-
Senator Frank Lautenberg, R.I.P.
June 3, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike
May 28, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
On Friday I posted a blog note containing my personal speculation that evidence in the theft of Heartland Institute documents suggested the crime (at least I believe it is a crime), including the creation of a fake document then attributed to Heartland, may have been perpetrated by Peter Gleick, a long-time leftist enemy of Heartland.
Comments I received include tidbits such as: “Perhaps this experience will give you pause before jumping into misrepresentations of scientists on the basis of out-of-context stolen emails.” And “Ross Kaminky’s [sic] politically-motivated diatribe against the defenders of sound science only illustrates how low Heartland Institute and it’s [sic] supporters will go to misrepresent science and facts inconvenient to them.” And “So basically there is no proof that it is a fake, just speculation.”
But my favorite, for obvious reasons: “I hope that Mr. Kaminsky will be prepared [to] fully retract and apologize to Dr. Gleick once he is ruled out as the possible culprit.”
If I may be allowed a brief moment of patting myself on the back, on Monday the New York Times noted my blog post… in an article reporting that Peter Gleick has admitted doing just what I speculated he had done.
Actually, the New York Times noted it twice, with Times blogger Andrew Revkin also linking to my note, no doubt feeling let down by an erstwhile hero of the alarmist movement.
On his Huffington Post blog (but notably not, or at least not yet, on his Forbes blog), Peter Gleick admitted to using another’s identity to steal Heartland Institute documents, although he still has not admitted to being the author of the forged document that has caused most of the controversy.
If those climate alarmists who went after me (for what I said explicitly in my note was “my speculation”) had any honor, they would not just apologize, but feel some guilt for being associated with the religion of climate change whose high priests could sink to identity theft because they feel “frustration” at not being able to get the rest of the country to join their rent-seeking, anti-human cult.
In the meantime, I take some satisfaction in believing, though I’ll never know for sure, that my article gave Mr. Gleick some incentive to confess, before the FBI agent came to his door. Or perhaps he just didn’t want to spend the money on a new (non-Epson) scanner.
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has posted a wonderful note talking about the depth of Peter Gleick’s hypocrisy: “The irony of it all, this coming from a scientist that has made a particular point about integrity and written many essays and even testified to congress on the subject.”
View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/21/gleick-confesses-to-heartland
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
bjedwards| 2.21.12 @ 11:25AM
Peter Gleik's actions were entirely wrong. He brought it on himself and the consequences to him are unknown at this point. Unfortunately for Heartland, however, the facts on the table have not changed.
The bizarre, unprofessional public responses of Kaminsky, Bast, and Heartland's "attorney" have done more to scare off existing and potential donors then any of the documents could. Any Board of Directors that would let it's PR department issue the threats and ClimateDepot-style propaganda and conspiracy-mongering material out is either incompetent or hell-bent on confirming Heartland is the climate science denial machine we all know it is.
Heartland's troubles have just begun and Kaminsky's gloating will be short-lived.
MikeN| 2.21.12 @ 11:31AM
This is playing out like the National Guard memos, where he claimed to have received the fake memos from an anonymous Mexican woman at a rodeo.
Sorry I accused you of stealing the story, but Steve Mosher beat you to it. He also uncovered the style similarities between the memo and Gleick's other work, including the use of anti-climate, and irregular parentheses and commas.
Occam's Tool| 2.21.12 @ 12:05PM
The point is that AGW scientific supporters are scumbags and crooks, who do very poor science. Do not throw baby out with bathwater.
albert constantine jr| 2.21.12 @ 12:57PM
Does this mean the Messrs. Honeycutt, Turboblocke and the rest of the cult will be swarming this thread again to ensure that the "consensus" for AGW is not debated?
john b| 2.21.12 @ 12:57PM
BJ: your movement lost me with the falsification of the hockey stick.
bjedwards| 2.21.12 @ 1:35PM
No such falsification took place. You fell for the denialist con game.
WL| 2.21.12 @ 2:20PM
Take you pap somewhere else...we all know that the whole AGW crap was cooked up as a reason to control and tax...You are an insolent LIAR with the rest of them, if you are involved.
Nothing more than a bunch of thieves...lowlifes..and con artists..
So when are you liars going to shift back to IceAge Hysteria? When are the seas actually going to rise and do ANYTHING ...???
Never That's When...
albert constantine jr| 2.21.12 @ 2:28PM
They're BAAAACK.
JP| 2.21.12 @ 3:29PM
Climategate and the email's speak for themselves.
Dai Alanye | 2.21.12 @ 7:09PM
Please explain the Mediaeval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age. It is these two periods the "hockey stick" was an attempt to gloss over.
Then go into how a minor greenhouse gas, making up one part in 2500 of the atmosphere, to which the human contribution is about one part in fifty, can -- once it rises very slightly -- burn the earth to a crisp.
Sam Barber| 2.23.12 @ 10:10AM
You're JAQing off, Dai.
See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off
MikeN| 2.21.12 @ 1:18PM
The biggest surprise from me is that Ross had never heard of Steven Mosher. He was a major player in ClimateGate e-mails, and even co-wrote a book on the subject.
JP| 2.21.12 @ 3:28PM
I followed Mosher mainly when he posted on Climate Audit (an excellent blog, that concentrates on statistics of climate studies). If one doesn't go to WUWT or Climate Audit often, I could see how someone would not remember Mosher.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.21.12 @ 3:57PM
Mike,
I have to say that upon further reading I'm a little embarrassed that I hadn't heard of Mosher.
For the record, I don't spend more than about 1% of my "thinking time" on the subject of climate change.
Thanks for pointing out Mosher to me. While I certainly 'stole' nothing from him, I think it's fair to say that he was on the Gleick track before I was.
I'm not in this for recognition or glory. And if Mosher had it before I did, that's fine with me and I'm grateful for his work and insight. I'm just glad the way this has gone since Gleick's theft.
But this battle isn't over.
By the way, I appreciate your not saying that you thought I was lying about not knowing Mosher. I was not lying, but this whole topic seems to bring out rather aggressive tendencies among commenters...
MikeN| 2.21.12 @ 11:30PM
The accusation was halfhearted to begin with, as I was just going in line with people saying you were speculating with weak basis, and I did the same.
jborne| 2.21.12 @ 1:56PM
This says it all:
"Everyone makes mistakes, and Gleick’s admission of his demonstrates that he has an ethical core that knows right from wrong, even though he failed to adhere to it this time. On the other hand, The Heartland Institute’s history of dishonesty, deception, and hypocrisy, combined with their refusal to admit error, suggests that they lack any ethics at all, even heavily tarnished ethics like Gleick’s."
http://www.scholarsandrogues.c.....hypocrisy/
albert constantine jr| 2.21.12 @ 2:27PM
In other words, when we do wrong, or commit fraud, we do it for good reasons, which is to help you for your own good. Those other guys are just a bunch of liars and thieves.
JP| 2.21.12 @ 3:34PM
From your link, a letter from CSLDF to Heartland. Here is an excerpt:
"..Furthermore, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the Climatic Research Unit documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law..."
This is akin to a thief suing the victim because he was caught and put into jail. Speaking of litigation, the Alarmists had better hope that Obama and the Dems retain thier positions at the WH and the Senate.
trax| 2.21.12 @ 4:23PM
Isn't it funny how people on the AGW side are mad or perplexed because Kaminsky and Bast were proportionate with their responses? How dare they say what's correct! Climate change(AGW) folks want everyone to forget what their side has done/is doing wrong...and only focus on what they say their opponents do wrong? TYPICAL THINK STINK! Gleick meet attorney(s)
Sam Barber| 2.22.12 @ 12:46PM
Kaminsky and Bast "proportionate" with their responses?
No wonder you climate change deniers are so delusional.
Sam Barber| 2.21.12 @ 6:25PM
The climate science denial kiddies are flapping their arms again.
albert constantine jr| 2.21.12 @ 6:34PM
They're BAAAACK.
Stan Redmond| 2.21.12 @ 8:49PM
The Global Warming cult are flapping their gums again. Oh wait. Is it global cooling a la the 70? global warming? Wait Global climate change? Oh wait... Climate Crisis? Or wait, Global Climate Catastrophe? I just can't keep track. I think it's time to go back to global cooling again.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.21.12 @ 10:55PM
Sam, I'm still waiting for your apology.
Sam Barber| 2.22.12 @ 12:43PM
You're owed no apology whatsoever, Ross, as Heartland's own documents make clear.
Instead, I look forward to seeing you on your knees begging your grandchildren for forgiveness.
Rich D| 2.22.12 @ 8:32AM
That's it?! After all of your flaming on the original blog, that's it?! Shameless.
RAYY| 2.21.12 @ 11:52PM
There is plenty of room in the AUSTRALIAN LABOR GOVT. for an enterprising liar such as .GLIEK. ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE SOME VERY ACCLOMPLISHED LIARS THERE ALREADY PUSHING THE SAM BARROW
Russell| 2.22.12 @ 12:36AM
One infers from this that the Heartland source who initially leaked the documents later copied to Gleick has admitted as much to Heartland..
Perhaps Senior Fellow Kaminsky can edify readers is as to their identity -and motives. Did the devil make them do it ?
Kaminsky's failure to identify any errors of fact in the documents thus far revealed has not escaped notice.
POST THIS BILL| 2.22.12 @ 9:36AM
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi.....nd_pag.php
MikeN| 2.22.12 @ 9:40AM
Russell, read what Gleick wrote. He says he got the documents himself, not that they were leaked. He is claiming that the fake memo was sent to him anonymously. Kaminsky and others are not believing this part of Gleick's story. The evidence is there that Gleick wrote it. If Gleick is telling the truth, it would be one of the greatest coincidences in history; Gleick was identified as the source because of the fake memo, and then to have someone else be the author.
John Callender | 2.22.12 @ 10:34AM
Well, this assumes that those who identified Gleick as the source did so without having prior knowledge that he was. But if you accept the part of Gleick's story about having received the strategy memo from an anonymous source, then it's possible that those who identified Gleick before his confession did so because they actually already knew he was the leaker, not because they recognized him from clues in the strategy memo itself, but because they were in the know about the memo having been leaked to Gleick.
The part that continues to bug me about the "Gleick forged the strategy memo himself" theory is the question of why: Why would he have done that? This theory assumes Gleick obtained the legitimate documents from Heartland first, then forged the strategy memo in order to include it in the release. But if his goal was to discredit Heartland, why shoot himself in the foot by releasing the faked document along with the real ones? Heartland would just immediately identify it as fake and focus on it, diverting attention from the real documents. Are you suggesting Gleick isn't smart enough to have realized that?
John Callender | 2.22.12 @ 11:39AM
Another weakness in the "great coincidence" critique of the Gleick-as-victim theory is this: If in fact the anonymous memo was forged by someone specifically targeting Gleick, it would have been easy for the forger to include elements that were stylistically similar to Gleick's previous writings. Indeed, it would have been an obvious thing for the forger to do, since it in effect "pre-plants" evidence that could be used to tie the leak to Gleick in the event Gleick chose to leak the memo anonymously (as he eventually did).
I'm not saying that the presence of stylistic similarities between the forged memo and Gleick's writing is somehow evidence that Gleick did not forge the memo. I'm just saying that it really isn't evidence that he did forge the memo, either, since the presence of stylistic similarities to Gleick is something we could reasonably expect to find in either case.
Russell| 2.23.12 @ 1:42AM
No, Mike , Gleick's Huffpost piece says the opposite.
Lech Dharma | 2.24.12 @ 1:05AM
I usually say to "follow the money" when it comes to determining the source of radical political agendas, but in the case of "climate change" religionism, a lot of professional reputations are also on the line: like the reputations of those research "climatologists" that profited from promoting bad science. Of course---for ALGORE and Michael Moore types---there is also a lot of "green" to be made from promoting the fraud that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...and that man's minimal contribution to the total atmospheric amount is of any significance. http://www.middlebury.net/op-e.....ng-01.html
Sam Barber| 2.24.12 @ 12:55PM
Sorry, Lech, you're awfully gullible.