Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents

Climate scientist Peter Gleick has acknowledged that he was the person who convinced the Heartland Institute to hand over the contents of its January Board package, authenticating the documents beyond a doubt and further exposing the disinformation campaign Heartland has pursued in the last week, trying to discredit the information.

In the Huffington Post tonight, Gleick reported that he had received the controversial Climate Strategy document from an anonymous source earlier this year and said that he attempted to confirm whether the contents were true. Gleick went on:

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. [emphasis added]

So, while admitting that he impersonated a third party in order to induce Heartland to confirm its own ongoing questionable conduct, Gleick has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights, proving that the Institute has dissembled and lied.

Whistleblowers - and that's the role Gleick has played in this instance - deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it's fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk - and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

Heartland, in the meantime, deserves to be stripped of its charitable status and laughed out of the professional “think tank” fraternity for its amateurishness and the far-less-than-credible position that it has taken in the last week, denying its own responsibility in this “leak,” dissembling about the origin of the material and going out of its way to “fail” to authenticate documents that it knew all along were legitimate.


And motivation comes into this.

Arguably he was trying to clear Heartland’s good name…


Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. That is most appreciated. However, it may be that you were mis-informed.

For example, it seems that your rather harsh opinion on Naomi Klein may have originated from a mistake made by the Daily Mail, who reported that she called Peter Gleick an “unalloyed hero”.

In reality, Naomi Klein only sent a few tweets expressing moral support to Peter Gleick, who is obviously going through a hard time right now.

After several attempts by Naomi herself, the Daily Mail has corrected the mistake :

although, of course, the myth lives on in the blogosphere.

In light of these findings, would you like to re-phrase your opinion ?


I agree with you that Peter Gleick became a “truely tragic casualty of the climate war”. And by his own hand I would say. He is not a journalist, and surely has completely underestimated the verociousness of the world where journalists operate (the boundary between the political world and (scientific) facts that should be at the basis of every journalists’ report). However, I am very surprised that you accuse Peter of “fraud”, and your opinion that you are “appalled” by the ”ethical insensitivity” and “journalistic blindness” of another journalist, simply for sending a few tweets of moral support, seems uncharacteristic of a journalist of your statue.

Could you please elaborate, since frankly I am very confused about your point of view in this matter.

on Climate Audit : http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/25/gleick-and-americas-dumbest-criminal/

as Jeff Condon comments, when Steve McIntyre mocks you, you’ve really screwed up.

Steve is such a straight shooter?

I got tired of looking at his Blog when I realized he was claiming that ‘peer review’ was an autocratic process in which he got to tell everyone what to do.  Then he’d document it all in public if they didn’t.

That’s the cause of this little ditty;


The climate change denialist John O’Sullivan (3-4-12), who claims he is a legal expert, has fabricated a statement and attributed it to Chicago FBI Special Agent Royden Rice. I know this is a fabricated quote because official FBI statements for the media don’t make partisan attacks or speculate about charges. No FBI official would ever say anything so ludicrous. Not only that, Mr. Rice sent me what he states is his most recent statement on March 5, 2012. I posted it on my blog with his permission. That is why I know that Mr. O’Sullivan fabricated the quote he attributes to Mr. Rice in his March 4, 2012 article. Notice that Mr. Sullivan does not provide a link to Mr. Rice’s apocryphal statement.


The lunatic John O’Sullivan (3-4-12) writes:



Other experts share my opinion that there is sufficient probable cause to follow through with a thorough in-depth federal investigation into the Gleick ’Fakegate’ case to see how far the ‘post-normal’ climate cancer has spread. Certainly, Peter Gleick should be offered a plea bargain deal if he rats out the other racketeers.



Apologists for climate criminals will not be curbed until the leaders of this ‘post normal’ academic cult are jailed. But whether the Obama government has the stomach to follow through and permit such prosecutions remains to be seen, as Chicago FBI agent, Ross Rice hinted:

“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”



It appears that the Chicago FBI is getting a little taste of what climate scientists have to deal with every day.