Gleick and the NCSE

On January 13, 2012, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland CA announced that it was adding climate change as a new product line. Gleick’s Climate Rapid Response team-mate Scott Mandia praised this diversification:

“The cavalry has arrived. NCSE, with its passion and experience defending science in our schools, will ensure that teachers can educate students about climate change without fear of reprisal.”

The NCSE proudly announced the appointment of “leading-climate-change-expert” Peter Gleick to their board of directors in unambiguous terms:

Dr. Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of The Pacific Institute, has joined NCSE’s board of directors. Gleick, a world-renowned water expert, will advise NCSE on its new climate change education initiative.

ALthough the announcement was unambiguous, on Feb 20, the NCSE announced , not that Gleick had resigned, but that, despite their previous announcement, Gleick had never joined their board:

On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.

The NCSE also had a cameo in early discussions of the affair. It was quoted in the first New York Times article here.

As part of their new product line, the NCSE planned to develop a K-12 curriculum and took note of Heartland’s plan for a rival product line almost immediately. Late in the afternoon of Feb 14, John Timmer of Ars Technica tweeted (@j_timmer).

Note the Heartland docs indicate they’re working on a school curriculum. Should sound familiar to the @NCSE.

This was re-tweeted by NCSE program director Josh Rosenau who commented(@JoshRosenau) at 6:14 PM Eastern:

Saw it, and am intrigued. I guess someone’s worried about @NCSE’s climate change efforts!

The next day (Feb 15) at 11:47 AM, mem_somerville @mem_somerville that they should turn the festivities into a fundraiser for NCSE:

I’m thinking we should turn #deniergate into a fundraiser for NCSE, just like we did with PP. bit.


  1. myke
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

    “Gleick’s lifetime of scientific accomplishments and experience running a successful environmental nonprofit (and his performance at SkeptiCal) led to his being considered as an addition to NCSE’s board, and he withdrew from consideration immediately after he posted his confession on Huffington Post. Even though there was never any formal tie between Gleick and NCSE …”
    NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau

  2. Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    There was once a young fellow named Peter
    Target of NCSE’s head tweeter
    On the board! So attractive!
    Now resigned, retroactive
    And run through a history-deleter

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  3. David Anderson
    Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 11:19 PM | Permalink

    And quote from (highly likely) fake Strategy memo:

    “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    Unlike much of the material in Strategy the above quote is not extracted from the other (highly likely) real Heartland documents i.e. it was added for effect.

    The pieces come together.

    Steve: a point made in my first post “Heartland” reviewing the then chronology.

    • Steve Hempell
      Posted Feb 22, 2012 at 11:53 PM | Permalink

      Went up to the NCSE website: On their header is this:

      “NCSE provides information and advise as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the classroom and to keep out creationism and climate science denial”.

      This is in what way different than what HI was proposing to do?

      Also – on their donation information page (click learn more)

      “In 2012, NCSE began supporting teachers who are pressured to avoid or compromise the teaching of another well-supported science, climate change.”

      Eerily familiar.

      NCSE is a 501(c) (3) non profit organization.

  4. Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM | Permalink

    So, What I would do is suponea board minutes from the NCSE.

    Typically one is invited to Join boards. And boards discuss and vote on these things. Secretary keeps minutes.( argg I hate keeping minutes )

    • Andrew
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

      @ Steven Mosher

      Subpoena’s may not be needed to get some dirt. As a 501 c 3 you can find out a fair amount…it depends on how sneaky they got with their tax returns…which are public records.

      Just an FYI, in case you were not aware.

    • HaroldW
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

      While the Wayback machine doesn’t have any recent archives (that is, between the January 13 announcement that Gleick had joined its board and the February 20 announcement that Gleick had not yet begun serving), I note that shows an update on February 20, indicating that Gleick’s name was likely on that page before that date.

      I guess it depends on what “not yet begun serving” means. NCSE seems to be drawing a distinction between joining the board, and something else — perhaps Feb 25 is the first meeting of the board which Gleick would have attended.

      Rosenau’s tweet that Gleick “was never with NCSE” is plainly disingenuous.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

        I’ve been on a number of boards. You’re a member of the board from when you accept appointment, not the first board meeting that you attend.

        • HaroldW
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM | Permalink

          I thought that was the case. But I wondered if perhaps one was not officially a member of the board until signing forms acknowledging fiduciary responsibility, or some such, which might take place at a more formal setting.

        • Andrew
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

          @ Steve McIntyre

          Have you been on any boards in the US?(rhetorical…) I bring that up because in the US, since the passing of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) in 2002, the rules and responsibilities changed dramatically.

          I have been on 2 boards, pre Sarbanes-Oxley. I took my role seriously, and even modified my income in order to comply with provisions of ERISA. As a pension consultant I could not receive investment advisory fees from a company’s pension assets and sit on the company’s board. I was in a somewhat unique position, as ERISA is a narrowly focused set of laws.

          SOX includes criminal penalties for Board misconduct, and non profits are not exempt. Particularly if there are Federal monies involved.

          My point, I do not know enough details to make any direct comments regarding the NCSE, however, SOX has some teeth. Do I trust the Department of Justice to do the right thing? Nope… But Federal Prosecutors do have some serious power. They are appointed by the President, but they are supposed to protect and defend the Constitution, not the current Administration.

          So will this incident show up on some Prosecutors radar screen? The Federal Prosecutor in Sacramento is going after Cindy Sheehan, right now, for tax evasion, so ya never know. They Feds are generally slow and methodical, but they can act fast if necessary…just ask Blagojevich. Pat Fitzgerald stepped in immediately when it looked like Obama’s Senate seat was going to be sold.

      • mt
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

        Here’s the Google cache link to the NCSE Board. Gleick is listed with a last updated date of Jan 20, and the Google cache is dated Feb 18. I also grabbed a snapshot for posterity.

      • cdquarles
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

        Re: HaroldW (Feb 23 11:07), As Steve says about boards, this is also true of ex-officio members.

  5. Rick Bradford
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:23 AM | Permalink

    The Grauniad is now suggesting that Gleick’s position at the Pacific Institute is under threat, also noting that the SF Chronicle has dropped him as a columnist.

    • Bruce
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

      “Greenpeace and other campaigning groups were working hard on Wednesday to expose a number of individuals who were revealed in the documents to be on Heartland’s payroll, and were planning to put pressure on the publicly-funded institutions that were the main employers.”

      “Greenpeace argued that the funds violated conflict of interest regulations for government-funded research projects.”


      Now that I think about, I would be in favor of all scientists who took money from Greenpeace of WWF or Tides or the Sierra CLub or similar organizations be banned from “government-funded research projects.”

      • Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

        Do commissions to write papers from Greenpeace count? As in IPCC Vice Chair’s Jean-Pascal van Ypersele’s one he wrote while working within the IPCC in 2004?

  6. moschops
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:49 AM | Permalink

    Is Josh Rosenau of the NCSE the same person as “Joshua” the prolific commenter on Climate Etc. and Pielke Jr.?

    • Menth
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:50 AM | Permalink

      Good question. I noticed a couple nights ago that Roseau was pestering RPJ on twitter. Come to think of it, it was certainly Joshuanian in style. Well, I suppose we could just ask him 😉

      • David Jay
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Permalink


        You owe me a new keyboard!


  7. Sharpshooter
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:15 AM | Permalink

    It’s always tough dealing with paranoid schizophrenic types.

  8. Tom Ganley
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    I hope it’s not true that after a lifetime of (apparently) honest living, he cooked this whole thing up to promote Climate Rapid Response.

    I’m trying to figure out why a guy our age, with reputation and respect of his peers, did such a damn fool thing. It’s been bothering me all day.

    • tetris
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM | Permalink

      A case of emotions getting the better of reason in a meltdown. Happens to many people. It’s the topic, the context and the fall out that make this one particularly interesting.

    • Kozlowski
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:48 AM | Permalink


      Agreed, it is odd behavior indeed. Perhaps Megan McArdle is onto something when she says:

      “And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier.”

      Keep in mind too that he has also (we presume):

      1) Created the fake “2012 Confidential Strategy” memo himself and,
      2) Lied about creating the memo

      Peter Gleick’s “fingerprint” or writing style is so clearly evident in the faked document. It is what led people to suspect him in the first place. I suspect his denial of having created the document is an effort to avoid the real possibility of a criminal investigation or greater penalties.

      If he would have also admitted that he created the faked memo, do you think it would have been more likely to trigger a criminal probe, or had greater penalties than his current admission of impersonation?

      Any lawyers here who can answer this? Why did he admit to impersonation but not to having created the faked document? What sort of advice is he getting from his lawyers that would lead him in this direction?


      • Dave
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

        As I posted on McArdle’s blog, it’s not insane behaviour at all. Gleick has a long history of being feted by his supporters for increasingly unethical behaviour, and of having them uncritically accept his ludicrous explanations.

        As far as Gleick’s concerned, the denial is watertight – he still thinks he’s in the clear. That’s all you need to add to explain things much more neatly.

        • Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

          Gleick has a long history of being feted by his supporters for increasingly unethical behaviour, and of having them uncritically accept his ludicrous explanations.

          And no doubt some of those accepting the ludicrous most enthusiastically use pseudonyms. And when it all blows up in Gleick’s face, ruining his career, what do these brave souls pay? One might call them smart for that but it’s not how I see it. Gleick was dumb to be taken in and on that he’s not the only one.

        • wws
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

          Kozlowski asked:

          “Any lawyers here who can answer this? Why did he admit to impersonation but not to having created the faked document? What sort of advice is he getting from his lawyers that would lead him in this direction?”

          Although I’m speculating, I think it’s clear that Gleick was inept at IT and that he left electronic fingerprints all over the email chain which pointed directly to himself. I also think that Heartland discovered this almost as soon as they put an IT professional on the case. I wouldn’t be surprised if their public demand letter, done on the advice of counsel, came with a private notice to Gleick that they were going to take action against him personally, causing Gleick to confer with *his* legal counsel. The confession statement did come within hours of HI’s demand letter, after all. (those who think the demand letter was over the top should take note of that. It worked, since the goal was to flush out the perp)

          The “confession” by Gleick was clearly parsed, edited, and possibly even written by Gleick’s attorneys. The immediate confession only makes sense if one certain circumstance is true: If Heartland has the electronic proof that the purloined documents were requested by and sent to an email address directly controlled by Gleick, then it would be foolish and legally hazardous for him to deny something which the other side already has proof of. (and I believe they do, since I believe he used a temporary pseudonymous account and then deleted it, thinking that all records of its existence would be deleted along with it. He was wrong) Gleick’s counsel is just making the best of a very bad situation.

          The forgery is not the biggest issue here – the theft of the documents is the big one. Remember that although the forgery is getting the most talk, the act of using deception to obtain property that was not his (the real documents) constitutes the actual crime of Wire Fraud.

          18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
          “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

          Note the phrase “for obtaining money OR property.” There does not need to be any immediate financial gain for this statute to apply, you simply must gain control of some asset through deception across interstate transmission lines.

          Are the purloined papers property? They clearly are – they were private, unavailable to the public, and deception was required to gain control of them.

          Does this law apply to copies of electronic documents as well as to the originals? Yes, that has been established in IP case law.

          Did this occur across state lines? Yes it did, meaning federal law is applicable.
          (but various state laws may have been violated as well)

          And even if this isn’t prosecuted under criminal charges, it’s still a heck of a cause of action for a civil suit. (federal OR state, plaintiff’s choice)

          Legally, I don’t see the forgery as a criminal offense, but if it can be proved it does bring libel into the mix. It also would help to establish malice and actual intent behind the wire fraud, which could enable punitive damages as well as actual damages.

          I see Gleick as having a hopelessly flawed legal case, since he has already confessed to the most serious charge and is attempting to act pitiful, saying that he just had a temporary lapse of reason or something. Even if believed, that would do nothing for him but mitigate the damages – but that is probably the best his attorneys are hoping for these days.

          If he can be shown to have forged the most damaging document as well (and proof of that, unlike suspicion of it, will be difficult) then all of his defenses will collapse and he can look forward to having his bank accounts garnished while he personally funds Heartland’s operations budget for the next several years.

    • Martin A
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:52 AM | Permalink

      Borderline insanity?

      Intense hatred of the HI? (Motivating him to do things regardless of the possible/likely personal consequences.)

      Note that in the forged document he takes a swipe at Judith Curry (who was deleted from his christmas card list some time ago).

    • Copner
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 7:30 AM | Permalink

      It’s just not that he did it that bothers me, but that he seems to done it so badly.

      I hypothesize it’s possible that he may have created the fake memo, in a panicked rush, in an attempt to cover up the pretexting but still keep himself in the story.

      Just one more thing as Columbo might say…

      Some other things have been bothering me:

      1. According to Heartland, Gleick did the pretexting in early February. This would mean he sat on the genuine documents for a couple of weeks before releasing them. But the faked document was knocked up at the last minute on February 13th.

      2, If you read the faked document, except for some word-choice tells, it does not read like Gleick’s professional documents, nor like his Forbes column, or his documents at the Pacific Institute. It actually reads like Gleick’s blog comments, especially the rushed and highly emotionally charged ones (like where he’s angry about the book review).

      3. Why would he copy and paste an information-free line about Dr Wojik’s from a real Heartland document. It stands out line a sore-thumb. He didn’t even bother to re-phrase it? He didn’t add any information. Again, it suggests rush.

      4. Why would he not add any real information (except for some errors) about Heartland to the fake document, when there is plenty of information out there that he could have used? Again it suggests rush.

      5. Why did he make schoolboy errors in copying information from the budgets into the fake documents? It’s not like he has no experience reading 503(c)’s budgets – he has ran one for 20 years. Again, it suggests rush.

      6. It is nice to believe that Gleick thought the game was up because of the speculation at Lucia’s, Mosher fingering him as a suspect, or Roger’s tweet, but he seems to have resigned from AGU before he knew about this.

      7. If you read the first Kaminsky article at American Spectator where he fingers Gleick as a suspect, he seems to be doing so using an entirely separate basis from the blog speculation. Go down to the comments section, Kaminsky is asked why he didn’t credit Mosher, but Kaminsky replies he doesn’t know who Mosher is – so it seems unlikely that he got his suspicions from the blogosphere.
      8. Gleick runs a 503(c) himself. When pretexting he would surely not have expected to find anything much in budgets and fund raising plans that get discussed at board meetings. Furthermore he had been examining Heartland’s form 990 since at least early January 2012, so he knew approximately their total funds, etc., just not the names of specific donors. He also surely knew the sort of activities Heartland does – because it’s nearly all listed on their website – it’s no secret for example that they organize skeptical conferences on climate change or write the NIPCC report. The worst that he could expect to find in these types of documents is that Heartland is funded by Koch and big oil – but he has (or greens generally have) been claiming that for years anyway, and nobody except them really cares – at best the documents would serve as proof of this allegation.

      9. If he’s prepared to invent an anonymous whistleblower for the fake document, why didn’t he invent an anonymous whistleblower for sending him the real documents?

      10. Why would he mention himself and his Forbes column in the fake?

      So here is a hypothesis: The fake document was created to cover-up the pretexting

      Note: I am not saying this is what happened. I do not know what happened. I am saying this is merely one possibility for what could have happened.

      The hypothesis goes:-

      1. In August 2011, Gleick becomes a Forbes contributor.

      2. In January (specifically January 12) he gets into a fight in the Forbes comments column with a fellow Forbes blogger – James Taylor (of Heartland). Gleick demands to see who is funding Heartland – see…..3-294-2369

      3. By early February, Gleick decides to do the pretexting. Maybe it is because he now considers himself a journalist, and considers this to be investigative journalism.

      4. It works, he’s got the documents, and he plans to write about it, perhaps even as a scoop in his Forbes column. He can explain the documents as having come from an anonymous source.

      5. At some point he discovers pretexting is illegal and/or Forbes would not publish a column based on stolen material. Gleick begins to fear Heartland is on to him.

      6. Somehow, perhaps via the grapevine at Forbes, some kind of hint of what has happened, and that it involves Gleick, gets to Kaminsky.

      7. Gleick however doesn’t know for sure whether Heartland are on to him. He still wants to use the material he pretexted – but he has a dilemma – if he simply forwards the stolen documents to Desmogblog, etc., he has removed himself from the story, despite doing all the work and taking all the risks!

      8. Some Gleick comes up with a cunning plan, he just needs to create one new document, but he needs to do it quickly…

      • Robert of Ottawa
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

        Perhaps he was drunk

        • Copner
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

          He scanned the fake document at 12:41 on the 13th. He emailed the package at 09:13 on the 14th. Was he drunk for 20.5 hours?

      • John Silver
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

        Nice analysis, Copner.

        Phishing is a federal crime and I am sure the FBI (and other three letter agencies) have back doors in every router. National security trumps everything in the US these days.
        The phisher could have been traced in a matter of seconds.
        With the right connection in the FBI, Heartland could have known very early about Gleick.

      • Tarl
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

        I think Robert of Ottawa is correct. I could see him setting at home going over the documents he had received illegally while drinking wine. At some point the wine and giddiness overtook good sense. This seems a strong possibility. The Internet does not pair well with wine. Any wine. At least he didn’t post a picture of his athletic build flexing in the mirror. Of course if he had pulled this off, that might have followed.

        • Copner
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

          He scanned the fake at 12:41 Feb 13th

          He sent the fake and other documents out at 09:13 Feb 14th.

          He is unlikely to have been drunk for such a long time. And I think he’s unlike to be drunk at 09:13 in the morning.

        • sHx
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

          Agreed that he is unlikely to have been drunk. But he may well have been under the influence of some drug or even caffeine overdose. It would be to his benefit actually if he claimed FUI (faked-under-influence) during sentencing hearing.

          It isn’t unusual for people to stay up 24 to 48 hr stretch. Soldiers in the frontlines do it all the time. They get so jaded, they hallucinate. Then they end up shooting themselves and others by mistake.

      • BillC
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

        hey copner,

        you suggesting co-conspiratorial cover-up?

        and for you and Mosher – Gavin on parentheses:

        “Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this – both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished”

        Now, I am not suggesting IN ANY WAY that Gavin wrote the memo. I note you, Copner, using parentheses the same way in a post at Lucia’s.

        I am merely thumbing my nose at Mosher along the commas and parentheses lines, or trying to add to it in the way that you did, thinking that, haste, makes (waste).

        • Copner
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

          Gavin’s blog comments read to me like he swallowed a business jargon dictionary. He never says anything the simplest way possible. The brackets are I think his very subtle attempt at humor (even only he gets the joke).

          Gleick’s blog comments, the ones I have read anyway, don’t read like that at all.

      • Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

        Very nice.

        I agree it was written in haste or rather not heavily edited.

        • Copner
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

          Somebody on the previous climateaudit thread suggest that Kaminsky got the idea from a Forbes comment, which was inspired by you. So Kaminsky could have got the idea from you, without knowing it.

          It seems a bit too quick. Kaminsky would have had to get the idea, believed it enough to go out on a limb in an article, without apparently reading your posts or knowing your name, and published the article at American Spectator. Anyway, even if we eliminate the first 6 & 7, and the second 7 – I think the hypothesis still hangs together pretty well.

          One more thing that suggests rush in the fake is it’s missing all the usual bland corporate puffing you find in most documents of this type. There’s not even an attempt to put some in. Surely Gleick, President of his own 503(c), and long-term producer of puffy documents would realize this flaw if the forgery was the plan rather than an improvisation?

          Like Watergate, it’s not the initial crime, but the cover-up were the real trouble begins?

      • theduke
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

        Copner: to add to your astute analysis re Gleick’s state of mind and motivation, remember that the WSJ op ed by Lindzen et al appeared on Jan. 27 and the response to it by Trenberth et al came out on February 1. The Trenberth letter was seething, insulting and patronizing and Gleick was one of the signers.

        Here’s a pretty good overview of the whole situation which early on mentions the WSJ exchange:

      • Ian
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

        Interesting analysis. A few thoughts, question and further alternatives:

        Re: #1 (“According to Heartland, Gleick did the pretexting in early February. This would mean he sat on the genuine documents for a couple of weeks before releasing them. But the faked document was knocked up at the last minute on February 13th.”)

        While the document was scanned on the 13th, that is not evidence of its creation date. Whether or not Gleick wrote it, it could easily have been created earlier. The reason for the scan could be either (a) to hide the metadata from a Word document; or (b) because he actually did receive it in the mail. Pick your favourite and place your bet.

        Re #2 – 5 (these points collectively suggest that Gleick was “rushed”). Reasonable inferences, but what created the last minute “rush”? Why did he suddenly think he had to “cover up” his pretext approaches to Heartland, given that he had not yet released the documents? As an aside, do we know the date on which Heartland sent the Board documents to him?

        Re #6 (resignation date from AGU). I’m not sure the timeline on this resignation is entirely clear or convincing. I’d also like to see evidence that he did, in fact, resign on that date – I’m afraid I’m becoming a tad cynical given the machinations of the various players. Lucia’s theory – that the AGU, having picked up on the possibility that it was Gleick as a result of various blog postings, may have put the question to him directly – seems a reasonable fit for the evidence as we currently understand it. Alternatively, Gleick may have started to realize how thin his protection was and initiated the resignation before it was forced on him. The weakness in that argument, however, is why did he wait to resign from his appointment as a director of NCSE until he posted his “apology”?

        Re #7 (Kaminsky’s posting on American Spectator). While it is true the Kaminsky arrived at the conclusion that it was Gleick, and did so without reference to Mosher, I’m not sure what that proves. If Gleick resigned from the AGU on the 16th, as advertised, the Kaminsky posting would not have impacted that decision. Are you saying, instead, that Heartland/Kaminsky had evidence that it was Gleick on the 16th and had made inquiries of him, which in turn prompted his resignation from the AGU? Or is this point independent of any connection to his resignation from the AGU, and merely noting the Heartland has other evidence that was not available in the blogosphere? Or is it that Heartland had started inquiries regarding this issue before the materials became public? It’s not clear how you see the Kaminsky article factoring into either the “rush” you infer Gleick was under or the resignation from AGU.

        An interesting side note about Kaminsky’s posting is that Gleick apparently made more than one attempt to get information out of Heartland:

        “Earlier this month, on more than one occasion, someone pretending to be a member of the Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors…”.
        See: .

        Re #8: He expected to get, and did get, names and connections out of the Board documents. It was information that was not publicly available. He might have been hoping for more. Since he apparently asked for information on more than one occasion, he may have tried, unsuccessfully, to get more details.

        Re #9: If you assume that Gleick wrote the fake memo, the misdirection/ambiguity in his statement is driven by the fact that the document was, indeed, fake and libelous. The statement he issued – and let’s not pretend that it is an apology – was carefully crafted and deliberately ambiguous. The fake document contains a number of statements which are not supported by or contained in the Board materials. If Gleick created this document, his culpability likely is greater than if he merely disseminated material which subsequently turns out to be untrue. In the “dissemination only” situation, he can argue that since many of the points were (rather too conveniently) supported by the Board materials which he obtained by false pretences, he had a reason to believe the other materials in the fake were also genuine. If he also wrote the fake document, however, he has very clearly committed libel.

        I’m not sure that it is clear from Gleick’s statement that the “original anonymous communication” was necessarily included in the distributed materials. This is discussed further below.

        Re #10. (Mentioning himself). If he drafted the fake memo, there are lots of reasons for him to have mentioned himself. He is clearly arrogant. He also sees himself as a prominent leader in a “war” with unbelievers. His arrogance led to the inclusion of the reference to himself. The idea that he is at war is what has led to increasingly vitriolic public attacks on individuals who disagree with him or who, in his view, subvert or water down the message. That view also bolstered his decision to commit a crime to push his agenda forward. Sad, really, from his perspective that it generated so little in the way of damning information.

        Your Hypothesis:

        In your hypothesis section, you suggest that Gleick belatedly discovers that identify theft is a criminal offence and/or that “Heartland is on to him”. These seem a stretch, based on what we currently know: I certainly would not see them as factors which would drive him to compound the problem by drafting a fake accompanying memo. If he wrote the fake, the issues could as easily be explained by Gleick being sloppy, and/or wanting to inflict as much damage as possible – in the mistaken belief that it was not going to be traced back to him. The Board materials were simply too anodyne to serve his purpose. From those materials, he then created the “fake”, using his perception of the worldview of his opponents who, in his view, inhabit, “the secret villain lair” (as McArdle put it).

        In the “apology” he states that:

        1. He got an anonymous document outlining Heartland’s “climate program strategy”.

        2. He impersonated someone else (Heartland says it was a board member) and obtained information from Heartland.

        3. The information from Heartland “confirmed many of the facts in the original document.”

        4. Here’s where the ambiguity comes in:

        “I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.”

        It is not explicit that the term “documents” includes the original communication. It may, or may not, hence: ambiguity. One is certainly expected to draw that conclusion, but it is not a necessary implication.

        5. He also did not expressly confirm that that fake memo in the package of materials that he distributed, had not been authored by him.

        “I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public.”

        So, he says, and Heartland would probably agree, that the Board meeting materials are genuine and unaltered.

        “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.”

        This statement can still be true: he authored a fake memo, and included it in the package. He did receive, but he did not send, the “original anonymous communication”. It remains unseen, but unaltered.

        Assuming this to be correct (big assumption), why would he do this? Two reasons that I can see: he does not admit to committing libel and if the apology works, and Heartland accepts it without court action and all that that entails (discovery, forensic analysis of his computer hard drives, email accounts, Pacific Institute equipment, etc., etc.), then the misdirection would be successful.


        (1) he is telling the truth and received this “anonymous communication” with all of the details which are fortuitously confirmed by his exercise in identify theft; or

        (2) he authored the memo and there is no “anonymous communication”, which means the “apology” contains a bald faced lie (rather than misdirection) and he has dug himself a hole so deep, he can begin to claim it is a tunnel (apologies to Doonesbury).

        In either case, your tracing of his growing disagreement/dispute with a fellow Forbes blogger, may indeed mark the point at which Gleick decided to throw caution to the winds and commit a crime to bolster his agenda.

        I think someone went long popcorn futures on an earlier post…have to think that that is a good investment.

        • Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

          That’s all exceptionally helpful Ian but the heart for me is this:

          If he wrote the fake, the issues could as easily be explained by Gleick being sloppy, and/or wanting to inflict as much damage as possible – in the mistaken belief that it was not going to be traced back to him. The Board materials were simply too anodyne to serve his purpose. From those materials, he then created the “fake”, using his perception of the worldview of his opponents who, in his view, inhabit, “the secret villain lair” (as McArdle put it).

          That fits the best. It’s not a flattering picture of our central character but there we go.

    • Hoi Polloi
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

      Crime Passionel? I can imagine after various climategates and increasing attention for the sceptics a fuse must have blown, “I c.a.n.n.o.t t.a.k.e i.t. a.n.y.m.o.r.e.”…..

    • Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

      So Gleick views the rules of composition as optional (and his use of brackets appears to back this up). Likewise, he has written a book review without reading the book, in a way that would be easy to catch. SO I would suggest that he has had this personality trait for a long time.

      If you look at his body of work over his career, I’d bet good money offering odds that there will be a pattern of dishonesty shown pretty much throughout.

  9. Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:31 AM | Permalink

    The NCSE say that “One study found that only 54% of teens realize that global warming is happening.” Perhaps that is because for many of them there has been no warming in their lifetime.

  10. Salamano
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 3:33 AM | Permalink

    Here’s another example of the walk-back by NCSE w/r to Gleick:

    @WSAZBrandon [Feb 21]: Peter Gleick, with the National Center for Science Education, admits fraud in obtaining Heartland Documents #Irony

    @JoshRosenau [Feb 21]: @WSAZBrandon Gleick is with the Pacific Institute, not @NCSE.

    @WSAZBrandon [Feb 22]: @JoshRosenau I suppose we’re both right– because he just resigned from NCSE but still with Pacific Institute

    @JoshRosenau [Feb 22]: @WSAZBrandon He was never “with NCSE.”

    Semantics indeed. I wonder if someone can do a search to see if one of his 10,000+ Tweets said that H.B.Gary was “with” the Chamber of Commerce back when it was hacked to reveal unsavory strategy memos (if they’re not already deleted, he seems pretty prolific/observant online)

  11. dearieme
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

    I suppose that somewhere someone is looking carefully at many other things Gleick has said and done in his career. I dare say that Gleick may suspect that too.

    • Kozlowski
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

      Perhaps another place to be looking for Gleick’s methods of aggressive underhandedness would be in the resignation of the editor of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner.

      Gleick is mentioned as part of the group that went into action against Mr. Wagner. The oddest part of that prior episode is how Wolfgang Wagner wrote an apology letter to Trenberth and then resigned. Why apologize to Trenberth? What went on in the background that the public does not know? What sort of pressure was exerted?

      Normally in the case of disputed peer reviewed science, they allow a response to be published in the same journal. This presents the opposing argument to the same readers.

      This is what Roger Pielke had to say on the subject:

      “Having served as a Chief Editors for the Journal of Atmospheric Science and the Monthly Weather Review this very unusual behavior. The place to refute a published paper is in peer-reviewed papers, not in blogs (or the media). If the paper is not robust, it appropriately should be responded to by paper, not by the resignation of the Editor. In my view, he made a poor decision which has further damaged the scientific process of vetting new research results.”

      Peter Gleick has been busy.

      • KNR
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

        The thing is Wagner reasons for resinging increasely make no sense , give the author of the paper he claimed they should not have been published , has had to help out the author of the paper that was supposed to undermine this one .

        And that is ontop of Wagner’s bwoing down to Trenberth , which may be down to Trenberth holding the purse strings of the money Wagner needs for his day job.

        It was another instance of ‘the Team’ getting down and dirty , and another instance of the gatekeepers totally failing to do their job over awful behaviour .

  12. jim
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:52 AM | Permalink

    The warmists seem to think Gleick is going to get off scot free, is identity theft not prosecutable?

    Whats’s to say Gleick hasn’t been using similar tactics to obtain confidential information for years, as long as he was getting away with it why would he stop? He got caught based on the style of writing in the fake memo, Mosher outed him on the internet as the probable author, which in turn forced Gleick to come forward with the confession for the identity theft, but not the fake memo.

    Tbh, Gleick’s skills are ideal for any organization that needed a man like him. If he is so brazen with other people’s identity, what length’s would he go to in the less riskier field of manipulating scientific data to further a perceived cause. T

    Gleick’s deception techniques are no different to the Nigerian 419 scammers, the first and only rule rule being to gain the trust of the mark.

    • Martin A
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

      What Are Identity Theft and Identity Fraud?

      “The short answer is that identity theft is a crime. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception”

    • Garry
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

      “is identity theft not prosecutable?”

      Not a lawyer, and not sure whether they apply to Gleick’s actions, but you can examine these provisions of the California penal code:

      Penal Code 484 – Fraudulent Taking

      Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
      lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property [more at link above]

      Penal Code 530 – Impersonation

      Every person who falsely personates another, in either his private or official capacity, and in such assumed character receives any money or property, knowing that it is intended to be delivered to the individual so personated, with intent to convert the same to his
      own use, or to that of another person, or to deprive the true owner thereof, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so received.

      Penal Code 530.5 PC – Identity Theft

      Every person who willfully obtains personal identifying
      information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of another person, and uses that information for any unlawful purpose, including to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, real property, or medical information without the consent of that
      person, is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both a fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

  13. harry
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 5:14 AM | Permalink

    The parallels to Watergate are rather uncanny. This is a political crime, and I’ve got a feeling that those people that consider him a hero are not inclined to hold Nixon in the same regard.

    In 1972, Nixon’s Republican Party was easily winning in the polls, and yet someone decided it would be a good idea to steal the Democratic Party’s strategy documents.

    Here we have a similar story, the group rolling in public funds, with access to all levels of government decides to steal the strategy documents of a political foe. Nothing Heartland is doing is illegal, they have a right to lobby government, to seek donations and to pay people to do work on their behalf. None of the stolen documents reveal any illegal actions on behalf of Heartland, all they reveal is that they are easily outmatched financially by their opponents.

    Worse than the Watergate crimes, in this case not only are the private documents stolen by impersonating a company executive, one document is “sexed up” and distributed as an authentic representation of Heartland’s activities. Even today, people are commenting as if this document is authentic.

    Already the group has circulated the names of people on the Heartland payroll and donor list, so they can continue with the brown-shirt tactics of smearing them, having them excluded from office and destroying their careers.

  14. julianbr
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 6:59 AM | Permalink

    Gleick’s playbook is straight out of the NCSE attack of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge document. Josh Rosenau even compares both documents on his February 20 blog posting.

    Now Josh is denying Peter Gleick had joined NCSE as a board member. “Even though there was never any formal tie between Gleick and NCSE”


    • SeanNY
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

      Fascinating article. I had an odd exchange with an AGW proponent on Discover blog some years ago. I mentioned it recently here because his writing style reminded me of the style of the ford prefect … but it also reminds me of the style of the fake memo. Curiosly, my exchange was occasioned by a guy named Bilbo saying that “many of the climate change skeptics here still think that tobacco has no link with cancer” (which comparison is a focus of Josh’s article by the way). I challenged him to back up his assertion with a quote, got a lot of stalling, handwaving, invective, etc, and then he finally produced a quote, ostensibly from an AGW skeptic, which I could prove, with a simple google search, that he invented. Here’s what he wrote:

      42. bilbo Says:
      December 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

      Ah, Sean – I see now! I said:

      “Since they’ve descended on this blog to troll, I’ve found that many of the climate change skeptics here still think that tobacco has no link with cancer, still think that acid rain and the ozone hole don’t exist, and still think that the DDT ban was just “The Man” trying to exert power over the little guy.

      …but YOU used a small cherry-pick from that phrase, cut about 3/4 of it off, and left only the following:

      “Since they’ve descended on this blog to troll, I’ve found that many of the climate change skeptics here still think that tobacco has no link with cancer”

      Classic cherry-pick. Garbage engenders garbage, I suppose. S’ok, though. I’ve got one to back up that fraction of a piece of a statement of mine, too. From a comment on this blog:

      “Stop your selfrighteous preaching, bilbo. The tobacco industry has been just as demonized by ‘scientists’ as the fossil fuel industry with these ‘scientists’ false allegations about smoking causing cancer. There’s a lot of money available if you’re a scientist perpetrating a hoax in either field.”

      Now, shall you continue to argue sematics like a little child, or will you accuse me of fabricating quotes now like a petty, desperate adult? Because I honestly don’t see you taking a mature way out of this one.

      The rest of the story can be seen here:

  15. Tony Mach
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

    What was “PP”?

  16. txmichael
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    Let me get this straight —

    Gleick joins NCSE
    NCSE to develop K-12 education program

    Glieck ‘obtains’ Heartland documents
    Heartland to develop K-12 education program

    What an amazing ‘coincidence’ . . . Not!

  17. DocMartyn
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM | Permalink

    I can’t help but think that Gleick just followed the climate-science methodology. Collect data, cherry pick, using infilling and pervert the message that the data is portraying.

  18. johnnythelowery
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    NCSE distancing themselves from Gleick is probably a legal ploy so that they are not culpable in some way for his actions in either criminal or civil proceedings. They’d use the ‘….not in the scope of employ..’ defense
    but getting the issues infront of a jury can have unpredictable consequences so it’s best for NCSE if they are able to ‘dec ac’ (declarity action) their way out of proceedings before it gets that far.

  19. AFPhys
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    Thoughts about this compiled from WUWT: You seek a motive for the fraud memo – one which would both further Gleick’s career, and enhance his reputation?

    Note: several of the activities of NCSE and Gleick mentioned below occurred much earlier than Feb15. You can find the dates in the WUWT thread the posts came from.


    I have just waded through many comments on the WUWT thread

    I was simply, almost mindlessly, reading until a comment at 11:16 by Stephen Rasey went through a tremendous string of analysis and concluded with, “How does E.C. Scott at NCSE come to that conclusion without the faked document or private potentially defaming discussions (from Gleick)? I think Scott at NCSE just opened itself to Heartland discovery motions.”

    INDEED! That caught my attention.

    A little later, Richdo @12:00 pm goes through another marvelous string of fact that includes, “Chris Mooney at DeSmogBlog was one of the first (if not the first) to publicise NCSE’s climate education initiative launch, … [but] notes “There Is No Clear “Opponent.” In the evolution fight, there was … Discovery Institute[and other]. In the climate education battle, there is no central clearinghouse organization … pushing global warming denial in schools. … So how can [NCSE] manage climate education conflicts profitably …” “- Now we have Gleick, the newly appointed member of NCSE’s board, (appointed specifically because of their new climate initiatives) at the center of a fraud to create a “clear opponent” and provide a wondefull springboard for NCSE’s climate launch.”

    And finally, DirkH says to the original “Joe @ 10:03″, “VERY GOOD! You found the motive. So we KNOW now that -this was not masterplanned to blow up in their faces like it did. -the left/warm media are just winging it as good as they can”

    So back to read what Joe actually said at 10:03: “So Gleick, in his hubris, attempted to prime the pump for a battle against Heartland that he intended to wage as a board member at NCSE by releasing a fake document that portrayed Heartland as an anti-science organization. This plan had the ultimate effect of undoing Gleick just when he should have been reaching the zenith of his career and casting him in the nadir of his career instead.

    It’s a Gleick Tragedy.”

    My own opinion has been greatly affected by these posters and I believe if others who have been mulling over this event, it may greatly affect them, too. If I were Heartland, I would immediately subpoena for all NCSE documents and communications with Gleick and Dessmogblog, since it seems clear that NCSE and Gleick have clear motivation for producing that particular fraudulent document given his intended association with them before the incredibly rapid discovery of the fraud.

    I urge people to go read the full posts made by those folks since I edited them down to give the gist of their reasoning.

    I really do think these thoughts of how deeply NCSE was involved in this bears specific discussion.

    I have a sneakin’ suspicion that this fraudulent memo was created for the sole reason to provide NCSE a target, and their new golden boy, Gleick, probably by Gleick himself.

  20. patrioticduo
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    “His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is a well established consensus and certain – two key points that are effective at persuading teachers to teach the science.”


    • robin
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

      wow, are those the two actual quotes? Sorry, I don’t have the actual docs. If so, in the US do people normally say, “providing curriculum” or “providing a curriculum”? I would never say “providing curriculum” fwiw.

    • SeanNY
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

      Can you source the second quote please?

      • Ian
        Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

        I’m with Sean on this one. I’m not getting anything (currently) on the NCSE site with this language.

        Link/source, please?

        • SeanNY
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

          Maybe we misunderstand patrioticduo’s point.

          Maybe he’s just pointing out that the sentence makes a lot more sense if it started life as a description of how someone (maybe NCSE) was going to implement a pro-AGW curriculum, and then someone ham-handedly re-wrote it to have the opposite meaning.

        • Ian
          Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

          Perhaps. I tried the NCSE website to see if it pulled up anything with this language, but to no avail.

  21. Gerard Harbison
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

    As a former supporter of NCSE, I wrote a little blog piece about this (not trawling for hits, I just think it’s germane)

  22. Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    I’ m a little surprised that Steve is allowing the discussion of Gleick’s potential mental state. Although I do think that it’s quite apropos.

    His statement: “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.”
    Is completely devoid of reality, absolutely not provable, without merit or based on any facts.

    Megan McArdle nailed it:

    “And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position–so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn’t have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier.”

  23. Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    – One maker of Science programs for schools NCSE announces that they are making a new climate change program
    – 5 weeks later a story pop up over multiple green websites using a loaded title “Anti-science” which reveals another conservative organisation has a secret agenda to flood US schools with “climate denier” material. The post goes on to “expose & thoroughly discredit” this organisation with some “leaked material”
    – then it turns out that the leaked material is half fabricated & originates from Peter Gleick the top expert for the first organisation.
    – Today DoubtfulNews made another promo post headed “Anti-science” just as I was looking at this blog.

  24. Paul Matthews
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    A nice example of history-rewriting.

    On a related theme, the Pacific Institute has changed its tune. Below from Google cache are the two recent press releases as they were this morning. They have now deleted the Feb 21 statement from their site.

    February 22, 2012


    The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned and is actively reviewing information about the recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and documents pertaining to the Heartland Institute. Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events. As facts emerge and are confirmed, the Board will inform all stakeholders of our findings and of any actions based on these findings. In the meantime we maintain our commitment to the smooth operations, governance, and mission of the Pacific Institute.

    February 21, 2012


    We at the Pacific Institute are aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute. For 25 years, the Pacific Institute has been committed to conducting research that advances environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and Dr. Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team. Our organization remains focused on our mission of creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities.

    The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldberg has also changed her story from “Gleick apology over Heartland leak” to “Scientist who lied…”

    • Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

      Every day, in every way … we’re having to rewrite the history.

  25. Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

    – while you are reading posts like this 10 times more green posts are still appearing reposting the old NCSE fundraiser PR, implying we have to support NCSE “Climate-Science” education campaign of as if it was being done in reaction to stop the evil anti-science Heartland brainwashing your children, when in fact NCSE’s campaign came first. “without fear of reprisal”= “only our dogma”

    Truly upside down world

  26. Eric Anderson
    Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    Steve, this is my comment from the prior thread:

    “Actually, according to the NCSE, Gleick hadn’t even started serving yet, which is just as well for the NCSE. They can probably come away from this with Gleick never showing up in any of their documents or corporate history as ever having served on the board, and we can be confident they are reviewing how to best document this issue as we speak. If this had all hit the fan after February 25, he would show up in the corporate record forever as a one-time board member with an embarrassingly short tenure. Assuming the February 25 date is accurate (I have my doubts, but am willing to let them lie for now), there is nothing nefarious on the part of the NCSE here — just lucky timing on their part.

    So the NCSE could come off pretty cleanly. But then, driven by her usual MO and unable to help herself, Scott had to go open her mouth and insert her foot about all those nasty folks out there working to “undermine” science . . .”

    The issue you are highlighting in this thread is precisely along the lines I was discussing.

    Specifically, the NCSE is quickly spinning this as Gleick never having served on the Board. You are correct that people are generally considered to be members of the board as soon as they are appointed. *However,* if there were no meetings he attended, no consents he signed as a Board member, no actions taken in which he participated between the January 13 announcement and the February 20 press release, the NCSE will be able to whitewash this and document that he had never really done anything as a board member, had never really served as a board member, and by golly, wasn’t even actually on the board, now that we think about it.

    This is probably not going to backfire particularly strongly against the NCSE (again, assuming they can line up all their documents, which we can be assured they are reviewing with legal counsel right now). It was, frankly, a stroke of luck for them that this incident didn’t happen, say, in March or after the next Board meeting, when it would have been necessary to admit that he had, in fact, served on the board.

    Due to their unconditional announcement you rightly point to on January 13, it appears the NCSE considered him to be a member of the Board as of that date. That is the most reasonable interpretation (and would also be consistent with corporate America practice, including, yes, non-profit board service). However, the NCSE can probably document this they way they want and have probably just dodged a bullet by the timing.

    • Eric Anderson
      Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

      I should add, that if we later find out that there were in fact some board meetings or board actions in which Gleick participated between January 13 and February 20, then the NCSE’s attempt to whitewash him out of the corporate history takes on a whole different light.

      Also, anyone know the significance of the February 25 date? When is the next NCSE board meeting scheduled for? I’m suspicious that this is either the date of their next scheduled board meeting or conveniently right before, which is why they are spinning this as the date he was “scheduled to begin serving”. (Strange that he was scheduled to begin serving on a Saturday. Hmmmmm . . .) This is probably not true, but it probably is true that they can make the story stick if nothing board-related happened in the interim.

  27. Posted Feb 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM | Permalink

    I just can’t believe the hypocrisy of Gleick. This has turned out to be one person attempting to ruin the reputation of another person because he was involved in the same thing. Gleick knew that revealing donor names was damaging … he was told.

    The only way I can see that this is not going to end up with Gleick and his backers paying handsomely to Heartland, is if the buy them out.

  28. Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    PG – “You know you shouldn’t let those evil DENIER conservative people brainwash your children .. It just turns out I have some nice “proper” science programs prepared over here to sell to you”

    ….. just like they’ve already organised in Australia x.php/heraldsun/comments/how_global_warming_is _preached_in_year_8/

  29. Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    BTW someone could make some some excellent “critical thinking” course material from Phil Plait’s blog when he jumped in without doing any

    TITLE 1 “hip-hip-hypocrisy !
    Let’s hope the Heartland Institute pursues this perfidious document leaker with the same vigor, moral certitude, and righteous fury with which they went after the criminal who stole the climate scientist emails.” Phil Plait

    TITLE 2 “Breaking news: Heartland leaker is scientist Peter Gleick, says documents are all real”

  30. Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

    corrected for link
    PG – “You know you shouldn’t let those evil DENIER conservative people brainwash your children .. It just turns out I have some nice “proper” science programs prepared over here to sell to you” ….. just like they’ve already organised in Australia _preached_in_year_8/

  31. Posted Feb 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    sorry again
    PG – “You know you shouldn’t let those evil DENIER conservative people brainwash your children .. It just turns out I have some nice “proper” science programs prepared over here to sell to you” ….. just like they’ve already organised in Australia

  32. Posted Mar 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM | Permalink

    Donna Laframboise reports that just 17 days after Gleick confessed to circulating the libelous fake Heartland strategy memo and to committing wire fraud to acquire corroborating data to give it credence, he was honored by giving the keynote presentation at a California Water Policy Conference.

10 Trackbacks

  1. […] attacks on Heartland are not surprising due to this reason. The same tactics are replicated with the ‘teaching of climate science in schools’ discussion. Predictably enough, the […]

  2. […] 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s […]

  3. […] Scott Mandia, otro conocido mamporrero del Climate Science Rapid Response: “The cavalry has arrived. NCSE, with its passion and experience defending science in our schools, will ensure that teachers can educate students about climate change without fear of reprisal.” [–>] […]

  4. […] “The cavalry has arrived. NCSE, with its passion and experience defending science in our schools, will ensure that teachers can educate students about climate change without fear of reprisal.” [–>] […]

  5. […] will ensure that teachers can educate students about climate change without fear of reprisal.” [–>]¿Miedo a las represalias por enseñar a los estudiantes alarmismo climático? ¿Hay alguno al que […]

  6. By The Gleick Tragedy | Watts Up With That? on Feb 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM

    […] 35: 11:45 PM 2/22 Steve McIntyre has some interesting posts on the Gleick affair. Gleick and the NCSE and also Gleick’s […]

  7. […] Gleick and the NCSE ( GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough_viplite"); Rate this: Share this:TwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Fakegate and tagged Board of directors, Fakegate, Gleick, Heartland Institute, James M. Taylor, Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick. Bookmark the permalink. ← “Plato’s Noble Lie resuscitated in a pas de deux of flimflammery” […]

  8. […] Gleick and the NCSE ( […]

  9. […] Genius Award winner, intent on shaping public opinion, proves himself a thief and liar, and those who backed him gullible […]

  10. […] that might have come from the US National Center for Science Education, to which Gleick had been nominated as a director in January 2012 (though the nomination was withdrawn after Gleick’s fraud and forgery were […]

%d bloggers like this: