Human Events Blog

Climate scientist admits to defrauding the Heartland Institute

These are dark days for the “climate change” fraud.  In 2010, 141 scientists wrote a letter to the United Nations challenging the junk science of the global warming cult, declaring “climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discover’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know.  Truly, the science is not settled.”

A year later, over a thousand scientists joined forces to express their skepticism of the climate change movement.  Many of them were motivated to speak up by the “Climategate” scandal, in which emails from the East Anglia climate research unit revealed the deliberate manipulation of data by global-warming zealots.  The group continues to collect a steady stream of climate scientists who study new data and conclude the basic assumptions of “climate change” are incorrect.

The release of new data has delivered one body blow after another to the “climate change” fanatics.  Several major planet-wide studies have been released over the past couple of years, showing no significant global warming at all.  The “climate models” used to wreak havoc upon the industrialized economies of the world utterly failed to predict our current global climate.  The East Anglia fraudsters knew this was coming, which is why they were trying to “hide the decline” in global temperature data.  Actually, the degree to which global warming is not happening came as a surprise to some critics of global warming theory, who were willing to accept that some atmospheric changes might be under way, but doubted human activity was a major contributing factor.

Non-politicized scientists have, in fact, returned to a school of thought that was gathering strength in the Seventies, before politicians took over from scientists and created the “global warming” cult: the Earth is headed for a period of cooling, caused in large measure by changes in solar radiation.  In a fascinating turn of events, experiments at the CERN high-energy physics lab have increased scientists’ understanding of the role cosmic radiation plays in cloud formation, as discussed in an August 2011 piece in Nature.  Refreshingly, the scientists pursuing these theories are cheerfully willing to concede they’re theories and open to challenge – not holy Scripture commanding the end of the Industrial Age, challenged only by heretics.

So, if you’re a die-hard global-warming dead-ender, how do you handle these depressing developments?  You commit fraud in an attempt to discredit global-warming critics. 

That’s what Peter Gleick, a cult member in good standing, decided to do to the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank that has long been outspoken against global warming.  Gleick, who is nominally a “scientist” but doesn’t let ethics stand in the way of righteousness, created a false identity and stole confidential information from Heartland – including financial documents and their donor list – then published them online.  He even threw in a complete forgery to make the story more interesting. 

Because that’s what “science” is all about!  Ignoring hard data, attacking the motives of those who dare to challenge your dogma, and making stuff up when necessary!

Once he was caught, Gleick wrote a hilarious “apology” in the Huffington Post in which he asserted, consistent with the highest traditions of science, that extreme righteousness justifies theft and forgery:

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.

None of which has anything to do with all that highly inconvenient data that’s pulverizing the climate-change fraud, but I guess the true mission of “science” is to expose people who want to solicit contributions from the Koch Brothers. 

As for those pleas for “rational public debate,” remind me: which side of this debate has been screaming “the science is settled” for years, hiding inconvenient data, producing ad campaigns that show children exploding into clouds of bloody meat as punishment for daring to question climate change dogma, and comparing its critics to Holocaust deniers?

The Heartland Institute responded to Gleick’s confession by saying “a mere apology is not enough to undo the damage,” ringing up their lawyers, and asking responsible publications to remove Gleick’s stolen and fraudulent documents from their Web sites. 

Good luck with that, Heartland!  Have you seen the way liberal media outlets are reporting the Gleick confession, when they bother to mention it at all?  They’re still celebrating him as a hero, whose professional reputation was heroically sacrificed in the noble cause of embarrassing climate change “deniers.”

Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast is dubious that we’ve gotten the full truth from Gleick:

In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.

We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.

We can hope the same thing about the entire global-warming cult, but if hopes were greenhouse gases, we really would have polar bears riding ice floes into the Hudson River.

The larger context of this incident illustrates just how much politics has replaced science.  A scientist would be more concerned with the discussion of data, and subjecting theories to rigorous challenge, than attempting to embarrass opposing participants in a discussion.  And yet, the global warming cult is reduced to shouting that donations from the fossil-fuel industry presumptively discredit the arguments from institutions they support.  As if the global-warming crowd isn’t getting big bucks from sources with a fiduciary interest in promoting their theories!  What industry has been more guilty of using junk science to clean out the pockets of taxpayers than the “green energy” crew?

Most importantly, global warming has long enjoyed the patronage of statist politicians, who value the creation of a “problem” that demands immediate, unreasoning action by centralized government.  Global warming theory is the perfect solvent for economic liberty – it positively demands the destruction of private property rights, because individuals cannot be trusted, by definition, to “do the right thing” on their own.  Some global-warming extremists have openly suggested suspending democracy to battle the threat. 

It’s tough to put a dollar value on that patronage, but I would be surprised if all the oily Koch Brothers money the Heartland Institute has ever dreamed of soliciting amounted to a fraction of one percent as much.

Sign Up
  • http://www.facebook.com/sarahsmeyer Sarah Saltrick Meyer

    Burning dirty energy leads to carbon pollution, which warms the planet. This is a reality scientists have understood for decades. http://clmtr.lt/cb/rdv01o

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Fossil fuel funded debate hardly is credibility in science. Scientists don’t need the faith of religion to follow the evidence of AGW. The evidence clearly shows the earth is warming from human co2 emissions.http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Fossil fuel funded debate hardly is credibility in science. Scientists don’t need the faith of religion to follow the evidence of AGW. The evidence clearly shows the earth is warming from human co2 emissions.http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Conservatism is truly getting an antiscience attitude over science that is well proven in the data. You wonder why the Republican Party brand is doing poorly?
    6000 peer reviewed articles were cited in this review of the climate observations. I would be glad to discuss any science article with you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
    The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Your view of the science of climate is also a model. And it has a huge reality hole in it. The IPCC has done well with modeling temperature. Especially compared to contrarians. Now there is a group way off the mark.http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Here is a whole list of mostly republicans and their false statements about climate.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Climate change is based in evidence and requires really no one to follow it. On the contrary people are getting kicked out of the Republican party because they are not conservative enough. It seems maybe the Repubs may have quite a system of retribution for not following the party line. It’s time to even allow debate about Climate Change within the party itself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    The military understands co2 very well so that they could get their missles to work. We (humans) have increased co2 in our atmosphere 40%. Do you consider that significant?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoR4ezwKh5E

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Green/1442176838 Jeffery Green

    Sounds like you are circling the wagons. Us (democrats) and republicans accept climate change is real. LIstening to politicaly motivated hate speech doesn’t help us solve problems.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jack.wolf.7106 Jack Wolf

    I think it was POTUS who asked for a rational debate, not the climate scientists. That debate correctly ended for them decades ago.

  • Guest

    Here is How your “majority of scientists” came to be. A questionnaire was send to 10,257scientists. 3,146 responded. Of that 157 were pick by the pollsters from the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois.
    The authors reduced that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists.” on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). && of them answered that the Climate was Warming 77 out of 79 = 97% There it is your “majority of scientists”. 79 out of 3,146 is 2.8% ..hardly a Consensus to brag about. You will not read that on Reality drop since honesty is not their strongest asset.

  • Janearther

    Several independent and official reviews have cleared climate scientists at the University of East Anglia of wrongdoing. http://clmtr.lt/cb/rdv0fc Devoid of facts or science, this is all deniers have.