Poor Peter Gleick

Oh, he is in trouble alright. He went quite a bit beyond what is acceptable from a man in his position. However, I'm not sure if the "authored a fake document" claim is actually true. From the below, it seems that at least part of the leak is true - and Heartland is just trying to discredit a leak that harms their image.

Heartland has, as far as I can tell, stated that one of the leaked documents is a fake (this one, to be exact). Apparently some of the material from there tallies with that from other documents, though. It's late tonight so I'll have to leave it for tomorrow (or anyone else with time to spend, I want to get some sleep). The article linked to in the OP states that the AP itself verified some of the claims.

 

Even if climate change is total bull, which i'm not willing to say it is since I have seen very little science on the matter, we still have to fundamentally revamp our resource consumption habits. The current level of consumption on the planet is taxing the earth at around 50% over what it can replenish in time. If nothing is done to stop this pattern it will only grow, considering the rapid industrialization of places like China and India. As an aside, isn't it a good idea to get off of fossil fuels anyways? Being energy independent has a great many benefits.

 

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean here. He was caught before he confessed what? As for the document being faked, I'll have to see some independent confirmation. Yes, Heartland I. stated that one of the documents was fake, but they are an interested party here.

 

Er, so far I have not been able to find any confirmation whether that one document (the strategy memo) WAS a fake to begin with; it does look possible but it's unlikely to be proven until we get Heartland to disclose computer information, which is obviously not happening. Though Gleick later confessed, he stated that the documents he sent to other people are the same ones he obtained; until he forwards the email or whatever he received we can't be sure if he got the same memo (faked or not) and if he wrote or edited it. AFAIK, Heartland itself has not contested everything else, though. What this means to me, with the info I have so far, is that most of the information in the leaks is true.

As for Gleick himself, from an ethical standpoint he passed the line, clear enough. I imagine this will hurt his scientific career a lot, and he may be tried in a court of law - and as long as the law is followed, I have no problem with that. However, things don't look much better on the other side of the fence - Heartlands was quite gleeful during the 2009 leak on the other side and a lot of the materials (the ones they said they were "phished for", which would imply they acknowledge them) paint them in just as bad light as the "bully scientists" they railed against.

Personally, I can't say this case changed my opinion much. While Gleick's conduct appears abnormal at least - why would someone of his position risk his neck personally committing an obvious ethics violation - there seems to be enough truth in the leak.

 

I'm sure it's all a conspiracy involving Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, Butros Butros Gali, Janeane Garofalo, Gloria Steinem, Kermit the Frog, and Captain Planet. All funnelling their thoughts through Peter via the evil Psychlo Terl.

 

Not for you, perhaps, but the buzz the leak created would imply that many people found these documents (statement or no statement) quite interesting. Personally, I raised an eyebrow once or twice reading about the "education" initiatives.

And by the way, some people are already Claiming that Gleick was set up, and that someone emailed him that statement to get him hooked and provoke him to do something like that to discredit him. Now, I'm not particularly convinced - the scandal damages heartland at least as much as it damages him. If it was a provocation, it was either a very risky one or Gleick managed to uncover a lot more than he was expected to.

Or, if you want, you can claim both Gleick and Heartland Institute were being set up; one was judged expendable to discredit the other. Conspiracies are fun, aren't they?

 

No, no, no. It's Victor Orban.

 

Now, I may be a bit jaded from what I know about PR, but "non-alarmist perspectives" sounds like a nice little euphemism for "stuff that agrees with us.".There certainly seem to be a fair few alarmists , such as the IEA itself; when the majority of scientists and organizations say something, I'm inclined to give them a slightly larger benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell Dr. Wojick seems to have made a career mostly as a consultant to first a Coal thinktank and then Heartland; how he is qualified to write a balanced curriculum is anyone's guess. As my old statistics professor used to say, with enough data you can claim anything.

The mention of this is in their fundraising plan at http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf . That is not the document Heartland has stated to be fake, btw - and so far I think the language they used seems to indicate the rest of the documents are recognized as original. On p. 18 it discusses their curriculum project, and they lament not having as much recognition as the "alarmist" perspective (gee, I wonder if most of the scientists supporting it has anything to do with that), and mentions a "tentative" agreement to pay Mr. Wojick 25K per quarter, effectively funding his project to provide "alternative viewpoint" to the usual scientific view. There are a few other gems in there, such as paying a team of scientists 300k annually to write a rebuttal to the UN IPCC report ( p. 13). Nice incentive for free thought, I have to say.

In short, Heartland seems quite willing to provide funding for various viewpoints contrary to the idea of global warming - chances are, such one-sided approach doesn't stem from desire to provide a balanced understanding. That, combined with the identity of their donors, casts a shadow on the neutrality of climate change "alternative viewpoints" that they support financially.

 

Aldeth ... I didn't want to incur the wraith of the Mad Hungarian.

Disclaimer: The actual "Mad Hungarian" is a former baseball pitcher named Al Hrabosky -- awesome guy who's currently the color commentator for the St. Louis Cardinals.

 

No need. They do a good enough job of that by themselves.

 

Maybe that's how he gets his kicks. As far as the "institute" is concerned, a lot of us already thought they were a bunch of partisan frauds.