New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal

Somewhat Reasonable

Peter Gleick

The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”

The new report contradicts disgraced climate scientist Gleick’s claim to have received the memo from someone affiliated with The Heartland Institute and adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to Gleick’s guilt. A month ago, Juola & Associates, the premier provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, said “it is more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,’ and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.”

Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said: “The Protek International forensic report is one more piece of evidence that Peter Gleick created the fake document with the intent of defaming us and the scientists we work with. He and his coconspirators are so desperate to discredit anyone who disagrees with their alarmist views on man-made global warming that they are willing to lie, steal, and even defraud their own friends and allies in the media.”

Bast added: “We once again call on Gleick to make a full confession, and on the Pacific Institute and its allies to stop defending Gleick and his unethical and illegal conduct.”

Background:

On February 20, Gleick, a prominent climate scientist, confessed to being the anonymous party who obtained confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute and circulated them along with a document titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” While confessing to using fraud to obtain the stolen documents, he claimed to have received the “climate strategy” memo anonymously in the mail.

Since “Fakegate” occurred, ThinkProgress, Greenpeace, 350.org, and other radical environmental groups have been using the stolen and fake documents to attack Heartland’s corporate donors and the scientists who work with it.

The Protek investigation was conducted by Protek co-founder Daniel Bellich, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and former supervisor of the Chicago Division’s Special Operations Group, and Keith G. Chval, former chief of the High Tech Crimes Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and president of the Chicago Chapter of The American Society of Digital Forensics and Electronic Discovery. Both men signed the report on April 20, certifying they would swear to its findings in a court of law.

For more information about the global warming scandal and the complete forensic report from Protek International, visit Fakegate.org or contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/377-4000.

Warmists confirmed as cheats, liars, fakers; Pope still Catholic; etc

Editor's Note:  This editorial is not so gracious in its reporting of 'Fakegate', but contains an excellent comparison of climate-gate coverage to the Heartland email release.

Telegraph
James Delingpole

Peter Gleick (right) recoils from the Spear of Truth

I wonder how the BBC environment correspondent Richard Black would report it if the Climatic Research Unit's Phil Jones were suddenly to confess that everything he'd said in the last two decades about the anthropogenic warming threat was total rubbish. I'm guessing something like: "Hero climate scientist announces glorious discovery: world saved, research at CRU now shows!"

I wonder how the New York Times, or the Guardian environment pages or Huffington Post would report it if NASA's James Hansen were to burst in with a machine gun and grenades at the next Heartland climate sceptics' conference and wipe out half the delegates. "NASA expert helps solve global overpopulation problem!", probably.

If you think I'm joking consider how all the above-mentioned organs responded to the story of Fakegate, in which climate activist Peter Gleick engaged in identity theft and used a forged document in order to smear the Heartland institute with a pack of lies. The way they covered it, you'd think the real villain of the piece was not Gleick but Heartland. One liberal commentator went so far as to suggest that the person who had faked the one (and only) incriminating document was none other than Heartland's president Joe Bast. Some kind of sinister, false-flag operation to make the environmental movement look bad, I suppose. (Yeah, like it needs any help on that score).

Anyway, now Anthony Watts reports that the forged document has been submitted to forensic analysis and that the most likely culprit turns out to be – as Steven Mosher suspected weeks ago – none other than Peter Gleick. Well quelle surprise and whoulda thunk?! Gleick denies it. Well of course he would. Looks kind of embarrassing, doesn't it, when your cause is so desperate that the only dirt you can manage to get on your opposition is dirt you've manufactured yourself?

After Climategate Donna Laframboise asked in a Tweet:

To those minimizing ClimateGate: How badly do people have to behave? What line must they cross before you’ll stop excusing them?

And after Gleickgate/Fakegate she asked a similar question. Just how badly does the alarmist/warmist camp have to behave before their amen corner in their liberal MSM finally concedes that their behaviour is beyond the pale?

The answer, I fear, is more badly than you could possibly imagine. Climatism (as Steve Goreham calls it) has very little to do with science, if indeed it ever did. Rather it's the new global religion and as with all religions it's really not about evidence but about faith. And when you're filled with zeal of religious conviction, what crime is there that you wouldn't commit to spread your wondrous, right and noble creed?

As a perfect example of this blind faith in action, Jo Nova compares and contrasts the coverage of two stories – Climategate and Fakegate – by our old friend Richard Black of the BBC.

On ClimateGate, Black waited until after he had a spokesman from the CRU to comment, and having confirmed the emails were from the CRU, Black quoted exactly none of them. On FakeGate, Black posted so quickly that he had to rewrite it after Heartland replied, which happened in the first 24 hours.

With ClimateGate, Black ignored the emails that were effectively public property in the first place and turned out to be real. With Fakegate, Black either detailed or linked to quotes that turned out to be nonexistent (at least, I presume that’s what he needed to “re-work”, where is the original stored?).