Heartland ‘fakegate’ scandal

This appalling outrage is not going away. Much has been written already (but nothing by me) and it seems much is to come. Here is a place to contain it so you can stop adding to “I’ve been busy” — as though that’s an important theme.

I hasten to say I’m still busy, and would that I were not!

Views: 545

102 Thoughts on “Heartland ‘fakegate’ scandal

  1. Andy on 21/02/2012 at 8:23 pm said:

    It’s fun watching these guys dig themselves into a really big hole.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 9:17 pm said:

      Gleick on integrity:

      * A brief lesson in the integrity of science
      * Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, Again
      * AGU’s new task force on scientific integrity and ethics begins
      * Threats to the integrity of science: congressional testimony

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 21/02/2012 at 9:09 pm said:

    Gleick Coined The Phrase “The debate is over”

    2006 : Gleick Spoke Out About Falsifying Data

    2010: Peter Glieck Spoke Out About Climate Fraud And Hypocrisy

    Who Gets The Award This Year?

    January : Gleick Accused Skeptics Of Not Being Honest

    Last Week Gleick Said We Are All Liars

    Gleick Turned Down An Invitation To Debate Right Before Stealing Heartland Documents

    Own Goal Weekend

    Gleick Heads AGU Task Force On Scientific Ethics

    Gleick : Lake Powell To Run Dry In Nine Years

    Global Warming Causes Bad Ethics


    List to date but I’m sure there will be more to come. The Lake Powell post is a particularly poignant reminder of Dr Peter Gleick’s expertise as an an “internationally recognized water expert” (as he describes himself).


    • Andy on 21/02/2012 at 9:23 pm said:

      Gleick was also one of the One star reviewers of “Delinquent Teenager”, whilst making it abundantly clear on his review that he hadn’t actually read the book.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 6:46 am said:

      I confess I share at least some of Gleick’s position on the bottled water craze.

      That message just isn’t getting through at the moment; not from the Pacific Institute anyway.

      Perhaps now he’ll go back to his day job.

  3. Andy on 21/02/2012 at 9:36 pm said:

    Hot Topic latest comment

    Macro February 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    Revkin is nothing but a loud mouth, and is in the pocket of Heartland.
    Having read their funding and strategy documents he’s now angling for more dollars.
    What else would he say..

    Better than X-Factor.
    These guys are losing the plot big time.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 7:02 am said:

      GR (‘Twist’) – “….subverting the truth, the law, and the democratic process”.

      Yeah right.

      Climategate => Public Money

      Fakegate => Private Money

      As Marlo Lewis puts it in ‘DeSmog Blog’s Bogus Exposé of the Heartland Institute’

      “Government-funded research is subject to freedom of information laws; the internal deliberations of privately-funded research and advocacy groups are not. As we know from the climategate emails, Phil Jones and the gang at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) stonewalled FOIA requests for years to prevent independent researchers from checking their data and methodologies. That was a bona fide scandal.

      Leaking the CRU emails — whistle blowing — was the only way to (a) produce documents responsive to valid FOIA requests, and (b) expose CRU’s willful evasion of FOIA.

      There is no analogy between climategate and the theft of the Heartland documents because (1) Heartland has no legal obligation to share its internal deliberations with the public, and (2), unlike collusion to evade FOIA, strategizing about fund raising is not a crime!”

      As for “subverting the truth”:-

      “The Heartland conferences transformed the disparate ranks of climate-alarm skeptics into a confident, energized, networked movement. The NIPCC report and related publications not only debunk Al Gore’s “planetary emergency” but also provide the only comprehensive, fully-documented alternative to the alleged “scientific consensus” represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”


      I guess it depends on your definition of “truth”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 7:19 am said:

      “truth” at the Los Angeles Times:-

      “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.” That is a lie so big that, to quote from “Mein Kampf,”……..

      “…..on the other are fossil-fuel-industry-funded “experts” who tend to have little background in climatology and who publish non-peer-reviewed papers in junk magazines disputing established truths. ”

      “Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which shows that temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century soared to their highest level in 1,000 years, has been validated repeatedly”

      “These are facts, not philosophical or religious dogma. ”

      “Another fact: Sophisticated climate models [written in FORTRAN as Tom Nelson points out] show that things are going to get a lot worse. ”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 8:32 am said:

      Prof. Judith Curry: ‘Gleick’s unethical action with respect to integrity has been to push fealty to the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology under the guise of promoting integrity and ethics in science’

      Prof. Judith Curry: ‘When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels’

      Curry: ‘There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 7:38 am said:

      CTG February 22, 2012 at 6:40 am

      “What offense? Pretending to be someone else? If that is an offence”

      I think there’s a little more to it than that. Guardian article:-

      ‘Gleick apology over Heartland leak stirs ethics debate among climate scientists’


      Inevitable spin but……

      “In a sign of combat to come, Gleick has taken on Chris Lehane, a top Democratic operative and crisis manager. Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House, is credited for exposing the rightwing forces arrayed against the Democratic president. He was Al Gore’s press secretary during his 2000 run for the White House.”

      “crisis manager” tends to speak for itself.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 8:20 am said:

    Search Climate Depot – Gleick, about 772 results


    Here’s a good one:-

    Report: Peter Gleick removed from AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 8:25 am said:

    Time on Gleickgate: “just so we’re clear, this is deception — no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense”

    Climate Expert Admits Deception in Getting Heartland Papers | Ecocentric | TIME.com

    The major question now — beyond the legal ramifications for Gleick and the Heartland Institute — is whether the original document Gleick says he received, the strategy memo, is real or whether it’s a falsification as the Heartland Institute maintains. The problem for climate advocates, of course, is that suspicion will only grow that Gleick falsified the original document now that he has admitted using deception to get the additional memos. (And just so we’re clear, this is deception — no reputable investigative reporter would be permitted to do what Gleick did. It’s almost certainly a firing offense.)
    …Worst of all — at least for those who care about global warming — Gleick’s act will almost certainly produce a backlash against climate advocates at a politically sensitive moment. And if the money isn’t already rolling into the Heartland Institute, it will soon.


  6. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 8:34 am said:

    Climate Depot’s round up of FakeGate/GleickGate scandal — Read all about it


  7. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 8:47 am said:

    Jeff Condon – the Air Vent:-

    “I am completely baffled as to why these people receive credibility while reasonable scientists don’t. This guy is so far over the top that nothing he writes, thinks, expresses or publishes should be taken without serious context placement. Yet he is a ‘premier’ voice in environmental science.

    So, the leftist version of climategate has spun into the ground with all the grace of an acrobatic aerial penguin team. I’m sure that the media will issue few if any retractions as new stories based on the faked heartland document have continued to surface. We know which side owns the airwaves.

    Steve McIntyre has an excellent and detailed breakdown of the Heartland documents [linked] which like Climategate, again exposes the false arguments of the politically motivated press. If you want your climate news with honesty, blogging has become the premier source. – By default.”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 8:53 am said:


      Steve McIntyre, posted on Feb 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM

      The Board Documents

      The Fake Confidential Strategy Memo

      Distribution Timeline

      Revkin and Early Tweets

      The Guardian

      Heartland’s Statement on the Fake Memo


      The ramifications of these events are unfolding.

      In legal terms, there are a number of important distinctions from Climategate. First and most importantly, the key document is fake. Over and above that, there is strong reason to believe that Heartland can show that the actual (and much less damaging) documents were obtained by a form of identity theft. We’ll see whether “Heartland Insider” covered his tracks as well as FOIA. Thirdly, whereas FOIA had, for the most part, removed personal information, the actual Heartland documents include a great deal of personal information.

      Heartland has sent out legal demands to a number of blogs, which, thus far, have either been ignored or rejected.

      As a few commenters wisely observed, it’s time to get out the popcorn.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 9:16 am said:

      According to Gleick:-

      “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”

      So where does that fit time-wise?

      Jan 16 – Heartland board package prepared. Pdf’s made of 2012 Budget, 2012 Fundraising Plan, Binder 1 including Fourth Quarter 2011 Financial Report, Notice of Meeting, Agenda


      Feb 15, “an unknown person fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member to “re-send” board materials to a new email address”

      After that,

      Feb 13 at 12:41 Pacific time “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Memo” pdf version created

      Gleick operates out of the Pacific Institute.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 9:52 am said:

      Gaahhh! Should be:-

      Beginning of 2012 Gleick received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy”.(according to him)

      Jan 16 – Heartland board package prepared [by Heartland Inst]. Pdf’s made of 2012 Budget, 2012 Fundraising Plan, Binder 1 including Fourth Quarter 2011 Financial Report, Notice of Meeting, Agenda

      Then Feb,

      Feb 13 at 12:41 Pacific time (or before) “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy Memo” pdf version created by the “unknown person” or an associate (who subsequently called himself Heartland Insider).

      After that,

      Feb 15, “an unknown person fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member to “re-send” board materials to a new email address”

      Gleick operates out of the Pacific Institute.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 11:20 am said:

      Andrew McRae
      February 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm · Reply

      redc, I know what you said before it was snipped [libel?]. There are even algorithms from natural language processing which can be used to analyse writing styles of documents with known authors and compare them to a document of unknown origin to identify the author. These have been used by some universities to detect plagiarism between students on essays. Amazingly, when I was searching just now for an example of this, I find a blog post from a co-author of one such algorithm posted JUST YESTERDAY showing vastly improved results for author identification:

      ” Impact. So what exactly did we achieve? Our research has dramatically increased the number of authors that can be distinguished using writing-style analysis: from about 300 to 100,000. More importantly, the accuracy of our algorithms drops off gently as the number of authors increases, so we can be confident that they will continue to perform well as we scale the problem even further. Our work is therefore the first time that stylometry has been shown to have to have serious implications for online anonymity.”

      Whilst the thought of unleashing some sort of Writing Style Robocop on the warmistas may seem to have appeal right now, remember even a close match doesn’t absolutely prove the authors are the same. You would still have to find more definitive proof. Of course being confronted with the circumstantial evidence from this Writing Robocop might prompt all but the most ironclad of warmists to break down into a sobbing confession.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 11:28 am said:

      Rereke Whakaaro
      February 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm · Reply


      Since those documents were obtained by fraudulent means, it is still illegal for you or anybody else, other than the intended recipients, to read them.

      They are not in the Public Domain until they are, “released by intent into the public arena by the author or their appointed agent or agents”. That is the wording in my legal crib sheet, but it is similar in most countries because it is based on an international convention (I can’t remember which one but MemoryVault might know).

      Those of us who work with information all of the time, are very aware of the line between the Public and Private Domains. It can be very expensive to step over that line, and some people have been known to go to gaol for doing so (think of WaterGate). Obtaining information by subterfuge is the definition of spying, and in some countries being convicted of spying still carries the death sentence – food for thought.


    • Andy on 22/02/2012 at 11:54 am said:

      Gleick fist came to my attention after his “review” of Donna Laframboise’s book on Amazon. It was quite clear that he hadn’t read the book, or even bothered to understand the slightest about what it contained.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 12:45 pm said:

      Rereke Whakaaro February 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm link should have been:-


      (too many tabs open)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 2:34 pm said:

      steven mosher
      Posted Feb 21, 2012 at 3:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Cross posted from Bishop hill. Theories about a whistleblower make no sense to me.

      A whistleblower inside heartland would presumably know Wojick well enough NOT to resort to plagairism in writing the description of Wojick.

      That ONE sentence jumped out at me immediately as one not written by the person who wrote the rest of the paragraph

      “Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the
      U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science”

      Let me tell you exactly how this happened.

      Steve mcintyre called me. I was busy working on BEST. I had already posted my theory on Lucias.
      He asked me if I had done what I normally do, which is look for high entropy words/phrases.
      I said no. Honestly I had only skimmed the document and thought it was fake and figure it was Gleick. I had already posted my theory. Steve sent along one of Gliecks tweets. And he asked me to read the document a second time.
      On the phone I read it to him giving my thoughts as I read. I noted the odd use of parenthesis and the lousy use of commas. Then I read the sentence above and told steve ” this sentence was not written by the person who wrote the rest”. With steve listening, I tried to explain why the style was different..and then I just googled the shit.

      Basically, whoever wrote this didnt know Gleick well enough to write a bio in his own words, so he cribbed it from heartland’s web page. For me, that points away from an insider and not toward one. After all, according to this memo Wojick is at the center of the strategy with Gleick. Hard to imagine an insider who knows so little that they have to copy a bio.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 7:09 pm said:

      Posted this Reply to Seven Mosher at CA Feb 22, 2012 at 1:58 AM :-

      Whoever wrote the memo (or part of it) knew the language of communications. I googled this part sentence from it (sans quotes):-

      Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences

      After the first quotes from the memo, at about page 5 the search turned up ‘Communication Foundations and Analysis’ Part 1 Chapter 4:-

      Planning Written and Spoken Messages


      The words: cultivating; neutral; voices; audiences; and, audience’s occur frequently.

      Wouldn’t this point to someone like Richard Littlemore rather than Gleick?


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 11:01 pm said:

      Compare this:-

      “Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences” – fake memo.

      With this:-

      “You need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view, and much more active in making them part of your message” – a real memo.

      The first is the PR language of ‘Planning Written and Spoken Messages’ (previous comment above) of which James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog are exponents.

      The second is a memo by Frank Luntz. Republican public opinion researcher Frank Luntz. Luntz was an expert on the use of language – he wrote the book “Words That Work”. Luntz’s memo outlined a strategy on the environment for the Republican party. This is part of his advice on global warming (pages 137–138 of the memo):-



      Hoggan cites the memo here:-


      Littlemore cites the memo here:-


      Deduce what you will, but I suppose that could be nothing.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 7:24 am said:

      Luntz memo:-

      “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community……..Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate (page 137)

      “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming” (page 142)

      Fake memo:-

      “….the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain” (page 1)

      Cross-posted to http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/gleik-admits-his-guilt-deception-used-to-get-documents-in-fakegate-apologizes/#comment-980682

      Also at CA, link up-thread.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 3:53 pm said:

      Get the impression these guys know something we don’t? (see up-thread)
      Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic

      Brendan Demelle and Richard Littlemore

      22 February 12

      Heartland’s suggestion that climate change is controversial and uncertain bears no relation to the true state of science,


  8. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 22/02/2012 at 9:39 am said:

    The comments section on this article look interesting so far:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 10:33 am said:

      Some astute and tempered comments there (and evidence of fully functioning BS detectors).

      I’m with Dr Norman Page February 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm. Sums it up perfectly.

      The Union of Concerned Scientist’s has lost this one. I like these comments:-

      Adam D says:
      February 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm

      How does one join the Union of Concerned Scientists? Do you have to be a scientist? Thanks

      Adam D.

      Ed Reid says:
      February 21, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      Kenji Watts, faithful dog of Anthony Watts, the proprietor of the wattsupwiththat and surfacestations websites, is a member of the UCC. Apparently, all that is required is a valid credit card and a willingness to be separated from the membership dues.

      Not a good look for the UCC.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 11:01 am said:

    Meet the criminal defense attorney who’s representing lil’ ol’ Peter Gleick: John Keker, who defended Enron’s CFO Andrew Fastow

    NEWSMAKER PROFILE: John Keker / Courtroom master / The S.F. attorney behind the defense of accused corporate bad boys | Full Page


    • Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 22/02/2012 at 11:12 am said:

      I wonder how he’s paying for his top shelf lawyer – you don’t suppose he might be getting 3rd party funding do you, say maybe from a left wing think tank lobby group?

      Regarding the Pacific Institute’s view on the matter:


      I wonder if they would think the same if someone used ID theft to fraudulently gain possession of their private documents, especially if the alleged perpetrator threw in a fake document or two for good measure.

  10. Alexander K on 22/02/2012 at 12:08 pm said:

    I visited UCC’s website a couple of years ago, checking on it’s membership criteria; not only did I discover that all I needed to become a ‘concerned scientist’ (I have an interest in science, but my career and qualifications are mostly in the fine arts and engineering) was to give them my credit card details and OK the paying of the membership fee – nothing else whatsoever. The website had some fascinating reading, however, that made it abundantly clear that the organisation actively recruits whoever will believe their anti-establishment, capitalism-is-evil Green Socialist nonsense. I also learnt it had been initially formed as an anti-war group during the Vietnam era, probably no bad thing in itself, but it began marching to a Leftist beat from its inception and is now IMHO, utterly without any credibility whatsoever. Unless you happen to be a Green Warmist!

  11. Andy on 22/02/2012 at 12:22 pm said:

    Some interesting data from Climate Funds Update


    The graph showing donations is interesting. NZ’s contribution is around $74million (US).

    Puts Heartland into context.

  12. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 22/02/2012 at 1:17 pm said:

    A great little movie of an interview with ‘Heartland Institute President Joe Bast on why global warming activist Peter Gleick stole and forged documents from his organization’:


  13. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 1:24 pm said:

    Heartland Institute Comments on “Fakegate”

    The following statement can be attributed to Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute:

    I am asking the people at DesmogBlog, ThinkProgress, and the Huffington Post to come forward and identify who stole the documents and who forged the memo, if they know. It was likely either someone on their staffs or someone well known to them. It is unconscionable and illegal for them to conceal the identity of a person who has broken the law and who has damaged the reputations of many people and organizations, not only The Heartland Institute. At a minimum, they should share what information they do have with Heartland and the FBI.

    Bast goes on to say,

    I also want to know why DesmogBlog, ThinkProgress, and other Web sites such as the Huffington Post refuse to take stolen and forged documents down from their Web sites. Why are they forcing us to pursue a legal remedy?

    It’s PR vs PR at the moment, make it Heartland Institute v Gleick Joe.

    Add some co-respondents for good measure (I think that’s how it works).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 1:31 pm said:

      FBI ?

      Missed that. So it’s criminal proceedings first – THEN the civil action.

      Or can they be concurrent?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 10:56 pm said:

      Heartland is getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the FBI will act on.

      Heartland is also seeking legal action, both criminal and civil.


      So it’s FBI (hopefully) and criminal and civil concurrently.

      H/t Andy at HT.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 11:34 am said:

      Glieck’s lawyer John Keker says:
      John Keker, “Heartland no doubt will seek to exploit Dr. Gleick’s admitted lapse in judgement in order to further its agenda in the ongoing debate about climate change, but if it wants to pursue this matter legally, it will learn that our legal system provides for a level playing field.” Keker added, “Dr. Gleick looks forward to using discovery to understand more about the veracity of the documents, lay bare the implications of Heartland’s propaganda plans and, in particular, determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why.”

      General consensus is that Keker is somewhat overoptimistic about what discovery can achieve on their part and the scope of it.

      From Wiki:-

      Under the law of the United States, civil discovery is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” This is a much broader standard than relevance, because it contemplates the exploration of evidence which might be relevant, rather than evidence which is actually relevant. (Issues of the scope of relevance are taken care of before trial in motions in limine and during trial with objections.) Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery; these include information which is privileged and the work product of the opposing party. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of ther party. For instance, juvenile criminal records are generally not discoverable, peer review findings by hospitals in medical negligence cases are generally not discoverable and, depending on the case, other types of evidence may be non-discoverable for reasons of privacy, difficulty and/or expense in complying and for other reasons. (Criminal discovery rules may differ from those discussed here.) Electronic discovery or “e-discovery” refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).


      And it goes both ways……..

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 6:05 pm said:

      Pat Frank Posted Feb 25, 2012 at 12:04 AM

      I see Keker’s statement as a tactical threat against Heartland, made to give them pause about the cost of proceeding to trial against Peter Gleick. Keker is threatening to publicize their donors, opening them to public attack in the media.

      Keker’s threat to “… determine once and for all who is truly behind Heartland and why” has no connection whatever to Peter Gleick’s theft of Heartland documents, his use of a false identity, the interstate commerce violation, and the conscious forgery of a slanderous document for the intended purpose of malicious defamation. Keker’s threat is in the realm of totally irrelevant.

      None of Heartland’s internal strategies and goals comprise a legal rationale for Peter Gleick’s actions. Therefore, it doesn’t seem likely that even a latitudinous discovery process could ever encompass Heartland’s strategy, goals, or donors.

      Keker’s threat looks like a political ploy to me. He’s going afield in an attempt to intimidate Heartland into dropping prosecution with threats of a media attack and loss of donors, because he doesn’t have a legal case for defense.


  14. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 1:44 pm said:

    Delingpole on The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative (and other things):-


    For the record (1279 comments to date)

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 2:40 pm said:

    Climategate 2.0
    Gleick Fakegate

    (what have I missed?)

    This must be getting embarrassing by now, surely.

  16. Andy on 23/02/2012 at 9:08 am said:

    The Hot Topicers are comparing Gleick with Nelson Mandela.

    • Anthropogenic Global Cooling on 23/02/2012 at 9:10 am said:

      Maybe they think he’s going to jail like Nelson.

    • Andy on 23/02/2012 at 10:16 am said:

      He might well go to Jail if he is found to have forged the document, which Steven Mosher seems to think he did (Mosher suggested that Gleick was the culprit long before the confession after he read the telltale signs on the fake document)

      Oh well, there will be a “Free Peter Gleick” campaign to get involved with.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 9:50 am said:

      Common (Ha!) thread amongst “civil society”:-

      My Eyes Are Opened

      Posted on February 22, 2012 by Steven Goddard

      After reading through the many praises of Gleick from the left, I now understand that Nixon was actually a very good man trying to save his country from evil Democrats.

      Someone had to blow the whistle on Heartland. Heartland’s crime of interfering with government sponsored climate racketeering was a serious one.


  17. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 9:14 am said:

    ‘Fakegate’ – the new nadir of the climate change swindle

    “Indeed, warmist propaganda sites are even now spinning Gleick’s confession into his canonisation as a whistleblower hero and martyr in the climate wars.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104908/Fakegate–new-nadir-climate-change-swindle.html#ixzz1n9NWuAG9

    Chair of scientific ethics committee has ethical lapse


    Wonder if AP’s Seth Borenstein will run with the story (and whether NZ Herald prints it).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 2:51 pm said:

      Factually challenged on a few counts.

      I wonder if Greenpeace will go after Hansen after they’ve buried Goklany?

    • Andy on 23/02/2012 at 7:27 pm said:

      I had exactly the same thought re. Golanky vs Hansen.
      A similar argument applies to the tax status that John Mashey is all over. I think a lot of climate advocacy groups are using the same tax status as Heartland re. charitable status.

      They, of course, argue that they are the “good guys”.

  18. Andy on 23/02/2012 at 7:45 pm said:

    O/T but Bryan Walker in the Gisborne Herald

    ‘Climate wars’ battle not over
    Thursday, February 23, 2012 • Bryan Walker
    IT was clearly never US physicist/climatologist Michael Mann’s wish to be embroiled in the controversy that has been manufactured by the denial industry around his and his co-authors’ work.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 11:05 pm said:

      Tom Nelson posted this Walker article (same as HT post).


      Now Bryan is world famous instead of just world famous in New Zealand.

      Also at that link re Gleick:-

      By the way, I know that a lot of reasonable people are wondering why it is that a scientist – which is to say, somebody whose worldview is theoretically utterly dependent on Truth as an absolute ideal – would lie. For this, let us go to our old Cold War acronym friend: MICE. Which stands for, of course, Money, Ideology, Conscience, and Ego*; it purported to describe why people commit treason, but I think that it works for other motivations as well

    • Andy on 25/02/2012 at 6:57 am said:

      Bryan Walker ‘s review of Mann ‘s book is appearing all over the net, and Mann is furiously linking to them all on his Facebook page. AstroTurf Bryan, you are. Da man!

  19. Andy on 24/02/2012 at 8:29 am said:

    Picked up this little tidbit on DeSmog from a commenter at Watts

    “I may be way off the mark here but isn’t DeSmogBlog funded by a convicted money launderer by the name of John Lefebvre?”

    >> “Two former directors and founding shareholders of NETeller Plc, a British online money transfer company, have been charged in the United States with laundering billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds.

    Canadians Stephen Lawrence, 46, and John Lefebvre, 55, were arrested on Monday — Lawrence in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Lefebvre in Malibu, California — U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said.”

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 12:24 pm said:

    Non-Profit Strategic Planning For Dummies.


    This (Dummies example) is an overall Strategic Plan document including:-

    Individual Member Strategic Goals
    Agencies and Organizations Strategic Goals

    The equivalent HI Plan would be:-

    Tobacco Strategic Goals
    Health Care Strategic Goals
    Climate Strategic Goals
    Whatever Strategic Goals

    Did the “Board Member” request HI Admin to resend JUST the Climate Strategy memo? It’s odd that it’s in memo form to begin with (where’s reference to overall strategy? should be cohesive) and surely HI Admin would have forwarded the entire Plan especially given climate is the lessor part of the operation.

    That would mean the “Board Member” then had HI’s Tobacco and Health Care strategies as well. Why weren’t they disseminated?

    [Cross-posted to HT ‘Twist’]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 12:35 pm said:

      The Board meeting minutes would record whether what was discussed was the Climate Strategy memo specifically or the overall HI strategy.

      I’m sure the FBI will sort that out.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 11:03 am said:

      Part of this issue: “The Board meeting minutes would record whether what was discussed was the Climate Strategy memo specifically or the overall HI strategy” has been answered with the release of HI’s Press Release on Gleick’s phishing:-

      Gleick originally portrayed all of the documents he circulated, including the fake climate change strategy memo, as originating from Heartland. Now he claims he received that memo from an “anonymous source” before his theft. But the emails Heartland released today reveal Gleick never asked for either of the two documents that are specifically cited and summarized in the memo, suggesting the memo was written after, not before, he received the phished documents.


      The “two documents” cited in the memo are (as per fake memo) ‘2012 Proposed Budget’ document and ‘2012 Fundraising Strategy’ memo.

      But the correct titles are ‘2012 PROPOSED BUDGET’ (fake correct) and ‘2012 FUNDRAISING PLAN’ (fake incorrect). And the ‘Plan’ is NOT a memo.

      And as above it remains to be seen from the Board minutes of the meeting that ensued whether “Climate Strategy” was even discussed.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 12:45 pm said:

      Agenda for the January 17, 2012
      Regular Meeting of Directors of Heartland Institute

      [11] 2012 Proposed Budget and Fundraising Plan

      If “Climate Strategy” was to be discussed and a memo documenting the strategy was required by Board Members prior to the meeting as “agenda materials” (as Gleick’s phishing put it), then [11] is the agenda item where it would have been discussed.

      Simple matter for HI to disclose the relevant part of the Jan 17 meeting minutes – to the court.

      And to the world-at-large hopefully.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 8:06 pm said:

      I’m confused about February 6, 2012, 8:59 a.m. There’s attached Word Doc:-

      Minutes of January 17 meeting,doc (55 KB)

      But that’s not on the Smog list:-

      (1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf 89.87 KB
      (1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget (2).pdf 124.62 KB
      2 Agenda for January 17 Meeting.pdf 7.4 KB
      2010_IRS_Form_990 (2).pdf 2.7 MB
      2012 Climate Strategy (3).pdf 96.56 KB
      Binder1 (2).pdf 55.36 KB
      Board Meeting Package January 17.pdf 6.84 KB

      The Agenda for January 17 Meeting is on the list and that states the relevant item whereupon “Climate Strategy” may have been discussed requiring “agenda materials” (as Gleick put it) to be sent to Board Members :-

      [11] 2012 Proposed Budget and Fundraising Plan

      It’s a simple matter to look at ‘Minutes of January 17 meeting,doc’ to see what was actually discussed and whether the “Climate Strategy” memo was picked over (obviously not but jus sayin).

      Fact remains that ‘Minutes of January 17 meeting,doc’ (and CHARLES LANG’s resume etc) are still out there somewhere (unless I’m waay behind on this)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2012 at 9:48 am said:


      Searched for:-

      Minutes of January 17 meeting,doc

      Found it at desmogblog.

      All that is recorded relevant to a “Climate Strategy” memo was:-

      “Mr. Bast presented a proposed budget and fundraising plan for 2012. After some discussion, the Board approved both documents without changes.”

      I don’t think a “Climate Strategy” memo would have been required by Board members as “agenda materials” in order to discuss strategies and tactics already laid out in the 2 genuine documents that were subject to scrutiny and “Climate Strategy” was apparently not an issue of note anyway.

      This, apart from style differences etc, confirms for me that the memo is fake and I’ll now join the rest of the informed world in trying to work out who (and possibly how many) actually scribed the fake (not necessarily the same as who scanned it and compiled the pdf).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 12:50 pm said:
    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 1:41 pm said:

      The HI operations are:-

      * Education
      * Health Care
      * Telecom
      * Energy & Environment
      * FIRE
      * Budget & Tax
      * Legal

      The ‘Center on Climate and Environmental Policy’ is within the ‘Energy & Environment’ operation.

      It is not apparent that there is a further “Climate” sub-operation worthy of a strategy of its own that for some reason is distinct from ‘Climate and Environmental Policy” or even ‘Climate Policy’


      Then there’s: ‘Environment & Climate News’

      “Environment & Climate News is The Heartland Institute’s monthly print publication sent both to paying subscribers and each and every elected official.”

      There’s not even separation of News into “Environment” and “Climate”.

      Whoever wrote the fake didn’t understand the HI structure (from a mgt perspectrive) that they could discern just by going to the HI website.

      But they DID understand PR.

      [Cross-posted to HT and CA]

      What I’m replying to at HT is held up in moderation so this may seem a disjointed case at HT at the moment.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 8:35 pm said:

      Having gone back and forth between genuine HI docs and the climate strategy memo it is beyond me how anyone can think the climate strategy is genuine given the complete absence of logo, format, numbered strategies and bullet pointed tactical actions etc. The fake stands out like dogs balls but I digress,

      Continuing the HI organizational analysis starting at the website (previous comment) and now introducing the ‘Proposed Budget’ and ‘Fundraising Plan’.with 2012 figures.

      The structural divisions are DEPARTMENTS – not operational foci. The ONLY operational area from the website allocated a department and budget is 7. Center on FIRE/ Wash DC $715,263.

      Outside the departments are 10 MAJOR PROJECTS. ‘Climate and Environmental Policy’ related major projects (sponsored and outsourced from proposals) are:-

      B. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
      H. Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools
      J. Weather Stations Project.

      B funded by 2 donors approx $300,000 to outsource $88,000 to in-house..
      H funded by 8. Editorial Department budget $88,000.
      J funded by 8. Editorial Department.budget $75,000.

      Both STRATEGY and TACTICS for B, H and J are detailed in the ‘Fundraising Plan’.along with A, C, D, E, F, G and I.

      B, H and J is the ENTIRE “Climate Strategy” (from fake) already detailed

      There is NOTHING in either ‘Proposed Budget’ or ‘Fundraising Plan’ about “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation” (from fake) for ANYTHING ‘Climate and Environmental Policy’ related..

      All of HI’s strategies and tactics are mission-specific (or should be). The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.


      Mission-specific for all HI foci is:-

      “….to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems”.

      Including with respect to ‘Climate and Environmental Policy’,

      “market-based approaches to environmental protection

      How is it possible to reconcile that mission with a major-project-only derived mission (from fake) “….leading the fight to prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global warming”? They are irreconcilable because the projects although termed “major” are actually relatively minor and peripheral in overall HI context and not necessarily from HI expenses (and the language is disparate).

      ‘Climate and Environmental Policy’ related ‘Major Projects’ expenses as a percentage of projected total HI expenses (Table 1, $7,746,529): B 0% + H 1% + J 1% = 2%.

      Fake and bogus to boot.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 10:06 pm said:

      Andy’s email exchange link down-thread pointed me at the ‘HI Policies Regarding Donors’ page



      “Heartland exists to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. All of our research is directed toward advancing that mission.”

      This corroborates what I said previous comment in regard to the HI mission”All of HI’s strategies and tactics are mission-specific (or should be)”. It also highlights the disconnect between the fake climate strategy memo and the HI mission with its resultant actual strategies and tactics.

      Also of interest:-

      # Donors are not given the opportunity to “kill” research that turns out unfavorable to their interests or to insist on changes to publications before their release.

  21. Andy on 24/02/2012 at 6:43 pm said:

    Steve McIntyre has posted an email exchange between Heartland and Peter Gleick that happened just before this incident here:


  22. Andy on 24/02/2012 at 6:57 pm said:

    Hilary Ostrov has written a good piece on this affair

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2012 at 9:20 pm said:

      We MUST have this on record:-

      There was a time in days of olden
      When ’twas said that silence is golden
      Yet thanks to a scientist, an expert on water
      Who dared not speak, though many thought he oughtta
      His inactions are leading to conclusions unvarnished
      That Gleick, by his silence, has glitter much tarnished!

      – Hilary Ostrov

      Also by Hilary re Burton Richter from Bishop Hill:-

      There once was a laureate named Richter
      Who issued an obiter dicta:
      That I am be-medalled
      Means the science is settled
      I can tell by one glance at the picture


  23. Wow … my very own poetry corner 🙂 Thanks, Richard … and thanks, Andy!


  24. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 9:34 am said:

    My emphasis:-

    A libertarian thinktank devoted to discrediting climate change received funds and other support from major corporations including some publicly committed to social responsibility, leaked documents reveal.


    The inner workings of the Heartland Institute were laid bare

    Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Dominic Rushe in New York

    # The Guardian, Thursday 16 February 2012


    If the inner workings were laid bare, how could Goldenberg and Rushe have got the very first sentence of their article so wrong?

    The NIPCC doesn’t come out of HI expenses and the Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools represents 1% of HI’s total expenses. Neither “discredits”, the former rebuts, the latter adds balance.

    And “devoted” ? HI mission: “….to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems”

  25. Andy on 25/02/2012 at 9:51 am said:

    The email threads between Heartland and Gleick are up at http://fakegate.org

    • Andy on 25/02/2012 at 10:08 am said:

      For the Miss Marples amongst us, there is some funny stuff with these emails:
      (1) First email request for addition of gmail account was replied to within 90 mins.
      (2) No cc’d messages to gmail account in subsequent emails.

      This is very odd. You’d expect a request to add a gmail account to the mailing list would come from a genuine heartland.org account. Secondly, you’d expect the subsequent emails to be cc’d to the primary email account. This is standard practice wherever I have worked.

      Either Heartland were very slack in their procedures, or Gleick was set up.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 11:14 am said:

      You are way ahead of me here Andy. My mind has ground to halt after being up half the night analyzing HI structure vs documents and trying to keep a handle on things.

      My impression from the beginning is that you could be right on EIThER count but that the setup was by Hoggan, Littlemore and DeMelle at Smog (I think you’re saying Gleick was setup by HI ?)

      But I’ll have to come back to this to catch up to were you’re at (haven’t read the phishing yet).

    • Andy on 25/02/2012 at 12:12 pm said:

      I am not making any claims, but it all seems a bit odd. I mean it’s such an obvious phishing attempt.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 12:34 pm said:

      Helps to have some background from others before delving in myself.

      Steve at CA has made the process considerably easier:-


    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 1:46 pm said:

      Comments at CA saying HI is still naive exposing icons, open IE and such in screencaps, gives a leg up to hackers..

      Being caught out once is bad enough but not learning from it is unforgivable.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 6:24 pm said:

      Poptech Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 11:02 PM

      I see one – VNC v4.6.3 supports session security with 256-bit AES encryption and with long enough passwords would be next to impossible to crack. Where do you get 5-6? Windows XP, Outlook and IE8 are all safe and secure to use so long as they are patched and you take basic security precautions.


      “basic security precautions” include the human element unfortunately for HI (unless they set him up as has been suggested by Andy?)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 8:02 pm said:

      I see what you mean with (2) No cc’d messages to gmail account in subsequent emails.

      But not (1) First email request for addition of gmail account was replied to within 90 mins.

      I see:-

      First request: January 27, 2012, 8:36 a.m.
      First reply: January 28, 2012, 12:09 a.m.

      This Tab was prophetic:- 42 Best Ways To Los…

    • Andy on 25/02/2012 at 8:07 pm said:

      sorry I was out on the timings on point 1

    • Andy on 26/02/2012 at 8:23 am said:

      There’s some plausible speculation at Lucia’s that the impersonated was Harrison Schmidt

  26. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 1:03 pm said:

    Seen at CA

    sabril Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I did a Google search for “peter” “gleick” “pdf” to find other documents he had authored.

    Here is the first hit I found:


    Note the style:

    (1) No indentation at the start of each paragraph;

    (2) Paragaphs single-spaced

    (3) double-spacing between each paragraph; and

    (4) Bold, left-justified headings.

    Just like the “strategy memo.”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 2:16 pm said:

      Not “Just like the “strategy memo.”” that I can see.

      Strategy memo:-

      Fundraising Strategy memo. In 2012 our efforts will focus in the following areas:

      Increased climate project fundraising
      Our climate work is attractive to flinders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from

      Gleick paper:-

      economic and social costs of the failure to provide adequate water of appropriate quality.

      Estimates of Future Deaths from Water-Related Diseases

      The number of deaths anticipated from water-related diseases over the next two decades depends on many factors, including

      Linespacing on the originals is slightly different but the major differences stand out:-

      1) White-space between header and paragraph.

      2) Use of caps in the header,

      Doesn’t look like Gleick’s style to me. I don’t think Gleick was the sole faker (if he even had a hand in writing it) and I see Hilary Ostrov has never bought the “lone wolf” idea either.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 2:34 pm said:

      Gleick uses “given’ 7 times but it occurs only once in the fake.

      But it is also the very first word.

  27. Pingback: Heartland and Fakegate | New Zealand Climate Change

  28. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2012 at 3:17 pm said:

    More from CA:-

    hro001 [Hilary Ostrov] Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 6:35 PM

    And the biggest irony of ‘em all (so far!) is Judith Curry’s observation on her blog:

    “With virtually no effort on my part (beyond reading an email, cutting and pasting into the blog post), I have uncovered “juicier stuff” about Heartland than anything Gleick uncovered. Okay, maybe the HI are actually the baddest guys in town from the perspective of the alarmists. The irony of Gleick committing professional seppuku over getting information about stuff that is either generally known or suspected or regarded as no big deal. When all he had to do was ask Joseph Bast some questions, and he would have told him all sorts of things (just not the names of the donors, which aren’t all that interesting anyways.)”



  29. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2012 at 10:21 am said:

    “Heartland, a rightwing thinktank with a core mission of spreading disinformation about climate change”

    – Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian


    “The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”

    – Heartland Institute


    For the record.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2012 at 9:48 am said:

    Bast on Forged Memo

    February 27, 2012

    An Analysis of the Forged “Heartland Climate Strategy” Memo

    By Joseph L. Bast
    The Heartland Institute
    (Fake Memo PDF)
    (Bast Analysis PDF)

    Fakegate: A Short History


    False Claims

    The memo contains several false statements about The Heartland Institute’s work on climate change. Following is our refutation of some of the most damaging claims:

    * The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund our climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 to us in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not climate.

    * “[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been our goal. As the “Fundraising Plan” clearly states, we are working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. We don’t believe this should be controversial.

    * We do not seek to “undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports.” We have openly and repeatedly shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports are not peer reviewed in any meaningful sense, exaggerate the certainty of scientific understanding and forecasting abilities, and are written and promoted to serve political rather than scientific objectives. We have produced two highly regarded volumes of scientific research, part of a series titled Climate Change Reconsidered, showing how peer-reviewed science rebuts many of the IPCC’s claims.

    * We do not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.

    * We do not try to “keep opposing voices out” of fora, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

    * We are not “cultivating more neutral voices” by reaching out specifically to Andrew Revkin or Judith Curry. I do not view Revkin as a neutral voice in the debate.

    Finding the Forger’s Own Words

    I say without qualification that I did not write this memo. However, some of the text in the memo was copied and pasted from or closely paraphrases the stolen documents, authentic versions of which I did write.

    Attached to this analysis is a copy of the forged memo with the forger’s own words highlighted. All un-highlighted text was taken from one of the stolen documents.

    Notes: Text that is not highlighted is not necessarily accurate, and often it is not. Such text generally paraphrases text appearing in one of the stolen documents but was deliberately twisted or falsified to create a false impression. Also, if you plan to print this memo, be sure to specify printing “Document and Markups” to preserve the highlighting.

    A line-by-line analysis of the memo follows.

    First paragraph:


    Sixth paragraph:

    Computerized Text Analysis


    # # #


  31. Andy on 29/02/2012 at 8:52 am said:

    Ben Pile writes a good piece for Spiked Online on Fakegate

    Greens, face it: we’re just not that into you

  32. Andy on 16/03/2012 at 9:36 am said:

    Commenting on Hot Topic just got expensive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation