Scientist Who Lied To Obtain Heartland Documents Faces Fight To Save Job

The Guardian:

The career and reputation of the scientist behind the Heartland Institute exposé was in jeopardy on Wednesday night, after his employers said they were reviewing his use of deception to obtain confidential documents.

Read the whole story: The Guardian

Comments

[Climate Lurker]

12:29 PM on 03/01/2012

Your replies to replies to replies are getting so narrow it's impossible to read the comments....

[buggeroffyou666]

09:53 PM on 02/28/2012

Has it dawned on anyone that if there had been any legal or even true journalistic investigation of the conservative fraud known as Hartland then it would never have come to this?
I mean their mission statement is to lie to dumb down our country.
What part of that doesn't sound like treason?

[yeti7]

04:33 PM on 02/26/2012

He should lose his job.
What he did is wrong.
He has brought much embarrassment and
negative attention to his "employers" and
all the others he is associated with.

[Climate Lurker]

03:19 PM on 02/27/2012

If he should lose his job, then the Heartland Institute should also lose their tax exempt status, and I personally think they should never be allowed to have anything to do with any school administrator, or government education person, or any teacher, ever again.

[rxspence]

12:21 PM on 02/26/2012

What is in the document's that exposes anything that is not in their mission statement.
The suggestion that they want to stop the teaching of all science is rediculous.

[sunsetter]

07:51 AM on 02/25/2012

THe FBI is now involved. If I were Mr. Gleick, I would be VERY worried.

[jimboy71]

03:01 PM on 02/25/2012

Let's have a link, please.

BTW you should be worried. Figure it out.

[sunsetter]

05:48 PM on 02/25/2012

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/fbi-called-over-climate-change-mole/305161

[DocSkull]

04:57 PM on 02/25/2012

"THe FBI is now involved."

What this means is that the right-wing press are saying that Heartland called the FBI. That was pretty smart of them. They had to call someone for the sake of appearances, but if they had called someone with a real interest, they might start asking questions that the Heartland Institute doesn't want to answer. For example, why isn't this public relations firm paying taxes?

[sunsetter]

05:48 PM on 02/25/2012

You do mean Media Matters, right?

[yeti7]

04:20 PM on 02/26/2012

computer fraud is a felony

[YouCantKeepaGoodManDown]

07:30 AM on 02/24/2012

This is what happens when you try to mix science with political activism. Every climate scientist I have ever had dealings with were also left-wing environmental activists. The two mix like oil and water.

[ubrew12]

01:46 PM on 02/24/2012

I'm guessing thats 'sarcasm unintentional'

[DocSkull]

02:46 PM on 02/24/2012

"Every climate scientist I have ever had dealings with were also left-wing environmental activists."

It's because knowledge of the current trend instigates action.

[YouCantKeepaGoodManDown]

03:53 PM on 02/24/2012

There is nothing all that spectacular about the current trend.

[Jtt]

02:23 AM on 02/24/2012

Plutocracy, Pure and Simple

It appears to have followed the script written by a consultant to the Republican party, Frank Luntz, in 2002. “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

Luntz’s technique was pioneered by the tobacco companies and the creationists: teach the controversy. In other words, insist that the question of whether cigarettes cause lung cancer, natural selection drives evolution or burning fossil fuels causes climate change is still wide open, and that both sides of the “controversy” should be taught in schools and thrashed out in the media. ( http://www.monbiot.com/2012/02/20/plutocracy-pure-and-simple/ )

You have a party and seedy denial groups with NO moral compass whatsoever. That will lie, knowing it harms many, many people, just for cash.

Anti science, anti truth, anti education.

[Jtt]

02:15 AM on 02/24/2012

Getting information then verifying it that a organization was lying and attempting to mislead on a monumental scale is not anythign to be ashamed of.

Heartland is going down with the whole denial movement. They are the criminals here.

[Jtt]

02:18 AM on 02/24/2012

Keep the internal documents coming from the denial groups !!!!!!!!!!!

Everything they claimed in "climate-gate" but were unable to prove or justify plus things a hundred times worse were revealed in the Heartland documents.

DENIAL HAS NO BASIS IN SCIENCE WHATSOEVER.

[Greg Mirsky]

04:22 PM on 02/23/2012

"Lied" is politically-corrected characterization of criminal actions committed by Mr.Peter Gleick:
- stolen identity
- wire fraud
- document forgery
among other lesser for which he might be investigated and brought to criminal trial. The Heartland Institute might file civil suit against Mr.Peter Gleick.

[Jtt]

02:12 AM on 02/24/2012

HAHAHAHA yea right he exposed several denial "scientists" that are about to be terminated from their university positions for lying and conflict of interest.

Not to mention exposing the whole denial fraud.

Its over.

[Jtt]

02:25 AM on 02/24/2012

HEARTLAND sent the SAME documents to DR Gleick. So they are NOT forgeries.

[Greg Mirsky]

10:45 AM on 02/24/2012

Firstly, he pretended to be one of board members by altering e-mail address in the same way scamers that steel identities do - add and .inc or .a.
Secondly, he forged a document and claimed it was Heartland board of directors memo and he distributed it, including the HuffPo.

[fiddler3]

04:12 PM on 02/23/2012

Good riddance.

Effectively claiming to know facts depends on behaving with integrity. If that integrity is spoiled, the claims lose their standing.

Asking questions is much easier. A person who asks a question has much less of a burden. One can question the motives of the questioner, but that does little to affect the validity of a question.

Herein lies the intrinsic problem with the strategy of insisting there is a consensus. It drives those who claim to know the cause of global warming for certain to ridiculous extremes in defense of their claims, since one of their claims is that there is no other explanation except theirs. All that skeptics need to do is ask questions. What makes this so dangerous is twofold: the effects on society are significant, and the topic is quite complicated (even though so many of the consensus supporters try to argue it is simple).

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

11:05 PM on 02/23/2012

How is fraudulent and covert propaganda fought?

What makes this so dangerous is how you promote the idea there is a controversy which demands equal attention and credibility be assigned to a tiny minority of contrarians. But if we follow your proposal then deniers should only be represented and funded in proportion to their representation among experts; not in proportion to the number of politically driven deniers with undue influence, and all those with more wealth than integrity funding them.

[fiddler3]

11:07 AM on 02/24/2012

Drop the name-calling if you expect a response

[keme]

11:38 PM on 02/23/2012

fiddler3: I'm basing this reply on my understanding of the gist of your last paragraph. Apologies if I misunderstood.

"Herein lies the intrinsic problem with the strategy of insisting there is a consensus."

The consensus of AGW is not based on a "strategy of insisting there is a consensus." A consensus has been achieved because there is no longer any disagreement in the published scientific literature and amongst climate science experts about the fact that global warming is predominantly anthropogenic.

"It drives those who claim to know the cause of global warming for certain to ridiculous extremes in defense of their claims"

The theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on a consilience of evidence that has built up over a considerable span of time and has been subject to peer review and replication. There is absolutely no need to defend this by going to "ridiculous extremes." The evidence speaks for itself.

The "ridiculous extremes" in this case, were employed not to defend the cause of global warming, but to make important facts about Heartland that carry significant societal consequences known to the public at large.

"since one of their claims is that there is no other explanation except theirs."

This is not an arbitrary "claim". Despite decades of investigation and testing, there simply has been no other explanation found for which there is sufficient evidence to support the observed effects.

[fiddler3]

08:37 AM on 02/24/2012

Yes. You miss the point. Consensus has nothing to do with scientific process. The first use of the word consensus was added during IPCC and has been absolutely a key talking point from the start. I have been to many of the conferences and I talk often with the scientists in the field about their science. Many cringe at the use of the consensus argument. If you wish to talk science -- then talk science. Almost everyone, and certainly everyone on HP, argues 'consensus', not science.

There have been some interesting sociological studies done about the issue of consensus -- and whether it causes problems or solves them in science. If the consensus is true and natural, it isn't even necessary for the argument. If it is contrived or forced, then it must constantly be referred to.

It is profoundly difficult to prove a negative. That is what the consensus proponents have taken on. They act badly under the pressure of the task. Do not confuse the lack of a counter example as any proof at all that no counter example exists. It is never the requirement on skeptics that they produce a counter example. The scientific method does not require it. The political method does -- and hence the point made by Santorum.

[fiddler3]

10:37 PM on 02/24/2012

"You talked about counter examples to AGW theory"

Where did I mention a counter example? My point is that absence of a known specific counter-example is not proof none exists. The burden of proof is on those who claim the science is 'done' and AGW is the only possible theory.

And, as I have said repeatedly, HP is not a forum where science is discussed well. When I discuss science I do it in appropriate fora -- usually with scientists, not amateurs.

I have no problem with people talking about the political implications or how various policies are to be determined. But it is ridiculous to call such banter scientific discussions.

[SallyMaclennane]

03:41 PM on 02/23/2012

I hear Tygartman wishes Gleick a bon voyage.

[jimboy71]

03:15 PM on 02/25/2012

Small worlds.