Deception, Lies and Forgery

The “believer” world erupted last week with “gotcha” columns and blogs when private board papers from a US conservative think-tank,Heartland,  were stolen and publicised. The useful idiots here in New Zealand also jumped in on the act.

Unfortunately for them all their claims were, yesterday, turned topsy-turvy when a leading climate scientist (chair of the IGU Integrity Committee) confessed that he had fraudulently obtained the documents by a form of identity theft. Worse, the main document is a forgery.

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. …

The Heartland Institute had already signaled that it plans to seek charges and civil action against the person who extracted its documents under a false identity. Foreshadowing today’s events, on Friday, Ross Kaminsky, a senior fellow and former board member at Heartland, posted a piece on the American Spectator site naming Gleick as an “obvious suspect.” Now they have their man.

I won’t speculate on how the legal aspects of this story might play out.

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. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Blokeintakapuna

    After reading the headline WO – I thought it was the new Labour Party mantra on what it takes to get to the front bench.

    Surprisingly similar to the failed MUNZ / Union / Labour Party arguements/philosophies don’t ya think?

  • The consensus is so overwhelming that it was a moral imperative to steal documents from an institute that only spends 4 million a year in total  (5 five minutes what the US government anually spends on global warming “research”).

  • Magoo

    ‘Heartland Institute President Joe Bast on why global warming activist Peter Gleick stole and forged documents from his organization’:

    http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html

  • TCrwdb

    Warmists making up shit, whodathunk??!!  :)

  • seevue jungle

    It is interesting the AGW denier community call them themselves ‘skeptics’ when in fact they are closer to being conspiracy theorists. The response from this community to this event is to use the attack/divert strategy. 

    Peter Gleick has not said the original document is forgery. He has said he received the document  from an anonymous source, He then used a false name to ask for and receive corroborating documents.

    The Heartland Institute has claimed the original document is a forgery. In their position that would be the logical PR response. 

    The Heartland Institute has funded some of our local AGW conspiracy theorists including Brian Leyland. 

    Given that these organisations are promoting a view that is directly contrary to that of main stream science it is reasonable to ask what their agenda is.

    • insider

      The original document I think is a forgery. I suspect it is an activist’s impression of what a strategy might look like based on the assumption that they would evilly lay out their plans like a James Bond villain. I suspect Heartland would not use the language and format used. It’s like no corporate strategy document I’ve read. It’s more like speech notes.

    • Richard McGrath

      Firstly, don’t Phil Jones’ emails, to his University of East Anglia and other warmist friends, which mentioned hiding the decline in global temperatures since 1998, constitute collaboration if not conspiracy?

      Secondly, the notion of “mainstream” science is a nonsense. There are hypotheses which can be tested and retested. Majority opinions are irrelevant. If 999 scientists believed in a hypothesis and one scientist then disproved that hypothesis, would you criticise that scientist for being outside the “mainstream”?

      Would you have criticised Galileo (or was it Copernicus) for proposing an hypothesis that the planet Earth revolved around its nearby star and not the other way around? The “mainstream” clerics of the day certainly disapproved.

      • phronesis

        Copernicus. Interesting comparison as what Copernicus did was develop a much simpler theory than was popular with the majority of scientists. His theory accounted for the observations better and did away with a lot of really weird auxillary theories. He was derided as a denier of the “obvious truth” that the world was stationary.

      • The decline was in tree ring density.

    • Dion

      Scientists who use words like “denier” to describe those who disagree with them are no different than the likes of Bishop Tamaki.

      There’s plenty of room for intellectual dishonesty in someone who has two decades of work riding on a set of hypotheses – which is why those in the scientific community should be encouraging – rather than trying to silence – debate.

    • Kapow

      After Gleick admitted he lied, you now suppose he is telling the truth about the rest of his story? Please! No wonder you and yours lap up the nonsense that Gleick, Gore and the other proven liars feed us all.

  • Euan Rt

    Did anyone see the story TV! carried in the news this morning? Apparently Ak Uni have found that clouds are getting lower which is having the effect of cooling the earth. I thought it was me having hot flushes but it seems no; depending who you listen to, it is getting both warmer and cooler.

  • Dr Wang

    Gleick admits he lied…but all for the greater good. Well his credibility is shot (that debate IS settled).

    His gullible supporters still proclaim that Gleick (the confessed liar) has validity in the climate debate. Their stance on global warming is based on the word of liar, so the credibility of their argument is shot too (so that debate IS finally settled now too).

    Now that all that is “settled” can we please just get on with life!

  • 6sn7gta

    i thought that you guys would lap this up.  however,  i believe that it is fair to say that the tables are turning.  it’s time that organisations such as the heartland institute get what’s coming to them.  the whining from the denialists has been hysterical,  it’s time that their lies were put out in the open.  Mashey’s expose of the dodgy tax dealings of Heartland will hurt them when the IRS gets involved.  the HI only spins,  it does nothing else, they do no research,  see some of the begging letters they’ve written to Morris the tobacco company asking for funds.  they are weasels of the worst order.

    • Tom

       You are so full of shit you squeak

      • 6sn7gta

        nice retort,  fully up to date with the facts,  sensitive to the issues,  and has a full grasp of the facts.  what do you know about anything?  probably nothing.

      • Euan Rt

        fully up to date – delusional, says who? sensitive to the issues – delusional, says who? full grasp – delusional says who? and then your real clanger…”of the facts” – says who? You are very proud of yourself aren’t you? Careful, it is long way down from up there.

    • Johnboy

      I always get a good laugh when the latest warmist lies are shown up and the woodwork immediately spews up sad cunts like you 6sn7gta.

      Wear your keyboard out writing press releases for the greenies we just laugh at your shit here.

      • 6sn7gta

        you are delusional.  the science is all around you,  all you have to do is open you eyes,  and occasionally think.  but maybe that’s too hard for you.

    • Stanferguson22

      “Heartland only spins” – like WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, EDS, Friends of the Earth, Hot Topic, Sierra Club, Forest & Bird, NZ Royal Society, SMC, etc, etc.

      Just last month it was disclosed that Sierra Club had received $25 million from a fossil fuel giant (Chesapeake Gas) for the sole purpose of lobbying for an ETS and other climate regulations.

      When the Cap ‘n Trade Bill was before the US House, Wall Street banks appointed no less than 41 lobbying firms to assist its passage.

      All of these people must be weasels of the first order

  • BR

     Goebbels once observed that any lie, no matter how preposterous, will be widely believed provided it is told often enough and to as many people as possible. The promotion of AGW is a propaganda campaign that he would certainly have been proud of. It is not often that one can open a newspaper, or tune in to a mainstream television or radio news broadcast and find no mention of global warming. The public has repeatedly been told that there is a scientific “consensus” in favour of AGW. That is absurd. Science is not done by consensus. That has never been the scientific method. Science is based on repeatable experiments and verifiable facts, both of which are absent in any “consensus”. If science were done by “consensus”, a ballot would have settled the question as to whether the Higgs particle exists and 9 billion dollars could have been saved.
     
    In any case, one does not need any scientific knowledge at all to see AGW for the scam that it is. One only has to look at the proposed solution to this “problem” to determine that it is nothing more than a political power grab. Those with the most to gain from the widespread public acceptance of AGW are the big spending, big borrowing, vote buying left wing politicians, and the crony-capitalists who benefit from their taxpayer funded subsidies and corporate welfare handouts (Solyndra anyone?).
     
    It is therefore obvious that this great fraud has nothing to do with science. It is 100% political. The line that divides believers and unbelievers is no different from the demarcation line that separates those who want more freedom, less government and lower taxes, and those who want the opposite.
     
    The proposed solution to AGW is of course more government, more regulations and more taxes. If only the peons would just give up more of their money and submit more of their rights and freedoms to the whims of the politicians, they would then be able to save everyone from the grotesque hell that has been predicted and promoted by villains and fools alike, from the brutal despots and disreputable crooks who populate the UN and the IPCC, all the way down to the smelly unwashed losers who represent the bulk of the “occupy” movement. These naive dupes will quite possibly be looking to the DPRK for inspiration because they would arguably have the smallest carbon footprint of any country on Earth.

    Bill. (BR)

    • Dr Wang

      Don’t hold back Bill.

    • Karlos

      Possibly the greatest response to a blog I have seen, nicely put Bill

  • Andy

    Steven Mosher figured it was Gleick that was guilty as soon as he saw the allegedly fake document. He did this because he spends a lot of time on Twitter and knows how Gleick writes, so the use of commas, etc, and the terminology suggested to Mosher that Gleick had faked the document.

    I wouldn’t like to speculate any further, but if this is true, then Gleick is in very big trouble.
    Furthermore, all the churnalists who regurgitated the story will be accessories to the crime.

33%