jimpeel
Well-Known Member
or lose.
In this case, however, the guy will likely end up in jail for theft of intellectual property through conspiracy, fraud, mail fraud, and impersonation.
They will use any means to keep the lie of Global Warming alive -- lie, cheat, steal, you name it.
Note that the HuffPo has closed comments to this story at their site. They know that even their most fervent members would not accept this type of behavior.
SOURCE
In this case, however, the guy will likely end up in jail for theft of intellectual property through conspiracy, fraud, mail fraud, and impersonation.
They will use any means to keep the lie of Global Warming alive -- lie, cheat, steal, you name it.
Note that the HuffPo has closed comments to this story at their site. They know that even their most fervent members would not accept this type of behavior.
SOURCE
Guilty: Gleick admits to Heartland deception
Posted on February 20, 2012 by Steve Milloy
He did it for the planet. The Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick has admitted to using deception to obtain the Heartland Institute documents involved in “Deniergate.”
Below is Gleick’s confession, as posted on Huffington Post.
###
The Origin of the Heartland Documents
By Peter Gleick,
February 20, 2012, Huffington Post
Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
Given the potential impact however, 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 and 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. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. 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. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. 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. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
Peter Gleick