Statement by The Heartland Institute on Peter Gleick Confession
Posted by jennifer, February 21st, 2012 - under News.
Tags: People
“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.
The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.




Luke,
Which arguments do you believe need references?
The argument that this is more about politics than science or the argument that projective modelling is being used inappropriately?
Where does one find references to cite for those 2 arguments?
The input data in both the climate modeling and the hydrology modeling is far too dirty and the errors are being magnified by the politics and what you call cognitive dissonance.
You must know that this type of projective modelling is inexact. Every scientist I speak to knows it and has explained why.
History is littered with examples of govts attempting to use inexact science to solve ‘grand challenges’.
This one is political Luke, not scientific.
The burden of proof is on you, not me.