Fallout from the Theft of Heartland Institute Climate Documents

The man who admits to having obtained the documents from the Heartland Institute on fraudulent pretexts claims that he had nothing to do with the dissemination of a fabricated document that AGW activists released in concert with them. Michelle has the story, in which she reproduces Heartland’s official response to Peter Gleick’s partial mea culpa:

“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.

Time and time again we come back to this central question regarding the proponents of AGW: if their case is so compelling, why do they feel the need to fabricate their evidence, to twist it to fit their preconceptions, to launch smear campaigns on their opponents, and the like? To say the least, it doesn’t breed trust or confidence.

AGW proponents will say that this is the same as what happened with the leaks from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, but it’s a false argument. The materials leaked from East Anglia seem to have been leaked from within, either by a whistleblower or a disgruntled employee, depending on one’s point of view. Those materials ought to have been provided to researchers and to the public under numerous lawful freedom of information requests, and the emails in particular demonstrate how those requests were ignored and quashed, and to what length the CRU was willing to go to make sure that its evidence stayed in house and among AGW supporters. An investigatory commission was quickly established to soft-pedal the nature of the breach of public trust and scientific method, and the strategy was thereafter copied at the University of Virginia here in the States, to cover for a high-profile researcher.

Stacy elaborates about the “apology”:

One of the central figures in this criminal hoax was Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, who uses the Huffington Post to offer an excuse:

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.

“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”?

He goes on to build an analogy that’s perfectly apt, considering the ends to which this ginned up hysteria was meant to be used. Global Minimum Tax, my ass.

Share