Climate change scientist duped sceptic thinktank into handing over confidential files showing 'how it subverted issue'

Peter Gleick used false name to get sent classified information

Hoodwinked The Heartland Institute as he was 'blinded by frustration'

Sparks debate with some calling him a hero, others a villain



Subterfuge: Peter Gleick tricked a powerful thinktank into sending him confidential details of how they deny climate change

A respected U.S. scientist has admitted duping a powerful thinktank into sending him confidential details of how they deny climate change.

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, revealed in a blog post that he used a false name to get The Heartland Institute to send him the classified information.

It included, he claimed, plans to create an 'anti-global warming science campaign for grade schools that will dissuade teachers from teaching science'.

Heartland has labelled that document a 'forgery' and says it is now considering legal action against Gleick.

But the environmental activist, who forwarded his finds to to campaigners and journalist, said he was angry with the way the organisation subverted the science for its own ends.

The hydroclimatologist and author of the respected annual report The World's Water has now apologised for his 'serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics'.

But he also added: 'My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts - often anonymous, well-funded and co-ordinated - to attack climate science.'

His actions have sparked a huge debate as to whether he is a hero, for exposing the 'false science' of the thinktank, or a villain for his subterfuge. Author and campaigner Naomi Klein said he should be sent 'some Twitter love'.

Although she acknowledged he had breached scientific standards, she added that 'he took big risks to bring important truths about the deniers to light'.

Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team, added: 'Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist, just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.'

Scandal: It follows the leaking of thousands of documents, from the British University of East Anglia in 2009, which revealed how climate scientists were colluding with government officials to hide research that did not fit with their apocalyptic global warming line

WHY HE DUPED HEARTLAND... IN HIS OWN WORDS

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy.

It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it. Given the potential impact, however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own 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.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts - often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated - to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

* Source: The Huffington Post



But some scientists said he had done far more harm than good.

Richard Klein, climate researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute, told the Guardian: 'It's an own goal. It's not just his own credibility, his own integrity on the line.

'It's a whole community of climate scientists who, with the odd exception, want to do good science and make sure science is recognised.

'It doesn't just blur the line between climate science and science policy.



'It blurs the line between what are acceptable and what are not acceptable methods.

'He is not perceived by the outside world as acting in his personal capacity.



'He acted also by responding as Peter Gleick the scientist and of course that hurts other scientists as well.'

His thoughts were echoed by John Nolt, professor of environmental ethics at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, who fears the anger over the way he obtained the information would take the focus away from climate change itself.

He added that many of the revelations in the documents were already known.

Gleick, who admitted his part in the scam after Heartland's financial plans and donor list was put online, has now decided not to take up a post on the National Centre for Science Education that would have seen him defending climate change in classrooms.

But he could now face legal action, with Heartland President Joseph Bast saying he was now consulting experts on the breach.

The scandal follows that which engulfed the University of East Anglia in 2009.

Hackers accessed and the leaked online thousands of documents which revealed how climate scientists were colluding with government officials to hide research that did not fit with their apocalyptic global warming line.

The files appeared to show the systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.

They painted a picture of scientists manipulating data, with government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) also implicated.

They also showed how scientists selectively used data, and colluded with politicians to misuse scientific information.

Climate change: Peter Gleick said he was angry with the way The Heartland Institute tried to subvert the science



