Pacific Institute

After a three-month internal investigation, Pacific Institute president Peter Gleick has been cleared of further wrongdoing in the Heartland Institute scandal.

The announcement that Peter Gleick has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute was met with an outcry from the Heartland Institute, which has vowed to press ahead in its effort to prosecute the noted scientist for fraud.

In February, Gleick admitted he had faked his identity to obtain internal documents from the conservative think-tank.

“The Pacific Institute’s board of directors has failed to perform its duty and should be deeply ashamed,” said Heartland president Joseph Bast in a statement released today. “We have asked the federal government to prosecute Gleick for what we believe were serious crimes he committed, and we await its decision.”

Gleick took a leave of absence from the Oakland-based Pacific Institute in February, as an independent internal investigation began looking into allegations that he had given a false name to Heartland, and also manufactured a document containing detailed strategy information on Heartland’s national effort to downplay climate science.

While the Pacific Institute has not released any documents detailing the specifics of the investigation, it has cleared him of any further wrongdoing.

“Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history,” read a statement released yesterday by the Oakland-based group. “The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment.”

Heartland, which has dubbed the incident “Fakegate,” maintains that the document outlining the group’s strategy – which Gleick asserted he received “in the mail” from a company insider – is a forgery.

Craig Miller

Michael Mann, the climate scientist, not the movie director.

Anti-intellectualism isn’t a new phenomenon in America. But the current war of words over climate science has taken on the tone of a religious war. Comments on this very blog often testify to that. As some scientists have discovered, the war has escalated beyond words, to tactics that include espionage, intimidation, and even attempts at prosecution.

For several years, Michael Mann has been on the front lines of this conflict. Though he says he finds himself a combatant more by conscription than enlistment, the Penn State climatologist has made it the subject of his recent book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

It was partly Mann’s work that created one of the first battle fronts in the climate wars, the now famous (or infamous, depending on which side you’re on) graph known as the “hockey stick,” which appears to document the impact of industrialization (read that: burning of fossil fuels) on global warming. The graph was featured in Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and was assailed by some as misleading.

Mann's global warming graph was dubbed "the hockey stick" by a colleague at Princeton.

Though the Hockey Stick was largely vindicated by the National Academy of Sciences and others, Mann had already become a target of climate contrarians when he surfaced again in the series of emails hijacked from a British university in 2009. The (CRU) email threads were used to again attack the mainstream of climate science, in an episode that some came to call “Climategate.” It was an unfortunate, if inevitable term, as it presumes some kind of wrongdoing and cover-up by scientists, where subsequent investigations have found none.

Recently I had a chance to sit down with Mann at a major science meeting. I wondered what Mann thought about the recent skirmish over climate scientist Peter Gleick’s admission that he had used deception to get insider documents from the Heartland Institute. Turns out he has sympathy for both.

Miller: Gleick says he succumbed to frustration over the corporate disinformation campaign to undermine climate science. What’s your reaction to that, and to Heartland’s campaign to bring down Gleick and the Pacific Institute since?

Mann: Peter is the first to admit he showed poor judgement here. And as someone who has had [my] own emails stolen and words twisted and misrepresent, I feel for the Heartland Institute folks—to a point. But I think we have to recognize that there isn’t quite a moral equivalency to what Gleick did and what the criminals who hacked the CRU emails did.

In the latter case, there was no impropriety revealed, just a cynical attempt to misrepresent and smear honest scientists, and it was used as part of a coordinated effort by vested interests to derail any progress in Copenhagen toward reaching a meaningful agreement to reduce global carbon emissions. In the former case, with Heartland, what was revealed…simply amplified what we had already known, that Heartland was part of an industry-funded effort to mislead the public about climate change. What was particularly revolting was the campaign afoot, revealed by the stolen documents — that is, the numerous documents whose authenticity Heartland has not denied — to mislead our children by inserting anti-scientific climate change denial propaganda into K-12 classrooms around the country. This is especially pernicious given that it is our children — and grandchildren — who will see the most damaging impacts of climate change if we do not choose to act now.

(Ed. Note: Heartland claims that at least one of the published documents was a forgery and has created an entire website to put forth its own version of events)

Miller: With all this “warfare” going on, how do you get any science done?

Mann:  Well, it was difficult for me to explain to my colleagues in the department of meteorology at Penn State why there was police tape over the door to my office one day. And that was because the FBI had to come in and take away a sample from an envelope that I had received, a white powder in an envelope. They sent it away to a lab. Eventually the results came back. It was corn meal. It was an attempt to intimidate and scare me but it wasn’t a hazardous material.

And I’ve had, you know, nasty emails and letters and phone messages threatening me, thinly veiled threats against my family.  If you name it, it’s pretty much happened to me and many climate scientists who now find themselves at the center of this, the attacks by powerful vested interests who are pretty comfortable with our current addiction to fossil fuels and don’t want to see change. And they’re fighting hard to try to make sure it doesn’t change.

Miller: I’ve heard many scientists lately lamenting what they perceive to be a general hostility toward science in America of late.

Mann: Yeah, it’s a very disturbing development. We sometimes talk about the politicization of science, but…I think what we’re really talking about is the scientization of politics. Something in some sense even worse. We’ve reached a point where science is just another way of waging politics, the abuse of science, the misrepresentation of science.

And to me, that’s very disturbing because we rely upon being informed about society-relevant science and technology to move forward. I mean, it’s what grew our economy. It’s what has allowed the U.S. to be [one] of the leading industrial nations.  And for us to now have evolved to a point where there are many at the highest levels of our political system who take what can only be characterized as an anti-scientific view — the rejection of science, whether it be the science of climate change or evolution or, you know, stem cell research, what-have-you. I think that’s very troubling. I think it’s part of a larger sort of poisoning of our public discourse that we have seen in recent years.

Miller: Any regrets about your chosen career path at this point?

Mann: When I look back and ask myself, you know, where am I now, and where would I have been, I can’t imagine anything more important that I could be doing with my life than talking to the public about what, frankly, may be the greatest threat that civilization has ever faced: the challenge of dealing with human-caused climate change — and to be in a position where I can inform the public dialog about that problem. I was a reluctant entrant into the public debate over climate change. But over time, I’ve grown to embrace the opportunities that that’s given me to talk about this issue.

Here are links to two independent reviews of Mann’s book, a sympathetic one from the British newspaper, The Guardian, and a relatively unflattering one from The Wall Street Journal. The Guardian also published a series of “edited extracts” from the book.

Jeremy Miller

Pacific Institute founder Peter Gleick steered clear of his current controversy in his remarks at a water policy conference in L.A.

Nearly three weeks after admitting that he had faked his identity to obtain documents from a conservative think-tank, noted California scientist and president of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick, returned to the public arena.

Gleick spoke at the annual California Water Policy Conference in Los Angeles and was warmly received by a crowd of roughly 300 California scientists, regulators and advocates.

Notably missing from Gleick’s talk — which focused on a wide range of global and regional water issues central to the Pacific Institute’s core mission — was any specific mention of last month’s confession that he had impersonated of a board member of the Chicago-based, libertarian Heartland Institute to obtain internal documents outlining the group’s anti-climate change campaign.

“I should make it clear that today I am speaking as an individual, which I am always speaking as,” Gleick told the audience. “I will not be addressing the recent contretemps between me and the Heartland institute. At this point I am going to let my last Huffington Post piece and the Heartland documents speak for themselves,” he said. “And if you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about you’re better off.”

Almost immediately after Gleick’s post appeared on the Huffington Post website, his admission was met a torrent of criticism — particularly from conservative commentators and politicians. Criticism was not exclusive to those on the right, however. Andy Revkin of the New York Times Dot Earth blog noted that his “reputation was in ruins.”

Others, however, praised his actions and some suggested that he should be afforded whistleblower protection.

Since the incident, Gleick has taken temporary leave as president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute and the organization has appointed a third party to investigate the matter. Heartland has announced it is contemplating legal action.

“I am a scientist by training and it isn’t always clear that the public, or even colleagues, appreciate it when scientists stray too far into the public arena. But I am a concerned and interested and citizen as well, as are all of you,” he told the audience.

Gleick would not discuss the specifics of his leave with me but hinted in his talk that he would continue to oppose those who seek to discount mounting scientific evidence of human-induced climate change.

“Those who deny this science and this evidence are becoming increasingly desperate in their efforts to attack the science and scientists and fool the public and prevent any rational discussion of a climate or energy policy from being adopted,” he said in his remarks.

World Economic Forum/Flickr

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.

World Economic Forum/Flickr

Peter Gleick is a prominent water scientist and a Macarthur Fellow.

The furor surrounding Peter Gleick’s admission that he lied in order to get internal documents from the Heartland Institute appears to be gaining momentum, with the board and at least one major funder of Gleick’s Oakland-based Pacific Institute appearing to back-peddle on initial statements of support.

Gleick, who co-founded the Institute, wrote in a blog post earlier this week that he impersonated a Heartland insider to obtain the information, which includes strategy and fundraising details from the organization, a conservative think tank that’s against taking action on climate change.

Gleick has already stepped down from positions with the American Geophysical Union and the National Center for Science Education. Initially the Pacific Institute stood by him, saying in a brief statement posted to its website, Gleick “has been and continues to be an integral part of our team.” That statement is no longer there, replaced yesterday by one that takes a different tone:

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.

Meanwhile The Guardian reported that Pacific Institute funders are concerned, and quoted Conrad N. Hilton Foundation spokesman Marc Moorghen:

Obviously we are concerned about any allegations of unethical conduct and Dr Gleick has already admitted to it and apologised. We are disappointed in his poor judgment.

That’s a more stand-offish appraisal of the situation than I got from Moorghen yesterday in an email.

“The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation’s relationship with Dr. Gleick has nothing to do with global warming and climate change. Our foundation has been working to provide safe water in developing countries since 1990, and since Dr. Gleick is a recognized expert on global water issues, we have funded the Pacific Institute to assist us in these endeavors.”

The Heartland Institute states on its website that it’s consulting legal counsel. Before Gleick fessed up online, the Institute said it intended to see the perpetrator put in jail.

Craig Miller/KQED

Peter Gleick is a co-founder of the Pacific Institute, a research group based in Oakland.

Climate scientist Peter Gleick, who last night admitted that he was the source of leaked documents from the Heartland Institute, has resigned from the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Gleick was chair of the task force, which met for the first time last November. According to a press release from the AGU, Gleick resigned last Thursday — after the explosive documents appeared on various blogs but before his online admission as perpetrator.

He’s also stepped down from a position which he hadn’t yet officially begun with the National Center for Science Education, an organization that advocates for evolution and climate change education in schools. Gleick was scheduled to begin serving on its board this week, but tendered his resignation yesterday.

I spoke with Bud Ward, editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, who said he sees the whole affair as a setback not only for Gleick, but also for the climate science community.

“I don’t think this is just a quick passing episode,” Ward said in a telephone interview. “I’m afraid this is going to leave some stains and some victims, and to some extent I think Peter Gleick is going to be — and I say this with great regret — among the victims.”

Ward took the long view in an article today, analyzing the media’s response to the documents and Gleick’s admission to leaking them:

“Reporting on a ‘myth’ or a ‘hoax,’ one might say, does society no good in coming to grips with an issue of the importance and complexity of climate change, regardless of one’s own views on the subject scientifically, economically, politically, or otherwise.”

The Heartland Institute posted a press release last night, in which it says it’s consulting legal counsel, and the Pacific Institute added a short statement on its website this afternoon, saying that it’s “aware of Dr. Peter Gleick’s apology and actions related to the Heartland Institute,” and that Gleick “has been and continues to be an integral part of our team.”

What’s next for Gleick, the Pacific Institute and the Heartland Institute is an emerging story. The Pacific Institute’s audited financial statements for 2010 include a diverse list of funders and contract clients, from government agencies to major private foundations.

Gleick has yet to make a public statement since yesterday’s blog post, in which he said he yielded to frustration with corporate efforts to subvert the prevailing climate science.

Update:

I checked in with some of the Pacific Institute’s biggest funders. Marc Moorghen, the communications manager for the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, said in an email that they don’t know about the issue beyond what they’ve read, but their relationship with the Pacific Institute isn’t related to climate change.

“Our foundation has been working to provide safe water in developing countries since 1990, and since Dr. Gleick is a recognized expert on global water issues, we have funded the Pacific Institute to assist us in these endeavors.”

And If you’re just catching up on this story, here are a couple good places to start.

• On KQED 88.5 FM last night, Climate Watch Senior Editor Craig Miller reviewed what’s happened so far, saying, “It remains to be seen where all the ripples will end up…But I think one has to ask whether the Pacific Institute can survive this.”
• This evening on All Things Considered, Science Correspondent Christopher Joyce reports on the controversy. One response he includes is from Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California:

“The documents that were released last week essentially affirm what we already knew,” she says. “And [the deception] was not necessary because this information is actually available through entirely appropriate means.”

Earlier this month, documents were allegedly leaked from the Heartland Institute — a think tank that questions human-caused climate change — which describe elements of the organization’s strategy to discredit climate science, and include background on funders. Now climate scientist Peter Gleick, the founder of the Pacific Institute, has admitted to using deception to obtain the information.

On his blog on the Huffington Post, Gleick said he first received a document about Heartland from an anonymous source. He goes on to describe how he received additional information:

I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget.

Gleick has been a source for Climate Watch and for KQED News. In the past, he’s spoken out against tactics to discredit climate science that he said were politically motivated.

When the documents were first released, Heartland Institute threatened to pursue legal action against bloggers who published them. In a statement on its website responding to Gleick’s confession, Heartland says it’s consulting with legal counsel to decide on next steps.

We’ll continue following this story as it develops, here on the blog and on KQED News.

The climate corner of the Blogosphere exploded this week with the alleged leak of numerous documents from one of the nation’s most ardent opponents of action to slow global warming.

It started when DeSmogBlog published a series of documents that its editors said were leaked to them, revealing much of the playbook for the Heartland Institute. If authentic, the documents would validate longstanding complaints that corporate interests have been bankrolling a deliberate campaign of disinformation, aimed at casting doubt on legitimate climate science, and that Heartland has been an important channel for this campaign.

One of the documents, described as a confidential “Climate Strategy,” dated January, 2012, describes Heartland as, “leading the fight to prevent the implementation of dangerous policy actions to address the supposed risks of global warming.”

In a response posted to its website today, Heartland called that document “a total fake” and says others “may have been altered.” The statement concedes that some of the documents “were stolen from Heartland” by an unknown perpetrator posing as a board member. The statement goes on to threaten legal action against bloggers who published the documents.

The contested strategy document also takes aim at the published writings of Peter Gleick, who directs the Oakland-based Pacific Institute. Gleick has been among the most vocal scientists in condemning efforts by global warming skeptics to discredit well-established climate science.

Forbes recently posted a blistering opinion piece by Gleick, in which he assails the editors of The Wall Street Journal for publishing climate-denier propaganda while turning away guest editorials from scientists who subscribe to the prevailing view (which, once again for good measure, supports the greenhouse gas link to global warming).

In its coverage of the alleged Heartland documents, Forbes calls them “The Real Climategate,” a reference to a series of hijacked emails that were used in a 2009 attempt to discredit scientists working for the U.N.’s climate change panel. Forbes quoted the disputed strategy memo, which makes direct reference to Gleick:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own,” the memo states.  “This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

In her piece for The Guardian newspaper, Suzanne Goldenberg provides a backgrounder on Heartland, its funders, and some of its efforts to influence how climate science is taught in American grammar schools.

The dust-up comes just a day before one of the world’s largest gathering of scientists and science educators convenes in Vancouver, BC. I’m on my way there tomorrow and expect some major buzz around this at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).