From Climategate to Denialgate

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure what Permabear is saying will be exactly the reaction of potential libertarian funders to these discreditable revelations. It has certainly been his reaction, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's reaching for his wallet in support of HI's noble cause of defending other people's profits for money at the expense of science, planetary climate, and other people's reputations.

karma_ wrote: »

Well, in this instance we can point to the scientific data, or any of the international bodies of science who all agree that it's happening.

On the other hand, there is not one organisation of scientific repute who disagrees with this opinion.

It's quite simple, if the HI or other libertarian think tanks who are sceptical, then please, begin to fund scientific research, gather your data and prove it's not happening. Until that happens I will regard those who push a sceptical stance on climate change as shills.

Memnoch wrote: »

funded by honest corporations who only care about the planet and the people who live on it

Moriarty wrote: »

I don't know whether you're purposely being blinkered to the problems with your position or not, but you don't seem to realise that finding holes in currently accepted theories is what many scientists live for.

It's part of the excitement and satisfaction of working on subjects like this - you perform research and hopefully, if it's well well designed, thought out and lucky, you either a) provide further evidence that the currently accepted theories are going down the right track or b) find evidence that something's amiss. If you listen to scientists who have discovered flaws and entirely new concepts in their fields, you quickly appreciate how significant one discovery like this is in a career.

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

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.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.

Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.

An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.

A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

We are consulting with legal counsel to determine our next steps and plan to release a more complete statement about the situation tomorrow. In the meantime, we ask again that publishers, bloggers, and Web site hosts take the stolen and fraudulent documents off their sites, remove defamatory commentary based on them, and issue retractions.