You remember the kerfuffle over the Heartland documents, right? The ones that include what is charitably called a completely faked “gotcha” document. And now, Peter Gleick, involved in globull warming advocacy for numerous organizations, including the National Academy of Science, has admitted to obtaining the documents by impersonating a Heartland board member
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.
An anonymous document and did not know the source, eh? Of course, Peter is going for the “fake but accurate” position, and, like all good Warmists, defends his pseudo-religion. And one must love the part about “anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated.” Like Anthony Watts, I’m not anonymous, well-funded, nor coordinating with anyone. I’d love to see some of that money, which tends to be a whole heck of a lot less than the Warmists get, especially considering how much taxpayer money is funneled their way.
Then there is the part about “debate”. What debate? Warmists refuse to debate. They are the ones who claimed that the science was settled, and rarely allow themselves to appear with a Realist to discuss the issue. Then we get to “transparency”: remember, it is and was Warmists who did everything they could to block Freedom Of Information requests, including deleting material and emails, and looking to put it all under the banner of the UN IPCC, which is not subject to FOI requests, as we learned in the latest round of Climategate emails.
Andrew Revkin states
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).
Is anyone truly surprised at this, though? We’ve seen the lengths to which people on the Left, in this case Warmists, will go to protect their interests. One of the people commenting at Revkin’s article even mentions “Lucy Ramirez.” Remember her? She was intricately involved in Rathergate.
Obviously, this isn’t stopping the Warmists. Excitable Charles Johnson, the DeSmog Blog, and all manners of liberals are saying “who cares if any of the documents are fake and stolen from a private institution, climate change is real and Heartland is EVIL!”
And, and in an interesting bit of transparency and debate, the comments for Gleick’s HuffPo article were closed from the get go. That’s called “debate” in Warmist World.
Others: Michelle Malkin, Heartland Institute, blogs.telegraph.co.uk, EU Referendum, blogs.forbes.com/stevezwick, Guardian, Watts Up With That?, iOwnTheWorld.com, Tim Blair, The PJ Tatler, Watts Up With That?, Guardian, Vox Popoli,
More: The Other McCain says Gleick is blaming the victims: ““It’s not my fault!” The end justify the means: The alleged evil of their opponents excuses any shoddy smear Gleick and his allies may perpetrate against them. And despite their admitted amorality, they wonder why we doubt their claims to “science”?”
Warmist Greg Laden says this is proof, proof, I tell you!!!!11!!! that the faked document is real.
Excitable Balloon Juice whines about the “a massive, multi-billion dollar effort to convince the world that setting the place on fire is fine and that science itself is suspect.” Sorry, bub, the multi-billions are on your side, designed to convince anti-science dupes to give up their liberties, and Warmists have spent billions, and want to waste trillions, on limiting temperature rise with projects that won’t actually work.