You receive an anonymous memo in the mail purporting to be the secret climate strategy of the Heartland Institute. It is not printed on Heartland Institute letterhead, has no information identifying the supposed author or audience, contains weird locutions more typical of Heartland’s opponents than of climate skeptics, and appears to have been written in a somewhat slapdash fashion. Do you:
A. Throw it in the trash
B. Reach out to like-minded friends to see how you might go about confirming its provenance
C. Tell no one, but risk a wire-fraud conviction, the destruction of your career, and a serious PR blow to your movement by impersonating a Heartland board member in order to obtain confidential documents.
As a journalist, I am in fact the semi-frequent recipient of documents promising amazing scoops, and depending on the circumstances, my answer is always “A” or “B”, never “C”.
It’s a gross violation of journalistic ethics, though perhaps Gleick would argue that he’s not a journalist–and in truth, it’s hard to feel too sorry for Heartland, given how gleefully they embraced the ClimateGate leaks. So leave ethics aside: wasn’t he worried that impersonating board members in order to obtain confidential material might be, I don’t know, illegal? Forget about the morality of it: the risk is all out of proportion to the possible reward.
…
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.
(Source. HT: Watts up with that)
I reckon Gleick is the author of the fake document as well. Why choose Megan’s option “C” if not as a cover for the fake document?
eb
22 Feb 12 at 4:50 pm
Is Megan still a warmist?
Infidel Tiger
22 Feb 12 at 4:53 pm
yes
FM
22 Feb 12 at 5:21 pm
The warmies such as SwiftHack still haven’t found the ClimateGate guy after more than two years.
The skeptics found out Gleick in less than two weeks.
This should be borne in the mind of any who think the warmies are the ones with the brains.
2dogs
22 Feb 12 at 5:38 pm
MM a few days ago::
“I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it. While I’ve expressed some dismay at the behavior revealed in the leaked Climategate memos, they haven’t changed my mind about the reality, or the danger, of global warming.”
FM
22 Feb 12 at 5:39 pm
She’s still bit of a moonbeam then.
.
22 Feb 12 at 5:45 pm
She’s a bit dense. She recently made some pig ignorant comments about dietary science too.
Infidel Tiger
22 Feb 12 at 5:50 pm
I am sure that the people who hacked the climate-gate emails were just as criminal in their actions.
Jim Rose
22 Feb 12 at 6:58 pm
No Jim – Gleick broke privacy laws by giving out such info as home addresses of HI personnel. “RC” of climate-gate redacted this kind of information.
We know what Gleick did, and that such actions are illegal.
“RC” may have been an entirely legal leak, rather than a hack.
2dogs
22 Feb 12 at 7:26 pm
NO! They are covered by whistle-blower legislation.
cohenite
22 Feb 12 at 7:38 pm
It must have been tempting to be a bit silly and headline this “Megan McArdle Goes in Hardle”. A few years ago Tim Blair did one of the most memorable lines: “Ephraim Karsh Is Effing Harsh”.
blogstrop
22 Feb 12 at 8:39 pm
The best line of all from McArdle’s article”
Mother Hubbard's Dog
22 Feb 12 at 10:55 pm
There is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that the climategate information was assembled internally for an FOI request, but was never released. In that case, it would be hard to make a case that it was illegally released, especially when the CRU was found to have circumvented FOI laws but got off because of the statute of limitations.
If it was leaked by an internal person, then they are covered under whistleblower legislation.
They may yet have committed a criminal act- 2 years and counting and the police haven’t laid a single charge or identified a single suspect. To me that say there’s either no crime, or the criminal is far too good to be caught.
Gleicks bumbling toe-shooting is a cut and dried case of illegal behaviour, from identity theft, forgery and probable some others as well.
So the worst you coudl say is that Gleick has committed criminal acts and the climategate originator might have.
brc
23 Feb 12 at 12:50 am
Who really thinks Gleick’s career has been finished by this? He’ll be welcomed with open arms by some other warmist NGO. America is the kind of country where you can start out trying to kill cops in the name of ‘revolution’ and end up a tenured academic in ‘education’.
Gerard
23 Feb 12 at 10:35 am
Gleick is allmost certainly the author of the faked document. Plenty of people have pointed out all sorts of stylistic similarities with other things Gleick has written. Highly actionable, probably criminal.
It will cost him in a big way.
Yes, eventually he gets some sort of academic position. Gleick is really just an “academic” anyway, (like Manne or Hamilton), he’s barely a climatologist.
Bill
23 Feb 12 at 10:43 am
There is likely to be a Soros-funded air-cushion to soften his landing.
dover_beach
23 Feb 12 at 11:22 am