Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
Showing Original Post only (View all)[Climate scientist] Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files [View all]
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...
Full post: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files
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 Institutes climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institutes 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 elses 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.
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 elses 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
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
[Climate scientist] Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files [View all]
salvorhardin
Feb 2012
OP
so the right can steal and misinterpret climate scientist emails, but when we leak
villager
Feb 2012
#1
Has Heartland admitted any such theft in stealing the emails of hundreds of climate scientists?
DCKit
Feb 2012
#2
They may ignore the insignificance of his deception, and just call him dishonest.
tclambert
Feb 2012
#17
Many on BOTH sides of the global warming debate are so flawed, the motives and ethics of BOTH sides
stockholmer
Feb 2012
#8
Global Warming: 1,000 climate scientists for, 1 oil geologist against = "unsettled"
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Feb 2012
#13
"deniers" - lololol, spoken like a true ayatollah, colour me undecided, I know that is 'heretical'
stockholmer
Feb 2012
#24
I imagine that, when lacking a substantive point, we often resort to melodrama.
LanternWaste
Feb 2012
#25
at the end of the day, it is not settled, sorry, but I wont play the 'pick on side or another' game
stockholmer
Feb 2012
#23
It is actually quite similar to the 1990s early 2000s creationists vs evolution debates.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#35
no it is fucking settled science. The only reasonable discussions are about
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2012
#37
The science is settled. There is no controversy. Global Climate Change is real.
Ian David
Feb 2012
#18