Two weeks ago leftist blogs and newspapers rushed to publish an expose of The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago. The only problem was that the only “juicy” document, a so-called strategy memo, was forged, and the other documents were obtained by fraud. Megan McArdle, a senior editor for The Atlantic and not a skeptic, easily declared the “strategy memo” a forgery. Several other scientists/bloggers accused Peter Gleick, head of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security (in Oakland, California), and chair of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, of committing both the fraud and the forgery. Gleick soon confessed to the fraud, but claimed someone else sent him the forgery.
Now skeptic bloggers/scientists are having a field day ridiculing both scientific “ethicist” Gleick and his embattled “defenders of the indefensible.” Key skeptical points abound. A few: The Heartland Institute budget is tiny and shows little support from such leftist bogeymen as Big Oil (nada from Exxon) and only $25,000 from the Koch Brothers (for healthcare, not climate); the day Gleick committed fraud he turned down a Heartland offer to debate James M. Taylor at their annual benefit dinner; and unlike Climategate, The Heartland Institute documents were private, whereas the Climatic Research Unit disclosed emails were taxpayer funded (and their release under valid Freedom of Information Act requests were being stonewalled).
Gleick turned down the offer to debate, although he claimed frustration with skeptics who prevent debate justified his fraud. Only one of thirteen, including Al Gore, The Heartland Institute has invited to debate has accepted their offer (it wasn’t Gore – he never debates).
Losing the natural climate change debate led Gleick in desperation to fight science with fraud and, quite apparently, forgery. What ends justify such means?
Mike Combs
Gualala
