Skip to content

Peter Gleick Resigns as President of Pacific Institute … Because of Fakegate?

March 25, 2016

By Paul Homewood




We are all familiar with the criminal activities of Peter Gleick. What is less well known is why he was never prosecuted for them.

The story takes another twist this week with news that he has stepped down as president of the Pacific Institute.

Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute takes up the story:


Today, POLITICO announced disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick has stepped down as president of the Pacific Institute, though he will remain there as a researcher and fundraiser. Interestingly, no successor has been named, so “the search for a new president is underway.” What was the hurry?

In 2012, Gleick stole the identity of a Heartland board member (committing identity theft, a federal crime) and used it to commit a second crime (stealing and revealing confidential documents from a competitor, industrial espionage). He confessed to both crimes, but not to a third crime, libel, which he very likely committed by forging a document and lying repeatedly to his allies — and then to the general public and to his own board of directors — about the true origins of that document. He has yet to confess to that crime. This whole hoary incident is called Fakegate and is documented on this site.

The Heartland Institute, Gleick’s victim, carefully documented Gleick’s crimes and tried to persuade the U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois to prosecute him, but failed. At the time, we couldn’t understand why: Gleick confessed to committing crimes, and the crimes he committed caused great damage to Heartland’s reputation and to the wider world of public policy debate. Letting him go unpunished would set a terrible precedent: Groups that support different perspectives on controversial issues are now apparently free to break the law to attack and discredit their opponents.

Why didn’t the Department of Justice prosecute Gleick? Events in recent weeks help explain it.

The Obama administration’s heavy-handed abuse of constitutional authority has extended beyond the IRS, FCC, and EPA to include the Department of Justice. The DOJ apparently has consulted with the FBI to investigate global warming realists, and possibly plans to use RICO against groups like The Heartland Institute. Astonishing, and frightening. And it raises an obvious question: For how long has DOJ viewed global warming realists as possible criminals and not victims?

Maybe The Heartland Institute never stood a chance against Peter Gleick, because DOJ already made up its mind that alarmists are the “good guys” and realists are the  “bad guys” in the global warming debate. Maybe Gleick had political protection from the White House. Maybe political bias trumped justice?

Which brings us back to Peter Gleick’s resignation as president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick is only 60 years old. It’s unusual for a CEO to resign without announcing a replacement … unless the resignation was involuntary and there wasn’t time to recruit a replacement. Was Peter Gleick fired?

Maybe members of the board of the Pacific Institute, who refused to respond to not one but two letters from The Heartland Institute warning them of Gleick’s misconduct and calling on them to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities, finally realized they were being lied to by Gleick. That they had failed to behave in an honorable fashion. That their fake “internal investigation” was being misrepresented by the liberal mainstream media. That their failure to act had made the Pacific Institute a joke to many in the science community because its CEO was an unconvicted felon.

Maybe some of this, or all of this?

The statute of limitations on Gleick’s crimes runs five years … to February 2017, a month after a new president is installed in office. Interesting timing.


Curiouser and curiouser!

  1. ClimateOtter permalink
    March 25, 2016 11:48 pm

    You can be sure he A) has his golden parachute, and B) has been guaranteed a position of power in Panem.

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    March 26, 2016 12:30 am

    The facts of his crimes are known but the rest is speculation. Someday we may learn more but then again maybe not.
    There are alternatives to the speculation. For example, 13,000 people die of Glioblastoma mutliforme each year. Maybe Gleick is getting ready to check out.

  3. catweazle666 permalink
    March 26, 2016 12:44 am

    The statute of limitations on Gleick’s crimes runs five years … to February 2017, a month after a new president is installed in office. Interesting timing.

    Very bad timing on his part.

  4. Alfred Croucher permalink
    March 26, 2016 1:11 am

    Your use of the term “Global warming realists” reminded me of the fundamental difference between the British tradition of empiricism verses the continental devotion to Descartian rationalism. In the former we reject an hypothesis when it does not accord with the data. In the latter we reject the data. It does suggest a large degree of overlap with the “Water melons” still clinging onto their desperate belief in failed communism.

  5. March 26, 2016 3:25 am

    Theywill be a new president of the USA before February 2017 so he might order an investigation into Gleick.

    Darn why didn’t I say “she might”?

    • spetzer86 permalink
      March 26, 2016 1:47 pm

      Because she wouldn’t

  6. March 26, 2016 4:53 am

    How one perceives the Gleick issue depends on how one evaluates the real world.

    First is that the Heartland Institute is quite aggrieved. But their perspective on Peter Gleick is tainted by their free market ideation and their conspiracist theorizing. Gleick is a widely respected climate scientist, who wants to save the world for future generations from dangerous climate change. Although not everyone would approve of his methods, Gleick’s objectives were noble, so the ends justified the means.

    Second, is that a principle long ago established under Anglo-Saxon Common Law. A prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the charges are true. If the evidence is clear, and the defense is clearly blinkered then it should be straightforward to convince a jury. More importantly, the ability of the accused to defend themselves gives the wider public confidence in the process, reinforcing the legitimacy of the process of law. If the prosecution if found to have knowingly perverted the evidence, and used prejudice to undermine a fair trial the law needs to treat such instances very harshly, as it undermines that legitimacy. It is not just a particular case that is undermined, but every case that those who pervert the evidence have been involved in. What Peter Gleick has done is not just to undermine climatology, but any area that tries impact policy on the basis of expert scientific opinion.

    • ClimateOtter permalink
      March 26, 2016 11:02 am

      I’m glad I ‘heard’ the sarcasm in your writing when you said ‘ their perspective on Peter Gleick is tainted by their free market ideation and their conspiracist theorizing. Gleick is a widely respected climate scientist’

  7. March 26, 2016 8:19 am

    The answer is simple – with the republicans likely to win at the presidential election, groups like this that have supported illegal activities are having to face the prospect of a world, where they will be prosecuted for their crimes.

    I think the nautical term is “the rats of leaving the sinking ship”.

  8. marchesarosa permalink
    March 26, 2016 8:35 am

    He could be ill.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      March 26, 2016 8:55 am

      In which case, that would have been given as a reason for him leaving & “The Board wishes him a speedy recovery”

    • Green Sand permalink
      March 26, 2016 10:19 am

      and that is a very good point!

  9. March 26, 2016 10:22 am

    Maybe it took him three years or so to realise his credibility was gone.

    • Bitter&twisted permalink
      March 27, 2016 2:54 pm

      Just 3 years? Gleick is brighter than I thought.

  10. Jackington permalink
    March 26, 2016 12:15 pm

    This would make an excellent story-line for a John Grisham novel.(but he may be on the wrong side of the debate i.e.a Goodie not a baddie.

  11. RobR permalink
    March 26, 2016 1:26 pm

    Rob R.

    The top right tab explains what’s going on. Glieck’s tarnished image has very likely undermined his ability to milk the public teat. Rest assured, (as founding member) he has no plans of leaving unless a better scam presents itself.

    Water security research and global warming…let us guess their default findings…a warming planet causes a global decrease on rain.

    Of course, if you send them more money, (better yet, give them our tax money) our intrepid heroes’ of science will save us from our own devices. One man’s Progressive is another man’s Regressive.

    Follow the money!

  12. J Martin permalink
    March 26, 2016 6:12 pm

    Since the doj may have been compromised, surely Heartland should issue a private criminal prosecution.

  13. March 26, 2016 8:56 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  14. March 27, 2016 7:43 am

    J Martin permalink March 26, 2016 6:12 pm

    *Since the doj may have been compromised, surely Heartland should issue a private criminal prosecution.”!
    Do you have any clue as to the cost of such nonsense whether successful or not?

  15. Bitter&twisted permalink
    March 27, 2016 2:52 pm

    I just hope that the lying, thieving, libelling sleazeball, Gleick, has been dismissed without any financial feather-bedding.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: