New Boss at the Pacific Institute, New Salvo from Heartland

The Pacific Institute and the Heartland Institute: Both sides are digging in

Peter Gleick is taking a temporary leave of absence from the Pacific Institute.

The Pacific Institute has posted a new statement to its website, saying the board is hiring an independent firm to investigate the actions and allegations surrounding its founder, Peter Gleick, who admitted last week to using deception in order to obtain documents from the Heartland Institute.

Gleick requested a temporary leave of absence over the weekend and the board has nominated Elena Schmid, an independent consultant, to head the organization on an interim basis. According to a bio from the Pacific Institute, Schmid has worked at California Independent System Operator, “focusing on policy, communications, and human resources for this corporation that manages the high voltage transmission lines for California,” and at the California Public Utilities Commission, “developing policies, programs, projects, and budgets that resulted in active representation of long-term consumer interests in telecommunications, gas, water, and electric industries.”

Meanwhile the Heartland Institute is doing its part to keep the Gleick scandal center stage, releasing a line-by-line analysis of a strategy memo Gleick says was sent to him by an anonymous source, but which the Heartland Institute says is forged:

The forged memo, titled “January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a mixture of text copied and pasted from the stolen documents and original commentary by the forger. By distorting and misrepresenting the plans set forth in the stolen documents, the fake memo paints a false and disturbing picture of Heartland’s motives and tactics.

Gleick has not spoken publicly about the matter, choosing instead to write an online admission, which appeared on the Huffington Post last week.

  • GJ Dunham

    These Koch brothers are richer than the Mafia; they no doubt have a scheme worked out to put this in the news on a daily basis to make the story about Gleick rather than their own guilt. He is paying the price now, but what about them? Are they paying any price–do they admit their dirty hands? No, they do not. Why? Many have a holier-than-thou attitude that heaps shame on a wrong-doer who always does right, but have no stomach for those who are known polluters, ravishing the earth, diverting and abusing watersheds, drilling-baby-drilling. What happened to some measure of fairness or balance? Why attack the one do-good person in this discussion? He made a mistake, he said so, he is paying and paying…get the focus back on the Kochs and their pure evilness–they are connected in an extreme way to all righ-wingers.

    • Deeyunei

      The KQED reporter in one line says the January 2012 climate change memo is deemed a forgery by Heartland Institute.  Then in the following paragraph says the document contained text cut and pasted from stolen documents by the forger without attributing clearly to the source of the allegation, one thinks, the Heartland Institute.  This seems to be the reporter’s acceptance of Heartland’s allegation as true or fact – which is not quite established and therefore sloppy journalism at best.

      • Anonymous

        The indented paragraph in italics is a quote from the heartland Institute’s analysis.

  • Wes

     I am continually bothered, but not surprised, that one mistake by Dr. Gleick can bring down such wrath but  the hackers who stole emails from climate scientists are ignored while Heartland, WUWT and others continue their campaign of mis-information without any uproar at all.

    In particular, when the media covers this story like a sporting event where they only need to describe the plays and keep score only ads to the problem.  That is why I am so pleased with the new statement of policy from NPR.

  • Anonymous

    Peter Gleick is a hero; just as Daniel Ellsberg was ultimately deemed to be a hero.