news is that it draws attention to who is funding the climate doubters' network and "research."

I have no fear that doubters will become painfully aware of the truth before long.

This has been the strangest winter in Los Angeles -- just bizarre. Climate change is undeniable, and there has to be some cause. The climate change deniers are not able to provide any scientific data that supports their explanations for the weather extremes and melting ice that we see.

I do not want to see any scientist suffer for having sought the truth about something, and people should obey laws when they do things, but I'm glad that the information about the Heartland Foundation is out and in the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:10 AM

10. Record highs are outnumbering record lows 3-1


For the last decade. This after a gradual trend in that direction.

And the trend is continuing to accelerate.

I'd call the evidence of Global Warming conclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 11:37 PM

40. I'm not questioning that. I am questioning whether there

is any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the scientist. I don't know the law in this area or enough about what the scientist said in order to obtain this information. The article is very sketchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:10 AM

42. Obtaining information fraudulently would be against the law.


But I'm thinking (and hoping) that if he came out and said this, he has something on Heartland, too, something criminal that's worse than what we've seen so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

46. he claimed to be a board member

according to this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

which also speculates that one of the documents, a short strategy paper, the "memo", could be fake.

That speculation is total bullshit and a waste of time, given that it admits right from the start:

"Every single verifiable fact that's in the memo is found in another one of the documents".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 09:57 PM

48. I also disagree that the allegedly fake document reads like

a fake. It reads like a summary of the packet of documents. Who wrote the allegedly fake document may depend on when the whole packet was sent. The summary may have been written by someone at a lower level in the Heartland Institute, someone who prepared it as a courtesy to the person to whom the entire packet was intended to be sent.

Unfortunately, the sort of people who support the Heartland probably will not change their minds about the organization because of the release of the memos.

Whether the summary document is a fake or not is really not very important to anyone except the man who has admitted to obtaining the documents.

Wouldn't you expect the Heartland Institute to call the board member's office to verify that the copy had been requested? I would have, especially if I had been requested to send it to an address that was a bit different from the usual address for that board member. Heartland Institute was careless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 10:23 PM

6. "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!

I appreciate everyone's concern about the reputation of Peter Gleick but to quote the journal Nature

"scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight"

Dr. Gleick's reputation will rebound much more quickly than the raveling of schemes and intrigues we have been subject to from the Heartland Institute and the long list of denial, obfuscation and outright threats.

When I read the next journal article from Gleick, I won't be thinking "this is the guy who miss-represented himself to Heartland." I will examine read his abstract, examine his methods, download the supplementary materials and decide on the merits of the data and all other facts the value of the conclusions presented.

If any climate skeptic wants to make a name for him or herself, they should consider finding fault with Fourier, Tyndall or Arrhenius.

Nature, Editorial - "Climate of Fear" Nature 464, 141 (11 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464141a; Published online 10 March 2010

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 10:23 PM

7. What was the personal grudge Gleick had against Heartland? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 10:45 PM

8. Many on BOTH sides of the global warming debate are so flawed, the motives and ethics of BOTH sides

 

are often murky, and the science is unsettled, regardless of what EITHER side says. It will all shake out in the end. Until then, fuck it. Sorry, but anything this spannered is just not a place I am ready to plant my flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)


Response to caseymoz (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:03 PM

21. spannered -- try traveling somewhere mate, perhaps to the UK

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:22 PM

27. Why? To be educated in flash-in-the-pan slang?


I can get that from youtube, and for far fewer dollars.

BTW, when I go to Britain, I'll talk to communicate with you Brits, not to show off my sparkling New World vernacular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:23 PM

29. Uhm...

The odd thing is that in England (and the rest of the civilised world) the "theory" of global warming/climate change/greenhouse effect is accepted scientifically. I find it rather odd that someone would claim citizenship and produce the airs and verbal affectations of such but present such an absurd position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:25 PM

30. nice geographical/cultural reductionism

 

Yes, you got me. The EU is monolithic, we all think the same on every issue.



(btw, I am Swedish, but lived in London for years)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 09:46 PM

33. Back to the subject . . .

You might know your slang, but you're ignorant of the science. Record high temperatures are being broken at three times the rate as record lows, and it has accelerated to that ratio over the last three decades and continues to accelerate. The evidence is conclusive. Even a study financed by the Koch brothers confirmed global warming is happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 09:41 PM

32. That's neither odd nor suspicious.


Doubters are everywhere, and the official position of a government or the predominant position of a society says nothing about an individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:55 PM

43. True

Still, I would have expected greater scientific rigor from citizens of countries that frequently best the US in math and science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:22 AM

13. Global Warming: 1,000 climate scientists for, 1 oil geologist against = "unsettled"

Just because someone says, "I disagree" doesn't mean they have the standing or facts to base their opinion. "Flawed" is your opinion. Peer reviewed research by qualified scientists shows disagreement only as to the degree of the impact man has had in causing global warming, not whether or not the condition exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:33 AM

20. +infinity

I can't believe that deniers even come here to spout such nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:18 PM

24. "deniers" - lololol, spoken like a true ayatollah, colour me undecided, I know that is 'heretical'

 

The more both sides ratchet up the bleating, the more I think both are full of ulterior motives and untoward agendas.

cheers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:26 PM

25. I imagine that, when lacking a substantive point, we often resort to melodrama.

"spoken like a true ayatollah, colour me undecided, I know that is 'heretical'"



The combination of both non-substantive name-calling and the implication of self-martyrdom is rather clever. Irrelevant to the nth degree, and strong in petulance, but still clever.

I imagine we often resort to that type of usage when we lack any actual substantive points on which to base or defend our initial premise...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:58 PM

44. Thank you.

This was a better response than I would have managed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:09 PM

23. at the end of the day, it is not settled, sorry, but I wont play the 'pick on side or another' game

 

The vitriol that both sides attack each other with so reminds me of a bloody religious debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:33 PM

26. I feel the same way about the theory of gravity...

I feel the same way about the theory of gravity...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #26)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:12 PM

28. Definitely!

I am still not sold on the Heliocentric theory for the Solar system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:17 PM

35. It is actually quite similar to the 1990s early 2000s creationists vs evolution debates.

If you do not recall those just go to Talk Origins that covered the lasting effect of that debacle: http://www.talkorigins.org/

Just because there is vitriol does not mean that neither side can be trusted. One side is based on reason, logic, and data.

The other side has either for-profit motives or ideological motives that reject reason, logic, and data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:38 PM

37. no it is fucking settled science. The only reasonable discussions are about

what to do about the settled science. Of course as science is process driven, perhaps in the future it will be less than settled, but that is not relevant to here and now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 09:16 AM

18. The science is settled. There is no controversy. Global Climate Change is real.

The only question is how much and how soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:33 AM

19. False equivalency BS

Seriously??!!

I mean you really are going to come here and post that kind of an absurd statement. The Science is in and settled on this. There is no question and debate on whether it is happening and there is no question or debate regarding Humanities role, or in the existence of greenhouse gasses.

The only item up for debate is "how long will it take for the media to realize that the petrol industry funded junk science is complete crap."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:08 PM

22. "the science is unsettled"? Bollocks.

Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:14 PM

34. LOL

I find that I can easily judge ones ability to think critically based solely on their beliefs on climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:39 PM

45. The only ones for whom this science is unsettled are extreme right-wingers

As others have pointed out, there are an overwhelming number of unbiased scientists who have stated categorically that climate change is real. And the vast majority of those agree that human activity is to blame.

Pretty much the only ones still debating whether or not climate change is occurring are right-wing nutjobs and the corporations who stand to lose the most (namely Big Oil).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Mon Feb 20, 2012, 11:16 PM

9. This doesn't make climate change data or conclusions untrue

that is all.

next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:27 AM

12. Remember when climate scientists emails were hacked?


So, Heartland is about to start its counterattack. After accusing scientists of faking their data, of being part of some kind of socialist conspiracy to transfer wealth with the environment as the excuse? Now it turns out that it was Heartland that is the conspiracy all along?

I guess their best weapon is hypocrisy, sheer balls and a well-supplied war chest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:58 AM

14. I don't have a problem with it, and I think he was a fool to apologize

 

It's rather like apologizing for invading their privacy when you catch a child molester in the act with your cell camera and turn it over to the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 05:14 AM

15. The high cost of exposing the deniers for what they are


    Dr. Gleick has to accept tarnish on his reputation to get out the truth about how Heartland is enabling the deniers. There is nothing wrong with blowing the whistle on them, but it seems to be turning into a war of attrition with these folks.

    I hope there are more Dr. Gleicks out there who are willing to pay the price to put these deniers in there place and expose organizations like Heartland for what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PuffedMica (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:38 AM

16. The oil industry/Heartland willingly released the information to him

It could broadly be called "whistle blowing" .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:42 PM

31. A poster hits nail on the head (for radical RW in general)

The fossil fuel industry and many of the issues that the Right in this country are harping on have an interesting pattern.

They take an issue that could be potentially dangerous to their profits and turn it into an emotional issue - in this case Global Warming - and when it becomes an emotional issue, all reason is thrown out the door and rational discourse becomes impossible.

Global Warming was discovered decades ago. The fossil fuel companies started to become threatened by it. So we go from scientists have data about global warming and what we could possibly do about it to scientists have a Liberal Agenda to destroy capitalism and our Way of Life.

I have a neighbor and in-laws who live on a steady diet of Fox News and Talk Radio; such as Hannity, and if Global Warming comes up, they say words like "hoax", "socialist", "cause higher taxes", "destroying America", "predictions based upon inaccurate computer models", etc .... in very angry tones.

They're thinking emotionally. The anti-global warming crowd did a very good in turning this into a personal emotional issue.

They do this with other issues. Turn an issue from a purely academic one into dumbed down emotional rhetoric, and you got the other guys by the balls.

That's where the climate scientists got screwed. The fossil fuel industry got their PR people on it and then the right wing talking heads grabbed onto it, and now we have this mess of an issue that I for one have given up complete hope that anything can be done now.

tl;dr: industry is great at turning a scientific issue into an emotional one - an "us" vs. "them" issue and neutering the opposition.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/02/21/1842221/heartland-institute-document-leaker-comes-forward-maintains-documents-are-real

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:35 PM

36. What's sad about this, imo, is that he didn't release it to Wikileaks...

...and let them do their due diligence. They would've confirmed the files. But he wanted to do it on his own, and is left with the moral and ethical implications of doing so.

Either way I still applaud his outing the Institute and do not consider this a negative on climate scientists in general.

A climate scientist can lie about data, so what, science outs the liars.

Peter deserves props here for coming clean, even if he only did so after the heat picked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Original post)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:39 PM

38. I do not care how the documents were obtained, only that they were obtained. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 21, 2012, 11:31 PM

39. Do you care about them being fake?

Because even Gleick admits that the minutes were fake (although there were substantial errors in it that we already knew that). Gleick says he didn't fake it, but unless it was some kind of elaborate sting set up by Heartland, I don't see why anybody else but Gleick would fake it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salvorhardin (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:58 PM

47. what are you talking about? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 12:26 AM

41. concern is the answer we were looking for

concern that this guy i never heard of could represent dishonesty in some vague group
without a name
if your feelings are not in conflict and your thoughts not muddied, then you misread the op

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread