More evidence – Gleick blew it

Well well! It looks as if Peter Gleick lied about receiving the fake Heartland Memo by mail – unless he mailed it to himself that is – breaking news at WUWT – Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger.

From the conclusion of the stylometric report by Dr Patrick Juola

Having examined these documents and their results, I therefore consider it 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.

Kudos to Anthony for seeking independent expert advice, and to Juola & Associates for offering to help pro bono. The whole expisode still seems bizarre.

Does the man (Gleick) not have an ounce of common sense?  He didn’t just have one moment of madness, but a whole series.  If, having fraudulently obtained the (genuine) Heartland documents and been disappointed at their contents, he had simply let the whole thing drop, no-one would have been any the wiser. Heartland and the Board Member he impersonnated may have picked up his action, but likely would have had no means to identify the perpetrator and no cause to pursue other than plugging a security breach.  But no, Gleick’s madness continued and, it now seems, he went on to concoct content – what he thought a Heartland Strategy Document should say that would vindicate all of his negativity about Heartland.

Again, writing the memo may have been fun, but what madness to actually send it?  Perhaps he thought himself too clever by half, he couldn’t let it drop – he just had to share it.  What was he thinking? That everyone would buy it and the source would never come out?

That throws up a point – he must have known and trusted those to whom he sent the memo. They did not reveal him as the source (even though he was claiming only to have received the memo in the post) – I guess they wouldn’t on principle, but then how much then did the likes of Andrew Revkin know or surmise? Did it not strike some of the recipients as odd if they knew Gleick was the source that he kept a very low profile after publication. Not like him to shy away normally, so his silence on the matter too was odd.

Gleick’s ‘odd style’ was of course pointed out and that has been part of the ‘more likely than not’ conclusion, but perhaps Gleick’s biggest moment of madness was blowing his own trumpet – the reference in the memo to himself and his Forbes column.  With hindsight that was kind of obvious.  He wanted to be seen to be helping the cause – and in doing so elevate himself to a position of greater influence than he actually has.  Talk about drawing attention to yourself. Yes he blew it alright.

This entry was posted in Environmentalism, News, Opinion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to More evidence – Gleick blew it

  1. Doug Proctor says:

    As I read the analysis, they only checked the memo vs Gleick and Bast. They didn’t check the memo against random people. The choice was one or the other.

    Seemed odd, but that is what I took from their conclusions.

Comments are closed.