I asked them for a copy of the independent report; they told me it won't be made public as it's a personnel matter:
"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."
|Guardian headline (as of 6/6/12)|
And let's be real: without the report, or not even knowing who did it, or without being able to talk to Gleick (I've asked), we really don't know anything at all.
That's all I have to say about this, except that I still think anonymous commenters (distinctly differentiated from anonymous sources) are meaningless -- as likely to be spreading disinformation, misinformation, or uninformation -- as information.
More interesting questions are:
- why do the PI and Heartland Institute differ on their conclusions about the forgery?
- why hasn't the HI filed their threatened suit yet? It seems to me that the sooner they file it the better, given what's recently happened to their reputation. Wouldn't such a suit -- now or four weeks ago -- be a strong counterpunch?
- How will Peter Gleick's story be remembered by history -- as an unethical scientist, as a scientist who let his activist side get the best of him, or as someone who caused the HI to overreach and implode? History is already being (re)written -- someone I read recently (I forget who) wrote that Gleick had "risked his career" to bring down the Heartland Institute. I wonder if Gleick would agree.