By saying that its investigation, carried out by unknown parties, confirmed Dr. Gleick’s account, the institute was implicitly backing the scientist’s claim that he was not responsible for cobbling together a document labeled a fake by Heartland, which he disseminated along with other genuine ones.
The bogus document spoke of effective ways for “dissuading science teachers from teaching science” and of “cultivating” respected writers on climate issues. Dr. Gleick said he had received it “in the mail.”
The Heartland Institute, which has a Web site related to the document release that Web site it calls “Fakegate,” responded scornfully to Dr. Gleick’s reinstatement. “As near as we can tell, this was not an investigation. It was a whitewash,” the institute’s president, Joseph Bast, said in a statement.
Reactions to the Gleick affair have varied widely. Some environmentalists have praised his actions, saying that the risks posed by climate change are so great that using misrepresentation to uncover details about a group like Heartland is justified. But many others in the environmental camp, including his own board, said that such conduct was unworthy of a scientist, particularly one of Dr. Gleick’s stature.
Not enough of them. Remember this the next time the Pacific Institute says anything about…anything.
Instapundit has a lot of links. This seems (appropriately) to have resulted in a firestorm of criticism of the economic ignoramus. I agree with John Hinderaker that it is redolent of his intrinsically socialist mindset.
At ISDC, Bob Zubrin actually invited me to give a talk on this subject at the Mars Society meeting in August. I accepted, but I still owe him an abstract. Speaking of whom, he has an editorial in the Washington Times about the need for property rights in space.
Over at Open Market, I point out a way for Mitt Romney to demonstrate his secular cred, by coming out for cancellation of a program that benefits the home state of his church.