Now
Gleick admits that he posed as a board member to get and then distribute
to the media sensitive documents from a conservative think tank that is
a leader in denying mainstream climate change science.
And
ethicists are criticizing the man who took others to task for what they
say was stepping way over the ethical line. The think tank, the
Chicago-based Heartland Institute, is considering legal action against
him.
Gleick, who won a MacArthur genius award and is co-founder of
the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and
Security, was chairman of the American Geophysical Union's ethics
committee. He also had a column at Forbes.com
where he criticized climate skeptics and trumpeted the resignation of a
scientific journal editor who published a disputed study. He admitted
taking Heartland documents Monday night in a blog on The Huffington
Post.
Gleick resigned chairmanship of the ethics panel last week.
"What
a mess," said Mark Frankel, head of scientific responsibility for the
American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's leading
scientific society, which also had Gleick as a panel member on some
committees. "It's compounded by the fact that he was chairman of the
ethics committee of a professional society. ... It's an ethical morass
that he finds himself in."
And Gleick's actions cast unwarranted doubt on the work of other scientists, Frankel said.
Last
week, someone identifying himself as "Heartland insider" sent 15 media
members and others six documents, purportedly from Heartland. They
included a fundraising document, a budget and a two-page "climate
strategy." They showed the think tank receiving millions of dollars —
more than $14 million over six years from one anonymous man — in big
contributions with plans to teach school children to question mainstream
climate science. It also showed funding of scientists who are
climate-change skeptics.
Heartland said the two-page strategy
document was a fake and the others were stolen. The Associated Press,
which received the documents, was able to verify the accuracy of several
of the most sensational parts with the individuals named. The documents
caused a stir, mirroring the hacking of climate scientists' emails two
years earlier from a British research center.
"My judgment was
blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous
well-funded and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists,"
Gleick wrote. "Nevertheless, I deeply regret my own actions in this
case."
No comments:
Post a Comment