What a twin reversal of fortune. While the Heartland Institute has melted down because of its overreaction to climate scientist Peter Gleick’s release of their funding documents, Gleick himself has now been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute following an independent investigation.
On May 21, the UK Guardian broke the news that an external investigation conducted for the Institute cleared Gleick of the charge of faking material in his elaborate effort to obtain internal Heartland strategy and finance documents.
Today, the Institute released this short statement from the Institute’s Board of Directors:
The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute. An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute. This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.
Dr. Gleick has apologized publicly for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standard of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board of Directors accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse in judgment. We look forward to his continuing in the Pacific Institute’s ongoing and vital mission to advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity.
“I am glad to be back and thank everyone for continuing their important work at the Pacific Institute during my absence,” said Dr. Gleick in a statement. “I am returning with a renewed focus and dedication to the science and research that remain at the core of the Pacific Institute’s mission.”
I immediately called up the media contact at the Institute provided with the statement, Nancy Ross. She said that that statement represents the full extent of everything the Institute plans to release on this matter. As of now, the Institute is not going to release the independent review.
The May Guardian story provided this background:
Gleick’s sting on Heartland brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organisation’s efforts to block action on climate change, and prompted a walk-out of corporate donors that has created uncertainty about its financial future.
Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute and a well-regarded water expert, admitted and apologised for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.
He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorised release of the documents, although it is not entirely clear what the investigation entailed. That investigation is now complete, and the conclusions will be made public.
For those who don’t remember the history, I’d suggest Greg Laden’s post, “An important revelation regarding Heartland Gate.” See also my February post “Crossing the Line as Civilization Implodes.”
Anyone familiar with the facts of the matter cannot be surprised by the outside counsel’s finding. It does raise the question of who created the strategy memo. I’m not sure we will ever find out the answer to that question.
All we know for sure is that the senior leadership of Heartland 1) is capable of the most outrageous and offensive falsehoods and 2) has such catastrophically bad judgment that they continued to push those falsehoods for weeks after being widely denounced, even by their own (former) supporters:
- Heartland Institute Compares Climate Science Believers And Reporters To Mass ‘Murderers And Madmen’
- Heartland’s Board Backs Campaign To Smear Climate Science Believers, Even As Eleven Companies Drop Support
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Good News for Dr. Gleick- may he continue his work with the Pacific Institute.
What an outstanding human being. The man apologizes for an ethical error. How many ethical errors will Heartland make before they apologize for anything?
By what standard did he make an ethical error? What harm did he do? Ethically, he is in the same category as whistle-blowers. He acted unselfishly with good intention and, as we have now seen, with consequences that most people would agree were beneficial.
If he’s a whistleblower he’d better look out. Barack ‘Dr Strangelove’ Obama has made it another personal Crusade of his, like turning Pakistan and Afghanistan into free-fire zones where anyone killed by drone strikes is classified as a ‘terrorist’(but in a truly diabolical twist, may be posthumously pardoned of that crime)to pursue whistleblowers with every nasty trick in the book. This after promising, when after the Hope Fiends’ votes, to be their protector. The Big Lies keep piling up. If I was Dr Gleick, I’d keep a close watch on the sky.
> By what standard did he make an ethical error?
By his own personal (high) standard.
Very good news. It is heartening, as a climate hawk, to see one who is somewhat aggressive and pugilistic for the cause of climate action be welcomed back after an episode like this. Too often the risk takers and the bold are hounded into silence by our unscrupulous opponents, who do not play by the rules they attempt to police in others.
Gleick’s return, mostly unscathed, also works to encourage others who may be in positions to gain and release damaging information about other organizations who manufacture anti-climate propaganda.
“Who do not play by the rules they attempt to police in others.” That is a good and concise description of a real problem.
This is good news, coming just after the Koch Brother’s money bought the election in Wisconsin, since getting the goods on the deniers is risky because individuals can very rarely take on these lying right-wingers and come away without serious injury. Good news indeed!
By the way, the loss in Wisconsin has a silver lining, besides the defeat of the Senators and Walker’s agenda, since people can now see the influence of money in politics and the effects of Superpacs. In spite of the narrow margins in this race money still has an influence which needs money to counter it. Good sense isn’t enough…
The Wisconsin race wasn’t lost-it was thrown, by Obama, the Republican’s not-so-secret weapon. Allowing the popular opposition to the febrile class hatred of the extreme Right to be crushed by weight of kleptocrat money, without any effort in support from the ‘Pestilent of the USA’ shows Obama’s real features, yet again,and is straight from the perennial Democrat/Republican collaboration to ‘keep the rabble in line’ so well documented in Walter Karp’s ‘Indispensable Enemies’.
I’m very happy that Peter is back at the Pacific Institute. Acting out of conscience should never cause someone to lose his job.
Perhaps it’s a watershed event but I wouldn’t count on it, it probably has more to do the Foundation than it does with employment in general.
It’s still welcome news in any case.
Nixon’s crimes were legion and counter to all rights and expectations in a democracy so an apology would be appropriate at a sentencing hearing but it would not have cut his time.
Even so Nixon was a better man than all of the current republicans put together. He wasn’t driven by the desire for money as much as he was for the lust for power and his paranoid psyche. I wonder if he didn’t have a bi-polar disorder or a tumor in his skull.
He would have been healthier if he had admitted his transgressions earlier, as he did make off-handed amends late in life, but the ability to apologize takes a mature and sane person, not a mental case!
It’s welcome news that Dr. Gleick was exonerated — but, as Dr. Romm says above, not at all surprising.
Good news but I’m a little disappointed that they’re not releasing the independent review “as of now”. Hopefully they soon will; it’s important to set a good example!
Running a sting against an organization running one of the most dangerous games in the history of civilization–climate change denial–was never a bad thing. This reinstatement makes my day.
Now just stop it Adam Gallon.
There is no comparison between the two cases.
The case against Nixon was on the public record.
No need for that type of thing here with Dr Gleick. Hiding the truth is best in this case, according to some.
It’s a personnel matter, which means the details are none of your business, period. But if you want to go that route, let’s see all of the paperwork for GMU’s investigation of Ed Wegman. Do you agree?