EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Deception Aside, Scientist Who Leaked Heartland Docs Called 'Hero'
The Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick admits leaking docs, but receives support from scientists and climate activists
Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of The Pacific Institute and a longtime champion of environmental causes and sustainable development, came forward on Monday to admit he was the source of leaked internal documents (pdf) from the rightwing Heartland Institute which detailed their ongoing campaign to discredit and create doubt about the scientific community's consensus on the impact of fossil fuel consumption on global warming and climate change.
While acts of deception cannot be condoned, the leaked documents provide an insight into the climate attack machine. (Photograph: Ann Pickford/Rex Features) In a letter posted on the Huffington Post on Monday, Gleick writes:
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 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.
Richard Littlemore, writing at DeSmog Blog, the outlet that first carried the leaked documents and has studiously followed the Heartland Institute's long record of scientific subterfuge, said this following Gleick's announcement:
Peter Gleick.
So, while admitting that he impersonated a third party in order to induce Heartland to confirm its own ongoing questionable conduct, Gleick has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights, proving that the Institute has dissembled and lied.
Whistleblowers - and that's the role Gleick has played in this instance - deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it's fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk - and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.
Heartland, in the meantime, deserves to be stripped of its charitable status and laughed out of the professional "think tank" fraternity for its amateurishness and the far-less-than-credible position that it has taken in the last week, denying its own responsibility in this "leak," dissembling about the origin of the material and going out of its way to "fail" to authenticate documents that it knew all along were legitimate.
Gleick expresses personal regret in his admission, but many in the world of climate science and environmental advocacy have little pity for the Heartland Institute. As a group of climate scientists wrote in an open letter (pdf) to Heartland recently: "Although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists." They continue:
These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become.
We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.
These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.
What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.
And Scott Mandia, co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, was quoted in The Guardian:
The Heartland Institute website.
"Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years. They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to 'teach the controversy' where none exists.
"Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him." [...]
And Kert Davies, the research director of Greenpeace USA, said it would be unfortunate if the row over Gleick and his methods to obtain the documents distracted from Heartland's work to block climate action.
"There are a lot of people involved with Heartland's multimillion dollar climate denial machine who want to change the subject to anything else."
###
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

42 Comments so far
Show AllYou did good, buddy, so celebrate! And maybe start distancing yourself from your bourgeois professional associations, for your own mental health.
Why are so many liberals such sniveling pussys? The reactionary right is going to have a fastival of dissembling nonsense with this admisison!
Whistleblowers tend to feel bad because they've internalised the pathological social rules that declare exposing a crime to be worse than the crime being exposed. Those rules are created by the psychopaths in high places who believe it's their right to exploit the rest of us without mercy.
Anyone who feels guilty about blowing the whistle on such criminals and traitors is a victim of their socialisation.
Anyone who thinks such a person should feel guilty is colluding, we can hope unwittingly, with the psychopaths.
In previous threads on the Heartland exposé, professional disinformers have been showing up to cast aspersions on the people releasing these documents. As far as I can figure out, these agents are arguing that DeSmogBlog and Peter Gleick are "discredited" because they published internal documents belonging to Heartland without permission.
I kid you not. Wait and see, they'll be along in this thread pretty soon. This Heartland story has really irritated them!
In contrast to the behavior of the denialsphere during the so-called "Climategate" email thefts, Gleick has engaged in subterfuge but not illegal hacking, and those releasing the documents have not taken excerpts out of context to distort their meanings.
Utter rot. You guys need some new material. This "hide the decline" crap is a prime example of the disinformation industry taking passages of stolen emails (from the Hadley CRU hack) wildly out of context - intentional distortion. The matter has been explained over and over again*, but once a climate science denier gets hold of a talking point, he won't let loose no matter what.
You can take it to the bank that the exact opposite of what Sigurdur says is closer to the truth. When he says that further research shows that Mann was in error, it means that further research shows that Mann was correct:
* Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'
More rubbish. Where Mann includes some data, you see "shoddy science." Where Mann excludes other data, you see "shoddy science."
Obviously, every study of past temperatures ever done includes some data and excludes other data - thus the whole basis of climate research is "shoddy" by your ridiculous definition.
I have referenced articles, above, which discuss numerous studies subsequent to Mann's reproducing his results. This is how science works. When your results hold up over time, your work is judged to have been accurate:
By contrast, you have not referenced anything to substantiate your arrogant invective. You don't like the scientific results, so you attack the scientist. Because nothing truthful serves your purpose to impugn Mann's foundational work, you are driven to absurd falsehoods, such as the suggestion that Mann rejects his own study.
No sane adult is going to take your word for anything, Sigurdur. The only people impressed by your disinformation are the other disinformation agents. Put up something to back up your baseless allegations, or shut up.
I did a very tiny, quick search before posting my earlier response to you and could find nothing. My sense is that, had he falsified his data, it would have been a big enough scandal that I could have found the echoes of it very easily. But perhaps I missed it, so -- do you have a cite?
Mairead,
Physics is boringly well-defined, perhaps, but not boring, imho. It's a shame the perception of climate science is that it's all about global warming, when it's a beautiful and fascinating confluence of so many scientific techniques and disciplines.
The David Archer textbook I'm reading starts off with a description of how light works. Down at the photon level, we're flailing around in particle-wave duality, about which Feynmann once said (something like) "If this seems totally confusing, you're starting to understand." Archer explains that light is a harmonic oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields. Because these fields are present in a total vacuum, and because the oscillation is self-sustaining, the light can keep moving outward forever, at the speed of light.
Maybe my mind is easily blown in my dotage - but that kind of thing just blows my mind. Visible light is the most mundane, ubiquitous phenomenon I can think of - but how it actually works, what this "harmonic oscillation" business actually means, is a deep mystery, impossible to visualize.
paineskid
The snivelers in the mainstream media criticizing Peter Gleick are not fit to lick his boots for their ongoing collusion with climate change deniers.
To me Joseph Coors maybe started it all but I would be so crass as to think that when any meetings, gatherings with planning and agendas are basically what is a think tank. And that should not preclude them from scrutiny because that just gives them the assumption of planning treasonous attacks against this country and the people making the members of the think tanks traitors to the country free to plot the overthrow of its government which almost can be said to already have happened and is still happening.
If these current think tanks were in operation in the wwI and wwII eras, I believe they would have been raided and shut down, but who knows for sure as devious people can and do go to extremes to insulate themselves for selfish reasons and the 1930s and 1940s were at the least on a little bit different than today.
Joe Romm has outdone himself in his very passionate article* on these recent developments. He starts with a pertinent quote from Elizabeth Kolbert:
Nothing better encapsulates Heartland's agenda. In the comment section, an astute blogger had this to say:
* Crossing the Line as Civilization Implodes: Heartland Institute, Peter Gleick and Andrew Revkin
Thanks for being our hero.
Sincerely,
The Earth and All Who Live on Her
It's a shame that Heartland has to hire such useless dimwits. Why is Nosferatu bothering to spam CD from his Heartland cubicle? Who is Heartland's anonymous donor to their climate change denial campaign? How can Heartland maintain its 501(c)(3) exemption despite flagrantly breaking the rules against political activities? Why aren't Nosferatu and his Heartland gang being prosecuted for tax fraud?