New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal

by Joe Bast on May 1, 2012

The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”

The new report contradicts disgraced climate scientist Gleick’s claim to have received the memo from someone affiliated with The Heartland Institute and adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to Gleick’s guilt. A month ago, Juola & Associates, the premier provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, said “it is more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,’ and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.”

Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said: “The Protek International forensic report is one more piece of evidence that Peter Gleick created the fake document with the intent of defaming us and the scientists we work with. He and his coconspirators are so desperate to discredit anyone who disagrees with their alarmist views on man-made global warming that they are willing to lie, steal, and even defraud their own friends and allies in the media.”

Bast added: “We once again call on Gleick to make a full confession, and on the Pacific Institute and its allies to stop defending Gleick and his unethical and illegal conduct.”


On February 20, Gleick, a prominent climate scientist, confessed to being the anonymous party who obtained confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute and circulated them along with a document titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” While confessing to using fraud to obtain the stolen documents, he claimed to have received the “climate strategy” memo anonymously in the mail.

Since “Fakegate” occurred, ThinkProgress, Greenpeace,, and other radical environmental groups have been using the stolen and fake documents to attack Heartland’s corporate donors and the scientists who work with it.

The Protek investigation was conducted by Protek co-founder Daniel Bellich, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and former supervisor of the Chicago Division’s Special Operations Group, and Keith G. Chval, former chief of the High Tech Crimes Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and president of the Chicago Chapter of The American Society of Digital Forensics and Electronic Discovery. Both men signed the report on April 20, certifying they would swear to its findings in a court of law.

For more information about the global warming scandal and the complete forensic report from Protek International, visit or contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at and 312/377-4000.

The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Hugh K May 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm

“….they [alarmists] are willing to lie, steal, and even defraud their own friends and allies in the media.”

The alarmists will blame their broken moral compass on supposed catastrophic AGW altering the earth’s magnetic fields. Always the victim with zero accountablility for their hysterical actions. This has to end.
Help the alarmists learn the true definition of catastrophic from the courts — perp walk Gleick for wire fraud..among other charges. A little quality time with Bubba in cell block D should help Gleick and his cohorts get back in touch with reality.

2 Tom Townsend May 4, 2012 at 5:30 pm

I don’t see how the new evidence obtained by Protek offers any support to the idea that Gleick was the author of the anonymous memo. It does support the idea that this memo did not actually come from Heartland.

3 elkh1 May 6, 2012 at 1:31 am

Warmists’ motto: Fake and Inaccurate.

4 Doubting Rich May 6, 2012 at 10:46 am

People think too little of statistical evidence. Here it is the key that condemns Gleick. What are the odds that he received in the briefing he spoofed out of Heartland exactly the papers needed to confirm all the true points in the memo he received anonymously? What are the odds that they contained that and little more of interest to warmists?

Remember the evidence that a warmist wrote the briefing, a warmist who assumes there is a conspiracy funded by oil interests to spread disinformation – not sure if that is projection or they are just not imaginative to understand that other people operate differently to their own peer group. That warmist believes that any funding to a group that encourages sceptical thought on climate is wrong, that they think sceptics are anti-scientific and that they think scepticism is a conspiracy all glows through in the briefing.

There is more in the real papers than in the briefing, but it is not of interest to warmists. So the papers sent in response to Gleick’s blind fishing (he did not request any specific information) happened to contain all the information to confirm the briefing and nothing else of any interest to the warmist author of the briefing.

That briefing was written from the real papers, not received before them.

5 Alice Finkel May 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Interesting. It looks as if it is Peter Gleick who has much to fear from discovery and the accumulation of evidence, rather than Heartland.

Climate alarmism has driven its adherents to extreme carbon hysteria, where lies and obfuscation are excused in the name of a “holy war on the deniers”.

6 Mac May 7, 2012 at 10:07 am

So how’s the FBI investigation going?

I’ve been looking forward to the arrest.

7 Copner May 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm

You may be interest to know that you guys appear in the latest (Vol 17 No.2 ) of Skeptic Magazine. Article by Donald R. Prothero pp14-22

The articles cites Gleick’s “leak” including the fake document (which is apparently taken as being real).

Here is the quote:

In February 2012, leaks of documents from the denialist Heartland Institute revealed that they were trying to influence science education, suppress the work of scientists, and paid off many prominent climate deniers, such as Anthony Watts, all in an effort to circumvent the scientific consensus by doing an “end run” of PR and political pressure. Other leaks have shown 9 out 10 major climate deniers are paid by ExxonMobil[30].

Footnote 30 reads:

8 Andrew May 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm

It is normal for Earth’s temperature to vary. This is mainly due to sun’s activity. There is no such thing as man-made global warming – that one’s just a story used by governments and politicians to scare people and make big time money.

9 Arzo July 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm

I can’t see the question of whteher or not Gleick forged the strategy memo as being a red herring. I’ll grant that Heartland has an interest in flogging that part of the story as much as they can in an effort to divert attention from their own actions. But I still think Gleick’s role was significantly different if his HuffPo confession was true (as to the strategy memo having been supplied to him anonymously) versus if the confession was itself another layer of deception.If Gleick forged the strategy memo himself, after he phished the legitimate documents, then he’s willing to knowingly lie to the public in pursuit of his ideological agenda. If that’s the case, how can I (or you, or anyone) take his future statements at face value? How can he credibly participate in scientific research? Fraud of that sort would go to the heart of his scientific credibility. If Gleick forged the memo, then he believes that lying to promote an aggressive climate change policy agenda is justified. But if his ethical framework allows that, what is to prevent him from cherrypicking data or misrepresenting research in pursuit of the same goal?

Leave a Comment

{ 8 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: