This Week in Baseball

Bangladesh: Crisis in country; floods result in lost lives and leave thousands trapped

India: Floods kill 77 in India’s Assam state

US: Intense Storms Called a “Derecho” Slam 700 Miles of the US

England cut off from Scotland as rail lines shut off by flooding and landslides

US: 7 deaths, more floods: TS Debby still a reality

US: ‘Unreal’ Residents tour Colo. blaze devastation

Korea: Korean Drought Worst In A Century For North And South Korea

Eastern U.S. battles heat wave amid power outages

GRAINS-US corn jumps to 9-1/2 month top, soy hits contract high

Spain: Wildfire debris reaches third biggest city

India: North-East faces flood fury, North India left parched

Canada: B.C. floods ease as residents return

Nigeria: Floods – Lagos Advises Eti-Osa, Makoko Residents

Uganda Landslide Death Toll Climbs

US: Brownville, state officials add up flood damage costs for FEMA funding

Wheat prices hit new highs on weather worrries

Russia: Up to 90 taiga wildfires burned in the Far East of Russia

Extreme weather shocks Suriname’s leaders into climate action


Pacific Institute and Peter Gleick Timeline on the Disputed Heartland Memo

Gleick admits to pretexting, not forgery – 2/20/12

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

Pacific Institute Response  – 2/27/2012

The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned regarding recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and has hired an independent firm to review the allegations.

Guardian report – Independent investigation clears Gleick of forgery – 5/21/2012

A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute’s strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

Pacific Institute announcement –  6/6/2012

An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute.

Anthony Watts gets info on the non-release of report – “because it is a confidential personnel matter” –  6/6/2012

I received a response from Pacific Institute Communications Director Nancy Ross at 3:59PM today.

She says:

It was conducted by an independent professional investigation firm. The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way. It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.

Dave Appell gets word of investigator – Independent Employment Counsel, LLP (IEC)  – 6/7/2012

The outside firm that did the Peter Gleick investigation for the Pacific Institute is Independent Employment Counsel, LLP, the Pacific Institute tells me. They add: “The review will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter.”

That would be these guys.
Ross also said members of the institute’s board are not accepting interviews.
Don’t expect newly reinstated Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick to say much publicly about posing as a Heartland Institute board member, obtaining the group’s internal documents and releasing them to the press. “Dr. Gleick will not be commenting on the Heartland Institute,” Pacific Institute spokeswoman Nancy Ross told ME.