Here's the summary:
In mid-February, several documents were leaked to the "internets" (i.e. websites that are willing to post things with no confirmed genesis) that showed internal Heartland Institute information including fundraising, donors, and climate strategy. Heartland is a libertarian outfit that has this to say about the environment on it's website:
The Heartland Institute's Center on Climate and Environmental Policy produces an ambitious program of research and educational projects in defense of free-market environmentalism. It has assembled a team of leading scientists and economic experts to participate in the production of books, videos, a monthly public policy newspaper, events, and other public relations activities....
Heartland has organized and hosted six International Conferences on Climate Change, events that attracted extensive international attention to the debate taking place in the scientific community over the causes, extent, and consequences of climate change.Hmm, guess what? The Heartland Institute is what you might call a climate change denier. Sure they don't say it explicitly, but "debate" in the "scientific community" over climate change? Sure, about the exact extent and consequences, but it's pretty well settled that humans have played a big role. Heartland also specifically points out they have "assembled a team" to do public relations, essentially on their behalf. Okay, so they are paying scientists or "scientists", right?
So the documents leaked to the internets basically confirm this. Heartland has an "anti-climate" agenda. Heartland acknowledges that all the released documents are authentic expert for a climate strategy memo. So what did the leaked documents tell us that was surprising? Nothing, I think. Sure there's some big name donors like Koch, sure they're funding "scientists". What exactly did everyone think they were doing?
Here's the appalling part:
Peter Gleick admitting to being the source of the leaked documents. Peter Gleick! As a hydrologist with an interest in conservation, Peter Gleick is one of the luminaries of the field. He founded and runs the Pacific Institute, which is one of the few organizations putting out good research related to water resources and conservation. He's right here in Oakland. I've many times dreamed of being able to work there. He's also, as you might suspect, something of a climate scientist.
Why would Peter Gleick basically wreck his career to fraudulently obtain confidential documents of a known libertarian group? The consequences do not seem to justify his actions. He claims that in January someone anonymously mailed him the climate strategy memo that Heartland claims is fake. In an effort to verify this memo, Gleick impersonated a board member and conned a staffer into emailing him internal board documents. These documents do in fact back up the data in the supposedly faked memo. But again, I don't see anything all that shocking or surprising in the contents.
Would Gleick's actions have been justified if something truly groundbreaking and environment-saving have come out of them? I guess that's for each of us to decide. But here's something else. Gleick was chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics (from which he has since, obviously, resigned). He's been involved in many panels on scientific integrity. Regardless of Gleick's scientific research has indeed had integrity (and I would like to believe so), this seems a serious breach of ethics for someone so invested in the very importance of ethical behavior. And again - for what! The Pacific Institute, after expressing support for Gleick when he first confessed, is now reviewing his actions.
Here's my fear - what happens to Gleick's influence on the California water debate? This article sums it up. There may be a void to fill for California legislators who are looking for good scientific information to inform their policies. Sure, I'll admit, Gleick's on my side. I agree with the Pacific Institute's assessments. Who's going to fill his shoes? Will he still be trusted? Will the Pacific Institute? Will all the proponents of dams and canals and desalination and other crazy things use Gleick's ethical breach as a reason not to trust his research? I would if I were in their shoes.
My other fear is that Gleick is actually the originator of the supposedly fake memo. There is much speculation in the media, and my favorite is here. Of course there's also the speculation that this was an elaborate set-up by the Heartland Institute itself - mail an enemy something they suspect he will let loose and comment on, then make fun of him. They may not even have expected him to fraudulently obtain additional documents. Well, probably it's just a conspiracy theory. But still - someone wrote that memo and maybe some day we'll know who.
Many are complaining that the focus of the media's attention has shifted from the information in the leaked documents to discussions of Gleick's guilt. That's true, and of course I'm taking part in that for my own personal reasons. No one is on a pedestal. No one is infallible. Just because a person shares your views on many things does not necessarily make that person a good person. I feel let down by Peter Gleick, but maybe that's because I never knew him in the first place.
Just to finish up by placing my horror in the hands of the Heartland Institute - they are in fact funding development of a climate curriculum to teach "both" sides of the climate "debate." So climate change may go the way of evolution - taught hand in hand with intelligent design. Here's an interesting piece on what effect this might have. Or perhaps it will have no effect at all.
Peter Gleick, I have just one question: Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment