POLITICO Morning Energy
...Peter Gleick’s career isn’t over despite the big scar linked to his duping the Heartland Institute, says Kevin Trenberth, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "I think this pushes Peter in the direction of getting even more involved on the side of being an advocate," Trenberth told ME on Friday. "He's had a strong science background, especially related to water. I don't see this as the end of the road for Peter by any means."...
Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line?
...In the view of “anthropologist and science communicator” Greg Laden, for example:
My respect for Peter Gleick is unmoved. He is a great scientist, an excellent communicator, a brave guy…...
...In Tobis’ view, Gleick’s behaviour may serve “the greater good” by raising awareness....
...Even more bizarrely, he says that New York Times‘ journalist Andrew Revkin should be defending [Gleick] for taking personal risks in the pursuit of what, in the end, was a journalistic endeavor....
...the fact that [Gleick] had the courage to stand up to rich, powerful and increasingly belligerent nay sayers on climate change is an inspiration to all who care about the breakdown of discourse in America. More important, here was a renowned scientist standing up to bullying by right-wing ideologues who are intent on helping self-serving corporations destroy our environment. What he did was unorthodox and clearly beyond the bounds of journalistic transparency, but the people he was fighting have done much worse without any criticism or scrutiny. ...
...Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?...
...What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too – maybe he’s undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out....
Meanwhile, on another planet...
So, it turns out that Heartland was behind the Heartland leak after all.
The evidence seems to suggest that Heartland's Joe Bast wrote a memo, then he and/or Heartland-symp blogger Steven Mosher sent it secretly to Peter Gleick. ...
Michael Mann's counterstrike in the climate wars
... "Something is different now," Mann concludes. "The forces of climate change denial have, I believe, awakened a 'sleeping bear.' My fellow scientists will be fighting back, and I look forward to joining them in this battle."
That's something Mann might want to rethink. Peter Gleick, a MacArthur "genius" grant recipient for his work on global freshwater challenges and president of the Pacific Institute, admitted earlier this month to borrowing a page directly from the denialists' playbook. Posing as someone else, he obtained internal documents from the Heartland Institute and distributed them to journalists, a tactic little different from the hack attack at the University of East Anglia that has been decried by environmentalists. ...
